Sitting of 27 February 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Local Authorities (Roads Expenditure)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the level of capital spent on roads by local authorities under their transport supplementary grant programmes.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In 1982–83 there was £442 million of capital expenditure by local authorities on their roads, in addition to £847 million on maintenance. Although I expect the capital expenditure to exceed £400 million again this year, I wish that it were higher.
    Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts when considering transport supplementary grant applications, but will he study the matter a little closely to ensure that the level of capital spending is higher? Will he also reconsider the possibility of restricting TSG to capital expenditure or to specific approved items so that money for capital projects is not spent for revenue purposes?
    Mr. Ridley: I assure my hon. Friend that I am considering carefully both the possibilities that he has mentioned, but we have not yet reached a conclusion. We
    2
    should need to consult if we decided to do what he suggests. I agree with him that it would be nice if local authorities would spend up to their capital allocations, but there is nothing that we can do to make them do that.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that speed and weight affect maintenance, which in turn affects the amount of money that local authorities must spend on roads? In the interests of safety and expenditure, will he reconsider his Department's ideas about increasing the speed limits for lorries and other vehicles?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have recently published an analysis of the track costs incurred by all types of lorries and other vehicles in relation to their weight, speed, number of axles and so on. From that scientific study, he will discover the precise extra costs that each type of vehicle places on the road repair programme.

    London Regional Transport Bill
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations have communicated with his Department about the provisions in the London Regional Transport Bill to (a) remove local control of London transport from the Greater London council, and (b) end the present Greater London council London-wide-scheme providing London pensioners with free travel; and whether the organisations are for or against the proposals.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I have placed in the Library a list of 67 organisations that have sent comments on the Bill. As the hon. Member knows, the Government are ensuring that a uniform scheme of concessionary travel will continue, and neither the GLC nor hon. Members have any excuse for the continued scare campaign directed at elderly and disabled people.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister accept that her proposals to end local democratic control of London transport and to worsen the present arrangements for pensioners' travel are thoroughly unpopular with Londoners? Will she now alter or scrap those retrograde measures, in line with public opinion?
    Mrs. Chalker: No, Sir. We are not worsening concessionary travel for pensioners. We are safeguarding the scheme so that it is uniform across the whole of London.
    Mr. Dicks: Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents and many other people in London are happy with the Government's reassurance? Does she agree that the anxiety caused by the Labour party and others is completely unnecessary?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes. We made it quite clear in the July White Paper that we would see a scheme continued. The London boroughs have made it clear that they agree with the scheme in principle. We are now safeguarding it in the Bill.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that the Government's promises are somewhat empty when we are told that the Health Service and the trade unions are safe in their hands? Are not old people all over the country getting worried about their concessionary fares because they no longer trust the Government's promises?
    Mrs. Chalker: There is no reason why elderly and disabled people throughout the country should be concerned about their concessionary fare schemes. We have made our position clear in the House. It is high time that the hon. Gentleman stopped stirring up the feelings of elderly and disabled people.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that no Labour Government, or a Labour Government supported by the Liberals, ever guaranteed pensioners' passes for Londoners? Is she further aware that ratepayers as well as the elderly are scandalised by the amount of money spent by the Greater London council—probably amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds, maybe more — in trying to frighten them into believing that they will no longer have passes when the Bill to abolish the GLC is passed? The guarantee is welcome, and I thank my hon. Friend for it.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their welcome. We have also received welcomes from the London Boroughs Association and other London boroughs for the safeguarding of the scheme. It is high time that the GLC stopped wasting ratepayers' money on an unnecessary campaign, just frightening and terrifying the elderly.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that the Conservatives' uniform scheme provides for less than the GLC's present scheme and is likely to cost the pensioners money? Indeed, the Minister is having to bring in compulsory powers to make sure that the Tory London boroughs implement it. Is she aware that Derbyshire county council, which covers Chesterfield, has introduced a scheme to extend concessionary fares to the unemployed? When the new Labour Member for Chesterfield comes to the House next week, will she listen to what he says about that?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure that that question has anything to do with Transport questions. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the safeguarding of concessionary fares for pensioners, while there is obvious due regard to the cost to the ratepayers, is the right way to proceed, and is the way that most pensioners support.

    Motorways and Expressways
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce proposals for enhancing the tourist attraction of British motorways and expressways.
    Mrs. Chalker: Although motorways are intended primarily to facilitate safe and rapid journeys, great care is taken, by landscaping and planting, to make them and their service areas attractive to the user as well as to fit them into the countryside through which they pass.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend could have fooled me. Is she aware that many stretches of our motorways and expressways are tourist attractions in themselves all the year round? Is she further aware that there are woefully few facilities for motorists to stop and stare, and nowhere where they can have a picnic or a decent meal? Will she study foreign experience to see how we could get better tourist value from our motorways?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments about developments abroad and about opening up to the touring public the country and the beautiful areas that are reached by motorways. We are considering picnic areas. I shall consider most carefully any proposal that is put to me.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the tourist attraction of motorways be increased if coach speeds were reduced? How was it possible that on 8 February, in the Department's notice on maximum speeds for vehicles, the Government failed to reduce the maximum speed limit for coaches on motorways? They have left the limit at 70 mph under the law, when in practice coaches can speed at 78 mph before they are prosecuted. Will the Government intervene to do something about that before there is a major accident on our motorways?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been having discussions with my hon. Friends at the Home Office about the enforcement of motorway speed limits. The Bus and Coach Council has undertaken to produce a code of practice this year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It will not work.
    Mrs. Chalker: I have left the council in no doubt that if it does not work powers will be taken through the House to enforce the law, as it should be enforced.
    Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend look closely at the signing of tourist attractions on motorways? I shall give a single example to which my hon. Friend might refer. Leeds castle, one of the greatest tourist attractions in the nation, is in my constituency, and is within 100 yd of a motorway. Under present legislation, however, no sign is allowed. Can the legislation be reviewed?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that I am examining the whole question of signing places of historic interest. There is already an experiment on trunk roads. If that is successful, we shall seek to extend it. Nevertheless, I have to bear in mind the danger that too many signs on motorways may distract the attention of motorists from the road, on which their eyes should be fixed.
    Mr. Ryman: Will the Minister examine the question of concessions for motorway cafés? Is she aware that the food served in such cafes is expensive, unhygienic, inedible and thoroughly unattractive? Will she do

    5
    something about the licensing of caterers who are making huge profits from administering cafes which provide no service to the public?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last visited a motorway service area or, indeed, whether his remarks about "cafes" referred to such areas. Since leases were sold to operators there has been a great improvement in the majority of service areas. Some, however, still need to be improved and we are taking that up. If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about individual service stations, he should take them up direct with the motorway service area.

    M1 Motorway
    Mr. Greg Knightasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the nature and standard of repair and improvement work carried out on the MI motorway during the past year.
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, Sir. The work was carefully planned and designed to high standards. Contractors were required to comply with strict specifications.
    Mr. Knight: In the light of that reply, will my hon. Friend comment on the situation in Hertfordshire where a stretch of newly constructed fast lane hard shoulder has apparently been scrapped immediately after completion by being covered over with fill and edged with a kerb? Why has that been done? Does it not smack of bad planning at the very least, and will my hon. Friend make a statement?
    Mrs. Chalker: Every contract is subject to supervision and subsequent checking. I am already looking into a number of contracts on which work has not been satisfactorily completed. I cannot comment further now, but I shall write to my hon. Friend when I have information about the stretch to which he referred.
    Mr. Watson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the task of representing a north Yorkshire constituency at Westminster entails a degree of affection for the M1 motorway that not every hon. Member has the privilege to acquire? Is she aware that that motorway has become marginally more lovable in the past few months now that the series of road works has been completed? How long does she think it will be before they have to start again?
    Mrs. Chalker: understand my hon. Friend's affection for the M1, although I cannot say that I had much affection for it when I drove down it last night. The widening between junctions 5 and 8 completed last November has been a considerable improvement. Nevertheless, like any other structure, the motorway requires maintenance. Further work will have to he carried out, although that will be done in the speediest way to avoid inhibiting the free flow of traffic. Unless we maintain our motorways in proper condition, we cannot safeguard the original investment.

    Electromagnetic Pulse (Shipping and Civil Aviation)
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his practice to advise the shipping and civil industries on the effects of electromagnetic pulse and ways of minimising them.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Responsibility for advice to the civil
    6
    aviation industry on electromagnetic pulse rests with the Civil Aviation Authority, which has promulgated information in one of its publications. Information for ships masters is contained in an official publication already available to United Kingdom shipowners.
    Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that the information given is based on the latest available Ministry of Defence information? Does he agree that the increasing reliance by the MOD on civilian resources, especially in shipping, and, to some extent, in civil aviation, makes an acceptable and effective communications system essential at all times?
    Mr. Mitchell: The latest information provided for shipping is via the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend can he satisfied about that. I shall make inquiries in writing about the Civil Aviation Authority.

    Cycling Policies
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the response of local authorities in implementing Government cycling policies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, Sir. Almost all county councils now recognise the importance of providing improved cycling facilities.
    Mr. Dormand: I acknowledge the good work being done by a small number of local authorities. However, does the hon. Lady agree that the original momentum of the plan that she drew up some two years ago is now slowing? In view of that deterioration and of the Government's rate-capping policy, how does she now propose to meet the needs of cyclists, particularly as so much depends on the local authorities?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has done much to enhance policy in this area by putting forward good ideas. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who put forward the proposals, has been grateful for his help.
    It is right for us thoroughly to complete the research programme on large-scale urban cycling schemes, while encouraging local authorities to introduce sensible schemes where they can. However, we cannot rush into this because there are many parts of the country which do not have suitable areas where cycling schemes could be implemented economically.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the hon. Lady pay tribute to the Isle of Wight county council, which is organising another international cycling rally this year and is on the way to completing 25 miles of rural cycleways?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am delighted at the Isle of Wight's cycling plans. My officials have told me what is happening there. However, some parts of the country are more suitable than others for the creation of cycleways.

    Concessionary Fares (London)
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the London Boroughs Association to discuss the future of concessionary fares for the elderly and the handicapped.
    Mr. Ridley: I am in regular touch with the London Boroughs Association on matters of common interest,

    7
    including the development of the practical details of the uniform scheme of travel concessions for elderly and disabled people that is to be provided.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the published view of the London Boroughs Association that unless the Government virtually double grant-related expenditure assessments for concessionary travel it will be almost impossible to maintain the quality of the scheme? Given the threat of rate-capping that is hanging over the London boroughs, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that they will be able to provide a scheme as good as that which is now in operation?
    Mr. Ridley: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not seen the latest press release from the London Boroughs Association, which states:
    "The LBA has always expressed its support for the principle of a concessionary fares scheme, and the Government's statement underpins this policy. The GLC have no excuse now to continue their scare campaign among the elderly."
    That answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about the plight of old-age pensioners? The line put forward by various Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), could be called a red herring.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for every week that the London Transport Authority remains in the hands of the GLC, £500,000 of ratepayers' money — they include old people—is being wasted?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that we shall now be able to stop wasting ratepayers' money on a scare campaign. If this is the way in which the GLC debates the subject of its own abolition, it is clear that the Government were right to decide to abolish it.

    Road Schemes (Provisional List)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport why his Department has not built up a provisional list of road schemes for implementation at short notice.
    Mr. Ridley: We have.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is an elementary precaution? If he had been stuck for ideas, I would have suggested that there is an urgent need for alternative routes via Gloucester into Wales, especially bearing in mind the difficulties with the Severn bridge. They should be top of the list.
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in roads through my constituency. The Birdlip bypass and the dualling of the road between Blunsdon and Cricklade and the Brockworth bypass should start in 1987. The Northleach bypass will open this summer. These are all contributions to an alternative route to Wales. We are also studying the possibility of a quick route from Gloucester to Ross-on-Wye by a road which would bypass Newent and join the M50 just beyond. These schemes have been carried forward for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
    Mr. Higgins: What extension of those schemes has proceeded on the basis of all the statutory planning requirements being completed, and which could be
    8
    implemented without delay? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the list includes a genuine bypass for Worthing which goes round the town, unlike the previous route which went straight through the middle?
    Mr. Ridley: The schemes that are on the shelf are ready to start should the necessary extra financial resources be made available by early completions or because spending is below the budget set when the planning proposals were passed. I shall have to write to my right hon. Friend about whether those schemes include the desirable bypass around rather than through Worthing.
    Mr. Hanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the chaos in south-west London this morning and during the weekend because of the closure at short notice of Hammersmith bridge? Will he ensure that the repairs are carried out by day and by night to alleviate the misery of road users and local residents, and will he make a statement about the state of the bridge?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right to be worried about the bridge. It is a GLC bridge. Serious failure has taken place on one of the rockers. It will take a considerable time to repair. I hope that the GLC will have heard my hon. Friend urging that work be undertaken night and day to ensure that the bridge is closed for the shortest possible time.

    Bridges (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Parrisasked the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department hopes to reach agreement with the Derbyshire county council on the strengthening of bridges in the county.
    Mrs. Chalker: It is for county councils to decide on the bridge strengthening necessary on their roads to meet the needs of traffic. Their expenditure proposals are taken into account in the annual transport supplementary grant settlement. My Department has been preparing, with county councils and other interested parties, a code of assessment for highway bridges and structures, which we shall publish shortly. This will provide a basis on which to prepare a programme of strengthening where necessary.
    Mr. Parris: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that Derbyshire county council claims that bridge strengthening is necessary because of the new heavier lorries? I believe that to be a disputable claim, but until it is settled, several bridges—none in Chesterfield —are subject to weight restrictions. We feel that we are being held hostage until an agreement is reached.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of the Derbyshire county council's claims. A new code of assessment for bridges is needed, not because of the introduction of 38-tonners, but because of the general volume of present-day traffic. The axle spacing on new vehicles has been restricted in such a way as to make their loading on bridges no greater than that of other heavy lorries, except for a marginal increase of about 3 per cent. on a small minority of short span bridges.
    Mr. Flannery: May I support the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) in his application to have the bridges strengthened? Might I add that it would be helpful for him to be safe when walking across the bridges to talk to all of the unemployed in west Derbyshire to tell them that they have enough money, just as he told the people in the north-east?
    Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the state of transport supplementary grant for Derbyshire, I can tell him. During the current year we accepted 95 per cent. of Derbyshire's bid for road maintenance and 92 per cent. of its bid for capital expenditure. For 1984–85 we have accepted 91 per cent. of its bid for maintenance—that represents an increase of more than 30 per cent. over four years. For capital expenditure there is an increase of 21 per cent. over last year.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the highways committee of Derbyshire county council has written to me about the number of heavy goods vehicles in that part of the world and the extent to which they are overloaded? Has not the problem worsened since July last year when the Minister's Department sent out a circular to licensing authorities throughout the country about non-prosecution when heavy goods vehicles are up to 10 per cent. overloaded? Is it not the case that heavy goods vehicles are now running around our roads with loads of up to 42 tonnes, which is in direct contravention of the House's decision to set the maximum at 38 tonnes?
    Mrs. Chalker: The maximum weight for vehicles is 38 tonnes on five axles, and it so remains. The letter written as an advice note about uniformity to local authority trading standards officers has been a matter for their discussion. The hon. Gentleman knows that the traffic commissioners are independent enforcement agents. They, together with the police and the trading standards officers, must decide on the most effective method of enforcement. To prohibit a vehicle which is overweight, which they are encouraged to do, involves an immediate penalty, backed by prosecution—[Interruption]—If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet for a moment and stop exaggerating, as he usually does, I will tell him that enforcement is prohibition, backed by prosecution. The licensing authorities have been told to use the increased resources which they have been given, and the increased number of weighbridges, to make the most effective enforcement possible with a maximum weight of 38 tonnes.
    Mr. Higgins: Will the Minister none the less make it absolutely clear that there is to be no discretion on the limit laid down by Parliament and that people who exceed the limit should be prosecuted?
    Mrs. Chalker: As with any enforcement of our law, if there is a minor infringement—
    Mr. Snape: 10 per cent.
    Mrs. Chalker: —a warning is given. But I do not call even 5 per cent. minor, and I have made it absolutely clear that effective enforcement must be carried out by the traffic commissioners. I give my right hon. Friend the complete assurance that that is being done.

    Snow Hill Rail Link
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet completed his detailed evaluation of the Snow Hill rail link scheme.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My Department has asked West Midlands county council for further information about its evaluation. A reply was received from the council on Wednesday 22 February and is now being considered.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that reply. Will he deny reports that the Government have already refused to put their share of the funding into this much needed cross-city commuter link? Will he assure the House that it is his Department's policy to encourage more people to use the railways and to get them off the roads?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Sir, and yes, Sir.

    Peak Period Train Travel
    Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with conditions of travel for peak period train commuters in London and the south-east.
    Mr. David Mitchell: This will be covered in discussions we shall have with British Rail about further development of objectives for London and south-eastern services. These include such matters as load factors, punctuality, reliability and cleanliness.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister concede that the latest reductions in train services in London and the south-east are the third in less than seven years and that southern region has already made it plain that, given those further reductions, the occupancy of peak hour trains will be up to 135 per cent.? Is that not a step backwards for most commuters?
    Mr. Mitchell: The fact that it is the third change simply reflects changes in travelling patterns. The hon. Gentleman labours under a misapprehension about British Rail's intentions for maximum loading. They are that there should be 100 per cent. in compartment stock, 110 per cent. in gangway slam-door stock and 135 per cent. in sliding-door stock, which has been specially designed with additional standing room. All of those peak loads are designed for the busiest part of the route at peak time only.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the vital need for commuters travelling from my constituency to inner London and elsewhere is that British Rail trains should not be cancelled at short notice, without warning? Is he aware that in many cases it means that commuters must wait a whole hour between services instead of half an hour, which is clearly economically damaging and socially disrupting to them?
    Mr. Mitchell: I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Barnett: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he has just given after travelling on some suburban trains in south London, where in many cases commuters are totally dependent upon those services, and where there is precious little standing room anyway?
    Mr. Mitchell: The special modern rolling stock with sliding doors to which I referred has additional standing room provided within it. It is not operating in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I must tell him that trains often arrive—this is especially so at central London stations—jam-packed in the front compartments but nearly empty in the rear compartments.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not likely that the conditions in which commuters travel at peak hours will be improved substantially by the privatisation of commuter railway lines into central London where possible? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as it appears to be a self-contained route, he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

    11
    would consider favourably any move towards the privatisation of the line between Shoeburyness and Fenchurch Street?
    Mr. Mitchell: Proposals for the privatisation of various routes will be of interest and will certainly be encouraged by us, but they must be commercially attractive to British Rail. We have set British Rail stiff targets, and it would be wrong for us to undermine them by insisting on things that are not commercially attractive to the board.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: May I welcome that statement by the Minister and say that before any privatisation takes place we should have a debate in the House? Is he aware of the position on the Portsmouth line, where many trains have been reduced to only eight coaches and are consequently grossly overcrowded? Will he ask the chairman of British Rail, southern region, to return to 12-coach operation as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mitchell: I shall draw those detailed matters of management to the attention of management, where they rightly belong.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend deprecate any action by railway staff that would jeopardise the transport of passengers, especially tomorrow, in defence of the illegal action in connection with GCHQ?
    Mr. Mitchell: Any such action would damage the improving image of British Rail and its attempts to attract passengers to use train services, which is the real justification of the railway, and the way ahead for its successful promotion.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: When the Minister talks to the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him whether he has given an instruction to railwaymen in the south-east similar to that which he has given in other regions to the effect that they should not lobby their Members of Parliament or any other person for extra investment in British Rail? Will he explain to the chairman that, despite the Government's attitude, railwaymen still have civil rights?
    Mr. Mitchell: There would be no point in railwaymen lobbying Members of Parliament for extra investment in British Rail, since the Government have fully allowed all of British Rail's requests for investment.

    National Bus Company
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of his plans to privatise the National Bus Company.
    Mr. Ridley: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on 14 February, at column 115, I am having a thorough study made of these and related questions and hope to be able to make a full announcement in the early summer.
    Mr. Leigh: Although I welcome the privatisation of the National Bus Company, which is in line with the Government's belief in deregulation and increased competition, which has so benefited the consumer of coach services during the past four years, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is confident that privatisation will not adversely affect the provision of rural bus services?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall study deregulation and increased competition before making any proposals for the National Bus Company. I assure my hon. Friend that the study will include ways of ensuring the continuation of rural and uneconomic bus services, although I believe that they could be provided with much less subsidy than at present.
    Mr. Snape: Before coming to a decision, will the Secretary of State ignore the suggestions of Sir Alfred Sherman that existing railway lines should be converted into roadways, bearing in mind that this miniature mogul had taken a paid consultancy with the National Bus Company when he was sitting on a commission appointed by British Rail to examine this crazy proposal?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should object to Sir Alfred Sherman advising, whether paid or unpaid, British Rail and the National Bus Company. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any proposal to close any railway must be subject to the full procedure and to my eventual confirmation. There is no way in which bus services can be substituted without the full glare of a public inquiry being invoked.

    London Transport (Subsidy)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what account he took of the effect on fares and passengers when setting the level of approval subsidy to London transport for 1984–85.
    Mrs. Chalker: If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to the level of expenditure which we have protected from legal challenge under the Transport Act 1983, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that this figure should not make necessary any substantial increases in fares beyond the general level of inflation.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that, if she were to take an objective and dispassionate view of fares in London and passengers on London transport since the Labour-controlled GLC introduced its cheaper fares policy, she would find that the outcome has been that increased passengers and reduced congestion have been so beneficial that the only doubt is as to how much lower fares should go?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman takes no account of the increased burden that is being placed on the ratepayers of London, and the problems that that causes for industry and jobs in London. If he looks at the recent figures which his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I have been debating in Committee, he will find that there has been a large measure of creative accounting. Until we get to the bottom of what the GLC is really doing, the contention of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has no substance.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Wytch Farm
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer, Official Report, 6 February, columns 596–97, what consideration he has now given to a directive given under a statute and a ministerial instruction in relation to the directive to dispose of Wytch farm, laid

    13
    before Parliament on 12 October 1981, and the Minister's instruction on 30 March 1983 to carry forward negotiations with the Dorset county council.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): It is a long-standing convention that opinions given by the Law Officers are confidential. I am not prepared to disclose what advice, if any, I have given or may give to colleagues on these matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Attorney-General for the consideration that I know he has given to the question. Admittedly, the subject does not lend itself to simple and short question and answer, but will the Attorney-General, as a Law Officer rather than a partisan political Minister, put in the Library of the House an explanation to the non-lawyers and simple-minded among us as to whether the Government are acting extra-legally in the matter? There is a suspicion that over Wytch farm the House of Commons has been taken for granted, and possibly for a bit of a ride.
    The Attorney-General: To do that would be to breach the convention.
    Mr. John Morris: As this is a constitutional matter involving the status of an Act of Parliament, can the Attorney-General explain why one Minister gave a proper direction under an Act of Parliament, while his successor issued an instruction which does not seem to have been covered by that Act of Parliament, whereas in the meantime another Act of Parliament—the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982—had been passed, which would have permitted a detailed and proper direction to have been given?
    As the right hon. and learned Gentleman belongs to the party that sets itself up as the party of law and order, would it not have been better for Ministers to proceed under a proper Act of Parliament, rather than going behind the door and twisting the arm of the chairman of the British Gas Corporation?
    The Attorney-General: I do not accept any of those allegations. As I said, I cannot go behind the long-standing convention.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Committal Proceedings
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Attorney-General what representations he has received regarding giving to an accused person the opportunity to elect to dispense with committal proceedings.
    The Attorney-General: Neither I nor the Home Secretary, who has responsibilty for matters of procedure in magistrates' courts, have received any such representations.
    Mr. Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that if the law were changed in a simple way to allow the accused to elect to dispense with committal proceedings, that would have two dramatic efforts? First, it would shorten the time spent waiting for trial in the Crown court. Secondly, it would reduce significantly the overcrowding in remand prisons such as Her Majesty's remand centre at Risley.
    The Attorney-General: I can see that that course might well lead to an agreeable result, but we must remember that some form of scrutiny is very important before cases get to the Crown court. That is why, even on a paper committal, representations can be made to the magistrates that there is not sufficient evidence for the case to be committed. This system has been criticised in a number of quarters, but at the moment we take the view that it is best left as it is.
    Mr. Anderson: Should we consider not just the fact of scrutiny but the possibility thereby of saving costs, when it is clear that evidence can be tested in committal proceedings?
    The Attorney-General: That is one of the many aspects that must be considered. A Home Office study, which, if not completed, is almost finished, is examining how we can improve court listing and reduce delays. An important principle is involved. At the moment I am not satisfied that it would be in the interests of the defendant to remove that scrutiny, although, I fear, sometimes it is perfunctory.

    Supergrasses
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General what futher representations he has received regarding the use of supergrasses in Northern Ireland.
    The Attorney-General: I have received a number of representations on the question of these so-called supergrass trials, some of them approving the use of such evidence and some disapproving it: some of these representations were disinterested and well informed, and some of them less so.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Attorney-General accept that there is increasing worry about the use of uncorroborated evidence by informers in Northern Ireland? Will he think again about the practice in Northern Ireland? Would it not be more sensible, so that justice is seen to be working effectively and impartially, to use the same system in Northern Ireland as is used in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Attorney-General: The same system is used across the United Kingdom. The use of informers is not limited to Northern Ireland. I invite the hon. Gentleman to re-read my detailed written answer given on 24 October 1983.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the law relating to the evidence of informers is exactly the same in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales?
    The Attorney-General: That is so. It is exactly the same.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is there any rule against the use of uncorroborated evidence by so-called supergrasses in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland?
    The Attorney-General: No. Any claim that I have given any direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions that that evidence is not to be used is false.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Attorney-General agree with me that the use of supergrasses is a violation of natural and legal justice and that, in general, they are perjured

    15
    murderers who are selling their hitherto comrades, some of us suspect, for money? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, in the long run, this bringing into disrepute of British justice is bound to have a bad effect and ultimately to intensify the rate of killing?
    The Attorney-General: I could not disagree more with practically everything said by the hon. Gentleman. The only point I shall take up is the use of perjured evidence. Usually, the evidence which the supergrass admits is not perjured. On practically every occasion he is convicting himself, and this is dealt with by the court. He is then called as a witness against those whom he has known.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When does the Attorney-General expect to receive Sir George Baker's report into the operation of judicial procedures in Northern Ireland? Is it expected that there will be speedy Government action on the report's recommendations?
    The Attorney-General: I believe that the report will be available in some form shortly.
    Mr. John Morris: Although the law on informers is the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is not the real difficulty the fact that in one part of the United Kingdom informers are used coupled with Diplock courts and, unhappily, there is no opportunity for a jury to be in any position to evaluate the evidence? Does not the worry arise, in part at least, from that process? Is there not also a danger that a witness might improve his evidence and add to the number against whom he is giving evidence in the hope of obtaining even greater favours?
    The Attorney-General: I would take more seriously the risk that judges were not applying the proper direction to themselves, so that there was a danger of convicting without collaboration, if the judgments given during the past few years did not clearly show the opposite. Recently, in a remarkable case, the Chief Justice, in a long judgment, acquitted a number of those accused on the evidence of a supergrass. It is clear to me, and to all who take a genuinely close interest, that the judges are taking superlative care in considering the evidence of uncorroborated supergrasses.

    Crown Courts (Waiting Time)
    Mr. Berminghamasked the Attorney-General what steps have been taken in the last 12 months to reduce the waiting time between committal and trial in criminal cases in the Crown courts; and with what results.
    The Attorney-General: The measures taken in the past 12 months include the appointment of additional judges and the provision of additional courtrooms, and improved efficiency. These enabled the Crown court in 1983 to dispose of nearly 10 per cent. more committals for trial than in 1982, against an increase of more than 8 per cent. in the number received, and the average waiting time was reduced from 14·1 weeks in the quarter ending September 1982 to 13·9 weeks in the corresponding quarter of last year.
    Mr. Bermingham: I thank the Attorney-General for that reply. Does he not agree that the continuing delays make it all the more important and urgent for consideration to be given to payment of compensation to those who are held in custody pending trial but who are subsequently acquitted?
    The Attorney-General: This matter has been under consideration by Governments and those interested in this over many years. I do not think there is anything new that would lead me to alter my mind.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Crown Agents
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to be able to make a statement about the future of the Crown Agents.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 23 February.
    Mr. Barnett: Since that statement came out in favour of eventual privatisation, in principle at any rate, of the Crown Agents, and since that was the subject Morgan Grenfell was specifically asked to investigate, will the Minister consider the possibility of making the report available to hon. Members so that we can study it? Secondly, has the Minister reconsidered the answers that he gave the House on Thursday about the need for formal consultation, at least with the 100 or so Third world Governments who use the services of the Crown Agents?
    Mr. Raison: The report was commercially confidential, and it would not therefore be appropriate to make it available. As I said last Thursday about the views of the Governments who use the Crown Agents, it was well known that we were considering the future of the Crown Agents and there was plenty of time for anybody to make representations if he wished to do so, but at the end of the day the decision was a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply, Official Report, 6 February, column 418, how long the Minister of State spent inspecting the Brewster houses in the Falklands.
    Mr. Raison: About an hour, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: At what point in time did the right hon. Gentleman tumble to it that we were talking about Brewster homes at about £133,000 per home, and should he not have made some statement to the House rather than let this fantastic information dribble out?
    Mr. Raison: I do not deny that there have been problems with this contract, but it is important to understand that, of the cost of £133,000 per house a substantial amount—about £31,500went on shipping, and another substantial amount went towards the purchase of capital assets, plant and an accommodation block that will be of continuing value to the people of the Falkland Islands.

    International Development Association
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions to provide additional funds for the International Development Association; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Raison: The association's management has not completed its discussions with all other donors and it is therefore too early to expect a report from it. We have made clear our willingness to participate in a supplementary fund of up to $3 billion, subject to satisfactory detailed arrangements and equitable burden-sharing among donors.
    Mr. Deakins: Is there not a serious prospect that the work and plans of the World Bank for development in the poorest countries of the world will be seriously and adversely affected if progress is not made soon on the part of the replenishment with which we are dealing?
    Mr. Raison: As the House knows, we were disappointed, to put it mildly, about the $9 billion level that was reached. For this reason the British Government took the lead in stating that they would support supplementary funding, and we hope that a good measure of this will be achieved.
    Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's positive response to the setback —engendered in the United States—to the future of the International Development Agency was welcome? How do Her Majesty's Government see the way forward to getting some supplementay funding? Will it come from the Arabs or from some of the newly rich countries?
    Mr. Raison: By and large, the supplementary funding will come from those who already contribute to the main funds in the same portions. There is a gap as far as the United States is concerned, and in addition the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan have doubts about joining the supplementary fund, but we have expressed, particularly to the German Government, our hope that they, too, will decide to join.

    Aid (UN Target)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to increase the quantity of the United Kingdom's overseas aid to the United Nations' target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.
    Mr. Raison: We remain committed to the United Nations target, but we have made it clear that we are not committed to a timetable for its achievement. Future progress towards the 0·7 per cent. target depends on a number of factors, including the future performance of the British economy.
    Mr. Alton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is grotesque that the Government can find £10 billion for the independent nuclear weapon Trident and £8 billion for our commitment to the Falklands over the next few years, and yet can find only one tenth of what we will spend on Trident for the entire overseas aid and development budget? Does he agree that we should be stepping up famine relief, because 40,000 people are dying every day? Will he also say something about what can be done in the Upper Volta?
    Mr. Raison: When the Government fought and won the election in the summer, they laid great stress on the proper defence of this country. The electorate endorsed that, and it remains our policy. However, we also conduct an effective aid programme of which we can be proud. As
    18
    for the pressing problems of Africa, we have already done a great deal in that respect and are considering what more we might do.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the aid from the United Kingdom is given in the form of private investment in the Third world and that it is substantial by any standards?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right. We have a good record of private investment in Third world countries. It is worth pointing out that private investment is of great value to Third world countries because they do nor have to repay it until there are profits to be returned and such investment does not, therefore, have the drawbacks of loans and indebtedness.
    Mr. Deakins: Do the Government intend to work towards the 0·7 per cent. target year by year, or will it be a matter of luck whether the aid programme, as a percentage of GDP, goes up or down?
    Mr. Raison: The figures always fluctuate and a number of factors contribute to them. The 0·7 per cent. figure remains our target, but we shall have to build up the British economy considerably before we are likely to get near that target.
    Mrs. Kellett-BowmanWill my right hon. Friend consider angling as much aid as possible to nongovernmental organisations, as they get it to the people on the ground and the aid is not filtered away through corruption and grandiose projects?
    Mr. Raison: Non-governmental organisations have a valuable part to play and we already give them very good support.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be greatly disappointed that the Government have not set a timetable for attaining the 0·7 per cent. target? Does he agree that, if the Government achieve their objectives in inflation, it will be largely because of falls in commodity prices, which have not been helpful to the Third world?
    Mr. Raison: Commodity prices are a problem in the Third world. Happily, there are signs of improvements in those prices. As for our overall aid performance, I reiterate that I believe that our programme is a very good one which is widely appreciated.
    Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend consider using some future overseas aid to liquidate pipeline debts that are owed by many overseas countries to business men in this country and are causing enormous difficulties to many businesses?
    Mr. Raison: I am always reluctant to contemplate using our overseas aid programme for the liquidation or repayment of debts. It can set an awkward precedent and I should prefer our aid money to be spent on its proper purpose of development.
    Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if we think of soft loans as aid they should not be repayable to the Treasury, but should be put in a fund that could be recycled for the benefit of the Third world and, therefore, could properly be regarded as aid?
    Mr. Raison: It is worth making the point that our aid programme to the poorest countries is overwhelmingly, if

    19
    not entirely, in the form of grants rather than soft loans. However, I am willing to look into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and write to him.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend seek an early meeting with Princess Anne to congratulate her on the splendid way in which she has drawn attention to the desperate plight of the people of the Third world?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the outstanding work that Princess Anne has done on behalf of the Save the Children Fund, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Anderson: Against that ministerial complacency, at a time when demand in the Third world is increasing because of natural disasters and recession, may I ask what is the purpose of a target if the Government make no effort to reach it?
    Mr. Raison: I completely reject the accusation of complacency. I believe that we are working hard to operate an effective programme, as I have already said. Nevertheless, it is not possible to pay out money until one has created the wealth with which to do that.

Conduct of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make about what took place during and after Question Time on Thursday last.
Robust debate has always been a feature of our system, but robust debate does not extend to disruption—and, in particular, to interruptions from a sedentary position—which effectively ensure that a speech or a question cannot be heard. This was the case on Thursday.
I would ask the House to remember that the broadcasting of our proceedings means that we can be heard but not seen, and frequently this distorts what is going on in the Chamber.
I also remind the House that, when I was chosen your Speaker last June, I claimed on your behalf in another place our historic privilege of freedom of speech. We have a supreme duty to set an example to those we represent by ensuring that freedom of speech is upheld in this Chamber.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind all right hon. and hon. Members—particularly new Members—that the placing of a prayer card on a particular seat does not give that Member a prescriptive right to that seat unless he has occupied it for Prayers.
I hope that in all this I shall have the unqualified support of the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Randolf Coke and Chemical Co. Ltd.
3.32 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement this weekend by Randolf Coke and Chemical Company Ltd. of the closure of its only coke oven works at Evenwood, near Bishop Auckland, in my constituency."
This is a specific matter, in that this closure by a profitable parent company, Coalite, will involve the loss of 134 jobs in an area where male unemployment is already 25 per cent.
The matter is urgent, in that the 90-day redundancy notices have already been issued, but actual coke production is expected to close well in advance of that date.
It is an important matter, because the loss of the 134 jobs will involve a further 50 subcontract jobs losses. Most of the workers live in the village of Evenwood, which has a population of only 2,000, in which there are no alternative jobs, and which is situated only a few miles from Shildon, where British Rail Engineering Ltd. is determined to close its works later this year.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give sympathetic consideration to my request.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of Randolf Coke and Chemical Company Limited coke works at Evenwood"
in his constituency, with the loss of all 134 jobs and about 50 jobs in subcontracting.
I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the only decision that I have to take is whether the matter should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Scott Lithgow (BP Drilling Rig)
3.34 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideraton, namely,
"the announcement made some two hours ago of the formal cancellation by BP of its contract with Scott Lithgow for the construction of the semi-submersible drilling rig."
This is a specific matter, in that the cancellation of this contract, which is due to be completed within eight weeks —in other words it is 96 per cent. complete—will have a dreadful effect on both Scott Lithgow and the United Kingdom offshore construction industry and those who are employed in that industry and ancillary industries. The House probably does not need reminding that this news comes right after the near fatal blow delivered by the cancellation of the Britoil contract at Scott Lithgow.
It is an urgent matter, since negotiations for the takeover of Scott Lithgow are at a crucial stage.
It is an important matter, because this scandalous decision could affect the livelihoods of thousands of people and their families in my constituency, elsewhere in Scotland and throughout mainland Britain.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give sympathetic consideration to my request.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today of the decision of the board of BP formally to cancel the oil rig contract with Scott Lithgow."
I well understand, from previous applications and debates that we have held in the House, the importance of this matter to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members in Scotland and elsewhere. However, having listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Standing Order No. 10 Applications
3.38 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Very rightly, you have drawn attention to abuses which have taken place in the House. Bearing in mind that hardly a day goes by without an application under Standing Order No. 10, which is meant to be for the urgent consideration of a matter of specific national interest, would it not be a good idea if you considered instructing hon. Members that such an application has to be in respect of more than just a local constituency matter, otherwise every hon. Member will be able to raise matters affecting his constituency, and we shall never get a debate started or finished?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that this matter was discussed some time ago by the Procedure Committee. Applications under the Standing Order No. 10 procedure involve precious Back-Bench time. If the matter needs to be discussed again, no doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) will raise it with the Procedure Committee.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme (Application to Banff) Revocation Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

GCHQ Cheltenham
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. David Hunt.]
Mr. Speaker: Before we start this very important debate, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part. This is a day on which I ask for short contributions, please.
3.38 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Just over a month has passed since I announced to the House the Government's decision to bring the conditions of employment at GCHQ into line with those which apply in the other intelligence agencies. The subject has hardly been out of the news since and there should be no surprise at that. The issues involved are of great importance and it is right that they should be debated.
There are points on which we need to be emphatically clear from the outset. First and foremost, GCHQ is one of the security and intelligence agencies on which our national security, and to some degree also the security of our allies, depends. Any significant interruption in the flow of intelligence from GCHQ could, in circumstances which can never be foreseen, deprive the Government of the day of information which could be vital to our national security. Therefore, it is crucial that GCHQ's operations and activities should be maintained without any disruption or interference whatsoever.
The next point which I hope will now be accepted on all sides is that the decision which we are debating today is not part, and should not be seen as part, of any wider campaign. There is not one word of truth in the wild and extravagant claims which have been made on that point.
The arrangements which we have now introduced at GCHQ are those which have always existed in other agencies whose operations and activities are primarily concerned with security and intelligence. We have made it clear from the outset, and I repeat it again today, that it is emphatically not the Government's intention to extend these measures beyond those agencies whose primary functions are concerned with security and intelligence. Let me emphasise, too, that the decision we have taken is in no way a departure from established principle. On the contrary.
Successive Employment Protection Acts, repeating the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, have provided for the need to except certain categories of employment on grounds of national security. Certificates precisely similar to the ones which I have signed have been in force since 1971 for the other intelligence and security agencies. They have been signed by the responsible Ministers of previous Governments of both parties. The only anomaly is that a different situation had been allowed to grow up and exist in GCHQ. I emphasise that it was an anomaly.
It was only once we had specifically and publicly acknowledged that GCHQ was also an agency whose operations and activities are concerned with security and intelligence — as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did in the House on 12 May last year—that the way was open to correct that anomaly.
Mr. John Smith: The Foreign Secretary has once again suggested that previous
26
Governments acted in the same way as this Government in signing certificates under the Employment Protection Acts. Will he confirm that those certificates do not affect the right of anyone to be a trade union member and that the deprivation of trade union membership flows from instructions given by the Government under the Order in Council of 1982, which relates entirely to the Government and their activities?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is right. There has been no mystery about that. The terms and conditions of service have to be altered as well as the certificates being enforced. The terms and conditions of service will have the same effect in all intelligence agencies as a result of the instruction given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary is not giving way.
Mr. Morris rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary is not giving way.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have a number of points to deal with and I am at the outset of my speech. I know that the point about the avowal of GCHQ, to which I have just referred, is one which some, including the Select Committee on Employment, have been inclined to dismiss, but I can assure the House—
Mr. Morris rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: —that that is an argument which was given considerable weight by Ministers both when they discussed the matter in 1982 and again more recently.
As I have already reminded the House, the issues before us have been considered in detail by the Select Committee on Employment. The Committee's report, published on 14 February, makes recommendations to which I shall return. I shall also address myself to the points raised by the Civil Service unions in their evidence to the Select Committee, as well as in course of their discussions with the Government.
First, let me underline one point which has become increasingly widely accepted as the debate has proceeded in public, before the Select Committee and in discussions with the unions: it is the absolute necessity for arrangements which, to quote the recommendations of the Select Committee
"meet every requirement of national security".
I very much doubt whether that would have been so widely recognised and endorsed if the Government had not taken the decision which I announced on 25 January. The extent of the support for our objectives is, none the less, welcome. The differences that remain can be seen as differences about means rather than ends.
The Government have given, and will continue to give, full weight to this common understanding of objectives, but, in deciding on the right means to that end, we must take very full account of the extent of the problem, potential as well as actual. That was revealed by the events of 1979 to 1981. The point is crucial, and I must remind the House of the salient facts. Between February 1979 and April 1981 the continuity of GCHQ operations was

27
disrupted seven times. Over 10,000 working days were lost. More than 25 per cent. of the staff were involved on the so-called day of action, on 9 March 1981, when parts of GCHQ were virtually closed down by industrial disruption. The action included many people engaged in sensitive operations. That kind of effect and activity must be regarded as unacceptable.
Some have argued that no great harm was done, but to call for quantified evidence of damage is to miss the point. We can never know what intelligence has been, or might be, lost. Fortunately, no serious threats to the nation's security materialised during those particular periods of disruption, but that is not an argument for accepting the possibility of disruption as a fact of life. The function of GCHQ is to be continuously, permanently on the alert. Nothing less will do.
Mr. John Gorst: My right hon. and learned Friend has just pointed out that up to 25 per cent. of the work force were engaged in the disruptions between 1979 and 1981. Have 25 per cent. or 75 per cent. now accepted the terms which the Government have offered? Surely, if he maintains that we are discussing the means rather than the end, that is crucial as well?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is aware, of course, that the offer expires not today but on 1 March. He is also aware that the numbers accepting—I shall return to this later—are growing steadily. The figures that have been given by the Government are based on the counted forms accepted and delivered to GCHQ.
Mr. John Morris rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must acknowledge that I have just given way to him. The decision that we took, notwithstanding what I have just said, was not taken lightly.
From 1979 onwards, management was in touch with the unions to seek ways of avoiding disruption, but union officials were thinking along very different lines. A national officer of the Civil and Public Services Association, for example, was quoted as saying in February 1979, when the Labour party was in power, that
"the strike would completely paralyse Government communications, both internally and externally."
A local official is quoted as saying a few days later that
"our action will seriously affect operations by at least 80 per cent., as our members are specialists."
In the following year, 1980, informal soundings about a no-strike or no-disruption agreement were taken locally by GCHQ management. The reaction of local union representatives was not encouraging.
Later still, during the period of selective action that followed the one-day strike on 9 March 1981, GCHQ's senior management and a very senior official in the Civil Service Department appealed to officials of the Civil Service Union not to take disruptive action in certain key areas. The only result was deliberately perverse: pressure to continue strike action was brought to bear on GCHQ staff in precisely those areas.
That same month, and after these clear warnings, the unions announced:
"There will be a range of selective and disruptive action which will affect Britain's secret communications surveillance network. There will be both national and international repercussions."
28
On 3 April 1981 a senior union official said on the eve of a strike at a GCHQ outstation:
"This is the most crucial station we have hit so far. We are going to hit this Department 'as hard as we can'."
There can be no doubt that the union leaders concerned knew what they were doing. As I said in my evidence to the Select Committee, they deliberately chose to direct action against what they correctly saw as a very sensitive and vital agency of the Government, with the avowed intent of causing both national and international repercussions.
Mr. Julian Critchley: I accept everything that my right hon. and learned Friend says about what happened between 1979 and 1981 and about the importance of Cheltenham, but, in retrospect, would it not have been wiser, more subtle and more sensible a month ago to attempt to reach a no-strike agreement with the unions and, had that failed, to raised the stakes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend in a moment. Even after the discussions that have taken place in recent weeks, it has not proved possible to reach an agreement on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity in a moment.
To put it more bluntly, in the period that I have described, the unions were quite prepared, in pursuance of a dispute about pay, to cause or threaten damage to national security. The attitude of some at the time was well summarised in the CCSU campaign report No. 1 issued in 1981, where it was said that
"our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which … defence readiness is hampered … by this and further action".
It is against that background that the Government have formulated the objectives that I described to the Select Committee on Employment, and it is in that light that we have considered the report of the Select Committee and the points put to us by the unions.
Let me first remind the House of the objectives, as I put them to the Select Committee. The overall objective is to ensure—I repeat, ensure—that staff at GCHQ are not in future subject to the kind of pressures that have deliberately been put on them in the past. That implies four detailed objectives: first, that staff at GCHQ must be deprived of the right to access to industrial tribunals, for security reasons; secondly, that it needs to be part of the conditions of service of GCHQ staff that there will be no interference in GCHQ's activities and operations by industrial disruption, whether in pursuit of national or of local disputes; thirdly, that negotiations on departmental issues, including questions of structure, must, for security reasons, be carried out by departmental staff representatives answerable to the staff of GCHQ and to no one else; and, fourthly—and this overall proposition is every bit as important as the other three—that the maintenance of GCHQ's service must not be put at risk by any conflict of loyalty of the staff.
Let me refer now to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Employment. The first recommendation is that we should thoroughly examine the concessions offered by the unions to satisfy ourselves that they meet every requirement of national security. We have done so

29
very carefully, taking into account not only the union proposals submitted to the Committee, but further developments to the proposals which arose in subsequent discussions.
There is no doubt that the unions have made very real attempts to meet our points, but we have reached the conclusion at the end of the day that the unions' proposals unfortunately do not remove the risk of conflicting pressures from outside GCHQ on the undoubted loyalty of those who work there. They do not satisfy the Government's ultimate responsibility for safeguarding national security.
The Committee's second recommendation is addressed to the unions. The Committee's conclusion that the arrangements to be made should be totally effective endorses an important element in the Government's thinking. Its recommendation that the unions should be prepared to offer whatever legally binding assurances the Government require to ensure that is also very relevant. But making assurances legally binding—difficult enough in itself — can only be part of the answer. What is crucial is that those assurances should go far enough to meet the Government's fundamental objectives. And, as I have explained, they do not go far enough to eliminate the risk of conflicting pressures on those who work at GCHQ.
The third recommendation is that any new arrangements involving precedents which would in other circumstances be unacceptable to trade unions should be applied solely in matters relating to national security at GCHQ. As I have already made clear, the Government have no intention of introducing similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence. And it is our firm position that the measures must apply to all GCHQ staff.
Mr. John Morris: Given the precedents which the Foreign Secretary has cited on the issue of certificates under the Employment Protection Act and its predecessor the Industrial Relations Act, and as the right to belong to a union of one's choice is made under the Order in Council, which was not referred to in terms in the Foreign Secretary's original statement, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give even one precedent for withdrawing the right to belong to a trade union under an instruction given under the Order in Council?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The statutory right to protection of the right to trade union membership first found its way on to the statute book in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, so there has not been a very long time in which to test the proposition, but, beyond that, the provisions under which we are operating apply to security and intelligence. The other agencies which are primarily concerned with security and intelligence are already covered by the certificate. This agency was outstanding as an anomaly and it was therefore appropriate and right for an order of that kind to be made and for the Order in Council to be varied.
Dr. David Owen: Did the Government of the day issue an Order in Council following the certification procedure applied in 1976 to MI5 or MI6?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: So far as I know they did not, because the conditions required in that respect already applied there. That is my point. In the other intelligence
30
and security agencies these conditions already applied. In those circumstances, all that was necessary was the making of a certificate. It is because this one agency was an anomaly that it was necessary to act in this way.
In response to the Select Committee's fourth recommendation, exploratory talks between the Government and the Civil Service unions have indeed taken place on several occasions in an attempt to find the necessary amount of common ground. It is no reflection on the seriousness with which the Government and the unions conducted those talks that they were unable to reach agreement.
The Committee's fifth recommendation is conditional on agreement having been reached. As I have just explained, that has unfortunately not proved possible. I come, therefore, to the final recommendation—that the Government should suspend their action while talks with the unions continue. The Government do not believe that it would have been right to act as recommended by the Committee.
As it was, the Government and the unions moved as quickly as possible to explore the scope for an agreement. If one had been possible, I have no doubt that there would have been no difficulty then in drawing the appropriate conclusions for all the staff of GCHQ.
I turn now in more detail to the points which have been put to us by the unions.
Let me say again that the Government recognise that the proposals put to us by the unions constitute a genuine and sincere attempt to work out an agreement that would meet our objective. We have considered them very carefully in the same spirit, but we have come to the conclusion that there remains a gap which cannot be bridged. I shall explain why in a moment.
The question of access to industrial tribunals is not in my judgment a major difficulty. The unions have put forward proposals for alternative appeals machinery which would involve negotiations going far beyond GCHQ, and beyond the scope of this debate, but I do not think that their view on the basic point is very far from our own. For the unions have accepted that the certificates which I signed on 25 January must stand, and the effect of those certificates was to withdraw from GCHQ staff the right of access to industrial tribunals under the Employment Protection Acts.
GCHQ staff will of course continue to have access to the Civil Service Appeals Board and to the Medical Appeals Board. Other relevant legislation, including the sex and race discrimination Acts, will continue to apply. All this, in our view, provides full and effective protection.
The union proposals have also addressed the security problems involved in union representation at GCHQ. They are prepared to accept that GCHQ union representatives should not give, and that other union officials should not seek to acquire, classified information about GCHQ.
However, the unions' proposals also provide that the right to negotiate for GCHQ staff on matters involving classified information should remain in the hands of GCHQ employees "acting as union representatives." And they provide, too, by implication, that on other matters the rights of national unions should remain as they were before 25 January.

31
On industrial disruption, the unions are prepared to accept that it should be a condition of service for GCHQ staff that they would take no action which would or might interfere with uninterrupted operation of
"essential security and intelligence services",
and that the unions themselves should undertake not to instruct or ask members at GCHQ to take action which might put at risk the continuous maintenance of such services.
This implies a distinction between
"essential security and intelligence services"
and the rest of GCHQ. That distinction is one which we cannot accept. National security requires that GCHQ should be treated as a whole and industrial disruption avoided throughout.
However, the problem is more fundamental than that. The crucial point is that the unions continue to insist, first, that they should be recognised at GCHQ, and, secondly, that they should represent the interests of all the staff at GCHQ, whether members of unions or not.
The Government recognise that the unions' position in this respect is entirely consistent with the Whitley principles which generally govern relations between management and staff in the Civil Service, but, in the case of those agencies whose primary functions are concerned with security and intelligence, the requirements of national security have to take priority over the principles which apply elsewhere in the Civil Service. That is, and has been, the position in other intelligence agencies, and so it has to be at GCHQ.
The overriding responsibility of the Government in this field is to safeguard national security. Members of the House who have experience of industrial relations will know that periods of calm have all too often been interrupted. No one can guarantee that the cycle will not be repeated at some time in the future. That is why the Government have to be sure that the measures we take today will be watertight in rough weather as well as in calm.
In the last period of rough weather, as I have described in some detail, staff at GCHQ were subjected by national unions to severe pressure to put their union loyalty above their loyalty to the service. It was only because most of the staff of GCHQ disregarded these calls for industrial action that worse disruption did not occur. We know that many people at GCHQ found that a very difficult period and were deeply dismayed by the extent of the pressure put upon them to participate in industrial action which they knew could be damaging to national security.
The vital objective for the Government must be to prevent a recurrence of events of that kind. We have to do so not only today and tomorrow but also in the more distant future, when union leaders may be less disposed to concentrate on good order at GCHQ than they have been during the last few weeks. The union proposals, for all the effort that they undoubtedly represent, seek to maintain a monopoly position for union representatives in GCHQ, and the previous degree of involvement by GCHQ members in national union affairs and vice versa.
Those are the very elements which have led to conflict in the past, and there can be no guarantee that they would not lead to conflict again in the future, despite the undertakings which the unions are prepared to offer today. Indeed, the fact that the unions are at this very time
32
seeking to fight their case at GCHQ by provoking disruption elsewhere in the public service makes my point more clearly than anything that I can say.
Indeed, one of the union leaders involved said in a letter to his members, referring to 28 February, that
"to avoid giving propaganda points to the Government and in the interests of continuing to hold public support, the GCHQ members will not be asked to take strike action on that day."
Nothing could make it clearer that, in his mind at least, pressure on GCHQ is being avoided on this occasion largely for tactical purposes.
To say this is not to cast doubt on the loyalty of the staff of GCHQ. It is just because of our respect for that loyalty that the Government wish all members of the staff to remain in the service of GCHQ. Nor does it imply that the Government regard members of trade unions as untrustworthy. The measures have nothing to do with fears about traitors, moles and the like. The purpose of the measures is to insulate a vital part of our security and intelligence system from the conflicting pressures which were so apparent in the past. With all respect to Mr. Murray, the pressures had nothing to do with family, religion or party. They were brought to bear by the unions, on a basis similar to what they have led us to expect will happen tomorrow.
It will be clear from what I have said that the Government regard the requirements of national security as paramount in this affair, but we have also been concerned to provide a fair deal for the staff of GCHQ, and I should like to turn to that side of the picture.
First, it is a consequence of the measures which I have announced that staff at GCHQ have lost certain statutory rights under the employment protection legislation. The change has occurred perfectly legally in a way explicitly provided for in the Acts themselves, but there has, nevertheless, been a loss, and the Government have thought it right to make an ex gratia payment in respect of that loss. There was no legal obligation on us to do so; but, as a matter of equity, it was the right thing to do. It is as simple and straightforward as that. Talk of bribery from the Opposition Benches or anywhere else is absurd. Talk of bribery to leave unions — again from the Opposition Benches—is even more demonstrably absurd because the payment of £1,000 will be available to union and non-union members alike.
Of the statutory rights which have been lost, many are paralleled by provisions in the Civil Service pay and conditions code and the principal civil service pensions scheme, which will continue to apply to the staff of GCHQ. For example, these guarantee time off for public duties, maternity pay and the right to return to work. Indeed, in some areas, for example that of maternity provision, civil servants enjoy more favourable conditions than the statutory minima. I have already mentioned that GCHQ will continue to have access to the Civil Service Appeals Board and the Medical Appeal Board; and that other relevant legislation will continue to apply.
It is also very important to note that GCHQ staff will remain members of the Home Civil Service. Changes in service-wide conditions, such as pay, allowances and pensions, will continue to apply to them, and they will continue to be eligible for membership of Civil Service associations which offer group benefits in other fields.
By losing their membership of national trade unions, individual members of staff at GCHQ will not be left without effective representation. The Government fully

