Sitting of 26 January 1984

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

  GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL By Order
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 2 February.

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 2 February.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 2 February.

  DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Monday 6 February at Seven o'clock.

  MAZE PRISON
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Report of an Inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into the security arrangements HM Prison, Maze, relative to the escape on Sunday 25th September 1983 including relevant recommendations for the improvement of security at HM Prison, Maze.—[Mr. Prior.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Sinn Fein
    Mr. Beggsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now proscribe Sinn Fein.
    Mr. John David Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscibe Provisional Sinn Fein; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): This is kept under constant review; and the Government are considering what other measures can be taken to improve the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism and of the enforcement of the law against incitement to violence.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State concede that recent disclosures on "World in Action" show that Irish Republican terrorists and Sinn Fein support each other, and that both maintain recruitment through their propaganda campaign and through terror? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take the limited step of banning the spokesmen of organisations which encourage violence from furthering their aims and objectives on radio and television?
    Mr. Prior: That last suggestion would be very difficult for me to take up, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the matter and in particular on the "World in Action" programme to which he refers. There are problems associated with the production of admissible evidence in such cases. However, the Royal Lister Constabulary is studying carefully the recordings of that programme and if, as a result, the Director of Public Prosecutions finds grounds for prosecution, charges will be brought against those concerned.
    Mr. Malone: Does my right hon. Friend agree that TV-AM acted in a thoroughly irresponsible manner in granting an interview to Mr. Gerry Adams in which he was able to peddle his message of hatred and violence? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to urge broadcasting authorities to exercise more responsibly their discretion over such interviews?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. In general, I agree with my hon. Friend. I urge the television and radio authorities to act responsibly. However, I considered that the "World in Action" programme was extremely good in that it showed what the man really is.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that nothing would be solved by proscribing Sinn Fein? The political and economic problems of Northern Ireland would remain. Some terrorists are completely opposed to the type of work: that Sinn Fein is doing — other than the things it is accused of doing—and in any case, if proscribed, they would go under ground and stay in Northern Ireland in some other way.
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is broadly speaking correct. However, it would help enormously if he stated quite firmly that Provisional Sinn Fein must renounce violence before anyone can talk to it and before it can be treated in a normal democratic way.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State aware that one structure covers both Sinn Fein and the IRA, and that at a recent conference, reported in the "World in Action" film, there was a closed session at which people cheered loudly when it was announced that another service man had been gunned down by the IRA? As the Secretary of State has proscribed the IRA, should he not take another step and proscribe something which is really another part of the IRA?
    Mr. Prior: We keep that matter under careful review. However, we must assess all the consequences of taking such a step. In that respect, I have that particular conference very much in mind.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State agree that our profound and passionate disagreement with the views of a political party, however odious we may believe that party to be, is not a reason for preventing it from expressing them? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that if someone counsels or procures the commission of a criminal offence he may be prosecuted under the existing law? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although we all completely condemn terrorism, terrorist activities are not best prevented by stopping people from taking part in constitutional political discussion?
    Mr. Prior: We utterly condemn violent people masquerading under the banner of democracy and democratic rights. That is what we must deal with in the case of the Provisional Sinn Fein. If it renounced violence, many people would be prepared to talk to it. However, while it has the gun in one hand and the ballot box in the other, no respectable politician should have anything to do with it.

    Prison Security
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he intends to introduce to improve security in prisons in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement to the House on this matter later this afternoon.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister undertake to review the changes made in the regime of prisons in the aftermath of the hunger strike? Those changes did much to cause confusion and to undermine the confidence and morale of the prison service.
    Mr. Scott: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be dealing with that point in his statement later this afternoon. However, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's underlying premise.
    Mr. McCusker: On the assumption that the Minister is satisfied with security at the Maze at present, which of the procedures which were dismantled in the aftermath of the hunger strike have been reintroduced following the escape?
    Mr. Scott: I must leave all those matters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his statement.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total annual level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is estimated at £2,437 for the current year. This excludes expenditure in Northern Ireland which falls outside the area of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Canavan: Although no one would grudge extra public expenditure on items such as helping the unemployed, in view of the higher incidence of unemployment in Northern Ireland, how much longer does the hon. Gentleman think the British taxpayer will tolerate a situation whereby public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland is far in excess of that in any other part of the United Kingdom? One of the reasons for that is that per head of population in Northern Ireland security costs alone are now approaching £100 per annum. How long will the Government keep propping up an unstable gerrymandered Province which should never have been founded in the first place?
    Mr. Butler: The reasons for that high expenditure per head of population are social and economic, and certainly reflect the security situation. If the hon. Gentleman intends to ask United Kingdom citizens about their view of expenditure in disadvantaged regions, he should also ask them about Scotland. Expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is only one fifth higher than it is in Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the United Kingdom, where there are problems reflecting the security of our military establishments inevitably there will be increased costs and that, equally, the people who are camping outside the submarine bases in the Clyde will add to our costs?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has made his point, and I am sure that the House has heard it.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister consult his colleagues to see whether it is possible to give the corresponding figures for the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)?
    Mr. Canavan: We do not want to kill each other in Falkirk, West.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: But the hon. Gentleman's constituency gets the public money.
    Mr. Butler: I cannot give the expenditure figures per head for the constituency of Falkirk, West, but I am glad that, although the unemployment level at 16 per cent. is high, it is considerably below the average in the Province.
    Rev. William McCrea: The House must accept that expenditure in Northern Ireland is high because of the security problems, but does the Minister agree that people in Northern Ireland would be delighted if the massive expenditure on security were to be set aside by the annihilation of the IRA and the problem of our land?
    Mr. Butler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There would be great cause for rejoicing if that happened. There would be equal cause for rejoicing if the other social and economic problems of the Province were brought down at least to the average in the United Kingdom, because the high expenditure per head would not then be necessary. At the moment that expenditure is necessary, and it will continue to be provided.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of youngsters completing the youth training programme in Northern Ireland are now in full-time employment.
    Mr. Butler: Information maintained does not distinguish between those completing their training and those leaving early. However, during the last quarter of 1983, of those young people who left the youth training programme and whose destinations are known, 53 per cent. went straight into employment.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister realise that I find that figure difficult to understand or believe, especially as he has admitted in recent weeks that it would require too much form-filling by employers in Northern Ireland to determine how many 16 and 17-year-olds are in employment? If only two fifths of youngsters in Britain as a whole obtain jobs after going through the youth training schemes, how can the Minister monitor the effectiveness of training if he does not know how many youngsters are in employment?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is referring to questions for written answer put down by him on the ages of individuals. We keep records of those who come under what we call the guaranteed year, which is the first year after leaving school, and those in the next year. I assure him that my reply is correct. I should like the figure to be higher. I wish the hon. Gentleman would give at least some credit to the youth training programme for producing what is, in today's circumstances, a good result. We do undertake monitoring, but in a way that differs from what the hon. Gentleman would like.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept the underlying implication and accusation of my hon. Friend's question? Is it not a fact that the problem is that post-school people have neither jobs nor education? When will the Government produce a scheme which provides either education or jobs for people in that age group?
    Mr. Butler: The accusation of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was that I was not giving the right answer, but the answer was correct. It demonstrated that, at least in the case of more than half of the trainees, the youth training programme is doing a good job in providing the skills that make them more qualified for employment.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister inform the House of the percentage paid by Europe towards the youth training schemes in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: I would require notice of that question before answering, but there is some benefit and we are glad to receive it.

    Assembly
    Mr. Murphyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is currently being given to the transformation of the Northern Ireland Assembly into a regional council with local government powers in order to provide administrative devolution.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to address a meeting of the Ulster Assembly.
    Miss Maynardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had since Christmas with political leaders in the Province.
    Mr. Prior: In recent weeks I have had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland constitutional party leaders. I have listened carefully to their suggestions for political development in the Province, including suggestions for the devolution of administrative functions to locally elected representatives. The Government remain of the view that any such arrangements must enjoy widespread support across the community if they are to be stable and durable. I regret that the Ulster Unionist party has withdrawn from the Assembly and I urge it and the SDLP to take their places. Meanwhile, the Assembly continues. I have no plans to address it at present.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate that he wishes to obtain widespread community support for his plans, but does he agree that administrative devolution to a local authority, which may come from the Assembly, thus turning it into a regional assembly, may be a way forward which would command widespread support in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: That remains to be seen. I do not necessarily rule out the possibility of some changes which could be helpful to the Northern Ireland community generally if we could obtain agreement on them.
    Mr. Hal Miller: When my right hon. Friend next talks to political leaders, or has the opportunity to address the Assembly, will he take the opportunity to explain why permission was given for the change in the name of the Londonderry district authority?
    Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that I shall have a number of opportunities to explain that in the next few weeks. The Local Government Act 1972 clearly provides that district councils may apply for their names to be changed—and it is the district council. The city council made it very clear over a period of time that it desired the change. Recognising the sensitivities of the case, and having listened to a range of representations over a considerable period, the Government thought it right in this case to accede to the council's request.
    Miss Maynard: Does the Secretary of State accept that the horrific problems of Northern Ireland will not be solved within the context of the present Northern Ireland state, that the violence springs from the fact that we divided Ireland without the consent of the Irish people, that that violence requires a political solution and that we shall not be able to get down to the politics until the Unionist veto is withdrawn? Will he give favourable consideration to that?
    Mr. Prior: That point of view is frequently put to me, but I must tell the House that I am absolutely certain that there can be no change in the constitution of Northern Ireland within the foreseeable future. I make that absolutely clear. Those who suggest otherwise do not help the many constitutional nationalists who may wish for a different solution but who know perfectly well that without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland it will simply not be forthcoming.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: In view of the strange present condition of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will my right hon. Friend receive and consider ideas on administrative devolution being prepared by several of his hon. Friends with due regard both for unionist aspirations and for nationalist anxieties?
    Mr. Prior: I am of course, prepared to look at any sensible proposals which meet the broad criteria that we have laid down. I have made that absolutely clear on a number of occasions to deputations which have come to see me. I must, however, insist and advise the House that unless there is a willingness by the minority as well to accept the proposals put forward they simply will not work. One of the difficulties is that it was the local government route which was so despised and was the original cause of so many of the problems which we now face.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State admit at last that from the very beginning, and even before he announced his proposals publicly, the SDLP told him that no Unionist party would accept the terms that he was laying down for devolution of power and that therefore the Assembly would not work? Will he thank the SDLP for its honesty, because if our advice had been taken he would not have wasted the last 18 months on a useless initiative?
    Mr. Prior: I am afraid I cannot accept that. The whole purpose of the Assembly in its first instance was to enable people of very different and entrenched views to discover what they had in common, and many of them have a great deal in common in Northern Ireland, including the preservation of peace. I believe that if the SDLP had taken part in that Assembly it would have had a lot more influence on the Unionist party than it has been able to have from outside.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that considerably more hope for the future of Northern Ireland comes from the Northern Ireland Assembly than from the talks taking place in another jurisdiction, in which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is taking part? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that consideration is presently being given to the setting up of a Report Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to discharge one of the functions that he set it under the 1982 Act?
    Will he tell the House in what way he can give support and back-up to the Assembly in the Report Committee? Will he assure the House that the change of the name of the city council of Londonderry to Derry will go through the Assembly by way of an Order in Council and not a statutory rule, and that the House will also have the opportunity to debate and give a verdict on that matter?
    Mr. Prior: I think that the Assembly has done some extremely good work. If the Report Committee is set up—I hope that it will be—we shall seek to give it what help we can. I believe, though, that only the people of Northern Ireland themselves, whether they are unionists or constitutional nationalists, can actually prepare and advance the ground for devolution and for a greater say in their own affairs. I think that the Assembly provides them with an opportunity to do so.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people consider that his failure when he established the Assembly to give any meaningful consideration to the aspirations of the SDLP, which
    1042
    prevented it from joining the Assembly, in fact so undermined the SDLP's position that in very many ways the success of Provisional Sinn Fein in the election could be laid at the right hon. Gentleman's door?
    Mr. Prior: I think that that would be a grossly unfair position to adopt and I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman for taking it. The SDLP was very suspicious that the terms written into the 1982 Act would not protect it from an old-type Stormont. I should have thought that everything I have said and everything that has happened since show that the Government were not prepared to put proposals to this House for devolution until and unless there was widespread acceptance throughout the community. That acceptance must mean that the minority themselves are agreeable to the sort of proposals that we have made.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Minister consider, in view of his reference to consent, setting up a conference of organisations north and south of the border in order to draw up a new constitution for a united Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, if he believes that Act is an option, he knows very little about Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that nothing could be less helpful than for him to say to the constitutional nationalist parties that there is no hope for a constitutional change whatsoever? Everyone accepts that there is no hope for a Northern Ireland settlement without consent from the 1 million unionists and the 4 million nationalists in the island of Ireland, but the Assembly itself was in fact a constitutional change and one which was bitterly resisted by both unionists and nationalists. We ought to recognise that and make it clear that other changes in the constitution are needed, and those might be necessary in the face of resistance from some parts of the community.
    Mr. Prior: I have made it perfectly plain that if there is a widespread wish for changes to the Assembly this House and the Government will consider them, but I stand by the general criteria laid down in the 1982 Act. All I can say about constitutional change is that the Labour party is committed to no constitutional change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people. It knows as well as I do that that consent is simply not forthcoming, and that is what must be understood.

    Newtownabbey (Roads)
    Mr. Clifford Forsytheasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial provision was made for roads in Newtownabbey borough for the current financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): The provision, exclusive of street lighting and car parking, is £1·6 million.
    Mr. Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient funds are being made available for this area, bearing in mind that as recently as November 140 street lights were not working, that some of them had been off for as long as two years and that in the recent bad weather very little road gritting and clearing was done in the Carnmoney, Glengormley and Collinbridge areas? Indeed, one gentleman was unable to go to hospital because the ambulance could not get to his home, as road gritting had not been carried out.
    Mr. Patten: I know how much interest the hon. Gentleman has taken in this subject, since he was a distinguished mayor of the district council. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, within an overall smaller roads budget for next year, we shall be spending more on minor works and maintenance, and I am sure that some of that will be spent in his constituency. I shall look as a matter of some urgency into the problem of street lighting.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any change in mind for the name of the council of Newtownabbey other than that mentioned on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary is very wide of the main question.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it not be to the advantage of Northern Ireland and of the hon. Gentleman in his office if in Northern Ireland there were local councillors of local authorities who were responsible for the administration of street lighting and roads, as in the rest of the kingdom?
    Mr. Patten: There are, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, some proposals — for example, on handing over responsibility in an agency capacity for car parking—at present being considered by the association of local authorities of Northern Ireland. We have not yet received a response to those proposals, but I am sure that in due course a response will come, and then we shall be able to give the matter our normal constructive consideration.

    Republic of Ireland (Co-operation)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present level of co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: I have at present no plans to meet Dr. FitzGerald, but I met the Irish Minister for Justice, Mr. Noonan, on 10 January. I expect to meet Irish Ministers from time to time within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council to review matters of common concern. I am satisfied with the present level of co-operation in economic, social, cultural and security matters between the two countries.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that in any discussions the right hon. Gentleman's mind must be in possession of the knowledge that there is an Assembly in Northern Ireland which can hardly be called an Assembly — because it does not work in that it is incomplete because some of the Unionists do not attend and because the representatives of the minority community do not attend—and that in Southern Ireland there is a so-called All-Ireland Forum which is in the same parlous position, where representatives from the North do not attend? Is it not possible for us somehow, without going the whole hog, to try to think along the lines mentioned by Churchill when he said,
    "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war",
    and try to bring together the leaders of the North, who are sitting behind me here, and the leaders of the South, the Government, to discuss the parlous economic position of
    1044
    the whole of Ireland and the politics of the situation? At some time they will have to talk together, and the British people are getting weary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] — of the whole business, and it is time — [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question is already over-long.
    Mr. Prior: I am all for jaw-jaw and I have spent a great deal of time jaw-jawing in Northern Ireland and shall continue to do so. Good relations with the Republic of Northern Ireland are an important part of that.
    Dr. MawhinneyDoes my right hon. Friend agree that co-operation present and future, after the Forum report, will be largely determined by the realistic acceptance of the Government in the Republic of the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland — that it is part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of its citizens wish it to be so?
    Mr. Prior: If that could be accepted, there would be open to us a range of measures which would enable the minority to exercise their identity and traditions in a way completely acceptable to the peoples of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about his discussions with Mr. Noonan when he met him in Dublin? Did they talk about the taking of hostages in the South and about greater co-operation between the British and Irish Governments to arraign the people who carry out such villainous deeds?
    Mr. Prior: The talks were private and were about security and common interests. They did not relate to any issue of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that we had a wide-ranging review of all that we can do to co-operate better to defeat terrorism and to stop kidnapping and similar activities.
    Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although a closer relationship between the North and South in Ireland would create a considerable financial burden for the North and would have to be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a case for the formation of an Anglo-Irish Council? Would my right hon. Friend give that proposal a fair wind in Parliament?
    Mr. Prior: That is a matter for the House and Parliament, not for me. Provided that the council sought to bring about a closer understanding of the problems of the North and the South, it could do nothing but good.
    Mr. McCusker: Further to the reply which the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), if he meets Dr. Garret FitzGerald will he remind him of the constitutional crusade that he launched three years ago? It sought to delete the offensive articles 2 and 3 from the Irish Republic's constitution. Does he agree that, had they been deleted, it would have led to a new relationship between the two parts of Ireland, which might have bred good neighbourliness, to the advantage of everyone living on the island?
    Mr. Prior: Dr. FitzGerald knows only too well that those two articles are regarded as the stumbling block to the sort of relationship which the hon. Gentleman and I wish to see.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Was the Secretary of State co-operating with the Government of the Irish Republic when he approved the change in the name of the city of Londonderry's council? Will he proceed by statutory rule, or by Order in Council?
    Mr. Prior: That has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall proceed in the correct way. I shall let him know as soon as I can which way I shall proceed.
    Mr. Archer: I do not ask the Secretary of State to commit himself in advance of the Forum report, but may I ask him to consider seriously whether any proposals that emerge can be made the subject of discussions between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic and of any party in the North that can be persuaded to respond? Will he at least announce his recognition that there are some interests which all the people of these islands have in common and consider, for example, the recent report by Co-operation North on industrial development?
    Mr. Prior: The people of these islands have many interests in common. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Government will keep an open mind about the Forum report and try to respond to it, if it is in a form to which we can respond. We await the report with anxiety and hope.

    Security
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation on the border and the protection of Protestant churches.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 8 December, one member of the RUC, three members of the UDR and three civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. Two incidents were in border areas. In the opinion of the security forces these can best be countered by continuing covert operations and good professional relations with the Garda. But they also recognise the value of more visible security in the form of foot and mobile patrols and vehicle checks, which help to reassure those living there. Indeed, the security forces have provided those covert and oven security measures at and near Protestant churches after discussions with the clergy and other church representatives. All those matters are being carefully reviewed and any necessary measures till be taken during the next few weeks.
    With tremendous courage and determination, members of the security forces continue to pursue terrorists. During 1983 more than 600 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 75 with murder and 60 with attempted murder. The security forces will maintain their efforts to the full during 1984.
    Mr. Proctor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Will he ensure that there is a uniformly high level of security along the frontier so that, for example, the provisions that operate in Fermanagh—the blocking of as many roads as possible and the guarding of fewer crossing points—operate also in Armagh?
    Mr. Prior: The House will be interested to know that the Army is carrying out a full review of all crossing points on the border. It will consider carefully other matters, such as the guarding of intersections, to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Although I appreciate what the security forces did in the wake of the Darkley murders, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two mobile support units from the RUC have now been completely withdrawn from that area? Is he further aware that those attending isolated Protestant churches are very apprehensive about security? Will he give us some details of the number of open crossings into the Irish Republic in that area and will he take steps to close them?
    Mr. Prior: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of crossings, and I hope to give further details on those that can be closed within a few weeks. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, there has been some withdrawal of police and troops from the Darkley and border area during the past few weeks. That withdrawal is not permanent; it will be matched by occasions when the police and troops return to the area to create the maximum amount of surprise and flexibility.
    Mr. Maginnis: Although we welcome the Secretary of State's statement about reviewing security on the frontier, does he agree that it is rather odd that this should happen after 14 years of violence? Should security not be an ongoing operation rather than the stop-go system which reacts to terrorist violence?
    Mr. Prior: It would be wrong to say that it is a stop-go system. Security policy is constantly reviewed, and this is a further review.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State have any plans to ban civilians working in security installations in Northern Ireland from membership of trade unions? As a major recipient of intelligence gathered by Cheltenham, was he consulted by the Foreign Secretary before his statement yesterday, and has the right hon. Gentleman made representations in recent years in support of yesterday's proposal?
    Mr. Skinner: No, because Reagan has not told him yet.
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is ingenious, but that question must be answered by someone else.

    Security Forces (Loyalist Paramilitary Groups)
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider establishing an inquiry into possible links between the security forces in Northern Ireland and Loyalist paramilitary groups.
    Mr. Scott: No, Sir. The RUC already investigates any reports of illegal association with thoroughness and urgency, whomsoever they may involve.
    Mr. Fatchett: Do recent alleged cases of links between the Ulster Defence Regiment and Loyalist paramilitary organisations not undermine people's faith and confidence in the security forces? Would not a public inquiry be the best way of resolving the fears, so that people can have faith in the security forces and know the extent of the links between the UDR and the paramilitary organisations?
    Mr. Scott: It is certainly no part of my job to comment upon individual cases which are subject to the judicial process. I shall do nothing to undermine the confidence of the public of Northern Ireland in the UDR as a whole, which does a first-class job on behalf of the community there.

    Civil Service
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to eliminate the religious imbalance in the Northern Ireland Civil Service reported by the Fair Employment Agency.
    Mr. Butler: The Fair Employment Agency report of 8 December 1983 shows that the Northern Ireland Civil Service practises fair recruitment and promotion procedures and that both communities are now actively seeking employment in the service. These factors can be expected to accelerate the closing over recent years of the gap in the ratios between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The main recommendations in the report will now be discussed in detail with the agency and the trade unions.
    Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that it is still the case that 70 per cent. of those employed in local government or Government circles in Northern Ireland are Protestant and 30 per cent. are Roman Catholic? That proportion should be changed. Does he agree that more Catholics should be employed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Butler: As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my reply, the gap has been closing over recent years and there is every reason to suppose that it will continue to close.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Shortly after Questions I shall be departing for Rome for talks with the Italian Prime Minister.
    Mr. Dubs: In the light of yesterday's announcement about GCHQ, can the Prime Minister explain why a civil servant automatically ceases to be a security risk if he or she accepts £1,000 in return for giving up a trade union membership card?
    The Prime Minister: The question is much deeper than that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been the practice under all Governments to exempt those who work in intelligence agencies from the privilege of joining a union. Legislation has provided for it. Until 1983 the work of GCHQ was never acknowledged as that of an intelligence agency. No previous Government had acknowledged it as such. For reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it became necessary to acknowledge it in the middle of 1983. After that it seemed reasonable and right to bring the practice at GCHQ into line with that at other intelligence agencies.
    Mr. Kinnock: As someone who completely shares the Prime Minister's commitment to national security, may I
    1048
    tell her that civil servants at GCHQ have civil rights and that there is no justification for the removal of those civil rights because of anything that occurred in 1983, or before or since? As the Minister responsible for security matters, will she confirm now that she will belatedly meet the trade unions? Can she tell us how she will justify to them action that can only be described as dictatorial and not to be expected of a British Prime Minister? Was it not shameful and shamefaced—[Interruption.] It is a matter of basic civil rights for the people of this country. Loyal and patriotic civil servants are being abused by the Government. Is the shameful and shamefaced decision on GCHQ not just another pathetic example of the way in which the right hon. Lady is willing to surrender British interest to American pressure?
    The Prime Minister: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. There was no American intervention of any kind in this decision. The reasons were as I have given. They were heightened by the fact that in national Civil Service strikes in 1979 and 1981 there was a strike by certain services at GCHQ. It is absolutely vital that, where we are dealing with that kind of intelligence, the operation is continuous 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That is a heightened reason for taking the action we took. There is no new point of principle. It is bringing practice at GCHQ into line with that at other intelligence agencies.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of American pressure, I wish that we had a polygraph here, no matter how unreliable they are. If there was no American pressure, does that not make the Government's decision even less easy to defend? For 40 years these highly trained and highly dependable civil servants have given continuous service. Where is the evidence that the withdrawal of the right to belong to a trade union can secure or guarantee continuity without strike or disruption if workers in a democracy have a justifiable grievance at their place of work?
    The Prime Minister: I find what the right hon. Gentleman said about my comments about the United States very offensive. There was no intervention of any sort. The action that we have taken was reasonable once the intelligence agency was avowed. It was even more necessary because of the fact that GCHQ was selected — it has many computers — for special action by a national Civil Service union. That will not occur again when one has an association of people who work at GCHQ. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman places great importance on the security of the United Kingdom. I cannot stress too much that it is vital that this operational agency be kept going 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Lady agree that this country is worth defending, and that one of the most important reasons for so doing is the range of liberties that are exercised by its citizens? Why is she slurring civil servants, if she is so easily offended herself, by making the accusation that they cannot be depended upon to give the continuity of work upon which Britain's security depends?
    The Prime Minister: I am not slurring civil servants. The previous Labour Government did not slur the other intelligence services by denying those who worked in them the right to belong to a trade union. The denial of that right has always been accepted. It was through the