33
recognise the importance of having a representative body which can talk to management on behalf of the staff. The director of GCHQ has invited staff to make proposals for the formation of the staff association. We intend it to be strong and effective. We expect it to be established on a permanent basis, and we expect it to represent all members of GCHQ, both industrial and non-industrial.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a few words about the staff association which he intends to come into existence to represent the best interests of the staff at GCHQ? Will it be a statutory body similar to the Police Federation? It would be helpful to many hon. Members if he could say more about how he visualises the staff association working.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: At this stage I see no necessity for it to be a statutory body, but when he replies to the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will no doubt take account of any points made by my hon. Friend.
People experienced in Whitley and industrial trade union affairs have already been invited to help in forming the association, but all members of GCHQ will be eligible for office. The constitution will be for the staff to propose, though it will have to be acceptable to the director, who will want to exclude external membership or affiliation.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he intends next Thursday to sack forthwith the members of staff who did not sign the options?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am coming to that point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
The association will be encouraged to negotiate on the full range of subjects covered by previous trade union arrangements, where national agreements do not apply. Representatives of the association will be entitled to represent and advise individuals, on request, in personal cases. The Department will provide facilities in the normal way. It is GCHQ's intention to bring the association into being as soon as possible after 1 March.
I do not deny that there are matters of principle at stake in the decisions the Government have taken over GCHQ. It is for that very reason that the Government have considered the matter very carefully before taking action, and it is for that reason that we considered equally carefully the points put to us by the Select Committee and the unions.
I have no doubt that the interests of the staff of GCHQ will be fully protected by the measures I have outlined. A clear majority of GCHQ staff—over two thirds—have already decided to remain with the Department under the new conditions of service. I emphasise that these figures are authoritative and reliable. They are based on the figures of returns received by GCHQ. I hope that those members of GCHQ staff who have still to answer will join the majority of their colleagues.
Only a tiny minority have asked for transfer to another part of the Civil Service. Every effort will be made to arrange a suitable transfer for those who have expressed the wish to leave. That will take some time. How long will depend on the numbers involved and on their qualifications. And, as the original letter to staff implies, there is no question of instant dismissal for those who have failed to respond by the deadline.
34
To sum up, what the Government have done is to take action to safeguard national security under statutory provisions long established for that specific purpose. The Government have acted not to create an anomaly but to remove one. There is no union representation or membership at other security and intelligence agencies. There are very good reasons for that. Those very good reasons apply with just as much force to GCHQ.
Ideally, that would have been the position from the outset, when GCHQ emerged as an organisation at the end of the last war. It will be so from now on. The staff of GCHQ will have conditions of service similar to those in other security and intelligence agencies. Those conditions of service are fair to the staff concerned and they will help to ensure that GCHQ will operate, as in the interests of national security it must, effectively, continuously, and in secret.
Mr. James Callaghan: With regard to circumstances after 1 March, will the Foreign Secretary deny the serious allegations that are made in the document circulated to us to the effect that the director has been given discretion randomly to sack small numbers of staff periodically, to identify staff who formed the backbone of the movement to prevent organised resistance and to identify key staff which GCHQ cannot afford to lose—for example radio operators—and sack other more dispensable staff? Will the Foreign Secretary deny that, because unless he does his conduct will be utterly outrageous?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will make available to us the document from which he has quoted.
Mr. Callaghan: I picked up the document just before coming into the Chamber. It is available generally and publicly.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No doubt we can study it in due course. The fact remains that the position is as I have described it. Arrangements will be made for those who wish to seek a transfer to find posts elsewhere in the Civil Service. If that does not prove possible, arrangements will have to be made for their severance on redundancy terms.
Mr. Callaghan: Will the Foreign Secretary please correct or deny the allegations in the document before the end of today's debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The document from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted appears to suggest that the method of dealing with staff after 1 March will be done on a calculated basis. That is not the approach that will be adopted by the director of GCHQ. The approach will be as described in the notice sent to staff by the director of GCHQ on 25 January. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to that rather than to the document from which he has quoted.
The offer that we have made to GCHQ staff remains open. As I have already said, a substantial majority have already accepted it. There is no doubt in my mind, or in theirs, of the importance of the work which they are doing. I should like to pay tribute once again to the skill and dedication with which they are doing that work. The conditions we have laid down are the only way to ensure that the results of that skill and dedication are never again put at risk.
4.17 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: Let me begin by agreeing on one thing with the Foreign Secretary. No one with any knowledge of the matter can underestimate the importance of this issue. GCHQ has been by far the most valuable source of intelligence for the British Government ever since it began operating at Bletchley during the last war. British skills in interception and code-breaking are unique and highly valued by all of our allies. GCHQ has been a key element in our relationship with the United States for more than 40 years.
I am glad that, in his final words, the Foreign Secretary recognised the skill, loyalty and dedication of the men and women who work there. I have personal cause for gratitude as a result of my years as Secretary of State for Defence. Many other Government Departments benefit, although GCHQ is carried solely on the Foreign Office Vote. I shall come to an implication of that in a moment.
It is just over four weeks since the Foreign Secretary told the House that he had decided to rob those loyal and dedicated men and women of their right to trade union membership—a right that they have enjoyed throughout their employment there and which has been enjoyed by all employees ever since GCHQ was first set up. It is a right that is enjoyed by tens of thousands of other men and women who do work of equal secrecy and of equal national importance in other Government Departments and in private industry. It is a right that is enjoyed by more tens of thousands of men and women in the Post Office, the Health Service and in many other parts of the Government service on whose continuity of work lives might well depend.
The decision that the Foreign Secretary announced to the House just over one month ago was taken without consulting the representatives of the workers concerned and without consulting even his colleagues in the Cabinet. Since then, I must tell the Foreign Secretary, his daily contradictory statements have made him the laughing stock of the world. When reading through them this weekend I was reminded of nothing so much as the five press conferences given by President Reagan on the Lebanon. The Foreign Secretary has been attacked anonymously by fellow Ministers as basing his decision on emotional and not on intellectual judgment. He has been attacked publicly by Conservative Back Benchers, notably the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), in whose constituency most GCHQ workers reside, and by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) — Gorst of Grunwick as some of us have learnt to call him—who, on radio recently, described the Foreign Secretary's action as
"the nasty thin wedge of Fascism".
The Conservative newspapers have been even more outspoken. The Daily Telegraph described the behaviour of the Foreign Secretary and the Government as "little short of shambolic". The Daily Express described their decision as "highly illiberal and authoritarian". Moreover, they were condemned unanimously by the Select Committee of the House which has a majority of Conservative Members.
More important still, the Government's decision has already done immense damage to the morale, not only at GCHQ but of the Civil Service as a whole. It was condemned by Lord Bancroft in a letter to The Times as:
"Breathtakingly inept; a further exploration of the bloody fool branch of management science."
36
Lord Bancroft wrote as a former head of the Civil Service. The entire First Division Association, which represents the top rank of the Civil Service, is up in arms. The Cabinet Office members of the First Division Association have already formally complained to the Minister for the Civil Service, and middle and junior staff have walked out both at the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The whole machinery of Government is now seething with discontent, partly because the Government's decision is seen as a precedent for attacks on union membership in other secret work—public and private—and in other areas where continuity of operation is regarded by the Government as important.
The Foreign Secretary told the House that he had no intention of using this precedent elsewhere. I remember him and the Prime Minister telling us at election after election that they had "no intention" of cutting Health Service provision. The fact is, however, that that phrase is used by members of the Government to disguise a decision to do something by not actually denying that they will do it. For the Government, the way to hell is paved with "no intentions".
The Government must recognise that their decision about GCHQ is a kick in the teeth for all those trade union leaders who have been prepared to develop a constructive relationship with the Government. Above all, it is a kick in the teeth for Mr. Lionel Murray. — [Interruption] —Before Conservative Members sneer, I hope that they will recognise the significance—I am sure that the Foreign Secretary does and I hope that the Prime Minister does —of the fact that the opposition to the decision is led by Mr. Alistair Graham, who compared the Prime Minister to General Jaruzelski, and by Mr. Bill McCall. No one who knows them would describe them as mindless militants.
In the past month everyone has been asking why on earth the Foreign Secretary took the decision. It was not because he believed that trade unions were likely to be spies, because he knows, as we do, that most spies since the war have been public schoolboys, masons, scientists or service men. I have no doubt that the Government have in hand measures for dealing with that particular threat to our security. The Foreign Secretary told the House this afternoon that he took the decision because the disruption at GCHQ on certain occasions between 1979 and 1981 broke the continuity of work there and might have endangered lives. He concluded—he told us again this afternoon—that membership of the trade union produces an unacceptable conflict of loyalties.
Some hon. Members may have been impressed by some of the quotations that the Foreign Secretary read out in his speech from trade union leaders during those periods of industrial action. However, the trade unions have shown that there was no prejudice to the essential operations of GCHQ at the time, and the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee that there was no evidence that any damage was done.
The most important statement by a Minister was made on 14 April 1981, after all those interruptions had taken place. Sir John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Defence, said in the House:
"I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute, but up to now they have not in any way affected operational capability in any area … I have the highest praise for the great loyalty shown by the Civil Service to Governments of all kinds." — [Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]

37
There was one another incident, in Hong Kong in 1982, that the Foreign Office quoted in its briefing shortly after the Foreign Secretary's announcement to the House. In that briefing the Foreign Secretary suggested that that incident might have affected our operational capability in the Falklands war. However, the then director-general of GCHQ, Sir Brian Tovey — I shall refer to him on several occasions in my speech—sent a telegram to all staff when the war was over. He said:
"High level praise. Never has so much praise been accorded. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals."
Against that background the Foreign Secretary's accusations today and during the past four weeks are an insult to dedicated men and women, and he should withdraw them.
I do not deny that Ministers said one thing at that time and say another thing now, and that some trade union leaders said one thing then and say another thing now. There has been an element of what psychologists call role reversal in recent weeks. The Foreign Secretary cannot have it both ways. If the action of the unions in 1979 was as dangerous as he told us it was this afternoon, it was a gross dereliction of duty for him not to have taken then the action that he is now proposing.
Since then there has been a series of international events, in which the continuity of operations at GCHQ was of vital importance to the country —for for example, the Falklands war, the death of Brezhnev and the continuing trouble in the middle east. Five years have passed since those events which he described to us today. Hon. Members know only that GCHQ had informal discussions at official level in 1980. When the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was unable to say what those discussions were and had to send a vague and unspecific letter about it later. He told the Select Committee that Lord Carrington had discussed the matter with a small group of Ministers, including himself, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proposal for a ban on union membership, which was discussed by Ministers in 1982, was brushed aside so contemptuously by Lord Carrington that he could not even remember that it had been put to him when he was questioned by his friends, as reported in The Times a fortnight ago.
Two years after Ministers rejected a ban on union membership at GCHQ, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister took a decision to ban the unions right out of the blue. Their only excuse was that the Government had not avowed the existence of GCHQ as an intelligence centre until they published the report of the Security Commission on the Prime affair. I have been in the House for more than 30 years and that is the daftest excuse I have ever heard a Government give for an act of policy. Paragraph 1·2 of that report, in describing in detail how GCHQ operates, points out:
"There has long been close and fruitful cooperation between the signals intelligence organisations of the United States, the National Security Agency (NSA), and the United Kingdom to the mutual advantage of both countries. Whilst this is generally known, and has certainly long been known to all hostile intelligence services, the methods by which their operations are carried out, the targets at which they are directed … are among the most important secrets".
The existence and function of GCHQ have been known to any interested person anywhere in the world since the end of the second world war. In 1960, two American defectors from the National Security Agency in
38
Washington held a 90-minute press conference in Moscow describing the work of NSA and its foreign links. Mr. Krushchev joked about it in public when he visited the United States 25 years ago. Mr. Prime was recruited in 1968.
Moreover, the Government avowed the role and function of GCHQ when, in the so-called ABC trial in 1978, they prosecuted two journalists for an article which described in detail and which showed a plan identifying the sites of GCHQ and the NSA in Britain. That article was published in May 1976. The Government of the day prosecuted the journalists concerned for offences under the Official Secrets Act, but they had to drop the case when counsel for the defence, Lord Hutchinson, showed that all the facts in the Time Out article in 1976 were either available or deducible from public sources, mainly from the offical records of the Royal Signals Association and the Intelligence Corps, to which the journalists subscribed. Anyone else can subscribe if he so wishes.
As an ex-Secretary of State for Defence, may I say that Ministers and officials sometimes have the most peculiar ideas about what are official secrets. When I assumed office as Secretary of State for Defence in 1964 I was told that the configuration of the Polaris submarine was the most jealously guarded secret in my possession. On my next visit to New York I was able to buy a scale model of the Polaris submarine, produced by the Metal Toy Company, for my children. Anyone who is interested in the higher lunacies of Government should read the account of the ABC trial, where the former head of SIGINT in Britain, Colonel Hugh Johnson, admitted in a mood of gloomy confusion,
"I am not sure what is a secret and what is not."
For the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to tell us in 1984 that no one had known—the Government had never admitted—until eight months ago that GCHQ was an intelligence headquarters is arrant nonsense, and they know it.
It is difficult to find any convincing reason for this sudden decision by the Government—eight months after the publication of the Security Commission report on Prime—except for their fear of staff reaction to the introduction of the polygraph, or lie detector, which is due to begin on an experimental basis in a few weeks' time. The lie detector has been described by a scientist who studied it as wrong on two thirds of the occasions on which it was used, and it was condemned by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure as unsuitable for use in court proceedings in Britain for that reason.
There is no doubt but that the Government were terrified of how staff might react if the use of the lie detector was made a ground for dismissal. Perhaps there was also American pressure—we were told that by the previous director of GCHQ, Sir Brian Tovey, who said in an interview with The Sunday Times in recent weeks that discreet pressure had been applied. He was so proud of his interview in The Sunday Times that in The Times the next morning he wrote a letter urging everyone to read it. Someone must have had a word with him within the next 24 hours, because he told a different story to the Select Committee. He said that what The Sunday Times had printed was not quite right, but he did not tell us vv hat he said, and I understand from the journalists who conducted the interview that those were his precise words. General Keegan, a retired American general from the intelligence community, said in an interview just after the

39
Government's announcement that subtle pressure would have been applied. I do not know whether there was such pressure. My experience is that the Government are quite capable of making their own mistakes without pressure from other sources.
The Government undoubtedly feared that staff at GCHQ might have recourse to industrial tribunals to protect themselves. However, it is interesting to note that the staff have never been interested in using industrial tribunals. In all but three cases during the past 40 years, when there has been a dispute they have taken it to the Civil Service appeals tribunal, and they are prepared to do so now. The only case which required any publicity of an industrial tribunal affecting GCHQ was one brought by Colonel Thwaite recently, because he was not a member of a trade union and was complaining about the effect of union activities on his personal prospects. However, I am glad to see that since the Government's announcement Colonel Thwaite said that if he was still a member he would join a trade union now like a shot.
We all agree that there is a powerful case for guaranteeing continuity of operation at GCHQ, but the unions have now offered that in terms of a contract which is legally binding on individual employees. In the evidence quoted at the end of the Select Committee report, Sir Brian Tovey says that had that offer been available when he was director-general, it would have satisfied him. Such an arrangement is far better than a yellow-dog union like a staff association. I regret having to say this, but the management of GCHQ has shown that it is not very good at managing on its own. Sir Brian Tovey told Ministers at the time, and expressed the view to the Select Committee, that not more than 20 of the 10,000 employees at GCHQ —10,000 was the figure given in Mr. Peter Hennessey's Foreign Office briefing in The Times immediately after the Foreign Secretary's statement—were likely to refuse the Government's offer. The quality of management seemed to be slightly in doubt because of what The Sunday Times called Sir Brian Tovey's two-faced behaviour when he boasted of his duplicity with the trade unions—"boasted of his duplicity" were the words used in the interview of which Sir Brian was so proud.
If the Government had a spark of common sense, they would have jumped at the offer made by the trade unions, and the next Labour Government will do so when the opportunity arrives. But the Prime Minister has behaved in this affair, uncharacteristically, like General Galtieri, who rejected her offer on the Falklands — a very favourable offer—preferred to fight, and lost. She is now gambling with people's lives. Sir Brian Tovey told us that if only 10 per cent. of the members of GCHQ in key areas refused to stay there, the operation would collapse. I put it to the Foreign Secretary that it is certain that many more than that will refuse, especially the radio operators at the outstations, which are the most important area of GCHQ operations. The Foreign Secretary told us, without giving figures, that two thirds of employees had already signed, but we know that 40 per cent. of employees are not trade union members, so they are taking the £1,000 and running. Some trade union members might also have signed, but there is no doubt that a very large number of dedicated men and women in key posts at GCHQ have not signed and will not sign.
40
The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister talk of conflicts of loyalty. They have forced on the staff in GCHQ the most damaging conflict of loyalty known to man—loyalty to principle as against loyalty to family. The staff know that in many cases, if they give up work at GCHQ, it will be impossible for them to find work anywhere else without breaking their family life.
One of the results of the Government's action has been to give more publicity to GCHQ in the last three weeks than it has had over the past 40 years. The Government's action is risking the disruption of the work of GCHQ at one of the most dangerous periods in the post-war world, when the Lebanon is in chaos, when the Gulf war is threatening oil supplies to the Western world, when the United States is warning of military intervention very close to the Soviet frontier, and when there is a new leadership in the Kremlin. What a wonderful moment for the Government to choose to put this vital operation in jeopardy.
Mr. John Browne: The right hon. Gentleman regards the no-strike agreement as paramount, as if function were the only thing to be considered here, but surely security is also of vital importance. Is it not true that trade union practice and convention at Cheltenham prevent such things as briefcases being searched when people leave the premises? [Interruption.] Therefore, what is needed from the trade unions is a guarantee not just of function but of security operations at the site itself.
Mr. Healey: I made the point before that the threat to security in that sense, through espionage, in all Government establishments comes from former public school boys such as the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The Government have never told us that they have raised these issues at any time in their discussions with the trade unions. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is a wholly false one.
Not everybody is unhappy at the Government's decision. The sharks are now circling round GCHQ in Cheltenham — notably, representatives of the Plessey company, of which Sir Brian Tovey is now a consultant. The company has put advertisements in the local newspaper asking members of GCHQ to leave their work on the grounds, as it is put in the advertisement, that
"it is difficult to feel dedicated at GCHQ, where prospects have clouded".
Who has clouded those prospects? They have been clouded by the Government.
I fear that many of the people who have taken the £1,000 will leave GCHQ and take the jobs on offer from private companies. But many others will refuse — at least one third, I suspect, according to the Government's own figures. Then what will happen? This is where the "resolute approach" is already fraying at the edges. The Prime Minister is unravelling her woollen statue very fast, because Sir Robert Armstrong has given the director at GCHQ freedom to delay action indefinitely against people who refuse to sign—a day, a week, a month, a year. [Interruption.] I have read the letter, and the Minister who replies to the debate may read the whole thing to us, but the director has been given freedom to act if and when he thinks fit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) quoted from a directive which I have not yet seen myself. I have no doubt that the Minister will later make his own speech in his own inimitable way, and I look forward to seeing the faces of Conservative Members when he does so.

41
It is possible that the Government may sack some members of the staff in order to encourage the others, but then they will find that staff pay is made up by the trade union movement, and the Government will face legal action. The Civil Service tribunal, as the Government know, can award unlimited damages if it finds against the Government in favour of an employee who has been unfairly treated.
The unions will also be going to the International Labour Organisation because they believe—and I share their belief, although I am not a lawyer — that the Government's decision is in flat violation of an ILO convention that the Government have signed.
I ask the Government to recognise that they have now embarked on a long-drawn-out campaign that they are bound to lose. The campaign will continue until the Government change their mind, or until the Government are changed by the British people, because there is deep feeling on this matter throughout the trade union movement.
The £1,000 bribe was deeply offensive to trade unionists throughout the country. The Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the cost of the bribe, if successful, could amount to £10 million. I hope that we shall be told that it will not be carried on the Foreign Office Vote, but I understand that there is no other Vote on which GCHQ is carried, so will the Government take it out of the pockets of Cementation? [Interruption.]
Every trade unionist in Britain feels threatened by what the Government have done. The anger felt by trade unionists was felt deeply by everyone, not least Mr. Murray, who attended the meeting with the Prime Minister last week, because she was felt to be accusing trade unions of lack of patriotism, of being prepared to risk people's lives and to break their promises. The Foreign Secretary made it crystal clear in his speech that that, in his view, is what trade union membership at GCHQ must imply. I ask the Government to recognise that they really cannot talk in those terms to people such as Terry Duffy and Kate Losinska, who are now leading the campaign against the Government. What a miracle the Government have achieved in the trade union movement.
I remind the Government of the last time when anything such as this happened. It was when Mr. Chamberlain and his Home Secretary compared Ernie Bevin to Quisling. Within months they were out of office and Ernie Bevin was in office, helping to win the war for Britain.
I have not wasted time on the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, although I am bound to say that I feel that some of his colleagues must be a bit tired by now of his hobbling around from one of the doorsteps to another, with a bleeding hole in his foot and a smoking gun in his hand, telling them that he did not know it was loaded.
The Foreign Secretary, however, is not the real villain in this case; he is the fall guy. Those of us with long memories will feel that he is rather like poor van der Lubbe in the Reichstag fire trial. We are asking ourselves the question that was asked at the trial: who is the Mephistopheles behind this shabby Faust? The answer to that is clear. The handling of this decision by—I quote her own Back Benchers — the great she-elephant, she who must be obeyed, the Catherine the Great of Finchley, the Prime Minister herself, has drawn sympathetic trade
42
unionists, such as Len Murray, into open revolt. Her pig-headed bigotry has prevented her closest colleagues and Sir Robert Armstrong from offering and accepting a compromise.
The right hon. Lady, for whom I have a great personal affection, has formidable qualities, a powerful intelligence and immense courage, but those qualities can hint into horrendous vices, unless they are moderated by colleagues who have more experience, understanding and sensitivity. As she has got rid of all those colleagues, no one is left in the Cabinet with both the courage and the ability to argue with her.
I put it to all Conservative Members, but mainly to the Government Front Bench, that to allow the right hon. Lady to commit Britain to another four years of capricious autocracy would be to do fearful damage not just to the Conservative party but to the state. She has faced them with the most damaging of all conflicts of loyalty. They must choose between the interests of their country, our nation's security and our cohesion as a people and the obstinacy of an individual. I hope that they resolve this conflict in the interests of the nation. If not, they will carry a heavy responsibility for the tragedies that are bound to follow.
4.52 pm
Mr. Charles Irving: I am one of the few hon. Members who have lived and grown up with GCHQ since it arrived in Cheltenham. In the late 1940s I played a part as a councillor in encouraging the Government of the day to establish that important presence in Cheltenham. I know better than anyone else that from its arrival it was well known what GCHQ was doing. From its commencement, a trade union presence and a right of choice to belong to a trade union was established.
A communication circulated by the personnel and establishments officer on behalf of the director of GCHQ to all new employees states:
"The management has close relationsips with the Unions and the Departmental Trade Unions and you are encouraged to join the Union concerned with your grade. Advice on many aspects of your employment as a civil servant is available to you as a member of your association and, should the need ever arise, representation of your personal problems can be made at the highest level.
The names of officers of the various Unions and the Departmental Whitley Council are to be found in the pink pages of the GCHQ Telephone Directory."
That was hardly a discouragement from management. The advice was still operative until Wednesday 25 January. It was withdrawn only moments after the Foreign Secretary announced in the House that the terms and working conditions of GCHQ employees would be changed at a stroke.
I make a correction — I should like the Foreign Secretary to spare just a second to listen to me. GCHQ has not encouraged and certainly would not encourage any of the suggested strike steps being initiated for tomorrow. Neither I nor they are that type of person. The Foreign Secretary underestimates GCHQ employees. The Foreign Secretary's comments in his opening speech were completely wrong in that assumption. Having lived in Cheltenham for so long, I assure the House that it would be difficult to find a more noble, loyal, hardworking and sincere group than the 8,000 employees, plus all those who subcontract work from GCHQ. They seek only the opportunities to continue with their valuable services in

43
peace and security. None of this need have occurred. I am saddened that those responsible for the impasse have handled this matter with ineptitude and insensitivity beyond belief.
Until the last few years all appeared to be going well, but it is extraordinary and almost beyond the wit of anyone that morale in such an establishment could be so reduced in a comparatively short period. I remind the House that the Prime case was an unhappy affair. Prime was a non-trade union member who brought disgrace not only on all those who worked with him but on his family, too. That affair was a great blow to the respectability and decent work force of GCHQ.
Hardly had GCHQ recovered from that when some bright berk in either a Government Department or America brought pressure to bear to introduce the latest technology, the lie detector. Its only claim to fame is that it is faulty, unreliable, and has no effect on the trained infiltrator. Its damaging effect is that the loyal GCHQ workers feel that their trust has been impugned yet again. Even before the dust had settled on that matter, on Wednesday 25 January, the Foreign Secretary's announcement came as a bombshell to the House and to those working at GCHQ who heard it on the radio. Feelings ran high and disturbed much of Cheltenham and the Civil Service. The announcement distressed the locals, some of whom thought, misguidedly, that the safety of the realm was in peril. That was far from the truth. Yet again there was a deliberate distortion.
There was immediate and deeply felt resentment at the insensitivity of the directorate and the Government. The staff at GCHQ was having its loyalty questioned. It was then suggested that the Falklands effort had been put at risk, in spite of the fact that staff, both union and non-union, had, without hesitation, volunteered for long hours on round-the-clock shifts for weeks on end in direct support of the nation's effort.
Mr. Michael Mates: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Irving: It is terribly nice to see my hon. Friend, but, I am sorry, I never give way. I am grateful to him for showing interest, but I do not want to create yet another precedent.
There was never a hint of disruption at Cheltenham or at any of the outstations involved in the Falklands campaign for the entire duration of hostilities, and the imputation that there had been hurt, infuriated and deeply wounded staff. The latest slur, conveyed to the general secretaries of the unions last Thursday, that union membership at GCHQ involved a risk of putting people's lives in danger, is completely beyond the bounds of decency and truth.
The events in 1979 and 1981, which were repeatedly stressed by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary as being disruptive, were refuted by Sir John Nott, who was then Secretary of State for Defence, when the matter was raised in the House of Commons, when I was here, on 14 April 1981. He said:
"I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute, but up to now they have not in any way affected operational activity in any area." —[Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]
On another occasion, he repeated that on both occasions the employees at GCHQ had assiduously avoided any
44
disruption that would affect not only operational but security standards at GCHQ. From a senior Minister, that sounds fairly strong to me.
Surely, if the situation were as serious for national security as the House is being misled to believe, would it not have made sense to have taken this action in 1981? The delay has never been satisfactorily explained. The reason then for action would have been clear and all those involved, and those who have enjoyed the freedom of choice about which we hear so much at election time, would have been fully aware why their terms and conditions had been brought into line with MI5 and MI6.
I accept that in sensitive establishments there is undoubtedly a case for the Government continually to keep under review long-established practices, but I refute in the strongest possible terms the right to change anyone's terms of employment and conditions at a stroke, with no consultation and against all the traditions that we have been led to believe permit the operation of a democratic and free society in which non-union and union members can work in harmony side by side, as we have seen, with the First Division Association operating in GCHQ since 1931. This is where so much misunderstanding and bewilderment have been caused.
Not unnaturally, after the outburst there was even more alarm and concern when the Select Committee was told that three essential witnesses would be refused the right to give evidence on security grounds, although the matter under discussion was nothing to do with security but dealt with the effect of the Employment Protection Act. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a full and proper investigation as to the propriety of the action that was taken. In passing, I refer to the evidence given by my old friend, Sir Brian Tovey, who now claims to have been the architect of this rather squalid affair. Why was the action taken not immediately after the major disruption but after three years? If the security of the state is so paramount, is it not criminal that there has been such a delay?
I refer to the letter that was sent to the employees at GCHQ, through the Council of Civil Service Unions, dated 22 February, which laid out four major points that would be acceptable, in line with the Minister's wishes. The first was that there would be an assurance of no disruption and a guarantee of the continuance of 24-hour operations. Secondly, it was said that the assurance would be enforceable and written into the terms and conditions legally binding upon each individual employee. Thirdly, dismissal cases would be dealt with by the Civil Service Appeals Board or the Security Appeals Committee. Fourthly, national union officers would continue, as at present, to have no access to confidential information, with local union representatives handling aspects of negotiation requiring access to such information. Any failure of these conditions could be dealt with in the way suggested, but the Government were not prepared to give them a chance or to accept the fact that there was a case.
These proposals were endorsed by the all-party Select Committee, and what is more—this causes bewilderment in this bizarre affair— Sir Brian Tovey told the Committee that, had the concessions now being offered by the unions been available at the time that he was drawing up plans to ban the unions, the concessions would have met all requirements necessary. It seems strange that circumstances have changed so rapidly.
I do not know how much more an elite work force can do as its members grovel, as they go on their knees to

45
secure justice and fairness. I find very strange indeed the whole event, which has given a sensitive establishment worldwide publicity—not that the work at GCHQ was unknown before its awowal, whatever that may mean. After all, the Colonel B case in 1978 brought a great deal of notoriety, and to suggest that GCHQ was operated in secret until 1983 is nonsense. Questions were asked in the House in 1980.
I still hope that there may be a straw that can be clutched, because the majority of people wonder where this will end. The dangers at GCHQ are much less than the dangers involved when highly confidential, classified information is being used at Whitehall ministries. Is this ban a preliminary effort to enable the Government to extend the same procedure throughout the parts of the Civil Service operating in sensitive areas? There is bound to be a strong feeling that this is so, and I deplore the unhappy and unfortunate way in which this important matter has been handled, especially as 4,500 families in my constituency are affected.
5.8 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on his speech, for he has shown what is clear—I address myself to his colleagues—namely, that this is an issue that far transcends the ordinary differences that divide the two sides of the House and is of especial concern to Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
I say that for a particular reason. Those of us who sit here representing our constituents have a common obligaton to ensure that the Executive, in the person of the Government, are acting with full responsibility to all the interests which they have to reconcile when they use the words "national security". It is because I believe that they have not discharged that task that I rise to speak this afternoon.
When the Government use the words "national security" to justify an action which would otherwise be regarded as outrageous, there is a natural inclination on the part of the overwhelming majority of us to give the Government the power which they demand without much question, but we must test those words. When the Government demand that employees at Cheltenham should swallow their principles to keep their jobs—and that is what is being done—all of us in the House have a special responsibility to speak on behalf of those employees and ensure that the Government are not misusing their prerogative or concealing a misuse of powers.
Ministers must justify to the hilt their intention to outlaw the trade unions at Cheltenham. In my judgment, they have not done so. I listened to the Foreign Secretary's explanations — I nearly said excuses — and I have listened and read what has been said by the Prime Minister and the other Ministers who have been wheeled out. I am unconvinced, and I have had some responsibility in both directions—as a trade union official for a Civil Service union and responsibility for security.
Another course of action was and is open to the Government. It would adequately protect the civil rights of the civil servants and could yet be secured by wise and patient Ministers without endangering our security one jot.
Ministers seem not to care. The Prime Minister sets the lead in the tone that she adopts. She seems not to care about the necessity and wisdom of trying to secure
46
agreement from opponent; when one is in government. That is one of the great weaknesses of her performance as Prime Minister. I have begged her before, and I beg her again, to recognise that this is one country. Trade unionists are as loyal as anyone else and she should not always speak with scorn when referring to them.
Ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular, seem indifferent to the tide of resentment that is flowing so strongly. Let no Minister delude himself or herself that the indignation is synthetic: it is not, and it cannot be disregarded. I ask Conservative Members, in the general interest and not in any party interest, to bring pressure to bear on the Government to change course. If they do not, this issue will colour the whole background of everything that the Government do from now until the next general election. Let there be no doubt about that.
The Foreign Secretary argued that because of the possible conflict of loyalties it was a mistake that the staff at GCHQ should ever have been allowed to become trade union members. I go back no further than the second world war, and since that time Conservative Governments have been in office for 22 years. The country has had five Conservative Prime Ministers and eight Conservative Foreign Secretaries before the present holders of those offices. Not one Prime Minister — Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Home or the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) —and not one of the Foreign Secretaries—Selwyn Lloyd, Butler, Carrington or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who is not in the Chamber — thought it necessary to deprive the staff at Cheltenham of their rights.
For 30 years or more Conservative Administrations have allowed the so-called mistake to continue. When challenged, all that the Foreign Secretary can say is that disruption between 1979 and 1981 created uncertainty about the staffs future loyalty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) asked why Lord Carrington or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East did not take action when they had responsibility for these matters. Is not the truth that they decided that action was not necessary? I believe that it must be so.
The Government's lame excuse for waiting three years before taking action is that they could not act until Mr. Prime was exposed as a spy, because it would have meant acknowledging that intelligence work was carried on at Cheltenham. The hon. Member for Cheltenham has disposed of that answer. I find it incredible; I simply do not believe it. When the Government have to advance such an argument, it casts doubt on the strength of the rest of their case.
However, let us take that answer at its face value. We have to ask from whom the Government needed to protect that information. It was obviously not from the Russians; they had their own man in the establishment, so they knew what was going on. It was obviously not from the Americans; they are our closest partners in the joint enterprise at Cheltenham. It was not from our other NATO allies or our friends outside NATO; on occasion, they make use of and are given access to some of the intelligence.
So who is left from whom the existence of GCHQ had to be concealed? Presumably, it is the British people They are the only people who did not know very much about it. It is an insult to our intelligence for the Foreign Secretary to say that he had to wait until the British people knew

47
about Cheltenham before he could take action. Does it not follow that if Mr. Prime had not been exposed the so-called conflict of loyalty would have existed to this very day? Therefore, if Ministers had taken no action they would have been guilty of dereliction of duty.
If we dismiss, as I do, the Foreign Secretary's explanation as unworthy of him, we have to examine the other two theories that have been advanced, both of which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. The first theory is that there has been pressure from American intelligence officials. That has been denied by the Foreign Secretary and we have to make up our own minds about that. We know that there is such a thing as deniable pressure, and I dare say that there was some on this occasion.
I believe that the major reason for the Government's action was the one advanced by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. It was their brusque and ill-mannered attitude when they proposed to introduce a lie detector at Cheltenham, which was felt by the staff there to be a slur on their loyalty and integrity.
The director of GCHQ, knowing that there had been disruption, knowing of the serious discontent that existed about the introduction of the lie detector and fearing that it might lead to unrest, may have decided to make a pre-emptive strike and weaken the staff even further by taking away their trade union rights. That seems to be the most likely explanation of an otherwise inexplicable action being taken three years after the original disruption. If the reports about the staff's reduced efficiency and morale are correct, the Government have much to answer for.
How many people have signed the document? We do not know. I do not know how many people work at Cheltenham, but if it is 10,000, as is reported in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said was an official briefing, and only 65 or 70 per cent. have signed, that means that at least 2,000 have not signed. Is that so? I do not expect an answer, but we can all draw our own conclusions. Is it really true that 2,000 or more people have not signed, despite having put their jobs at risk?
No doubt some Conservative apologists, including one or two who have had some connection with the intelligence services, will try in this debate to crush the resistance of the rest of the staff.
I ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make it absolutely clear that a document that was handed to me as I came in cannot be accurate. It is a printed document issued by the Council of Civil Service Unions and signed by the secretary. It says:
"One issue not covered in the briefing which arises out of a Written Answer given by Mr. Hayhoe last Thursday is the question of the discretion given to the director of GCHQ. This discretion can be used in one of three ways. The director could randomly sack small numbers of staff periodically. Secondly, the director could identify staff who form the backbone of the resistance to signing away rights to prevent organised resistance. Thirdly, the director could identify key staff which GCHQ could not afford to lose—for example, radio operators—and sack other more dispensable staff."
Those are the options which the Civil Service unions regard as being open to the director, in the light of the answer given last Thursday by the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Employment rising to his feet, because I ask him to deny at once that any of those methods will be used.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): What the right hon. Gentleman is saying now is not what I understood him to say earlier, when he implied that these were Government instructions. Now I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be telling us that they are union suggestions of what the, implications could be. I think that he recognises the concern on the Conservative Benches about the document that he is quoting. If he will be good enough to let me have a copy of that document, I shall seek to answer it as clearly as I can. He will understand my difficulty, in that I do not have a copy of that union document.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has now been handed a copy of the document. I was not aware that I had been given a special privilege. It is a printed document and as such is surely available widely. At any rate, I ask the Minister to deny these possibilities now —he could do so— unless he wants to be guilty of outrageous conduct. There is no reason why the Minister should not say at once that this discretion will not be exercised in this way, and I invite him to say so now.
Mr. King: There has already been misunderstanding over the right hon. Gentleman's earlier interpretation of the document. I have every intention of reading the document, of which I had no previous knowledge and which appears to have been privately circulated by unions to selected Members. Since the right hon. Gentleman started to speak I have been seeking to obtain a copy, but without success. I think that the House will allow me at least the opportunity to reply properly to the document, after having a proper opportunity to consider it.
Mr. Callaghan: Of course we will give the Minister the few hours that are necessary for him to deny that small numbers of staff will not be randomly sacked, but if he needs time to consider the matter he is not a very worthy Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs grossly exaggerated the idea of a conflict of loyalty. The people who work at Cheltenham are not compelled to join a trade union. There has been no closed shop so far, although I wonder, from the questions put by Conservative Members, whether there will be a closed shop in future. I understand that this trade union or staff association—whatever it is—will represent the interests of everybody, so presumably, not having had a closed shop in the past, there will be one in future. That is the extent of the Government's illogicality.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the disruption in 1981 on the day of action, he might at least have filled it out by adding that the disruption arose because the Government withdrew, or tore up, a pay agreement which they had signed and into which they had entered. Certainly I do not defend the disruption. I have made that clear when I have spoken to the staff at Cheltenham and when I have been asked to do so. The staff were wrong, and it should not happen again. I want the most watertight understandings and guarantees given on that, and, indeed, they have already been given. However, when the Government are putting their case and claiming severe disruption on the day of action, they might at least acknowledge that they had some part in provoking it, by tearing up a pay agreement. Perhaps a staff association will be more tame — I do not know — but the

49
Government should beware, because staff associations can bite, too, if they are as outraged as the staff at Cheltenham were on that matter.
We do not know how the discussions would have gone if the Government had raised the issue with the full-time officers, the general secretaries of the trade unions, before they took this action. However, we do know that, as a result of the Government's diktat, the trade unions offered an agreement. We have seen a copy of the document which the unions prepared, which was handed to Sir Robert Armstrong, the head of the Civil Service, and discussed with him. It is breathtaking, in my view, in the concessions that it makes and in the lengths to which it goes to meet the Government's views about national security. If what happened in 1981 and the Government's action have brought the Civil Service unions to this level, the Government can claim at least a partial victory in what they have secured.
Let us consider the issue of possible disruption. Let us see what was said in the document which was handed to Sir Robert Armstrong:
"The staff will take no action which would or might interfere with the uninterrupted operation of essential security and intelligence services."
That is an undertaking. The Government say, "Ah, but that is not sufficient. It is not sufficient to have an undertaking in this particular matter." Let us look again at the document:
"It is agreed that there shall be included in the conditions of service of staff employed in GCHQ a provision that they will not take such action."
That is more than an undertaking. That is something that would be written. It is something the trade unions have apparently offered to include in the conditions of service. That is why I say that, in my view, the concessions are utterly breathtaking.
The next paragraph provides for the immunity from risk of industrial disruption, whether in pursuit of national or local disputes. It says that
"the trade union side will not instruct or ask members employed in or under GCHQ to take any action which would or might put at risk the continuous maintenance, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, of essential security and intelligence services at GCHQ."
That is to be written into the conditions of service. What more do the Government want?
Mr. Michael Howard: Would the right hon. Gentleman he good enough to tell the House how, in the event of the unions breaching that agreement at a moment of international crisis, the Government could enforce that agreement?
Mr. Callaghan: If it is in the conditions of service, presumably if the staff break those conditions of service disciplinary action will be taken. That will be as true of a staff association as if they remain members of trade unions. There cannot be any escape from that. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) refuses to face the real issue.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman support the enshrining of those undertakings in statute, because it is a specific security service?
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will know—here I get on to wider ground—that I am opposed to the introduction of the law into these matters. On general philosophical grounds, ever since the 1960s, I have always made my
50
position clear, and I am not ready to go that distance with him. The hon. Gentleman has acted as a trade union official.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No.
Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman does not want to be regarded as having acted as a trade union official, I withdraw the slur on him. However, he will know that when responsible general secretaries of unions enter into an agreement, it is then written into a man's contract of service and is so regarded, and is at least as good as anything that is written into any statute. Indeed, it may be more worth while to the Government than an Act that is forced through an unwilling Parliament against the will of those concerned. However, I do not want to go further on the matter, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
It seems to me that the undertakings that have been offered in this document meet everything for which the Government could ask. However, the Prime Minister spurned it, so she should not be surprised if the only conclusion to be drawn is that she is so emotional and irrational about trade unionism that she cannot bring herself to accept an agreement, even when it meets her requirements.
We do not know the view of the present head of the Civil Service, but we know that sensible negotiations and discussions went on between him and the Civil Service trade union leaders. Also, we know the view, of his immediate predecessor, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, and he is not alone in that view. Former permanent under-secretaries who have at least as much responsibility, at least as much knowledge and at least as much concern about national security have said—and it is known—that they regard the undertakings which have been given, especially the undertaking to write this into people's contracts of service, as sufficient to meet the Government's case.
We know that some members of the Cabinet disagree with what is being done. We know that they have been overridden. We know that a number of Government supporters, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and today the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), have been courageous enough to say publicly what many of their right hon. and hon. Friends believe even if they have not yet said so. But they have an opportunity to influence their Government if they will.
Nor did the Government convince the all-party Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), which rendered a considerable service by acting so quickly in this matter.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister should have spoken in this debate. She is the head of the Civil Service. She is the head of the security services. It is she, it is believed, who has taken this decision in its last essence. She should have accounted for herself to the House of Commons today.
I know that the right hon. Lady will not take any advice from me, but if she were wise she would step back a pace or two. She could do it in the following way. She should invite Lord Bridge of Harwich, the chairman of the Security Commission, and his colleagues, Lord Justice Griffiths, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and General Sir Hugh Beach, to consider the document which the trade unions have prepared for Sir Robert Armstrong. If necessary, let

51
them examine it — let them see the trade unions privately if they wish to do so — to elucidate the document's meaning and to see what is necessary. Let them report to the Prime Minister whether, in their view, the proposals and safeguards are adequate to satisfy the security needs of the Government.
I can think of no group which could better that group. It includes not only two distinguished judges but a former permanent secretary to the Home Office and a defence specialist, General Sir Hugh Beach. There could be no better team assembled. Its members cover all aspects of this matter.
I still urge the Prime Minister to have the wisdom to admit that perhaps there was a little impetuosity in this matter and that it would now be sensible, in view of the disquiet felt on the Government Benches as well as on the Opposition Benches and widely outside the House, to step back and say, "Let someone else look at it." The members of the Security Commission are not people who, by any stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as irresponsible in these matters.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady could disperse a great deal of bitterness now if she were to say to the staff at Cheltenham that until the report of Lord Bridge of Harwich has been prepared, received and considered by her she will defer the date of 1 March by which they must make this choice between their unions and their jobs.
With those two steps the right hon. Lady could get rid of much of the bitterness, which is genuine. She must understand this, because the Government's action is seen as forcing the staff to swallow their principles.
The third step, which I do not suppose the right hon. Lady will take but which would certainly raise the present low morale of the staff at Cheltenham, would be to withdraw the lie detector and lift the slur from the staff. I do not regard that as essential, but I believe that it would do more than anything else to raise the morale of the staff there. It is disquieting to hear reports that it is at a low ebb.
This issue will not die. The issue of principle that is at stake here is older than the Prime Minister and will survive long after she has left office. Whatever the result of the present round, and even if the Prime Minister wins a hollow victory today, I tell her that the staff at Cheltenham, however long it takes, will one day have their rights restored to them by a Prime Minister and a Government who are more careful of the need to safeguard civil liberties as well as national security than she has shown herself to be.
5.36 pm
Dr. David Owen: During more than two years as the Minister responsible for GCHQ I never at any time had any cause to doubt or question the loyalty, patriotism and sheer integrity of the people at the establishment. On one occasion when strike action was called—in February 1979, when I was still Secretary of State — it was noteworthy that at that establishment practically no disruption occurred and that the majority of people were quite content to cross the picket line and continue to work. They were right to do so. I crossed the picket line at that time, and I was right to do so as well.
I say to the Prime Minister, who has not always shown the greatest understanding of this issue, that I hope that she will listen to the suggestion of a former Prime Minister that
52
she should wind up this debate. It is inconceivable that we should have this debate, when she is clearly the person who has made all the major decisions that we are debating, and not have her voice explaining what exactly she still finds deficient in what has been offered by the Civil Service unions.
As the Prime Minister knows, on the day that the original statement was made I said from this Bench that I thought that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was right to ask the trade unionists and others at GCHQ to forgo their right to go to industrial tribunals. They have now agreed to that and instead will use the Civil Service machinery. Those proceedings will be held in private and, therefore, there will be no potential conflict with security in having to reveal information. There is some doubt whether there ever was. But that has been clarified, and that was the sole purpose of issuing a certificate under the Employment Protection Act.
We now have it clear that never before has the Order-in-Council procedure been used to ban anyone from being a member of a trade union. That ban came about as a result of an administrative decision from the Government and does not necessarily follow the mere issuing of a certificate. It was not done in 1976 when the then Secretaries of State issued certificates in respect of the other intelligence establishments. We have had that confirmed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
I wish to tackle the issue on which the Prime Minister has tended to concentrate most, which is that trade union membership is an anomaly in GCHQ and that the Government are simply bringing GCHQ into line with all the other security and intelligence agencies, by which I imagine she means MI6 and MI5.
We have to choose our words carefully in describing the position. The Prime Minister knows that this is a wholly false comparison. The people who serve in these agencies do not admit even to their close friends that they work in such agencies. It is a wholly private arrangement. For that obvious and sensible reason, they have never sought to be members of trade unions. It has not been necessary for any Government to ask those people to disavow their trade unionism. They have never been trade unionists. The reasons are obvious and clear-cut to everyone.
At GCHQ there has never been any question about the identities of those working there. They go through the gates into GCHQ quite openly. They tell their friends that they work in GCHQ. They are proud to work there. It is nonsense to compare MI6 and MI5 with GCHQ. The Prime Minister must know that, and she ought to admit that at the Dispatch Box tonight.
We need to be told whether the trade unions have met the objections over the industrial tribunal. Have they met the Government's legitimate objections over a no-disruption and a no-strike agreement? The alliance has made it quite clear that, in view of the events of 1981, and, possibly, the marginal events in February 1979, it was legitimate to ask for such agreement. The Foreign Secretary has given us no grounds for believing that there are substantive issues on which more should be given by the trade union movement. If there are, we should know, and the trade union movement should know what wording or extra-special agreement needs to be added so that they can respond.
Most people listening to the debate are left only with the Foreign Secretary's rather vague talk about the risk of conflicting pressures. He and the Prime Minister know that

53
people much closer to the nation's security are members of trade unions and risk those conflicting pressures. They work only a few yards away from the Prime Minister's office in No. 10 Downing street. The Foreign Secretary has only to go down the corridor in the Foreign Office to see many similar people—active trade unionists, privy to the most secret and classified information. I dare say that on occasions they are privy to rather more classified information than that which goes through GCHQ.
I ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to realise that the implication of their decision is that there is a risk to national security in the mere fact of being a member of a trade union. It is that which many hon. Members find objectionable, just as much as trade unionists find it objectionable. It is for that reason, more than almost anything else, that the trade union negotiators are prepared to go to almost any lengths to establish that they were prepared to safeguard the national security while still retaining the right to be a member of a trade union. That is why the document that is being presented demonstrates that they are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths, and they are justified and right to do so. The House has the right to know why the document does not meet the needs of legitimate national security for which any Government might be entitled to ask.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is much merit in the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) that the matter should be referred to the Security Commission?
Dr. Owen: That is the suggestion that I put to the Prime Minister at the start of the dispute. I said that the matter should be referred to the Security Commission because its membership was, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) rightly said, beautifully judged to give a balance of views on this most difficult issue. If whoever is to reply to the debate—I hope that it will be the Prime Minister—were to say that the Government are ready to refer the matter to the Security Commission, there would be no necessity to push the matter to the vote.
We have had no explanation why the decision was not taken as soon as the Government felt that there were major security implications in the action taken in 1981. Even that was no justification, although there was abundant justification for going to the unions privately. We are told that some informal discussions took place. At that stage, the heads of major trade unions, who are responsible people, should have been told by the Foreign Secretary that he was concerned and felt bound to ask them to look at the matter. He should have sounded them out in that way. There is a well-established precedent for dealing with such matters in that way. Those conversations could have been entirely private, and the Foreign Secretary must know that such a confidence would have been respected. That should have been done at the highest level by the Minister with responsibility for GCHQ.
As the debate has continued, I have grown ever more concerned about the information about GCHQ that has now been revealed, some of which is damaging. In 1978 the then Attorney-General had to make a decision whether to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act—the famous ABC trial. As the House knows, such decisions are for the Law Officers, not Ministers. I was consulted and I must
54
confess that I had grave anxieties whether such action should take place, for one simple reason—I believed that more information would come out as a result of the trial. The decision was taken and I admit that eventually I was persuaded that it was right to go ahead. However, the decision was made by the Attorney-General and, in retrospect, I believe that I and all those associated with it made the wrong decision. Fact after fact began to emerge from the trial and, in embarrassment, eventually we closed the matter down. That was nothing to what has emerged over the past month. Day after day more information has come out, to an extent which has seriously damaged national security. That is more important than the rather footling argument that has been developed on the questions that we are debating today. Serious facts have emerged which are damaging. We are asked to believe that the dispute will continue and that morale in GCHQ will continue to deteriorate. If ever there was a fertile territory for another Prime case, it is the background of the past few weeks.
Some interesting questions arise on the way in which the House of Commons conducts itself and I want to consider them briefly. I sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 on 25 January. For acceptable reasons, Mr. Speaker, you decided that that should not take place. Then, on 14 February, we had the Select Committee's report. If ever there was a case for an immediate debate, it was that report by the all-party Select Committee. It is now 27 February and the issue has been discussed in every newspaper arid on every radio station, not just in Britain but in every country. It has been discussed in Pravda, Tass and everywhere. At long last we are asking the House of Commons to debate it. What is it debating it on? It is debating it on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, with, apparently, a two-line Whip on the Government and Opposition Benches. What a way to discuss a major issue. [Interruption.] We are told by the Labour party that there is no Whip, no vote. If the House can debate the issue without reaching a decision, there is something strange about the way in which parliamentary democracy works.
The honest answer is that it is justifiable not to have a Division if there are to be further negotiations. However, a much more serious development has now taken place. The issue has now, most unwisely, been taken from the House of Commons by the unions' decision to take strike action. Such strike action is deeply damaging. It is one thing for that strike action to take place within the Civil Service unions, although I wish that it would not, but that it should be widened to include all unions is wrong, and that needs to be said.
In the light of the consequences, it becomes even more important that the House should make its views known. If there are no reasonable signs that the Government have listened to the debate, whether by taking up the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, to refer the matter to the Security Commission, or by undertaking to deal with the matter in some other way, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide the House. We shall do so on the fundamental principle that it is here in the House, not on the streets, not in strike action but by reasoned, sensible and rational debate, that decisions should be taken, and, if need be, taken to the vote.
We urge those Conservative Members who think like us to vote with us. It may be easier for them to vote with us knowing that those who are going into the Lobby will

55
not be those who will in any way associate themselves with the strike action that is to take place tomorrow. They will be those who wish to assert in the House the primacy of the House as the control of the Executive. To those who say that the Government's majority is so vast that no debate and no vote in the House can have any effect, I say that that is a counsel of despair.
If we are to go through the next four years discounting any votes in the House because we shall not win them, it will be a very poor Parliament and House of Commons. The vote and the voice ought to go together. Unless the Prime Minister gives the House a satisfactory assurance tonight, hon. Members will have an opportunity to vote.
5.50 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made the point, which has been made before, that there are other civil servants, not at the GCHQ, who handle equally sensitive matters and who are members of trade unions. I imagine that he has in mind, for example, people who work in ministerial private offices. There is an important difference between them and people working at GCHQ. As far as I know, the people working in ministerial offices have no record of going on strike.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was wrong on at least one point. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), he also was wrong. I forbore to interrupt my hon. Friend because I was afraid that he might not say of me, as he said of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), "How lovely it is to see him." My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was wrong to claim that, in his remark on 14 April 1981, Sir John Nott was referring to GCHQ. I have the question and answer, and it is clear that Sir John Nott was referring to the operational activities of the armed forces. He was responsible for them. He was not responsible for GCHQ. I see my hon. Friend shaking his head, but I have the extract from Hansard. The question is:
"Will my right hon. Friend be assured that whatever the consequences in increased disruption, his decision to send in the Navy to service the Polaris submarine `Resolution' will be supported by the vast majority of people in this country, who find it intolerable that the nation's defences should be put in jeopardy by the action of self-seeking civil servants?"
The relevant part of the answer—
Mr. George Robertson: Read it all.
Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Gentleman can look at it if he wishes. The relevant part of the answer is:
"I assure my hon. Friend that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which we would allow the defence, including the deterrent capacities, of this country, to be adversely affected in any way by such an industrial dispute. I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute"—
that is a reference to the Polaris dispute—
"but up to now they have not in any way affected operational capability in any area." — [Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I raised the matter originally in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is repeating what the Prime Minister said. I raised the subject for one purpose. I know that the Ministry of Defence depends upon the defence capability of GCHQ. If the Secretary of State—not replying only, as I see,
56
about the precise matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised—says that it did not affect operational capability in any area, he should have known better.
Sir Peter Blaker: The Secretary of State for Defence is not responsible for GCHQ. He was asked about areas for which he was responsible, and his reply clearly referred to those areas. There is no doubt about the position.
The Opposition and trade unions' case would be stronger if it were not for three points. The first is the industrial action that we know occurred in 1979 and 1981. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary quoted a case in 1981 in which the trade unions had been asked specifically to avoid action that would damage certain areas of the activities of the GCHQ. He told us that the result was that they specifically aimed their action to damage those areas. That is new information. We must bear that fact in mind when we assess the wisdom of reaching an agreement with the trade unions and relying on it. We know, because we have seen the documents, that in 1981 the Council of Civil Service Unions said:
"48-hour walkouts have severely hit secret monitoring stations belonging to the Composite Signals Organisation. The Government is clearly worried and will be subject to huge pressure from NATO allies."
There is a further quotation from campaign report No. 1 in the same year issued by the Council of Civil Service Unions. It states:
"The use of selective strike action by members in sensitive areas is a key part of our campaign. Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which … defence readiness hampered".
Those statements cannot be repeated too often. The unions make it perfectly clear that they have seen GCHQ as a sensitive and inexpensive target to hit. It is sensitive because of the damage it could do to the country's safety, and it is inexpensive because a great deal of damage can be done with small amounts of strike pay from the unions as the numbers at GCHQ are not large.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about disruption, and as the Government are pinning disruption on the trade unions, is it not incumbent upon the Government to ensure that no disruption occurs from other causes? I understand that disruption was not just being caused by this event, but because there have been a succession of technological breakdowns at GCHQ which could not be repaired because there was insufficient money to provide the technological back-up. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an example—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Member can see that there are a large number of hon. Members waiting to take part in the debate.
Sir Peter Blaker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a point about the extreme importance of the activities of GCHQ. It reinforces the case that I am making, and I am grateful to him.
We are indebted to The Guardian newspaper, which on 30 January quoted Mr. John Sheldon, the general secretary of one of the major unions involved. He was talking about his union's past activities and he said:
"We attempted to disrupt GCHQ and we failed to do so because people there felt their loyalty was primarily to the state."
I should like to endorse the implied compliment paid by Mr. Sheldon to the GCHQ staff. I have no doubt about the loyalty and sense of responsibility of the staff who work there.

57
Sir Brian Tovey, in an interview in The Sunday Times, which has already been mentioned, said:
"GCHQ did not operate at its peak efficiency during both the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the crisis in Poland. It made us look ridiculous."
So, there have been occasions when the actions of the trade unions have had an adverse effect.
The second point on which the trade unions' case is weak is their lack of response to the inquiries that were made—my right hon. and learned Friend has referred to them—in 1980 about the possibility of reaching a no-dispute or no-strike agreement.
The current offers of the trade unions have the air of a death-bed conversion. It is a pity that they did not take up the possibility of reaching a no-strike agreement in 1980.
The Opposition's case is weak on a third ground—the action that they took in 1975, when the Employment Protection Act passed through Parliament; in 1976, when they signed the certificates depriving other intelligence organisations of the protection given by the Employment Protection Act; and in 1978 when they passed the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. These Acts enabled the Government to deprive civil servants involved in matters affecting the security of the nation of the protection offered by the Employment Protection Act.
Mr. John Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment are on the Front Bench, not a single member of the shadow Cabinet is listening to the first speech from the Back Benches in favour of the Government's point of view? People outside who may be listening to the debate should know that.
Sir Peter Blaker: My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that important point. Not one member of the shadow Cabinet is on the Opposition Front Bench. One junior spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is present. I noted that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East left the Chamber immediately after making his speech.
One is entitled to ask why the Labour Government legislated in 1975 and again in 1978, saying that Governments would have the power to deprive civil servants of the protection offered by the Employment Protection Acts on grounds of national security. Why did they legislate in that way if they did not intend that power to be used, if necessary, in future? If they intended that power to be used at some time in the future, to what organisation did they think it might be relevant, as already MI5 and MI6 had been deprived of the protection given by the Acts? What other organisation did they have in mind? They must have had some organisation in mind. Perhaps someone can suggest what it was.
Mr. John Smith: I understand that in my temporary absence from the Chamber I was attacked by the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to tell him why I left. I was summoned to leave by a Minister from the Department of Employment to discuss a matter at his request.
Sir Peter Blaker: I am grateful for that explanation and to notice that there are now two Opposition Members on the Front Bench. At least that is an improvement.
I should like to know what organisation the Labour Government had in mind when they passed the legislation to which I referred. I cannot think of any other
58
organisation that is such an obvious candidate as the GCHQ. We should go back to first principles. As I have already said in the House, it seems illogical and wrong for workers in intelligence organisations to be represented by national unions, most of the officers of which are not part of those organisations. Those officers will tend not to have the same level of security clearance as members of GCHQ. There is thus a built-in problem.
Mr. David Winnick: The argument that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing could be used for employees in other sensitive positions in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere. Does he not recognise that the very arguments that are now being advanced, which he supports, only confirm our suspicion that in time the Government will try to extend the ban?
Sir Peter Blaker: We have had assurances, which I accept, from my right hon. Friends. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the wording of the two Acts passed under the Labour Government — the Employment Protection Acts of 1975 and 1978. They require that the power be exercised only for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
It is illogical that members of GCHQ are represented by people who have a lower security clearance than they have. I make it clear that I am not impugning the patriotism of the staff of GCHQ, but inevitably this situation poses a practical problem. How are the national staff, without adequate security clearance, to discuss fully the problems and grievances of the staff at GCHQ without going into matters to which they are not entitled to be privy? As we have heard, there is a built-in conflict of interests.
Some ridicule has been cast on the thought that it has been possible to take action only since 1983 because, it is said, not many people knew before 1983 what GCHQ was involved in. It is said that the Russians, the people in Cheltenham and others knew. However, the fact is that it was never publicly stated by any Government until 1983 that GCHQ was an intelligence-gathering organisation. It may seem odd if many people knew roughly what GCHQ was involved in, but I know enough of civil servants to be confident what would have been their advice at any time before the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May 1983 to the effect that GCHQ was an intelligence organisation. Civil servants would have advised until they were blue in the face that we should not take the step that has now been taken because it had never been stated publicly that GCHQ was an intelligence organisation. That is how civil servants operate. I speak as one who was a civil servant for 10 years.
The right way for the staff of GCHQ to be represented is by a staff associaton. There is no reason why a staff association should not represent them satisfactorily. There is the example of the Police Federation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred.
The unions have offered concessions, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the unions are insisting that the no-disruption agreement that they have offered should distinguish between one category of staff and another. I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will wind up the debate, to elaborate on that point. If that is so, it is a bar to acceptance of the unions' proposal. One cannot

59
satisfactorily separate one type of category of staff at GCHQ from the rest. One may say that some are involved in activities that are not directly concerned with the most secret work of the organisation. That is true. However, one must take the staff as a whole, as a block. One cannot say that the unions can deal with the grievances of the less important people but not of the more important people without getting oneself rapidly into trouble on security matters that should not be revealed.
If there is scope for agreement with the unions, it would have to be an agreement that left the role of the unions purely nominal. Virtually the only function of the unions would be to collect subscriptions of the members of GCHQ. That would not be a satisfactory arrangement from the point of view of the staff.
Tomorrow's industrial action is a powerful example of why the staff at GCHQ should not belong to trade unions. An atmosphere of hysteria has been worked up by some trade unions. The behaviour of some of them is deeply irresponsible. It is certainly disproportionate. I understand that some of it is illegal. If the unions are prepared to break the law over this matter, what reason have we to think that they will not break a contract? Is it not more serious to break the law than to break a contract, which is what they are proposing should be made with the Government?
There has been a reference to Solomon Binding, a gentleman we knew when the Labour Government were in power. We know what happened to the solemn and binding agreement that the Labour Government made with the unions. That agreement did not last long. I have a feeling that, on a matter of this importance, it is inconceivable that if there were only an agreement of the type so far offered by the trade unions, they might find it unacceptable to keep to it in future. Therefore, I believe that every person who goes on strike tomorrow will be helping to confirm the Government's case.
6.9 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: I am sure the House agrees that the Government's unprecedented step in unilaterally altering terms and conditions of employment and attempting completely to suppress trade unionism at GCHQ was an appropriate matter for the Select Committee to inquire into and examine. Our report is proferred in what I hope is a helpful and constructive manner to shed light on the facts and to suggest a way out of what I regard as an unhappy, sad and unnecessary situation.
The Committee started from the common ground that any Government have a responsibility to ensure national security, that questions of national security arise at GCHQ, that industrial action there could disrupt national security and that the Government have a legitimate interest in seeing that the exercise of trade unionism at GCHQ does not damage national security.
In its inquiry the Committee sought to establish whether the measures announced by the Foreign Secretary on 25 January banning trade unions were necessary, whether that was the only option, whether in all the circumstances the measures were right, whether the Government acted appropriately in their manner and handling of the matter and what would be the effect on the staff concerned. In short, did the Government take the right action in the right way?
60
Unfortunately, there is a gap or imbalance in the evidence, as we were able to talk to Sir Brian Tovey, recently director of GCHQ, but not to Mr. Jack Hart, the senior elected trade union official and chairman of the staff side of the Whitley council at Cheltenham, because a stop was put on Mr. Hart's appearing before the Committee. In paragraphs 194 and 195 of his evidence Sir Brian paid glowing tribute to Mr. Hart, confirming that Mr. Hart had positive clearance and was a person with whom Sir Brian could work and in whom he had complete confidence and trust. The question of national security was not relevant in that instance, as we wished to discuss industrial relations and not security secrets with Mr. Hart. I greatly regret the fact that we could not see him. No doubt the House will wish to consider the implications of that prohibition at an early date.
Having heard the evidence and reread the transcripts, I do not believe that the Government have acted properly or that their measures are justified. As we say in the report, the Government's handling of the matter
"could not be described as a model of its kind".
The House will note the temperance of our language. We seek not to score cheap points but to address ourselves seriously to the issue. We have also heard the comment of the former head of the Home Civil Service, that the Government's action was "breathtakingly inept".
I find the Government's case literally incredible. That is why I asked the Foreign Secretary when he appeared before the Committee whether there was anything that he wished to tell us in camera. I was so unconvinced by the Government's public presentation of the case that I wondered whether there was some as yet undisclosed reason for these draconian measures. Apparently, there was not. Personally, I find the Government's action—it is entirely without precedent — ill-advised, misconceived, unacceptable in the violence that it does to civil liberties and freedom of association, unnecessary and counterproductive in its effect and highly damaging to GCHQ. I believe that there were—and are—better ways of dealing with the matter.
The Committee's criticisms fall under six main headings which I shall amplify in my own way. The first relates to timing. The Government said that they were seriously concerned about the effect of industrial action at GCHQ between February 1979 and April 1981. They have not satisfactorily explained why, if they were so worried and if a
"great danger to the state" — [Official Report, 3 February 1984; Vol. 530, c. 53.]
was discerned so long ago, it took five years for them to take any action. If there was such a great danger, it was surely dereliction of duty not to act to remedy the situation by an approach to the unions nationally. The answer that it was all secret and hush-hush is utterly lame and unconvincing. The centre was written about in the press in 1976 and 1978.
The Foreign Secretary himself has quoted a strike sheet — campaign report No. 5 — showing that the unions were well aware of the centre's work. Sir Brian Tovey also, in paragraph 187 of his evidence, mentioned talking to national union officials who
"although they had derived an awareness of what we were doing from the press and so on, were nevertheless constrained from actually saying so to management's faces".
The unions therefore knew. We also know that other countries' intelligence services knew.