    1049
    circumstances of a security commission report that I avowed the work of the intelligence agency at GCHQ. All Governments have accepted that members of the security force should not belong to national trade unions. I believe that that has been a correct decision and it is one which we have now followed. The workers at GCHQ will still have rights of representation by a staff association. They will be able to appeal to the Civil Service appeals procedure, which many civil servants already use in preference to industrial tribunals.
    Dr. Owen: The Prime Minister must be more aware than most in the House that it is quite unrealistic to compare MI5 and MI6 with the establishment at Cheltenham. Does she agree that one can have a certificate of exception under the employment protection legislation and retain membership of a trade union? Is she aware that the objection to her proposal is that she has exempted trade unionists? It would be possible to achieve a no-strike agreement. Membership of a staff association does not prevent striking. Does the right hon. Lady accept that, in the national interest, it would have been far better to concentrate on achieving a no-strike agreement, which is a legitimate security demand?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, it is vital that the agency is kept going at all times if we are to have the secure intelligence that we need. That is vital for Britain's security. If the civil servants were able to join a national trade union, that union could draw them out on strike even if there were no dispute between the employers at GCHQ and the workers. That is what happened in 1979 and 1981, when some 10,000 working days were lost. That may happen again if the civil servants belong to a national trade union. As I have said, that did happen. A no-strike agreement for a particular section would not deal with the problem of union officers outside GCHQ having to negotiate on behalf of staff about whose detailed work they could not be fully informed.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: In view of the Prime Minister's anxiety about trends in welfare spending, as reflected in her interview with the New York Times, will she say what long-term consideration is being given to the future of the welfare state and, in particular, whether there is a possibility of the introduction of a tax credit scheme?
    The Prime Minister: The trends in welfare spending are affecting all OECD countries. The OECD has put out useful papers, one of which, this year, is a summary of a much longer one issued last year. It will be discussed at the next OECD meeting in Paris. The real problem in this country will come when the earnings-related pensions begin to mature. Hon. Members will remember that the scheme was started in 1978 and that it matures in 1998. We run a scheme which is pay-as-you-go, so the money is being paid in and paid out in the same year, and a capital fund is not accruing. We must look at it in good time.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: If, as the Prime Minister implied a few moments ago, apparatus of the utmost national security and importance at Cheltenham has been either not operated continuously or disconnected, would it not be wholly inappropriate to describe such action as industrial action, and much more appropriate to describe it as treason? In those circumstances, is not my right hon. Friend's action wholly justifiable?
    The Prime Minister: It is part of my task to see that this country obtains the necessary intelligence for security purposes. I believe that the action we have taken will help to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that those employed—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been dealing very fairly with the House. I called a great many hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, and I am now balancing up.
    Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that those employed at the Government communication headquarters at Cheltenham are just as much in the front line as our armed forces? Is it not true that the Foreign Secretary, who put forward these measures, is acting under the Employment Protection Act introduced by the Labour Government for precisely this purpose? Is it not clear that Labour Members have not a leg to stand on in this regard?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct. The action was taken under certain sections of the Employment Protection Act which exist for that purpose.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Prime Minister aware that I agree that it is absolutely necessary to keep GCHQ going but that I believe that the action Government took is wrong? The right hon. Lady calls in aid what happened in 1981. I have checked Hansard for those years, and I find that the former Secretary of State, Sir John Nott, made it absolutely clear that the strike had not in any way affected the operational capability in any area. He went on to praise the loyalty of the Civil Service. [Interruption.] What evidence is there that, in 1981, the GCHQ was made inoperable by this trade union?
    The Prime Minister: The evidence is that some 10,000 working days were lost in intelligence signals operations, where it is absolutely vital to have continuity. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, a number of people were out on strike then and we do not know what information we lost.
    Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: When the Prime Minister talks, rightly, about the need to maintain operations at GCHQ, why does she not think about the morale of the staff who have been affected by this decision—the thousands of loyal civil servants? Does she realise that this comes on top of the attempt to impose the notoriously inaccurate polygraph system in the pilot scheme at GCHQ, instead of spending money on the employment of sufficient people to carry out the security measures that are really needed?
    The Prime Minister: The polygraph experiment was advocated by the Security Commission and its recommendation of a pilot experiment was accepted. Some of the employees found other methods of searching even more offensive and did not take to them. Moreover, due to the numbers employed, it was not possible to carry out the type of searches that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a group of Members of Parliament visited Greenham

    1051
    common earlier this week, Labour Members chose to posture outside in front of television cameras rather than attend briefings on the facts?
    Is she further aware that hon. Members who studied the systems and the safeguards were impressed by them? Does she think that there are persuasive arguments for promoting more knowledge of the systems and safeguards, perhaps by allowing television camera and newspaper access to Greenham common, so that more people can be
    1052
    made aware of the facts, thus counteracting the wildly misleading statements of people who have a view of defence which is different from ours?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that after the visit he and other Conservative Members who attended the briefing will be able to help to get the facts out. All of our people realise that this is part of the deterrent which defends Britain's freedoms.

Maze Prison (Hennessy Report)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report, published today, by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir James Hennessy, on his inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's prison Maze bearing on the escape on Sunday 25 September 1983 and on action I have taken following that report.
I should like first to record my gratitude to Sir James's Hennessy and his colleagues for the way they undertook their inquiry and for their thorough and comprehensive report. I am publishing it in full save for a small number of deletions which are clearly marked and which have been made for security reasons only.
The Maze prison holds the largest concentration of terrorists anywhere in western Europe. It is, in Sir James's words
"a prison without parallel in the United Kingdom, unique in size, and in the continuity and tenacity of its protests and disturbances. In no other prison that we have seen",
he said,
"have the problems faced by the authorities been so great."
Sir James goes on to point out that its population is unlike that of any other prison, and he says:
"Nowhere else in the United Kingdom have there been such prolonged and wide scale protests of so horrendous a nature."
He records that 22 members of the prison service have lost their lives through terrorist action, including a deputy governor and others from the Maze. I know the House will join with me in paying tribute to them. As we consider the lessons to be learnt from the blackest day in the troubled history of the Northern Ireland prison service, let us not forget the unique demands which we put on that service.
The report describes the escape from the Maze in detail. The broad outline which I gave the House on 24 October stands. The report draws attention to the careful planning of a small group of prisoners and to the outside help they received, particularly through the smuggling in of five guns. It also shows the ruthlessness of the prisoners, who stabbed one prison officer to death and seriously injured five others.
The report is extremely critical of many aspects of security at the Maze. The House will regard these failings with the utmost seriousness. The report points to three main areas where security was inadequate: first, physical weaknesses, in particular in the communications rooms in the H blocks and at the main gate; secondly, poor security procedures, in particular inadequate searching, unsatisfactory control of visits, and flaws in the control of prisoner movement, in the selection of orderlies, and in the arrangements for responding to alarms; and, thirdly, failures by individuals who were negligent or who did not carry out their duties. The report shows that staff at the Maze were complacent about security and that there was widespread laxness and carelessness in the performance of duties at both supervisory and other levels. This conclusion is a matter of the greatest concern.
There is one specific point that I would draw to the attention of the House. The report records that before the escape a probation officer seconded to the Maze prison in January 1983 had admitted to being a member of the Provisional IRA in the early 1970s. He has since been
1054
dismissed from the probation service. Following investigations by the RUC, Sir James says that there is no evidence that he had any involvement in the escape.
The report makes 73 recommendations covering each of the three areas to which I have referred: enhanced physical security measures; improved security procedures; enhanced training and investigations with a view to possible disciplinary action in the cases of certain members of staff. I accept the analysis and all of the recommendations. The most urgent measures were implemented at once, as I informed the House on 24 October. Twenty-one recommendations have already been put into effect. Thirty-eight will be carried out as soon as possible. And the remaining 14, as the report proposes, will be the subject of urgent review.
As a result of the action taken, the control room in each H block has been made secure against armed attack; an electric lock has been installed at the main gate; a control point secure from armed attack is in place and other security improvements have been made. Plans for a new main gate complex with a remote control locking system are being drawn up. A study of closed-circuit television linkage between each H block and the main control room has been commissioned. Changes in the security procedures, most notably searching, have already been implemented and action will follow in other areas. Discussions are being held this afternoon between my officials and representatives of both the Prison Officers Association and the Governors Association in Northern Ireland about the report.
The report analyses the policy changes made at the end of the hunger strike and on other occasions and concludes that, taken singly or together, they played no significant role in facilitating the escape.
The report is critical of the oversight of security arrangements at the prison by the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office and recommends the strengthening of its staffing. This is being done. A team has also been set up dedicated solely to the urgent implementation of each of the recommendations. I have instructed it to report to me on the progress being made.
While recognising the enormous difficulties involved in running an establishment as large and complex as the Maze, the report concludes that the extent of the deficiencies in management and in the prison's physical defences amounted to a major failure in security for which the governor, who carries the ultimate responsibility for the state of the prison, must be held accountable. In the light of the report's observations, the governor has resigned and his successor is taking up his duties today. The governor has served 34 years in the prison service with dedication and courage and that should not go unremarked. I pay tribute to it. The assistant governor in charge of security has been moved today, and the principal officer concerned with security was replaced shortly after the escape. A governor from headquarters has been appointed to investigate the actions of officers named in the report, including the assistant governor and principal officer, and disciplinary measures will be taken if they are found to be justified.
Sir James's strictures do not extend to all staff at the Maze. As he says, the service contains many men of ability and courage who respond well in a crisis and who are ready to risk their lives in doing their duty. A number of such officers, including officer Ferris who lost his life, are specifically commended by Sir James Hennessy.

1055
Though for reasons of personal safety it is not right to publish their names I can assure the House that I have noted Sir James's comments and will be taking appropriate action.
As I said to the House in October, the escape of so many prisoners represents a considerable setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland. It is also a blot on the distinguished reputation of the prison service. This thorough report has uncovered a number of serious shortcomings and some grave operational mistakes, for which the highest price has been paid. The recommendations are designed as far as possible to ensure that the shortcomings are rectified. I am determined to take them forward with urgency and resolution. The Northern Ireland prison service has an enormously difficult task, but it is of the greatest importance to the community at large that it maintains the highest standards of professionalism and discipline which will enable it to carry out its essential role in the maintenance of law and order in the Province. I commend Sir James's report to the House.
Mr. Peter Archer: The House will wish to congratulate Sir James Hennessy on the expedition and obvious sense of urgency with which he conducted the investigation and produced the report. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but he will understand that we have not yet had an opportunity to read the report or to reflect upon it. Discussion in advance of that may be ill advised.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the subject clearly merits a full debate in Government time? Can he assure the House that time will he made available in the near future? If he cannot give that assurance, will he undertake to make strong representations to the Leader of the House?
I should like to ask two questions. First, I make no complaint that the House did not have access to the report in advance of today's statement, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain how The Sunday Times seems to have been seized of its contents by 15 January? Has he taken any action on that? Secondly, I echo the Secretary of State's tribute to the work of many in the prison service in difficult and dangerous conditions, but is it not clear from the most cursory reading of the report that, for whatever reasons, morale among staff is abysmally low at both senior and junior level? Does that not give rise to great anxieties in the community generally and among the families of those in custody? Was the Secretary aware of that prior to the breakout? Has he reflected on it since, and what action does he propose to take?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present and he will have heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about a debate.
It is clear that The Sunday Times report of about 10 days ago was mere speculation. It got most things wrong. I am certain that it did not get a leak of the report which at that time was not available to anyone because it was not even completed.
Morale in the service is worrying. Staff numbers have increased from 300 prison officers dealing for the most part with petty crimes in about 1970 to a force of 3,000 prison officers who now deal with the most desperate criminals in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that as a result there is a lack of training and sometimes a shortage of people who normally would be expected to join as important a service as the prison service.
1056
I was not aware that following the hunger strike there was the decline in morale to which the report gives substance. I have checked, and it seems from reports that the decline in morale was somewhat exaggerated. One must recognise the great difficulties with which the prison staff and, in particular, the people in charge of them have to operate. One thing after another seems to happen in Northern Ireland prisons, and all involved have a difficult task.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the errors of judgment and organisation to which his statement admits go far beyond any ordinary administrative muddle and must cast the gravest doubt on the whole of the administration of Northern Ireland? Does he agree with me and with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that this matter cannot be allowed to pass without a full debate in the House?
Mr. Prior: The seriousness of the situation in the prison service is brought out clearly in the report and we must take it extremely seriously. The report shows that no policy decisions contributed to the escape. For that reason, I believe that there are no grounds for ministerial resignation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard my right hon. Friend's views, and if there is to be a debate I have no doubt that it can be arranged.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is ministerial responsibility for the shortcomings disclosed by the report —and, if not, why not?
Mr. Prior: I think that I have just answered that question.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I support the Secretary of State's remarks about the dedication and diligence of the majority of prison officers. However, is it not clear from the report that some of the prison staff were cognisant with what was taking place? Were not guns smuggled in by visitors, staff, or those supplying goods to the prisons'? That is a serious matter. If the guns had not been supplied, the escape could not have happened.
What will the Secretary of State do about his director at the Northern Ireland Office, who is severely criticised in the report? If the governor of the prison felt that he had to resign, surely the man who was supposed to have been looking after the governor — an inspector of Her Majesty's prisons — must feel that it is his duty to resign.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the responsible Minister in his office, who did not even inform him of the low morale in the prison—as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted today — cannot absolve himself from responsibility? If the governor had resigned and the director should resign, surely the Minister should also resign.
Mr. Prior: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's latter point. There was absolutely no ground for believing that any policy decisions, which are the responsibility of Ministers, were not dealt with expeditiously, and in the manner in which we expected them to be carried out by either the Northern Ireland Office or the governor of the prison.
The governor's duty is to deal with security in the prison service generally, and the report recognises that