61
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it was impossible to talk to the unions before the Prime case while at the same time saying that half- hearted local and informal talks were held in 1980. In holding those talks at all the Government surrendered the argument that it was impossible to talk to the unions. Finally, are we really to believe that but for the emergence of Prime this so-called great danger to the state would have been tolerated indefinitely? That stretches credulity too much.
The second criticism concerns the lack of consultation. After five years of masterly inactivity, this stark thunderbolt came out of the blue without any prior notice at all. That is astonishing. There was no consultation with the House or with the Cabinet. The Foreign Secretary suggested that this was a minor matter with which there was no need to bother his Cabinet colleagues. Had he done so, I suspect that we should not be in this mess. Despite the unprecedented step of unilaterally altering terms of employment, as no other employer would be allowed to do, there was no consultation with the staff or their representatives—what an example for the Government to set—and no serious national approach to the unions even in private to say confidentially, "Here is a problem—what can we do to resolve it?" Had such an approach been made and rebuffed, the Government would have had far more plausible grounds for these harsh and extreme measures.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leighton: No; I promised to take only 10 minutes. The unions have now responded and the case for the ban has not been made out.
The third area of criticism concerns the way in which the Government have shifted their ground and released information about their actions almost furtively in instalments. It was not clear from the statement of 25 January that staff who declined to move to alternative posts would be sacked without compensation. Furthermore, the Foreign Secretary on 25 January used the following words:
"The certificates have immediate effect and new conditions of service are at the same time being introduced at GCHQ." —[Official Report, 25 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 917.]
Two things were confused in that one unpunctuated sentence. The inference was that trade unions were banned by certificates under the Employment Acts, which as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know have a respectable lineage, whereas that was not the case. It was dragged out only later that the action was being taken under a separate legal instrument under an Order in Council of 1982 on the authority of the Prime Minister. There was certainly sleight of hand about that on 25 January.
The fourth criticism concerns the inducement—again utterly unprecedented—of £1,000 to leave a union. Incidentally, the Foreign Secretary did not say on 25 January that the payment was subject to tax, but perhaps he did not know that. It is clear that many people find that offer deeply repugnant and offensive. The Foreign Secretary said that the offer
"is only one indication of the importance we attach to the principles at stake."
Plainly, there are those who find the idea that their principles are up for sale for £1,000 cash an affront and an insult. I believe that it also sticks in the throats of many Members of Parliament.
62
The fifth criticism is that, although the smooth and efficient operation of GCHQ depends on good staff relations and willing co-operation, the Government's actions have soured relations, angered staff, destroyed morale and attracted widespead, unwelcome attention.
If the House could face some black humour, it would savour the sentence starting on the third line of the letter sent to the staff by Peter Marychurch, director of GCHQ, on 25 January. It reads:
"Ministers have recently decided that because GCHQ must be able to work in secrecy and to provide a service on which the Government and our allies can confidently rely at all times, it should be freed as far as possible from the dangers of its operations being discussed in public."
How far has that objective been achieved? What on earth are we doing now? The centre is illuminated by a blaze of publicity. It must be the most highly publicised spy centre in the world. Staff are saying that Ministers in this House are blurting out all the information which in the past they have kept secret even from their wives.
The sixth criticism is that there is no analogy with MI5 or MI6. The latter are small groups of professionals recruited on the basis that there will be no trade unionism. GCHQ has a staff of thousands, recruited for decades on the basis that there would be trade unions. Indeed, guidance notes for new employees encourage them to belong to trade unions. Furthermore, I have heard no suggestion that we should set up staff associations for MIS or MI6. There is no analogy.
Why did the Government take this action? Prima facie, it is inexplicable. In the report we charitably leant over backwards to put the best possible construction on the Government's action. We wondered—I paraphrase—whether their extremist stance was a bargaining counter designed to elicit concessions from the unions. However that may be, there has been a remarkable and profound response from the Civil Service unions on the Government's four objectives of no disruption, no disclosure, no intrusion and no conflict of loyalties. The unions replied that they were willing to meet all those objectives. That is a basis for an agreement.
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to make that statement if he was aware that evidence was recorded in private from Sir Brian Tovey to the effect that in 1980 the unions were informally approached for a no-strike agreement and no agreement was forthcoming?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Leighton: At the expense of prolonging my speech for a couple of minutes, I point out that Sir Brian Tovey said that there were informal talks. How can the Government say that it was impossible to talk to the unions before Prime if, according to the hon. Gentleman, such talks took place? The talks were informal and unofficial. They were not on a national basis. I should have preferred the approach to be made on a national level. The unions have now come forward with their response.
In his evidence to the Committee, in paragraph 94, the Foreign Secretary said:
"I readily recognise that the scene now is not the same as it was in 1981."
In other words, we have elicited from the unions the response that the hon. Gentleman wants, and it must be perverse of the Government not to take yes for an answer.

63
It cannot go beyond the wit of a British Government and British unions in this sphere to reach a mutually satisfactory voluntary arrangement, and a voluntary arrangement must be much better than one which the Government attempt to impose by diktat. The Committee's report points the way out of this fiasco—the way to achieve the Government's four objectives while retaining the civil right of free association. After all, it is these precious rights that the centre is there to protect.
The Committee's recommendations call on the Government to satisfy themselves that the unions' offers satisfy every requirement of national security, that the unions offer whatever legally binding assurances are necessary, and that the arrangements would not create a precedent but would apply solely to national security at GCHQ. We recommended the Government and the unions, using their reason and rationality, to get together and reach agreement on those lines. In the event of such an agreement guaranteeing the continuity of operations at GCHQ, the Government should withdraw their proposal to prohibit employees at GCHQ from belonging to a trade union; and, in the meantime, all action consequent upon the certificate signed by the Foreign Secretary should be suspended.
That would not be a defeat for anyone. It would not be a climb-down. It would not involve a loss of face. The Government would have achieved all that they want. It would surely be a victory for reason. If there was ever any suggestion in the future that the agreement was not being abided by, the state would still retain all the powers to take the draconian measures that it has contemplated.
What is the alternative? What will happen if our suggestions are dismissed out of hand? What if the Government are unreasonable, if they confuse resolution with rigidity, if they are stiff, mulish, inflexible, and obdurate? What if they are clad in cast-iron, with minds and brains like concrete, all mixed up and set hard? I would not give much for the future of GCHQ. We should jeopardise and grievously damage a valuable national security asset. The Government would cause much more disruption than anything the unions have done. It is true that the unions caused disruption. There was not much disruption, but the director says that any disruption is too much, and the unions agree. All hon. Members of the House agree.
However, what is to happen now? What disruption will the Government's action cause? According to the Tovey article in The Sunday Times, the advice was given to the Government that only about 20 members of staff would object. It is now clear that that advice was wrong and that many more are objecting, despite all the pressure and propaganda and the worry about wives, families, mortgages and careers. Despite the appalling financial coercion, which I personally deplore, many more are resisting.
I do not want to join in the numbers game. It is meaningless. I suspect that less than half the staff are members of trade unions. To say that a majority have signed, therefore, is only to say that the majority who are not members of trade unions have taken £1,000 not to join the unions to which they do not wish to belong. I suspect that a majority of trade unionists—or a goodly number—have not signed, despite coercion.
64
Sir Brian Tovey told us that if 10 per cent. of the staff left the work of the centre would be disrupted but that he did not think that the number of staff resisting would approach that number. That has been proved wrong.
I ask the Government whether, on 2 March, they will sack forthwith those who have signed. That is the crunch.
Mr. Tom King: Those who have not signed.
Mr. Leighton: I am glad that the Secretary of State is listening intently. I hope that he will tell us clearly whether they will sack forthwith those who have not signed.
Mr. King: No.
Mr. Leighton: I was certain that the answer would be no. On 7 February, in the Select Committee, we asked the Foreign Secretary how difficult it would be to recruit replacement staff in different categories if large numbers opted to leave. He said:
"This is a hypothetical question because the ability of the Government to recruit new staff, or of other Government Departments to absorb GCHQ staff, will depend clearly on the numbers and specialisms of those concerned. This cannot be known until March. And thereafter transfer and recruitment procedures are likely to take some considerable time."
I would say some very considerable time.
What will happen during that time? What type of staff relations will there be? How many people will find conditions there intolerable and join Sir Brian Tovey at Plessey? Is it not clear that there will be the most widespread disruption—far worse than anything that the unions have caused? Is it not an ill-advised, misguided and crazy way to proceed? I appeal to the Government to think again—second thoughts are often much better—in our nation's interest and to reconsider and proceed along the lines suggested in the Select Committee's report.
6.29 pm
Sir Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), a good many other Opposition Members and one or two Conservative Members have said, first, that there is no danger to security at GCHQ and, secondly, that if there is the unions will make such promises as to ensure that no harm will result. I do not see how the first proposition can be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) has documented precisely the number of strikes and go-slows that have occurred at GCHQ. He also pointed out that they took place at critical times. Our attention has been called to a letter written by Mr. Sheldon of the Council of Civil Service Unions in which he deliberately targeted GCHQ as a place that the union would disrupt then and in the future. I do not see how it can possibly be said that there is no danger.
If there is a danger, can we rely on the procedures that have been variously proposed? Can we be sure that the unions would use them and that no danger would result? Mr. Solomon Binding has already been referred to. He has been dishonoured so often that I am surprised that anyone should think that such undertakings are worth having. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who must know more about Mr. Solomon Binding—and regret him—than any other hon. Member, should now return to this ironic cliché and invite us to embrace him.
I join those who say that workers at GCHQ are just as patriotic as anyone else. I go further. Because they work

65
in an intelligence environment, they are probably more conscious than most of us about the value of loyalty where they work. I assume also that I can say that the Government have no doubt about their loyalty. If that were not the case they would not be doing their best to ensure that none of them leave the service. However, loyalty does not surmount the problem of intrusion by trade union procedures and conditions in the normal routine of inquiries and tribunals into what goes on at GCHQ. To conduct them properly, outsiders have to be brought in. A conflict of loyalties will inevitably beset workers at GCHQ at such inquiries and tribunals. If it is argued that such arrangements can be made entirely within GCHQ, we are left with a staff association such as is now being proposed.
It has been suggested that the unions should divide staff into security and non-security people. That is not a practical proposition. I am certain that the judgment of a trade union official about who is "security" and who is not is not to be trusted. I am not suggesting that officials would not try to make the distinction properly, but they cannot have the knowledge on which to make such a decision. That can only be done by the Government, whose duty it is.
As to the substance of the matter, therefore, I do not believe that any case has been made by Opposition Members. As to the method, I agree that there can be two views. But is it not obvious that the trade union leaders would never have agreed to the abolition of trade unions in GCHQ? Tentative conversations were turned down in 1980, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out earlier. The uproar that is now going on and the conduct of trade union leaders, especially of Len Murray, are proof enough that the trade unions would never have agreed. Calling a conference to reach some form of conclusion which was not acceptable in any circumstances would have been dubbed hypocritical, and that is precisely the charge that is now being levelled at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister because she received trade union leaders at 10 Downing street, did not agree with them and said so. She is called hypocritical for allowing them to come to talk to her.
Trade union negotiators necessarily believe that negotiation ends up with a 50–50 compromise between the proposition and the defence. For this problem, however, there cannot be a half and half solution. Either trade union practices are allowed at GCHQ or they are not. It would have been positively deceitful to have called consultations when it was known that there could not be agreement. The horror shock surprise of TUC leaders that the Prime Minister should stand on principle shows how little they understand or wish to understand the problems.
There has been criticism of the delay in making a decision. There might be something in that. We must allow natural reluctance to provoke the type of row we are having to weigh with us. Delay does not imply that the problem has gone away or does not exist.
Mr. John Page: My hon. Friend is making a most thoughtful speech. Does he agree that if earlier or immediate action had been taken it would have led to exactly the claim of victimisation and vindictiveness that is often levelled at employers who take action after a dispute? The whole point is to let the thing simmer down.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend, who has great experience of labour relations, speaks wisely. I am sure that no better result could have been achieved.
66
I understand that it is being proposed to go to international law. I am not an international lawyer, but that step seems unlikely to be successful. The International Labour Organisation convention exempts the police and armed forces from the right to belong to trade unions. The convention was drawn up a long time ago when the police and the armed forces were the only forces that concerned themselves with intelligence. In a nuclear age, however, early intelligence and surveillance are equally important as, if not more important than, the police.
Mr. John Morris rose—
Sir Anthony Kershaw: We have an international lawyer with us.
Mr. John Morris: I am not pretending to be an international lawyer, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the convention that the TUC has called in aid is dated no earlier than 1948 and that the exclusion for the armed forces and the police would not apply to his point.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: We shall see who is right. I do not believe that the convention will be found to be applicable in this case. The human rights convention, which specifically mentions security forces, will cover the point if application is made to that court in Europe.
The protestations that we have heard from the Opposition would come better from people who are prepared to make an equal amount of noise about the right not to join a trade union. Closed minds on the closed shop are not the best advocates of freedom. The people at GCHQ still have many rights. They have the ordinary rights of civil servants, including those relating to conditions of transfer and work and protection under various Acts of Parliament to do with health and so on. They still have the same rights as the armed forces and the police, the functions of which, in relation to the state, are similar. The Labour Government enforced that policy in regard to the armed forces and the police. I note that they have fared a great deal better under the present Government than under Labour. The only right that people at GCHQ have lost is that, for negotiating reasons, to endanger the safety of the state. That is a right that no one should have.
6.39 pm
Mr. John Morris: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) because in the last few minutes of his speech he raised matters of law. In my short speech I hope to raise questions about law and shall be grateful if the Minister will answer them when he replies.
It became abundantly clear during the reluctant exchanges between the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and myself that the withdrawal of the right to join a trade union does not come under the certificate of the Employment Protection Act. It comes from instructions made under the Order in Council — the royal prerogative. It became abundantly clear that while the Government prayed in aid, in the original statement of the Foreign Secretary and his statement today, precedents for signing certificates under the Employment Protection Act, there was no precedent, under this or any other Order in

67
Council, to withdraw the right to join a trade union. That fact must be clearly established in our exchanges with the Foreign Secretary today.
As the Government from time to time make great play of the point that they receive their support partly because of the importance they place on law and order, it is important to examine closely whether they come to the House with clean hands regarding the law in relation to GCHQ. Never mind that they are behaving like an old-fashioned Victorian employer. This is one of the earliest fruits of returning to the Victorian values that the Prime Minister prays so much in aid. However, whether they can use the royal prerogative to vary unilaterally the conditions of service of their employees is open to argument. Under the royal prerogative it is certainly provided that the Government can dismiss and re-engage their employees, but unilaterally to vary the contract without dismissal and re-engagement cannot be done unless the courts can infer that the variations are effectively dismissal and reemployment.
An equally, if not more, important issue is the possible—indeed, probable—breach of Britain's international obligations. I do not recall—I may have missed it and do not wish to be unfair—a reference to that by the Foreign Secretary in his speech. In his statement to the Select Committee, he said:
"On the basis of the legal advice available to the Government this action is in accordance with our international legal obligations."
I shall examine the main obligations that could be affected. The first is International Labour Organisation convention 87. It is dated 1948 and is ratified by the British Government; therefore, we cannot lightly ignore it without being seen to be in breach of international obligations. Article 2 states:
"Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation."
GCHQ is a case in point.
Article 3 states:
"Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules."
It continues:
"The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."
Article 8 states:
"In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land.
2. The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention."
Article 9 states:
"The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations."
There is no reference to civil servants. The exclusion is confined specifically to the armed forces and the police.
Mr. Nicholls: Is my recollection correct that article 1.2 of convention 151, which was signed in 1978, is to the effect that public servants who are dealing with information of a peculiarly sensitive nature are also deprived of the right of trade union membership?
Mr. Morris: Article 151 is wholly different, stands on its own and in no way seeks to limit the general provision. I agree and accept that there is an exclusion in 151, which is why I do not propose to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I mention the articles because I seek clarification.
Will the Minister explain the position where there is more than one convention each of which has different exclusions? Some exclude the whole body of public administration, some exclude national security interests and this one excludes the armed forces and the police. The Foreign Secretary has not said a word about that today, and in Select Committee we heard only the confident tone that the Government were satisfied that they had carried out their obligations. Where there are two conventions, both of which are equally binding on the Government, and one provides for a particular exclusion and the other does not, what is the position? We have not had clarification either in Select Committee or from the Foreign Secretary, and so I ask for it this afternoon. I cannot be denied that request.
Contrary to views expressed in the past few weeks, I find difficulty in applying the 1950 European convention on human rights because it excludes persons engaged in the administration of the state. It also provides for restrictions where they are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of national security. This is a parallel point. Whether the Government—I assume that the convention applies — could satisfy the European Court on the second point, that they have made a bona fide determination, allowing them every reasonable margin of appreciation, might be questioned. "Necessary" is a word with a mandatory nuance about it. How far, given the offer of the unions to provide guarantees for the changes in their conditions of work, the exclusion of the basic rights that they have enjoyed so far is necessary, it might not be easy for the Government to argue. As confirmation, I have the evidence of Sir Brian Tovey that, had the particular proposal of the trade unions been available to the Government at that stage, they would not have needed to carry out the administrative acts that they have done. That would count against the Government if they tried to pray in aid the need to act in this way because it was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of national security.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) mentioned in Committee the international covenant on civil and political rights of 1966. That is a United Nations convention and the only restriction it provides is a personal one regarding the police and the armed forces, not unlike the restriction in the ILO convention. It has a restriction similar to that contained in the European convention on human rights, and refers to exclusions
"necessary in a democratic society for the protection … of national security."
A similar argument applies to the unions' offer. If the offer is excluded, was the Government's action necessary to protect national security? I doubt, given the terms of the offer, whether the Government could make a case on that.
Article 22(2) of the covenant states:
"No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are proscibed by law, which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety."

69
In the Select Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West asked the Foreign Secretary whether the right to belong to a trade union was proscribed by law. The Foreign Secretary replied:
"No, it is the right—or the change in that repect is made by the change in the terms and conditions of service."
As reported on page 41 of the report, the Foreign Secretary continued to justify this:
"It is the Prime Minister who is acting by virtue of the Civil Service Order in Council 1982, and it is that Order, part of the law of England, which gives her authority from time to time to make regulations or give instructions for controlling the conduct of the service and for the conditions of service of those employed in it. It is as a result of our power to act under the 1982 Order in Council that the changes in the terms and conditions of service are being introduced as set out in the notice."
The Government are obviously relying upon the Order in Council coupled with the Prime Minister's instructions made under it. I note that there is a gap in time between the certificate signed by the Foreign Secretary on 25 January and the confirmation of instruction on 7 February. That became apparent in an answer given last Thursday, and was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). However, there may be no significance in the gap.
The position is not as clear-cut as the Foreign Secretary would have us believe. The order does not proscribe; it merely empowers the Minister to give instructions
"for controlling the conduct of the service, and providing for the classification of all persons employed herein and, so far as they relate to matters other than remuneration, expenses and allowances, the conditions of service of all persons."
We need a great deal of imagination to understand this, but it would appear that the words, "the conditions of service", give the Government the power to deny people the right to belong to a trade union.
I return to my original anxiety: whether the Government are satisfied that the royal prerogative allows them unilaterally to vary conditions of employment as opposed to sacking and reinstatement. The House has traditionally been against the royal prerogative since the Magna Carta. In 1611 the courts said:
"The Sovereign can claim no prerogative except such as the law allows, nor such as are contrary to Magna Carta or any other statutes, or to the liberties of the subject."
It would be strange if the House could easily endorse the interpretation that a prime ministerial instruction can automatically be proscriptive in law and a denial of the hallowed liberties of the subject.
The House cannot make law. It is strange that, on this interpretation, the Prime Minister can make law by edict. The Government may be right in this connection, but, if they are, the sooner that the House examines the extent of the royal prerogative, the better. Whatever doubts and difficulties there may be about other conventions—I should be glad to know the Minister's view on this—there is serious anxiety about ILO convention 87. I put forward that convention, having considered all the others in turn, as the greatest hurdle facing the Government. If we cannot have a clear answer tonight, I hope that a paper will be placed in the Library to justify the Government's case that they have adhered to their international obligations. In that way, we can understand how they put their case.
6.55 pm
Mr. John Gorst: As some of my hon. Friends know, some years ago I was involved in and gave my support in a well-publicised industrial dispute at
70
Grunwick. They may be puzzled by my apparent volte face in now taking the side of the trade union movement at GCHQ, Cheltenham. May I tell those of my hon. Friends who may believe this to be inconsistent that there is no such inconsistency. At Grunwick I argued for the right not to belong to a trade union, and with GCHQ I argue for the right to belong to a trade union; if one makes one such argument, one must be consistent with the other.
As a member of the Select Committee when it embarked upon its examination of the Government's intention to ban membership of a trade union, I began with the assumption that banning union membership could be justified on the very special grounds of national security. However, I wondered even then whether the Government had addressed themselves to their announcement in the best possible way. As the Committee's inquiry progressed, I gradually came to the conclusion that the Government were not necessarily correct in banning unions at GCHQ. Much of the credit for my change of mind — my conversion, if that is what it was — is due to the evidence given by Sir Brian Tovey.
I conceded at the outset of the inquiry—I still do—that drastic action is justifiable to protect national security. I am convinced that dangerous disruption due to industrial action took place in 1979 and 1981. That is common ground among all sides in this argument, but our response to those facts differs. I do not accept that the Government have adequately examined the options that are now open. I admit that those options may not have been available when the decisions were being discussed, but times have changed and options now exist. Nor do I believe that the Government have given convincing reasons for rejecting what the unions have conceded. The unions have offered unprecedented concessions and have said that they are willing to agree to equally unprecedented and legally binding assurances. Why have not the Government pursued those options?
Before dealing with that matter, I should mention the Select Committee. It would be wrong to overlook two aspects of the Committee's deliberations. Important morals for all Select Committees can and should be drawn from the points that I shall make. It is a compliment to the integrity of those on the Committee that it published a unanimous report. It was founded on facts and I believe that we propounded those facts with objectivity. However, while we were examining our subject I had reason to complain of interference by both Whips and Ministers as to how we were conducting our proceedings. That complaint still stands; indeed, I have further noticed, since our report was published, that there are further signs of Whips' or Government interest in how we are conducting our affairs in the Select Committee on Employment. Perhaps that is a compliment to our potency and the value of the Select Committee system, but it also has its dangers.
The purpose of Select Committees is to examine facts and to examine how the Executive conducts itself, and for that purpose a Committee must choose its own subjects of inquiry. It must select for itself which witnesses it believes are relevant. There has been interference—subtly applied, of course—in both those areas, and such interference endangers the work of Select Committees. It inhibits one of the most valuable instances of progress made in recent years to provide an extra balance against the overwhelming power of the Executive.

71
Select Committees must not be undermined. The independence of Select Committees needs to be reinforced. They must not only be independent, they must be seen and known to be so.
The Government refused to allow witnesses to give evidence in private to the Select Committee on Employment. The two witnesses whom the Government disallowed were a leading trade union representative within GCHQ and the present director. I make no complaint about the latter; I do make complaint about the former.
The reasons given for denying the opportunity to give evidence are both specious and anomalous. They are specious because they hide behind a ruling made on the very day that Geoffrey Prime's role at GCHQ was first avowed. That ruling, quoted by the Foreign Secretary, was that
"Government does not provide information … on matters of security and intelligence".
But the ban by the Foreign Secretary was upheld, despite his being told that the Committee's purpose was merely to question the witnesses on the terms and conditions of employment and despite his having said in a written answer on the same day that we were questioning him:
"elected trade union representatives are allowed to publicise their unions' views on matters which directly affect the conditions of service of members of their union." —[Official Report, 6 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 490.]
The Foreign Secretary's reasons are, I believe, anomalous because, throughout the subsequent days, trade unionists from GCHQ have had access to the media and access to their Members of Parliament, and they came in droves to lobby Members of Parliament last Thursday. What, I wonder, had been done, is being done, or will be done about that?
Thus we have a ridiculous situation in which a GCHQ trade unionist can talk with other trade unionists outside GCHQ, and talk to Members of Parliament, but a Select Committee, wishing to sit in secret, can talk to none of them. I hope that this House will look with disfavour on that undesirable intrusion by the Government into how Select Committees conduct their business.
The Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee, when he was asked how he could equate discussions and information purely about terms and conditions of employment with matters of security:
"It is not a question of equating it; it is a question of applying the rule."
Hon. Members may well regard that reply as being rather short on reasonableness and rather long on pedantry. Suffice it say, however, that it had the momentary effect of hiding the deep mortification felt by those who work at GCHQ.
One of the reasons given by the Government for not accepting the Civil Service unions' far-reaching concessions is that the fact of union membership creates of itself a condition in which individuals are torn between a loyalty to their union and a loyalty to their employer, GCHQ. I regard that as a dangerous fallacy.
Mr. Bill Walker: Would my hon. Friend accept that, in a previous incarnation, I found myself in that very unsatisfactory position? I assure my hon. Friend that it is real.
Mr. Gorst: I shall talk about the dilemma of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) after I have developed my argument a little further. I am sure that he will agree with me that there are ways in which the dilemma can be overcome.
What has happened is disturbing because it harks back to the early part of the last century when, after 150 years, the test Acts were finally repealed. Hon. Members may recall that those notorious Acts debarred Roman Catholics and nonconformists from working in the armed services and the Civil Service because, it was alleged, they could not be trusted, on account of their divided allegiances. Therefore, just as religion was once claimed to be a threat, so today, in the 20th century, union membership is held to pose a disruptive threat. This, I believe, is a most uncomfortable development. Indeed, I believe it is a most infamous theme that is behind the argument.
The argument is also fallacious. Hon. Members will know all about divided loyalties. We have loyalties to our country, to our constituents, to our party, to our families, and, yes, some of us even to trade unions. I do not believe that we have the slightest difficulty in reconciling those conflicting pressures, whether we are Back Benchers or whether we are Ministers. Why should those who work at GCHQ be in any different category?
Given the fundamental principles involved, it is inevitable that this sorry episode should now be escalating. Possibly an illegal TUC-backed campaign, with industrial action, will be mounted. If that happens, the Government will not be alone in arguing that illegal disruption only goes to show how right the Government have been. But I take leave to differ. If provoking one's opponent is the best way to prove the validity of one's arguments, those arguments must be shamefully thin.
Nevertheless, I say to the trade unions, "Two wrongs never make a right, nor is the path of wisdom to win your rights by putting yourself in the wrong. To defend rights by perpetrating wrongs must in the long run be counter-productive".
Equally, I say to the Government, "Where is the wisdom in allowing no honourable way of retreat for the trade unions? Do you really expect them to surrender without protest a right that could be conceded, at least in embryo, if the Government took up their offers of concessions? Were you really surprised when an ex gratia payment of £1,000 was interpreted as an offer of 30 pieces of silver? Was it really impossible for you before the announcement to consult the right hon. Lionel Murray, a Privy Councillor, on Privy Councillor terms before you promulgated those decisions?"
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many hon. Members have listened to the hon. Gentleman putting an honourable point of view on radio and in the House. Why does he think that his Government did what it did? What led them to take that action?
Mr. Gorst: I should like to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but nothing I heard in the Select Committee or this afternoon in the House has given me any inkling about the Government's true motives. I can assume only that they are basing their actions on inadequate reasons.
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend wonders why the Government did not make an approach to simplify the negotiation. Why did the Committee's report leave out

73
those parts of Sir Brian Tovey's evidence which would have shown exactly what the Government's position would be, including the fact — I can refer my hon. Friend to the paragraph numbers if he cannot remember them—that the first informal approach was made in 1980 and was then turned down flat? Does my hon. Friend accept that, if those parts of the evidence had appeared in the report, the report might have been a great deal more helpful?
Mr. Gorst: I believe that I can help my hon. Friend by saying that Sir Brian Tovey's report is available from the Vote Office in its entirety, except for a few sidelined paragraphs which he asked to have deleted, which in no way—
Mr. Nicholls: All of the evidence is not public. My hon. Friend knows that I cannot refer to it in the House.
Mr. Gorst: That is possible. I can give my hon. Friend a copy. He is incorrect in his assumption. The relevant evidence given by Sir Brian Tovey was to the effect that had he had those concessions on offer he would have found them more acceptable than banning a union, provided that they were reinforced by concrete assurances. That is the basis upon which the Committee reached its conclusions and made its recommendations.
The questions are legion and the Government's answers are lame. It is not for me to argue the merits of union membership. This is a democracy, and many millions have a deep attachment to their right to belong to a union. Hon. Members have a duty to remove that right only if there is no other way. The Government have not proven the case that there is no other way. I urge the Prime Minister, even at this late hour, to re-examine the possibilities. In the final analysis, the Government seem to be resting their case on the proposition that they have no other choice and that this is an unpleasant necessity. Regrettably, we do not seem to have learnt as much from our history as we should have done. About 200 years ago the then Foreign Secretary came to the House of Commons to argue for another measure—not on grounds of choice but on grounds of necessity. Charles James Fox, talking of the East India Company Bill, said:
"This business forces itself upon me and upon the nation."
He was answered by a Back Bencher, the 24-year-old Mr. William Pitt, who said:
"This measure is an abrogation of all the ancient charters and privileges by which the company was first established".
He added:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom."
I will forbear to complete that famous quotation. Surely the Government should ponder carefully the "necessity" for their chosen course of action.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As at least one of my hon. Friends is under a misapprehension that the evidence of Sir Brian Tovey is not public and he is not allowed to refer to it, perhaps it should be made clear to the House that all of Sir Brian Tovey's evidence, other than the few comments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred, has been cleared by the Select Committee on Employment. The Committee was anxious that the House should be able to read that evidence in full when considering this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point.
7.15 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham: I was one of the hon. Members on the Select Committee who had the privilege of listening to the evidence. Having listened to the debate, I am more convinced than ever that the Government have no case to justify their action. They made their decision to go ahead with the ultimatum but later turned to their civil servants and Ministers to justify the blunders made in the presentation to the House.
The GCHQ Cheltenham issue is one of many trade union issues forming an overall picture of the Government's attitude to the whole of the trade union movement. There are continuous undercurrents of confrontation. It is believed throughout the country that the Government are hell-bent on a continuous battle with organised labour. The Government seem to have double standards when making comparisons with free trade unions in other countries.
Two years ago I attended one or two meetings at Strasbourg. Conservative Members went to the rostrum condemning the Polish Government for denying trade union freedoms in Poland. While Conservative Members were shedding their crocodile tears when talking about trade union rights, the Prime Minister was wallowing in statements referring to free trade unionists. On 16 December 1982 the right hon. Lady said:
"A Communist society cannot bear or abide another source of power within the State. That is what it is all about in Poland."
—[Official Report, 16 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 479–80.]
We can presume that the Prime Minister feels that way with regard to this country.
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman does his cause, with which I have some sympathy, a great disservice by making that ridiculous, ludicrous comparison. Does he think that there would be the same freedom in Poland and in the countries east of the iron curtain to have the type of agitation that we have seen over this issue?
Mr. Eastham: That is very much a matter of opinion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the trade union movement, which feels disgust and resentment, would support the attitude that I am trying to present rather than the hon. Gentleman's smokescreen of respectability.
On 22 December 1981, the Prime Minister, wallowing in the issue of free trade unions, said:
"If the authorities believe that they can snuff out that flame they are making an error of historic proportions. —[Official Report, 22 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 867.]
She was referring to the Polish people's stand for the tight to have free trade unions.
Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that, apart from eastern Europe, and especially Poland — we all support Solidarity and the efforts for genuine independent trade unionism in that part of the world—the Prime Minister has never praised any form of trade unionism? Not once has she said a kind word in favour of trade unionism in this country.
Mr. Eastham: That is most noticeable, and the trade unions recognise my hon. Friend's point.
Great emphasis has been placed on the importance of the Civil Service trade unions, and it is useful to remind the House that other trade unions have also been involved, including my own trade union, the Amalgamated Union

75
of Engineering Workers. Large organisations such as that, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the Transport and General Workers Union and the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union are all involved in this establishment. They are being compelled to face the fact that the day is arriving when the Government must be taken on.
It is an indisputable fact that since 1979 a list of rights has been denied to the trade unions, of which there are eight main ones. Workers are being denied the right to belong to a trade union and the right to a fair return for labour. There has been the cancellation of the fair wages resolution of the International Labour Organisation, convention 93. The Government announced that they would not endorse ILO convention 154 promoting free collective bargaining. There has been curtailment of social benefits during disputes, even when the benefits have already been paid for by trade unionists. There have been seizure of trade union funds, fines and even penal threats. This humiliation will not be allowed to continue, and the trade unions are becoming sick and tired of this unnecessary confrontation, which is unworthy of any Government in this country. The saying is correct—he who rides the tiger usually finishes up inside.
The disgraceful conduct of some of the Government's Whips has been courageously referred to by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). He took a stand in the Select Committee to expose the conduct of the Whips, who seemed to lack confidence that their Members would serve the Government in the way expected. This is not in keeping with the spirit of a Select Committee, and this attempted manipulation by the Government Whips' Office led to a feeling of distrust. This was most unworthy, and I hope that we shall never witness such conduct again, which led to a Government Member accusing his Whips' Office of attempting to nobble members of a Select Committee.
Mr. Baldry: I forbade to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on this matter because we have tussled before, but, lest this idea that the Government Whips nobbled any Members of the Select Committee should grow roots and flourish, I should make it clear that at no time—I think that I speak for my colleagues—were we nobbled or interfered with by any Government Whips. Would that we had been so lucky. This is a bad point and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) is bringing it up again, as there are many better points that he could make.
Mr. Eastham: It is not for me to contest the point. All I am saying is that a member of the Select Committee is on record as accusing the Government Whips' Office of attempting to nobble members of the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) may be saying that no approaches were made to him, but no other Conservative Member has said that. If he feels that because he sits on the Government Benches he is expected to deny the fact that somebody attempted to nobble him, that is to his shame. I, for one, know whom I would believe if there were a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Hendon, North.
Mr. Gorst: I was asked whether I could cast some light on this local difficulty by explaining that there is more than one way of nobbling. One does not need to take a man by the arm; one can sometimes wink or nod at him.
Mr. Eastham: I appreciate the odd nod and wink. This has been the style of management over the centuries. It is still a form of nobbling, and it was for those reasons that the hon. Gentleman, I feel sure, felt that he was compelled to report this to the Select Committee. However, in spite of the problems, when the report was considered, to the credit of the Select Committee members, they were unanimous in their view. Throughout the evidence, nothing was presented that seemed to justify the action taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
Day by day it became more obvious in Committee that this was an ill-thought-out action and that even the Cabinet had been treated with contempt and not consulted as to its importance. Perhaps it was not considered that it was an important issue, but anyone with a trade union background will recognise the severity and seriousness of the consequences should any Government take such action.
When Sir Brian Tovey came to give evidence to the Select Committee, I felt that Downing street had sent him along as a pet poodle, but nothing that he said convinced any members of the Committee that there was a case to justify the Government's action. As has been said, Tovey admitted to the Committee that if a deal such as that later presented by the trade unions had been forthcoming he would have snatched agreement with both hands. Regardless of that, the Government went ahead and decided to continue the confrontation.
The trade unions have been more than accommodating. They have offered a no-strike agreement. As has often been said by Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the loyalty of the workers was beyond doubt. They were already bound by the Official Secrets Act. What more could any Government expect from a loyal band of workers?
This deplorable episode is typical of the Prime Minister's arrogance, and there have been no negotiations. The Prime Minister agreed to meet the trade unions on a second occasion but it was obvious that such a meeting would be a dialogue with the deaf. She had made up her mind, and there will be no trade unions. This is an example of the cheating of the workers of their democratic rights. As the Opposition have often said, and as we said last week, there is an increasing feeling that hooliganism is taking place. These smears must end. How can the Government expect any loyalty when they deal out such brutality?
This debate is the culmination of an episode of sheer Government stupidity. History has shown us that the traitors to this country usually come from the elite and not from the trade unions. This has been proved time and again. The same is true of the industrialists who sell Britain short by investing and developing abroad. Those people are not trade unionists; they are among the ranks of Government supporters.
The Select Committee offered the Government a face-saving way out of their stupid position. The issue will not end here. It will continue to fester. The unions offered a deal, but the Government may not get another chance.
7.30 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Manchester,

77
Blackley (Mr.Eastham) was not listening when the Foreign Secretary gave the House a categoric assurance that the ban on trade unions would go no further than GCHQ.
The issue is undoubtedly one of grave national importance, because it involves national security. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), deny that lives are at stake in the work of GCHQ, but I believe that they are. The whole object of the station is to defend our shores, and lives are at stake. GCHQ is unique. There is no duplication of its activities anywhere in NATO and total surveillance is essential to maintain our defences. Our allies as well as ourselves depend on that, and it is important to keep that fact in mind during the debate. From the beginning of the controversy, no one has doubted the loyalty of the staff at GCHQ. Many live in my constituency and I have every reason to endorse their loyalty.
My first impression of this whole business was that the Government had been rather heavy-handed, although they had offered GCHQ staff three choices—to sign the agreement to leave their trade unions and to collect £1,000, to transfer elsewhere within the Civil Service or to resign. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr.Healey) says that those who resign could work for Plessey, which has apparently suggested that it will employ staff who do not want to leave their union.
I began to look at the background of the case, and hon. Members can imagine my alarm when I discovered that between February 1979 and April 1981 continuity of operations had been disrupted seven times. More than 10,000 working days had been lost and on 9 March 1981, 25 per cent. of the staff employed at Cheltenham were involved in a day of inaction and parts of GCHQ were virtually shut down as a result of their refusal to work.
Some people try to maintain that there was no drop in the surveillance capability of GCHQ during that time. It is noticeable that none of those people has sought to explain the overmanning at GCHQ. If the station can manage when 25 per cent. of the staff are not working, there must be substantial overmanning there. Perhaps those who say that there was no drop in the surveillance capability might like to explain that.
My mind was irreversibly made up when the Prime Minister told the House on 31 January that in one of its campaign reports the CCSU stated:
"48 hours walkouts have severely hit secret monitoring stations belonging to the Composite Signals Organisation. The Government is clearly worried and will be subjected to huge pressure from NATO allies."
A second report said:
"Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which … defence readiness is hampered … by this and future action."
No union representatives have sought to deny that that was written and circulated among their members. It is unacceptable to me that the unions should try to use strikes to force increases in pay.
Staff at GCHQ were clearly being asked to place loyalty to their service and their duty to protect the safety of their unions above loyalty to their fellow citizens. In my opinion, no-strike agreements with the trade unions will not hold water. They are having a death-bed conversion and the TUC has shown an ingenuity and deviousness that is second to none in putting pressure on reluctant members to get its way. We cannot allow staff at GCHQ to be subjected to that, and I do not believe that the staff want to be subjected to that.
Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Civil Service trade unions involved in the dispute had a deliberate "hands off' policy towards Cheltenham before February 1979.
Mr. Marland: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention.
As I said earlier, many GCHQ staff live in my constituency, and I have brought up the subject at several meetings, the most recent being last Friday night. On every occasion, the feeling of the meetings has been unanimous that the Government are right in their action and that lives come first. At my advice centres, I have been approached by several employees, union and non-union members, who have all stressed their loyalty to the service. Only one has objected to the Government's action and even he said that in the end he will sign.
However, concern has been expressed to me about the proposed staff association and whether it will be effective in looking after the employees' interests. I understand that at present the bereaved spouse of a GCHQ employee receives £600 if his or her partner dies while employed at the station. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment tell my constituents whether that will continue?
Secondly, will there be an appeal procedure for those who fail the lie detector test? The machines are known not to be 100 per cent. reliable and there is considerable anxiety among those at GCHQ about whether there will be an appeal procedure. Thirdly, I should be glad if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment would tell us how the staff association will be constituted. Can he reassure me and my constituents that the association will have teeth and be able to act in the best interests of its members?
The trade unions are doing themselves no good over this issue — not because they are losing a few subscriptions, but because of the way in which they are behaving. On Thursday of last week deputations came to the House to lobby hon. Members about the Government's decision. I understand that there were 1,500 people outside the House. But only 60 came from Cheltenham and, as the hon. Member representing a constituency in which many GCHQ staff live, I received only two green cards. I cannot help thinking that "Rentamob" was on duty that day. The TUC has completely, and probably conveniently, misinterpreted the reasons for the Government's action. National security and the lives of all of us and our families are at stake.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: My constituency is next to that of my hon. Friend and he may be interested to know that only three people came to see me on Thursday.
Mr. Marland: If my hon. Friend and I were lobbied by only five of the 1,500 people who were here on Thursday, I have to wonder who all the others were seeing.
To me, tomorrow's day of protest belittles the TUC. I am shocked that Mr. Murray has written to 105 TUC-affiliated unions trying to whip up support among 10½ million workers for a day of idleness. This debases all that I and many others have always believed that decent and constructive trade unionism stood for.
7.40 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall say a word, first, about the staff association to which the hon.

79
Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred, because in my opinion the tone of his remarks does a disservice to the genuine and widespread feelings of people both inside and outside trade unions on this issue.
I care deeply, as I think all Liberals do, about the right to belong to a trade union, or the right not to belong to a trade union. Both those rights are important. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has been notably consistent and clear in his enunciation of these principles, because it required a certain amount of courage on both occasions. As I said, both those rights are important and lie at the heart of the issue today. So, too, is the issue of national security, to which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West also referred, and about which we care with equal force.
The debate has ranged widely, and I shall therefore concentrate on picking out some of the unanswered questions. First, why is it thought that the Government's measures — in particular, the creation of a staff association — represent a watertight guarantee against further disruption ever taking place at GCHQ? The phrase "watertight guarantee" has been used by the Government Front Bench. There is no guarantee that the staff association will agree with the writing into the contracts of its members of the obligation not to take industrial action, to which the unions have so far consented. The staff association does not yet exist. We do not know whether it will be as ready to consent to something to which the unions, as a concession, are ready to consent. There is no guarantee that the existence of a staff association will prevent a future argument boiling up into withdrawal of labour at Cheltenham. It is not likely that there will be a withdrawal of labour, but it is not made less likely by the transfer of industrial relations representation to a staff association confined to that institution.
Several Conservative Members spoke as if the Government were withdrawing the right to strike from the employees of the GCHQ. That simply is not true. We are not discussing that. We are arguing about the withdrawal of the right to belong to a trade union. If the right to strike is taken away, it will be taken away on the basis of a concession to which the unions have agreed, namely, that it should be written into the contracts of the people who are working there. That is far more important than any undertaking given by the unions—the writing into the contracts of those who work there of an obligation to maintain the constant surveillance upon which the institution depends. I have seen no evidence so far in the debate to suggest that the arrangements that the Government propose, which are the alternative to the union proposals, will safeguard Cheltenham in the future from any disruption. There is no watertight guarantee, and a false alternative is being proposed. That is the first unanswered question.
The second unanswered question was raised by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Is the main reason why the Government will not now, at this eleventh hour, accept the proposals put forward by the unions that the unions have not agreed to apply them to all the employees at GCHQ? Is it the attempt by the unions to distinguish between employees—some to whom the
80
undertakings will apply, and others to whom they will not apply? Is that the difficulty? If so, in my view, it is a negotiable difficulty, out of which a way can be found.
It could be argued that there is no one at GCHQ who can be exempted from the restrictions that would be agreed between the Government and the unions if an agreement were reached. One can argue against that proposition. It is at least arguable that the whole institution could continue to function if the canteen were not working, for example. It is arguable that the institution could continue to function if the grass were not cut, although that poses the question whether the Property Services Agency staff who are working in institutions such as this on the maintenance of buildings and grounds are covered by these agreements anyway. It appears likely that at least some people working on the premises will not be bound by the agreement, and that some disruption will take place, even under the proposed arrangements, which will not impede the surveillance work. That issue could be resolved if the Government were determined to resolve it. I cannot believe that the possibility of an alternative to barring trade unions altogether needs to be excluded because there is an unresolved disagreement about the extent and number of the people to whom any limitation should apply.
The third unanswered question that I want to raise concerns delay. Why did the Government wait several years before they took this action? The Prime Minister's defence, reiterated by the Foreign Secretary, is that it was because it was not acknowledged until 1983 that GCHQ was engaged in surveillance work. I have always regarded that as an absurd argument. The pretence that Cheltenham had a glorified extended telephone exchange employing an unusually large number of people never made any sense to anyone who took any interest in the matter, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pointed out. Even if there were a reason for the Government to preserve the fiction in their official publications that the institution did not have a security role, that reason must have been secondary to the feeling that the Government now have that it is important to take action to deal with the unions there. If the considerations which now lead the Government to persist in an action which has been highly criticised are valid, they must have been stronger than any arguments that led the Government formerly not to acknowledge that GCHQ had a security role. If what is now in the Government's mind has and had any validity, it would have overridden the maintenance of what we all knew was a pretence that GCHQ did not have a security role.
If the reason for not acknowledging the role of the institution was that it was better to play it low key and minimise the publicity that attaches to it, why have the Government now got themselves into the position of publicising GCHQ far more than any such institution has ever been publicised by any Government? They have put it on the front pages not only of every British newspaper but of every newspaper throughout the world on this side of the iron curtain and on the other. It seems to make nonsense of the delay that there has been in bringing forward these measures, and that delay undermines the reasons advanced for those measures.
Fourthly, what has been the role of the arguments about real security at GCHQ? I say that because it is rather galling, having said from this Bench on several occasions that there needed to be stricter security at GCHQ, to be confronted with measures which, in my opinion, will

81
damage security there. The Government have done two things in response to the genuine need to tackle the security problems. The first was to get involved in the nonsense of the lie detector, and the second was to bring forward this measure
It has been suggested in our debate that union anxieties and objections to the lie detector have been one source of the Government's persistence in this respect. I hope that that is not so, because I believe that there are good grounds for the complaints about lie detectors, of which Richard Nixon said,
"It may not work, but it sure scares the hell out of people."
That is about as scientific a description as we have had to date of a procedure which does not test what one needs to test in the interests of security—it tests not whether people are lying but whether they are made nervous or anxious by a situation. As has been said in the debate, it is something that a trained agent can easily outwit and deal with. The lie detector has given rise to the feeling among people at GCHQ that their loyalty is questioned. It has given rise to that feeling among some of the most loyal and committed people who work there.
The Government seem to have diverted their attention from the real security measures, which involved the spending of money, into measures which will not help security. If the unions were raising objections to genuine security — gate security and surveillance within the buildings—the Government would be right to take a tougher line and to insist that national security requires the staff at GCHQ to accept conditions which they would not accept in other walks of life. It is an unfortunate necessity of the institution. However, the Government have not advanced any case that the two steps they have chosen to take—the lie detector and this measure—are justified on security grounds.
The effect of these measures will be very damaging on the work of GCHQ. The Prime Minister seems to ignore the fact that people work there and that we are dealing with the feelings and loyalties of people. We disregard them at our peril. The effect will be seen in several ways. First, some people will leave the GCHQ because of this episode. They will be a loss. They will include people who are intelligent, dedicated and committed to the service of this country, and precisely because they are people of high principle they will not have their right taken away in this manner. They may be a few, but they have considerable skills which may not be easy to replace.
Those who remain will have had their morale seriously affected. We cannot do this to the people who work for the institution without delivering a severe blow to their morale. I repeat that we are dealing with extremely intelligent people who well understand the nuances and the background of what is going on but who are deeply affronted when it is put to them that their decision to be members of a trade union creates in them a divided loyalty with which they cannot cope and which they cannot exercise in a patriotic way. If we say that to people, we damage their willingness to do the jobs which people at GCHQ have done, working long hours and with a heavy rate of concentration when circumstances have demanded it.
This measure will impair the recruitment in the future of highly able people to the Government Communications Headquarters. Again we may be talking about small numbers, but some people will believe that an institution
82
in which they are required to make this sacrifice on grounds which have not been adequately made out is one that they do not want to join.
As I said earlier, the publicity which the affair has produced and which the Government's action has produced will itself damage GCHQ by raising its profile and increasing awareness of its activities.
The Government have managed to unite a wide range of people in disapproval of this measure. They are people who might never have been thought to be brought together. The TUC, for example, had become consistently unpopular. This is about the first measure in a long time to lead to a great deal of popularity attaching to it. TUC leaders may be impairing that popularity by the decision that they have taken about tomorrow. I think that that is a mistake. I must say that if I was working in many an institution I should feel the temptation to use whatever weapon I had, especially the withdrawal of my labour, to make my protest. But it is a mistake to involve other institutions in any damaging or disruptive process about it.
The Government have advanced a preposterous proposition that membership of a trade union of itself brings about a serious conflict of loyalties—a conflict between loyalty to the union and loyalty to the country—and a conflict which a patriotic man is incapable of resolving. The hon. Member for Hendon, North put forward the best argument: who better than hon. Members of this place to know that life is full of conflicts of loyalties? We have loyalties to the interests that we seek to represent, loyalties to the nation, and loyalties to our own personal interests and families. How can we pretend that the people we have recruited after very careful procedures to work in GCHQ cannot cope with those loyalties?
There is a lack of understanding on the Government's part of the reality and meaning of trade union membership for the vast majority of trade union members—not those who are active in trade unions, not those who serve on committees and not those who come here on deputations, but those who simply belong to trade unions as an ultimate insurance policy because they believe that there may come a day when it will matter to them and who are suddenly deeply affronted to be told that they cannot belong to a union because it impairs their loyalty to the nation.
I urge the Government to step back from the brink towards which they are walking. They have nothing to gain in terms of national security or in terms of their own position by taking this step. They have a great deal to lose. I counsel them to take the step recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr Owen) and recommended forcefully by a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), to refer the matter to the Security Commission, whose job it is to recommend to the Government where security considerations require changes of policy or practice to be made.
I beg the Government to step back from the brink, because they will do no good to national security if they take the step that they propose.
7.54 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary called this a novel situation. There may have

83
been a number of writers of this script over the past five years, but it was more like a political jack-in-the-box when it burst upon the House last month.
The correctness of the Government's decision takes time to sink in. The initial reaction is inevitably to defend the right of anyone to belong to a trade union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) feels, but GCHQ is different. The unions now realise this. They repent of their earlier action. They now offer to go a long way to meeting the Government's requirements.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked why not accept the unions' offer, the armed forces option, an honourable compromise and a harmless if unnecessary superfluity. They argue that that is much easier to swallow than the stiff medicine of an outright ban. But the Government cannot accept the unions' offer, because there is an undisclosed fifth factor which the unions can never deliver. This factor is the cause of the unbridgeable gap between the Prime Minister and the unions. It is the reason why thousands of people at GCHQ are flocking to accept the Government's offer and spurning the despairing calls of the unions.
The undisclosed fifth factor is a secret bond. It is the Prime Minister's special relationship with the secret services. They share a unique distinction, my right hon. Friend with her sole responsibility for security and they with their individual burdens of total secrecy. The Prime Minister has sole personal responsibility for the secret services, and it is one into which even Parliament cannot pry, as the Select Committee discovered.
This special unique responsibility makes the Prime Minister particularly vulnerable, not just to collective disruption but to individual acts of treachery. It takes only one Geoffrey Prime to jeopardise the nation's security. Loyalty, not just conflict-free but totally committed personal loyalty, is what counts when it comes to keeping secrets. The Prime Minister knows that, and so does everyone at GCHQ.
I see the solid block of an outright ban as being very different from a compromise. I see it as an anvil upon which the nation, led by an iron lady using the white heat of this debate, can forge 7,000 links—seven triple-O bonds—unbreakably binding together every member of the secret services. I see those signed option forms not as mere formalities to be filed away but as bonds of personal loyalty indissolubly welding together everyone at GCHQ.
I call on all employees at GCHQ to accept the Government's offer and trade unionists everywhere to ignore calls to mutiny.
7.58 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) performed an invaluable service not only to the House but to parliamentary democracy in his attitude to Select Committees of the House and his stringent criticism of the Government's behaviour towards a Select Committee which sought to deal with this problem impartially. He paraded the behaviour of the Government, which showed without doubt the dictatorial instincts of a Government who have a substantial majority in the House and who are therefore disinclined to listen to the arguments. That is applicable especially to the Prime Minister herself.
84
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred to the iron lady. The Prime Minister wallows in that description, which was given to her by the USSR in the first instance. She thinks that the more stubborn she is, and the more she refuses to listen to anyone other than herself and her acolytes, the more she projects herself as the iron lady.
Of course, at the end of this debate and at the end of this week she will claim yet another victory. She will attribute that no doubt to her own sterling qualities, which have brought us to the present impasse, which need never have arisen had it been handled with a modicum of tolerance and understanding of the issues at stake.
The Prime Minister has claimed victory in a number of areas. One, which brought her a substantial victory at the general election, was the Falkland Islands issue, but that will prove to be a shallow victory when we start paying the bills. Thousands of millions of pounds sterling will be taken from the taxpayer because of the futility of the Government's actions, their stupidity and their refusal to face the long-term consequences of their actions. That is on all fours with the position that we now face.
We are all concerned with national security, but the Prime Minister cannot understand, or refuses to believe, that anybody who opposes her views is not automatically a security risk. She believes that such people are unreliable by definition because they dare to differ from her. The right hon. Lady is behaving increasingly and frighteningly not so much as an iron lady but more as a stubborn, rigid, unimaginative, tinpot dictator, not prepared to listen to any view different from her own. The policy that we are debating today springs from her paranoic detestation of trade unions. That is the motivating force behind the stupidity that we are now debating.
If our national security is jeopardised by the existence of trade unions in GCHQ, it has taken the Government a long time to act on that suspicion or conviction. Now, suddenly, and with unseemly and incomprehensible haste, the whole matter is thrust on the House and the Cabinet with a minimum of notice. We are bound to make certain assumptions from that.
It is said that the Government have been got at by the Americans—to impose the lie detector or whatever. The assumptions on which the policy is based are deeply shocking to Labour Members and to many outside. For instance, it is said that trade unionists are potential enemies of the state, potentially disloyal, unpatriotic and untrustworthy. The Foreign Secretary's speech today was very much along the lines that the Prime Minister almost invariably takes in her speeches on such matters.
The second assumption is that loyalty and patriotism can be bought for a few pieces of silver, taxed or untaxed. We have not yet been told that, but if it is taxed the matter is made even worse. It is assumed that the men will sacrifice their basic human rights for a handful of silver. Thirdly, it is assumed that, if they cannot be bought, a pistol at their head and a threat to the families of decent, moderate working people will do the trick. It is the most detestable and incomprehensible posture that I have ever known.
Despite the outcome of the debate, despite the victory which the Prime Minister and the Government might claim at the end of the week, the debate will go on. Unless the Government accept the bolthole that was offered to them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and by the right hon. Member

85
for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and put the matter in more experienced hands than have handled it up to now, the matter will continue to be debated, not only in the House but outside, in the European Court and in the International Labour Organisation. It will reverberate throughout the world, and that is no exaggeration.
All for what? It is assumed that if a union is broken and turned into a staff association, a creature of the Government, security will thereby be improved. That is a lot of nonsense. It is another of the many banana skins on which the Prime Minister has trodden since the election. I hope that the Government will seek a sensible way out and for once take the advice of hon. Members. They can still retrieve a desperate and serious situation.
8.5 pm
Sir Kenneth Lewis: This has been the most extraodinary foreign affairs debate that I have ever been involved in during the 25 years that I have been a Member of the House of Commons. It has had virtually nothing to do with foreign affairs. It might be said that it is bad enough for the House of Commons to cope with the Foreign Office dealing with foreign affairs. But if we also have to put up with the Foreign Office becoming involved in home affairs, and labour relations in particular, it is not surprising that we get into great trouble. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have a warm regard—I think that goes for many hon. Members—will not be surprised to know, as I warned him a fortnight ago, that I cannot accept the direction in which he is going. I have heard nothing from him today to change my belief that the decision that has been taken is insensitive, stubborn and mistaken.
I realise that in security matters one can never be sure that one is speaking with the knowledge of Ministers. Therefore, it is necessary to be a little cautious. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary did not close the door to discussions with the unions. They had such discussions on two occasions in order to seek agreement. Therefore, we have every justification for suggesting that there was the possibility of a deal. There was nothing so hidden and secret which Ministers knew which we did not know which stopped them from reaching an agreement, unless Ministers were engaged in a charade with the unions, having meetings that were meaningless, and I do not believe that that was so.
The question is whether a deal with the unions was possible. I understand that, as the Foreign Secretary admitted, the trade unions have gone far towards providing a basis to satisfy the Government's requirements. The document from the Civil Service trade union that I received today tells us that the Government have accepted that they, the unions, were able to provide guarantees on all four of the reasons given for the Government's ban. Further, the ban on union activity at GCHQ was first proposed by Sir Brian Tovey, the former director at GCHQ, who states that if the trade unions had offered what is now before the Government it would have satisfied him. If it satisfied the man who was the boss at Cheltenham at the time of the disruptions, why can it not satisfy the Government?
I agree that the Government are right to seek to cut out national union negotiations at Cheltenham. If union negotiations are needed at Cheltenham, they should be
86
local, in "shop", or there should be some council inside the organisation in which the unions are involved. There was no closed shop at Cheltenham even before the Government tried to buy out the union membership. Many people did not belong to a union.
I object strongly—I believe that the country objects to, and is puzzled by—the fact that individuals should be told that they must give up their union membership and that they cannot, as union members, participate in normal employer-employee management relations.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman used the word "puzzled" and he wrote a formidable and informed letter to The Times. May I ask him the same question as I put to his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)? With his interest in this matter, why does he think that the Government have embarked on this course at this time?
Sir Kenneth Lewis: I believe that the Government have embarked on this course at this time because they recognise that there is a problem. I recognise that there is a problem, but it does not mean that, having embarked on such an exercise, the Government need to continue to the bitter end when there is a means of picking up a deal.
I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend believes—I do not—that setting up a staff association at Cheltenham will solve all the problems. He can ask the big banks whether they had problems with their staff associations a year or two ago. The existence of staff associations does not mean that there will be complete peace and agreement on anything for evermore within an organisation that employs 8,000 people. It does not mean, and it cannot mean, that there will never be a disruptive character inside the organisation. The disruptive character who gets in through the union door will seek, in the same way, to get in through the staff association door.
I believe that the difference between the deal which the unions offered and the perfection which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to want is marginal.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend consider the position at Cheltenham and the difference that there would be with a staff association? At the moment, disruption could be engineered to create great difficulties for security and strategic reasons. That is unlikely to happen with a staff association, because individuals would have complete loyalty to Cheltenham.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: I have already said that I believe that the union inside Cheltenham should be local. The union should not be involved in national calls for strike action from outside. I believe that is a reasonable objective for the Government to seek.
I believe that the difference is marginal. The Foreign Secretary thinks that the margin is important, or crucial It may be important, but I do not believe that it is crucial. I do not believe that the marginal difference is the only matter to be considered in the final outcome.
National security cannot only be about intelligence or the intelligence services. What profit does a man or the Government gain if they have all the right information coming in hour by hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for a year, if they lose because there are trade union interruptions and difficulties in other areas at home? National security is as much about good overall labour

87
relations between management and the unions, and between the Government and the TUC, as it is about anything else.
The Government, in the last Parliament and in this, have been much less hawkish about the unions than the Government of 1970 in which my right hon. and learned Friend was Solicitor-General. The Bill which was introduced in 1970 and came into effect in 1972 was a draconian measure. Some Conservative Members tried to persuade the Government to accept some amendments tabled by the Opposition which had been suggested by the TUC, but they were not acceptable to the Government. To know anything about "dries" in the Government, one would need to have been here then. At that time the dries were drier than anything that we have had during the last Parliament.
Both the previous Secretaries of State for Employment in the last Parliament took the opportunity to seek to achieve the right balance between the community and the unions on a slowly-slowly, softly-softly legislation basis, and they got it right. We are continuing in the same way in this Parliament with the Trade Union Bill, which is in Committee. That is to the Government's credit. Why should we now seek to change all that by imposing a thumping ban on trade union membership simply because we want to get something on security right, at the margin?
The Government must recognise that, although they are in office with a large majority, they can govern only with the support of the trade union membership. We had massive support from trade union members at the last general election.
The Government have had second thoughts about this matter, but they still seem intent on turning down a deal with the unions. When one is about to get married, one goes to church and has the banns read three times. I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to have a third go at this and consider the matter again. There would be considerable advantages for the Government. If we do not reach agreement on this matter, the disadvantage to the country will be a tragic loss of good relations with the unions.
The Government must have noticed that the unions and the TUC have at last been discussing matters with them directly and not simply through the agency of the Opposition. For the first time, trade unions have been talking to Ministers. Are we to throw away those recently obtained good relations suddenly for something at Cheltenham that is at the margin? Are we to lose the wider TUC co-operation that seems to be on the horizon? Are we to lose the newly found good communications that are important for any Government when they deal with organised labour? If we throw away those advantages there may not be an immediate effect but, as in 1970, the effect will roll on towards the next general election
So far the Government have got it right in terms of their relationship with organised labour. We were entering into a period of better relations. It will be bad for the Conservative party if we throw that away or if we blow it. It will also be bad for the country. This is no time for stiff intransigence. It is a time for the lady to think of turning on this matter. Turning now will strengthen, not weaken, the Prime Minister. I hope that she will take the chance so to do.
8.21 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) speaks from a great deal of experience. He had many wise words to say. It would be a wise Prime Minister and a wise Foreign Secretary who heeded the words of their experienced Back-Bench colleague.
This Administration are motivated, and have been since they came into office, by intense dislike of trade unionism in all its forms. This is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman. They tend to view British trade unionism in much the same way as the Polish and Soviet authorities view Solidarity. That is part of the background to the decision to ban trade unionism at GCHQ. If the Government could get away with it, I doubt whether there would be much hesitation in extending the ban to other forms of public service. Indeed, there is already concern that the decision about GCHQ could be used in time as an excuse for extending the ban on trade union membership to certain parts of the public service involved in sensitive work.
What of civil servants working at the Ministry of Defence and other such establishments? Could not the same argument be used in 12 months, 18 months or two years? Part of the argument about GCHQ is that the ban already applies and has always applied to the security service. Now it will be extended to GCHQ. Why should it not be extended to other sensitive areas? Why limit it to GCHQ? That is why there is understandable concern, not confined by any means to the Labour Benches. There is concern in the country that the Government may be trying to find a way of banning trade unionism on a wider basis than that which we are discussing today.
I am also concerned at the possibility that what the Government are intending to do at GCHQ could be used as an excuse by employers in the private sector. Those who are involved in Government defence contracts and so on will have a ready-made excuse if there is not already a trade union organisation and there is an attempt at organising one in such establishments. They could use the same arguments as those used today by the Foreign Secretary. Understandably the trade union movement and many civil servants are offended at the link that is made by the Government between subversion or disloyalty and trade unionism. I assure the House—I do not think that it is necessary to give such assurances—that there is no lack of loyalty over security matters in trade unions. There never has been and never is likely to be. It is unfortunate that the Government give the impression that in itself trade unionism is somehow undesirable, and in sensitive areas such as Cheltenham and elsewhere it is both undesirable and subversive.
We do not know the number of staff at GCHQ who have agreed to give up their rights to belong to a union and to take the £1,000. Every time we table parliamentary questions, there is an evasive answer from the Foreign Secretary. The Government have been conducting what I can describe only as their own intelligence warfare, with obviously leaked stories about the apparent large numbers who have agreed to the decision and taken that money. I suspect that now, some three days before the deadline, a fair percentage remain who have not signed away their rights, although I do not in any way—no one in the House should—underestimate the tremendous pressure on the staff to agree.