1057
there were some failings. However, it also points out that when the governor took over the prison there was an enormous backlog of work. It recognised that he had dedicated himself to trying to improve security in any way that he could.
On the first question, undoubtedly one of the lapses was in the proper inspection and searching of those visiting the prison, whether family, lawyers or clergy. As a result, the report recommends considerable changes in the arrangements between open and closed visits. I have instructed that those changes be carried out immediately.
Mr. Roy Mason: Did not the Prison Officers Association register its concern that the Government's financial restraints were adversely affecting security staffing and security improvements at the Maze?
I note the sackings of senior prison staff. However, did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the report had criticised the Northern Ireland Office prison department, which is responsible for overseeing security arrangements in the Maze? It is clearly a departmental responsibility. Why have not the sackings moved into the Department?
Mr. Prior: There was an increase from £61·9 million to £70·9 million between 1981–82 and 1983–84. In the two years before the escape, the number of staff increased by 365, or 13 per cent., at a time when there was no increase in the prison population. I am not aware of any sensible demands made by the prison department that were not met. That shows that there was no lack of available resources. The responsibility of officials in the prison department was less direct than that of the officers at the Maze. The shortcomings in the security and operations division, referred to in the report, were due primarily to a lack of staff of adequate calibre. I have taken steps to strengthen the position. A review of the management structures of the whole Department is being undertaken, as recommended in the report.
Sir James Hennessy specifically concludes that no blame should attach to the Under-Secretary in charge of the prison department.
Mr. Robert Key: Because all those who represent constituencies on this side of the water always have to be prepared to justify exceptional public expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that the security of all the citizens of the United Kingdom should not be jeopardised by lack of money, can my right hon. Friend give us an idea of the cost of the measures that he is taking?
Mr. Prior: I cannot yet give a precise figure, but the measures will cost several million pounds. I shall seek to meet as much of the cost as possible from my own budget in Northern Ireland, but I may have to ask my colleagues for additional resources.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Sir James Hennessy has levelled a number of criticisms at the officers concerned, but we must remember the difficulty of maintaining a high security prison in a country where a substantial number of the inmates enjoy a measure of sympathy from local people. I believe that there are over 550 IRA men there. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the standard of the high security perimeter walls is now similar to the high standard now applied to high
1058
security prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom? Is there now a separate dogs unit within the prison? Has the right hon. Gentleman implemented the regular movement of high security risk prisoners?
Mr. Prior: Much more regular movement has been introduced, and a separate dogs section has been set up. I am satisfied that the security of the perimeter wall is as good as it can be. Sir James Hennessy asked a number of questions and he asked for a review of the outer fencing protection, which was really only a delineation of the property of the prison and was not concerned with security.
In England and Wales, out of a total prison population of about 44,000, there are about 250 high risk prisoners, or 0·5 per cent. They are dispersed throughout the country. In Northern Ireland, there are 1,000 category A high risk prisoners in a total prison population of 2,500 and they have to be kept in two, or at the most three, prisons.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his honesty and frankness in presenting an alarming report. Will he confirm that the lessons of the report have been taken on board by the Northern Ireland Office and will be implemented not only in the Maze but in other prisons in Northern Ireland? The only resignation that we should ask for is the resignation of the Northern Ireland Office never to let such a thing happen again.
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. A team has been set up which will look at every recommendation, and we will chase the team to make sure that everything is put into effect as quickly as possible.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: The report should be studied in the context of the situation in Northern Ireland, but also in the context of the report of the committee of inquiry into the United Kingdom prison service, published in October 1979, which held up Northern Ireland as an example to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Hennessey report refers to failures by individuals who are negligent or who did not carry out their duties. The report shows that staff at the Maze were complacent about security and that there was widespread laxness and carelessness in the performance of duties at both supervisory and other levels. I was the Minister responsible for the prison service in Northern Ireland and for building it up. Indeed, I pay tribute to the prison service and to those who have given their lives for it in Northern Ireland.
Things were not always as they are today. It would be wrong to pass over the remarkable 34 years' service that the governor of the Maze has given. In my time in office I knew him not only as a governor, but as a man. He was the governor not only of the prison at Armagh but of the other prisons in the Maze complex before he went to the Maze itself. The previous Conservative Government as well as the Labour party thought so highly of him that his name appeared in the honours list about two years ago. He is the type of man to accept the report and honourably to offer his resignation.
I was once a junior Minister and I know that such Ministers are in daily contact with the prison system in Northern Ireland and the governors of it. I am not talking about the present Minister in charge, but I find the

1059
situation odd. If I had been involved, I would have had to get in very quickly before my resignation was sought. I think that I am honourable enough not to have let Mr. Whittington stand alone, taking the blame.
Mr. Prior: I have always made it plain that if anyone were to resign over this matter it would be me. I am primarily responsible. Of course, I have given the matter the most careful personal consideration and have decided that I do not believe that there was negligence in any policy decision by me or by my hon. Friend the Minister. For that reason, I see no need for my resignation on this occasion.
It is difficult to understand how there could have been such laxness in a prison that deals with very dangerous prisoners. It should not have happened, but unfortunately it did. The urgent task is for all involved to work together to restore the level of professionalism needed to carry out a very difficult job. No one can say that the Hennessy report is a whitewash. I asked Sir James Hennessy to get at all the facts. I think that he has done so, and it is now up to us to put the past behind us and to get on and ensure that the recommendations are implemented.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the central finding of Sir James Hennessy's very thorough report implies that the key to the escape lay in the possession of firearms within the prison? If so, is he satisfied that the changes that have been made, or are about to be made, will ensure that no guns can get into the prison in future? Will the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in the kingdom believe that ministerial responsibility goes beyond policy matters and bears on the administration of his Department, which the report found to have been at fault?
Mr. Prior: A prison is only as safe as its weakest link, and that is what Sir James says. I cannot ever guarantee that arms will not be smuggled into a prison again. Indeed, there has been at least one occasion since then when arms have been smuggled in. We are having a complete review and a complete change in the arrangements made for both inspection and the searching of visitors, as well as of prison officers in their own interest. That will have to be stepped up enormously to protect them from the intimidation that is always possible in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports for the past three years on the Northern Ireland prison service—the most recent of which was tabled in the House by the right hon. Gentleman three months ago — do not contain any reference to the problem of morale or lack of discipline? On the contrary, one after the other, the reports offer compliments and congratulations. Who are we to believe? Can we believe anyone any longer? Can we believe reports any more when they tell us such things?
As the last serious prison escape in Northern Ireland occurred at Crumlin road prison when guns were also smuggled in, why were the procedures that were introduced at Crumlin road following that escape not introduced immediately at the Maze prison? Who was responsible for that?
Mr. Prior: Crumlin road was a different prison, and we were looking at the arrangements that were recommended for it. At that time there was no recommendation that changes should be made.
1060
The point about morale is interesting. I had received no suggestion that morale was bad. I do not believe that on the whole morale has been bad. There have been problems with the Prison Officers Association, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There was a serious problem as recently as August bank holiday Monday. I believe that a number of prison officers expressed that view to Sir James Hennessy, perhaps with a view to putting at least their side of the case in a better light.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not clear that the Leader of the House must arrange for this damning report to be fully debated so that Ministers of the Crown responsible for Northern Ireland may answer the charges and the calls for resignation that have been made in different quarters of the House? Whether or not morale was bad, it is bad now. One contribution that the House can make is to take note of the commendation in the report of a number of prison officers for their courage, devotion and sacrifice. Since the concentration of terrorists is stated in the report to be the largest in western Europe and since the Home Secretary is on the Treasury Bench, will my right hon. Friend consider redistributing some of the worst of those terrorists to others of Her Majesty's prisons?
Mr. Prior: I do not believe that the latter suggestion would be acceptable, but it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend and not for me. The arrangement of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the vast majority of prison officers who have done their duty with enormous courage. As I said at the beginning of my statement, more than 20 prison officers have been murdered in Northern Ireland during the past 10 years, and much courage is required to live in a community and do a job when one faces the prospect of murder. We should not forget what Sir James Hennessy said about the vast majority of prison officers in the Maze prison.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that Sir James Hennessy's findings will require careful consideration and the House will need to debate these matters. Is it not already clear that the Secretary of State has misrepresented Sir James Hennessy's findings in saying that the ultimate responsiblity must lie with the governor? Sir James went on to speak of the particular responsibilities of the prison department and the director of prison operations whom he holds partially responsible for what happened. He drew attention to the fact that the Under-Secretary, whom he exculpates, was over-worked and under-resourced.
Is it not clear also from what the Secretary of State said this afternoon in reply to questions about his inability to understand how the breakout could happen—he not only does not know how it happened but does not know how it could have happened—that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to provide the inspired leadership that the Hennessy report states as being necessary so that
"the prison should soon become again what it was always intended to be; the most secure prison in Northern Ireland."?
In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State abandon the farcical and unconstitutional doctrine that he propounded this afternoon that Ministers of the Crown are responsible only for policy and not for the administration of their Departments?
Mr. Prior: I have nothing further to add to what I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman in an intervention in, I believe, October. Sir James Hennessy, in paragraph 10.12 of his report states:
"Nevertheless, the extent of the deficiencies in management and in the prison's physical defences amounted to a major failure in security for which the Governor must be held accountable."
Since that was the main reason why the escape took place, I do not believe that it was unreasonable that the governor should resign.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although many of us acknowledge the particular difficulty associated with Maze prison both in terms of the people in it and its rapid expansion, the report includes some serious charges? Can he assure the House that no policy changes introduced after the last hunger strike were in any way to blame for this breakout?
Mr. Prior: Yes, I can. The report makes it abundantly clear that no policy changes made after the hunger strike were attributable in any way to the breakout. Sir James Hennessy says two things on that matter. First, prison officers claim that at that time there was a lowering of morale that led them to take less trouble. On checking, that was not something that I found to be a relevant factor. Secondly, Sir James draws attention to the fact that greater association, which was one of the points that we allowed after the ending of the hunger strike and which could have been a contributing factor, was not in operation because it had been stopped a year before because of the dirty protests by Loyalist prisoners.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Northern Ireland Office was warned on numerous occasions by deputations from my party that many of the 73 weaknesses found in the security system were in existence for a considerable time before the escape? On taking the word of the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Gentleman consistently denied that that was the case. Is it right that the Secretary of State should group together deficiencies in management which are the responsibility of the governor with deficiencies in the prison's defences which were the responsibility not directly of the governor but of the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office?
Mr. Prior: Many of the recommendations were already under review and were being implemented following the report on the Crumlin road outbreak about two years previously. It is possible at any time to see certain improvements that should be made in the prison. In this case, the problem was that both the governor and the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office were under such constant pressure in day-to-day affairs—such as averting protests, the hunger strike and a strike by prison officers—that they were never able to get on with the job of carrying out the necessary improvements.
Rev. William McCrea: It is true that hon. Members should pay tribute to the members of the prison service who serve, as most of them have served, with great distinction and honour in a difficult and dangerous job. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that anyone who has been guilty of criminal neglect is made amenable to the law. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the paragraph in his statement which states:
"The report analyses the policy changes made at the end of the hunger strike and on other occasions and concludes that, taken singly or together, they played no significant role in facilitating the escape."
The right hon. Gentleman told the House today that the policy changes had played no role. That is not what his statement says. It says that they played "no significant role". Is it not true that the Prison Officers Association had to go on strike at Magilligan to get movement from the Northern Ireland Office on security matters at that prison?
Mr. Prior: I do not think that I need answer the first part of the question again. I referred in my statement to "no significant role". When I referred to "no role" in reply to a supplementary question, I went on to elaborate on two respects in which criticism could have been laid at my door.
As for the prison officers making representations, I can only say that there are 3,000 prison officers. They have had very considerable increases in resources. We need a higher standard and better training for prison officers if they are to perform the duties that we set them, but the problem is especially difficult in Northern Ireland where the force has expanded from 300 to 3,000 in 10 years.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In terms of the future, what about Maghaberry prison? We already have Crumlin, Magilligan and the Maze. Maghaberry was begun in 1975 and should be ready soon. Will not this help the Secretary of State to get people out of the Maze, which is a most unsatisfactory prison which started out as an old airfield with huts for detainees? Will Maghaberry be used to ease the situation at the Maze?
Mr. Prior: That is a very important point. The problem is that Maghaberry will need considerable changes in the light of the report to bring security up to the level now considered necessary. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in alluding to the pressure that must exist in the Maze. If we can in any way defuse or disperse some of the very violent, determined and dangerous prisoners away from the Maze to Maghaberry, that would certainly help, and we should like to do so as soon as we can.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House and the rights of Back Benchers who wish to take part in the subsequent debate. I call the Leader of the House to make the business statement.