89
Some may say that the Labour party are echoing their usual pro-trade union cries. We make no apologies about that. It is interesting, however, that the Bishop of Gloucester, in a letter to The Times on 8 February, said of the staff at GCHQ:
"Suddenly, all these people are confronted with a form to sign which gives them only two options. The first is to trade in their right to membership of a union in return for £1,000 in cash. The second is to apply for, and accept, a transfer at the Government's discretion to who knows where, with consequent disruption to family life. Many will have children preparing for important examinations; others would need to uproot elderly relatives and so forth."
That is a fair description of the dilemma in which the Government have placed loyal and dedicated civil servants whose only apparent crime has been to belong to a trade union. In the same letter, the bishop also said that many of the staff
"value the right to union membership as one of the traditional freedoms of our land."
More or less like the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding, the bishop asked:
"Is it too late to hopes that the Government will be strong and wise enough"—
interesting words—
"to alter the terms of this crude and inhumane ultimatum before it expires at the end of the month?"
The Bishop of Gloucester, like the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding and other Conservative critics of the Government, had his answer today. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary stand pat. They refuse to budge in any way, no matter what guarantees the unions are willing to give, no matter that there has been a unanimous report from the Select Committee, with its Conservative majority, no matter that there has been widespread criticism in the country. The Prime Minister will not budge an inch. If there is a vote tonight, she will rely on her majority. That is part of our present difficulties as a country. The Prime Minister is obstinate and believes that only she knows the truth. She is unwilling to listen, even when criticism comes from members of her own party in the House, with long experience.
One thing is for sure — the removal of the ban on union membership at GCHQ will remain a demand of the trade union movement. Let there be no doubt about that. If the Government get their way—they will use intense pressure to do so—the trade union movement will not give up. It has had many defeats in the past. When it started so many years ago, it was hardly legal. It will not give up. It will constantly demand that the ban be removed. No matter how long it has to wait—one hopes that it will not be too long—it will see to it that that ban is removed. It will be removed by a Labour Government. Similarly, following the general strike in 1926, the Civil Service unions were told that it would become illegal to affiliate to the TUC. The trade unions did not say, "That's it. That is for the rest of time." They bided their time until there was a Labour Government, who were determined to remove that ban. The same will apply to GCHQ.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that, following the general strike or thereabouts, the police service, which had gone on strike, was statute barred by the House from any union activity or political affiliation. That ban has remained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say that for that reason the police are unable to be properly represented, or that a future Labour Government will remove the ban.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, confused himself over particular events. The position of the police arose out of what happened in 1919, I believe, not 1926. I do not know whether he was patting himself on the back when he said that he regarded the police as being well represented without a trade union. My answer, however, is that that is a matter for the police. The trade union members at Cheltenham wish to remain in their unions and to the extent that they are being forced to give up that right they are doing so under intense pressure from the Government.
One of our fundamental freedoms is the right to belong to a trade union. Another is the right to elect representatives to the House of Commons. A feature of any country which can describe itself in any meaningful sense as a democracy is a free Parliament such as we have here. Another is free trade unionism independent of the state. In the name of security and the state, a fundamental right is being removed from some British citizens. That is obnoxious and distasteful.
I hope that even at this late hour the Government, having heard the arguments and the criticism, will give way and recognise that what is at stake is a fundamental right that no Government is entitled to take away
8.32 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd (Fareham): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I shall touch on several of the points that he made, especially his argument about fundamental rights.
The debate has dealt with a number of linked issues but it has certainly not been about matters of principle. The matters of principle were settled with the Employment Protection Acts of 1975 and 1978 when the Labour Government took the powers that the Conservative Government are now using at GCHQ. Those powers were certainly not taken for show, to impress the then. Tory Opposition that the Labour Government were taking security matters seriously, because the Labour Government proceeded to issue a number of certificates.
Mr. John Smith: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when the Foreign Secretary opened the debate and I asked about this. The Foreign Secretary agreed that the power taken by the Government to deprive people of trade union membership had nothing to do with the Employment Protection Act but proceeded from an Order in Council of 1982 and instructions issued thereunder.
Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right as far as he goes. I accept that the Employment Protection Acts and the certificates issued thereunder did not remove trade union membership in the security establishments to which they applied, but I believe—the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to confirm or deny this-that that was because there was no trade union membership in those establishments. The relevant provisions, however, gave the Government powers that they would not otherwise have had to prevent those establishments becoming unionised. That is why I say that there is no deep principle involved today.
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I must make this crystal clear. The certificates under the Employment Protection Act relate merely to depriving people of the right to go to an

91
industrial tribunal in respect of allegations of unfair dismissal. Nothing in those Acts affects people's rights to belong to trade unions. The Government are doing this unilaterally as employer, under an Order in Council of 1982. That is an issue of principle that has nothing to do with the Labour Government.
Mr. Lloyd: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. I shall look at the matter again. If I am wrong, I beg his pardon, but that was my understanding of the matter.
Mr. Howard: Before my hon. Friend accepts too much from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), does he agree that one of the rights that would exist under the Employment Protection Acts—but for the provisions to which my hon. Friend referred—is the right to go to an industrial tribunal and complain about dismissal from employment on the ground of not being permitted to join a trade union, a right which is centrally connected with the Order in Council to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred?
Mr. Lloyd: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was so vehement that I thought that he must have completely solid ground for what he said and all that it implied. The certificates allow the Government to prohibit union membership under the relevant contract of employment. I believe that that is what they did.
Even if the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is strictly correct in everything that he says, which I very much doubt, is he saying that the Labour party has gone back on the view of the Labour Government and now supports the unfettered right of everyone in the army, the police or anywhere else to belong to a trade union? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues do not take that view and accept that there are certain areas in which on the whole it is safer not to permit trade union membership, we are arguing not about a matter of principle but about a matter of judgment as to where the line should be drawn. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intervene to deny that, I shall assume that he accepts my argument that we are not discussing a matter of principle.
If it is not a matter of principle but a matter of judgment, the question arises whether GCHQ, which is clearly a crucial defence establishment—no one has argued the contrary—has suffered disruption as a result of trade union membership. All that has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and all the information available to the Select Committee shows. plainly that the work of GCHQ has been disrupted on a number of occasions. The only point of debate is how severely and completely it was affected. Clearly the Government had to take action. I believe that the only secure way forward was to detach GCHQ employees from their national unions and the national considerations and preoccupations of the officers of those unions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) argued that the possibility of agreement with the unions was before the Government. My hon. Friend argued, "Why not pick up the unions' offer of a no-strike agreement and see how far it can go?" The answer to that is that, however detailed the arrangements might
92
be, they would be agreements not between employer and employee but between employer and union and there would therefore be—even if to a lesser extent than there is now—a conflict of loyalty for the employee. I do not believe that there is any way of completely removing that tension while union membership continues.
There is a second point to be made. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) argued that the agreement could be put into a legal context and given effect at law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) then intervened to ask how that would make the arrangement any more effective than the present one. My hon. and learned Friend was right in implying that there is no way that the law, at the time of a dispute, can make matters more effective when there is such an agreement. At present, the employer has power to discipline an employee who breaks his contract. There is no additional penalty that could be imposed upon him that could have any basic effect.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has rightly said that the unions are prepared to make many more concessions now than ever before. That is not because they have had a change of heart but because the Government's action is removing them entirely from GCHQ and they are seeking to salvage a little influence. If the Government want to take up the idea of an agreement and try to make it work, there will always be a lack of clarity and certainty as to whether the agreement would apply in a time of crisis.
A few weeks ago in the NGA dispute, Mr. Len Murray said firmly and clearly that the law should always be obeyed. However, there is now a day of action scheduled for tomorrow and Mr. Murray is making ambivalent signs. That makes the argument much clearer than it could be made by any speech from the Government. When trade union leaders call upon members to break their contracts—contracts that those leaders may have helped to negotiate—in order to persuade the Government that an agreement with GCHQ should be accepted because it would be lasting and watertight, the absurdity of the unions' position is plain. The Government are right to adhere to their policy.
One criticism that has force has been made several times by Opposition Members. They have said that the Government did not act quickly enough. If action was necessary, why was it not taken earlier? I cannot answer that, but I can assure Opposition Members that the delay does not in any way undermine the Government's argument. I believe that the House will support the Government tonight, and that the country will support them too.
8.44 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in this debate, as a number of people in my constituency work at GCHQ. When I was in the Foreign Office I was well aware of the activities of GCHQ and of the lengths to which we, and all those involved, were asked to go to ensure the secrecy and security of the organisation.
As right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, never has so much damage been done to that essential security as has been done during the past few weeks by the Government's ill-thought-out decision and intemperate action. A perplexed and bewildered union official at

93
GCHQ came to my surgery last week and said bluntly that he believed that, with the single exception of the Prime affair, this affair had done more damage to security at GCHQ than anything in the previous 20 or 30 years.
Other right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about the rights involved in the case—the essential rights of free people in a democracy to be members of a trade union. With the benefit of hindsight—and I said it at the time—one can say that some of the action taken by trade unions in the past in relation to GCHQ was ill-advised. In my judgment, some of the action to be taken tomorrow is also plainly ill-advised. However, it must also be recognised that there are practical reasons why members of GCHQ will wish to belong to a union. Those reasons are based as much on ideas about rights as on the necessity to join a trade union, because some of the actions taken by the Government to safeguard jobs and provide reasonable conditions of employment have not been entirely reassuring to those employees.
On a number of occasions, only the intervention of the unions has ensured proper and appropriate recompense for some of the illnesses and injuries suffered by people who work at GCHQ. I am thinking, for example, of tinnitus. There was also an occasion some years ago — this reaches an emotional plane — when two members of GCHQ were killed on service abroad and only the intervention of the unions secured a recompense of some £10,000 for their families. The Government did not wish to pay compensation.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why does the hon. Gentleman imagine that a staff association, such as the Police Federation, would not effectively intervene in such a case?
Mr. Ashdown: It might or it might not. However, it is the view of the members who work at GCHQ that it was only the strength of their unions that managed to secure that compensation.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the debate has been that, of necessity, a veil of secrecy is drawn around GCHQ. The Government have been able to make certain statements which have raised the temperature of employees at GCHQ because they were unable to answer them.
For example, the Government have referred, today and previously, to the loss of some 10,000 hours as a result of industrial action. Those working at GCHQ find some inconsistency in that charge. I have been told, and I believe it, that on occasions the management at GCHQ has insisted that staff should take their leave at holiday times, leaving GCHQ — in the opinion of many — very undermanned. At the time of the Afghanistan crisis during the Christmas period in 1979, a certain number of people were made to take their holiday on pain of losing their jobs. That caused precisely the discontinuation of service that the Government now accuse the unions of bringing about.
I am told — it was admitted today by the Foreign Secretary — that the disruption during the Falklands campaign occurred in Hong Kong where it could have had no conceivable impact on that campaign. Moreover, the disruption was caused not at the behest of the trade unions but by several people who were not on the front line and whose actions were in any case covered. The Government have made much of that incident, but it would not have been resolved by removing trade union rights as those
94
people went on strike without the benefit of the backing of a trade union. They withdrew their labour without any insistence or request from a trade union. Nothing was lost anyway.
There is another form of disruption in GCHQ of which the Government should take account. Essential surveillance has been undermined not because of the actions of the trade union movement or because of action taken by employees, but because the Government were unable or unwilling to provide sufficient financial resources for those operations to continue. I understand that during the Polish crisis two essential pieces of equipment were allowed to remain out of operation—I am told that much coverage was lost—for five days because the management at GCHQ was unwilling to bring in technicians. I also understand that an entire section of GCHQ was out of operation during a holiday because the management was unwilling on grounds of cost to bring in technicians to man equipment. if the Government are genuinely worried about disruption they should look to their own house and recognise that many of the decisions that have caused disruption, have not been taken by trade unions but arise from the Government not being prepared to provide the essential back-up to keep the service operating full time.
The House will want to know that technicians at GCHQ work only a 9 to 5 day and a five-day week. There are many occasions when there is no back-up facility or commitment from the Government to supply the type of continuous service that they now regard as so important. Full-time cover is required to provide surveillance. It is wrong of the Government to point the finger solely at the trade union movement. It is estimated that the amount of disruption caused by factors such as I have described is far greater than that caused, however regrettably, by membership of a trade union.
The Prime Minister has been extremely ill-advised. There are many who believe—I concur with them—or suspect that there is an element of making the trade union movement a scapegoat for some of the incompetence which has caused disruption. Moreover, the Prime Minister is too out of touch to know better and too proud to listen to contrary opinions. She seems to have grown to believe in her own infallibility. She does not seem to know the difference between the resolute approach and dangerous inflexibility. In this instance she is a Prime Minister whose vindictiveness towards the trade union movement has warped her judgment on the issue. Those are the ingredients which have drawn the Government into this profound folly. It is an action that has constituted a major attack on the civil rights of British people. Above all and most seriously, it has destroyed the morale and operational effectiveness of a proud profession with a proven record of expertise. By instituting this action the Government have done what they wrongfully accuse the trade unions of risking doing—damaged the security of our country for the moment and perhaps for some time to come.
8.53 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I shall begin by dealing with the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) when he intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that one of the rights

95
provided by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is the right of an employee not to have action taken against him by his employer for being or seeking to become a member of an independent trade union. It was to remove that right in relation to issues such as this that the power was expressly provided in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. That Act was put on the statute book by a Labour Government when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Secretary of State for Employment. That issue was closely related to the Order in Council and I fail to understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman can pretend that in some way it has nothing to do with the issues before us.
Mr. John Smith: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows well that the 1978 Act was a consolidation measure which repeated the provisions of the 1975 Act, which in turn repeated the provisions of the 1971 Act. The Labour Government issued certificates in respect of certain other agencies, but, as those agencies did not have trade union members, the issue of membership of a trade union did not arise. It is utterly misleading for the Government, the Foreign Secretary or their apologists, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman, to pretend that somehow the Labour Government introduced legislation that is designed for the present purpose.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The fact remains that the Labour Government had opportunities extending over about five years to remove this power but did not do so. They expressly included it in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and kept it in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. It is absurd to suggest that they did not notice what they were doing.
Despite that rather unhappy controversial beginning to my speech, I had hoped to strike a less controversial attitude. It is extremely regrettable that the issue we are discussing has become the subject of such intense controversy. There is much common ground on this matter. One has only to look at some of the common propositions which the Select Committee took as its starting point to see how substantial it is. The Select Committee approached its inquiry by agreeing four fundamental points. I need refer only to the last two. They were that industrial action at GCHQ could affect national security in certain circumstances, and that the Government have a duty to ensure that the exercise of trade union rights does not adversely affect national security.
Given that broad area of agreement, it would appear that the critical aspect of the issue is simply whether there exists an alternative to the Government's actions which safeguards national security satisfactorily. That theme has permeated many speeches and almost everyone who has spoken in opposition to the Government has suggested that what has been offered by the trade unions amounts to a satisfactory alternative. I suggest that anyone who takes that line has a duty to answer the following critical question: if, in circumstances of international tension, the trade unions breach any such agreement, what effective remedy will be available to the Government to safeguard the operation of installations at GCHQ and therefore to safeguard national security?
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was gracious enough to allow me to
96
intervene in his speech to ask that question. I am grateful to him for having allowed me to do so. However, I must confess that I was astonished by his answer. His answer was that, because the trade unions were prepared to write into their conditions of service the fact that industrial action would not be permitted, members of the trade unions who engaged in such industrial action would be liable to instant dismissal. In our law strike action is, in any event, ground for dismissal, yet we all know that strikes occur.
It is idle to suppose that because the matter was written into the conditions of service the Government could take effective action when the crisis arose to safeguard the running of GCHQ and national security. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East will deal with that question when he replies, because unless he can show that there is effective action which the Government can take the entire basis on which the argument against the Government rests—that there is an effective alternative—falls to the ground.
I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you wish me to be brief and I shall be brief. Because no such effective alternative has been advanced at any stage of the debate, I support the Government's action. There is no alternative, and the Government are right to recognise that this is the effective way of safeguarding national security.
8.59 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the last few minutes the Prime Minister has courteously rejoined us. She may be able to help with the answer that has so far eluded many hon. Members. Why has it taken three years since 1981 for any action to be taken?
The Prime Minister may recollect that my interest in GCHQ predates January 1984. On 19 December 1983 I asked her whether responsibility for GCHQ Cheltenham remained with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Her answer to that was yes. She answered a question on polygraphs at the same time. I wonder whether at this late stage of the debate, and before her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment replies, she would care to comment. Naturally, I would willingly give way to the Prime Minister. Perhaps she wants to say something. It would greatly help the House. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is a good try."] The hon. Gentleman may say that it is a good try, but the Prime Minister can answer our question.
On 31 January the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, said:
"The acknowledgement was made on 12 May 1983. The time was not unreasonable for such a matter." —[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 120.]
There has been a great delay. I ask the Prime Minister to tell me what has happened in the last few months that accounts for this extraordinary, inexplicable action? Why was it that apparently she did not consult her Cabinet colleagues on the issue? I do not wish to be impertinent, but I find it extraordinary that the Prime Minister, who courteously comes in towards the end of the debate, will not answer a question which was asked most eloquently by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), to the nods of another former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
The Prime Minister's silence is absolutely deafening. I have already asked whether her decision has anything to

97
do with the Falklands issue. On 20 February I asked the Foreign Secretary on what basis he expressed dissatisfaction with GCHQ staff's performance during the Falklands conflict. He replied:
"I have not done or had no cause to do so." —[Official Report, 20 February 1984; Vol. 52, c. 383.]
That is a bit different from the briefing that the Foreign Secretary gave to the Daily Telegraph on 31 January, which said:
"In a previously unsuspected catalogue of trade union action since 1979 he showed that the organisation was badly hit during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, in the hours following the attempt to assassinate President Reagan during the Beirut crisis and in the final days of the Falklands campaign."
Why was it that the right hon. Lady's Government briefed the press in the early stages that part of this decision concerned the Falklands campaign, when her Foreign Secretary says that the Falklands campaign had nothing to do with it?
Once again, both explanations cannot be true. I say as courteously as I can to the Prime Minister, which is it? Which is it? Which is it? [Interruption.] It is no good the Prime Minister saying something in an aside to the Secretary of State for Employment. I have asked, as courteously as I can, for an answer to the question that has been put many times in this debate, because we have had no explanation for the delay. Could it be that we have not been told something? Could it be that there is information which it would be embarrassing to reveal?
I must tell the Prime Minister that next week a book will be published by Secker and Warburg, written by Desmond Rice and Arthur Gaushon, which will call for all sorts of explanations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] The former head of Associated Press in London and the chairman of Shell in Buenos Aires.
Surely this extraordinary action is in no way related to the Falklands campaign. The Prime Minister hangs her head—
Mr. Winnick: In shame.
Mr. Dalyell: I think that the point has been made. Or does the decision have something to do with computer network 102 or the platform programme? We have had no explanation.
It is proper for me to raise the personal behaviour of Sir Brian Tovey. We are told that the decision related to disruption at Cheltenham. Sir Brian, as director of GCHQ, secretly advised the Government to ban unions, and subsequently took early retirement for health reasons. Following his early retirement, Sir Brian became a consultant to Plessey, a major internationally important electronics company. That company has significant commercial interests in sales of equipment to GCHQ and, moreover, would be extremely interested in recruiting certain key technical specialists who might choose to leave GCHQ rather than to accept the ban on unions. Here is the man who says that there must be no disruption, but who is now a consultant to a major electronics company that is trying to recruit people from the very institution that he says must not be disrupted.
Sir Brian told the Select Committee on employment last week that if as few as 10 per cent. of key personnel refuse to accept the changed conditions of employment, the headquarters' work would be seriously jeopardised. After the Government announcement of the ban on unions at GCHQ, Plessey, Racal, Marconi and GEC are trying to recruit some of GCHQ's most skilled experts. Is that true
98
—I am given to believe that it is—and, if so, is it moral? What are the ethics of a former head of GCHQ soon after he has occupied that key position transferring his allegiance to one of the great firms of this country and trying to lure away the people—his former colleagues—who are so vital?
The information appears to reveal the distinct possibility of a most grave and completely unacceptable conflict of interests with respect to Sir Brian's consultancy. It is conceivable that such a conflict of interests could lead to circumstances in which Britain's and NATO's security might be seriously affected. One knows that many senior civil servants on retirement have taken up, with varying degrees of legitimacy, lucrative industrial and commercial appointments. However, a former director of GCHQ is in a very special position, and he should never place himself in a position in which a potentially damaging conflict of interests might arise The expertise of retired directors of GCHQ should, in the national interest, continue to be available to the Government, but the provision of such expertise for commercial gain involves unavoidable and unacceptable risks to national and NATO security. If that is the position, perhaps the Government should make special financial arrangements for former directors of GCHQ, as they do for people who leave other key positions.
Sir Brian Tovey's behaviour must be explained. Indeed, if I may put it once again to the Prime Minister, at some time she will have to answer the question that has been put so often from the Opposition Benches and, most forcefully of all, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth as to the reason for the delay. If it was important, why not do it in 1981? Some of us believe that it has been done for motives that have a great deal to do with the political interests of the Prime Minister and very little to do with the national interests of Britain.
9.10 pm
Mr. John Smith: As nearly every speaker has acknowledged, this has been a very important debate. More than one speaker noted that in the debate we were touching upon some fundamental issues—perhaps the most fundamental to come before this Parliament or the last one.
Several right hon. and hon. Members noted that the issues raised in the debate will not disappear after it has concluded, or even after the issues have been resolved one way or another, because the underlying attitudes and assumptions—particularly those displayed by the Prime Minister and her Government—will cast their shadow far into the future and may have a profound effect not just on the fortunes of the Conservative party but upon the attitudes of the nation as a whole for many years to come. Those who expressed such sentiments underestimated rather than overestimated the effects, because the issues have thrown a searchlight of truth upon the Prime Minister's motivation and attitude towards the trade union movement.
The concerns that have been expressed in the debate do no more and no less than mirror the genuine anxieties that exist as a baffled and puzzled nation seeks to get to grips with the issues and wonders what on earth prompted the Government to carry out the policies on which they have embarked. Those sentiments were eloquently expressed by Conservative Members in notable and courageous speeches from the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Mr.

99
Gorst), Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), and Cheltenham (Mr. Irving). No doubt at some political cost to themselves they articulated the sentiments of their own constituents. Their views were reinforced in speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) —the Chairman of the Select Committee that did such a splendid job in exposing the issue to the scrutiny of Parliament and of the nation—by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) who served on the Committee, and by the pungent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) among others.
If there was one speech which caught the attention of the House and crystallised the issues for many of those listening to the debate, it was the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the Prime Minister in the last Labour Government, under whom I had the privilege of serving. He spoke not only as a former Prime Minister but, interestingly enough, as a former Civil Service union official. [Interruption.] I do not know what sort of comment the Secretary of State for Employment is trying to make. Instead of commenting on people who have been trade union officials—particularly when they are also distinguished public servants—it might be better if he were to keep quiet for a little longer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth expressed, in a very simple and effective way, the total incredulity of the House and of the nation as to the reasons that have been given by the Government for the action they have taken. My right hon. Friend said that they are an insult to our intelligence, and that view has been repeated in several of the speeches.
My right hon. Friend warned the Prime Minister concerning the scorn towards the trade union movement that she has exhibited ever since she took office. Not a decent word has been said by the Prime Minister about trade unionism or a trade unionist since she took office as the leader of this nation. No one who is prepared to vilify and pour scorn and vituperation upon an important section of the people can lead this nation.
My right hon. Friend was good enough to offer a way out to the Prime Minister in suggesting that the whole matter should be referred to the Security Commission for further consideration and" that, in the meantime, the threatening letters should be withdrawn. Hon. Members on both sides of the House thought that there was a great deal of merit in that suggestion in that it would meet any legitimate worries about national security and help to resolve this problem of balancing the legitimate interests of national security and the fundamental civil liberties to which the people rightly attach such importance. I ask the Secretary of State for Employment, when replying, to answer that proposal specifically and to tell us whether the Government are prepared to take up my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
I do not propose to go over the arguments used throughout the debate. Conservative Members who have participated in the debate have clearly studied the issue carefully. Most of them have read and based a great deal of their speeches on the report of the Select Committee on Employment. I hope that the House will not forget the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North on
100
the importance of preserving the independence and thereby the integrity of the Select Committee system which serves the House. His statements about the influence brought to bear on members of the Committee by this Administration demand the attention of the Prime Minister and senior members of the Government. Whatever else the Government get up to, it is no more or less than subverting the constitution to influence House of Commons Select Committees in a way favourable to the Government and to stop people giving evidence, as was clearly done by the Government on this occasion.
I remind the House and those outwith the House of the Select Committee's conclusions. It concluded that the Foreign Secretary had not pointed out in a statement to the House on 25 January that the certificates issued under the Employment Protection Act 1975 did not in themselves remove the right of GCHQ staff to belong to a trade union. That was typical of the evasive actions of the Foreign Secretary throughout the whole of the dispute. He wanted to say to the nation that this was a rather routine exercise by the Secretary of State of statutory functions such as were likely to be exercised under that legislation by a Labour Government.
It took some probing, digging and alert questioning to elicit from the Foreign Secretary the admission that the withdrawal of the right to trade union membership did not come under that legislation but under an Order in Council of 1982, an exercise of the royal prerogative, which this Government had taken. It was not good enough for that news to be dragged out reluctantly from the Government. When Government Ministers make statements to the House of Commons, they should tell the truth about the actions in which they are indulging.
The Select Committee also arrived at the conclusion that the Government had not justified the delay in taking action to prevent the threat to national security resulting from any so-called industrial action at GCHQ. That point has been dwelt on repeatedly throughout the debate. Hon. Members' statements have done no more than reinforce the conclusions of the Select Committee, which looked into the matter thoroughly and reached a unanimous all-party conclusion.
The Select Committee regretted, as do many hon. Members, that no consultations were held with the staff affected, or their unions, on the proposed ban. They regretted also—who does not? —that the decision was apparently taken without full Cabinet consideration. The extent to which the Secretary of State for Employment, who has responsibility for industrial relations, was consulted about the matter remains doubtful. The Select Committee referred to other matters, but the tenor of its report was of total scepticism towards the Government's reasons and justifications.
On the question whether purely Civil Service action was taken on previous disputes and any real threat to national security, I commend to those who did not hear it the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who compellingly showed the other side of the coin. He discussed the many threats to national security occasioned through the Government's negligence in the operation of that sensitively listed headquarters.
It has become clear to most hon. Members that at the heart of the matter is the agreement offered by the trade unions to the Government to meet the Government's so-called concerns for national security. The only basis upon which it could be justified to remove the fundamental civil

101
rights of the people at Cheltenham would be if some real threat to national security were proved to exist. The argument about whether there was such a threat did not matter once the trade unions had put on the table the bankable assurances contained in their document. We need not argue about whether there was or was not a threat to security, because the trade unions in that agreement give the Government all the assurances for which any reasonable Government could ask.
It is fair to say that the trade union leaders concerned bent over backwards to do a deal with the Government. But what are they told by the Government? I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), who said that we should have our old friend Solomon Binding back again to haunt us. It is nothing of the kind. The trade unions offered legally binding assurances, gave guarantees and backed them by agreeing that they should be put into the contracts of employment of those employed at GCHQ.
The Select Committee recommended that that should be done, the trade unions followed that up, and there was no difference between the Select Committee and the trade union on that. What more do the Government want? What more could the trade unions conceivably have offered to meet the Government's demand than what they had already given in the draft Whitley Council agreement negotiated with Sir Robert Armstrong, which was put before the Prime Minister at the last meeting?
There is no reasonable person who believes that the trade unions could have gone further. I listened to what the Foreign Secretary said and at no stage did he say that there was something else that the Government wanted that the trade unions did not concede. After the meeting I was told what had happened. After the trade unions had explained their case to the Prime Minister, she thanked them for what they had done, said that she thought that they had made a sincere attempt to reach agreement, but her conclusion was that all that they had done was to clarify the issues and to show an unbridgeable gap. She did not say that there was something more that they could offer, because there was nothing more that they could offer consistent with having trade unions at GCHQ Cheltenham.
Those who were with the Prime Minister on that occasion—I have had the opportunity to speak to them—found her reactions to their proposals breathtaking, and they were staggered that anybody could react to their propositions in the cold and clearly predetermined manner used by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest that there was one issue on which the unions had not sufficiently delivered—whether there was a distinction to be drawn between some staff and others at GCHQ? If that is the case, could it not be negotiated away, and does it not represent an insufficient argument for the impasse that the Government have created?
Mr. Smith: That would not detain us for long if that were the only difference between the Government and the trade unions. That could be negotiated and clarified, and could have been at the meeting with the Prime Minister, or at any time. The Government should lift a telephone and start discussions again with the trade unions.
The facts drive us ineluctably to only one conclusion—that what is wrong with the trade unionists at
102
Cheltenham is that they are trade unionists. The Prime Minister regards membership of trade unions as something intrinsically malign and she thinks that there is something about national trade unionism that, if allowed to exist in Cheltenham, will subvert its operations. That must be it. If there is some other explanation, the Government would have been able to offer it in the debate since the announcement was made. The Government tell us that there can be a "sweetheart association" or a company union, but nothing affiliated to the TUC.
That malign attitude towards trade unionism is not the only characteristic that the Prime Minister has exhibited. We have had her usual arrogant assumption that she alone is right, her unyielding stubbornness, and refusal to comprehend, let alone act on, the advice of anyone else. We have also had her unfailing helpmate, the present Foreign Secretary, as he goes through yet another minefield in his celebrated electro-magnetic boots. The House has listened to his fumbling explanations and evasions day after day as more information has been extracted from him and as his explanations have become less and less credible. We can now believe that if the Foreign Secretary is in charge of any part of Government policy, as he has demonstrated at home and abroad, disaster lies ahead for the Government.
I now go on to the effect of the Government's action and ask specific questions of the Secretary of State for Employment. First, will he deal with the extension of such procedures to other sectors? We listened carefully to what the Foreign Secretary said, and he denied that the Government had any intention to act in relation to any other trade unionists in the Government service. He said, "We have no intention of introducing similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence." He did not say that the Government's action was confined to GCHQ.
I have some questions for the Secretary of State for Employment. Are not there civil servants in the Ministry of Defence who are trade unionists and are doing work of even greater sensitivity than that being done at GCHQ? Are not there trade unionists in the defence provision industry who are doing work of similar and even greater sensitivity to that done by those at GCHQ? Why did the Foreign Secretary use the careful words "field of security and intelligence"? We have learnt to look carefully at the small print of Government statements and the Foreign Secretary's pronouncements during the dispute. I ask the Secretary of State for Employment to give a cast-iron guarantee to all other civil servants not employed at GCHQ that similar action will not be taken against them.
Perhaps the most important question, and it concerns not only the House but many people outside and particularly the employees al Cheltenham, is what will happen after the 1 March deadline. What will happen to those who have not been bribed and blackmailed into giving up their trade union membership?
The Secretary of State for Employment undertook to answer some questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I remind the Secretary of State of the importance of those questions. First, I remind him of what was said by a Treasury Minister in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 23 February about the instructions given to the director of GCHQ. Those instructions stated:
"I am writing to confirm that the Prime Minister, as Minister for the Civil Service, … has given instructions that the

103
conditions of service under which civil servants are employed as members of the staff of the Government Communications Headquarters shall be varied so as to provide that such civil servants shall not be members of any trade union other than a departmental staff association approved by yourself.
Existing members of the staff at GCHQ shall be given such period of time as you think fit in which to determine whether or not they are prepared to continue to serve at GCHQ under the conditions of service so varied.
You should make such changes in your staff regulations and take such other ancillary and consequential steps as may be necessary to give effect to these instructions."
Having taken the decision to deprive people of their rights, the Government are leaving the dirty work to the director at GCHQ. He will have to sack people, all at once, in ones and twos or in groups. Alternatively, he may take the ringleaders aside and deal with them first to see whether the rest of them crack and he will have to use all other techniques that have been perfected over time by those who wish to carry out this sort of operation.
That is why it is extremely important that the Secretary of State for Employment answers the questions that the Civil Service unions have raised in their memorandum, which was referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The questions relate to what will happen after the deadline. Will one or two people be sacked or will those likely to form the backbone of resistance be identified? Even worse, will the Government identify those whom they dare not sack, because they cannot replace them, and leave them in their jobs while those who are not indispensable are put out of work? If there is any discrimination in the way in which various employees are treated, that will add another round of wickedness to this whole sorry chapter. There must be fairness in all aspects of the operation.
Above all else, we know that there are people at GCHQ who will not sign option A or option B. They are prepared to stand by their principles and their rights. I do not criticise those who have been forced to sign. They have had to face a terrible conflict of loyalties between their belief in trade unionism and their desire to be members of trade unions and their responsibilities to their families, which is an important burden on anyone. I shall not criticise any man of woman who finds that conflict extremely difficult to resolve. I only regret that in Britain, of all countries, people are put to that invidious test, for no reason whatever. Why are the free people of this country to be blackmailed and bullied by an authoritarian Government in this insidious and disgraceful way? We in this House must speak up for the rights of those people, and we must not stop speaking up for their rights as the dispute drags on.
I do not know how the Government will play it. Perhaps they will sack them all at one time. Perhaps they will deal with the ringleaders. Perhaps they will deal with those whom they think are the easier targets. Whatever they do, it will be a sorry chapter. No justification has been found either by the Select Committee or in this debate for what the Government have done or for what they propose to do. No matter how one views the matter, one comes back to the essential truth, that there is no explanation other than that the Government believe that trade unionism is a malign influence and that one cannot be loyal to a trade union and the state at the same time. That is an outrageous motive, and it will have an outrageous effect, because it will diminish the liberties of our people, as well as
104
presenting them with an agonising and unnecessary conflict of loyalties. Above all, it will damage the very interests of national security that the Government profess to support. Having a sullen, embittered and perhaps depleted work force at GCHQ is no way to safeguard and obtain the loyalty and dedication which, in this area above all, are what any sensible Government would seek to achieve.
The Foreign Secretary said, in one of the less dramatic parts of his speech: "I do not deny that there are matters of principle at stake". Only the present Foreign Secretary could approach these major issues in such a negative fashion. Of course major principles are at stake. We see a Government bent on coercion and victimisation in an attempt to get their own way. Thank goodness, this House, on behalf of the people of this country, can still speak up on their behalf. We give notice to the Government that if this struggle goes on, we will struggle with the people in Cheltenham and, in solidarity with them, we will fight for their rights.
9.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I wish to refer, first, as the subject was mentioned in the debate, to the absence of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to say that he was sorry that he was not able to be here for the winding-up speeches because he has to be at a meeting in Chesterfield. I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that no one could be more sorry than the right hon. Gentleman that he has been obliged to go to Chesterfield and will accept his apology in the spirit in which it was offered.
This debate has reflected the seriousness of the issues involved at GCHQ. We have heard a number of speeches of deep feeling, which all hon. Members respect, because of the difficult issues involved. I, as Secretary of State, feel them as keenly as anyone. Some aspects of the matter are capable of massive misrepresentation, as those who have listened to this debate will realise. I therefore welcome this opportunity to put the record straight on matters that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have sought to misrepresent.
There is a particular difficulty, in that GCHQ is an institution, the nature of which makes it particularly difficult to talk as frankly as one would wish about some of the background and the issues involved. Certain allegations have been made, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a number of comments to which he knows I cannot respond. He recited certain anecdotes about GCHQ, although he must understand the difficulties that are involved.
I deal first with the very fair point about the delay in coming to this conclusion. I thought that, as a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was surprisingly dismissive of the problem of avowal. My understanding is that during his period in office the right hon. Gentleman never avowed the existence of this institution. As a former Foreign Secretary, he also understands the significance of any avowal to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed it lightly as though it was just a fabrication that to acknowledge the existence of an organisation carrying out its responsibilities over a wider range than just this country, bearing in mind some of the activities in which it is involved, could be done at any time.

105
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) referred to his old friend Sir Brian Tovey, but one of the interesting features to emerge clearly from the evidence given to the Select Committee was that this was not a proposition which originated at the top as some obsession of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary or even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but that it originated in the management's very proper concern about the difficulties which had been experienced and was then considered by Ministers.
I was asked whether I had any knowledge of this proposal before it was announced to the House. Certainly I had knowledge of it. I was involved in discussions on the matter. I was involved because I have a responsibility for the Employment Protection Act. Like my predecessors in office, one or two of whom I see on the Opposition Benches, I have a responsibility for those sections of the Act which they put on the statute book. After the vandalism that they wreaked upon the Industrial Relations Act 1971, they specifically retained sections dealing with national security which provided the power for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to issue the certificates. It is my responsibility, as it would be theirs, to see that that power is in force, and it is right that in the interests of national security certain powers should be provided to a responsible Minister to take action.
Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten the House on one very important aspect? He hinted darkly that secrecy and national security were behind this issue in some important way. However, when he, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and Sir Brian Tovey gave evidence to the Select Committee, they were emphatic that nothing other than the published reasons lay behind the Government's decision. Cannot my right hon. Friend try to persuade us that there is some dark ultimate reason for the Government's action?
Mr. King: That is exactly what he said to the Select Committee, and I thought that it was abundantly clear. I shall turn to some of the reasons to which certain of my hon. Friends have alluded and some of the problems of the conflicts of pressure and the difficulties that those have caused in the past at GCHQ.
I am also glad to have the opportunity to lay the lie that in any sense this is part of some general assault on the principle of trade unionism either widely in the nation or more particularly in the Civil Service. I give that assurance categorically from the Dispatch Box. We have made a clear distinction. We have recognised that those agencies whose primary function is national security and intelligence are in a different category. Successive Governments have recognised that. Successive international obligations into which we have entered have also recognised that specifically.
I destroy another myth. A number of allegations have been made about the ex gratia compensation that we are paying to staff at GCHQ for the loss of certain of their statutory rights. One of my hon. Friends said in a rather dismissive way that the loss of access to employment tribunals was a matter of no consequence. That is a serious matter. It is right that the Government should recognise it. We are making the payment proposal to union and nonunion members alike because of the loss of certain rights that happen to include trade union membership as well.
106
I cannot add much to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on the withholding of permission for certain people to attend to give evidence to the Select Committee. I am sorry that the point was raised again by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) because we sought to make it clear. It is exactly in line with the warnings given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when the rights of Select Committees were being discussed. We entered the reservations at that time. It is understood in the House that where, for reasons of security and intelligence, it is not appropriate for those specifically employed in the area to be present, it is proper for the Minister responsible to attend and to account for his actions. That is precisely what was done on that occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned the polygraph or the lie detector. In one of his less elegant phrases my hon. Friend referred to "some bright berk" who came up with that idea. As a description of Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Justice Griffiths, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and General Sir Hugh Beach, the members of the Security Commission, that will not do. Within five minutes he referred to that same group as people who by no stretch of the imagination could be called irresponsible. I leave it to my hon. Friend to work out which is the more apt description. My hon. Friend will know that, as the Government have made clear, it was the Security Commission which recommended a pilot scheme to test the feasibility of the polygraph.
One of my concerns in this difficult issue is, rightly and properly, as my right hon. Friend sought to set out, the rights of those at GCHQ who will lose certain statutory rights under the Employment Protection Acts. Members of GCHQ continue to enjoy Civil Service codes, to which many hon. Members have referred. I have checked the figures and hardly any members of GCHQ have needed to use the industrial tribunals because of the high regard that they have for the Civil Service appeal boards which will continue to be available to them.
I have been asked about conditions of service, in particular the rights of widows. Undoubtedly the director will be anxious to see that such points are properly safeguarded under the new arrangements. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to a document without telling us what it was. He referred to certain statements that were alleged to have been made about instructions that were given to the director of GCHQ. I have had the matter investigated and I have obtained a copy of it. It is issued by the Council of Civil Service Unions.
I say in the kindest possible way, because I have some respect for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, that he seemed to give a clear impression to the House that those were instructions issued by the Government when, in fact, he read out a piece of propaganda from the Civil Service unions that were seeking to put a mischievous interpretation on an answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. With regard to the document referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government deny without reservation that there is any intention to act in any of the selective ways referred to in the postscript to the Council of Civil Service Unions' document.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, every effort will be made to deal with the problems that may arise and

107
to arrange suitable transfers for those who have expressed a wish not to accept the conditions of service. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I do, that the document is written in a misleading way and could imply that the instructions were given from the head of the Civil Service to the director. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my categoric assurance that they are no such thing.
Mr. James Callaghan: Hansard tomorrow will show what I said. I was sent a copy of my remarks by the Official Report for confirmation. I asked the Foreign Secretary to "deny the serious allegations that are made in the document." I then enumerated the allegations. The right hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me, but I do not believe that I could have been clearer. I was under no misapprehension. This was a statement being made by the Civil Service unions, and that is what I asked him to deny. [Interruption.] Those hon. Members who were not present are not aware of what was said.
The matter is in Hansard. I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this kind of behaviour will not be exercised and that it will not be at the discretion of the director of that institution. We shall hold the Government to that.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the record straight. I was worried by the allegations, which are clearly propaganda. I hope that my categoric assurance will help to put the record straight.
I want to deal with the problems of the trade union proposals. Any member of the Government involved in the discussions held with the TUC and the Civil Service unions recognises the real efforts made by the union leadership. They showed a considerably greater understanding of the seriousness of the issues involved than did the right hon. Member for Leeds, East in his flippant and, I believe, grossly irresponsible opening to the debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend made clear the three specific difficulties in the trade unions' proposals. The first was that they were not prepared to treat, as I understood it, GCHQ as a whole. They thought that it would be proper to discuss which were and which were not the sensitive areas of GCHQ. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear why the Government feel that it is necessary to treat GCHQ as a whole. Secondly, the unions maintain their insistence on the right to represent their members at GCHQ, with the external contacts that that might have involved, although they were willing to enter into certain agreements about that. However, they expected to represent all the members at GCHQ whether or not they were members of a trade union. My right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise the difficulties in that proposal.
The House has recognised, and the Select Committee gave an important lead in this respect, that national security is paramount. I shall refer to the Select Committee's proposals in a minute. Inevitably in such circumstances, there is a conflict of pressures. That is not theoretical. There is evidence for it in the instances in 1979 and 1981. Tomorrow, in 1984, that same problem of the conflict of pressures is with us. It is difficult to see how it can be resolved in any way except through what the Government propose.
108
An issue that has not been raised, but will be known to anyone familiar with the background to security, is the approach towards the need to know. The basis of security and the maintenance of maximum security is keeping to an absolute minimum the number of people involved and their need to know in any particular situation. That is why I recognise that in these areas of secrecy it is important to minimise the external contracts that are involved. That is implicitly recognised by Mr. Alistair Graham who, in his evidence to the Select Committee, made it clear that he accepted that one could not have a normal form of trade union membership within GCHQ.
I have referred to the problem of the conflict of pressures. The House has heard quotations by trade union leaders and from various campaign documents that underline how pressure was exerted deliberately because it was felt that it would cause the maximum damage. There are quotations such as:
"48 hour walkouts have severely hit secret monitoring stations belonging to the Composite Signals Organisation."
That is from the Inland Revenue Staff Federation journal. The CCSU campaign report states:
"The use of selective strike action by members in sensitive areas is a key part of our campaign. Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which … defence readiness"
is hampered. The report refers to the role of the United Kingdom in the NATO exercise being damaged and certain signals and intelligence installations being involved in that action. The campaign document states:
"It is now absolutely vital that the indefinite selective actions in sensitive areas, and the lightning disruptive actions, are extended and intensified."
When Sir Brian Tovey gave his evidence to the Select Committee, he said that he got some of his officials to try to explain as discreetly as they could the problems in that respect and to try to discourage any industrial action, but the response was
"Thank you. You are telling me where I am hurting Mrs. Thatcher the most".
Those areas became specific targets for further, more intensive action. It is against that background that the House has to take its decision.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. John Smith rose—
Mr. King: I should like to complete this point.
I referred to 1984. I do not know whether the House understood the significance of what my right hon. and learned Friend said. Industrial action is threatened tomorrow. Union leaders are saying that, to avoid giving propaganda points to the Government and in the interests of continuing to hold public support, GCHQ members will not be asked to take strike action on that day. Nothing makes it clearer that pressure on GCHQ is being avoided not for reasons of national security—nobody can pretend that they are not fully aware of the significance of it-but because of short—term tactics in an industrial dispute.
Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman talks about pressures on people at GCHQ. I wonder what he thinks is going on as a result of the Government's threats towards the people at GCHQ. He quoted Sir Brian Tovey. He has said that if 10 per cent. do not sign the operation cannot be successful. What will the Government do if more than 10 per cent. do not sign by 1 March?
Mr. King: I am pleased to come to that. It is exactly the point that I want to raise. Many Opposition Members

109
have been concerned about the position of those who find the proposed new conditions of service difficult to accept, and who are faced with real problems. We have not heard much about the other side of the coin—about those put in an impossibly difficult position by union action and pressures during the previous disruption.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, as an old friend, and almost a neighbour, will accept that many other hon. Members represent many of the people who work at GCHQ. The theme of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) today was very similar to that of Sir Brian Tovey in his evidence to the Select Committee. The origin of the problem was the people who came to Sir Brian during the previous pressure for industrial action saying that something must be done about the situation. I am told that some radio operators who came out initially on the day of action thinking that that would be all came under four days of continuous pressure to cease work and take industrial action. Those who stood up against the pressure and showed their loyalty were put in a very difficult position. That may be the reason why—it may be closer to the truth—I can tell the House that at the latest count virtually three quarters of the total employees of GCHQ world wide have now returned their forms accepting the terms and conditions offered by the Government. That is slightly ahead of what we expected at this time.
Mr. Leighton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: As I said in opening—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. King: The only issue that is relevant here is that of national security. As I have told the House, there is absolutely no question of impugning the loyalty of employees at GCHQ. We have invited every one of them to continue to serve and we hope very much that they will do so. Nor are we in any sense suggesting—and I very much regret the allegations—that possession of a trade union card makes a person either a traitor or a potential traitor.
Save only in this very specific area, we fully accept the right of people to belong to trade unions. Hon. Members have pointed out that there are trade union members throughout Government offices and we fully respect that. All that we are doing is to apply to the agencies whose primary function is national security and intelligence the same requirements, the same certificate and the same conditions of service that Labour Members imposed on intelligence agencies when they were in government. Save only in this very specifically defined area the Conservative Government stand absolutely four square by the fundamental right to trade union membership in a democratic society
It was this Government who in 1971 put the right to belong to a trade union on the statute book for the first time. We will defend that right save only, as all Governments and international conventions recognise, where national security provides a higher requirement.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I accept entirely that dealing with a difficult issue of this kind where secrecy and intelligence are involved raises real difficulties and criticisms can be made of the handling—
Mr. John Cartwright: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, out and agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 201.

Division No. 175]

[10 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Ashdown, Paddy

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Beith, A. J.

Skinner, Dennis

Bruce, Malcolm

Steel, Rt Hon David

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Cohen, Harry

Wainwright, R.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Wareing, Robert

Freud, Clement

Wigley, Dafydd

Howells, Geraint

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Johnston, Russell

Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Charles Kennedy.

Maclennan, Robert

Madden, Max

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Dorrell, Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Ancram, Michael

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Arnold, Tom

Durant, Tony

Ashby, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baldry, Anthony

Forth, Eric

Batiste, Spencer

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bellingham, Henry

Fox, Marcus

Bendall, Vivian

Franks, Cecil

Berry, Sir Anthony

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Roger

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Gale, Roger

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Galley, Roy

Body, Richard

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Bottomley, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Braine, Sir Bernard

Goodlad, Alastair

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gower, Sir Raymond

Brinton, Tim

Greenway, Harry

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gregory, Conal

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

Bruinvels, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grist, Ian

Buck, Sir Antony

Ground, Patrick

Bulmer, Esmond

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carttiss, Michael

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Chapman, Sydney

Harris, David

Chope, Christopher

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

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

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hawksley, Warren

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hayes, J.

Cockeram, Eric

Hayhoe, Barney

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Simon

Heddle, John

Cope, John

Henderson, Barry

Couchman, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cranborne, Viscount

Hickmet, Richard

Crouch, David

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Holt, Richard

Dicks, Terry

Hordern, Peter

111

Howard, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Neubert, Michael

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Newton, Tony

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Normanton, Tom

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Norris, Steven

Hunter, Andrew

Oppenheim, Philip

Jackson, Robert

Ottaway, Richard

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Page, John (Harrow W)

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Powell, William (Corby)

Key, Robert

Powley, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Proctor, K. Harvey

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rathbone, Tim

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Renton, Tim

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Knowles, Michael

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Lang, Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Latham, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lawler, Geoffrey

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Silvester, Fred

Lee, John (Pendle)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lightbown, David

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Lilley, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Lyell, Nicholas

Stradling Thomas, J.

McCrindle, Robert

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Macfarlane, Neil

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Major, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Maples, John

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Marland, Paul

Thornton, Malcolm

Marlow, Antony

Thurnham, Peter

Maude, Hon Francis

Viggers, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mellor, David

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Merchant, Piers

Wall, Sir Patrick

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Waller, Gary

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Ward, John

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Watts, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Whitney, Raymond

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Moate, Roger

Winterton, Nicholas

Monro, Sir Hector

Wolfson, Mark

Moore, John

Yeo, Tim

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Moynihan, Hon C.

Murphy, Christopher

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Fosdyke Bridge Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection:
  Ordered,
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the seventh day after this day, and

  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:
  Ordered,
  That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee:
  Ordered,
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition:
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Mark Hughes be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Richard Caborn be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Temple Bar
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
10.12 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful for the opportunity of addressing the House on behalf of the many people for whom the plight of one of London's old gateways, a unique architectural gem known as Temple Bar, has become a matter of increasing anxiety. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and all hon. Members will agree that a scheduled and grade I listed monument of such undisputed importance should not be left to rot unprotected and vandalised.
The issue is whether Temple Bar should be left in Hertfordshire and the fabric conserved as it stands at Theobald's park, or whether it should be moved back to London to an appropriate site. For more than 50 years there has been much feeling expressed that the gateway should one day return to London, and in recent years many sites have been proposed. including the east end of the Aldwych, on Ludgate hill, in Russell street, off Covent Garden piazza, in Fountain court in the Temple, the original site in Fleet street, or adjacent to the west front of St. Paul's cathedral.
As many hon. Members are aware, Temple Bar is the last of the City gates to survive. It stood at the junction of Fleet street and the Strand for over 200 years, but is now crumbling, far from its former site, standing isolated in a damp wood in my Hertfordshire constituency. I shall come to the detailed arguments related to the moving and siting of Temple Bar later, but first I wish to impress upon the House the beauty and historical importance of Temple Bar. Above all, the House should be concerned to help preserve important aspects of our historical identity. The unique history of Temple Bar makes its present neglected state especially sad and poignant.
Perhaps influenced by the famous Parisian church facade of St. Etienne du Mont, Temple Bar was completed in 1672, when Sir Christopher Wren was the surveyor-general of the King's works. For decades scholars have argued whether he conceived or drew the design. Regretfully this is something of which we cannot be sure, but we can say with certainty that he must have approved the design. Temple Bar, therefore, forms an integral part of one of the greatest periods of architecture in Britain. Joshua Marshall, master of the Masons' company and author of substantial works both in and outside St. Paul's, built the Bar in collaboration with Thomas Knight. Designed and decorated in the high classical manner and constructed in Portland stone, the Bar consists of a main arch, about 19 ft high, 21 ft wide and 17 ft deep, surmounted by a single chamber of similar size and flanked by two narrow pedestrian arches. The addition of a curved pediment on the upper chamber brings the height of the Bar to roughly the same as its width of about 44 ft.
Among the more impressive features of this highly unusual structure are the four royal statues that stand in the niches on both sides of the upper storey. They are of Elizabeth I, Charles I, Charles II and James I, all of them in Roman costume. This is the only monument in British architecture where an intoxication with classical values stripped our sovereigns of their usual clothing and made them caesars, not Tudors or Stuarts.
114
Beside the statues stand eight Corinthian columns, which I am assured are an architecturally extraordinary contrast to the columns of the Tuscan order which decorate the lower part of the Bar. All experts agree that the Temple Bar is an important and unique work of British architecture, even those who find the flamboyant: mixing of styles less than attractive. However, whatever we think about its purely aesthetic value, we cannot take away from it something that should make it precious to the House: its long connection with our capital and its historic significance.
For a century the Bar was a favourite place for our ancestors to display the heads of traitors or, spikes surmounting the upper chamber. Incidentally, those gruesome extra-architectural features were often surprisingly long-lasting additions. The head of Christopher Layer, a lawyer convicted of treason, remained for 30 years on the Bar, and a gale removed his head eventually.
Those days of prominence came to an end in 1858 when the Metropolitan Board of Works condemned the Bar as an obstruction to traffic. The increasing traffic flow in Fleet street and the requirements of urban planning demanded that it be removed for road widening and to make way for the Law Courts in 1879. The Court of Common Council finally decided to remove the Bar, which was, thankfully, saved from destruction and dismantled stone by stone. The stones were numbered and carted off to a vacant lot in Farringdon street, 1,000 pieces in all.
For 10 years the pieces of Temple Bar remained an embarrassing spectacle to the civic authorities. However., they were eventually unburdened due to the eccentric whim of Valerie Susie Langdon, a one-time pantomime girl at Surrey music hall and a barmaid at the Ho7seshoe tavern on Tottenham Court road. She had the good fortune to marry the brewer Sir Henry Meux, owner of Theobald's park, a fine country estate at Waltham Cross, which forms part of my constituency. She paid for the transportation of Temple Bar to Theobald's park, where it was resurrected a few hundred yards from her mansion on the edge of a woodland glade at a cost of £12,000.
Although not much more than 60 per cent. of the original stone was incorporated in the re-erected monument, it was by then in mint condition. The stone was clean and smooth, the glass and effigies were intact, and all approaches to the Bar were immaculately tended. Naturally, such care could be maintained only at great expense and with the interest and good will of successive members of the Meux family. While Lady Meux was in charge she added a gatehouse for a lodge keeper and entertained guests to dinner in the upper chamber. Famous diners included King Edward VII, when he was Prince of Wales, and possibly Sir Winston Churchill.
Admiral Sir Hedworth Meux inherited the estate in 1910. He played a key role in lifting the seige around Ladysmith during the Boer war and spent many of his final years defending Temple Bar against a variety of campaigns to bring it back to London. On his death in 1929, the estate became successively a hotel, a troop billet, a secondary modern school and the adult education college that it is today. In recent years part of the estate has suffered from increasing vandalism and the most prominent target has been the Bar, which has now stood without its lead roof for 15 years in a terrible state of decay and disrepair. It is smeared with graffiti, open to all the

115
elements, and is protected only by a security fence erected by the Temple Bar trustees. But this is hideous and, alas, an ineffective barrier to those determined to break through.
Chief among the crusaders to rescue the Bar is Sir Hugh Wontner, a former Lord Mayor of London and chairman of the Temple Bar Trust. Now, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who inherited it, the trust owns Temple Bar.
Sir Hugh has the support of the American Foundation for Temple Bar, a similar trust in the United States headed by an American lawyer. The altruism of that gentleman and his supporters is exemplified by Sir Hugh's observations that there are those who are willing to take Temple Bar to the United States and erect it there.
The spot on which the trust plans to re-erect the Bar is in Chapter House court, which is part of and astride the ancient passageway that runs along the northern wall of St. Paul's. The gate would be free-standing between the cathedral and Bancroft house, in line with, but well recessed behind, the cathedral portico.
The task of the Temple Bar Trust has by no means been a simple one. In May 1979 the Court of Common Council of the City of London, on the recommendation of its planning committee, approved the proposal to put Temple Bar at the entrance to the churchyard, notwithstanding a report by the GLC's historic buildings committee which did not favour the move.
The views put forward by the GLC brought to the fore objections from interested groups, and opposition to the move was subsequently voiced by several amenity groups such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. This has resulted in considerable debate but a singular lack of much-needed action.
The City took into account all comments, favourable and otherwise, and decided to grant full planning permission in 1982, but, because ancient monument consent was required, another opportunity for objections was provided, and in the circumstances my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ordered a public inquiry. That inquiry was dogged by unfortunate delays, causing Temple Bar to face yet another winter of further dilapidation. For example, when the inquiry opened last October, a postponement was necessitated by the unexpected retirement of the Temple Bar Trust's architect. However, the inquiry reopened last month and all the arguments for and against the move were once more debated.
As the arguments have been aired so frequently in public, detailed discussion would be superfluous. The heart of the matter can be put simply. The three main proposals are: first, that Temple Bar should be moved to St. Paul's in accordance with the wishes of the trust, and for which the City of London has given permission; second, that it should be moved to an alternative site in or on the boundary of the City of London which could be deemed more appropriate; thirdly, that the Bar should be conserved on its present site. It is not for me to tell the Secretary of State which one of those proposals he should adopt. That decision is solely his to make after receiving the report of the inquiry inspector.
My paramount concern is only to save the Bar from irretrievable damage and destruction, because I believe that the controversy has raged for too long. Some people have objected to the proposed siting of the Bar at St. Paul's
116
because they believe that the juxtaposition of Temple Bar and the cathedral would result in a stark disparity of scale, to their mutual detriment. Others are of the opinion that the Bar would look as if it were designed for the spot, because the great St. Paul's and Temple Bar share the great classical style. They speak the language of Sir Christopher Wren: it has always been customary to contrast large with small. As important as those aesthetic considerations is the vital factor that if the Temple Bar gateway is not located at St. Paul's it will be necessary for the City to revoke its decision. The delays involved in finding a new approved site will lead to further decay and damage. It might be argued that the Bar would be better sited in a spot that no one agrees is right rather than be lost for ever to the nation.
Critics of the St. Paul's location stress the inappropriateness of any site not on or near the City boundary. They maintain that Temple Bar's historic significance will be greatly impaired should it not be placed close to its original site. In the past, the GLC historic buildings committee has favoured a site in Temple place, Middle Temple. However, some national amenity societies now favour a site a few yards to the south of this at a point on the City boundary leading into the avenue of trees that fronts the gardens of both temples along the Embankment, if engineering problems of bridging the Circle line could be overcome.
The last option of leaving Temple Bar in Hertfordshire is supported by certain amenity groups. They fear the damage that might be inflicted upon the stonework during the removal and suggest that the cost of looking after the Bar in Theobald's park could be set against the savings in not having to pay for its removal.
Whatever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decides, I ask that the Bar is not allowed to continue to decay and deteriorate. While declaring my interest as a freeman of the City of London, I believe that if Temple Bar is left in my constituency it will remain isolated and unvisited, except by enthusiastic parties of vandals. Surely, it makes economic sense to move the Bar to a position of prominence where it will have a wider access to the public and to the private funding necessary for restoration costs, in excess of the £250,000 pledged by the Government in 1981
I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the funding from the Department of the Environment is still available for Temple Bar's removal and resiting. I ask my right hon. Friend to make a speedy decision so that the Bar can be preserved and protected for present and future generations, for it is only by swift action that this important and distinctive monument can be rescued from further degradation, destruction, collapse and a fate to which most of us are reconciled but which it is unfair to inflict on an artefact of the past—oblivion.
10.27 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Do I understand that the hon. Member has the agreement of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and the Under-Secretary of State to intervene? That being so, he may proceed.
Mr. James: I shall be brief. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I strongly

117
believe, as she does, that this wonderful artefact should be moved to the City of London. St. Paul's is the appropriate site to place it. Having said that, it is appropriate to listen to the response of the Under-Secretary of State.
10.28 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on her eloquent plea for the conservation of Temple Bar. This is not the first time she has expressed the worry of herself, of the local council and of her local constituents about this monument's future. My hon. Friend has approached me on several occasions to underline her worry about the condition of Temple Bar and its deterioration. I shall not follow too many of her historical appreciations, but I have learned a great deal from her in addition to the information presented to me by my officials for reply.
Temple Bar is not simply the structure that now stands in Hertfordshire. The name belongs to a geographical location—the entrance to the liberty or freedom of the City of London. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, is in the Chamber. He feels as much concern and interest in this subject as does my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.
The site is nowadays occupied by the line of the widened streets where they meet near the Temple, the Law Courts and the Inns of Court. As my hon. Friend said, Temple Bar was once a symbolic place for spiking the heads of traitors, but it is now best known, happily, for a more gracious background as the customary point at which the sovereign is officially welcomed into the City. The monument we are discussing is the last of the gateways which formerly stood astride the road at that entrance.
The gateway was erected in 1670–72 to replace an earlier timber structure, probably Tudor. It is the last surviving example of any of the former City of London gatehouse buildings. It is of Portland stone in the Wren style, although expert opinion, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is divided as to its actual designer. While we do not know whether Wren designed it, it was certainly built by Joshua Marshall, who worked with Wren on other City buildings. It is decorated with four statues by John Bushnell, as my hon. Friend said.
The room over the archway was at one time used as a muniment room for Messrs Childs the bankers, but, unhappily, this did not ensure maintenance of the exterior. The structure was at that time set in the narrow street between low-rise 17th century buildings. By 1852 the structure was in need of repair and there was pressure for its removal. It had undoubted architectural appeal, but was also becoming increasingly an impediment to the free flow of traffic. This flow increased from about 8,000 vehicles daily in 1850 to about 17,000 vehicles daily in 1865, statistics that will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne as she is also a member of the Greater London council.
The gateway was dismantled in 1877. The stones were then kept in store for 10 years. It is not clear where they were kept, but as you have a keen sense of history, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and an anxiety to know about these things, I shall try to explain where. Some say that it was on a site on the fringe of Plumstead marshes, others that
118
it was in a builders' yard at Farringdon. As my hon. Friend has said that it was at Farringdon, I am sure that the House will accept that.
The City was not inclined to pay for re-erection, and one comment is said to have been that
"nobody wants a building of such 'bloody memories' to be rebuilt".
This no doubt refers to the spiking of heads. The comment went on:
"there is no site available on which to rebuild it arid the Corporation has no money to waste on such a project".
So the stones remained in storage, thus proving that nothing much changes.
It seems to have been Lady Meux who persuaded her husband Sir Henry Bruce Meux to rebuild the stones as one of the entrances to his park at Theobald's park in Hertfordshire. This was done in 1888. At its re-erection missing and damaged stonework of the original building was replaced. The rebuilding was celebrated with a grand party, and the monument has remained on that site. it has also, until recently, remained in the ownership of the Meux family. I understand that in 1912, when the London County council asked for the building to be returned to London, its then owner, Sir Hedworth Meux, refused on the grounds that this would have been contrary to the wishes of its saviour, the then late Lady Meux.
In 1930 the structure was scheduled as an ancient monument in its 19th century form and on its present site, remaining in the care of its owners. The surrounding estate was disposed of in 1938 and the house itself, Theobald's park, changed from a private residence to a hotel, followed by military occupation, then a school, and then to the present use as a training college. Suggestions for the removal of the monument have been made from time to time.
In 1976 the Temple Bar Trust was formed privately with the object of securing the return of the structure to London. The trust sought subscriptions to fund removal from Theobald's park and re-erection with some modifications on a site alongside St. Paul's cathedral, as we have heard. Any proposal to do works affecting a scheduled monument requires the consent of my right hon. Friend under section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaelogical Areas Act, and the trustees applied for scheduled monument consent in December 1982.
The trustees had earlier approached my Department about the possibility of supplementing its private subscription by grant-aid for the removal. It was subsequently agreed that if the move were to take place, and provided always that the trustees could secure a sufficient proportion of private donations, my Department and the National Heritage Memorial Fund would match those donations in the following way. I am grateful to Lord Charteris, the head of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, for his customary generosity. If the total cost of a move were to be less than £1 million, my Department and the NHMF would each contribute one quarter of the cost. If the total cost of a move would be more than £1 million, the trustees would need to secure private donations for all but £500,000, and my Department and the NHMF would then contribute £250,000 each. This was all dependent upon the trustees being able to obtain scheduled monument consent for removal and any other statutory consents which they might need. As I have said, they formally applied for scheduled monument consent in December 1982. On the merits of the application I can make no

119
comment whatsoever tonight, and cannot take delivery of any, as there are statutory procedures still in progress. Hon. Members know the role that my Department plays.
I am well aware that time is not improving the state of the monument and that decisions about it should not be unnecessarily delayed. I want my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to understand that I fully appreciate that. My officials and I are in no doubt about the urgency involved.
The proposal to move the structure again has naturally attracted considerable public interest and widely divergent opinions. They will have to be assessed over the ensuing weeks. When anyone is engaged on such a mammoth exercise, a wide range of expert opinion has to be listened to carefully.
It was right that the issues should be open to examination at a public inquiry, and my Department last year offered an August date for that, but it was unacceptable to the Temple Bar Trust. The inquiry opened on 11 October, and was then adjourned at the request of the Temple Bar Trust, which was having certain problems. The inquiry reopened and was concluded last month.
The independent inspector is preparing his report and recommendations. I hope that they will be ready soon, and I await the outcome with great interest. Whatever the decision, a substantial duty will continue to rest upon the Temple Bar trustees, who, I understand, have become the owners of the monument. As with any other structure, the responsibility for its care rests first and foremost on its owners. My hon. Friend understands that.
In this case, if the trust received scheduled monument consent to move the structure, it would still need to obtain over £500,000 in subscriptions from the private sector before any works for removal could begin. If the trust were refused scheduled monument consent for removal, it would instead need to make plans for the conservation of Temple Bar in situ.
Those are important points which hon. Members must understand. A great deal of money will have to be raised,
120
whatever the final plan might be. No doubt the trustees have given considerable thought to the matter and considered every possibility. They may wish to seek advice from the newly formed Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which was set up in the previous Parliament and will start work on 1 April.
Because of the quasi-judicial role of my Department, I cannot take up too many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. However, the debate has rightly highlighted the interest of the House in heritage matters and all hon. Members should be grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the topic. We shall ensure that she, my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South and others who are interested in the matter are kept fully apprised over the next few weeks as the inspector's report comes to light.
I regret that I cannot say much more and I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will understand that my Department still has roles to play, and if I say the wrong thing that could be deemed to have had an effect on those roles. I hope that she will have no doubt that we attach great importance to this ancient monument. Many people are taking a detailed and close interest in its future and I hope that all who have a role to play will note what she has said. I thank her for her eloquent pleas.
Mr. Rhodes James: Will my hon. Friend give us an indication of the Government's view?
Mr. Macfarlane: The Government's view has been one of wholehearted interest over the past three or four years and I have outlined our financial contribution. I have also told the House of the interest of the NHMF, which is fulsome. We have a part to play, but the independent inspector will be reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I am sure that the House would not expect me to embark on too detailed an appraisal of the strategy over the next few weeks. We have other parts yet to play.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  Lomé Agreement
  Lomé Agreement
  Grenada
  Grenada
  African Refugees
  African Refugees
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  Tanzania
  Tanzania
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Diseases of Fish Act 1983
  Diseases of Fish Act 1983
  Tributyl Tin
  Tributyl Tin
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  House Transfer Services (Banks and Building Societies)
  House Transfer Services (Banks and Building Societies)
  Probate
  Probate
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Women on Remand
  Women on Remand
  Local Government Elections
  Local Government Elections
  Computerised Information
  Computerised Information
  Fines
  Fines
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Minicabs
  Minicabs
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Average Contents System
  Average Contents System
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Finished Manufactures
  Finished Manufactures
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Restraint Equipment
  Restraint Equipment
  Scented Erasers
  Scented Erasers
  Sale of Goods (Prohibition Powers)
  Sale of Goods (Prohibition Powers)
  Marbles
  Marbles
  Throat Blockage Incidents (Statistics)
  Throat Blockage Incidents (Statistics)
  Insolvency Law Reform
  Insolvency Law Reform
PRIME MINISTER
  Sir Rex Hunt
  Sir Rex Hunt
  University Staff
  University Staff
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Saatchi and Saatchi
  Saatchi and Saatchi
  GCHQ Cheltenham
  GCHQ Cheltenham
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Manufacturing (Statistics)
  Manufacturing (Statistics)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Back Injuries
  Back Injuries
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  North West Region
  North West Region
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turkey (Technician Colleges)
  Turkey (Technician Colleges)
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  England Cricket Team (Pakistan Tour)
  England Cricket Team (Pakistan Tour)
  EC Finance
  EC Finance
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Sinai
  Sinai
TRANSPORT
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  London Regional Transport Authority
  London Regional Transport Authority
  Rye and Winchelsea (Bypasses)
  Rye and Winchelsea (Bypasses)
  British Rail (Eastern Region)
  British Rail (Eastern Region)
  Local Government Reform (Staffing Implications)
  Local Government Reform (Staffing Implications)
  Rail Services (London and South-East)
  Rail Services (London and South-East)
  British Rail (Privatisation)
  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Express Coachway (Marylebone Station)
  Express Coachway (Marylebone Station)
  Woodhead Tunnel Rail Route
  Woodhead Tunnel Rail Route
  Lincoln Bypass
  Lincoln Bypass
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Road Schemes (Report)
  Road Schemes (Report)
  Road Excavations
  Road Excavations
  St. Pancras to Sheffield Line
  St. Pancras to Sheffield Line
  A40 (Pedestrian Crossing)
  A40 (Pedestrian Crossing)
  London Regional Transport Bill
  London Regional Transport Bill
  London Transport (Budget)
  London Transport (Budget)
  Settle to Carlisle Railway Line
  Settle to Carlisle Railway Line
  Vehicle Registration Marks
  Vehicle Registration Marks
  Trunk Roads (London)
  Trunk Roads (London)
  Roads (Tolls)
  Roads (Tolls)
  South Circular Road
  South Circular Road
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  Car Registration Numbers
  Car Registration Numbers
  M27 (Opening)
  M27 (Opening)
  Motorways (Accident Statistics)
  Motorways (Accident Statistics)
  Moped Test
  Moped Test
  Vulcancrown Bus Service
  Vulcancrown Bus Service
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Bus Travel (Children)
  Bus Travel (Children)
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Social Workers (Courses)
  Social Workers (Courses)
  Russian Language
  Russian Language
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Students
  Students
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Pupil Expenditure
  Pupil Expenditure
  Letcombe Research Laboratory
  Letcombe Research Laboratory
ENVIRONMENT
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Local Government (Information)
  Local Government (Information)
  Victoria Park
  Victoria Park
  Greater London Horse Show
  Greater London Horse Show
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976
  Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Halvergate Marshes
  Halvergate Marshes
  Sporting Activities (Police Attendance)
  Sporting Activities (Police Attendance)
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  Ancient Woodlands (Hertfordshire)
  Ancient Woodlands (Hertfordshire)
  Local Authorities (Mortgage Debt)
  Local Authorities (Mortgage Debt)
  Merseyside County Council
  Merseyside County Council
  Archbishop's Park
  Archbishop's Park
  Chelston Meadow, Devon (Gipsy Site)
  Chelston Meadow, Devon (Gipsy Site)
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  London (Office Accommodation)
  London (Office Accommodation)
  Planning Officers
  Planning Officers
ENERGY
  Wytch Farm
  Wytch Farm
  Disconnections
  Disconnections
  Coal-firing Scheme
  Coal-firing Scheme
THE ARTS
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
NATIONAL FINANCE
  "Towards a New Bretton Woods"
  "Towards a New Bretton Woods"
  Taxation and Social Security
  Taxation and Social Security
  Civil Servants (Telephone Calls)
  Civil Servants (Telephone Calls)
  Net Income
  Net Income
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Section 714 Certificates
  Section 714 Certificates
  Building Workers (Taxation)
  Building Workers (Taxation)
  Rights Issues
  Rights Issues
  Company Medical Insurance
  Company Medical Insurance
  Inland Revenue (Efficiency)
  Inland Revenue (Efficiency)
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Tax Assessments
  Tax Assessments
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Private Schools (Charitable Status)
  Private Schools (Charitable Status)
  Spouses (Tax Assessment)
  Spouses (Tax Assessment)
  Inland Revenue (Net Receipts)
  Inland Revenue (Net Receipts)
SCOTLAND
  School Transport
  School Transport
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Opera House/Theatre, Edinburgh
  Opera House/Theatre, Edinburgh
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Parole
  Parole
  Bail (Scotland) Act 1980
  Bail (Scotland) Act 1980
  Peterhead Prison (Visits)
  Peterhead Prison (Visits)
  Probation
  Probation
  Offenders (Community-based Services)
  Offenders (Community-based Services)
  Social Inquiry Reports
  Social Inquiry Reports
  After-care Licence
  After-care Licence
  Mentally-handicapped Young Persons (Education)
  Mentally-handicapped Young Persons (Education)
  Easter (School Holidays)
  Easter (School Holidays)
  Schools
  Schools
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  NHS (Charges)
  NHS (Charges)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
WALES
  Learner Drivers
  Learner Drivers
  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  "Heritage Coast"
  "Heritage Coast"
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Lamb
  Lamb
  Elderly and Disabled Persons
  Elderly and Disabled Persons
  Housing
  Housing
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Illness Patients
  Mental Illness Patients
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Unemployed Persons (Benefits)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefits)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  National Childbirth Trust
  National Childbirth Trust
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Patients (Statistics)
  Patients (Statistics)
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
  Concessionary Prescriptions
  Concessionary Prescriptions
  NHS Staff (Pay)
  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Private Health Care
  Private Health Care
  Health Care (Contractual Arrangements)
  Health Care (Contractual Arrangements)
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  NHS (Convalescent Facilities)
  NHS (Convalescent Facilities)
  Bio-engineering
  Bio-engineering
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Sponsored Volunteers (Social Security)
  Sponsored Volunteers (Social Security)
  Benefits Claimants (Computerisation)
  Benefits Claimants (Computerisation)
  Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs
  Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs
  NHS Staffs (Back Injuries)
  NHS Staffs (Back Injuries)
  Ancillary Service Costs (Hampstead)
  Ancillary Service Costs (Hampstead)
  Mentally Ill Persons (Treatment Times)
  Mentally Ill Persons (Treatment Times)
  Household Duties Test
  Household Duties Test
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Residential Care
  Residential Care
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Health and Nutrition Education
  Health and Nutrition Education
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Disconnections
  British Pensioners (Canada)
  British Pensioners (Canada)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Supplementary Pension
  Supplementary Pension
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Hare Coursing
  Hare Coursing
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Wildlife Conservation
  Wildlife Conservation
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Agriculture and Forestry
  Agriculture and Forestry
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
  Lear Fan Project
  Lear Fan Project
DEFENCE
  Naval Air Defence Systems
  Naval Air Defence Systems
  Argentine Equipment
  Argentine Equipment
  "Naval Review" Magazine
  "Naval Review" Magazine
  In-flight Fuelling
  In-flight Fuelling
  Mr. J. M. Dolan (Letter)
  Mr. J. M. Dolan (Letter)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Royal Irish Rangers
  Royal Irish Rangers
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy

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

Pupil-Teacher Ratios
Lord Vaizey: 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 is the present pupil-teacher ratio in maintained primary schools and in maintained secondary schools respectively; and how both ratios compare with those for 1978.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, between 1978 and 1983 pupil to teacher ratios within primary schools in the United Kingdom improved from 23.4 to 1, to 22.1 to 1; and the pupil to teacher ratio within secondary schools improved from 16.7 to 1, to 16.2 to 1, My right honourable friends expect the figures for 1984 to show a further slight improvement.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he agree that the improvement, which has endured throughout this period of economic difficulty and which has continued a trend established under governments of different complexions for the past 20 years, is a remarkable achievement of the education service? Will he further say whether or not he thinks that the outcome of this substantial increase in expenditure per child has been effective in terms of reading, writing and mathematical ability?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's first supplementary question. I think it deserves to be more widely appreciated that the ratio of pupils to teachers has improved in every year since this Government took office. To answer my noble friend's second supplementary question, I think that the standard of teaching depends on many other factors besides the pupil to teacher ratio. In restructuring the teacher training system, the Government sought a closer match between the qualifications of new teachers and the needs of schools. We have made additional provision for the further training of serving teachers. We propose to raise standards in initial training through the establishment of a Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and through criteria against which the council would assess training courses. I hope that all this will equip teachers to teach everything better, including the three Rs.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, would the Minister he prepared to extend the information that he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, by giving us the numbers in all sectors of education, and not just in the maintained sector?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, is asking for. If he is asking for the ratio in private schools, I shall have to write to him. I do not have those figures with me.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we are grateful for the drop in pupil-teacher ratio which took place under the previous Government and which has continued under this Government? But is the noble Earl also aware that today almost 50,000 teachers of one kind or another are unemployed, and that there could be a considerable improvement in the ratio if the Government would only provide local authorities with money to employ those teachers? For example, is he aware that at the moment Newcastle is faced with sacking 200 teachers because of the Government's grant policy?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords: but against that must be considered the far fewer numbers of pupils in school. We cannot employ every trained teacher; that would cause no end of problems, and some of those teachers may be less well-equipped to teach than others.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, could my noble friend give an assurance that the Government's commitment to special educational needs will be fully implemented?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, yes, I could give that commitment. Wherever possible the Government are committed to getting children with special educational needs into ordinary schools, and that we shall continue to do. But there will obviously also be a need to allow those children, who for some reason or another are not fit to attend ordinary school to continue to be educated in special schools.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio is at its worst in the deprived areas of this country, in the inner cities? Will he not agree that something has to be done in those areas in particular?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I could not confirm that without notice.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister agree that these smaller classes are largely a result of the lower birth rate? Are the Government doing anything to remedy that?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to contribute to that in some way, perhaps we could follow his example.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether this improvement—about which of course we are all pleased—has come about partly because the rolls have fallen more slowly than teachers have been got rid of? This is borne out by the Statistical Bulletin produced by the DES in January. Will the noble Earl also confirm that, according to this bulletin, Labour authorities have a much better pupil-teacher ratio overall than have the other authorities?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I believe it is true that the fall in the pupil population since 1978 has itself required some improvement in pupil to teacher ratio in order to sustain a constant staffing standard in the schools. But the improvement which has actually taken place is more than enough for that purpose. Therefore, in spite of the falling rolls, the pupil-teacher ratio is better. I am afraid that I have no knowledge of any particular authorities and how much they are doing.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I pursue my question and ask the noble Lord the Minister what the Government intend to do about the 50,000 teachers who are unemployed and who the Government have trained?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it all depends on individual circumstances. There is going to be no block move, as it were, to take them all into employment as teachers.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that the Government are still committed to the teaching of the three Rs, on which everything else depends?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say whether the ratios vary greatly in different parts of the country, and in particular in Scotland, Wales, and England?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, they do indeed. I have full details here and I could read them out, but that would take rather a long time. Historically overall pupil-teacher ratios have been lower in Scotland than in England, and the Government's expediture plans envisage some convergence.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question directed to him from the Alliance Benches was based on a false premise? The pupil-teacher ratio in the inner cities is considerably more favourable than that in the rest of the country.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Earl, in his last answer but one, suggested that there would be convergence of the teacher-pupil ratio in Scotland and England. Would he confirm that this will be an improvement in England rather than a deterioration in the Scottish ratio?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it will be a mixture of both.

Metropolitan Police: Alcohol Consumption
2.44 p.m.
Lord Avebury: 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 instructions the Home Secretary has given to the Metropolitan Police about the consumption of alcohol during working hours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, this matter is dealt with in the police discipline code contained in Schedule 2 to the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977. The code provides that it is a disciplinary offence for a member of any police force, while on duty and without proper authority from an officer of higher rank, to drink or receive from any other person any intoxicating liquor. Responsibility for enforcing the discipline code within the Metropolitan Police rests with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister read the report of the Policy Studies Institute, and particularly those sections of it in volume 4 which deal with the consumption of alcohol by the police and particularly by the CID? Would he accept that since the research on which the PSI report was based was undertaken after the regulations to which he has referred were promulgated, they clearly are not working since there are many horrendous anecdotes in that report of excessive consumption of alcohol by police officers during working hours? Does he not think that some special instructions are warranted by the Secretary of State in view of the revelations in this report?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am aware of the contents of the report which the noble Lord has described in colourful language. It recognises that drinking is a problem in many occupational groups, and that it may be more of one among policemen than in some others. It also recommends preventive medicine as being a better way of dealing with it than a heavy-handed use of discipline. The commissioner has accepted the broad assessment made of this problem by the PSI. Research is already in hand to consider the problems of stress in the force, and this has been widened to consider the related problem of drinking.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the important considerations raised in the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, has the noble Lord the Minister any knowledge of any special consultations which have taken place between the Secretary of State and the commissioner? If they have not taken place, is it not material that they should?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my right honourable friend and the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police are in constant consultation about the discharge of the functions of the Metropolitan Police, for which my right honourable friend is the police authority.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, can the noble Lord produce any substantial and accurate evidence—detailed evidence—that the members of the police force indulge in the consumption of alcoholic liquor in working hours? Is there any evidence of that kind? If there is some evidence that occasionally a policeman takes a nip of something—I shall not say what particular

1037
brand it should be; whether it would be whisky, wine, or beer—is there anything remarkably wrong in that? Are we reaching a stage when policemen will be told that they cannot even have a smoke during working hours?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that there is probably a proper position between that of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. To put it into perspective, in 1983 a total of 18 officers were dealt with for the three drink or drink-related offences under the discipline code. There are over 27,000 police officers altogether in the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister will pardon my going to the Dispatch Box again? May I remind him that he answered my previous question with the rather original remark that the Secretary of State was in constant consultation with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Would he direct his mind to my specific question in view of the anxiety on this matter? Have special consultations taken place in regard to that portion of the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred? If not, would he please tell the Secretary of State, his right honourable friend, that a consultation of this kind is necessary?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot say whether the consultations included particular attention to that particular part of the large and important report, hut I shall of course draw the noble Lord's views to my right honourable friend's attention.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me and other members of the public'? Is it an offence of members of the public to offer a police officer on duty a drink, or not?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords; but is is encouraging the police officer to commit an offence.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, does the noble Lord endorse what my noble friend Lord Mishcon has suggested, that there is anxiety about this matter? Is there any real anxiety about this matter?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the report by the Policy Studies Institute has made it clear that there are special anxieties about drink problems in a number of professions and that the police service is one of them. The institute has suggested how it should be dealt with. Perhaps at this point I should return to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because my right honourable friend, as I recall, stands behind the acceptance of the commissioner of the broad assessments made of this problem by the PSI and, as I said, research is already in hand.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, if his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increases the excise licence in a week or two's time, does the noble Lord the Minister think that this will help to solve the problem?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it did I should make haste to ensure that the idea is attributed to the noble Lord who has just suggested it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while there may be many other professions apart from the police where alcohol is a particular hazard because of the stresses that their activities involve outside their working lives, in the case of the police we are, according to the Policy Studies Institute, dealing with a serious incidence of the consumption of alcohol during working hours? That was made plain by the Policy Studies Institute by saying that in the case of the CID it is an integral part of their working lives. Does not the noble Lord accept that this is not a matter for research, but a matter for firm instructions from the commissioner and from senior officers that drinking while on duty will not be tolerated in the CID any more that it is in the uniformed branch?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thought I had already made clear the answer to that question, which is, "yes". I have also made it clear that it is an offence for a uniformed officer to drink on duty without specific leave from his superior officer. The same is true for those who work in plain clothes, but quite obviously there are times when one cannot gain information from somebody in a pub while drinking orangeade.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is it not part of the CID's business to contact all kinds and types in public houses? Would it not be absolutely essential for them to take a drink now and again, if they did not want to draw attention to themselves as being quite outside the general run of affairs? Is it not part of their duty at least to have a drink? Would it not be quite absurd to lay down the line that they were not to have a drink at all?—their duties would be useless.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is perfectly clear and true, and what I was seeking to make clear.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we cannot call this question a storm in a tea cup—nothing to exaggerate, and a very personal flatter on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for the appropriateness of her metaphor.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, will my noble friend please tell me this—as we have so many regulations today about drinking while driving a car, as regards the Metropolitan Police are there any regulations about drinking while riding a horse?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not at all certain, but I know that the penalty for failure to observe them is often catastrophic.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, as I am sure he is, that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is far from being alone in this concern? Is he not further aware that if it were made a general rule that the police on duty in pubs would drink only lemonade, that would shortly become the custom?
Lord Elton: My Lords, no, I cannot agree with that. In fact, I think that the teacup is becoming rather crowded. There is a problem; it is not a major

1039
problem. It has been taken on board by my right honourable friend and by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on the basis of a well-authenticated and respectable research document. I would have thought that your Lordships would now be content to let the matter rest there.

Beer and Cider: Excise Duty
2.55 p.m.
Lord Monson: 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 why the rate of excise duty on beer is on average almost 2½ times the rate of excise duty on cider, despite the generally greater alcoholic strength of the latter.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, alcoholic strength has been only one of the factors determining the rates of duty on alcoholic drinks.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for his reply. Would he not agree that logically the taxes on both of these excellent beverages ought to be harmonised, ideally at the lower of the two levels, given that British beer taxes are already among the highest in Europe? Secondly, will he endeavour to persuade his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whatever the EEC may say, he should not increase taxes on beer to such an extent that the British working man can no longer afford his pint?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I would not agree that logic is necessarily the determining factor in these matters, but the needs of the Revenue and the circumstances of the trade also enter into decisions on issues of this kind. As the noble Lord will be well aware, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is introducing his Budget on 13th March and he will pay regard to all representations that have been made.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the Financial Times of the 14th of this month, which stated that:
"The sharpest increase in the real level of excise duty since the Conservatives came to power has been for beer—up 19 per cent. over the period.
"In contrast, the real value of duty on a bottle of Scotch whisky dropped by 14·4 per cent."?
Is it not rather odd that a Government dedicated to the eradication of alcoholism should provide incentives for people to drink whisky, or perhaps cider as the noble Lord suggested, rather than beer?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I would not agree that an increase in duty is an incentive to additional consumption.

Homelessness: Funding Assistance
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 plans they have for alternative funding for those organisations assisting the homeless at present partly funded by the GLC.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have nothing yet to add to paragraph 2.27 of the White Paper Streamlining the Cities, Command No. 9063 and to the answer I gave in our recent debate on 8th February, namely, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has issued a consultation paper seeking views on this and the arrangements that might be involved. We are now analysing the large number of responses we have received.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but I think it will not quell the fears of those many great organisations dealing with the homeless. For example, would the Minister not agree that those local authorities already threatened with rate-capping legislation will be entirely unable to replace the present GLC funding? Is the noble Lord aware that in 1983–84 CHAR alone has been given £928,000 by the GLC for work for the homeless? Would he not agree that future planning for the increasing problem of the homeless must be the responsibility of central Government and that all the voluntary organisations would like to see their fears set at rest by the Department of the Environment bringing out a long-term planned research on how to deal with future problems of the homeless?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept that a future strategy will have to be arrived at. But, as I have said on numerous occasions, this will not be done until after we have studied the responses to the consultation paper. Were rate-capping of individual boroughs to become necessary, I am advised that it would not affect the problem to which the noble Baroness is addressing herself.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government now have to look into all these matters and did not consider them before they took their political decision?
Lord Skelmersdale: Not at all, my Lords. We decided that this was the right way to go about matters, but we recognised in this case, as the White Paper makes clear, that there is concern in the voluntary sector about the possible effects of abolition. Therefore, it was considered wise to issue the consultation paper.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the most recent figures on the single homeless in London show that some 14,000 are in hostels and some 2,000 are trapped in very unsatisfactory bed and breakfast accommodation?

1041
Will not any reduction in funding of voluntary organisations and other bodies put additional pressure on this type of accommodation? Will the noble Lord see that this factor is taken into account during the consultation process?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, certainly; but, again, my views on breakfast accommodation are well-known. The same money would be far better spent on rehabilitating the long-term empty housing stock.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the problem of homelessness does not affect one particular borough—Westminster, Camden, Hammersmith or Fulham—and that therefore, whatever arrangements replace the present ones, there will have to be an authority that covers the whole of Greater London? Does he agree that the choice, therefore, is between an authority which is elected, such as the present GLC, or an authority which is not elected such as is the implication of the Government's proposals? Does the noble Lord not think that the people of Greater London as a whole should have some say in the provision of these important services for the homeless?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords; I do not accept the noble Lord's premise at all, because any cross-boundary arrangements that are come to will have to be come to by the individual boroughs, which are themselves elected.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this is not another example—and I regret to ask this question, but I feel that I must—of the failure to implement what was a general opinion expressed by almost every speaker who took part in the recent debate on the subject initiated by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs? When the House, and almost every speaker on both sides, directs attention to the importance of a question of this kind and then we find the Government saying that they will have to consider this, that it will take time, that there has to be an exhaustive study, and so on, is that to the credit of your Lordships' House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, should feel that way. When I wound up for the Government in that particular debate I explained that we were in the middle of a consultation period, the formal written consultation period having finished on 31st January, but that, naturally, because of the concern expressed in your Lordships' House, I would include the various points made as part of the consultation procedure. This is exactly what is going on at the moment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the results of the consultation will be available before the Bill to abolish the GLC comes before the House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall be most surprised if they are not.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will take into
1042
consideration the vast amount of work done by the voluntary organisations in helping to house the homeless?
Lord Skelmersdale: Certainly, my Lords, Again, I thought that I had made that patently clear on 8th February.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that he has not really accepted that there is a very great urgency so far as concerns the planning of the voluntary organisations? I will give him the example, if I may, of the Piccadilly Advice Centre, which does amazing work for all the young people pouring into London with no homes to go to. That organisation cannot do their future planning. Would he not accept that there is a very great urgency as far as they are concerned?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept that there is uncertainty, but I do not accept that there is urgency. The funding is currently going on, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the borough councils themselves cannot replace it. That doubt, I admit, exists in the minds of voluntary bodies; and it is exactly this that the consultation has been about all along.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has my noble friend tried to tell the homeless that there is no urgency about the matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are talking about extra provision for the homeless which is not provided by conventional means. We are not talking about deprivation of the homeless per se.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that the Report stage of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for about an hour. During this adjournment the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1984 will be taken.

Food Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the provisions of the Food and Drugs Acts 1955 to 1982, the Sugar Act 1956, the Food and Drugs (Milk) Act 1970, Section 7(3) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972, Section 198 of the Local Government Act 1972 and Part IX of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, and connected provisions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "cable programme service" etc.]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("or both") and insert ("or such signals as are described in paragraph (c) of section 4(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 or any combination of such sounds, images or signals").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee. I hear that the somewhat complicated points that were involved were not formally aired in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaking from the Front Bench. I had occasion to refer to this in what I had to say after his answer, and in that case I said I thought I would have to return to this when I had read what he said. This is not just a matter of definition of cable programmes and their implications. It says that the definition should not be limited to the sending of sounds and visual images alone (as is provided for in Clause 2(1) of the Bill) but should include sound, visual images and other matters, thereby bringing it into line with Clause 4(1) of the Telecommunications Bill, which is also passing through your Lordships, House.
It raises a general issue which I raised on a number of my amendments at Committee stage as to whether this Bill should follow the Telecommunications Bill by including this third category of matters within its scope. To do so would involve a number of amendments at other points in the Bill. I have not attempted to do so on Report because I believe that if the Government were to accept my amendment or to promise to introduce an amendment similar to it, all the consequential amendments which would flow are perfectly capable of being put down by the Government and their able advisers.
It raises a particular issue which was not properly dealt with in the various debates at Committee stage, and that is the copyright issue. I speak with considerable trepidation on copyright matters, which are somewhat uncharted, are certainly a morass, and over which (mixing my metaphors as far as possible) we are all liable to trip into the brambles without any trouble at all—and, particularly, copyright lawyers. It arises in the following way. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Bill provides, in effect, that the owners of copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works should be able to control the inclusion of their works in a cable programme. A cable programme is defined in the new Section 14A of the Copyright Act 1956 which is to be inserted into that Act by Clause 22 of this Bill as a programme included in a cable programme service. That expression is defined by Clause 2(1) as a sending of sounds or visual images by cable.
If a literary work such as a computer program (if such could be called a literary work), or perhaps, indeed, even a novel or short story which is stored in a computer data base, was sent over a cable system in a form which did not consist of either sounds or visual images but was capable of being translated by the
1044
computer into such sounds or visual images, and was indeed intelligible to the computer, then the copyright owner would have no control over it. I believe that this is unsatisfactory and my amendment attempts to remedy this.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, during the Committee stage said:
"The Government agree that when computer programmes and other matter falling outside the term "sounds or visual images" are broadcast, the broadcaster should receive the same copyright protection as he would in relation to anything else that he puts out over the air. Cable operators should be similarly treated when they include such matters in cable programmes. We shall certainly consider how best to ensure that this is achieved".
My amendment makes the point that it is not only cable operators and broadcasters who need this protection but also other rights owners. I cannot see any amendments dealing with this issue which are to be moved by the Government on Report, and so this amendment gives me the opportunity to inquire what the Government's intentions are in this respect, so that it is not only the copyright of the broadcasters and the cable operators which is protected but also that of other rights owners.
I apologise if what I have said sounds extremely complicated, and if for that reason I have had to look rather more closely at what is written down in front of me than I would normally do in making a speech before your Lordships it is because I do not want to chance any possibility of getting these highly complicated matters wrong. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord's amendment and to express the hope, as he has already done, that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will accept the amendment or at least deal sympathetically with the points included in it. I rise in the hope of getting an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this amendment would cover one matter with which I am concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, told the House, this amendment is complicated and it deals with a number of important matters. If the amendment is to be accepted, I should, like an assurance that it would deal with one important matter which has been brought to my attention by somebody involved in cable services. It has been pointed out to me that Clause 2(1) defines "cable programme service" and in Clause 2(2) we have "licensable service" and so on; but nowhere in that clause is there any reference whatever to interactive services. It seems to me that if such services are not included there might be a presumption that they are in fact excluded. Bearing in mind that the justification for cable at all in many of our minds concerns the future benefits of interactive services, I am very anxious that those services should be properly protected.
If we turn back to the Hunt Report from which so much of this arose, we see that it refers to various functions such as authorising and regulation information services, for example, home shopping and telebanking. There is no reference at all to the interactive services, so far as I can see, in the Bill. Looking at the Telecommunications Bill, to which the noble Lord's amendment refers, and taking the particular section that he wishes to be incorporated

1045
into this Bill, there we have referred to on page 4, Clause 4(1)(c):
"Signals serving for the impartation (whether as between persons and persons, things and things or persons and things) of any matter otherwise than in the forms of sounds or visual images".
It would seem, from my reading of that analysis and referring to the noble Lord's amendment, that if this amendment were accepted in principle, interactive services would be protected. It seems very important that people seeking franchises for cable services, bearing in mind future interactive services, are necessarily going to make very substantial captial investments with regard to those interactive services here and now and they cannot be expected to make such investment unless they have an understanding that they are going to be protected. I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whether this amendment would protect them. If so, that is fine, so long as the amendment is accepted by the Government. If not, perhaps there may be the possibility of putting down some other amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—because convention allows him to speak only once—I should like to be absolutely certain that I have got his question right. The protection with which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is concerned is the protection of copyright; that is, the protection of material travelling over a network. When the noble Lord says that investors would not want to invest in interactive systems which were not so protected, I presume he means that items travelling over that system would not be protected by the Copyright Act. That, again, leads me to wonder what sort of traffic he would expect where copyright could be seriously infringed on a one-to-one communication basis. I am saying all this so that the noble Lord may have a moment to put his thoughts in order, as I know how valuable it is to have a moment to do so before returning to one's feet.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and perhaps I might explain a little further what I had in mind. It seems to me that if a group get a franchise for the establishment, in the end, after broadcasting, of interactive services, they need to know that they are going to be protected just as, for example, when Capital Radio are awarded a franchise to do local radio in a certain area, they do not want to discover suddenly that someone else is going to be working in the same area. Similarly, interactive services need the same kind of protection. If these people are to make the investment which is necessary in order to mount the interactive services which we all want to see and from which we believe great benefits will flow, it is clear that they must have some kind of protection; otherwise they will not make that investment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do now fully understand why the noble Lord, Lord Howard, regards us all as people who are going into the marshes to pick blackberries. I hope that we emerge without getting either scratched or stuck. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord seeks to amend the definition of "cable programme service" to include as well as sounds and
1046
visual images certain types of signals defined in the Telecommunications Bill. The new definition would not affect what was licensable by the cable authority but it would have implications for the various provisions of the criminal and civil law which are to refer to cable programme services and in particular for the Copyright Act.
I appreciate the concerns that have given rise to this amendment and I repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee. First, we entirely agree that the "must carry" rule should extend to those broadcast signals such as Teletext and computer programmes which are associated with the main television signals. It will not be acceptable for the cable operator to remove these signals before he relays the broadcast over cable. Secondly, we agree in principle that there should be copyright in the broadcasting or the diffusion by cable of computer programmes.
So far as text services are concerned, the noble Lord suggested in Committee that these might not have copyright protection, but in fact text services are cable programme services under Clause 2(1) even though they are not licensable under Clause 2(2). This is the case because the reference to "moving pictures" in subsection (6) applies only to subsections (2) and (4) and not to subsection (1). So I do not think that there is a problem with text. The difficulty arises only in the case of data where there are no sounds or visual images.
We are agreed on the principle; our difficulty is only one of finding the means by which to achieve our objectives. I am afraid that this is, as he has acknowledged, somewhat complex. It is perhaps a pity that we should start our proceedings this afternoon on quite such an esoteric problem. The difficulty about the noble Lord's amendment is that, although it is really conceived for copyright purposes, it deals with one of the key definitions in the Bill by seeking to broaden the definition of a "cable programme service". This would have implications far wider than the copyright law and the "must carry" rule. I am afraid that the Government cannot therefore accept the amendment as it stands. What I can say to the noble Lord is that we are considering very carefully how best to resolve this complicated problem in the most appropriate way, and we will bring forward amendments of our own in due course. I fear though that the difficulties are such that I cannot offer the noble Lord the satisfaction of seeing them in the Bill before it leaves this House; but he can expect to receive them in a message from the Commons when it has completed its passage there.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, drew my attention to an issue which I find very difficult. The question of interactive services raises a number of very complex matters, some of which are covered by the Telecommunications Bill. Clause 6(2)(e) refers to "related services" and these would include interactive services; and the Cable Authority will, under Clause 6 and Clause 4(8), be able to encourage them as well. They will not however be licensable. I am not certain whether I am fully seized of the noble Lord's anxieties about protection because this is a wide concept that he has invited us to consider, and the best that I can do is to pay very careful attention to anything he may say to me after our exchanges this afternoon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. It is a little difficult to have to wait for the Bill to have a passage throughout this House, before proper words can be found to give this very essential definition. But that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to comment on, since it is his amendment and not mine. The only reason why I rise is that others have expressed precisely the same anxiety to me as was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I hope that in any exchange of correspondence that may take place with the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, on that matter I might be included.
Lord Elton: With pleasure, my Lords.
Lord Howard of Lienderskelfe: My Lords, the problem really arises because all of this is so new. The thought of a novel existing not on the printed page but on a data base is new to us. The thought of a film existing as a string of noughts and ones is very curious; but it is perfectly possible that this should be so. After all, we already have video discs which are encoded by digital means, and we have that in both musical and picture form. There is no reason why this should not also be so for all other forms of literary activity.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is very difficult to know how to bring this in and I sympathise with his difficulties in this respect. I have made an attempt to do so. If in doing so I have so enlarged the scope of what becomes a licensable service that this is quite unacceptable, I see that this presents problems. I did not quite appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was seeking to do when he stood up, but the form of protection which I think he is seeking is not the form of protection which I am seeking. I am seeking protection for individuals' rights in what they have created. He is seeking protection of a rather different kind. In other words, he is seeking monopolistic protection in a particular area. I hope that that is not too cruel hut that is what it sounds like to me.
So on the confident and clear understanding that the Government will introduce—probably not in your Lordships' House, though I regret that, but in another place—suitable amendments, I shall seek to withdraw the amendment. I hope the noble Lord can let me see the amendments before they are put down, even if they are put down in another place, so that we can—helpfully, I hope—comment on them. I have no axe at all to grind and am merely seeking the protection of the rights of creative people. Maybe we should in this House, or in another House, try to do it by way of rewriting certain sections of the Copyright Act itself—I do not know. But in the confident hope that we shall see something which will give this protection, and which the Government did not perhaps fully appreciate is in danger in the form in which the Bill at present exists. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("which is not within a dwelling-house").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment designed to remove words from Clause 2(2)(b) which we now think at best do no good and might even create a possible loophole. Clause 2(2)(b) deals with what the Bill terms "restricted services"; in other words, the sort of television for public presentations on large screens which happen from time to time in cinemas or clubs. These are of relatively marginal importance compared with the rest of the Bill, but they are of some consequence so far as live sport is concerned. Clause 2(2)(b) is at present confined to the case where the presentation takes place other than in a dwelling-house. Although presentations are inevitably going to occur in places where a substantial number of people can gather, there seems to be no reason of principle why the licensing requirement should depend on whether or not the premises constitute part of a dwelling-house.
We would not wish such accommodation to be used for this plainly commercial purpose, nor would we wish the authority to have to spend time on arguing with service providers about the nature of particular sets of premises, before they can exercise their licensing powers. The words seem to us, therefore, to do more harm than good and I hope that your Lordships will allow us to take them out. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I want to ask a simple question, if I may. I gather that this does not overlap with broadcasting because presumably the service will not be for general reception.
Lord Elton: No, my Lords. This is merely a restricted service.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to license services]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(7A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, it may be to your Lordships' convenience if I also address myself to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 9.
Amendment No. 4: Page 4, line 6, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(7A").
Amendment No. 6: Page 4, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
("(7A) The Authority may, after giving the holder of a licence a reasonable opportunity of making representations, vary the licence by notice in writing served on him.").
When we were in Committee, we discussed the question whether the Cable Authority's powers to vary the licences which they issue might be circumscribed in some way. I undertook without commitment to look at the principle of the matter. The Government have looked at this matter very carefully since the Committee stage, and have come to the conclusion that it is only fair that the licensee should have advance warning that his licence may be varied, and that he should have a reasonable opportunity to make representations about the proposed variation. That is what the amendments before us would achieve. In addition, and partly as a consequence, these amendments would remove the authority's ability to

1049
vary licences by publishing a general notice: any variation would have to be effected by an individual notice in writing served on the licensee in question. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the midst of the discussion which took place on this very clause, I ventured to make the suggestion on behalf of my noble friends which the noble Lord the Minister has very graciously adopted. Therefore, I should like to thank him very much for having considered what we have said and for acceding to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
("(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) above there shall be disregarded the provision of a prescribed diffusion service authorised by an installation licence.
(4B) In subsection (4A) above and section 5 below "installation licence" means a licence for the provision of a prescribed diffusion service to which the following conditions apply—

(a) the period during which the licence continues in force does not exceed two years; and

(b) the provision of the prescribed diffusion service authorised to be provided is for experimental and testing purposes only.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the need to make an allowance for the period of installation before a network can get into proper operation. Your Lordships will remember that in paragraph 72 of the White Paper there was a reference to this.
"There will inevitably be"—
it said—
"a gap between the grant of a franchise and the start of services to the public, given the time needed for the initial installation work. The period will not count against the 12-year period".
In fairness, I should add that it went on to say:
"The Cable Authority will, however, have the power to prevent unreasonable delay in the commitment of services by setting the operator's targets when awarding the franchise".
We discussed this question in Committee and I suggested that there should be a standard time of three years. The Government did not feel disposed to accept the suggestion, perhaps because of the length of time involved. I understand why the Government did not wish to accept a fixed period. If there is a fixed period it appears to be too close to extending the length of the licence. Nevertheless, the Government accepted that there is an installation time problem, although my noble friend did not undertake to come forward with any suggestion. Nor has he. Therefore I am so bold as to come forward with a suggestion for him.
The amendment introduces the concept of an installation licence which would cover the period while trunk routes are being laid and experimental connections are being made at the same time in order to test pictures, the strength of the signal and all the engineering features. I have sought to help in particular by suggesting that the length of period should be entirely at the discretion of the Cable Authority. It could be for a period of up to two years, it is true, but
1050
it would not have to be two years. In short, it would put upon the authority the duty to take each case individually and to decide, with the operator, how long they would reasonably need to carry out their installation work. No doubt there would in time grow up what I call case law to back them up.
I urge your Lordships to agree with me that this is very important indeed for operators. In order to test their system and equipment they must get a few subscribers on to trunk routes which are spread in various directions around the town. There will, or should be many experiments of this type. All we want is the certainty that the authority is bound by statute to take into account the requirement to allow, by the technique of an installation licence, each operator to have such time for the installation of the system as, after discussion with the operator, the authority believes is reasonable. Let me say, as I have said before, that we want a hard assurance from the Government. If they do not like this wording, all we want the Government to do is to tell us what they propose to put in its place. I beg to move.
Lord Glanusk: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. Obviously it is essential that during the period of installation the cable operator should be able thoroughly to test the entire system, from head end to customer. The Government may believe that this is a method of extending the licence time or the operating time of the operator, but this could be avoided if a third paragraph—(c)—were added: that during the period of the installation licence no charges could be made to the customer.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we spent a little time discussing this problem in Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing us back to it now by means of this amendment, which is rather different from the one which we had before us last time. It shows a good deal of imagination. I am not sure that there is very much between my noble friend and myself on the objectives. Where we may differ is on the means necessary to achieve them. I am entirely clear that this point is an important one for the cable companies. On the last occasion when we discussed these matters there was some suggestion that the Bill was not sufficiently clear on this matter as it stood. Perhaps I ought, first, to spell out how we believe that things will work under the Bill as drafted.
First, the Cable Authority will advertise its intention to consider licence applications for a particular area, whether off its own bat or because somebody has already and spontaneously, as it were, submitted an application. After the necessary consultations and deliberations, the Cable Authority will announce that it has decided to issue a licence to company X, and the Secretary of State will announce his willingness to issue a telecommunications licence. At that point, three things have got to happen before the public actually start to receive services in their homes. First, the telecommunications licensee has got to arrange for holes to be dug and cables to be installed; secondly, the telecommunications licensee has got to test the system by way of conveying signals, sounds and pictures over it to see that it works satisfactorily; finally, the Cable

1051
Authority licensee has got to start sending programmes for people to receive. No doubt in practice these stages will overlap to some extent. The operator may well judge that he is in a position to start providing a public service to part of his area even though holes still have to be dug and tests carried out in other parts. But the different stages are, in principle, separable.
The question which the amendment requires us to address is this: at what stage does the cable operator need a licence from the Cable Authority? The authority may wish to issue the licence soon after announcing the result of its deliberations, or it may choose to wait until nearer the start of the service, but in either case it will need to specify in the licence the date when it is actually to come into operation. That determines the date at which it expires. There is no need for us to spell out this procedure in the Bill. It is standard practice with licensing arrangements for the licensing body to state, when granting the licence, when it is to come into force. The gap may be of days, weeks or months. It does not matter. The authority will want to take account of the schedule for installing the system and may, up to a point; wish to leave the licensee some freedom in deciding when to start a public service, though, as paragraph 72 of the White Paper said, it may wish to set targets to prevent unreasonable delay.
A Cable Authority licence will not, however, need to come into force until the operator actually starts providing cable programme services to people in their homes. I know that my noble friend is not very enamoured of the distinction which we draw between conveying, which is the telecommunications activity, and sending, which is what the Cable Authority authorises, but it is a very important distinction in this context. While cables and apparatus are being installed, the telecommunications licensee will obviously need to convey sounds and pictures over part of the system to check that everything is in order and that the right thing comes out at the other end. But the cable operator actually has to start providing a service by sending programmes for people to watch before he needs a Cable Authority licence. He will not of course do that until the system is in working order.
It seems to us that there is not a need to provide in this Bill for a specific installation licence, because the programme service will not be operating while the installation is in progress over the whole area—although I again acknowledge that my noble friend is concerned where the service may be going out to part of an area and holes are being dug elsewhere. It is certainly the case that a telecommunications licence may be needed before the Cable Authority's licence comes into effect—and obviously there will need to be close consultation between the two licensing bodies to ensure that this does not lead to the ultimate expiry dates getting unnecessarily out of step. We shall have more to say about consultation when we reach Amendment No. 19.
I hope that what I have said will at least reassure your Lordships that the Government do recognise the reality of the installation period while believing that under this Bill and the Telecommunications Bill the
1052
matter can be taken care of without creating a new kind of Cable Authority licence.
I regret to rebuff such an interesting proposal and one so courteously advanced. I do accept, as my noble friend Lord Glanusk has said, that time is needed to test the system right through from head-end to customer. What I am trying to show is that that is not a function of the cable company but that, under this Bill, it is a function of the cable company to lay the cable in order that those licensed under this Bill—who may or may not be the same people—will be able to use it.
Perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships of something which may already be perfectly obvious: that we do recognise that in the first years of a service there will be difficulties which will not be repeated; and that the need to run a service for part of an area before the whole of the area has been cabled might perhaps be one of them. It was for precisely this reason that we decided that the initial licence period should be 12 years rather than the 10 years recommended in the Hunt Report, and which is all together four years longer than subsequent licence periods will run for. To provide those four extra years, the Cable Authority is, as my noble friend wishes, bound by statute—as appears in Clause 4(4)(a) and Clause 4(4)(b) of the Bill as printed.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his helpful reply and, although he did not accept it, for his kind comments about the technique I have suggested. In the course of his remarks, he indicated pretty thoroughly that the Cable Authority will have the right to date the start of a licence forward, presumably on the considerations which I have enumerated. I am very happy about that.
I am a little less happy about my noble friend's comments on the vexed question of the two licences, because I am talking about the Cable Authority licence specifically. But he said enough about the Cable Authority licence for us to be satisfied. One always tries to get into the statute everything that one wants, but frequently one has to rely on reassurances—and in this case I am happy to rely on what my noble friend, for the Government, has assured us of. For those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed earlier: col. 1048.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Duke of Portland The Duke of Portland moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 19, after ("(5)") insert ("Subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, the Cable Authority has power to vary a licence by a notice in writing served on the licence holder at any time during the currency of the licence. In Committee, it was argued on behalf of the Government that it would be undesirable to proscribe that power on the part of the Cable Authority by limiting its exercise to matters specifically reserved to those subject to variation in the licence itself—that to do so might diminish the

1053
authority's ability to react to unforeseeable events and detract from its flexibility. There is some force in the argument that the Cable Authority's power should not be fettered to that extent, and that licence holders are protected to a degree by the general duty on the part of the authority in subsection (8)(a) to use its licensing powers
"to promote the provision of prescribed diffusion services".
However, I wish to submit that the power of variation should not extend to any material alteration of the length of the licence or to the geographical area in which the service is authorised to be provided, unless the prior consent of the licence holder is first obtained. To allow variation in such fundamental matters without prior consent would be unduly oppressive and would surely detract from the value of the licence. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when we were dealing with the Minister's own amendment, I ventured to remind him—although I believe he needed no reminding—of the debate which took place on this matter at Committee stage. It was as a result of that debate, when we were considering the possible unfairness of a variation suddenly confronting a licence holder and, on the other hand, the necessity for a variation to be made in certain circumstances, that I ventured the suggestion at the bottom of col. 61 of the Official Report for 23rd January 1984. I said there:
"I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the way in between"—
that is, between those two principles—
"may be a consideration of the fact that a clause should be inserted in the Bill which says that if there is to be an intended variation of the licence the licensee has the right to make representations, on proper notice being given to him, as to the intention to vary. Those representations have to be considered by the authority before the variation takes place. Then it seems to me that one has a just situation"
With his usual courtesy, the noble Lord the Minister replied that my suggestion would be given consideration, and indeed he brought forward an amendment precisely along those lines for the consideration of the House today.
To put a further shackle on the authority will amount to a graver injustice than that which I was trying to mend on the last occasion. There is an ability to make representations. Indeed, if the representations made to the authority convince the authority that they are acting unfairly, and are depreciating the value of the licence in the way which the noble Duke has indicated, then it will be a matter for the authority to consider. However, to put into an Act that the authority can never vary a licence when there is such a material factor involved, whatever be the justice of the case and whatever be the circumstances, and in spite of the fact that there is full provision for representations to be made, would in my view be wrong. I say that with great respect to the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, and I am sure he did not take it amiss when I quoted my own words which I uttered on the last occasion.
3.50 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for what he said in Committee. He is right that his suggestion does seem to have been taken on board. It will be very helpful to
1054
licensees and would-be licensees. He says that it would be quite wrong to shackle the authority so that it could never vary a licence; but may I say with the greatest respect to him that that is not really what we are trying to do, save in two steps which are so fundamental that I believe they deserve special treatment. The noble Lord will be aware that Clause 4(4) deals here, in statute, with the period of the licence. That is one of the two points which we wish to preserve as unalterable. The other one, although it is not to be found so clearly in the statute but by implication is there, is the area that the licensee, when he makes his application, asks permission to cover.
With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that that can be said to be shackling the authority. In everything else it could vary the licence provided it gives notice. For that reason, although we are very pleased with what the Government have done with their Amendment No. 9, we do not think that it goes far enough in respect of those two absolutely basic subjects, which we believe to be so much a part of the fabric of the licence that they should not be susceptible to variation at the discretion of the authority. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend the Duke of Portland in what he said.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, as a complete outsider on this Bill I am a little worried about a situation which appears to me to pertain; but perhaps I have misread the situation. The authority is apparently going to be able to vary a licence, and that might be a great financial blow to the licensee. There seems to be an argument going on as to whether or not the licensee can make representations to the person who has given the licence in the first place and is varying the licence. Surely representations ought to be made to the outside body—the Minister—otherwise the licensee is merely appealing to the authority to reconsider, and if its mind is made up he will not get justice.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lords opposite who have proposed this amendment. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see what further compromise there could be between the rights of operators to refuse unwelcome variations and the rights of the authority to impose what changes it thinks are essential. But surely, given this time which they now have to formulate their views, the operators have an opportunity for uttering public cries of agony if they feel that they are unjustly treated. They can subject the authority to public and political criticism if their cause is just and if the authority became unreasonable and ceased to exercise its powers in a manner best calculated to promote the provision of a prescribed diffusion service; if instead of the light hand it is supposed to use it actually imposed a dead hand. Surely the authority must have this power to vary. Therefore, one must support the Government in this case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we have just added to Clause 4 a new provision which will require the authority to give notice to any of its licensees and enable them to have a reasonable opportunity of making representations before making any licence variations. I think the authority is the right recipient of the representations, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Hawke.