Business of the House
4.13 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 31 JANUARY—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 1 FEBRUARY — Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the industrial and social consequences of the Government's policy on the shipbuilding industry. Afterwards, a debate on a motion relating to the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) (Equal Value Amendment) Regulations 1983.
THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day). The topic for debate to be announced later. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I must record the regret of the Opposition that the Government have not agreed to the use of the Special Standing Committee procedure for consideration of the Data Protection Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this. In order to assist him, in our usual fashion, we shall be tabling a motion to allow the use of that procedure. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to facilitating the full use of Parliament and all its procedures. Will he therefore advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion so that the special procedure may be used?
Last Thursday, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that a statement on the A320 airbus would be made as soon as possible. The front page story in the Financial Times today reports that the Prime Minister is opposed to the project, which clearly causes concern and increases the necessity for a statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to facilitate such a statement?
I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to join my in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his service to the House and to the country in using his private Member's day next Friday to debate the cuts in the Health and Safety Commission.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Give him a job.
Mr. Kinnock: I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) about getting a job. May we have a statement during that debate to the effect that the cuts are to be restored?
Finally, when may we have a statement on a second crossing of the Severn estuary and will a day be provided for a debate on the Hennessy report on the Maze prison, as has already been requested in questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Biffen: It is perhaps appropriate to comment on the last point first. Anyone who heard the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Hennessy report, and the serious way in which questions were put on it, will realise that there is a general desire for the matter to be taken further in parliamentary debate. I cannot give an immediate assurance on the timing, but I will attend to that.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Biffen: I am speaking as clearly as I can.
Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman speak a little louder?
Mr. Biffen: Even if my words did not reach the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the sentiments should have sustained him. I hope that we shall be able to debate that subject, and I take note of the view of the House that the debate should take place soon.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition will be tabling a motion to allow reconsideration of the application of the Special Standing Committee procedure to the Data Protection Bill. I shall, of course, refer that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
On the matter of a statement about the airbus, my judgment remains the same as it was last week. It will be to the advantage of us all to have a statement on the matter as soon as practicable. Prudence requires me to make no observations whatever on the speculations in the Financial Times.
As for Friday's motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the terms in which the Leader of the Opposition recommended that debate showed that he is halfway to success in enlisting his hon. Friend as a member of the new Establishment. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bolsover shaking his head as it would be one of the saddest losses that the House could sustain. I take note of the request made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Lebanon, will my right hon. Friend provide time next week, or very soon, to debate the situation there before matters get completely out of hand?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will note from what I have said that no provision has been made for a debate on the middle east next week. I shall, however, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the point made by my hon. Friend about the seriousness of the situation in the Lebanon.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that I do not intend to follow in his footsteps in taking a job, refusing a job, taking another job and then being shifted from it? I quite like my present position and I have quite a job to do dealing with the social dreamers on this Bench.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity for a debate on the Hennessy report in view of the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today and the contents of the report? Immediately after the Maze breakout the Secretary of State told the nation, not just the House, that if there was any adverse criticism he would be the first to go, but he has not done so. There is a stark contrast between his behaviour today in dodging the

1065
column and the behaviour of the Foreign Secretary yesterday in stripping trade unionists of their freedom and liberties, not for doing what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did but because the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spoiling it. He should ask questions about the business for next week.
Mr. Biffen: If I may help the hon. Gentleman on his question concerning business in the near future, I am happy to confirm what I have already said, that there will be a debate upon the Hennessy report.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Now that the Select Committees of the House are reconstituted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorn (Mr. Atkins) is safely ensconced as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider and discuss through the appropriate channels the possibility of giving that Select Committee an appropriation function in order properly and effectively to scrutinise the defence equipment procurement process?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises very formidable implications. That is something on which the House may very well at some stage have a chance to give a judgment.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not self-evident that the removal of trade union rights for many thousands of people ought to be the subject of a debate in the House?
Even if the Leader of the House has not persuaded himself of the merits of using the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Data Protection Bill, will he at least ensure that the House has the opportunity to vote on the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition which will require a business motion from him? Will he consider that through the usual channels?
Mr. Biffen: On the second point, I will look at the matter through the usual channels.
On the first point concerning the communication centre, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a very serious statement yesterday which was subjected to a protracted period of cross-examination at Question Time, and quite properly so, but I think, as I have indicated in next week's business, that the Government are not disposed to find further time for the matter to be discussed.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, when the Government receive the five banks' report on the channel tunnel within the next few days, there will be a debate on the issue before the Government commit themselves one way or the other?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the important point that my hon. Friend raises, and I shall certainly communicate it to those of my right hon. Friends who would have to take the decision.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the weather conditions in Scotland in recent weeks have been atrocious and that they are probably getting worse? Is he further aware that there is already evidence that some local authorities, with their
1066
present resources, cannot cope with the task of keeping essential services running and roads open? It will obviously take a little time for the picture to emerge, but can he give an undertaking that in due course, perhaps next week, the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement to the House showing how local authorities are to be enabled to keep the roads open?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. When extreme natural hazards arise, very often it requires comment from the Dispatch Box. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland so that he may keep the matter under review.
Mr. Gerrard Neale: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to study the law reports of the case yesterday in which someone was fined heavily for flouting the copyright laws for copying matter from books on a copying machine. This is symptomatic of the widespread flouting going on at present, and of inadequacies in the current law. Can he say when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will introduce a Bill to correct the inadequacies in the copyright laws?
Mr. Biffen: I can give no indication when a copyright Bill will be presented, although I am conscious of some of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I have to say that the Government's legislative programme is already under considerable pressure.
Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a lot of disquiet on this side of the House about the fact that the Prime Minister has not yet made a statement to the House about her involvement in the £300 million Oman deal? Will he use his powers to persuade her either to make a statement and answer questions in the House, or to submit herself to the lie-detecting machine at Cheltenham?
Mr. Biffen: I expect that that was meant to be a helpful question, but I cannot reasonably add to what I said in reply to such questions this time last week.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I would not wish to overload the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with having to make statements in the House, but will my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members support the call for a statement on the A320 as soon as possible, as it may remove the necessity for further redundancies in British Aerospace? Will he also make a request to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House at an early date, preferably next week, to make a statement on the report—a plan for action—that was submitted to the Department in March 1983, as the textile and clothing industry is the third largest manufacturing employer in the country?
Mr. Biffen: I will refer both points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I hope that there is no misunderstanding in the House. There will be a statement about the airbus.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer again to early-day motion 49?
That this House recognises the disgraceful profit made by the Government from fees for British citizenship; and calls for their immediate reduction in line with the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1982–83.

1067
The motion stands in my name and that of nearly 200 hon. Members on these Benches concerning the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the present extortionate and wicked rate of charge of fees for British citizenship should be reduced. The report has been in the Government's pigeon hole for about nine months. May we now have action or a debate and a statement as to why no action has been taken?
Mr. Biffen: I will take up that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that later this evening the House will debate the European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983. He will also be aware that Members of that institution have certain aspirations to style it as the European Parliament. Will he confirm that the correct designation as far as the Government are concerned is, and will remain, the European Assembly?
Mr. Biffen: With the sort of sloppy tolerance that made this nation great, I think that we are allowed to use both.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to providing time for a debate on the statement made yesterday? Does he understand that the Prime Minister has done nothing today to dispel widespread concern that the Government proposals are unlawful, represent a denial of human rights and are a slur on trade unions? As we understand that these proposals were not considered by the Cabinet, and as the Prime Minister is meeting trade unions to discuss them, will he arrange for the House to have an early opportunity to discuss how these proposals came about, and how they can be contested?
Mr. Biffen: I understand the seriousness of the proposals and the resentment that they cause in some quarters, but no provision has been made for Government time to be available for a further debate on the topic. However, that does not rule out hon. Members seeking other parliamentary means.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that in Hansard on 19 December 1983, as reported in column 11 of written questions, I asked the Prime Minister about the costs of the polygraph at Cheltenham and received the reply that $25,000 had been paid to the United States for polygraph equipment for security checks? In these circumstances, may the House have a statement next week on the conditions of that sale from the United States?
Mr. Biffen: I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will be in touch with him.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Even if the Foreign Secretary had not made the statement that he made yesterday, does the Leader of the House agree that the introduction of the polygraph system is a very important event and should be the subject of a debate? Does he also agree that, although one acknowledges his own initiative, the House has had only one debate on the Civil Service in the last five years and that that is quite inadequate?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday made it clear that the decision he then announced was in no way related to the polygraph. However, I note his interest that there should be a debate on the subject, and I will refer that interest to the relevant Government Department.
As to a debate upon the Civil Service, again I have to say that there is no provision for one in Government time in the near future. There are pressures for debates on other topics that are at least equal candidates.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen the allegation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) concerning the conduct of Mr. Bernard Ingham, a personal adviser and friend of the Prime Minister, whom he alleges, following a conversation with the editor of The Observer, threatened that editor? Is it not for the right hon. Gentleman to put it to the Prime Minister that she should come to the House and make a full statement either denying the allegation or accepting that it is true and making an apology on his behalf to the House?
Mr. Biffen: I do not have the advantage of having seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I confess that I thought that Mr. Ingham was one of the less minatory people — [HON. MEMBERS: "Military?"] Minatory, threatening. Perhaps I should have said "threatening." I think that there must be much misunderstanding on the matter, but I shall have a look at it.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House consider making available time for a debate on the Government paper published yesterday entitled "Public and Private Funding of the Arts"? Does he agree that since the general election the House has not debated the arts and that, although we do not have a Minister here directly responsible for them, this central element in our national life should be the subject of debate?
Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises and refer it to the relevant Government Department.

Mr. John Preece
4.31 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: 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 report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the case of Mr. John Preece."
This issue is specific because it deals with the delay by the Home Office in dealing with the case of Mr. Preece, who was wrongly imprisoned for murder. It is also specific because it deals with the handling by various departments of the Home Office with requests from convicted prisoners to have their cases reopened. It is, further, specific because it deals with the role and integrity of the forensic science service.
It is important because it deals with freedom from unjustified imprisonment, and that freedom is the most valued possession of our democratic life. A complaint that a conviction is unjustified merits very careful examination, as careful as in any court of law. But we now know that the Home Office does not examine evidence in that way. The Home Office departments, according to the Parliamentary Commissioner, have made ill-advised judgments on incomplete knowledge, even when the case for re-examination was as overwhelming as it was in the Preece case.
I hope that in debate we shall be able to question what is happening in all other cases, because the Home Office has failed in its fundamental duty to protect the innocent citizen, and it is essential that this matter be debated by the House, which bears the ultimate responsibility.
This matter is urgent because the Home Office and its forensic science service has been discredited by the Parliamentary Commissioner's report to the House, with its meticulous analysis and trenchant criticsm. The Home Office has been exposed as a failure in its role as the guardian of individual liberties. Its disastrously negative response to the discovery that one of its leading forensic scientists was professionally incompetent, made unjustified conclusions and gave meaningless evidence means that innocent men and women may still now be in gaol.
Accordingly, the Home Secretary should give an urgent and detailed explanation of the disasterous failures that have occurred and should listen to the criticism and proposals for reform in a debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) 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 report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the case of Mr. John Preece."
The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to a very serious matter. He will understand that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the orders set down for today or, perhaps, for Monday.
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Polmaise Colliery
4.35 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: 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 National Coal Board's announcement of the closure of Polmaise Colliery in my constituency."
This is an important issue because the pit at present employs 250 men, almost all of whom live in the village of Fallin, which adjoins the mine. I say "at present" because it had been assumed that when the mine went into full production, a further 400 men would have to be recruited.
The matter is urgent because unless the NCB is forced to change its mind, a long and damaging struggle could ensue, with consequences for good relations in the Scottish coalfield. The matter is absolutely important for the United Kingdom coal industry because the reasons given by the NCB for the closure are threefold; geological difficulties, marketing problems and the economic situation of the industry. This is the first time since the publication of "Plan for Coal" that the last two reasons for closure have been advanced. It has always been assumed that the combination of geological faulting and exhaustion of resources were the only two factors that would be taken into account.
The announcement today could be the death knell for the village of Fallin, the end of a long and illustrious tradition of coal mining in Stirlingshire and mark the beginning of the end of the coal industry in Scotland, because if this pit is closed, no mine in Scotland will be safe.
All of these prospects could be avoided if the House had the opportunity to debate this significant announcement today and could afford the Secretary of State for Energy the opportunity to dissociate the Government from the intentions of the NCB and to protect what is still our basic energy resource. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to view this application sympathetically.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) 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 National Coal Board's announcement of its intention to close Polmaise Colliery in his constituency."
I must tell the hon. Member what I told the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that having listened carefully to what he said, I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any intimation from the Department of Energy that a statement might be made on this issue?
Mr. Speaker: I have not, but I have no doubt that the point will have been noted by those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Bernard Ingham (Memorandum)
4.38 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns a document that has recently come into my hands. It is headed "Confidential" and seems to be a memo from a Mr. B. Ingham, who has been mentioned already in the House this afternoon. The memo is dated 30 December 1983, and I believe that Mr. Ingham is the chief press officer for the Prime Minister. The document is dated, therefore, before the Second Reading of the Rates Bill applying to England and Wales and between the time of the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which is similar legislation for north of the border.
Certain parts of the document are quite innocuous, such as references to how Ministers can get on to propaganda bandwagons — "The Jimmy Young Show", "Today", "The World at One"—and it even deals with using the gutter press such as the News of the World. The point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is a reference in the document to opposition by the Government's own supporters. It says:
"The successful plan … should treat as a matter of urgency elements among the Government's own supporters to ensure that they are neutralised, if not positively harnessed to the Government's cause."
The House has already seen the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and other Conservative Members vote against or abstain from voting on that legislation. Will you, Mr. Speaker, investigate the matter to see whether undue pressure is being put on right hon. and hon. Members? I am sure that you, as the protector of all hon. Members, would disapprove strongly of an attempt to "neutralise" and "harness" the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Cambridgeshire, South-East and other right hon. and hon. Members.
In the document there may be prima facie evidence for referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Therefore, I would like to give you the document, Mr. Speaker, to examine in your own time before making a statement to the House about it.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you investigate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), will you take the opportunity to confirm that the person referred to, Mr. Bernard Ingham, gives as devoted service to the Prime Minister in his present capacity as he gave to Mr. Tony Benn when he acted as press secretary on Mr. Benn at the Department of Energy some time ago?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to make a statement about that. From what I know of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is difficult to put pressure on them — I say that with some background knowledge. I do not need the document, but if the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) alleges that contempt of the House is occurring he must put it in writing and I shall consider it in the usual way.