1055
The amendment which my noble friend has moved would go somewhat further and preclude the possibility of any licence variations on two particular points without the cable operator's consent. Since the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has introduced the idea of shackles, I would say that this is an amendment with two legs and I shall deal with each in turn.
Before I come to the substance of the amendment, I should just like to draw the attention of your Lordships to Clause 4(8), which featured in our discussions on a number of occasions at the Committee stage. That subsection requires the authority to use its powers under Clause 4 in the manner best calculated to promote the provision of cable services. It is not confined to how the authority behaves when it issues a licence. It extends to any exercise by the authority of its powers to vary licences while they are in force. While therefore I can appreciate the desire of cable companies to be spared any, undue uncertainties about the future, I think that it is a misreading of Clause 4 to suggest that the authority could lawfully use its power to vary licences in a restrictive manner unless it was satisfied that that was in the best interests of cable. The authority will be there to try and make cable succeed, and that means individual cable companies must succeed as well.
Turning now to the matters specified in the amendment, I agree with my noble friend that these are probably the two key considerations for the licensee. In drawing up his business plans, he needs to know how long he can expect and what area he is going to serve. Taking the area first—the first leg of the amendment—I think that the circumstances in which the authority might be able to issue a variation notice are extremely limited. In the case of any extension of the area for a prescribed diffusion service, the authority's margin for manoeuvre is limited by Clause 5(2) which requires it to advertise its intention to issue a licence and to to seek competing applications. While the authority might be able to add to the original area without going through the full procedure in a special case—for example, where a new housing estate was built at the edge of the area—it certainly could not go in for wholesale additions.
So far as reducing the service area is concerned, the authority would first have to satisfy itself that such a step would be in the best interests of cable. On the face of it, it would be rather difficult for the authority to show that denying an area the possibility of cable services was best calculated to promote cable. But what if the authority thought someone else was going to do the job better than the original licensee? Here we are at the heart of the issue. It seems to me that where a company has been granted a licence and is performing a satisfactory job, it would be wholly unreasonable for the authority to seek to lop off part of its area simply to join it on to a neighbouring service area.
But supposing the licensee was not behaving satisfactorily. Perhaps he had undertaken to serve a quarter of a million homes but had only brought his services within reach of a hundred thousand. The authority would seek to persuade him to honour his promises and might even threaten to revoke the licence for breach of conditions. Revocation, however,
1056
is an extreme step and the authority might take the view that in the interests of the unserved population it would rather serve notice of variation on the licensee reducing his service area so that the rest of the area could be read vertised and perhaps be taken over by a more dynamic company. I am not suggesting that this is likely to be a very common state of affairs; but some noble Lords were expressing concern last time about the intermediate sanctions available to the authority, and the effect of this amendment would be to remove one which would currently be available in the Bill as drafted. That is the first leg of the amendment, which we should prefer to leave unshackled; but from here on in, as the Americans say, I may perhaps find myself going rather further than the noble Lords. Lord Mishcon and Lord Ardwick, would approve.
In principle we are sympathetic to the proposition that the authority ought not to be able to change the licence period without the licensee's consent. If a licensee has behaved so badly that premature termination of the licence is justified, the right course is to embark on the revocation procedure under Clause 17 and not to vary the length of the licence. If my noble friend would, therefore, agree to withdraw his amendment, I am willing to consider a Government amendment either on Third Reading or, failing that, in another place which would remove from the authority the power to vary the licence period unilaterally. This may not be quite the whole loaf which my noble friend was seeking, but I hope that he will agree that it is a good half and that the licence authority, if not shackled, is at least hobbled in this respect.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that I must ask the leave of the House even to make this intervention before the noble Lord the Minister sits down. Before he commits himself to the obligation possibly to remove the question of the period of the licence, would he not agree that it might be the finding by way of experience that this period is either too long or too short? Would he want to bind himself and the authority so that in the light of experience they could not vary the period either way?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I see the temptation that the noble Lord is putting before me to renege on what I have just said, but in fact we have given so much and such protracted thought and consultation to the appropriate length of the licensing period that I think the issue really is the one that my noble friend has put before your Lordships, and that is where it affects an individual licensee and not where it affects the whole spectrum of licences. I think that what he has proposed is quite acceptable, and I am glad to accept it, but not in the terms on the Marshalled List.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in the proposed amendment of the noble Lord the Minister (which we shall no doubt see later, or perhaps in the other place) has he got it in mind to retain the provision that the variation requires the consent of the licensee? Is the idea that the authority could not vary a licence at all without the consent of the licensee?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is always very unwise to commit yourself to one word in a piece of drafting before you have seen the rest of it.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said and for the action that he intends to take. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 9:
[Printed earlier: col. 1048.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment together with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Applications for licences and prior consultation]:
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 22, leave out from ("they") to end of line 25 and insert ("consider appropriate—

(a) a notice stating that they propose to grant a licence for the provision of such a service in that area and inviting applications for the licence; and

(b) in the case of each application received, the name and address of the applicant and such of the information included in the application in pursuance of subsection (1) above as they consider appropriate.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this I should like to speak to Amendment No. 11.
Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 28, leave out ("appear to them") and insert ("they consider")
When we were in Committee we discussed an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which would have had the effect of requiring the Cable Authority, before granting a licence for a prescribed diffusion service, to publish a list of the applications received, together with extracts from the applications dealing with the matters listed in Clause 6(2). We agree that it is desirable, to assist the authority in its duty of public consultation, for the names and addresses of applicants to be published, along with certain information from the applications, and my noble friend undertook in Committee to bring forward a Government amendment to this effect.
Our only reservation so far as the publication of material from the applications is concerned is that we think it essential for the authority to be able to receive information from applicants in confidence. For example, applicants may wish to include in their applications details of possible contracts with programme providers which for perfectly good reasons they would not wish to be made public at the application stage. The amendments therefore give the authority discretion as to what information from applications relating to the matters listed in Clause 6(2) they decide to publish. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has introduced this amendment and for the very courteous way, too, that she referred to the amendment that I moved at Committee stage. I remember that, when the noble Lord the Minister indicated that he agreed in principle with what had been said but wished to consider the way in which this
1058
matter should be brought forward to your Lordships at Report stage, the time was shortly after nine o'clock, and I said:
"It is absolutely wonderful what a dinner recess can do to the noble Lord the Minister in making him so agreeable."—[Official Report, 23/1/84; col. 96.]
I hope that lunch has the same effect on the noble Lord the Minister as dinner has.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 11:
[Printed above.]
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Matters to be taken into account]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 26, at end Insert—
("( ) the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include programmes provided by local voluntary organisations and to assist such organisations in the preparation and production of programmes;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment on behalf of my three fellow Peers may I first thank the group called Concern on Cable, which is based on the volunteer centre at Berkhampsted, for drawing our attention to the advisability of this amendment.
This amendment first of all asks cable authorities to give time and consideration to voluntary organisations in the area of the cable authority. A large section of our community is involved in voluntary organisations and in voluntary work. The second point of the amendment is that voluntary organisations are skilled in many ways but they are not always skilled in the production of programmes. Therefore, the amendment seeks the help of the Cable Authority in producing programmes. Thirdly, equally, the voluntary organisations are not what one might call wildly wealthy. Many people will watch the Cable Authority programmes if they involve people from the voluntary sector and voluntary organisations generally. Therefore, we ask that this amendment he considered and accepted in your Lordships' House.
If I may, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 13:
Amendment No. 13: page 6, line 29, at end insert—
("(3) In this section "local voluntary organisation" includes a local branch of a national voluntary organisation.").
This provision could apply both to simply local organisations, locally based, and to national organisations with a local branch. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the help that he has given over this amendment, both in its drafting and content. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull in speaking to these two amendments. Both at the Second Reading and during the Committee stage, when I put my name to a similar amendment which was subsequently withdrawn, I expressed to your Lordships my belief, which was based on wide consultation among voluntary organisations, that there is enormous potential in cable for an extension of the operations of

1059
many voluntary organisations in a way that will appeal to countless potential members and customers of those organisations. This means that if local voluntary organisations participate in the way envisaged, there will in fact be many more potential customers of cable than would otherwise be the case.
The possibility of taking up new interests and joining clubs, societies and classes partly by watching programmes put on by local voluntary organisations and responding by going to local meetings and getting involved will appeal to many people as new work patterns emerge and as we have many more retired people living for longer.
It seems that for older people a subscription to cable may come to take a high priority in their budget. It may take the form of a Christmas present from their family, so that they can enjoy programmes put on for or involving them by, for example, Age Concern. For teenagers and young people cable may become an extension of their membership of youth clubs or voluntary youth organisations and a chance to develop new interests and hobbies, and it might become linked with local groups for that purpose. To make certain that local branches of voluntary organisations can put on adequate programmes we must ensure that the franchise holder is enthusiastic about itself becoming involved with them and is willing to help them to prepare and mount programmes.
At the Committee stage the amendments suggested that the percentage of resources of an operator which were to be involved with voluntary organisations should be quantified. The spirit of the amendment was regarded as satisfactory in all parts of your Lordships' Chamber, but the notion that the amount that was to be devoted to the cause should be quantified was not. So my noble friend has returned with these two amendments, Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 12 is intended to add an extra criteria to the list in paragraph (b) of the subsection of considerations to be taken into account in granting a franchise, and Amendment No. 13 is intended to ensure that the activity can be local, because it is local activity that involves most people.
I wish to add one other important point. If the amendment is to work, and if voluntary organisations' involvement is to be as important an element in cable as we would hope, it will be essential that the members of the Cable Authority include people with experience and understanding of the working of voluntary organisations and that they are advised by members of staff who have that experience and understanding. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be prepared to advise his right honourable friend of the importance of that point when the Cable Authority is set up. I hope, too, that your Lordships on all sides of the House will favour these two amendments and that the Government my perhaps accept them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when we were in Committee we had a long discussion of the needs of the Community and of the voluntary sector in relation to cable. We were I think in general agreement about the principle, but we had some difficulty in defining, even in ordinary conversational language, what was required. Since then I have been in correspondence
1060
with my noble friend (which she has been kind enough to acknowledge) about the drafting of the amendment, and I have been very glad to have been able with her to find a solution which is acceptable on all sides. I shall certainly bear to my right honourable friend the particular concern of my noble friend Lady Carnegy, but what I wish to say now to your Lordships is that we are happy to accept the amendment which my noble friend Lady Faithfull has moved.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I had reserved what small contribution I had to make on behalf of my noble friends until after the Minister had spoken because I feared that there might not have been the happy response to the amendment that there has been. I believe that on all sides of the House we are delighted that the amendment has been accepted and that people who have the reputation which its movers have for being so much concerned with voluntary organisations have had an opportunity to persuade not only the Minister, but also this House.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his words, and in particular I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister, who has indeed been most helpful over the drafting of the amendment and its acceptance. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 13:
[Printed earlier: col. 1058.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert—
("(f) whether the applicant is (either alone or in partnership with one or more other persons) entitled to the benefit of one or more existing Licences granted under the Act and;
(g) where the applicant is a body corporate whether that body corporate or any associate of that body corporate or any participant in that body corporate or in any such associate is—

(i) entitled to the benefit of one or more existing Licences as aforesaid; or

(ii) a participant in a body corporate so entitled or included among the persons so entitled; or

(iii) a participant in an associate of a body corporate so entitled or so included;

and having regard to any matters ascertained by them under this subsection, the Authority shall consider whether, if the proposed licence was granted, any one person would, in any one or more of the capacities mentioned in paragraphs (f) and (g) above or in any combination of any such capacities, have an aggregate interest in the benefit of two or more licences. If in such circumstances it appears to the Authority that an applicant would have such an aggregate interest and that having regard to the nature and extent of that aggregate interest and any other circumstances appearing to the Authority to be material to the existence of that aggregate interest it would constitute an undesirable monopoly either regionally or nationally, the Authority shall refrain from granting the licence to such an applicant.
( ) In this section "participant", in relation to a body corporate, means a person who (whether alone or jointly with one or more other persons, and whether directly or through one or more nominees) holds or is beneficially entitled to not less than one-twentieth of the shares in that body corporate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wonder whether I may he permitted to remind your Lordships of what happened at the

1061
Committee stage. The amendment was then moved in precisely the same form as it is now, and its whole purpose can be put very simply indeed. When the Broadcasting Act 1981 was being passed—and it was a consolidation measure—it was made abundantly clear that questions of monopoly must be borne in mind. One imagines that on occasions monopoly can he desirable, but on other occasions it may be most undesirable. Therefore there was put on the statute book a provision that where two licences or more were applied for by someone or some corporation which already had a licence, the authority which was in charge of granting licences should have the right—indeed the duty—to consider whether the grant of a further licence would be an undesirable monopolistic conferment.
As I say, that provision was put on the statute book, and I borrowed it for this amendment, though obviously I had to adapt it. When the matter was considered at the Committee stage, the noble Lord the Minister (as reported at col. 110 of our Official Report of 23rd January 1984) summarised my amendment in the following way—and I cannot do better than employ his words:
"The noble Lord's amendment seeks to ensure that these unavoidable local monopolies do not become the launching pad for regional or national monopolies which might operate against the public interest".
Bearing in mind—if I may say this in parenthesis—that the amendment merely says that the authority concerned has the right and duty to consider this matter, but that it is not mandatory upon the authority to refuse two licences, the noble Lord went on to say:
"I am glad to see that the noble Lord has put in the hedges and has said that this is not to be mandatory—that everything has to be properly considered".
Then at the conclusion of his remarks in col. 110 the noble Lord spoke about it being doubtful whether the authority would consider that the interests of cable and consumers were best served by the sort of situations which concern me and my noble friends. He then added:
"But that said, I am ready to concede that there may be scope to deal with the point rather more specifically in the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord"—
those were very touching words, which I value very much—
"for the care with which he has drafted the amendment and the diligence with which he revised it this morning".
The amendment comes in a form which met with the praise of the noble Lord the Minister in regard to the wording, or at least the care which had been taken in regard to it. The spirit of the amendment contained what he thought was a proper point for consideration, and he indicated that it would have consideration. I do not observe that the Government themselves have put down an amendment to improve upon the amendment which I ventured to place before your Lordships on the last occasion. Therefore I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister is on his way to performing a hat trick on behalf of the Government in accepting amendments. If that is so, I hope that my own amendment will be the second part of the hat trick. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, more a cloth cap, I think. In Committee, I said that the Government accepted the
1062
principle underlying the noble Lord's amendment and would bring forward one of our own to deal with it on Report. That the Government amendment has not appeared is not because we have had any second thoughts about the principle but because we want to get the new provision right and that has proved a difficult matter. In fact, it has not been possible to achieve it in the time. I must apologise, in all sincerity, to your Lordships for having failed to meet this deadline. In my own defence, may I say that of the 83 or 84 amendments on the Order Paper, almost 45 are in my name. Nearly all of those are in response to points made in Committee. Your Lordships would not believe the amount of work that this has generated. So we have not been exactly idle. This is, however, quite a complex matter and we need longer to work on it.
I accept that the noble Lord's amendment is based on a provision in the Broadcasting Act dealing with shareholdings in different independent local radio companies. But, within the structure of this Bill, our provisional view is that there may be other and preferable approaches to the problem. For example, Clause 7 already contains restrictions on the holding of licences and on the holding of shares by certain interests in licensed companies. It may be that we shall be able to deal with the matter in that clause. We shall certainly be bringing forward the necessary amendment in due course. If it proves possible, we shall do so on Third Reading. If it is not possible, I hope that it will not be thought we are going back on what we have said because we shall certainly bring in such an amendment in another place. I hope that, in the light of that apology and that assurance, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister. I want him to realise that we on this side appreciate that there may be difficulties in dealing with so many amendments in the comparatively short period between the Committee stage and the Report stage. I am obliged to the noble Lord for saying that the principle of this amendment is accepted by the Government in general terms. There is only one request I would make of the Minister. For the second time, we have heard today—I say this with all the understanding that I have previously expressed—that an amendment, which is a fairly important one, may not come before your Lordships before this Bill leaves the House. I believe that our revising duties are best carried out when we can, if possible, complete our task before a Bill goes to another place. That is especially true where a Bill originates in this House. I would therefore plead with the Minister, if it is humanly possible, to produce an amendment by Third Reading, in order that the Bill leaves this place and is seen in another place properly revised by your Lordships' House; that would be a favour to the House in general.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, we shall, of course, do everything possible to meet the noble Lord's wish. It is not altogether unknown for amendments, which arise on a Bill and which are not got right at Committee stage, to be taken eventually in another place when we are the originating House on the Bill. I should like to assure the noble Lord that we are doing everything we can to keep up with the work. Your Lordships are so productive and imaginative in

1063
bringing forward amendments to the Bill that I have to tell the House that there are only seven days in the week and that we are working all of them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, upon the understanding that I believe exists between the noble Lord the Minister and myself, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ardwick Lord Ardwick moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Code of Standards.
.—(1) Within one year from the enactment of this Act the Authority shall draw up and cause to be published a Code of minimum standards for the matters mentioned in section 6(2) above: and they shall not thereafter grant a licence for the provision of a prescribed diffusion service to an applicant who fails to meet the standards established in that Code.
(2) The Authority may from time to time revise the Code drawn up under subsection (1) above.
(3) Before drawing up or revising the Code provided for in this section the Authority shall consult with such interested persons as they consider appropriate and shall take steps (including the holding of public meetings)—

(a) to ascertain the opinions of the public; and

(b) to encourage the making of comments and suggestions by members of the public,

about the standards proposed to be set by the Code, and shall take into account those opinions and any such comments and suggestions received by them.").
The noble Lords said: My Lords, the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and myself is the insertion of a whole new clause after Clause 6. We are proposing that within a year of enactment the authority, in the light of its experience, should publish a code of minimum standards for all those matters referred to in Clause 6(2) about the range and diversity of programmes. It should be noticed that the code we are demanding is not one based upon the highest standards. We are not seeking to ensure high attainment, much as that is to be desired. We are simply seeking to ensure that there is a minimum standard below which the performance of cable operators should not be allowed to fall.
We propose that anyone who does not meet these minimum standards should not be granted a licence for a prescribed diffusion service. We then go on to suggest that before drawing up or revising the minimum code, the authority should consult with interested persons, that is, people who might vary from local authorities and voluntary organisations to those who have been in the business of providing or administering television, films and other entertainment. The authority should also tap public opinion which, after 12 months, may have experienced what cable can give at its best and perhaps, unfortunately, what cable can give at its worst.
There is, of course, a provision in Clause 10 for a code. But this is concerned with rules about violence, particularly when children are known to be watching. It is concerned with rules about donations and other matters,
"concerning standards and practice for programmes as the Authority may consider suitable for inclusion in the code".
Clause 10, desirable though it is, has some shortcomings. It does not mention consultation with
1064
the public and it fails specifically to relate to the positive proposals in Clause 6 about the range and diversity of programmes. Clause 10 is essentially concerned with a negative code. It deals with prohibitions and exclusions. It is not setting standards, albeit minimum standards, of positive achievement, especially in the realm of local, educational and access programmes.
When this question was raised on Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred rightly to the problem that we had particularly in mind—the situation where there is no competition among the applicants for a licence, just a solitary bidder for the franchise. The noble Lord reminded us that the question for the authority is not just to whom to give a licence, hut, "Shall we give a licence to anyone at all?" and, in the event of competition, "Who is the best qualified?" The question, "Shall we give a licence to anyone at all?" implies that there is a notional minimum standard and that if an applicant falls, or all applicants fall, below it, then no licence at all should be given.
All that we seek to do is to take that minimum standard out of its notional concept and define it in the terms of a code developed in the light of practical experience. We think that this makes sense. We are not asking for pie in the sky but merely for a ration of earthly bread. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, feared that the amendment might introduce inflexibility into the authority's remit. Exactly. That is the intention. That is the virtue of the amendment. We are introducing a minimum that is a hard floor. The noble Lord feared that the floor would be too low for some parts of the country and too high for others. Surely, we are not such a divided heterogeneous nation as that: a nation where one man's minimum is another man's maximum. Surely, the minimum standard that we are demanding is wholly compatible with the principle of the light hand and the loose rein—the gentle, permissive authority that the Government visualise to tempt the investor and the entrepreneur.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause contains the words that the authority
"shall, take steps (including the holding of public meetings)".
I would not quarrel with the authority holding a public meeting in a particular case if it thought that appropriate. However, in many cases public meetings are not the best way to find out public opinion. Public meetings tend to get packed with pressure groups and people with extreme opinions. A much better way of testing public opinion in some cases is to do what I believe the BBC do a great deal: stand in the street and accost passers-by at random and ask them to answer a series of questions. I feel that to require the authority to hold a public meeting every time would not get the desired result, so I hope the public meeting will be voluntary and not compulsory, as it appears to be in the subsection.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to support the intention of this new clause, particularly subsection (3), because I think that one of the things that it is important to strengthen in this Bill is the whole area of public accountability, and

1065
anything that we can do in order to ensure that members of the public can express their views to the Cable Authority about the standards of programmes that are being received and about the way the cable services are being provided will surely enrich the quality of broadcasting and also greatly increase the sense of public involvement in what is taking place. I therefore welcome the thrust of this amendment, and even if the noble Lord the Minister is unable to accept it in these words I very much hope that he will take the intent of what lies behind it.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, may I confine my brief remarks to the question of public meetings. I have been to a good many of them in connection with the BBC, and it has not been my experience that you get nothing but extremists and pressure groups there. You get some people with eccentric opinions, you get some people with complaints, but you also get a lot of genuine public participation where people feel they can actually question directly those mysterious people, the broadcasters, who are responsible for programmes which they see over the air. Some of those people are themselves public figures, others are the so-called grey-faced bureaucrats who are responsible for the programmes that are produced.
I believe that, in addition to the BBC, the IBA has itself greatly encouraged the holding of public meetings in connection with the grant of franchises, and so on; and though by their very nature such meetings can touch only a comparatively small number of people directly, they do get reported in the local press, they do tend to draw good audiences—several hundred strong even in remote places—and I think they are a very good way of broadcasters and "narrowcasters" keeping in touch with their audiences.
So far as cable is concerned, in due course we shall no doubt have some form of answer-back down the cable, which already exists in the United States; though this has its own dangers of instant public opinion polls, for example. Nevertheless, the public meeting as such is not something that I think ought to be run down or regarded as an unnecessary gilding of the ornament.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has once again argued most eloquently in favour of this amendment, which would place a duty upon the Cable Authority to draw up a code of minimum standards to apply to those matters covered by Clause 6(2) of the Bill, and has initiated thereby a fascinating debate on the merits of open meetings. I think one's opinion of open meetings depends very much on what open meetings one has attended. If they are planning meetings against which there is a desperate campaign, they are of one nature; if they are open house for broadcasting studios, they are of another.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggests that people should go out into the streets and accost people, but I would remind him of the experience of one intrepid interviewer, the results of which were extremely unlooked for. To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of' Wakefield I must indeed say that we recognise the
1066
importance of public opinion and its pressures being brought to bear on the authority. Indeed, it is our present intention that the complaints procedure will involve a continual review of public opinion of how they and the companies are performing. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, in a later amendment, is going to seek to persuade us that this is not the best way; but there is a channel for this in the Bill.
The purpose of the amendment before us, as noble Lords opposite see it, is to ensure that standards are maintained even where only one applicant for a licence comes forward; and, in addition, to give to all applicants some idea of the standard they need to reach if they are to be successful in obtaining a licence. I mentioned in Committee that I did not think the noble Lord and l were necessarily all that far apart on the question of standards. The Government, too, of course, hope that a satisfactory standard will be maintained in relation to all those matters covered by Clause 6(2).
I am sure, too, that in considering applications the authority will come to look for certain basic elements in the generality of applications. They may even decide to give advice to prospective applicants on what they might hope to see in each case. What we wish to avoid, however, is the placing of these considerations into a rigid mould, imposing upon the Cable Authority a list of positive duties of a kind which may he wholly appropriate to public service broadcasting but not so appropriate to cable.
The Cable Authority will be faced with applications from diverse companies in diverse areas where the needs of the consuming public will not be the same. The range of related services which are appropriate or viable may be different in London and Manchester from what is possible or appropriate in, say, a small town. The authority needs to be able to respond to these applications flexibly, and a minimum standard appropriate to one area may not be appropriate to another.
Another important consideration is the duty imposed upon the Cable Authority under Clause 4(8) to promote cable services. That means that they will have a duty to the consumer; and they will have to use their licensing powers in the manner best calculated to further that duty. In some cases they will be faced with a difficult choice. Should they refuse a licence to the single applicant in the knowledge that that will mean no cable in that particular area at all unless and until better proposals are submitted? Or should they grant it even though in certain respects the applicant does not offer everything that the authority might have hoped for? In these circumstances, a code of minimum standards would, we think, be unnecessarily rigid. It could provide an adequate threshold in one area and he quite inappropriate and, indeed, obstructive in another.
I appreciate, of course, the objectives behind this new clause, but I repeat that cable is not public service broadcasting and we should not attempt to bring in by the back door the sort of positive objectives that are appropriate for the latter but not for the former. For these reasons, therefore, I cannot commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would ask most respectfully that your Lordships regard this amendment as one of the most vital that we shall be considering in regard to this Bill. I doubt whether there is one Member of your Lordships' House who has not got a duality of feeling about this Bill. The first feeling is that one does not want to try to do what King Canute was asked to do, which is to restrain the tide of development. All of us feel that it would be wrong to say, "No cable". We have seen what has happened elsewhere. We feel it would be wrong to say: "No cable; this is going to bring down the whole reputation of this country in broadcasting, and is going to do an awful lot of harm in spite of the restrictions in this Bill". We do not want to adopt that attitude. But, at the same time, if we do not adopt it and we allow slipshod language to go on to the statute book, I believe, if I may say so, that we are not fulfilling our duty to ourselves or to the public.
At present there is a clause in the Bill which merely says that the authority shall draw up a code. It does not say when, and if it does it in 10 years' time, it will be complying with that statutory duty. As my noble friend has said, it then deals with questions of violence, and so on, and then, with regard to those guidelines, right at the very end it says:
"as to such other matters concerning standards and practice for programmes as the Authority may consider suitable for inclusion in the code".
There is no time limit for the drawing up of the code; there is no question of taking public opinion in order to ensure that this is not a doctrinaire decision by the authority but that there is a proper democratic way of trying to get hold of guidance as to what is to be in the code; and the most vague and generalised language is employed in regard to standards. Once having issued the guidelines—whenever they are issued—there is no obligation upon the authority to ensure that there are any minimum standards when, in particular, there is only one application for a licence from a cable user in a certain area.
In regard to this Bill, I cannot repeat often enough that if anybody finds any politics anywhere in it, he must have a most extraordinarily analytical mind because there is no politics in this Bill. We have not even allowed (and very properly so) political propaganda of a certain nature to be used in the cable programmes; nor is it to be allowed that political organisations can run them. There is no politics in this Bill.
All of us are minded to do one thing. We believe that it is our duty to ensure that there are minimum standards. I repeat, under this amendment those minimum standards are not to be sought from any bureaucrat, not even from some body or organisation which has certain ethical standards very deeply embedded in its constitution. It must be after proper consultation with the public through the holding of public meetings in appropriate areas and at appropriate times. It does not say that there must be public meetings in every area for which a licence is to be considered.
If we do not pass this amendment, there could be an avalanche of the cheapest possible rubbish because we have not taken on board the duty of ensuring the following. First, that within a limited period a code
1068
will be published; secondly, that that will be done after proper consultation with the public; and, thirdly, that the discretion is left to the authority as to what it includes in the code.
The noble Lord the Minister says that that is not flexible enough. All I can say is that if we do not put something of this kind into this Bill, we will have turned flexibility into complete and absolute licence, and we shall not have done our duty by ourselves or by the public. I believe that that is what the right reverend Prelate was saying, and I believe that it is also the wish of those who sit on the Cross-Benches. I would hope that it is the wish of those who sit on the Government Benches, apart from my noble friends. I have considered the position between the Committee stage and the Report stage. If the Minister cannot concede at least the principle of this amendment, and if he objects to any words about including public meetings, I would not agree with him; hut I am perfectly happy to say that I shall withdraw the amendment on an undertaking. But if there is no undertaking about a clause which embodies this principle in the Bill, I shall ask your Lordships to express a view.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I appreciate his argument. But could he explain why he is including a totally new clause instead of proposing to amend Clause 10, which seems to go a long way towards what he wants in matters of detail to which he drew our attention?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I regard that as a very fair question. I shall tell the noble Lord where my difficulty lay. The earlier clause did at least provide a code to deal with violence and matters of that kind. If I had proposed this amendment at that stage, unfortunately it might have meant that I would have sacrificed the provisions dealing with violence and suchlike. Therefore, I thought it better to table this amendment in order that the House would know categorically what the time period was for this code, the limitation of this code to standards and the basis upon which the code was to be laid down—namely, that unless those standards, as distinct from guidelines, were reached no licence would be granted. If this amendment is defeated (as I hope it will not be) at least I am left with the provision in the Bill in Clause 10 which does something—although, in my judgment, not enough.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, hut I find that answer very complicated. One might have been encouraged to support his theme, although of course the detail would need to be left to my noble friend on the Front Bench. If he was tightening up Clause 10, in whatever area he wishes, I would be right behind him, but I think that he has duplicated matters, because both Clause 10 and his new clause provide for a code of practice, and we do not want two codes of practice.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I ask for the leave of the House to be allowed to answer because I am permitted to speak only once. However, according to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has very good eyesight, I am still supposed to be on my feet and not to have resumed my seat. The principle that I am trying to enunciate is different from that in Clause 10. Clause 10

1069
speaks in terms of guidelines and does not make it a standard by which licences are to be granted. In our amendment my noble friends and I have made it a prerequisite that those standards must be reached before a licence is granted. I suggest that if there has to be a Division on this amendment, we wait and see the result; and then, obviously, we can tidy up the situation under Clause 10. I have told the noble Lord my difficulty; I cannot do more.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House—because the noble Lord opposite asked a question upon the answer to which his next move depends—I am afraid that I cannot offer him much comfort because we are not dealing with public service broadcasting aiming at very high ideals originally enshrined by the late and noble Lord, Lord Reith; we are aiming at something very different.
As my noble friend has said, a code of practice is referred to in another part of the Bill, but it deals with other matters. The noble Lord's amendment deals with matters which are dealt with in Clause 6(2), and include the range and diversity of the programmes, the extent to which the applicant or each applicant proposes to include in the programme matters which originate within the European Economic Community, the extent to which they intend to incorporate educational programmes, programmes calculated to appeal specially to the taste and outlook of persons living in the area, and so on. Your Lordships are familiar with the drafting.
These are very different from the matters with which my noble friend is concerned. We honestly believe that the authority will be presiding over a market place, and that market place will address itself to selling, as it were, different parts of the country, some of which have large ethnic minorities and some of which have not, some of which have scattered communities and others of which are composite; some of which are provincial and some of which are metropolitan, and some of which are economically recovering faster than others. The considerations will be very different in every respect.
If the code of practice is to act as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has suggested, as a threshold—or I think the word was "floor"—then in order not to obstruct there being any franchise in areas where in any particular aspect only a small requirement by the nature of things exists, then it will be totally useless in any other area. If, on the other hand, it is made to be useful in the generality of places, then it will rule out forever the introduction of cable into the areas where the needs are minimal and the cable companies would not wish to go to the expense of providing more than that. This is as much a commercial as an ethical matter. In fact, I think it is much more a commercial than an ethical matter. I hope that my noble friends will see it like that and agree with me that this is not the right way to amend the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the Minister's courteous but unsatisfactory reply, I think that the House would wish to express its view.
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Alport, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Attlee, E.

Kearton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barrington, V.

Leatherland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bishopston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Melchett, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Collison, L.

Northfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peart, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Rea, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Ezra, L.

Somers, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Spens, L.,

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Glenarmara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hunt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ilchester, E.

Winstanley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Jeger, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Croft, L.

Aldington, L.

Cross, V.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Avon, E.

De La Warr, E.

Bauer, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Digby, L.

Belstead, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Blake, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Cairns, E.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Forester, L.

Carnegv of Lour, B.

Fortescue, E.

Chelmer, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cockfield, L,

Gainford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glanusk, L.

1071

Glenkinglas, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gormanston, V.

Onslow, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Portland, D.

Hawke, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sandford, L.

Killearn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Macloed of Borve, B.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Terrington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaizey, L.

Melville, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Molson, L.

Westbury, L.

Mottistone, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wise, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Northchurch, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 7 [Restrictions on the holding of licences]:
4.59 p.m.
Lord Glanusk Lord Glanusk moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 30, after ("if") insert ("in the opinion of the Authority a material proportion of the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, and I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
Amendment No. 17: Page 7, line 31, after first ("or") insert ("material").
Amendment No. 18: Page 7, line 36, leave out from ("(d)") to end of subsection (4) and insert ("any other person carrying on a business").
Subsection (4) of Clause 7 lays out a specific and exhaustive list of the classes and persons who may be prohibited from holding shares in an operating company. It is so written that even the holding of one share can be exclusive. We believe that this is unnecessarily restrictive and will create a great burden on both the company and the authority in trying to keep track of every single share in the business and the business background of every single shareholder. But Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, if carried, would mean that the alarm bells would not ring unless a particular shareholder obtained a material interest in the company. Some of your Lordships, particularly my noble friend the Minister, may object to the phrase "material interest" on the grounds that it is too subjective, but for this reason we have added the words so that the authority is the sole arbiter of the definition of the word "material".
Amendment No. 18 is on the same subject. In subsection (4) the categories of the companies mentioned in paragraphs (d) to (h) include one of the principal shareholders in each of the consortia which have been granted the first 11 franchises. This means that from the beginning at least one of their shareholders is suspect. Also included in these categories are those companies which have exactly the right knowledge and experience most needed by a cable programme company. It therefore seems unnecessary to discourage them from being shareholders.
We believe there is also a need for a catch-all category, where the authority has the power to take action if any person or company obtains a significant shareholding which is considered to be not in the interests of the general public in that franchised area. This is what we have tried to do in this amendment, but no doubt the Government will want to change the wording, though I hope not the sense. I beg to move.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. I believe that it is as wrong to include as suspect people television contractors and people in the entertainment business who can do so much for cable—as long as they do not seek to dominate it—as it is right to give the authority the powers to consider every sort of shareholder, whoever they may be, who might seek to do something contrary to the public interest.
For example, while I include television contractors and leave out the gambling casino companies, that is because I do not see any sense in this clause, which I take it is a sort of anti-monopoly clause, in picking out certain people, whereas any company with a certain power can, if it exceeds itself, do damage to the affairs of the cable company. It is extremely sensible to try to put this right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Glanusk and Lord De La Warr for providing us with the opportunity of discussing further the provisions of Clause 7(3) and (4). To summarise again the purpose of these provisions, it is to guard against three main things: first, the possibility of undesirable religious or political influence over local cable companies; second, the over-concentration of editorial control in any one area; and, third, anticompetitive practices in companies engaged in activities related to cable. I think that my noble friends accept the first proposition. As to the others, we entirely accept that the ITV and ILR companies, local newspapers and other interests in the media and entertainment fields listed in Clause 7(4) may have a great deal to offer to cable. We are not suggesting that their involvement is undesirable, indeed in many cases their experience may make all the difference between a mediocre performance and a very good one. Equally there is a risk of undesirable practices emerging precisely because the interests of companies in those fields are so close to those of cable. My noble friends' third amendment throws the scope of Clause 7(4) completely open in that the authority could find themselves having to consider whether shares in a cable company owned by any company whatever might act against the public interest. I do not think that we should impose on the authority a duty which

1073
is cast as wide as safeguarding the public interest and at the same time requiring them to consider every commercial participation. That would, in our view, place the authority under a duty which would be very difficult to interpret and more difficult to implement. The list in Clause 7(4) is meant to be exhaustive and we believe we have covered all the types of company where there are potential dangers of the sort which I have mentioned. If my noble friend can provide me with an example of something he thinks we have left out, we shall certainly he prepared to consider it. But I think there are very serious drawbacks to my noble friends' third amendment.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Under the Bill as it stands, any shareholding coming within Clause 7(4), however small, would require the authority to apply the public interest test in Clause 7(3). My noble friends' first two amendments would raise this threshold to where the authority considered there was a material shareholding in a cable company by one of the types of company or organisation in Clause 7(4).
I am not sure that that particular formulation would be appropriate, nor whether we need to build in any further qualification here. If a shareholding is very small it is unlikely to lead to results which are adverse to the public interest. Equally if it does lead to such results, it does not, arguably, matter how small the shareholding is. It is still undesirable. None the less, in view of what my noble friend has said. I am willing to think further about whether there might be a case for building some kind of threshold into these provisions, so far as some of the organisations in Clause 7(4) are concerned, so that the authority will not have to consider every shareholding in cable companies however small; that I take it is what my noble friend is seeking and he rightly predicted my anxiety about the terminology used. If we were to decide that something could be done— I hope this is the last time I have to say this in view of our previous exchanges—I am in some doubt whether we should now be able to make the changes in this place. However, I will let my noble friend know how our reflections go and whether we are able to bring something forward in another place when the opportunity arises.
Lord Glanusk: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. The people I was thinking of in my catch-all question were overseas companies and overseas Governments which are not on the present list and which might possibly create a threat at a later date. But, in view of my noble friend's encouraging remarks and his agreement to review the situation, I think that we can leave this at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No.19:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Procedural measures of safeguard.
.—(1) A decision to grant, vary, or refuse a licence under the provisions of this Act or of the Telecommunications Act 1984 shall not be made unless and until—

(a) consultation shall have ensued between the Authority and the Director;

1074

(b) written observations as to terms and conditions of grant, variation, or ground of proposed refusal shall have been exchanged between the Authority and the Director;

(c) a copy of such written observations shall have been supplied to the applicant; and

(d) the applicant shall have been afforded an opportunity of making written and oral representations on such observations in support of his application.

(2) The decision mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be a reasoned decision in writing.
(3) If and in so far as the written observations to which reference has been made in subsection (1)(b) above contain technical or commercial information of a confidential nature supplied by any applicant, the Cable Authority shall ensure that such information be expunged before the copy is supplied to any applicant pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1)(c) above: and such information shall be excluded from the grounds of decision mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and myself. This is to insert a new clause after Clause 8. The objects are to build mandatory consultation between the authority and the director, as defined by Clause 1 of the Telecommunications Bill, into both Bills—and that is in Clause 1(a)—and to provide procedural measures of safeguard to ensure that full and satisfactory consultation in fact takes place—that is Clause 1(b)—and also, to ensure that there is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on another occasion in Committee, so eloquently described as fair play for the applicants for licences under both Bills in accordance with the fundamental requirements of natural justice. That is Clause 1(c) and 1(d).
A further object is to require a reasoned decision, without which the courts will be unable to quash what might well be a wholly arbitrary decision or to enforce any restraint upon the exercise of the absolute permissive, administrative discretion under Clause 4 of this Bill. That is in subsection (2). Another, taking aboard again observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, at Committee stage, is to protect confidential information; and that is in subsection (3).
At the outset, it is perhaps of cardinal importance to seek to point out that these provisions in this amendment interact and are designed to interact —they are, indeed, inseparable—if one accepts that mandatory consultation should be built into both Bills as a matter of principle. Without the procedural measures of safeguard against abuse, the bare acceptance of the principle of mandatory consultation by Parliament would not affect the exercise of absolute, permissive discretion by the Executive and would not enable the judiciary to curb abuse of power and quash an arbitrary decision.
Some noble Lords will perhaps here sense the presence of the ghost of Montesquieu, but be that as it may, hence not only the principle of mandatory consultation but the need for measures of safeguard (as stated in the marginal gloss to this proposed amendment) without which any statutory affirmation of principle that we accept in principle being built in would be a sterile exercise. Why?—because it would lack any means of legal efficacy. The need for this amendment, which seeks to ensure due administration, is compounded by the fact that an applicant

1075
for a licence is subject to executive discretion at the hands of not, as is usually the case, one department of state, but at the hands of two administrative bodies which are of disparate status—the Cable Authority and Oftel.
It is now—it was not so at one time—common ground, as my noble friend Lord Elton accepted at Committee stage, that a degree of commercial compatibility between the two sets of licences is wholly requisite. Hence, the need not only for mandatory consultation but for the measures of safeguard to ensure that it is full and satisfactory consultation and that there shall be jurisdiction, and effective jurisdiction, in the courts to review an arbitrary decision.
So far, my noble friend Lord Elton, on this Bill, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, on the Telecommunications Bill, have opposed even the principle of mandatory consultation as inappropriate for a variety of reasons. In particular, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate gave three reasons which are set out in cols. 498 to 500 of Hansard of 20th February. But the astonishing thing, your Lordships may well think, is that, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate was opposing the principle of mandatory consultation, he said in the second paragraph of col. 500 that it would be sensible that the two licensing authorities should not operate without regard to each other. He said:
"That would not be a sensible way to proceed, and I am sure there will be close co-operation".
Under this Bill, the provisions of Clause 6(2) are mandatory but they do not take the matter any further for the purpose of effective control of administrative discretion. The provisions of Clause 7(2) are matters of exhortation and the powers under Clause 4 (which is the relevant source of executive power) are wholly wide, wholly discretionary and wholly permissive. So one arrives at the situation—and I make no apology for taking a little time on this, because it affects the rights of the subject—where the question of bona fides is not in question (for one is not suggesting that anyone should act in bad faith) and where ultra vires is not in question (because, in practice, the limits of discretion in Clause 4 are so widely drafted as to oust the incidence of any such submission in practice). So one comes back again to the need for measures of safeguard, as proposed in this amendment, to enable the judicial review machinery to operate at all, by and large, in practice.
I have deferred to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for which I am grateful, and also to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Elton, for which I am (for once) also grateful, that there should be no question of any full review, that that was inappropriate, that there should be no question of any appellant machinery or of the court substituting its own opinion for that of the board and no hearing de novo: just the bare minimum standards of safeguard to ensure that there should be no arbitrary decisions and that the subject should be protected. Whether or not I have achieved that in this form of drafting, that is what I have sought to do and that is the principle, which is far more important than the words, which I am seeking to contend.
It is not my purpose to advert to this internecine departmental contest for primacy, to which reference was made on a previous occasion, or indeed to the conceptual division of the indivisible which appears to satisfy honour on all sides. It is far too late in the day to turn back the hands of either clock without wrecking the whole mechanism of both Bills, and such is not my intention. This artificial dichotomy, to which I ventured to refer even on Second Reading in an eight-line intervention, cries out for a bridging operation. This amendment seeks to provide that bridge—a bridge which is, albeit of home-made and perhaps rough-hewn construction, I would submit, reasonably sound. It also has a safeguard against the accidents of injustice. On behalf of noble Lords who have tabled this amendment and of myself, I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, I feel rather like a gramophone needle which has got stuck in a groove, for I have by now made this speech to your Lordships three times before. What is worse, unless the noble Lord, Lord Elton, can bridge the gap between us about bridging gaps, I am rather afraid that I may have to inflict the speech upon your Lordships up to another three times.
The fact is that two different government departments are concerned with the technologies involved in many present and future developments such as Prestel, teleshopping, telebanking and goodness knows what other future services which have as yet not been thought of or invented. These technologies are joined together like flesh and blood. Section 43 of the Home Office White Paper on the development of cable systems and services admits that the Cable Authority will have to work on occasions in consultation with Oftel, but we know perfectly well that over the last five years the departments concerned have been at loggerheads. That is why we consider it absolutely essential that the duty to consult shall be written into both this Bill and the Telecommunications Bill. Ministerial assurances, however sincere, that all will be well, that they will kiss, make up and live together happily ever afterwards, are simply not good enough because they have no legal force. Also, Ministers come and Ministers go, but these laws have to go on, if not for ever, at least for a very long time.
Finally, I believe that the proposed dichotomy has been of no little concern to British Telecom, for the reasons which I have given, and the bridging of this regrettable gap would be a great relief to them. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to go some way towards accepting this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if I may, I will begin by making an apology to the noble Lord and to the House that I have to slip away soon and I would not wish the noble Lord to believe that I had been discourteous to him by so doing. I should like to speak briefly and say that I strongly agree with the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. It is a significant improvement, if I may say so, on the amendment we discussed at the Committee stage.
I very much echo the words just spoken by the noble Lady. I do not find it altogether persuasive to be told

1077
that Ministers will ensure that these two administrative organisations will behave wholly reasonably, and I think that we need to see something on the face of the statute. That is in fact what the noble Lord is asking for: he is asking for mandatory consultation, and I think he is absolutely right to do so. Secondly, I think it is necessary to ensure that there is fair play for applicants for licences. That is particularly necessary when there are two administrative organisations involved.
I know that this whole question of giving reasons alarms the Home Office. I can remember a situation in which I found myself on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and against many of my noble friends on the question of whether prisoners should be given reasons for being denied parole. I explained on that occasion why I did not favour the giving of reasons; but the argument here is rather different. I find the argument for giving reasons in this situation very powerful indeed as regards applicants for licences, whether they should be granted, refused or varied. I do not myself see any argument against the ultimate power of the courts to look into these matters.
The fact of the matter is that any administrative body can behave unreasonably. We all know from our own experience that that is so. However reasonable the men on that body may be, they can on occasion make serious errors of judgment. Therefore, when it comes to matters of this sort it seems to me right to ensure that those who apply for licences should have the opportunity, in the final analysis, for some form of judicial review in those exceptional cases—and they will of course only be exceptional cases—where there is something to be said for doing so. Accordingly, I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment and if, by any sad chance, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is going to tell us that they cannot do so, I very much hope that the House will press this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the very tolerant way in which he accepted the arguments advanced against his amendment at Committee stage. There were those of us who advanced views in which we doubted whether the judges were competent people to decide upon matters of licences as between different applicants. He has acknowledged that that is so and has withdrawn from the judiciary any such suggested duty, making them merely a body of judicial review. I am grateful, as I said, to him for giving consideration to the arguments which were put forward.
I find myself in one particular difficulty over this amendment. If, with your Lordships' leave, the noble Lord could intervene to satisfy me that I am wrong in regard to this, no one would be more pleased than I, because, on the question of mandatory consultation between the two authorities, my noble friends and I are with him wholeheartedly. In our regret that this has not been dealt with by one Government department, we are at one with him, too. I follow the usually—as they were on this occasion—lucid observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. If he has to leave in the midst of my remarks, because of an urgent call that he told us he had, I shall not regard him as being in the slightest degree discourteous. He is incapable of being discourteous, but this is my difficulty.
1078
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, talked about the interference, as there should be, in regard to the question of giving reasons when one is dealing with a citizen who is applying for a licence. I see that completely when you are applying for a driving licence, a licence to use a gun or a licence for anything else to which you are entitled if you comply with certain requirements, be they honesty, skill or whatever. It seems to me that if an administrative machine then refuses you that licence, you ought to have a right of remedy, on the basis that you are qualified to have it and that the administrative machine has worked unfairly.
But this is not such a case. This is a case where generally—and, presumably, this is the only time when unfairness will occur—there are several applicants. Then you have the job not of deciding whether the people who are the applicants are honourable, decent people, whether they have certain skills or whether their undertakings can he relied upon. What you must do is to make the best administrative judgment you can as to whether, between competing applicants, one of them, as against another, should get the licence.
To impose upon an authority the duty to give reasons why the person placed No. 2 was not made No. 1, and why the person placed No. 1 was advanced as against No. 2, strikes me as being an impossible position in which to place them. To impose upon them, too, the right of judicial review, on the basis that the authority have, presumably, gone wrong in some way in deciding that No. 2 ought to be No. 2 and that No. 1 ought to be No. 1, strikes me as being an almost impossible position.
When you get an authority which decides in camera, maybe—and I can well see that it would be—that on paper both of those two are equal, but that the oral testimony that was given and the way the questions were answered by the representative of one applicant made them feel rather doubtful, in spite of what was said about the company's own record, whether they would be as strong in giving an undertaking as another applicant, that is a matter which you dare not put in writing and that is not confidential material.
So the difficulty which my noble friends and I have with this amendment, with much of which we agree, relates solely to the giving of reasons, to the copy of those reasons—apart from confidential matters—being given to the applicant and to the applicant having the right to answer them. Incidentally, the amendment does not even state within what time. If the noble Lord can convince us that that is not a very real difficulty, then, if there is to be a Division, we shall be in a certain Lobby, but if he cannot do so we have a problem.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I merely want to ask whether my recollection is incorrect in thinking that he supported legislation which gave unsuccessful applicants for certain jobs a right to know why they had not got the jobs, so that they would know that it had not been as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex, colour or anything of that kind.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords. I cannot remember the legislation to which the noble Lord refers. It strikes me as the sort of remark that I would have made and as the sort of support that I would have given, but this is an entirely different matter. To prove discrimination, on the grounds of sex, colour, race, religion or whatever ought to give the right of review, but this is not at all that kind of case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I seek to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? The fact that there is more than one applicant renders it all the more essential, if one seeks to try to conform with the fundamental requirements of natural justice, that those who are refused have reasons for the refusal. There are here at stake important commercial interests of some value, with a spin-off which affects the consumers. There is every reason why, in the broad interests of the public, under the broader aspects of due administration and public administrative law, anyone who is refused should know why he is refused.
I do not see the difficulties to which the noble Lord refers, and the noble Lord knows me well enough to concede that I never take refuge in pretending not to see a difficulty if I do see one. With the greatest respect, it is so fundamental that any applicant should have an opportunity to make his case knowing what objections he has to meet, it is so fundamental that if he is unsuccessful he should know, broadly speaking, why he has been refused, that from my whole training as an ordinary advocate I simply cannot see the difficulty. I cannot help the House more.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment, if only because it brings a little clarity into what is almost as incomprehensible a Bill as the Telecommunications Bill. It mentions consultation with the director and nowhere else in the Bill is there any allusion to the director or to Oftel. But there is a very peculiar subsection in Clause 5, which I suspect the noble Lord the Minister will quote at us as being the kind of subsection which is mandatory upon the authority. Subsection (4) states:
"Before granting a licence for the provision of a prescribed diffusion service in any area, the Authority shall consult with the licensing authorities for the purposes of Part II of the 1983 Act".
If your Lordships will turn to Clause 34 on page 31, subsection (2) defines the 1983 Act as the Telecommunications Act 1984. That, in itself, is complete nonsense and therefore I support the amendment.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly indeed what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just said. He has put the case brilliantly and in a very wide context. All of these arguments have been produced so often. Indeed, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has said that she has put them three times and I have been saying them ever since July, so we are more or less on the same lines. What we now need to consider, in addition to the legal points, is how likely it is that, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said on the Telecommunications Bill, there will be close co-ordination.
1080
I must draw your Lordships' attention to two quotations, the first from the White Paper, which, I must remind your Lordships, is a Home Office document. In that part of it which discusses how the Government will handle this dichotomy of control, it says:
"The key decision must be that of the award of the franchise by the Cable Authority, and the presumption will therefore be that an application to the Secretary of State for Industry by the franchisee or his nominee for a licence to run a telecommunication system will be successful, provided that the proposed system meets the general technical specifications".
That is one great department of state telling us how they see it. Now let us listen to what the civil servants from the Department of Industry put into the mouth of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate the other night:
"As far as the running of a telecommunication system is concerned, the primary licensing authority is the Secretary of State".
My noble and learned friend said this when we were having a debate on this very subject of the statutory link between the two authorities. He went on to say:
"Many telecommunication systems are capable of conveying cable programmes, not just those being run solely for the purpose of providing programme services, but the Cable Authority will have no interest in these systems so it would be quite wrong for the authority to be consulted when these systems are licensed under the Telecommunications Bill".
We are talking about one indivisible system which can do a number of different things. It can put down television-type programmes or it can put down interactive services. Therefore the truth of the matter, as I see it, is that there is very strong evidence that there is an inherent improbability that the two departments of state can, to the satisfaction of would-be cable operators, consult each other on the granting, variation and termination of licences. It is for that reason—like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway I do not want to go into the history of strife—that I believe it to be absolutely essential for statutory linkage to be built not only into this Bill but also into the Telecommunications Bill. I am very sorry for my noble friend because he can speak only for the Home Office, while the whole burden of our argument is that two departments of state are involved. My noble friend shakes his head.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in this House one of the great disadvantages of being a Minister is that one answers for the Government, not for a department. I am reluctant to advertise the fact because it gives the rest of your Lordships so much fun at our expense, but there it is.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords. I think I can take hope from that. At any rate, it brings me to the end of what I have to say. I would only add that this, as I have said before, is a high-risk, sunrise industry. It has to have a lot of confidence within itself and from its backers. Many of its backers and many of the companies are deeply disturbed by the lack of statutory consultation between their two separate masters. I beg my noble friend to help us to put this right.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We are setting up two bureaucratic authorities. What are the occupational hazards of bureaucracy? First, bureaucracies are

1081
introverted and suffer from sporadic attacks of omniscience when criticised. Secondly, they are invariably preoccupied with their own convenience. This amendment will make them extrovert. When they clash they cannot retire into their tents like Achilles and sulk; they will have to come out into the open and face one another. Those are the very general grounds upon which I support the amendment.
There remains the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, (I suppose some of his noble friends will be able to convey to him what I am going to say when he returns to the Chamber) has raised about the practicability of what some of Lord Campbell of Alloway's proposals entail with regard to publishing reasons. I understand the feelings of both noble Lords, but I believe that they can be reconciled if time is given to them to do so. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his noble friends will be able to support the amendment and that the differences between them and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will be reconciled before we come to Third Reading, so that they will be able to propose a further amendment to what is now before us which will reconcile their differences.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but I wish to add only a word and it is this. The most important part of this amendment, without any doubt whatsoever, is the statutory requisition for them to consult. If it is not written into statute, it will not happen. We have got to ensure that it is written into statute so that they are forced to consult, whether they like it or not. Whether or not the reasons should be given to the applicant is a matter upon which there can be different opinions, but there cannot be any Member of your Lordships' House, except those who have to speak for these two fiefdoms, who could possibly back a situation in which there is not a statutory duty for the two to consult.
Lord Glanusk: My Lords, I, too, believe that it is essential for the Cable Authority and Oftel to get together. I repeat what I said at Second Reading and hope that the Minister will do what he can to help: that these two authorities at least should be housed in the same building so that there is a reasonable chance that they may meet in the corridors or the lavatories and intercommunicate.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I may give a practical reason for this which I believe is worth putting before your Lordships to show how necessary it is, there will be cable television systems established in areas, among others, containing a high proportion of business premises. In such cases the liability of the cable television operation, and the return on investment made, may be dependent upon the supply of cable programme services to the business community within the franchised area—in particular, interactive services, including, for example, data services. The ability of the cable operator to achieve that will depend, in part, upon having an adequate market for such services. That, in turn, will be greatly influenced by what other telecommunication services are licensed to be provided in the same area.
1082
It is therefore unsatisfactory that the obligation to consult as between the two licensing authorities should lie only with the Cable Authority under Clause 5(4) of the Bill. The Secretary of State or the director—it does not really matter which—should be under a similar obligation whenever deciding whether or not to grant a telecommunications licence which will have a bearing upon the Cable Authority's own functions. In the absence of such consultative processes, the statutory obligation on the part of the Cable Authority to promote "prescribed diffusion services" and other services will be incapable of proper performance without the co-operation of the other licensing body, which at this stage has no statutory obligation to consult with the Cable Authority. So I very strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I am sure that in the passage of time the wording may be changed—but the principle is so important that I would follow my noble friend into the Lobbies if that is where he chooses to go.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords—at last! I was listening for a note of discord and scarcely detected it. May I say at the beginning that we hear so little from the noble Countess, Lady Saltoun—
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, with due respect to the Minister, I am not a Countess—I am only a Lady.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do apologise—but how can one attribute the qualification "only" to the distinguished term "Lady"? What I had intended to say, although I have rather spoiled the courteous polish with which I had intended to say it, was that the noble Lady speaks so little that any amendment which brings her to her feet on three successive occasions is not altogether a bad one.
The amendment which my noble friend has moved seeks to achieve two aims. First, it seeks to impose a reciprocal duty to consult between the Cable Authority, on the one hand, and Oftel and the Secretary of State, on the other. Secondly, it seeks to lay down how that consultation shall be conducted. The question of consultation is a matter to which your Lordships understandably attach considerable importance. I quite accept that I did not persuade your Lordships in Committee that what is now in the Bill is satisfactory. I recall the concern expressed both on Second Reading and in Committee about the need for reciprocal consultation. I have of course also read last week's debate of the Committee stage of the Telecommunications Bill, when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway tabled a similar amendment. In that debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern undertook to consider further on that point to see whether a suitable provision might be made.
I can now say that the Government accept that better arrangements are needed for co-ordination between the Cable Authority when it exercises it licensing functions under this Bill and the Secretary of State and the Director General of Telecommunications when they exercise their licensing functions under the Telecommunications Bill. There are at least two practical problems. First, the great

1083
majority of licences granted by the Secretary of State and the director will not deal with matters affecting the Cable Authority's function. The authority has no interest in, for example, the licences granted to taxi operators when they run the telecommunication systems connecting their taxis. Nor will the Cable Authority have any interest in the licences granted to operators such as BT and Mercury when they run the public telecommunications networks and the provision of licensable cable programme services is not involved.
It would be bureaucratically cumbersome, and I believe your Lordships would think it wrong in principle, to require either the Secretary of State or the director to consult the Cable Authority about most telecommunication licences. Arrangements for coordination should therefore apply only to those telecommunications licences which are relevant to the provisions of cable programme services. I believe your Lordships would agree with that, and it is only an administrative difficulty.
The second difficulty is a legal difficulty. The Telecommunications Bill is about to be considered on Report in your Lordships' House after consideration in another place. It therefore seems likely to reach the statute book before the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, which has not yet been considered in another place. In the circumstances, it is impracticable to amend the Telecommunications Bill itself to include provisions on co-ordination with a Cable Authority which does not yet exist in law. It will therefore be necessary (and I should like to feel that I am addressing the noble Lords opposite as well as my own noble friends) to deal with co-ordination entirely in this Bill by imposing requirements on the Cable Authority, and partly by altering the effect of the Telecommunications Act to impose requirements on the Secretary of State and the director.
These, however, are technicalities—and I have described the difficulties. But the Government propose to build the bridge which almost every noble Lord who has spoken wishes us to build, even if it is what my noble friend has described as an improbable animal. We propose that a requirement shall be imposed on the Secretary of State and on the Director General of Telecommunications that, if they propose to grant or refuse a telecommunications licence to a person who has disclosed that he intends to use the system to which the licence relates for the conveyance of cable programme services, they should first consult the Cable Authority with a view to receiving any representations the authority may make.
Conversely, amendments will be made to Clause 5(4) in order to extend the existing consultative requirement on the Cable Authority so that, if it proposes to grant or refuse a licence to any person to provide cable programme services, it should consult the Secretary of State and the director with a view to receiving any representations they may make. I hope that has cast light on the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, directed attention and rightly predicted that I would speak.
This will place on the face of the statute the requirement which noble Lords and the noble Lady are understandably reluctant to leave to a statement of
1084
intent from such an ephemeral body as a government. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that explanation has addressed the principal concern of noble Lords on all sides of the House and my noble friends.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if my noble friend the Minister will allow me, it does not meet the point made in my speech. If he cares to read my speech carefully, he will find that just dealing with the question of the cable operator is only one side of the argument. The people who want to take up the cable licence will want to know what other telecommunication licences have been given in their area. So it has to go rather wider than my noble friend is saying. Perhaps he will take that into account at a later stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that we can work on the detail of this aspect. I was about to say that we shall be tabling amendments to this Bill at Third Reading in this House. It may be that discussion of the details will proceed beyond that point, but I believe we can reasonably expect to achieve that.
My noble friend also attached great importance to the consultative arrangements being set out on the face of the Bill. Here, I fear that I find some difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, ably deployed the difficulties about a reasoned decision. There are difficulties concerning the volume of paperwork and the ability of the Secretaries of State to communicate not entirely openly, even on matters which are not absolutely confidential. We accept that this is what my noble friend Lord De La Warr has described as "a high-risk sunrise industry" needing confidence; that that confidence could be brought about by a requirement written on the face of the Bill for statutory consultation; and that he proposed to put that on the face of the Bill. That is the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, in a brief but important contribution, said was essential in his opinion.
I hope your Lordships will feel that the Government have advanced a considerable way and that we are building a bridge between the two departments (the names of the Secretaries of State of which each appear in the White Paper) so the gulf between them is not all that large. I accept that they are in different buildings. I will not refer directly to where my noble friend Lord Glanusk thought exchanges between them could most profitably take place, except, I suppose, that it is where the fears expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, about omniscience might materialise when they consider matters entirely at their convenience. I do not wish to demean this exchange in those terms, however, and this is an important issue to which the Government have addressed themselves. I believe that what we have proposed should satisfy your Lordships that in future there will be direct consultation, required by statute, by the licensing authorities on both sides of the commercial field—and that is what your Lordships require.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I am grateful also to my noble friend the Minister for coming some way towards meeting the principle.

1085
However, as I see it I am afraid that too little has been given to us to accommodate the principle for which we contend. It is, as I sought to suggest in opening this amendment, inseparable from the problem of means to ensure mandatory consultation. What we have been given is subsection 1(a). What we have been denied is the rest of it. What we have been given is an assurance that the Bill will say that there is mandatory consultation. The result will be to leave the Bill as it stands with a very wide executive discretion which, for the reasons I have sought to suggest, is wholly unacceptable to noble Lords on all sides of this House.
I give an undertaking to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the subject of his reasoned intervention concerning decisions, following the advice, for which I am extremely grateful, from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I take on board, and I should have mentioned, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it is only in the wholly exceptional cases that the courts would be involved at all. What we propose—not the words, the principle—is that we shall build into the Bill a sort of policeman to safeguard against administrative abuse; that is, the abuse of administrative discretion. Without it I am unable to take any course other than to seek the opinion of your Lordships in a Division.
6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gregson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Attlee, E.

Halsbury, E.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Barrington, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beswick, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jeger, B.

Brockway, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Kearton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chitnis, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leatherland, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Milverton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Monson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Ezra, L.

Oram, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peart, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Fletcher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Saltoun, Ly. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

1086

Shinwell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Somers, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Spens, L.

Tordoff, L.

Stallard, L.

Underhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stone, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winstanley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bauer, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bethell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Cairns, E.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Melville, V.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mersey, V.

Cockfield, L.

Molson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Croft, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Daventry, V.

Orkney, E.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Digby, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Seebohm, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Forester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gormanston, V.

Swansea, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Teynham, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vickers, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 9 [General provisions as to programmes]:
6.11 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("proper") and insert ("maximum practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Division which preceded the last one, when the House was considering safeguards on quality, your Lordships

1087
found the Government in a majority of only one in endeavouring to oppose an amendment which was submitted from all sides of the House as being concerned with the standards by which in the future cable was to operate. If the Government find themselves unable to agree to this amendment, I hope that on this occasion the decision will be slightly different and, so far as those who support the amendment, on the right side.
On the last occasion in Committee we dealt extremely seriously with the question of quality related to the quota of British material and actors and others employed in the programmes authorised for cable operators. We had in mind most particularly the whole question of quality. I remember the very powerful speech, if I may say so, of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. He spoke from all his experience in the broadcasting world and in high government office and told us what should be in the Bill by way of an enforced quota.
The noble Lord the Minister was quite justified in the reference that he made to a fixed quota. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said that he wondered whether a percentage quota was necessarily the answer. The debate was about guarding us from a flood of cheap material imported from abroad. I say in parenthesis that when I say "British" I mean to include the EEC. The obligation to comply with the Treaty of Rome is there. In very clear language, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, told us that there was little between us and it was really a question of choosing the right words.
I wonder whether I may be allowed to remind the noble Lord and the House of what he said in Committee, after a contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley:
"I am grateful to the noble Lord. I sometimes wrap my meaning in something of a cloak, I fear".
I am sure that the noble Lord will be much more forthcoming in his answer to me tonight.
"I was saying that I thought we could look at words but not at principles. It seems to me that the Government have got the principle right. Whether we should be saying 'proper' or 'maximum'—although I doubt very much whether it should be 'maximum'—is another matter. There might he some other phrases Which I do not have at my fingertips. There might be an adjustment in that, but I do not think that we can place an absolute duty to arrive at a precise figure, for reasons which have been so ably expounded that I do not intend to repeat them."—[Official Report, 261/1/84; col. 366.].
We who were responsible for the earlier amendment, together with other noble Lords on all sides of the House, have endeavoured to give the utmost consideration to what the noble Lord the Minister then said. Instead of a fixed percentage (which we have omitted from our amendment), and merely having the word "maximum"—which, although somewhat favoured by the Minister, made him have some little doubt—we have introduced the words "maximum practicable". That is all that we ask for in regard to the negotiations which will take place hereafter between the Cable Authority and those who are in charge of these matters. All that we ask them to do is to achieve the "maximum practicable" proportion of that which will come from Britain, and by Britain we mean the EEC.
As I said on the previous occasion, in endeavouring to safeguard standards we lost the day by one vote. I hope that the Government will consider that Division to be so important and as showing so much of the opinion of the House that they will have second thoughts about resisting. After all that transpired in the debate last time, and after what the noble Lord the Minister said and which I have quoted, to resist this time would obviously be very wrong. If there is resistance, I trust that the House will show what it thinks of that resistance. I beg to move.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, during the Second Reading of this Bill, from these Benches I and my colleagues supported the idea of the maximum possible amount of EEC material in cable programmes. We were doubtful whether a percentage should be put in. As I said in Committee, we feel that percentage might mean the maximum possible. If one talks of percentages, we should like 100 per cent., but that is not attainable. I think that the words in the amendment, "maximum practicable", take the matter as far as we feel it would be possible to go at an early stage. We fully support the amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am just a little worried at the excessive reasonableness of the approach of my noble friend Lord Mishcon on this amendment if he will forgive me saying so. It seems to me that the problem is whether in cable we shall be able to preserve a reasonable degree of British content; and without being too chauvinistic about it, I would say that in television terms British content really means good content.
Having said that, not for one moment do I wish to suggest that there is not excellent material from various other countries—the United States and elsewhere. But by and large the general standard of British television output is of a higher level than is to be found in most other countries in the world. Therefore we are entitled to ensure by all means in our power that the material which emerges into our own homes shall be our own material, for the simple reason that our material is the best. It is certainly the best for our own people.
We are trying to ensure that the new cable television shall not become a downturn in itself and shall not in consequence bring down the general level of British television output. The grave danger is that if there is a single form of output that is allowed to produce material of lower level, there might be some kind of Gresham's law with the consequence that the bad will drive out the good. This is a problem which we have touched on before and which we still face.
For that reason I should myself have preferred the retention of a percentage. Nevertheless, I understand the arguments which have persuaded my noble friend to be so reasonable, and though I cannot promise anything for the future, on this occasion I shall follow him along that excessively reasonable path. I shall support the amendment because I understand the practical difficulties—they are very real—and I believe that this is perhaps as far as we can go.
However, having said that, there is one other thing that I want to say. Once provision has been made in the legislation, there comes the next step of the

1089
interpretation of what is the "maximum practicable". At that point it will be necessary for the organisations within the industry to get together with the cable operators and to determine what is the figure. At some stage—whether or not we decide here that we cannot do it; and I understand the arguments against our doing it—a figure must be determined. It is no use having the "maximum practicable" which results in a different figure for different operators all over the place. Each person would make his own determination, and the boys who really wanted to scoop the pool would have their interpretation of what was the maximum. That would be the lot—and it would not be the British lot; it would be the other lot.
Therefore for that reason before the Bill leaves this House we must indicate that we expect such negotiations to take place and to produce an agreement, as happened previously. The figure which was previously agreed with ITV and which has also been adopted by the BBC was achieved by a process of negotiation over a period of time with the representatives of the producers or other people engaged in all sides of television. It was an excellent agreement because it was reached by negotiation between the sides. So I think that we ought to give an indication that that is what we expect as a result of what the amendment proposes. With those words—and these are my final comments, since I understand that there is some pressure on time—I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. In fact I have a good deal of confidence that they will do so, but if they do not. I think that the House will decide to accept it for them.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I can certainly confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has just said about the quality of our broadcasting as compared with that in other countries. We have had to stay with us many friends from both Australia and America and, without exception, they have all said that our broadcasting is of a higher level than anything else they have come across.
There is one important point to remember. The new cable television undertaking will be run on a commercial basis and at first it may perhaps find things rather hard going financially. It is an unfortunate fact that all the cheapest material is the rather second-rate stuff which, I regret to say, comes from America, and naturally, unless they have any inhibitions, the operators will go for that. People who think that this is a rather superior point of view ought to consider the tremendous influence that television has today on the taste, the moral standards, and many other facets of our young people in particular. I think it very important that we should see to it that they have the best, and therefore I feel that there should be some control of what goes over the air. Here is an opportunity to do that, and I entirely support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment, and I very much hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be minded to accept it. When we began the whole debate on cable television one of the arguments put forward was that
1090
the cabling of Great Britain would provide more jobs, and for that reason many of us welcomed the development. I believe that since the advent of Channel 4 we have all seen the remarkable achievements of independent producers and small companies in creating on that network various programmes, independent of the great television companies or the BBC. In this country there is a wealth of talent capable of producing good programmes.
What worries me about the phrase "proper proportions" in the Bill as it now stands is that that is a statutory term, and what is attractive about the wording now proposed in the amendment is that it gives a positive and forward-looking thrust. At the Committee Stage we all understood the reasons why it is not possible to impose a definite quota of 86 per cent. when cable television is first being set up. But if we include in the Bill the words "maximum practicable", they will give continuous encouragement to the authority, and equally important, to those in the television industry—producers, other workers, cameramen, and so on—to see that our capacity to produce good programmes is increasingly reflected in what is presented on cable television screens. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I certainly support the spirit of the amendment, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. The European Economic Community has contributed a great deal, including much to British television in both feature programmes and broadcasts of an artistic nature. But I believe that we should go further than that; there are the EFTA countries, too, which have much to contribute here, as well as the Commonwealth countries. I should like to see the Commonwealth included in the amendment, because we have Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, all of which can contribute a great deal.
Of course we must be careful not to be insular; and I quite accept that it is very difficult to impose a quota, though the wording of the amendment could be described as a little vague in some respects. Someone would have to arbitrate, so to speak, as to what is the amount. However, I believe that the spirit of the amendment is acceptable; and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will also give consideration to the wider spectrum of the Commonwealth, old and new, and to the EFTA countries as well.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I differ only in detail from my noble friend Lord Auckland in that I am opposed to the amendment precisely because it is so narrow. I do not believe that its spirit is right because it narrows us right down to the EC. My noble friend has referred to the splendid developments in television in Commonwealth countries. Australia comes especially to mind, but there are others. The amendment, if we are landed with it, seems to me to stultify us. I would prefer to see "proper" as it stands. However, if we are to have an amendment along the lines of "maximum practicable", whatever that means—it is not easy—then I should like to see the words "and the Commonwealth". It has to be remembered that some of the principal producers currently in the United States come from Australia.

1091
We are not talking about a narrow little world. If we included the words "and the Commonwealth", it would look like a dead hit against cheap American films, ignoring the very good American films that exist. Where the product is meritorious, surely these people will seek to obtain it. They are in the business to make money. They will not put on tripe because their customers will say, "We do not want your thing; we shall be content to go back to the BBC and ITV. We shall not look at your supplementary programmes".
On the whole, therefore, merit must come first. I do not like the manner in which the Bill singles out the EC. But so long as it says "proper", that is vague enough to give freedom to people to bring in anything. I should like to see it made much wider. The direction in which the amendment seeks to phrase the Bill narrows it and debases it and does not provide opportunity for the future.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, on previous occasions when this subject has been debated I have taken the consistent line that failure to have a restriction on overseas material would mean poor quality cable and, much worse, would help to degrade the standards of the two existing services. No one could have gone through the experience as the member of the Government responsible for sponsoring broadcasting at the time of the arrival of independent television without realising that that is an accurate statement of what would result from the unqualified and uncontrolled admission of foreign material. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has sought to make our hearts bleed about the Commonwealth. On the last occasion, I moved that the formula that had been evolved by independent television should be applied to this service. The noble Lord spoke against it and voted against it. In fact, that formual evolved by independent television kept a place for the Commonwealth. It actually achieved what the noble Lord now seeks.
I shall not repeat the auguments that I have used on the three previous occasions except to say this. I have no axe to grind. I am not looking for a post, a job or a retreat. I give it as my honest opinion, based on a substantial amount of experience, that the uncontrolled admission of cheap American material will lower standards to triviality. I am afraid that triviality does attract audiences; that is the danger of it. I do not wish to see more triviality in the two existing services, of which we have every reason to be proud.
I would urge upon your Lordships to accept that experience has taught that the uncontrolled admission of cheap American material that has earned its keep in the States and that is brought here at bargain prices would not only mean a low standard of cable but, much more important, a lowering of standards of the existing services. When the issue was last debated, a valid point was made against the generality contained in the formula adopted by the IBA. I thought that it was valid to say that if, in the new world of cable, there are services, say, wholly devoted to films or wholly devoted to music, and so on, it would be inappropriate to apply the same mathematical formula to all those various potential forms of programme. The noble
1092
Lord, Lord Hunt, made the same point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I admit that there is something in that point on the assumption that we shall have a variegated range of cable services. Although, therefore, I regard the amendment as second best, I think that it is the best that can be achieved. I hope that the House will accept it knowing that it is second best but enabling something to be done from the outset. Those who say that cable companies should be given a run and then restrictions should subsequently be applied do not really live in this world of profit-making organisations. What would be the cry when there was any suggestion of the subsequent imposition of restrictions? I hope that the House, if the Minister cannot go beyond what he has already stated, which is not very much, will support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in approving the proposed formula, knowing that it is second best but knowing, at the same time, that it is important even if it does not achieve all that is desired.
6.36 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before making up my mind on this matter—I address myself soley to the wording of the amendment and not to possible Second Reading points that have emerged during the debate—I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, what would be the effect of the amendment if a first-class American film was made but it was practical to substitute a British film of second rank? Would the American first-rank film automatically be excluded by the amendment on the grounds that it was practical to substitute something for it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a preliminary, let me say that when I say "British" I means British and EC, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has done. I should like to establish at the start that we want what all your Lordships want; that is, the largest possible proportion of British input to cable services consistent with quality and consistent with not drawing a ring fence around us that keeps us ignorant of the best products in the rest of the world. If we are agreed on that, we have a large area of common ground. Your Lordships have considered whether a fixed point or fixed points on a scale of percentages, rising from the lesser to the greater, could be used as our industry became more adept and experienced in producing high quality material. The trouble with both is that they are inflexible. You have to be either at the fixed point or at a specific point on the scale at any one time, and nowhere else.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has helpfully reminded me that you would, in any case, need different scales for different channels. I would have thought, for instance, that the capacity of British opera to provide 86 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the music suitable to an opera channel might be in doubt. I choose opera only at random, as an example. I am reminded of German and Austrian opera, and so on. And what about Melba?
The noble Lord has therefore resorted in his amendment to a device very similar to others because we have both accepted that what is needed is something flexible; something that will adjust, like a pair of braces, to the tension which it has to support. When there is little which is not meretricious available

1093
in this country, and much that is meritorious that is available from elsewhere then plainly the proportion of British material on cable that would be appropriate for the British public would be relatively small. When there is much of great merit in this country—and of greater merit on the whole or even only equal merit with what is found aboad—then it is quite clearly right that if the British actors and producers for whom the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke—and he does not have a monopoly in that respect because we too wish to foster their prosperity—are able to produce the quality that we want to see on cable, then it should be taken up in preference to material from elsewhere.
We are at one then both in the problem we are trying to solve and the nature of the solution. What lies between us? I think what lies between us is what we find when we look at the actual detailed interpretation of the words on the page. I am not 100 per cent. certain—and perhaps percentages should not be used in this context—that our choice of phrase is perfect; but I think it is better than Lord Mishcon's, for this reason: what he says I think is the "maximum practicable". Provided that enough junk that is not pornographic or inciting to racial violence and hatred, and so on is available, merit will not enter into it. It would be perfectly practicable—and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has put this much more eloquently than I could—to turn down the offer of a magnificent American production. Indeed—and I readily accept what my noble friend has said about the Commonwealth—it may be an absolutely first rate Australian production. Also, and in the interests of international understanding and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, it may be from the other side of the Iron Curtain. There might be marvellous productions which we set aside so that boring, indifferent, meretricious material produced at home might be screened instead.
If we have that requirement—even if it was not interpreted with the stark simplicity with which I fear the courts would have to interpret it—if it only tended in that direction, a great deal of the stimulus towards producing the quality of material which in this country has gained us an international reputation amounting to envy, would be gone. Anything you turned out would be almost automatically put on "the box" because there would be possibly 32 channels going into every screen in the United Kingdom which had to be filled with the maximum practicable proportion of British produced material.
I hope that I have demonstrated that I am not being difficult. I genuinely dislike resisting your Lordships' suggestions, particularly on evenings when majorities of five and one are around in the Lobbies. But here there is not a difference. We want to obtain what the noble Lord wants to obtain. I hope I have made it quite clear that my only reason for resisting this amendment is that I think it would attain something infinitely less desirable than what the noble Lord hopes of it.
If there were another phrase which fitted the Bill—and we have been searching and will continue to search—and could come closer to the elasticity that we want and also the upward tension (and I come back to braces, because I think the noble Lord is saying that these braces are not strong enough and are not going to
1094
hold the levels of British production high enough) without losing the elasticity, we would be happy to do it. But I fear that this amendment would not have the effect which the noble Lord so rightly wants and has so eloquently suggested that it would achieve.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, may I say in one sentence that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it is difficult to know what you mean by "a proper proportion", and if the Minister is not 100 per cent. satisfied with his wording, "a proper proportion" then I suggest the phrase, "a substantial proportion".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must not, to use Lord Mishcon's phrase, keep "bobbing up"; but any suggestions will be gladly looked at. My immediate instinctive and entirely untrained reaction is that "proper" might be very substantial, and "substantial" might not be the right word. I am perfectly happy to look at these things and to be advised. All I can say is that I see and am advised that there are great dangers in what is now proposed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is elegant in phrase and usually chooses, when he uses a simile or metaphor, a very appropriate one. I therefore intend to follow him upon the thrice repeated simile of braces. The principle which I am trying extremely hard to support—and I believe that I have the sympathy of most parts of the House—constitutes from my point of view a support for something without which this nation loses its dignity. I cannot therefore think of anything more appropriate than to talk in terms of braces.
The whole question that has been put to the House is this: does the House wish to have a phrase in an Act of Parliament when all of us know the dangers expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, as only he can express them? We all know them. Are we to be satisfied with a word—the word "proper"—which is incapable, so far as I know, of judicial interpretation and is purely in the mind of the observer at that moment? What the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, may think is proper may not be what the noble Lord, Lord Home—sitting so near him—might think is proper; and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the Minister, might have an entirely different view of what is proper.
What we are trying to say therefore is something that means something instead of something which means nothing. I am perfectly happy to talk about my braces in this context, as I have said. The principle we are after is putting words in this Bill which mean, "the maximum practicable". Here I immediately turn to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who when he intervenes—as your Lordships always find—intervenes with something which is very sound and therefore he deserves an answer.
I would have said that where you use the word "practicable" instead of "maximum", you have in mind that what you are supposed to do is to achieve a level but not to sacrifice certain matters in achieving it. What is practicable therefore in order to induce people to watch a cable programme—in order to satisfy advertisers as well—would obviously be weighed in the balance. I have no doubt that if there were a very fine American product and a very second rate British

1095
product, then when looking at the situation at that stage, and weighing up the proportions that ought to be negotiated from time to time, it would be deemed by the authority that within the meaning of the word "practicable"; is the fact that they are weighing up a first class product against a second class product in any one period of time.
It is going to be impossible to find words which fit in to every single argument and to every single contingency. We will not be able to do it; and I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, when he tells me that I am achieving the second best and possibly not the best. I ask the House—and I ask the noble Lord the Minister to have second thoughts immediately, if he would—at least to accept the second best instead of nothing at all and something which is completely meaningless and which does not even act as a belt, let alone as a good, substantial pair of old-fashioned braces.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the terms of this Bill are similar to those to which the IBA has been subject for many years, and which since 1955 have produced a British content of 86 per cent.; and, as everyone has said, a content of extremely high quality. No one offers the prospect of something which can produce 100 per cent. British content. There is the question of merit, to which my noble friend referred. I believe that this amendment is a tiny bit draconian for something which, up to a certain point, already exists—in other words, it is already written in statute.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House has heard the debate on this matter, and I ask that the opinion of the House be taken.
6.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83: Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fletcher, L.

Alport, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Glenamara, L.

Banks, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Beswick, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, L.

Hampton, L.

Bishopston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Diamond, L.

Kearton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Ezra, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Fitt, L.

Melchett, L.

1096

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Northfield, L.

Stone, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

Segal, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shannon, E.

Whaddon, L.

Somers, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stallard, L.

Winstanley, L.

Stedman, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Limerick, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bauer, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bethell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Cairns, E.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Melville, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mersey, V.

Chelmer, L.

Milverton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Croft, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Daventry, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

De La Warr, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Enniskillen, E.

Sandford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Spens, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glanusk, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kilmany, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wise, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("in") and insert ("within").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is purely a technical amendment designed to ensure consistency in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) that the needs of the deaf are borne in mind and that where reasonably possible proper and appropriate use is made of subtitling, signing and other techniques designed to assist people with impaired hearing to benefit from cable programme services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Aylestone, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, we return once again to familiar ground, and I do not think it will take us very long. It is matter we discussed at Committee stage. There appears to be some apprehension on the Front Bench opposite. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House about this. I think we rather felt that it was probably time to adjourn the Report stage, but if the noble Lord's point is going to be fairly short perhaps we could take this one, or if it is going to be long perhaps take it after the adjournment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I hope it is going to be short, because I hope the Government are shortly going to accept it. Perhaps I may proceed on that basis. This is a matter we discussed at Committee stage. Noble Lords will recollect that this amendment had agreement from all parts of your Lordships' Committee, and yet I withdrew it. Some may ask, why did I withdraw it? I withdrew it because I did not have the machinery available to me to make the necessary calculation to be certain that I was going to win. I thought it would be deplorable if we lost an amendment about the deaf. In addition, I knew that the noble Baroness was sympathetic to the needs of the deaf, and I felt that if she and the Government were given sufficient time to mull over the matter it might be that after a convenient interval I should get a more sympathetic answer. We have now come to the time at which I hope to do so.
I do not think I need say a great deal more, since we are all waiting for dinner—there is much I should like to say—as long as it is understood that we are making an exception here for one large group, the deaf, because they are a group substantially disadvantaged in relation to television, and because they could be assisted in the way which is suggested in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my noble friends and I support this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is very kind. He is quite right. When we last discussed this in Committee, I tried to make clear the Government's concern for the needs of the deaf. We have given the matter careful consideration since the Committee stage. I am glad to say that, in the light of our consideration, and of the arguments advanced that night, we are prepared to consider whether it might be possible to make special provision for the deaf in this Bill. We accept that the position of the deaf in relation to cable television is very much a special case among disabled groups.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, accepts that his amendment will not quite do the trick,
1098
and for our part we are not quite sure that provision of this sort will sit happily in Clause 9. However, I can say that the Government are prepared to bring forward a suitable Government amendment to meet the main principles of the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that this assurance will give pleasure not only to those noble Lords involved but also to deaf persons who do not happen to have one of those brilliant, I can only describe them as tic-tac men or women at hand to help them when they watch the programmes of the future. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. With regard to the tic-tac men, the people who "sign" programmes, this is interesting to watch as the noble Baroness says. It is rather like ballet. It is not like the old alphabetic language, it is more balletic in terms of the movement. It is interesting, as a result of using this tic-tac technique in certain television programmes, the number of people who now wish to learn sign language. They are increasing in number, and not just among the deaf but other people. This is going to change the quality of life for the deaf.
The reason why we do this in this Bill is that we set an example to the community as a whole. By doing this, and making special reference to the deaf in the Bill, we do something for the deaf throughout the community as a whole. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I realised before that she almost choked on the words written on her paper at Committee stage, and it seemed to me that this time her words were much more palatable to her, and they were very much more palatable to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, this is probably the right moment to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, I think I should say that we shall not be returning to this particular subject before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1984
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1984, which were laid before the House on 6th February, be approved. These draft regulations amend the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1983, which deal with the levels of help given under supplementary benefit. The amending regulations make certain changes to the rules governing deductions from a claimant's benefit for non-dependants living in his or her household, and to the rules governing amounts for housing costs added to benefit paid to non-householders.
As your Lordships will appreciate, these regulations form only part of a package of measures designed to reduce public expenditure on assistance with housing costs, through housing benefit and supplementary benefit. The package was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 6th February following comments by the Social Security Advisory Committee, the local authority associations and others on the original set of proposals announced as part of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement last November.
The regulations before us today form part of a package which includes the Housing Benefits Amendment Regulations 1984, which are subject to the negative procedure and which were also laid before the House on 6th February. Although that set of regulations is not the subject of today's debate it would, I think, be helpful if I briefly explain the thinking behind the package as a whole before going on to outline the set of supplementary benefit regulations now before your Lordships.
The key to the Government's decision to make reductions in this area is found in three interconnecting policies: first, the need to contain public spending; secondly, the need to reduce inflation; and, thirdly, the need to reduce taxation. The Government lay a central emphasis on the control of public spending in order to reduce inflation. The economic arguments for this are well established, but high inflation is also a social disaster for those, particularly pensioners, whose income and savings are reduced by it—as well as for business and industry who carry much of the burden of financing the welfare state. It is one of this Government's proudest achievements that inflation is now down to levels not seen since the 1960s. That is to everyone's advantage.
Most would accept that control of public spending is now essential. Social Security spending now runs at £35½ billion annually—over half on pensions and help for the elderly—while next year we estimate that it will increase to over £37 billion. It is impossible to exempt a programme which adds up to about 30 per cent. of all public expenditure. But it is important to remember that even with the need to control expenditure we are price-protecting the pensioner and preserving the value of supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit.
What we are seeking to achieve in this package is a reduction in the rate of growth in social security spending; and the reason that we have sought savings in housing benefit is because it extends financial help further up the income scale than any other means-tested social security benefit and now goes to one household in every three. In making changes to the scheme, we have sought to protect the position of the poorest families. The result is that. out of 7 million beneficiaries, 4½ million, including 2½ million pensioners, are not affected by the taper or minima changes which we are proposing. The result is also that no householder on supplementary benefit and no-one below the needs allowance need lose from the April changes.
The package announced by my right honourable friend on 6th February made a number of significant
1100
changes to our original proposals in order to reduce the cumulative effect of the changes for claimants and to ease the administrative task, particularly for local authorities. Certain of the original proposals which fall outside the scope of these regulations were modified, and others were deferred until November 1984 to give claimants more time to adjust to them, or to give local authorities more time to amend computers and other systems to take account of the more complex changes.
These regulations, and the Housing Benefits Amendment Regulations 1984, deal only with the changes which will now happen in April. Further regulations for the remaining changes in November will be made later after the department has had further discussions with the local authority associations. Against that background I turn now to the specific subject before us, the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1984.
The major change, set out in paragraph 4(a), concerns the position where the supplementary benefit recipient is not himself a householder. His benefit is at present increased by £3.10, which is intended as a contribution for him to make to housing costs. This contribution is not provided for 16 to 17 year-olds, and the proposal here is that the addition should be withdrawn from 18 to 20 year-olds—subject to the important qualification in paragraph 3(2)(b) to protect the poorer households. When a young person is on supplementary benefit and living at home, many families do not expect him to make a contribution to housing costs. When savings have to be made, we believe that it is only right to take account of this fact and reduce benefit accordingly. But poorer households are protected; where the householder is himself on supplementary or housing benefit, extra benefit, up to the level of the contribution, will be added directly to the benefit paid to the householder. It should also be noted that the supplementary benefit scale rate in any case rises from £16.50 to £21.45 at age 18, providing a significant increase in income at that age. It is estimated that this change will make savings of about £60 million in 1984–85.
The regulations also provide, in paragraph 3(2)(a), for changes in deductions from benefit for certain non-dependants. I should explain first that these regulations only affect those deductions which are made in supplementary benefit from such housing costs as mortgage interests which are still covered by supplementary benefit. For most supplementary benefit claimants, their housing costs are met by housing benefit, and any non-dependant deductions are made from that benefit.
The principle of non-dependant deductions was well-established under the old schemes which housing benefit replaces. Non-dependants were assumed to contribute to the household's housing costs at standard rates. These regulations affect the rate of deductions for those aged 18 to pension age who are not on supplementary benefit. At present, two rates apply: one for 18 to 20 year-olds and one for those aged 21 up to pension age. The regulations provide that only one rate should apply in future for these two groups and that it should be increased to £6.15. These changes are consequential on similar changes made to the housing benefit regulations, and rest on the belief that it is not unreasonable to expect contributions of

1101
this order from the non-dependants concerned when, for example, male earnings are nearly £170 per week for adults and nearly £100 per week for 18 to 20 year-olds. When savings have to be made, we would argue that this group can best afford to pay more.
The two other main changes in the regulations, in paragraphs 3(3) and 3(4), are beneficial. The first is that no deduction will be made for 18 year-old non-dependants receiving a youth training allowance—16 and 17 year-olds are already exempt. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. The second change concerns reduced deductions for sick or unemployed non-dependants who are receiving certain benefits. At present they must have been receiving benefit for 90 days before the reduced rate can apply. The regulations change this to 56 days, in response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation that the qualifying period should be abolished altogether or substantially reduced. It would not be practical to abolish the qualifying period as this would give rise to a lot of short-term claims, but we have gone as far as we reasonably can.
The regulations we are debating today are short but in some respects detailed and complex. But together with the other measures I have mentioned they and the proposed further changes in November represent an important step towards the better control and administration of the housing benefit scheme. The review of the scheme, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also announced, will look at its scope and structure. It objectives will be to improve and simplify the operation of the scheme, making it easier to understand and ensuring that it is better targeted to give help where it is most needed.
In modifying the original proposals for changes to the scheme, we have responded to the genuine concerns which have been expressed. But expenditure on social security is still growing rapidly—in total it is now forecast to be some £750 million higher next year than was expected at this time last year; a large part of that because of housing benefit. We have to find ways of containing that growth. Increasing social security expenditure—like all increases in public expenditure —means an increasing tax burden for all taxpayers. We can only relieve that burden, and particularly the burden on low income families and pensioners, if we are prepared to make sensible economies where we can. I therefore commend these regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord on having read such a grotty brief so well. When we are considering such proposals before the House I think it is very important to try to find out what is the basic philosophy behind them. We are told that under the housing benefits regulations there are problems of public spending, and because the Government underestimated the number of people who would need housing benefit help we now have to hold back on those problems.
I accept that the noble Lord is in a dilemma because he cannot expect the Government to increase the
1102
amount of money that is available. But I want to tell the noble Lord that I have an idea, and I want to help him. I want to say that the housing money that is available to the Government need not he increased, but it needs to be altered. I put it to the noble Lord that while saying that we cannot meet the full ohligatons of the housing benefits regulations that were first brought in, the Government are at the same time increasing income tax allowances on mortgages from £25,000 to £30,000 for a house. The Government are admitting that discounts on council sales will cost about £600 million. That is in The Times of 25th February, where it is said that the promise to give tenants of charities a cash discount may cost £600 million.
What I am trying to say to the Government, although I know that technically this may not be the right moment for it, is: why do we not have a broader spread of housing financing throughout the country? We are saying that housing benefits have to be restricted. I know this, having been chairman of the housing committee in St. Pancras, as it used to be, or Camden, as it now is. The council is paying more than £100 a week for a couple to stay in a bed and breakfast room. That amounts to millions of pounds. If those millions of pounds were put into building council flats and houses we would have something at the end of the day. But the money we are giving to the providers of bed and breakfast, often for intolerable situations, is money down the drain because we do not get anything back. We do not have a house at the end of the day. That has to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with housing benefits.
On the question of the housing of disabled people, I have already mentioned the fact that could come to £600 million a year; so that we are really not looking at housing as a whole. I appreciate that the noble Lord opposite has to deal with the DHSS, but housing is also a matter for his other noble friends and it seems to me that the Government are not keeping these two things sufficiently together. I put this frankly to the noble Lord. The Government have said that they are going to have a review of housing benefits. Why do we not delay the increases and the changes until we have got that review? And can the noble Lord tell me that when we get that review it will be published? And will it take in not just the housing benefit recipients but the whole of housing finance?—because, until we do that, until we take on board mortgage receipts, and reductions in income tax on mortgage payments, and until we take a look at the whole housing situation, the housing benefit question cannot be dealt with. It cannot stand alone. I know this is a great deal to ask the noble Lord, because he is a DHSS Minister and not a Minister in the other place, but I hope that he will talk to his noble friends about these problems.
I have heard, and I am sure that he has heard, from many local authorities about the impossibility of dealing with the situation. There were supposed to be changes in April. Now, some of these changes have been postponed until November. I have heard from many authorities that they cannot administratively do this. Meanwhile, there are tenants who are in great distress, who are told that they cannot get help, who cannot pay their rents, so that they are given notice either by the local authority or by private landlords. This is really distressing and impossible. Also, I think

1103
the noble Lord should take on board that the administrative cost to local authorities is enormous at a time when the Government are saying that the local authorities ought to cut their administrative costs. Having worked out, as I know many of them have, all sorts of schemes to get this thing through in April, there is now a cricket ball from the Government with the message that they must alter it to November. This really is intolerable.
If the Government are going to ask local authorities to change their arithmetic to bring in November instead of April and at the same time tell them that they have to cut their staff and, presumably, to cut their computers if they have any, this is putting them in an impossible position. I do not know what the Government are trying to do.
I will ask the noble Lord, who is always courteous and understanding, if he can put us right. My understanding is that there are about seven million households receiving some help with housing benefit but that, because of the changes, about 12 million households which were expecting child allowances are going to have those postponed until next November.
There is, as my friends in local government assure me, administrative chaos. Rates are being pushed up because of this Government's policy, impoverishment is increasing because of decreasing employment. At the same time, mortgage tax relief—and I am very shy about giving figures; but my figure is that mortgage tax relief is about £2·75 billion a year—is infinitely more than poorer people are getting from housing benefit relief. It is the poorest people who are applying for housing benefit relief.
I am not saying that people who are trying to buy their own houses, trying to get their mortgage, are well off. I know many of them who are not. But they are not the poorest; they are not the people who are in cardboard boxes under the arches in Charing Cross tonight. They are not the people who are in a bed-and-breakfast homeless family place. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to try to bring to us tonight some kind of more comprehensive housing policy so that, while we are talking about what we are doing about housing benefit for certain sections, he will try to give us some idea that the Government are looking at the whole of the housing problem; because at the moment they are getting the housing problem in bits and pieces and that is not doing any good to anybody.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his explanation of the purpose and nature of this order which we are now discussing. The changes made by these regulations, as the noble Lord indicated, are part of the changes in housing benefit announced in the autumn. When they were announced, they created a storm of disapproval. The Social Security Advisory Committee received 112 representations in regard to them. That is the highest number of representations in relation to any particular set of proposals that they have yet received.
The housing benefits scheme had already had a difficult start, with much delay and confusion, yet at this comparatively early stage it has to endure these
1104
additional changes. It certainly seemed in the autumn that Ministers had not grasped the full significance of the cuts which they were recommending. The Social Security Advisory Committee in their report had this to say about the cuts:
"We join with all those who gave evidence to us in deploring the reductions, which we believe will have an unduly harsh effect on many individuals and which will introduce further confusion into the administration of the benefit, which has been suffering from a particularly troubled birth".
The Government felt compelled, as the noble Lord has indicated, to make some modification of their original proposals. Even so, my right honourable and honourable friends in another place felt obliged to vote against them.
The order before the House this evening was considered in another place along with other Motions covering the whole field of housing benefit cuts and I think that, as a result, the specific proposals in these regulations did not receive very full attention. As I understand it, what the Government have proposed—and, I think that this is what the noble Lord has told us—is that there should be an increase in the deduction from the requirement made in respect of non-dependant members of the household from £3.95 to £6.15 for those aged between 18 and 20 and from £4.70 to £6.15 in other cases. That is in respect of rent. There are also, I understand, increases from £1.60 to £2.05 in the case of rates for those in the age bracket 18 to 20 and £1.85 to £2.05 for those over the age of 20. So that, overall, the deduction will be increased to £8.20 from £5.55 for those between 18 and 20 and to £8.20 from £6.55 for those over 20. And, of course, the non-dependants are supposed to pay to the householder these amounts. And the Government case is that £8.20 is not a large sum for people to pay in view of the current level of earnings. I wonder whether that is really the correct question to ask. Surely the right question is really this. Are non-dependants being expected to pay a larger share of the rent and rates than is reasonable? It could be argued, I suppose, that £20 a week is not beyond the bounds of possibility for non-dependants on average earnings to pay. But two questions immediately arise: what about the lowest paid? And, irrespective of the ability to pay, is it a fair proportion of the rent?
The Social Security Advisory Committee gave it as their view that the increases have gone beyond what is fair and reasonable. They fear that they will encourage your people to leave home with possibly a higher social security cost in the long run as a consequence. They fear that there will be a reduction in family income in certain cases below supplementary benefit, if non-dependants cannot or will not pay.
The committee also pointed out that the national average local authority rent at April 1983 was £13.41 and the average rate £5.71. A non-dependant contribution of £8.20 means that, in a household with parents and one working child of 18 or over, the young person will be expected to pay some 43 per cent. of the total housing costs. The question is not whether he can pay but whether it is fair that he should be expected to pay that amount. It does not seem to me that that point has been answered in Command 9155, the statement of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, reliable information on the income of non-householders was not available, so that the decision

1105
was taken without adequate knowledge. There will have been a 160 per cent. rise in deductions in respect of the 18 to 20 year-olds since April 1983 and a 74 per cent. rise in deductions in respect of those aged 20 and over since April 1983. In addition, the increased deduction is expected to be paid by people who are on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or maternity benefit, unless they have been receiving the benefit continuously for more than 56 days; and £8.20 represents about 30 per cent. of current unemployment rates. One asks again: is that fair?
I think I have said enough to make it clear why we on these Benches have solid reasons to have the strongest misgivings about this order.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we also should like to thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given. I want simply to add a few supplementary questions to those put by my noble friend Lord Banks. It appears that for the first time 16 and 17 year-olds in work will be contributing £3.10. That is a step which I regret, when we are trying to encourage young people to take up work in the job market.
What I am not clear about is that the contribution for those between 18 and 20 appears to have been raised from £3.95 to £6.15—that is on the rent contribution—and for those over 21, from £4.70 to £6.15. Can the noble Lord tell us why there has been a stiffer increase for those between 18 and 20 than for those over 21? I do not understand the logic.
Another question arises over people in part-time work. An instance was given in the debate in another place, to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has referred. It concerned a person with a 21-year-old son who works only 18 hours a week on an MSC course, for which he receives £41 a week gross, and he had to contribute the full amount. Does the noble Lord think it is fair that someone on £41 a week should contribute the same amount as somebody receiving £90 or £100 a week?—those are the average figures on which the Government seem to have made their calculation. Also, what about the 18-plus people who are still on a youth training scheme? I think I am right in saying that they are covered under (b), but perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that.
We welcome, of course, the reduction from 90 to 56 days as a qualifying period. That is an improvement, but there were further reservations that the Social Security Advisory Committee had about that, particularly in paragraph 34 of their report, in which they refer to—
"prolonged delays in deciding benefit claims [which have] meant that the householder and the non-dependant have suffered the full amount of deduction for far longer than they should have done and for reasons outside their control."
They go on to say:
"We believe that this provision is unjust and we recommend accordingly that the modified deduction should take effect from the date of the housing benefit claim or from the date on which the non-dependant first satisfied the criteria if this is later. It should not be linked to the date on which the determination is made."
That appears to be something that the Government have not taken into account. Will they look at it?
A further point was made by the Social Security Advisory Committee in their paragraph 41(iii). They
1106
recommended a system of phasing. Some changes have already been postponed from April to November, and they feel that a number of people would be benefited if this phasing were extended. They say:
"We should like to see any losses phased in in three stages, and we consider that the highest loss an individual should be asked to bear at one time is £2 per week. This is already high when compared with a limit of 75p per week agreed on the introduction of the housing benefit."
Have the Government considered that? It was the considered opinion of their own advisory committee that if it were possible to introduce phasing of this kind it would possibly reduce the undesirable consequences flowing from this package. Have the Government paid any consideration to that particular recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee?
Finally, I would simply add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in regard to the review. The Secretary of State in another place announced that he was setting up a review and a report would be required to be sent to him quite rapidly on the whole question of housing benefits. Would it not be better to wait for this review rather than rushing in with these interim arrangements which seem to me to be another glorious example of "ad hoc-ery", to which we are so accustomed? Is it not better to wait and then come forward with proper, amending, primary legisation? In this connection, it is worth making one final quotation from the Social Security Advisory Committee. They say in Section 7:
"These proposals are undoubtedly the most significant on which we have had to advise in a report on draft regulations. They make changes of a scope more usually dealt with by Parliament through primary legislation or through regulations which do not fall within our ambit."
Would this not be a more sensible way of going about the whole matter so that we could have a revised, amending Bill to consider before we go into another example of "ad hoc-ery"?
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I might emphasise some of the points that have already been made, especially those given by my noble friend Lady Jeger. Other speakers have emphasised the great difficulties the Government are placing upon the local authorities by having an interim order and then another one in October, bearing in mind that the local authorities themselves are going to have to make great changes. They are forced to put up their rents for council houses each year, so that again makes another set of figures which has to be rehashed.
My noble friend talked about the under-estimation by the DHSS of the people who will be involved. In Birmingham, they were very much under-estimated by the DHSS. In October 1982 they said that the Birmingham housing department would receive 40,000 applications, but by December 1983 the figure had risen to 142,000. As my noble friend said, local authorities have been told to cut down, but one can imagine the agitation in Birmingham because people were not receiving their proper rebates. The noble Lord said that these people are the poor in the community, but we say that they are the poor and the poorer.

1107
The noble Lord is aware that I wrote to him about a month ago—I reminded him only last week that he had not replied to my letter—regarding housing associations. Many tenants have not received their housing benefits which should have been passed over to housing associations. Assessments involving amounts of £550 to £700 have not yet been completed, and this causes another hardship.
The noble Lord said that he finds the regulations complex. I spent last Friday trying to understand them, and I was privileged to see computers being used in connection with them. Perhaps the DHSS ought to supply home computers to everybody who is on housing benefit so that they can work out their benefit themselves. But it would take them nearly all night to work out all the variations of what they can get.
So may I ask the Minister, while he is seeing that clearer guidance is given to local authorities, to see also that the pamphlet which is available for applicants is written not in complex language but in plain English? Its purpose is to let those who are unfortunate enough to be unable to pay their rents to understand the legislation that goes through this House, and if we cannot interpret it for them it is very difficult.
I would also ask for all local authorities to become sufficiently clear about the interpretation, so that they are all doing the same thing. At the moment, people in one part of the country get £X more than other people because the local authority has interpreted a clause differently. It is important that the interpretation is the same throughout the country, and the guidance to local authorities needs to be very clear.
I am very much involved with the blind, being president of the Birmingham Royal National Institute for the Blind, and I hope that the Government will, in the very near future, be able to come forward with a common definition of "blindness", because there is a different definition for blindness for supplementary benefit from blindness for housing benefit.
In conclusion, may I reiterate what my noble friend said about the housing policy? It appears that the Government have two distinct hands. To those that hath shall be given, and to those that hath little shall be taken away. My noble friend put that quite clearly when she spoke about the penalties of the further cutting of housing subsidies and the increase in mortgage interest relief. The Government have used averages all the way through in their deliberations on these alterations, but averages do not work out. When we are dealing with something like housing benefit, we are talking about individuals, and what will happen is that the benefits that are being cut will make life exceptionally hard for a great number of people who are on very low incomes.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and to the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kilmarnock, for their comments on this package, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. They have raised a number of points, and I shall try to deal with as many as I can. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, spoke about the whole business of housing not being looked at in
1108
isolation from these orders. That is a subject which goes rather wider than the subject that is before us, but I am sure that those who are responsible for the wider issues will take note of her remarks. It is a very complex area.
She drew a parallel with the mortgage interest relief and the increase from £25,000 to £30,000. She will realise that that is a matter not for me but for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Far be it from me to make any quick political comments about that from this Dispatch Box, but if she is thinking of trying to dispose of it altogether a lot of people will be very interested to hear of it.
Turning to some of the points that she made, she was concerned, as were others, about the way in which these cuts will be implemented. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked about the timetable. One of the reasons why the Government decided to modify the original proposals was to make the changes easier for local authorities and local offices to implement. The changes taking place in April are, relatively speaking, quite straightforward. We were advised by Logica, which is a leading firm of management consultants, that authorities should be able to make these changes in time. The local authority associations subsequently confirmed this at a meeting with my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security, and we issued the necessary guidance to local authorities and local offices as soon as possible after the final decision was announced. The more complicated changes which have been referred to—for example, those changes requiring authorities to change their computer programmes, or to seek extra information from claimants—are deferred until November, which will give local authorities much more time to cope with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the child's needs allowance. As I explained, the overall savings in 1984–85 have been reduced from £230 million to £185 million. About £12 million of the shortfall is being made up by a short delay in the proposed £1 increase in the child's needs allowance. But I have to stress that this is not a cut in benefit. We are not withdrawing anything which families are already receiving. Instead of increasing the allowance by £1 in April 1984, as originally proposed, we shall increase it by 50p on top of the normal uprating in November 1984, and then by a further £1 in April 1985. In other words, it will have increased by 50 per cent. more than the original proposals would have allowed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked: why not wait for the conclusions of the review before cutting benefits? The problem is that what we are dealing with is social security spending in 1984–85, and the most effective means of doing this is by making changes from April, which is the beginning of the financial year. The central concern of the review which I mentioned will be the structure and administration of the scheme, but this cannot be allowed to delay essential changes to contain the growth which is taking place in social security expenditure.
That review will be fairly wide-ranging. It will involve the local authorities as well as the Department of Health and Social Security, because it is now primarily a local authority problem. I cannot

1109
comment at this stage upon when the review will be completed or whether it will be published. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make a further statement in due course about the review, but I cannot be bound now as to exactly when that will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, shares many of the views which were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. He asked in particular about non-dependants, arguing that we have increased the non-dependant deductions by too much. The Government make no apology for this change. The amalgamation of the current categories of 18 to 20 year-olds and those aged 21 up to pensionable age does no more than return to the system which prevailed under the old supplementary benefit scheme before April 1983. Nor do we believe that the new adult deductions are unfair when, as I made clear when I spoke earlier, the male adult wage is about £170 a week and for 18 to 20 year-olds it is nearly £100 a week. Similarly, it does not seem wrong that 16 to 17 year-olds, except those on supplementary benefit or non-contributory invalidity pension or on a youth training scheme, should be expected to contribute up to £3.10 a week from November when average weekly earnings for this group are £61 for males and £55.70 for females. It is for each household to ensure that its members contribute reasonable amounts to housing costs, but it is not the role of the housing benefit scheme, particularly when savings are necessary, to make up deficiencies in what amount to inter-family relationships.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, indicated that there is a stiffer increase for 18 to 20 year-olds. This is the consequence of abolishing the rate for 18 to 20 year-olds, as he said. May I, as I said just now to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, remind the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the proposed structure is that which applied before April 1983. The noble Lord asked in particular about the youth training scheme and 18 year-olds. The answer is, yes, they are protected in the way I have just described. The noble Lord also asked whether or not the Government would implement the recommendation on the backdating of modified deductions. It is an attractive idea, but to do so would introduce certain administrative complications. We are looking at this recommendation with the local authorities and hope that in due course we shall be able to produce some proposals.
As to the question of phasing losses, the Government have considered it carefully, but after consultation with the local authority associations we have concluded that the phasing of losses is not practical. However, we have agreed to explore the possibility of setting a maximum limit on losses from November. If the local authority associations conclude that this is feasible, we shall give it our urgent consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, asked about publicity. She described the leaflets and the complexity of the forms. The benefit regulations which we have been discussing tonight are not the only changes we have made to improve the scheme. We have set up a forms group with the local authorities to try to improve form design. I share entirely the noble Baroness's feelings about the complexity of some of
1110
the forms. I have seen them in use in local offices. Substantial improvements have been made over the years. On the whole, design is improving, but this will be looked at when the forms group meets. As to the noble Baroness's last question, about blindness, perhaps I may look at her point. I do not have a ready answer to it now. If I may, I shall write to the noble Baroness and let her know what the situation is.
I have already said that we have set up a forms group. We are also about to issue a joint circular to local offices and local authorities in a number of areas where extra advice would be helpful, stressing the need for good liaison. We are also pursuing other ideas which have been suggested by the local authority associations. But technical changes and improvements are not sufficient, and in view of the problems which some authorities have had over the years my right honourable friend has decided to set up this much more fundamental review of the scheme. It is to be under independent chairmanship, and it will report to him at the end of the year. As I have said, my right honourable friend will announce further details of the review once he has appointed the chairman.
I think I have covered most of the points which have been raised in the debate. If I have not covered any specific points, I shall follow them up. I hope that at least I have reassured those who have spoken tonight about some of the points which worry them.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it would be possible for him to give an assurance tonight that the review will be published and that it will relate not just to housing benefits but to the whole question of housing finance, including tax relief on mortgage payments and other aspects of housing finance? Many of us believe that if the review relates only to housing benefits it will not be doing its job. I hope the Minister can reply tonight, but if he is unable to do so I am prepared to wait for an answer.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness might have to wait rather longer. As I said, my right honourable friend will be making a statement. However, I am sure that the views which the noble Baroness has expressed on this very wide and complex area will be taken into account by my right honourable friend before he makes his statement.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for the thoroughness with which he has treated my questions. However, may I ask him to look at the point I raised with him about people on part-time earnings, and how they are affected, and to write to me about it?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly do that and will write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.58 until 8 p.m.]

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 10 [Programmes other than advertisements]:
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 9, line 26, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) after consultation with the BBC and IBA the rules to be observed in regard to the inclusion in programmes of appeals for donations for charitable and benevolent purposes;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 10 requires the Cable Authority to draw up a code on rules concerning appeals for donations—presumably, benevolent and charitable donations. The BBC and IBA each year receive many hundreds, if not thousands, of similar requests for time to make charitable and benevolent appeals. But time is limited and they have found through joint experience that it is better to set up some form of machinery to deal with such requests rather than endeavour to deal with them in piecemeal fashion.
Some of the appeals are quite local, some are national, and some may be regarded as national emergencies—such as if there is an earthquake abroad somewhere for which there is a general appeal in this country. The latter are the least difficult to deal with. But, for the hundreds of requests that are received each year, the BBC and IBA have felt it wise to set up a joint appeals advisory committee, which receives applications for air time, considers them, keeps records of applications in case the same people appeal too frequently, and generally does the work of deciding which of the appeals may be made and on what dates they can be broadcast.
The joint advisory committee therefore vets the appeals. It reads them through and examines them to decide which are the more important—although no doubt they are all important. The joint advisory committee also keeps the important records so that it may advise the broadcasting authorities which appeals may be used—in fact, it allocates the appeals.
My amendment simply suggests that, after consultation with the BBC and IBA, the rules to be observed in regard to the inclusion in programmes should be the rules set down by the BBC and the IBA. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I had not the swiftness of foot to get here until a moment after the House resumed, but I have great confidence in the wisdom and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and wish to support him in this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, for drawing our attention to a provision which was not, I believe, discussed at Committee stage. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to preserve the substance of what is now in the Bill but to add two qualifications. Before I come to what he proposes, it may be helpful if I briefly explain why we included Clause 10(1)(b) in the Bill in the first place.
In general, it has been the Government's aim to impose as few restrictions as possible on cable programmes but Clauses 9 and 10 deal with those matters on which, in the interests of the viewer, it seemed necessary to us to have some minimum
1112
safeguards. So far as appeals for donations were concerned, we were guided by two considerations. Whereas, under Section 4(5) of the Broadcasting Act, the IBA have to give prior approval for any publicity to the needs or objects of an organisation conducted -for charitable and benevolent purposes" (words which the noble Lord has used in his amendment) we did not think it was appropriate to impose a similar requirement for cable. At the same time we were aware of the way in which cable is used in the United States to solicit money from viewers for various purposes. There is a self-evident need for a measure of consumer protection in this area so that people do not find themselves duped or manipulated by unscrupulous groups.
As a result, we have deliberately cast Clause 10(1)(b) rather wide so that the authority can deal with any problems that might arise. I am sure that the authority will want to keep itself informed generally about the way in which the BBC and IBA carry out their responsibilities in the areas covered by Clauses 9 and 10, but I do not believe that the amendment is right to suggest that the issue of donations needs to be singled out as the only one for which there needs to be a specific obligation for consultation. With public service broadcasting, one of the main problems is of rationing out the very limited time available among a large number of intrinsically worthy causes. In the case of cable the difficulties may well be rather different. Many channels will probably carry no appeals. On access channels it is possible to imagine that there would be little other than appeals unless the authority drew up some guidelines. We do not believe therefore that a formal consultation requirement is entirely appropriate.
The noble Lord's amendment would also restrict the appeals which will be covered in the rules to those for charitable and benevolent purposes. In practice, many appeals would no doubt fall into that category but, again to refer to the United States, it appears that there, all sorts of people try to raise money over cable—including some who merely wish to be able to continue making local programmes and rely on gifts for their support. It seems to us that consumer protection problems might arise just as easily where the appeals are not for charitable or benevolent purposes. Then again, we can probably all think of pseudo-religious groups which are not registered as charities and whose purpose, on any objective basis, is far from benevolent. Our view, therefore, is that the clause as it is will give the Cable Authority more power to deal with real abuses, and on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will on reflection feel that we are providing more appropriate and wider protection than he proposes.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords. I am satisfied that the Cable Authority may if they so wish consult the BBC and IBA joint panel and be guided by its views. As far as the other matters outside the charitable and benevolent areas are concerned, they are beyond the purview of the BBC or the IBA. Upon reflection, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Prizes and gifts.
.—(1) The Authority shall do all that they can to secure that nothing is included in any programme included in a licensed diffusion service, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value (whether competed for or not) or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons subscribing to the service which includes that programme or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above the Authority shall do all that they can to secure that a programme (other than an advertisement) included in a licensed diffusion service—

(a) shall not include anything which offers any prize of significant value (whether competed for or not) or any gift of significant value unless—

(i) the value of the prize or gift does not exceed an amount previously approved by the Authority for that prize or gill in relation to that programme, and

(ii) the aggregate value of all such prizes and gifts offered in the programme does not exceed an amount previously approved by the Authority for that programme; and

(b) shall not include anything which offers any prize or gift of significant value in connection with a game, competition or test of any kind unless the rules governing the conduct of the game, competition or test have been previously approved by the Authority.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) above shall not be taken to apply to a programme by reason only that in it there is broadcast a sporting or other event or competition not organised for the purposes of the programme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether the House will recollect the very short debate on what was then Amendment No. 47 at Committee stage. It does seem rather thoughtless of me to repeat all the arguments that I then advanced. I think I may summarise them by saying that independent television is subject to this condition in regard to advertising and it was thought only proper that precisely the same provision should be there in regard to advertising on cable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, intervened in that debate, I remember so well, to say that he felt there need not be precisely the same standards laid down for independent television and cable. There appeared to be no strong objection from the Government side to coincide with that. Indeed, I should have thought from the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on that occasion that the Government were apprised of the problem in regard to the unfairness of advertising which included these prizes and of programmes which included these prizes. In Committee he ended by saying:
"Nonetheless, the issue raised by the noble Lord in this amendment is still of interest, still important, and still of concern to the Government. When the Government came to draft the Bill this was in fact a specific issue that came under careful consideration. The conclusion they came to as a result of their consideration was rather different from that of the noble Lord moving this amendment".
I then made an observation which I am not quite sure I would wish to be interpreted in the way that it might be. My reply was:
"That gives me confidence."—[Official Report, 26/1/84; col. 384].
I believe that I was trying to say not that the fact the Government had come to an opposite conclusion to mine gave me confidence but that the Government had this matter under consideration and were continuing to do so. What was then said was that the proposal in this amendment would be left where the
1114
discussion had taken it in Committee. The way in which the Minister was left was that he in his kindness would consider the matters that had been discussed in Committee and see where he could assist with his advice when we came to Report. I feel that this is a very sensible and proper clause to be in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will on consideration find it possible to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the amendment says:
"whether in an advertisement or not".
Surely the trouble with quiz programmes with prizes is that the questions have to be very elementary for the benefit of the contestants, but the prizes have to be very large to interest the audience. Therefore, one gets someone being asked, "Who is the Prime Minister?" but they look quite blank and are told, "We will give you a clue. It is someone whose name begins with T". The contestant says, "Of course!" and finds he has won a grand piano. Anything that gets rid of programmes of that degree of absurdity must be good.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we are returning here to a point which we discussed in Committee when considering an identical amendment based on Section 4(4) and (7) of the Broadcasting Act 1981. The noble Lord's argument then and now—if I can summarise it fairly—is that if Parliament thought that it was right to impose these restrictions on independent broadcasting then it must also be right to do the same for cable, otherwise there might not he fair and proper competition between the two media. We accept that in a very limited number of cases it is desirable to impose certain restrictions on cable, not because they are intrinsically necessary but in order to ensure fair treatment as between the broadcasters and the cable companies. That is why we think that some limitation is needed, though only in the case of certain channels, on the amount of advertising that cable can take. It is also part of the argument for restricting the use of pay per view.
But—and here I begin to nibble at the confidence which the noble Lord sprang to in Committee—if we were to go too far down this road we should soon find that cable was subject to exactly the same rules as the broadcasters in all respects. It would become simply another branch of public service broadcasting. That however is not what the Government are trying to achieve. We had to ask ourselves why the existing restrictions appeared in the Broadcasting Act and it seemed to us that there were two main reasons. As regards offering prizes or gifts to the viewer in programmes or advertisements the main reason seemed to be to prevent unfair competition with the BBC and we came to the conclusion that although that was a reasonable consideration as between the two parts of public service broadcasting, it was not really relevant as between cable and the broadcasters. We have already provided safeguards on certain key points but this did not seem to qualify as one of them.
As regards prizes to contestants or participants in the programmes—here we have the somewhat vacuous face on the person conjured up for us by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, illuminated with a flash of

1115
inspiration after heavy hinting; the kind of hinting which I never seem to get in an emergency in your Lordships' House—the argument seemed to be more about the quality of the service and the risk that too many quiz shows would mean lower standards. Unlike public service broadcasting, however, cable will not be subject to positive obligations to secure particular standards, provided of course it does not show what is unacceptable.
Our conclusion, therefore—and I am afraid that the noble Lord has not led me away from it—was that these provisions were unnecessary. The one area where safeguards might be needed would be where the offering of gifts or prizes involved some dishonest or misleading practice. In that case the consumer ought to be protected and the Cable Authority's code of guidance on programme standards under Clause 10(1) and its separate code of advertising under Clause 11 are the obvious place for including the necessary safeguards. What needs to be done can be done and what the noble Lord's amendment would do in addition seems to be unnecessary and therefore not desirable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be elated by the reply from the noble Lord the Minister. One of the anxieties that most of us have is that by unfair means the people who are supplying the cable programmes will be able to obtain an unfair advantage over independent television. Independent television is subjected to this very clause in spite of the fact that there is a code on advertising which has been agreed between the various parties. Advertisers will know that if they go to independent television they will be unable to do what they want to do by way of proffering prizes in order to induce people to buy goods. So the chances are that they will go to cable instead of to independent television. I look immediately at the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, if he will forgive a glance from the Dispatch Box, and I am immediately reminded of his warning that if we are not very careful we will not just be depreciating standards in cable television but depreciating standards in the two great existing BBC and independent television authorities. Therefore, independent television, through lack of money, may either have inferior programmes as a result or may have to resort to other methods of inducing viewers and advertising back.
I was disappointed. If the Minister had said, "Well, we have considered this and we are going to see without any doubt at all that this provision will be in the advertising code" I could have understood that reply. But there is no such undertaking and no such assurance. Instead, advertisers will be tempted, presumably, to advertising on cable instead of independent television, with the worry that the noble Lord. Lord Hill of Luton, said was very much in everyone's mind.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, again one has the completely unfair competition that may exist as a result of people being induced to watch cable television and participate in it by virtue of the glamorous prizes that are offered to very non-glamorous people whose intellects are similarly non-glamorous. The instance that the noble Lord gave was
1116
very affecting. It was of somebody being given hints as to who at this moment the Prime Minister was. Anybody who did not know that must be mentally backward in view of the extreme amount of publicity which I understand she has had since she took office.
The serious point is the one that I tried to make—the basis of unfair competition. Can the noble Lord at least give an assurance that in any advertisement code that is drawn up there will be a recommendation from the Government that this provision should appear? If they merely said that they would give that recommendation, I should withdraw the amendment. The Minister's recommendation to anyone drawing up that code would have the weight that it deserves to have. Without that assurance, we should be very discontented.
Lord Elton: My Lords, having encouraged the noble Lord to be confident to no purpose, I only wish that I could encourage him to be contented. But in fact the Government do not draw up the code and it is not for me in this House to dictate what should be in it. I am afraid that the noble Lord asks me for something which I am not able to give him—even after dinner when, as he recognises, I am usually in a benign mood.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in those circumstances, and looking at the number in your Lordships' House, it would be quite wrong for me to attempt to divide the House in order to test an opinion. I reserve my right to deal with the matter at a later stage of the Bill, however much I regret having to carry amendments over to Third Reading. But, in the circumstances, I must ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Advertisements]:
8.21 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 15, after ("IBA") insert ("and such other persons and bodies as in the opinion of the Authority have relevant experience in the regulation of advertising standards").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Committee stage at this point in the Bill, in order to make the consultation rather wider, we sought to remove the IBA as a specific body that had to be consulted. The Government argued that the IBA was a body with statutory duty to draw up a code, and, because common advertising standards should apply, it had to be there. However, there are other advertising features which will appear. In particular there is classified advertising, which will not be relevant to the IBA.
I believe that it is important that the Cable Authority should consult widely with other interested bodies: for example, non-statutory self-regulating bodies with interests in advertising, such as the Advertising Standards Authority, trade associations with the advertising industry, such as the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Institute of Marketing, and, I have no doubt, many other relevant bodies, depending on the nature of the advertisement. Although the Cable Authority is not precluded by the Bill from such additional consultation, I believe that it is important that these non-statutory self-regulating

1117
bodies should within the Bill be given notification, as it were: hence the reason for the amendment.
There is another factor. I am told that at present in independent television it is certainly true that the IBA makes the overall rules but the actual administration of the advertising control system, and therefore a great deal of the power, is in the hands of the Independent Television Companies Association, which of course is a commercial organization, in that it is responsive to commercial companies and is of the same nature as the other bodies I have referred to. When the IBA makes its contribution in this area, it will be advised by that body. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that an amendment on the lines of this one should be included to make sure that the consultation goes wider than just the IBA, and that it is positive and not just permissive that it should go wider. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington for her courteous and most informative reply, which was received on 20th February, in answer to my request for clarification on certain aspects of Clause 11 which relate to this amendment?
For the sake of the record, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify four points as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government? The first is the nature and extent of consultation envisaged in the drawing up of this code. The second is the nature and extent of the proposals envisaged as regards vetting. The third is the nature and extent of the proposals envisaged as regards self-regulation, having particular regard, first, to classified advertisements and static slides; secondly, to sales information and magazine programmes; and, thirdly, to sponsorship. Lastly, may I ask my noble friend the extent to which the sales arrangement will be competitive and free from ITV monopolies?
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, it seems to me that it would be a mistake not to give encouragement to the IBA to seek opinions from those in the advertising trade. If those who are the principal sources of money for the cable companies are not consulted, there will be considerable friction. They will feel left out and rancorous. Our amendment would encourage—and not much more than encourage—the IBA to seek the opinions of the advertising trade, and it would be a mistake not to do that. I venture strongly to support this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friends for the courteous and patient way in which they have explained their amendment. May I perhaps start by responding to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. How nice it is from time to time to hear a good letter acknowledged. I am grateful to him for that. His first question was about the nature and extent of the consultation envisaged before drawing up the advertising code. We expect the authority to consult a number of bodies involved with standards in advertising before it draws up the code. The reasons why Clause 11(1) singles out the IBA—and there is a matching duty on the IBA to consult the Cable Authority on the IBA's code in future by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3—are, first, that we expect that the two codes will share a common core, because
1118
we think it right that there should be similar standards for advertisements appearing on the same screen, except where differences are clearly justifiable because of the intrinsic differences between cable and broadcasting. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway may recognise a certain familiarity in some of these phrases.
Clause 11(5) of the Bill provides for the IBA's existing statutory advisory committee to advise the Cable Authority in future, and I shall return to that in a moment. Like the Act, the Bill does not set out a recommendation for copy clearance of advertisements. Given that the two codes are to share a common core, it would be desirable for there to be some degree of co-operation in the area of copy clearance, but it will be for the Cable Authority to set out the rules once it is in existence. In other words, there I have to tell my noble friend that I cannot as yet be precise.
Under the existing IBA machinery, advertisements intended for general reception are pre-vetted centrally by the ITCA, acting for the IBA, while local advertisements are largely cleared locally by the individual television or radio company, referring to the ITCA or the IBA in case of doubt. Some system of advance copy clearance is in everyone's interest because it is much easier to make any necessary adjustments before companies have gone to the expense of recording an advertisement which then has to be changed.
We envisaged in the White Paper that the IBA system of copy control would be extended to embrace cable and that central pre-vetting would be required for advertisements intended for distribution on a number of cable systems, while local advertisements would be cleared locally. But it is clearly for the new authority to decide on the details of the copy clearance procedures which it wishes to be followed for cable.
The Cable Authority's control over advertisements will extend only to those included in licensed services. This means that advertisements included in services which do not require to be licensed, such as cable text services—that is to say, cable services which are analogous to printed publications rather than to broadcasting—will not be controlled by the authority.
The Government have taken the view that in the case of services which are not licensable it should be for the relevant interest to decide what self-regulatory arrangements might apply; in particular, whether there might be a role for the Advertising Standards Authority. All advertisements included in licensed services will, however, fall to be controlled by the authority's code, including magazine programmes and sales information where this is presented in the form of moving pictures rather than text. Clause 11(1) specifically requires the authority to include in its code guidance on the sponsoring of programmes, and this is certainly not an area where we should think it right for self-regulation to apply, given the sensitive issues involved, such as the separation of advertisements from editorial matter. We entirely accept, however, that cable will open up possibilities for some new forms of advertising and of sponsorship which have not been appropriate for independent broadcasting.