Members of Parliament (Declarations of Interest)
4.41 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about the declaration of interests. On previous occasions you have been noticeably reticent — understandably so —about making a statement on declarations of interest. I draw your attention to three opinions expressed about the matter by former Speakers: in 1946 by Mr. Speaker Clifton-Brown, on 5 February 1953 by Mr. Speaker Morrison and on 12 May 1965 by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster. They stated what they believed constituted a declaration of interest.
I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He sought guidance on
"whether Members of the House who are members of Lloyd's have a direct pecuniary interest that is immediate and personal such as to require them not to vote on the Bill, whether for or against it."—[Official Report, 24 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 811.]
Mr. Speaker Thomas answered,
"I am of the opinion",
and gave his opinion about the position in the Lobbies and whether hon. Members should vote.
If there are precedents, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to make a ruling, if not today in a few days' time, on my point of order. As I understand it, the arrangements for declarations of interests are laid out in the resolution agreed by the House on 22 May 1974, which states:
"That, in any debate or proceeding of the House or its committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have."
If the recommendation of the Select Committee on Conduct of Members in 1977 is accepted as a definition of what constitutes a declarable interest—I remind the House that that Select Committee was hearing and taking evidence on the Poulson affairs—I shall quote directly from it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not seek to hurry the hon. Member unduly, but we have important business to attend to. I ask him to come to his point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Select Committee stated:
"Mr. Maudling and members of his family hold shares in Poulson companies. Mr. Martin Maudling, his son, was a Director of OSB and Office Manager of ITCS. Your Committee considered it likely that these appointments were made on Mr. Poulson's initiatives to please Mr. Reginald Maudling and that the appointments should be included amongst the benefits to Mr. Maudling of the association."
The word "benefits" is crucial. When the Prime Minister replied to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in the House, she should have declared a family interest, if only for commission or expenses, direct or indirect, in Cementation Ltd. She should have done so when she rose at the Dispatch Box to reply to my hon. Friends' questions. I submit to the House that the word "proceedings" covered the statements made by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box and, therefore, she had a duty to the House to make

1073
the position clear. It is clear from statements coming from Downing street that her press secretary — our friend Bernard Ingham—is pursuing a strange course of action in relation to requests for information about the contract.
My point of order is that any commission or expenses, direct or indirect, to Mark Thatcher or his associates is equivalent to the appointment of Maudling's son, as referred to in the 1977 recommendation. Both are "benefits" to the Members of Parliament concerned and should be declared.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I wrote a three-page letter to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House at Question Time on Tuesday when she prayed in aid the right of privacy for her son. She prayed in aid paragraph 10 of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, during the session 1974–75. The Prime Minister must know that the principles governing the conflict or potential conflict for Ministers regarding interests and the interests of their family are not set out in that Select Committee report. They are laid down in a memorandum submitted by the then Secretary to the Cabinet in 1975 to the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life.
If those principles are applied to what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the Prime Minister has an interest which should be declared in the Register of Interests. I have looked at the Register of Interests for the relevant period but she has not declared an interest.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule either that the Prime Minister declares an interest or that there has been some terrible misunderstanding, or perhaps that the House should reconvene the Select Committee on Conduct of Members to consider the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I did not receive notice of the point of order from the hon. Member for Workington, but I have taken careful account of what he said. I take issue with him
1074
over his statement that I have been reticent on matters of Members' interests. As he knows, it has never been necessary at Question Time for right hon. and hon. Members to declare interests. To take as wide a sphere of interests as hon. Members have suggested today would widen the Register enormously. I should think that many hon. Members have members of their families who are in businesses, or who have shareholdings, and none of us knows exactly what these are.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that considered the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I ask you seriously to consider his point of order, and you might wish to study Hansard so that you can consider carefully what he said. The Select Committee spent a long time considering those points, and its recommendations were made with great care. I urge you to look at what has been said with a view to making a statement to the House, perhaps next week. You should also examine the report of the Select Committee and consider the evidence on which its recommendations were supported.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have an important debate to follow, we shall not take this matter further today. I shall do as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) suggests. I am the defender of the rights of Back-Bench Members, and I shall consider carefully what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said. It was not my recollection when I was concerned with the Register that it had anything to do with the interests of one's family, but I shall examine it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Mr. Mark Robinson

Mr. Robert B. Jones

European Community (Developments)
[Relevant document: Cmnd. 8838, "Developments in the European Community, June to December 1982."]
4.52 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, January to June 1983, Cmnd. 9043.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Rifkind: It has been the custom to debate developments in the European Community on the basis of reports tabled in the House. As the House will be aware, there are two such reports at present, one of which in normal circumstances would have been debated some months ago but for the unexpected intervention of the general election, which made its debate inappropriate. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss both reports today.
The period in question is July 1982 to June 1983—a period packed with important developments in the Community, concluding with two especially important occasions, the Stuttgart summit and the British general election when the electorate repudiated by an overwhelming majority the Opposition's call for Britain's withdrawal from the Community. I shall not dwell on that point, because I do not wish to intrude on private grief. I appreciate the sensitivities of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his colleagues in not wishing to discuss it.
Several important decisions were made at the Stuttgart summit, one of which was the approval of the United Kingdom refund for 1983 of about £430 million. That refund, together with the refunds for the previous three years, means that during the Conservative Administration a total of £2·5 billion has been refunded, which is equivalent to about two thirds of our unadjusted net contribution. That is a tremendous achievement for which the Government can take credit, and it compares favourably with the inability of the Labour Government during their five years in office — despite having, in their words, "renegotiated" the terms of our membership of the Community—to obtain a single pound of refund for the United Kingdom. It would not be unfair to describe the Labour party's approach to those matters as the Opposition's zero option. That has been their record so far, and it would no doubt be the case if they came to office again.
The sums due are normally paid within the financial year, and both sides of the House were gravely disappointed and concerned by the decision of the European Parliament to put the appropriate sum into the reserve chapter of the Community budget. The Community is not in default at present, and a similar although not identical problem a year ago was resolved within the appropriate time.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Common Market is in default because it has not paid us the £42 million that was due on 31 December. As we always understood that the Government would act firmly on default, will my hon. Friend tell the House what they are doing about the default of 31 December?
Mr. Rifkind: I was talking about the refund of £430 million. As to the sum which my hon. Friend mentioned, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already written to the European Commission pointing out the facts to which my hon. Friend drew attention and stating our desire that the Commission should introduce proposals to resolve the problem. We treat this matter seriously, and it is our firm desire that both matters should be resolved in the way that I have mentioned.
Mr. Taylor: The Foreign Secretary wrote to the Commission on 3 January stating that it was in default by £42 million. Is not the House entitled to know whether he has received a reply and, if so, what sort of reply?
Mr. Rifkind: The House is entitled to know that. My right hon. and learned Friend has not received a reply. We await it as eagerly as does my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend will appreciate, as will the rest of the House, that if moneys are paid late, they incur interest charges. Will Her Majesty's Government insist that, when we get this money, we also get interest for the use of that money during that period?
Mr. Rifkind: Perhaps I may take my hon. Friend's remarks one at a time. We are anxious to ensure that the sums due for 1982 and 1983 are paid, and we expect the European Parliament to take the necessary action to allow that to happen during this financial year.
The Stuttgart summit was one important event referred to in the report, but it would be wrong to omit at least some reference to other major developments during that period in which the House will have an interest. One of the most important was the resolution of the long-standing common fisheries policy. The ability of the Community to reach a conclusion, which has been accepted by all British fishing interests, was a major achievement not only in the details of the agreement, but especially because it showed that the Community can adapt a policy that was devised for a Community of six to meet the requirements of a Community of ten. That is an important precedent which shows that, where the will exists, it should and will be possible to reach agreement on other matters that were devised for a smaller Community.
The reports also refer to the important new rules of the social fund, which enable about 75 per cent. of the funds available to be allocated to young people in the Community. The regional fund has been adapted so that it now recognises, for example, the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland. It has provided generous sums for urban renewal in Belfast, which I hope will be especially welcomed by hon. Members from the Province.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: We welcome the special funds for Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend recognise the proposition that those who pay the piper should be entitled at least to inquire into the tune? In those circumstances, is it not likely that the EC will wish to inquire into the political institutions in Northern Ireland before it makes available extra finance?
Mr. Rifkind: Agreement has already been reached on generous grants for urban renewal in Belfast, with no suggestion of the conditions that my hon. Friend mentioned. The functions and responsibility of the Commission and the Community are well known in the

1077
House and in Brussels. We lose no opportunity to ensure that neither the Commission nor the European Parliament goes beyond its properly defined area of responsibilities.
An important matter during the period covered by the report was political co-operation. Both in regard to the middle east and preparatory matters for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Madrid, the Community spoke with a single voice. Sometimes within the Community we do not realise the importance that the rest of the world attaches to the fact that Europe can speak with a single voice on international issues. It is of benefit not only to Britain but to wider European interests. Therefore, it is something that we wish to encourage.
I mentioned earlier the Stuttgart summit. The conclusions reached there were not just in regard to the refund. They looked forward to the long-term reform of the Community and led to the Athens summit in December. The results of that summit were an overwhelming disappointment to this country and to the whole of the Community. It is important and worth while to make two observations on that summit. In the past in the United Kingdom we have often been tempted to assume that whenever there is a crisis in the Community, or the Community has been unable to reach agreement, that has been purely on issues in which Britain has taken a special interest. It has often been assumed that when there has been disagreement, Britain has been on one side and the rest of the Community has been on the other.
Whatever truth there might have been in that in the past, that would be an unwise and inappropriate way to describe the Athens summit. At that summit a substantial agenda included issues other than those in which Britain is particularly interested. The agenda included not only the common agricultural policy and reform of budgetary arrangements, but enlargement of the Community, the future of monetary compensatory amounts, new policies and other issues in which Britain is interested but does not take a prime part.
Mr. Marlow: In regard to enlargement of the Community—a very important subject—will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's view on the accession of Spain and Portugal would be dictated purely by the interests of the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to tell the House, before any decision is made, what will be the cost to and the effect on employment in the United Kingdom of the accession of Spain and Portugal?
Mr. Rifkind: The criteria which are relevant to the accession of Spain and Portugal are the economic considerations that my hon. Friend has taken into account and the political consideration that Spain and Portugal are now democratic countries. There have been expressions of opinion from both sides of the House, as well as from other Community countries, to the effect that the democratic institutions in Spain and Portugal would be greatly strengthened by their membership of the Community. There is no doubt that the Governments of Spain and Portugal take the same view. I also agree with my hon. Friend that that does not mean that they should be given a blank card in regard to membership. Serious negotiations are taking place. The United Kingdom and other members of the Community wish to ensure that the economic and financial implications of enlargement of the Community
1078
are reasonable and can be accommodated without undue damage to other interests of the kind to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
Mr. Robin Cook: I hope we can begin the proceedings pleasantly by making non-partisan points. The Minister will be aware that accession to the EC involves accession to Euratom, and Spain is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty. Membership of Euratom would, of course, entitle Spain to access to nuclear technological information, which would be contrary to the non-proliferation regime. There is no precedent for a non-nuclear weapons state acceding to Euratom. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will use their influence to encourage Spain to become a party to the non-proliferation treaty before it is allowed into Euratom?
Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government and the Community as a whole are well aware of that point. If the problem is to be resolved, it will be done either by Spain becoming a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty or by other arrangements that would take account of the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
As I have said, some of the issues covered at the Athens summit were not ones in which Britain has been specifically a front runner. Equally, if one considers the various issues on which there was inability to reach agreement, one finds that on each of these issues there were different groups of countries on each side. For example, Britain was one of the majority strongly in support of enlargement of the Community for the reasons that I have indicated. The future of MCAs is primarily an issue between France and Germany, with other countries having a lesser interest. In regard to the future of the common agricultural policy, Britain and the Netherlands have a similar outlook on the need for reform, whereas on budgetary issues it is Britain and the Federal German Republic that see eye to eye. Therefore, there is no permanent group of countries on one side on all the issues, with Britain either by itself or in a tiny minority on the other side. It is appropriate that each issue should be considered on its merits. That is the sensible way of doing it.
As the Athens summit was such a failure, the responsibility for determining how to proceed falls primarily on the French presidency. France has indicated that its main interest will be in pursuing a procedural path of regular Council meetings with a series of bilateral meetings between individual Governments. We have no objection to that approach, although we have emphasised the importance of maintaining an overall umbrella control of the process of negotiation because, if success is to be achieved, it will be—
Mr. Doug Hoyle: The point that the Minister has been making is that we are always calling for reform, whether through enlargement of the Community, or by reconsideration of the budget or the CAP. Will he explain what the chances are of getting any of these things?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall be dealing with some of those points. I have already said that we are not isolated on any of them. We have the support of some countries on some issues and of other countries on others. The whole movement of opinion is increasingly in our direction. Up

1079
to the time of the Stuttgart summit there was unwillingness to accept the need for reform of the common agricultural policy or to deal with budgetary imbalances. Since Stuttgart that has not been in dispute, and we are seeking a solution that is acceptable to all countries.
The two main outstanding issues are the common agricultural policy and budgetary imbalances. On the CAP, perhaps one of the most curious aspects is that it has to some extent been a victim of its own success. A policy that was initiated largely to ensure guaranteed supplies to consumers and a greater degree of self-sufficiency and to protect the legitimate interests of the farming community has, because of the dramatic increases in productivity, through technological advances and other forms of incentive, produced vast surpluses in some areas and the increasing risk of surpluses in others with which we are all familiar.
All hon. Members will recognise the legitimate interests of the farming community. I believe there is an increasing body of opinion in the Community that shares the British Government's view that those interests cannot be safeguarded simply by ever-increasing surpluses that are expensive to maintain and equally expensive to export. Such exports often conflict with the wider global interests with which the Community should be equally concerned.
The British Government's approach is to advocate what we have referred to as a strict financial guideline—that, at the beginning of each financial year, the Community should decide the amount that is available for agricultural expenditure. That is not a radical measure or a dramatic change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am glad that the fact that it is not a radical measure appeals to Opposition Members. There is not a Government in the Community who do not believe in at least trying to control their own expenditure. If that is true for individual Governments, it should be true for the Community as a whole. If it is true for the Community in regard to total expenditure, it should be equally true in regard to agriculture, which represents such a high proportion of Community expenditure.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If such a solution as my hon. Friend puts forward is adopted, the income of farmers in this country, which, as he well knows, has already fallen substantially over the past three years—Opposition Members will know that I speak as a farmer and therefore have an interest in and knowledge of the subject—will fall further, and farming will no longer be a viable industry.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to what I have already referred to as the legitimate interests of the farming community. What is the appropriate way of safeguarding those interests? I do not think that the majority of members of that community would say that there is a logical or sensible argument for continuing to build up huge surpluses for which there is no market either at home or abroad. That cannot be the appropriate way forward, and I think that most reasonable people would accept that view.
If a strict financial guideline can be agreed, specific decisions will also have to be taken on individual commodities. The British Government's approach is based on a firm pricing policy, guaranteed thresholds and the avoidance of some of the proposals for new forms of revenue-raising in the Community, such as the oils and fats
1080
tax which has been proposed by the Commission, which we believe to be highly inappropriate for a number of reasons.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the crucial issue in respect of EC and, therefore, common agricultural policy finance is whether the financial limits are set by the Finance Ministers at the Finance Council before the Agriculture Ministers take the decision? Is he aware that the evidence given to the Select Committee by his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury showed that until now those decisions have been taken, in effect, by Agriculture Ministers. not by Finance Ministers? Does he accept that that is the root of the problem?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, and it is one that the British Government have emphasised. Our proposals envisage a strict financial guideline being determined and the Agriculture Ministers taking their decisions on individual commodities within the framework within which they know they have to operate. That would ensure that proper control was exercised. If it were believed at any time during the year that, for reasons beyond control, a supplementary budget was required, the issue would have to go back to the Council for a seperate decision. We believe that there would have to be a unanimous decision if it were to be recognised.
The other main problem that has to be resolved is that of budgetary imbalances. There has been a substantial change of opinion. My understanding is that all member states within the Community recognise the existence of the problem and the need to do something about it. The most obvious exampleof how artificial, absurd and arbitrary the existing arrangements are is that if, as many of us hope, Portugal joins the Community while the existing rules apply, and does so without any special provision, it will have the dubious pleasure and privilege, as the poorest member of an enlarged Community, of joining the United Kingdom and Germany and becoming the third largest net contributor to the EC. Any system that produces such an absurd and artificial consequence, however unintended, requires reform, and that is something that we have emphasised.
Some of our partners suggest that in seeking reform we are pursuing what is referred to as juste retour—that we are expecting to get back from the Community exactly what we put in. That has never been the Government's position. We have always argued that the system must be fair and equitable, and that if there is any element of redistribution within the Community, the only defensible basis for it is a movement of resources from the more prosperous members to the less prosperous members that is not artificial and arbitrary.
We have argued for a safety-net system that would ensure that the maximum net contribution of any one country would take into account its relative prosperity within the Community. We do not believe that such a system would meet the British situation, but we consider it to be a solution that would be, or should be, acceptable to other member states. The problem is not peculiarly a United Kingdom one, although the United Kingdom may have taken the lead in pointing to a suitable way forward.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain why the richer states might wish to make contributions to the poorer states? Is there a new mood of EC socialism abroad?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's caution — and suspicion—is by no means unusual, and it is natural for him to express it. If there is to be a system that involves net contributions from certain states, the maximum contribution forthcoming from any one state should take account of its relative prosperity within the Community as a whole. That is a system in which even my hon. Friend would not have too much difficulty in acquiescing.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has set out the principle of a safety net. Many right hon. and hon. Members probably go along with that. What is President Mitterrand's view about that?
Mr. Rifkind: Over the past few months President Mitterrand has suggested that he accepts that there is a need to resolve what is sometimes referred to as the British problem. He has said in recent weeks, especially at the Athens summit, that the solution should continue for a certain period. M. Cheysson, the French Foreign Minister, repeated that view while addressing the European Parliament. The British Government take the view that any acceptable solution to the problem must have certain essential ingredients. We say that the solution must be durable; in other words, that it must last for as long as the problem continues, and that it must provide a degree of relief that is commensurate with the burden that countries such as the United Kingdom experience. We also say that it must apply automatically each year. We cannot have a solution which has to be approved annually by the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers. Annual approval would again bring the difficulties that we have experienced over the past few years.
Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend intend to say something about the own resources problem? It seemed that he might conclude his speech by saying nothing about it. An important statement appears in the Stuttgart declaration, which is dealt with at page 44 of the White Paper, "Developments in the European Community January-June 1983", where our Government agreed
"to agree measures which, taken as a whole, will avoid the constantly recurrent problems between the member states over the financial consequences of the Community's budget and its financing."
Does that mean that the only way in which the problem can be solved automatically is to increase own resources? Is that what the Government have in mind for the future?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government have made it clear that they will be prepared to consider an increase in own resources, provided that there is an acceptable solution to the problem of budgetary imbalances and the control of agriculture expenditure. We believe that the linkage between the two makes a great deal of sense. The member states which are the most anxious to have an increase in own resources are those which are seeking to change the decision that was taken in 1970 to set up the own resources system, which is the main contributory factor to the budgetary imbalances problem that we now face. These factors are all part of the same problem, and it is not unreasonable that there should be a link of the sort to which I have referred.
1082
We wish to resolve these problems so that the Community can give more attention to its future and to many of the new policies that many would like to see. Some of the new policies that are occasionally advanced may involve an element of increased expenditure, but there are many ways in which the Community can and should develop that would involve no extra expenditure and represent substantial savings for all member states.
I draw attention, for example, to a speech made by Commissioner Christopher Tugendhat in Glasgow in September 1983, in which he said:
"it has been estimated that the total cost of passing intra-Community frontiers is at present around £6·75 billion a year which is about half the total cost of the Community budget. Preliminary calculations by the Commission suggest that the cost of frontier formalities could be equivalent to between 5 and 10 per cent. of the actual value of the goods before tax."
I have spent some time on the details of the Government's policy on the Community and its developments. I am bound to say that, so far, although we are now more than half a year away from the general election, we have no detailed knowledge of the Opposition's policies on many of these matters. For example, immediately after the election, the Opposition abandoned their commitment to withdraw from the Community. Indeed, so anxious were they to abandon that commitment that some of them gave the impression that they wished they had never had it in the first place. They should have recalled Churchill's dictum — that a politician should never commit suicide, as he might live to regret it. That happened to the Opposition, and it is an experience from which they must take great discomfort. Although we welcome the withdrawal of that Opposition commitment, we are entitled to ask, "How complete a. withdrawal is it?"
We saw an extraordinary conflict of comments between the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader of the Opposition on withdrawal. The present Leader of the Opposition, writing in The Guardian on 18 July last year. said:
"By 1988 Britain will have been in the Common Market 15 years. That will not make withdrawal impossible—it will obviously remain as a constitutional right for all member countries. The Leader of the Opposition emphasised that it remains a constitutional right to be used in the last resort."
The deputy Leader of the Opposition, also writing in The Guardian—that paper seems to be the repository of all Labour wisdom—on 8 August last year, referring to the comments that I have just quoted, said:
"To say 'we retain the constitutional right to withdraw' from the Community is either to say nothing or to say something so damaging that its implications ought to be fully understood and described in precise language".
I remind the House that those comments were made, not when the two right hon. Gentlemen were Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition, but when they both aspired to leadership of the Labour party, and therefore did not feel the need to agree with each other on every issue. Perhaps the deputy Leader of the Opposition no longer feels able to express his views in quite such robust language. However, we are entitled to ask the Opposition what their views are, for example, on the future of the common agricultural policy. We know that they do not like it, but with what do they want to replace it?
Reference has been made in various speeches to a deficiency payments scheme. Have the Opposition ever tried to cost that? Do they seek it just for Britain, or for the Community as a whole? Have they any support from