1119
The sales arrangements for advertisements on cable will be entitrely for the cable companies, or for programme providers if they are providing advertising finance services, to determine. There is no question of ITV having any vested rights in relation to the sale of advertising time on cable.
We covered much of this ground in Committee and I hope that at that stage I made clear two points. The Government had two reasons for singling out the IBA as the body with which the Cable Authority would be bound to consult among any others that it might consult by choice. The first of the reasons relates to the intention to maintain a common core between the IBA and the authority's codes, and I have already touched on that in answer to my noble friend. I am sure that my other noble friend will not forget the point that I made in Committee that there is no other body than the IBA which is actually required by statute to draw up an advertising code. So I think that I made those points clear. It would be absurd to apply different standards to the purveyors of advertisements over these closely similar media—sometimes appearing on the same screen—and, equally, it would obviously not be absurd to apply the requirement to this unique pair of authorities which alone share the duty that they shall consult one another.
The noble Lords who have moved the amendment would now like to place upon the Cable Authority a duty to consult not only the IBA, but also persons or bodies unspecified who are concerned in some way with advertising standards. There is of course a difficulty in a requirement to consult certain bodies when those bodies are not formally named, but I should not want to make much of that point.
There is also an odd element of asymmetry in what my noble friends propose, because the duty of the authority to consult the IBA is a reciprocal one. It is matched by a duty upon the IBA under paragraph 37(2) of Schedule 3 to consult the authority when reviewing its own code, as I have said. Under the amendment, the Cable Authority would have to consult both the IBA and the unspecified bodies, but the IBA would not be under a like requirement.
If my noble friends' anxiety is to ensure that those who regulate advertising on these forms of mass media shall be aware of the pressures and interests in the market, that would be a little odd—if indeed that is their purpose. In any case I still hold to the view that a statutory consultation process of the breadth that my noble friend proposes is not necessary to the Bill; I underline the word "statutory". It has been suggested that what lies behind the amendment is a fear not that the Cable Authority will be in danger out of ignorance, but that that ignorance may lead it to being misled, seduced, or bamboozled by the IBA into adopting a code that would place the cable companies at a commercial disadvantage in relation to the companies operating over television broadcasting. That would be a strange way for the authority to behave, since its interest is in enabling cable to prosper and not in imposing unnecessary restrictions.
But let us for a moment accept my noble friend's belief—if that is what it is—that whether for that or other purposes it is necessary to secure a flow of advice from other bodies to the Cable Authority. May I then
1120
remind him that under the Bill as drafted the Cable Authority is perfectly free to consult any other bodies concerned with standards in advertising—indeed to consult all of them—before drawing up its own code. Not only that; I must also remind my noble friend that the Bill already provides a direct link between the Cable Authority and the kinds of body from which my noble friends wish it to take advice. Moreover, that link is set up specifically in order that they shall receive that advice. I fear that I may not have made that clear in Committee, and, if so, I apologise.
My noble friend may be aware—if not, he will be if he turns to Clause 11(5)—that the IBA's existing advertising committee will in future, by virtue of that clause, advise the Cable Authority as well. On that committee today are representatives of the Advertising Association, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers Limited. They are I believe precisely the bodies which my noble friends wish to get involved in the advisory process. If that is the case, I wonder whether the fear of my noble friends about the possibility that in some way the authority may not want a proper or safe level of advice from these sources may not begin to become a little less serious. I wonder, too, whether I have not reassured my noble friends.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to make one point to my noble friend. It seems to me that he got himself on to rather delicate ground when he told us that there are certain forms of advertising which go out over the cable systems—systems which produce ordinary television-type programmes. These are the advertisements that go out in the form of classified or shopping advertisements, or even sponsored advertisements. Particularly in relation to the first two, if one form of advertising going out over cable needs to be watched, it seems to me very odd that the Government should not feel that classified advertisements need the same treatment. I fear that this is one of the manifestations of the dual control which we seem to be struggling with all the time. A way cannot be found within the delicate balance between the two authorities for the Cable Authority to do the whole of its duty, because surely its duty should be to look at all advertising. There is absolutely no logic in saying that some forms of advertising do not need monitoring. I should be grateful if my noble friend could help me on that point because I have jumped to my conclusion and may be it is wrong, but my conclusion is that this is just one of the weaknesses of the whole structure. Can my noble friend please help on that point?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my principal difficulty is that this is not the Committee stage and I ought not to reply to my noble friend. However, with your Lordships' permission, I shall endeavour to do so. I am not certain that I have followed what is my noble friend's concern. We are now concerned with consultation. My noble friend is talking about control, is he not? The amendment talks about consultation. My noble friend adduced a particular concern because of a particular sort of advertisement. It is the sort of advertisement that does not appear on television. My noble friend does not give me a nod as yet. I understand, however, that he is concerned with advertisements of a specific

1121
type, such as classified advertisements that do not appear on television. My noble friend looks very puzzled.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am only puzzled because I thought I had made myself clear.
Lord Elton: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, my noble friend has not.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall try again. Classified type advertisements of course appear on those television screens which are attached to the cable. One can thus switch from programme A, which is BBC1, to programme F, the feature film programme, or to programme J, which is the classified ads programme. They all appear on the screen. Yet the classified ads are not subject to any monitoring, whereas the others are. I admit that I am taking up my noble friend on a point that he made in reply to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I apologise if I have gone wide of the point made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone but I was so surprised to hear that there was this curious gap in the control of advertising.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has made himself entirely clear but he has gone wide of the amendment, although the point was raised on it. I can tell him that services that do not consist of sounds or moving pictures will not be subject to the Cable Authority's licensing powers. That is the point that my noble friend has picked up. As a result, classified advertisements in a service that consisted of nothing other than still pictures would not be subject to the authority's code. For them, self-regulation would apply as for print advertising. At this point, one is in the area of electronic publishing. It is much more like newspapers than television.
I think that I should address myself—if I can recall the point I had reached—to replying to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I have sought to reassure him, so far as consultation is concerned, that the reason we have singled out the IBA as the solitary beneficiary or sufferer, according to how you look at it, for consultation with the Cable Authority, is because they are the only two animals of this kind required to carry out this statutory duty. There is an absolute power at large for the Cable Authority to consult with anyone it wishes before drawing up its code of advertising. Clause 11 provides that it shall also have advice from the committee that already advises the IBA and that is made up, certainly, of three of the four names that I heard my noble friend mention. I hope that this goes far enough for my noble friend. No doubt, he will tell me whether it does.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking so much trouble to try and clarify this area. I do not think that my amendment would do it. I think that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has uncovered some hole that is not quite met. My noble friend will perhaps think about it when he has a chance to examine what everyone has said.
On the specific point of the amendment, the only difference is that whereas I was seeking to have these
1122
self-regulatory non-statutory bodies consulted, they will under subsection (5) advise the authority. I am sure that there is a subtlety here that means that they are not paid quite the same respect as if they were consulted. I shall not press the amendment further but I believe that some lack of self-regulation within the system has been unveiled by the debate. That is not, however, the particular relevance of my amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 15, after ("IBA") insert ("and previewing all new advertisements").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my amendment is concerned with new advertisements. I had better explain what is meant by new advertisements. They are advertisements that have not yet been shown on any television screen or, for that matter, been heard on radio. As already stated, the IBA has statutory control over all advertisements to make sure that they are accurate so far as this can be ascertained and that the content is something that should be seen on the screen. The committee has always to bear in mind that it has to be more careful over advertisements than with a normal programme. The advertisement appears time and time again whereas the programme appears perhaps once.
A new advertisement is one of the 10,000 a year that have to be vetted and previewed by the Independent Television Companies Association or the IBA. Each and every one of them is approved and vetted. Of the 10,000, you may be interested to know that something like 18 per cent. are returned for amendment and adjustment in any one year. You may be glad to know that, finally, only 2 per cent. are rejected as unsuitable for broadcasting.
My concern with new advertisements is that, careful as the IBA has to be under the terms of the Act with advertisements, there is the possibility, with the Cable Authority, that something may slip through without it having the opportunity to preview the programme and vet it before it appears. That is a strong possibility. I would be happy if I felt that it would consult with the IBA on those advertisements of which the IBA has knowledge, that is to say, those that the IBA has vetted, previewed and approved and for those with which the IBA has not been concerned that the Cable Authority itself would be sure, before transmission, that they were within the same standard. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone addresses itself to the question of how the Cable Authority will ensure compliance with its advertising code. May I assure him for a start that as well as being under a duty to draw up an advertising code the authority will be under a duty to see that the code is complied with. We do not think that it is necessary to set out in the Bill how the authority should set about securing compliance with its code. It is right that the Cable Authority itself should decide what mechanisms it wishes to adopt. In this we have followed the same approach as that adopted in the Broadcasting Act that does not set out a mechanism for copy clearance of advertising on ITV and ILR either.

1123
The method that operates is that adopted by the IBA in pursuance of its own statutory duties to secure compliance with certain rules and its own code on advertising. Under the existing IBA mechanism, advertisements intended for general reception are pre-vetted centrally by ITCA, as the noble Lord said, acting on behalf of the IBA, while local advertisements are largely cleared locally by the individual television or radio company who refer to ITCA or the IBA in case of doubt only.
We envisaged in the cable White Paper that the IBA system of copy control might be extended to embrace spot advertising on cable and that central pre-vetting of the scripts would be required for advertisements intended for distribution on a number of cable systems altogether while local advertisements would be cleared locally. That still seems to us a sensible arrangement given that the two codes will share a common core. It is in the interests of the advertising industry itself to know that a particular script will be acceptable before money is committed to the actual filming. It will, however, be for the cable authority to decide just how it wishes to ensure that its code is complied with.
So we have taken the view that the small print, as it were, is not a matter for the Bill. There is, I should add, one category of advertisements for which the Bill is rather more restrictive, and on this point we have again followed the provisions in the Broadcasting Act. In the case of medical products, the IBA is required to refer any advertisement to its medical advisory panel before the first occasion on which it is shown, and by virtue of Clause 11(5)(d) the Cable Authority is placed under a similar duty.
In our view, the approach set out in the Broadcasting Act, and of which I think the noble Lord approves, has worked well and we do not think it necessary to depart from it. For the Cable Authority to be required to read every script or preview of the advertisement itself would place on them an enormous burden which they could not bear easily, if at all, and which in the light of experience we believe to be unnecessary in order to achieve a proper and decent set of standards in advertising which are achieved through their code. In view of the reassuring precedents set by the Broadcasting Act, and the great difficulty of implementing the requirement he suggests, I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can give an assurance on a matter which relates directly to the amendment. This is probably the best place to raise it. It is on line 16 of clause 11, page 10, the code governing standards, Your Lordships may know that during this week the General Synod is meeting. I have just come from Question Time during which we had a slightly anxious question which I think it might be right to share with your Lordships. It was about the phrase "for Christ's sake" used in a projected advertisement. I should just like to ask the noble Lord the Minister for an assurance that in the general view he takes of the work committed, particularly the advertising authorities, he would watch for matters of this sort which appear to be on the edge of the blasphemy area.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate asks for my own view. My own view coincides very closely with his. But I think what he wants is the Government's view. The Government's view is that the advertising code deals with matters of good taste and decency, and I cannot actually see something which will be seen by large proportions of viewers—or perhaps not as large a proprtion as we would hope, but a notable proportion of viewers—as being blasphemous would be in any way acceptable.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I am rather astounded to hear what has appeared in the advertisement. It must have been approved or vetted by someone at some time; but if in fact it has happened, then the IBA are at fault and they ought to be told so because they are responsible for vetting of an advertisement which appears on television. I take it from the right reverend Prelate that that is where it would appear.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, if I may intervene, "projected" was the word used in the question but I will write to the noble Lord about the question and put him in the picture.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I have one further point which is on approving advertisements. This obviously is not very clear. It has been suggested that ITCA view them all and that the IBA are responsible overall. In fact, what happens is ITCA do a lot of the pre-vetting and that every morning of every week other than Saturdays or Sundays the advertising department of the IBA see on closed circuit television the new programmes which are being transmitted, and those in doubt—the 18 per cent. I mentioned earlier—are dealt with accordingly.
I am quite happy with what the noble Lord has said in reply to my amendment; but I hope that the Cable Authority will not do what the Americans do and let anything get through as a television advertisement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert ("and the Authority shall further do all that they can to secure that there is a proper and fair presentation of advertising rate cards.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with great rapidity I rise to deal with this amendment. It obviously deals with the question of fairness to advertisers and fairness indeed as between Independent Television and the cable programme sellers: that there should be quite clearly disclosed what the advertisement rates are. On the last occasion, if the Minister will allow me to paraphrase him—if I do it incorrectly he will reprimand me and correct it—the essence of his reply was that the Cable Authority was not the authority which could enforce upon other parties a requirement of this kind. He also argued that one must not clearly relate the two authorities in regard to matters of this kind. I think that is a fair summary of what the noble Lord said.
He also said at the end of his remarks that I should reflect upon what he had said, he would reflect upon what I had said and maybe both of us might find

1125
ourselves in the position at this stage to know whether we were withdrawing from our previous situations, or not. I do not withdraw from the previous situation that I adopted for only this reason: that this is not a mandatory obligation upon the authority; it is merely to do what they can in order to secure that this be done, and that would obviously be a request from the authority or would be put down as one of the conditions. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister could revise the view he took at Committee stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not think me churlish. We did have a short debate in Committee on this amendment and I agreed to consider carefully what the noble Lord said. Having done so, and listened to his points again today, I fear that I still have to come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to extend the duties of the Cable Authority in this way. As I explained in Committee, advertising time on cable will be sold in a number of different ways for the different channels. With a local channel, the operator may sell the advertising time; with a national channel, it may be the national programme provider. Some channels will be a mixture of both local and national advertising. The Cable Authority's direct control is only over its licensees, and as I pointed out last time, it could not influence transactions between very numerous third parties: for example, the programme provider and the advertiser. I take the noble Lord's point that this amendment does not introduce an absolute duty; but it is nevertheless a duty for all that, and a duty that in many instances the authority would not be able to carry out, and on those grounds I think it would be an undesirable extension of its role. As I said, I hope the noble Lord does not think me churlish but I am unable to be more friendly to him on this occasion.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may the noble Lord the Minister take from this Report stage today the definite and confident belief that I shall never consider him churlish; that is the last thing in the world I would do. What I do say, however, is this: that having put the point of view I have on two occasions, it seems to be churlish of me to push the matter further than I have done. The noble Lord, the Minister, has considered the point and he has answered, and I do not think this is a matter where one ought to divide the House. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Inclusion of certain broadcasts]:
Lord Hill of Luton Lord Hill of Luton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 35, leave out from ("shall") to ("secure")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of two probing amendments that I have put down. I can deal with the first very briefly. Clause 12 requires the licensed diffusion body, subject to any exceptions laid down by the Secretary of State, to transmit the programmes of the other broadcasting services. That is excellent but why does it begin with the words:
"That the Authority shall do all that they can to secure that subject"?
1126
Why not:
"That the Authority shall secure"?
Any exceptions will be laid down by the Secretary of State. It is very important to the other services being transmitted by the cable company; it is very disturbing for there to be no more than a requirement that the authority shall do all they can. They can do this. I do not understand why the longer phraseology is employed. The effect of my amendment would mean that the authority "shall secure" rather than that they "shall do all that they can to secure". I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall try to be as brief as the noble Lord in his admirably lucid remarks. The duties which the Bill places upon the Cable Authority are of two main kinds. The first is where the objective is within the direct power of the authority to achieve and deliver. For example, we can directly require them to draw up codes about programme standards and advertising because they have that in their gift. The second is where the objective is not within the direct power of the Cable Authority because the authority do not have direct physical control over cable transmissions. They cannot be under an absolute duty to regulate what happens in cable programme services if they are not actually themselves providing those services. As the noble Lord is well aware, the IBA is in a different position in this respect, because it actually transmits ITV and ILR programmes.
Accordingly, in this second category of duties, of which the duty to secure compliance with the "must carry" rule is but one, the Bill requires the authority to do all that they can to secure the objective in question. That is a very strong duty indeed, and, as I said on an earlier occasion to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the words "do all that they can" in this context have rather more significance than they do in everyday language. The authority must literally do all that they can. They must insert conditions in licences, and if those conditions are breached they must invoke the appropriate sanctions. But if they are breached, of course, during the breach they will not have secured what the Bill requires them to secure, but that will not be through any dereliction on their part and that is why the Bill is phrased in that way.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. If the authority have no unqualified power to secure that a licensed diffusion service broadcasts the services of others, who has the power? Where can it be secured that this thing is done?—for this thing is of the greatest importance to the existing services.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the person who has the absolute power is the person standing at the cable head with the apparatus; in other words, the person who has the cable franchise. He has the franchise by virtue of the licence.
Perhaps I may draw a weak but I think fairly illuminating analogy. The noble Lord is almost suggesting that the central vehicle licensing authority should be held directly responsible for ensuring that no one breaks the speed limit. It is perhaps not a happy example, but I am trying to show that the power to put conditions into a licence and to enforce them does not

1127
have the automatic effect that those conditions are never breached. I am not a lawyer, so I receive advice from my lawyer, and his advice is that under those circumstances one should not lay upon the licensing authority the absolute duty to see that nothing happens that should not happen within the terms of the licence. They must do all that they can, and if there is a breach they have the remedy. But they are not culpable if they include conditions in the licence; and the moment the licence conditions are breached they then have recourse to the sanctions provided for that. They are doing all that Parliament wants and all that they are able to do. The person who is in breach is the person who is in breach of the conditions in the licence.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, unconvinced but weary, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment in the hope—
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I said a long time ago now—and I still hold this view—that where there is a clause which says that a mischief shall not occur, instead of saying that the authority shall do their best to ensure that the mischief does not occur, with respect to the noble Lord's legal advisers it is much clearer to say in the clause "this mischief shall not take place". Then you have a clause which says, "if it does take place, the authority shall or may adopt the sanctions appropriate to this mischief". But it is a very odd way of legislating to say that someone shall do what he can to see that somebody else does not misbehave.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it your Lordships' wish that I respond yet again to this charge, which I think I dealt with three times in Committee and at least once on Second Reading? It is difficult for me to be clearer than I have been, and I accept that that is a limitation on my part; but I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that there is nothing odd at all in legislating in this way when we are dealing with the terms of licences. The control over the cable operators is by way of their licence. The licensing authority is the Cable Authority. The Cable Authority says, "Thou mayest do this and thou mayest not do that". So long as those commandments are obeyed, the operators are not in peril. They are the commandments of the licensing authority which are handed down to the licensing authority on tablets of stone from the Government. The licensing authority is a bad analogy as the punishment lies in the hands of the licensing authority, because it is the conditions in its licence which have been breached. If the Government were overseeing, we should make it a crime; but it is in fact the licensing authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill, has said that he is weary of this. I do not blame him at all. I tend to go on; I do not accept that I have failed to explain things to people, and I return unwearied to the charge (uncorrected by the bitter experience of many years) expecting to succeed the next time. I have done my best. If the noble Lord will read Hansard and then perhaps tackle me face to face in the corridor, I shall have one more try.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, in the hope that the Hansard reporter will enable me to understand the noble Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 11, line 37, after ("Authority") insert ("and both broadcasting authorities").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we were discussing an amendment to Clause 12 moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, my noble friend accepted in principle that the Secretary of State ought not to be able to make an exceptions order relating to the "must carry" rule without first consulting the broadcasting authorities.
Clause 12(1) already requires the Home Secretary, before making an order, to consult the Cable Authority. The Government entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, in Committee, that the broadcasters also have a legitimate interest in any waivers which might be made to the "must carry" rule. The amendment accordingly requires the Home Secretary to consult the BBC and the IBA as well as the Cable Authority before he makes an exceptions order. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for being so responsive to what I had hoped were my persuasive arguments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hill of Luton Lord Hill of Luton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert (", such retransmitted programmes to be of a high technical and visual standard").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another probing amendment. It is not unreasonable that where the programmes of the BBC and the IBA are transmitted by another party the requirement should be that they are of a high technical quality. But my reason for putting this amendment down is to raise what is happening today. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows that in the southern part of England, to take but one example, because of the physical features of the area, broadcasting in the present way leads to poor reception. To meet that Rediffusion, as a company selling and renting sets, have built a cable system which has been working satisfactorily for some years in the area. Now they have stopped it, and handed out aerials in its place.
The first sign of cable development for many people in the south of England is that their programmes, made clear by cable, have now returned to the unsatisfactory state from which cable rescued them. Can the noble Lord say why this has happened? I understand, of course, that the existing cable is a four-channel cable, that the new circumstances will require a many-channelled cable, and that change will have to be made. But why now? I just do not understand why the promise of cable has led to a poorer picture for so many people. I am told (although I cannot confirm this) that countrywide the number of people affected is some 4 million. I realise that this is springing it on the

1129
Minister without notice, but I should be grateful if he would have this position explored. I do not know whether it is because Rediffusion, having, as it were, the holes in the ground, expect to get the contract for a service based on new cables with many channels. I just do not know. I have no explanation. I have tried to get an explanation and cannot get it.
Here, as elsewhere, the passage of this Bill has been preceded by a return to had conditions of viewability in an area which was saved by cable. I do not expect the Minister to reply to this immediately, but I should like him to promise that this matter will be looked into in order that it should be understood why the development of this great new cable system should be preceded by a reduction in the picture quality for a large number of people who for some time hitherto were saved by cable. Now they have to return to the old conditions of poor reception for no reason that I can see. I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to look into that matter, even though he is perhaps not able to reply today.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have seen some inswingers bowled in my day, but I have never seen a ball turn so far off the expected line as this one. There is a little help coming in from the slips. The noble Lord's amendment addresses an issue which in fact I had thought I had an answer to, but the noble Lord has addressed himself to an allied issue on which I can only do my best. The waiver of the "must carry" rule is being allowed by the Government in order to allow new services to be supplied by cable only provided that satisfactory alternative means of reception are provided. The Government have no power to require that cable companies continue to provide a service if a cable system is not economic.
I am not certain of the exact position in the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has referred. Therefore, I can only speculate and inquire and write to him, but the two salient facts in any case must be the two facts I have just mentioned.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord's briefing has been as swift as it has been incomplete, and I gladly accept his suggestion that he will look into this matter. It is a matter of real concern with a large number of people today. Their areas may never get cable. They may live in so remote a part of the country that the cable people are not interested, and they may never get it. It is a poor, poor thing. Now, with this great enthusiasm for this great new development of information technology, the one result that has been seen by a large number of people is that their picture has become well nigh unrecognisable.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I was trying to say "Before the noble Lord sits down", but he almost succeeded in sitting down before I rose to my feet. The salient words here are "satisfactory alternative". Surely the responsible Minister must be satisfied before he dispenses with the "must carry" rule on existing cable that a satisfactory system is being supplied. Clearly if it is not, he must not waive the "must carry" rule.
All of us who were concerned with this, knew from the start that a large number of cables on a four-
1130
channel basis could not carry any additional services to those which were available over the air. Therefore, to finance multi-channel cable, it was essential that the companies concerned should be able to provide their customers with aerials so that they could comply with the "must carry" rule on the air, with the unsatisfactory results we have heard about, and provide other services down the cable from which they could make money. I urge the Minister to look into this with great urgency, because it is something on which some of us had some inkling of it happening.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should add that the Government have been getting assurances of picture quality where these waivers have been allowed. Of course I shall look into the matter which concens the noble Lords and refer it also to my right honourable friend, whose responsibility it is.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 12, line 5, leave out from ("as") to end of line and insert ("may be agreed between the broadcasting authority and the Authority or, in default of agreement, determined by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the problem of where there is a choice of two or more broadcast programmes available simultaneously in an area. It was raised under a different heading at Committee stage on which I got somewhat impassioned. Your Lordships may be assured that I am calmer now and perhaps accordingly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will think I am more convincing.
There is this problem and the Government rejected my proposal last time, which was that the cable operator should be the person who makes the choice between two alternative channels for good reasons. But we are left with the fact that without further amendment on the lines that I am proposing, the choice is left entirely to the broadcaster. The broadcaster may, for very good reasons in a particular area, elect to allocate a particular broadcast which may not be popular in the area for whatever reasons. The cable operator, to satisfy his customers, will have to put two on: one because he is told to and one because the locals want it. This seems thoroughly unreasonable and could be costly to the cable operator because he may be using up all his channels and is deprived of one. One can see all sorts of events occurring in due course.
To overcome the problem, I am suggesting in my amendment that, rather than it being all left to the broadcaster, there should be discussion between the broadcaster and the cable authority on behalf of the cable operator. In the event that they do not agree, the Secretary of State could arbitrate. It seems to me to be thoroughly reasonable and meets the points that the Government made before. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I must oppose this amendment. It would create a two-stage procedure of a negotiation followed by a ministerial

1131
determination. The points I made in Committee, and which I am sure I need not repeat now, against an amendment permitting the cable operator to decide, are equally applicable and pertinent here. Further I do not think the procedure would lend itself to quick or flexible decision-making, about which there has been much talk during the Bill, and would be likely to be extremely cumbersome in practice. I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall add only a sentence or two, if I may, to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that he is very much more convincing with the moderate speech that he made today and that smile which gladdens the heart of every Member of the House whenever he graces us by wearing it.
My second point is that it becomes more than unreal to expect the Secretary of State to explain to a rather busy other place that the reason he cannot be with them to address them on a certain occasion is because he is viewing a programme in order to decide between the broadcasting authority and the Cable Authority as to which programme out of two should be issued. I should have thought that that was a task that none of us would want to place with the other burdens upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State. It is quite impracticable.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I very much doubt whether this is going to happen often enough for it to be right to regard it as a duty on the Secretrary of State which is burdensome. There will not be many occasions when there is an overlap area. Let us be quite clear about this. It was said in Committee, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, that the broadcaster was a public service operator and he therefore had a right to take the decision. I pointed out at the time (as I am pointing out now) that, whatever the broadcaster is in terms of public service, he is in this for money and he has a marketing area. To him, his broadcast area is the area in which he markets his investment. Therefore, it seems to me that it is quite wrong that, in the ultimate, the decision as to which programme should be broadcast should be in the hands of one of the two commercial bodies concerned. I fear that this is where the poor Secretary of State very often has to come in and do his job to see fair play among two people who are hell bent on making money.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, in practical terms, I can see the difficulty here. Supposing that the cable company have arranged to show boxing and they also have an obligation to show one of two alternative programmes emanating from (shall we say?) the BBC, and one of those two is also boxing. The BBC is allowed to say, "You must show our boxing programme and not our other one". Cable surely are entitled to say, "This is very unfair on us because we shall not get a fair share of the people watching the boxing that we are providing on our sets. They will be watching the free BBC boxing".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to start by acknowledging that, in his present amendment, my
1132
noble friend has moved somewhat towards the Government's position. In Committee he wished the decision as to which of two available public service broadcasting services a cable operator should carry to be left to the cable operator himself. In his present amendment my noble friend asks, not that the cable operator should decide in isolation but that he should seek to agree which programme he should carry with the cable authority and the broadcasting authority concerned: and, if agreement is not possible, that he should abide by the arbitral decision of the Secretary of State, who I hope will not have to retire from the House of Commons in order to give it.
That makes it appropriate for us to consider what will be in the mind of the Secretary of State when he examines this question. The Secretary of State, in this case the Home Secretary, is the Minister responsible for broadcasting matters generally in this country. He will be bound therefore to consider both the interests of public service broadcasting and those of cable. He will look therefore not only at the structure of the cable authority's empire and those who operate in it; he will look also at the structure of the broadcaster's empires and those who operate in them. It goes without saying that he will have constantly in mind the interests of the viewing, and the potentially viewing, public as well.
The interests of the viewing public I take to be simply to have the widest choice of the best quality programmes available. Where two services overlap, therefore—it might be Harlech and Central—then if other things are equal, what would suit the public best would be presumably a chance to watch either of the available services at choice. The interest of the cable operator, whose cause my noble friend so eloquently and reasonably espouses, is to provide what they believe their viewers most want to see. In that context, I ought to remind my noble friend that if they are in a position to show both programmes, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to stop them doing so. What is more, any service intended for their area will be entirely free of copyright negotiations. He will be getting something for nothing, and that is not to be sneezed at. It is only when the cable operator is not in a position, for one reason or another, to show both programmes that he will get into a difficulty. That difficulty, I think, is a diminishing one because I believe it arises from the limited number of channels that most existing cables can carry. But modern cables can carry many more channels. Wide-band can carry 30 or so, and in due course I doubt whether many operators will wish to do other than to carry as many public service programmes as they can get if they have a market for them and can get them free of charge.
But let me come back to the reluctant purveyor over cable of a public service intended for his area over air. He is determined that he does not want to take the public service that overflows but he does want to take the public service that overflows, as it were, from the area next door and he is determined not to give up another channel for the public service area aimed at his receiver: he wants it for something else. That is his position when my noble friend wants him to take his case to the Home Secretary, and we must look again into the mind of the Home Secretary to see what is in it. I have explained his likely views on the custom. We also know that he will wish to enable the Cable

1133
Authority to encourage the growth of cable and also that he will wish them to promote that growth without acting to the detriment of public service broadcasting. That is not to rule out competition but it must influence him to protect the basic principles upon which the commercial side of public service broadcasting rests.
The structure on which it rests is the allocation of particular transmitters and thus particular potential audiences to companies, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr has said. The potential value of a television franchise depends on the size of the audience it can reach and it is fundamental to the Bill that the advent of cable is not to be allowed to hack lumps off that audience and appropriate them to itself. That is one of the reasons why we have the "must carry" rule. Cable companies may end up being wired into perhaps several hundred thousand homes—homes which have no need to take anything off air themselves for ever. Give a cable company the right to acquire an audience like that in one TV area and remove from them their local service and syphon into their homes the service provided for a neighbouring area, and what you are actually doing is changing the map on which the TV franchises were drawn and the sizes of the audiences on which the advertising rates of each are based. You are also affecting the programming which people can receive in a particular way, because in awarding franchises the IBA require their contractors to take account of the particular needs of their area by, for example, providing coverage of local news and events. What my right honourable friend would decide in such a case I obviously cannot say, because I cannot commit him. The question actually being asked of him would be: may we please remove X thousand viewers from the company serving TV Area A and present them on a platter to the company serving TV Area B?
I am as much wedded to the principle of competition as are my party and my noble friend; but the implications of that question go far wider than simple competition and I hope that my noble friend begins to see why it is that I do not exactly leap on the compromise he offers with open arms and a delighted cry. It is not a question that we particularly want to be asked of the Home Secretary because in effect it would be asking him to alter the map on which the TV franchises were based by all the contracting parties in good faith—the IBA and the ITV companies—while the contracts are still running.
I do not at present see quite how what my noble friend wants can be reconciled with that consideration. My noble friend's difficulty and my own is not that a cable company cannot carry the TV programmes of the overlap service, because they can; it is only that they may not refuse to carry the programmes appropriate to their area. I wonder whether he would care to consider this further before he asks your Lordships to accept an amendment which I regret to say I would have to advise your Lordships not to agree to. If I have spoken at some length, it is out of the recognition that I understand that my noble friend feels very strongly on this matter and perhaps the reticence with which he has spoken on this occasion does not measure the strength of his feelings.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for taking the trouble to give me such a full answer. I think the real problem is that in some parts of the country the local citizenry do not approve of the allocations of areas that have been made by the high panjandrums sitting in Whitehall. It is as simple as that, and the cable operator will be the person in between who may be able to redress what people have been grumbling about for a long time. That is a different picture; but I quite see that my noble friend has produced a very comprehensive answer. I will not say that I am entirely satisfied, but it is certainly not worth fighting, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 12, line 6, leave out from ("service") to second ("as") in line 8 and insert ("provided by a broadcasting authority fall to be included in a licensed diffusion service provided by any person, they shall be so included on such terms as to—

(a) the recovery by that person on behalf of the authority or, as the case may require, the DBS programme contractors of any charges made by them for the reception of the programmes;

(b) any payments to be made by one party to another; and

(c) any other matter for which provision requires to be made,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed Clause 12 in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, raised a number of points about the procedure in Clause 12(3) for agreement (or, in default of agreement, determination) of the terms on which a DBS service is included in a diffusion service under the "must carry" rule. One of the noble Lord's concerns was that the price of the DBS service to the customer should be the same whether the service is received direct "off-air" or by cable. I made it clear on that occasion that the procedures in Clause 12(3) were designed to deal with the proportions in which the customer's subscriptions were shared out between the broadcaster and the cable company, not with the amount of that subscription. I did, however, undertake to look again at the drafting to make sure that the correct result was achieved.
Having done so, we have come to the conclusion that there is some advantage in setting the matter out clearly. Accordingly, the first of these two amendments makes clear what matters are to be dealt with in the negotiations over the inclusion of a DBS service in a diffusion service. First, the negotiations may deal with the recovery by the cable company on behalf of the broadcaster of the broadcaster's subscription fee; in other words, the cable operator cannot charge the customer more for the service than the broadcaster's own subscription. Secondly, the negotiations may cover the payments to be made either by the broadcaster to the cable company or, if appropriate, from the cable operator to the broadcaster. Finally, the negotiations may cover any other matters for which provision is necessary.
The second amendment has a definition which is made necessary by the first. The second amendment in this case is amendment No. 34, which I should like your Lordships to consider with this one.
Amendment No. 34: Page 12, line 15, after ("section") insert—
(" "DBS programme contractor" has the meaning given by section 35(3) below;")
The amendments are intended to clarify what we already believe the position is under the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("payable to") and insert ("charged by")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief clarifying amendment arising from a discussion which we had in Committee. The question arose in connection with an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, with whom I have since been in correspondence. The question was: first, who sets the fee paid to a person appointed by the Home Secretary under Clause 12(3) for a determination as to the terms of the relay by cable of a DBS service; and, secondly, who apportions the fee between the parties to the determination? The answer in both cases is that it is the person appointed by the Home Secretary. He will both set the fee and determine the proportions in which it is paid by the cable company and the provider of the DBS service.
It is always our intention that this should be the case, and the amendment puts it beyond doubt. Your Lordships may think that this puts the person in question in an enviably strong position. Indeed, that thought had occurred to me. But the fact is that the person appointed by the Home Secretary will be in a position exactly analogous to that of an arbitrator, and what we have done is to put him in an exactly analogous position in regard to fees. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I merely wish to say briefly that I am most grateful to my noble friend for clarifying this issue, because it makes it much more sensible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 12, line 14, after ("determine") insert—
("Provided that where the person so appointed determines that the programmes shall be so included upon terms that any payments shall be made by the authority or, as the case may require, the contractor to the person by whom the licensed diffusion service is provided and the authority or, as the case may require, the contractor, within 30 days after the making of the determination, gives notice in writing to that person to the effect that it does not wish the programme to be so included, subsection (1) above shall thereupon cease to apply to that diffusion service in relation to those programmes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the amendment has arrived in this form. It did not arrive here quite so quickly as we had hoped. I am not quite sure what happened in between it leaving me and it arriving here, but these things do happen. However, it takes into account the amendments we have just passed to this clause. I do not wish to refer to those amendments, complicated though they are and rather curiously expressed in some ways, but it does take into account these amendments and it proposes that the broadcaster should have the option to choose not to have his DBS service carried in a way exactly opposite to the "must carry" rule if the terms fixed by the
1136
person appointed by the Secretary of State are unsatisfactory.
The thinking behind it is as follows. Clause 12(3) deals with DBS television services. The "must carry" rule under Clause 12(1) would apply to those services in the same way as it applies to terrestrial services, but "appropriate financial arrangements", to use the words of the White Paper at paragraph 129, will have to be worked out between the broadcaster and the cable operator. If they cannot work these out by agreement, we have this person appointed by the Secretary of State who is, in the amendment just agreed to, to fix his own remuneration, with which I do not quarrel at all. It is likely to be fairly difficult for the parties to reach agreement as to what the financial arrangements should be.
There are no guidelines or criteria of any kind laid down in the Bill. There is no market to provide a comparison—not, at any rate, at present. If they cannot reach agreement, the person appointed will fix the terms, but he, too, will have nothing much to guide him. No doubt he will act impartially and reasonably, and all the other phrases so beloved of our legislature, but at the end of the day he will tell the broadcaster what it has to pay. Unless my amendment is accepted there will be no escape from the obligation to pay, whatever amount he may alight upon.
There is no escape for the cable operator, either, from the "must carry" rule, but at least he knows that the extent of the burden that he will have to carry is to reserve a channel on his system for the service. He will also have some minor expenses in administrating the collection of subscriptions, and that can readily be budgeted for.
The position is quite different for the broadcaster. It must subsidise the cable operator to an extent that it cannot predict. It will be bound to make the payments to the cable operator in any event. In other words, there is a corollary to the "must carry" rule which might perhaps be characterised as the "must pay" or the "must subsidise" rule. Because there are no guidelines or criteria, the amount of the payment or the subsidy cannot be stated, even be guessed at, but the payments will be inescapable and there is no appeal.
It is surely a most unusual state of affairs under English law that legislation should oblige a person to pay whatever amount may be prescribed by an administrator or arbitrator for the rendering of a service without any opportunity to withdraw if the price of the service is too much. My amendment is designed to provide a reasonable solution to this difficulty. The broadcaster would be entitled, within 30 days after determination by the person appointed by the Secretary of State, to tell the cable operator that it does not wish him to carry the services, whereupon the "must carry" rule would cease to operate. The cable operator would be free either to devote the channel to other purposes or to reach some more appropriate and economic bargain with the broadcaster. Alternatively, the broadcaster could seek some other more viable means of exploiting the subscription market in the cable operator's area.
I can think of two situations which would give rise to commercial difficulties and where a safeguard of

1137
this kind might be required. The person appointed by the Secretary of State might specify as the whole of or as a component of the payment to be made to the cable operator a flat fee as a reward for reserving a channel in the service for DBS. If there were no subscribers, or very few of them, the subscription income would be less than the fee payable so that there would be a net outflow of funds from the broadcaster to the operator. Alternatively, there might be plenty of subscribers but the programme acquisition costs—which, generally speaking, are calculated on a subscriber variable basis—may approach or exceed the proportion of subscription left to the broadcaster after the cable operator had taken his share.
The broadcaster would at the very least be squeezed between the programme supplier on the one hand and the cable operator on the other, and their combined shares could well exceed the subscription income. It seems right that there should be safeguards of some kind to enable the broadcaster to escape from a situation of that kind.
I must apologise to your Lordships for speaking at such length on what may seem to be a very technical point—but it could destroy for the broadcaster the whole value of DBS, especially if DBS is to be extensively carried by a highly successful cable system. I beg to move.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I listened with particular care to what the noble Lord said in his interesting speech about a large and fairly new subject. He will forgive me if I give a fairly brief reply but I was unable to see this amendment on paper until midday today. The noble Lord has of couse apologised for that fact, and I am grateful to him for his recognition of the difficulty in which that situation has placed us.
The noble Lord is suggesting that after the DBS broadcaster and the cable company have tried to negotiate a deal and failed, and after the wise man has heard both sides and reached his determination, the broadcaster should be able to pull out of the whole arrangement because it does not suit him—thus rendering the whole arbitral proceedings null and void on the motion of only one of the parties.
The Government accept entirely that the financial arrangements to be determined under Clause 12(3) will be extremely important for both parties and that, in the case of a dispute, the person appointed to resolve it will bear a very heavy responsibility. The noble Lord was interested in the criteria which will be applied. That is something on which the parties will each have their own views. It is difficult to set out criteria in the abstract, but in each case it will be open to the opposing interests to argue for what ought to be taken into account in the final equation. What the amendment overlooks is that the decision will be of great significance to both sides, for there is nothing in the noble Lord's amendment about the cable operator being able to change his mind if he does not like the terms.
It seems to the Goverment that Clause 12(3) is a sensible way of proceeding and that it would be wrong to provide some sort of let-out clause for one party or other.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, particularly because of the delay in the noble Lord, the Minister seeing the amendment, I do not wish to press this matter tonight. I would ask, however, that the Government at least look again very carefully at the position which could arise if—particularly under a subscriber variable system—the DBS operator is put in the situation where, whatever he does (and perhaps the more subscribers he gets) the more money he loses. There must be some form of escape clause, perhaps equally devised for the cable operator himself.
We cannot have the position arising where the operation of the "must carry" rule results in one or other party inevitably and inescapably losing money. I therefore ask the noble Lord to look at this question very carefully before we reach the next stage of the Bill. In doing so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 34:
[Printed earlier: col. 1134.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 12, line 17, at end insert ("and such other television or sound broadcasting service (whether provided by that or any other means) as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
( ) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may start at the end and work backwards, we had a long discussion in Committee about whether statutory instruments should use the negative or positive procedure, and I suspect it is a discussion which goes on over many Bills in this House. Your Lordships will see that I have reluctantly accepted that the negative procedure is the one which should be adopted in this case.
I moved amendments which proposed that the procedure for determining the financial arrangements between broadcasters and cable operators should not be restricted to DBS television services, whether sound or television and whether terrestrial or celestial, where the service was a pay service, an advertising financed or sponsored DBS service. That did not find very much favour with the noble Lord because he did not think the legislation could cope with technological developments which could not readily be foreseen. I do not remember his exact words; I am not sure whether he said that he did not like crystal balls, but it was something of that nature.
It is hard to understand the noble Lord's difficulty because the amendment did not deal with the technology used in the delivery of the signal but with the means of paying for it. Further, the amendment did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, evidently thought it did, affect the scope of the "must carry" rule but only the circumstances in which the procedure in clause 12(3) could be invoked. Subsection (4) effectively specifies when that procedure may be invoked. At present it may be invoked only in relation to DBS television services. That seems unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible.
My amendment would enable the procedure to be applied by order made by statutory instrument to other services as and when the need arises. It does not affect the "must carry" rule, but there may be occasions in the future, either for the BBC or the IBA for a joint company formed by them both or for other broadcasters, to provide pay services which will not necessarily be delivered from a DBS satellite. There are various alternative methods of delivery which do not involve gazing into a crystal ball and which are present here and now in the United States. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government entirely accept that so far as is possible this Bill ought to cater for future developments within a flexible framework, but there are limits. In particular, I think that we come up against those limits when there is a point of principle which can only properly be considered in the light of a specific proposition rather than a hypothetical example. The noble Lord is thinking about pay television services which the BBC and IBA provide otherwise than by DBS; for example, from their existing terrestrial transmitters. That is an entirely hypothetical proposition. The Government have received no proposals for any sort of terrestrial pay TV services of that kind. If we were to be presented with such an idea no doubt we would consider it carefully to see, among other things, whether it was an appropriate activity for the BBC or IBA to undertake, for a start. Only if we thought that it was would we need to come to the secondary question of whether the "must carry" rule should apply to that service or those services.
All that I would say at this stage is that it is far from self-evident that "must carry" arrangements would necessarily apply to any such pay television service. The noble Lord may recall that the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, recommended that the "must carry" obligation should apply only to the existing terrestrial services and to any DBS services which were freely available—in other words, to the non-pay services. The Government thought it right to go further and ensure that all DBS channels would be available to all cable customers, but whether similar considerations would apply to other pay services is another matter which cannot be determined in the abstract.
For those reasons, I regret that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I suspect that the future will be with us rather sooner than the noble Lord accepts. Maybe then the Government will sit down, think again and say that perhaps these methods of delivery should not be subjected to the "must carry" rule, despite the fact that by then quite obviously the multi-watt channel wide band cable will be with us and will have ample accommodation for such services. Nevertheless, I do not at this hour of the night want to divide the House. However, to say the least, I think that this is extremely short sighted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Restrictions of inclusion of certain events]:
9.51 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 12, line 20, leave out ("protected") and insert ("listed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, with this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 43, 44 and 45.
Amendment No. 39: Page 12, line 26, leave out from second ("that") to end of line 31 and insert—

("(a) no licensed diffusion service includes on pay-per-view terms; and

(b) no licensed restricted service includes,

a programme which consists of or includes a protected event.").
Amendment No. 43: Page 12, leave out lines 33 to 45 and insert—
(" "listed event" means a sporting or other event of national interest which is for the time being included in a list maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and published by him in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the Authority and of persons providing licensed services;
"national interest" includes interest within England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland;
"protected event" means a sporting or other event which, in the opinion of the Authority, is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast.
(3A) For the purposes of this section a programme is included in a licensed diffusion service on pay-per-view terms if any payments falling to be made by subscribers to that service will or may vary according as that programme is or is not actually received by them.").
Amendment No. 44: Line 2, leave out ("is") and insert ("being").
Amendment No. 45: Line 3, after ("events") insert ("is itself an event").
At the close of our discussion of Clause 13 in Committee, I promised that we would look again at the structure and content of the clause in the light of what noble Lords had said. These amendments, together with the two we have just considered, represent the fruits of our reconsideration.
Perhaps I may start by establishing terms of reference. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 13(1) deals with events for which the broadcasters must have been able to bid on comparable terms before they are sold to someone to go out over cable. Clause 13(2) deals with events which may not under any circumstances be included on a pay-per-view or a restricted service. To the first of these categories of event we gave the label "protected event" and I am afraid that to the second category we neglected to give a name. That is something which I must now seek to remedy. A chief feature of the events in the first category, which is dealt with by the first subsection, is that they are defined under Clause 13(3) as:
"being included in a list maintained by the Secretary of State".
We therefore propose to remove from it the label which it at present bears and replace it with the much more appropriate label: "listed event". It is more appropriate because it is an event that is named in a list. That will leave us with the equally descriptive but less appropriate label "protected event" to tie to events of the second category of event dealt with in the second subsection of the clause.
My note of guidance at this point rather charmingly and optimistically says:
"These changes may prove slightly confusing at first but are logical and should prove useful once the old terminology is forgotten".

1141
I hope that by dwelling a little on the subject I have helped to reduce the confusion and illuminate the logic, because we now have handy and appropriate labels for those events listed—"listed events"—which a broadcaster must be allowed to bid for and those other events—"protected events"—which are not to go out by pay-per-view or on a restricted service. Feelings are quite strong on these events, and it is as well that we should have these labels so that we may describe them accurately.
The third amendment represents the substance of what we are proposing. It does two things that are new, First, it provides that the "national interest" referred to in the definition of "listed events", as they are now to be termed, includes interests within the four parts of the United Kingdom. This takes care of the point so helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, in Committee and on which I promised to bring forward a new draft. He will read in Hansard how glad I am to acknowledge his authorship. The amendment ensures, for example, that the Scottish Cup Final will receive protection North of the Border equal to that afforded to the Football Association Cup Final in the South.
Secondly, the third amendment provides a new definition of what we are now to call "protected events"; that is, the events which under subsection (2) cannot be offered on pay-per-view. Your Lordships complained in Committee that the definition of these events to be found in subsection (2) as at present drafted went far too wide. There was particular criticism of the phrase "of a class or description", which it was thought would embrace too many events; which might, indeed, cover even whole categories of sport, such as all cricket or all football. I then suggested that some of those fears might be overstated and that the Cable Authority was unlikely to interpret the restriction as widely as that. But we have given further thought to what might be done in order to achieve in Clause 13 a more faithful translation of the spirit of the White Paper. The new definition that we now propose is the result of that consideration. It speaks of an event which
"in the opinion of the Authority, is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
As we all recognised at Committee stage, this is a very difficult area in which to legislate; but I think that the new formulation effectively narrows the previous definition, and I hope that noble Lords will regard it as an improvement that goes most of the way to meeting their fears. It will of course be for the authority to apply the definition in practice to protect those events that are regularly broadcast. What the new wording makes clear though is that to qualify for protection an event must in some way he a continuation of something which the broadcasters have previously shown. To take the example which I used last time the Cable Authority could quite properly say that rugby matches in the home intenational championship were protected events because they constituted a series of matches over the years which have customarily been shown on broadcast television. That would not preclude cable from showing them, but they could not be offered on pay-per-view. What the Cable Authority could clearly not now say—and this was the fear of some noble Lords about the previous formulation—is
1142
that, because the rugby internationals have always been shown, cable cannot offer any kind of rugby match on pay-per-view. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has tabled an amendment to this amendment on the question of what constitutes an event; but I think that I had better come to that point after he has spoken.
Lastly, the third amendment also produces a definition of "listed event" which reproduces that of the old "protected event"now in subsection (3), and finally provides in subsection 3(A) a fresh definition of "pay-per-view", which is merely a technical recasting of that now contained in subsection (3). I think that we have carried out fairly radical surgery upon the body of Clause 13—not all of it entirely cosmetic—and I hope that your Lordships will think that it is healthy as a result. I beg to move.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend the Chief Whip is going to suggest that we do not continue for much longer. My amendment which follows this series and a number of other amendments all cover the same subject and I expect that noble Lords will agree that the main debate should take place on the amendments of my noble friend. If that is the case, I am perfectly prepared to defer my remarks until another time, if that would suit my noble friend, and I could then speak to my amendment while answering him on his amendment. If, as I understand, that is what my noble friend wants, it can be done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene at this stage to say merely that that would certainly suit my noble friends and myself for the following reason. The noble Lord the Minister is always clear, but of necessity he had to make a fairly rapid speech in explanation of his amendments. We do not have Notes on Clauses when it comes to dealing with Government amendments, and personally I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said in order that, together with my noble friends, I may intelligently contribute, I hope, to a discussion on what the noble Lord the Minister has explained. It really needs reading and studying.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, if I may join in the discussion, I would say that being able to read what the noble Lord the Minister has said would repay us. I understand that what has been suggested is that at this stage we should wind up, as it were, and come back to it all with fresh minds on Thursday. If that is the proposition that the Chief Whip is putting to the House, I for one would warmly support it.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the Minister having opened discussion dealing with most of the amendments to Clause 13, I cannot help thinking that we shall be some little time discussion the clause.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that I must take a lot of the blame on myself for this. I was told by some noble Lords that it would be possible to find a convenient breaking point in the middle of these amendments and by others that it would not. It is obvious that the latter were more correct. I think that I am right in saying that it is possible, as this is Report

1143
stage, to break in the middle of the debate like this. As my noble friend has the right to speak more than once with the leave of the House, and as other noble Lords who have intervened have done so before my noble friend sits down, I think that a break at this point would be quite in order. Your Lordships would also have the advantage of being able to read what my noble friend has said. Leaving Amendment No. 36 that we were discussing in mid-air, so to speak, which I understand is quite in order, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accodingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.

  THE EASTERN BLOC: GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE
  THE EASTERN BLOC: GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE
  THE US/USSR ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY 1972
  THE US/USSR ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY 1972
  USSER STATE BOUNDARY
  USSER STATE BOUNDARY
  UN FUND FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE
  UN FUND FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE
  ERGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT SCHEME
  ERGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT SCHEME
  INLAND REVENUE REPLY-PAID ENVELOPES
  INLAND REVENUE REPLY-PAID ENVELOPES
  PROPOSED PERMANENT MARITIME CONTINGENCY FORCE (NORWEGIAN SEA)
  PROPOSED PERMANENT MARITIME CONTINGENCY FORCE (NORWEGIAN SEA)
  DEFENCE ESTIMATES
  DEFENCE ESTIMATES
  LIVE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: PORTON DOWN
  LIVE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS: PORTON DOWN
  HYSTER COMPANY: FINANCIAL AID
  HYSTER COMPANY: FINANCIAL AID
  INTERNATIONAL MICROELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INC.: FINANCIAL AID
  INTERNATIONAL MICROELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INC.: FINANCIAL AID
  HIGHLAND FOREST PRODUCTS: FINANCIAL AID
  HIGHLAND FOREST PRODUCTS: FINANCIAL AID
  HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: UNITS OF RESOURCE
  HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: UNITS OF RESOURCE