1083
any other member state or Socialist party in the Community for a policy of that nature? What is their policy on budgetary imbalances? Do they support the Government's policy, and will they give it all the support that they can?
The amendment tabled by the Opposition today is a disgrace. It has little relevance to the Community. It shows the Opposition's passionate desire to avoid any debate on the Community and to use every occasion, both in the House and in the coming European Parliament elections, to concentrate solely on the national economic policy of this Government. We do not mind debating that, but it reveals the bankruptcy of thought of the Opposition on these issues.
Mr. Robin Cook: Rubbish.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." I had the benefit of reading the article that he wrote in The Times two days ago, when he informed his leadership that he was about to start on a series of
"provincial speaking engagements on Europe that stretches right up to the blessed relief of Euro polling day in June".
We shall have a veritable Cook's tour — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but at least the other Cook's tours have been privatised. I wish the hon. Gentleman had been privatised.
The hon. Gentleman also said in the same article that he does not trust the House of Commons to be the repository of his wisdom on matters of this kind. He said:
"Why then do I embark on this extended peregrination? There are two answers. The first is that it is likely to be more fruitful than Parliament. The House of Commons is a civil place in which to debate, but there is little chance of winning converts there."
The hon. Gentleman is a man of little faith. If we cannot be the repository of his views on details of the Opposition's policy on the EC, we hope that on this occasion, or during his extended tour of the United Kingdom, he will expand on these matters.
Mr. John Prescott: it is a perfectly proper form of electioneering.
Mr. Rifkind: Indeed. But normally a debate in the House of Commons on the European Community should be seen as at least a relevant occasion for the Opposition to explain their policy. If the amendment is anything to go by, we cannot assume that. It contains no reference to the CAP. It makes no reference to budgetary imbalances. It makes no reference to any of the issues covered in these reports or to the subject of the Athens or Stuttgart summits. It shows the extent to which the Opposition, because of their internal divisions, wish to avoid any detailed comment on the European Community.
When the hon. Member for Livingston and his colleagues speak for their candidate in Chesterfield, we shall be interested to hear their pronouncements. Mr. Benn made his position clear. In the House, on 21 February last year, he said:
"the British people will break with the treaty of Rome". —[Official Report, 21 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 684.]
Unlike the hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentlemen, he has not changed his views on that subject. Presumably, he will fight the by-election as a politician who is committed to withdrawal from the Community. Will Opposition Members support him in that view? If not, will they make that clear to the electorate? That is something that we and the electorate are entitled to know.
1084
I end on a more cheerful note than the problems faced by the Opposition. Many people express their disappointment — it is understandable — and distress about the difficulty that the Community has faced in recent years in reaching agreements on many of the matters that need to be resolved. Although it is a matter of disappointment, it is not a matter that depresses or surprises me. We are dealing with a group of countries which, for hundreds of years, have solved their problems by shooting at one another, by regular wars and by internecine conflicts. If the Community finds it difficult, by the mere process of negotiation, to resolve all its problems in as short a period as we would wish, it may be a matter for disappointment, but it should not be a cause for significant depression. It was pointed out to me recently that the United States, when it first came into existence in 1776, took 16 years to agree on a common currency, and that it took a further 50 years for that to become a reality. If that was the case for a group of territories with a common language and history, and without any background or desire to retain national sovereignty—
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister is making a bold analogy. If he relies on that analogy, will he say whether he sees Europe ending up with the same degree of federation as the United States— if necessary, with a major war along the way?
Mr. Rifkind: No, we do not want anything of the sort. I am making the perfectly valid point, as the hon. Gentleman is intelligent enough to realise, that if a group of territories, with a common language and without any history of national sovereignty or desire to preserve their national sovereignty, nevertheless takes several generations to agree on a common currency, it is not surprising or a cause of depression on the part of most reasonable people that the Community—consisting, as it does, of 10 nations which wish to preserve their national sovereignty and which have a history of division and different historical backgrounds—takes a considerable time to reach agreement on this matter.
The most encouraging sign is that the people of the United Kingdom and of the Community as a whole believe more strongly than ever that if western Europe is to make progress in the interests of the prosperity and well-being of its people, it requires success within the European Community. Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to make that a reality.
5.29 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
'and regrets that within the period under review Her Majesty's Government has continued to pursue in the institutions of the EEC the same negative and destructive policies in industry and the economy which have caused so much damage in the United Kingdom, and the same regressive and divisive social policies which have widened inequality and injustice in the United Kingdom.'
I find it quite extraordinary that, after yesterday's exchanges on the Foreign Secretary's answer concerning the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council and after December's debate on the budgetary contributions and the common agricultural policy, when the House witnessed divisions within the Conservative party, the Minister should choose to taunt the Opposition about being divided. Moreover, he substantiated his claim by grubbing around for quotations that are now six months old or, in the case

1085
of Mr. Benn, the future right hon. Member for Chesterfield, a full one year old. When the Minister comes to the crunch question—inviting the House to approve an increase of the Community's own resources or, more appropriately, our tax payments to the Community, I suspect that he will find that the Labour party will be united. In his heart he must know that it is improbable that the Conservative party will also be united.
Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman seems to have shifted the ground of the crunch question which my hon. Friend asked him. Will he support Mr. Wedgwood Benn's commitment to take Britain out of the EC during his campaigning in Chesterfield? He owes it to the House to tell us whether he will support that commitment.
Mr. Cook: It is plain that Conservative Members are anxious for Mr. Tony Benn's return to the House. Even when he does not have a seat they cannot debate this subject without referring to him. Mr. Benn—I am glad that Conservative Members anticipate his success in Chesterfield—will stand on the same platform that I and the leader of the Labour party endorsed at conference. He put his name to that platform as a member of the national executive committee. That platform was presented unanimously to conference. Moreover, the platform employed exactly the same phrase that the Minister quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as having written in an article. There is no distinction between the document to which Mr. Benn put his name in October and my right hon. Friend's article, which the Minister quoted. I shall campaign with enthusiasm for the election of Mr. Benn in Chesterfield. We look forward to his election.
Viscount Cranborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Mr. Benn?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) will be aware that I am standing at the Dispatch Box as the spokesman for the Labour party. I speak to Labour party policy which was approved at conference on a draft which was approved by Mr. Benn. It defeats me how the hon. Gentleman perceives a distinction between my supporting that policy and Mr. Benn drafting that policy.
Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman wants to avoid my question.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman dislikes the fact that there is not a difference where he thought that there was one and is now shifting his ground.
The White Paper deals with the period January to June 1983. The Minister rightly suggested that Opposition Members would prefer to forget some of what happened in that time. I concede that without hesitation. However, I was surprised that there were some events in that period which the Minister chose to remember with pride. I was especially struck that he took credit for the approval of the common fisheries policy. I am not sure that that approval is shared by the fishermen of Scotland and England. Indeed, under the CFP our trawler fleet has been more than halved. Moreover, Hull, which used to depend on the trawling industry, no longer has one trawler.
1086
Only yesterday we had a meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in another part of the House. A spokesman for the federation, in a striking though perhaps perplexing metaphor, described the CFP as
"a jungle which we cannot see through."
I am happy to campaign until June, though possibly not in landlocked Chesterfield, on the basis of the damage that has been inflicted on our fishing fleet—that affects all constituencies which include a coast — by the Government acceding to the CFP.
Many points in the White Paper lead on to what has happened since June 1983. One of the surreal features about debates such as this is that there is a six or seven month gap between the period that we are debating and the debate. The White Paper takes us no further than Stuttgart. It is interesting how developments covered by the White Paper have run into the sand. We look forward with eager anticipation to reading the White Paper that covers the period July to December 1983.
My plea is that we are not kept waiting for four months before we debate it. We can expect that White Paper's publication in the spring. I hope that the Minister will show a greater sense of urgency in arranging for the House to debate it so that we can discuss developments that took place between July and December 1983 before the European elections. In view of the quickening crisis in the EC there is a quaint irrelevance in our debating developments seven months in arrears. However, that practice has the advantage that we can see what was expected and compare and contrast it with what has happened.
We debated the budget contribution last month. We are due to debate the 1984 budget soon. I take this opportunity to remind the Minister that we have not forgotten about that debate. I shall therefore confine myself to comparing how much developments since the publication of the White Paper have fallen away from the promises that were held out during January to June 1983.
At paragraph 5.13 of the White Paper we learn:
"negotiations would be taken forward urgently".
In the past seven months we have seen exactly what urgency means in terms of Council of Ministers' agenda. We can compare what happened with what was promised when the Prime Minister spoke to the House immediately after Stuttgart. She said:
"we not only achieved a settlement of the British refund for this year but also made encouraging progress towards a long-term settlement". — [Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 146.]
It is interesting that the Prime Minister used the past tense. With regard to the first clause in that statement, the Prime Minister might have achieved a settlement but she has plainly not yet achieved payment. We are still awaiting one penny of the refund which she assured us was settled in June 1983. Moreover, we cannot receive it until 31 March at the earliest because the European Assembly has frozen it until then.
The Minister asked, perfectly properly, whether the Opposition support the Government in this matter. I shall answer him directly: No, we do not. We think that the time has arrived for the Government to withhold part of our 1984 contributions because of the EC's failure to repay our 1983 refund. It is extraordinary that we should have commenced our first payment for 1984 while we are still waiting for a penny of the 1983 refund.
Mr. Rowland Boyes: I am sure that the Minister is aware that one of the reasons why we are not receiving the refund from the EC is that the Conservative Members of the European Parliament did not support the resolution put forward in that Parliament to try to get it back.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that added information. He observed the circumstances first hand as a member of the European Assembly.
Mr. Robert Jackson: It is not true.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) will have an opportunity to intervene in due course. I understand that there is room for interpretation as to how Members vote in the Strasbourg proceedings. I remember that the same dispute occurred when the refund was dealt with last time, during which a dozen Conservative Members failed to vote, but subsequently claimed that they had. Doubtless the same confusion may exist on this occasion. I would welcome a statement from the hon. Member for Wantage, about whether he fully supported the movement by the British Labour Group within the Strasbourg Assembly to obtain early payment of the British refund. If so, did his colleagues support the movement for an early or immediate payment of the refund?
Mr. Jackson: The Conservative group put down, and voted for, its own resolution.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that its amendments did not seek an early and unconditional repayment of the refund as did the amendment by the British Labour Group.
We have not obtained payment of the refund, which we were told was settled in June. Moreover, the Government have commenced payments to the EC for 1984, which they would have been well advised to withhold, rather than having to go through the same undignified cap-in-hand approach to try to get a refund later this year or early next year.
The second part of the Prime Minister's statement runs:
"we … also made encouraging progress towards a long-term settlement".
Hon. Members will note the past tense.
The Minister referred to the recent statement by Mr. Mitterrand. He will also be aware of the similar statement by Claude Cheysson, on Wednesday last, who said:
"There is a problem, and it must be dealt with"—
that statement, I agree, is progress.
"at least for a certain period."
That statement was made a full seven months after the Stuttgart meeting, when we were told that progress had been made in achieving a long-term settlement. The country that now has the presidency of the Council of Ministers has not accepted that there should be a long-term settlement. It seems that the French are unaware that we achieved progress at Stuttgart towards such a settlement. It is manifest that there is no prospect of the Government securing a permanent settlement of value within the immediate future.
We have reached the same impasse with the common agricultural policy. We would search in vain through documents issued in the past two months to find any impact on the thinking of the current presidency of the
1088
Council of Ministers' concerning reform of the CAP. I shall quote some statements from M. Cheysson's speech to which the Minister did not refer. He said:
"They must take account of social realities."
I assume that he means southern French farmers. He also said:
"Community preference must be protected and strengthened"
which means, when interpreted into idiomatic English, that we must keep out cheaper food imports from the rest of the world. He also said:
"There should be an increase in levies on imports of some agriculture products"
which is a coded reference to an increased tax on oil, fats and margarines. One of the most objectionable features of the debate on the CAP is that it is seriously proposed that the poor should pay more for margarine to encourage them to consume more expensive butter. There is not much hint in the statements made last week that the Government have made progress in achieving reform of the CAP.
Mr. Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman state the Opposition's policy on this topic? Speeches have been made in the country which express the belief that a deficiency payments scheme for the entire Community would be appropriate. Is that the position, and if so, what costings have been made of its effect on European taxpayers?
Mr. Cook: I shall be happy to deal with that later. I wish to draw the attention of the House once again, as I did during the December debate, to the extent to which the word "reform" has vanished from the Minister's vocabulary. No one since Stuttgart has discussed reforming the CAP. Further progress was made towards vacuity during the statement by the Foreign Secretary at yesterday's Question Time in which he described one of his conditions for an increase in own resources as the
"effective control of agricultural and other spending".—
[Official Report, 25 January 1984, Vol. 52, c. 914] and not reform of the CAP.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Selling the pass again.
Mr. Cook: The Minister has not yet sold the pass. My hon. Friend anticipates what he will do. The Minister is preparing the ground carefully and taking us by granny's footsteps towards the point at which he sells the pass.
Price restraint this year is welcome, but it has weaknesses and inadequacies. It is absurd, given the grotesque surplus of dairy products, that no proposal has been made to cut the support price of milk. During the past two years, in which the EC has supposedly attempted to cut milk production, there has been an increase in production of 4 to 5 per cent.
Mr. Wilkinson, the assistant to Mr. Tugendhat. said only last month that if the additional milk that has been produced since 1981—I am not dealing with the base level—were placed in a fleet of milk tankers it would stretch, bumper to bumper from London to Athens and back. Given that enormous milk surplus and the failure to control growth, surely we can expect in the annual price review, not merely a price freeze, but an absolute cut to diminish the surplus. Instead, we have the continued proposal to phase out the butter subsidy, which will have the daft and perverse efect of increasing the price of dairy products in Britain.
Mr. Jackson rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall not give way. I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience must be consuming him.
While the price freeze is welcome, it does not go far enough. Even if it did, and represented what the Foreign Secretary might accept as "effective control" over agriculture spending, effective control of spending within the CAP must not be confused with its reform. The basic lunacy of the CAP is that it insists on raising the price of food so that it can provide an adequate income for small farmers. To do that it has to raise the price to a level that consumers cannot afford to pay and above the level at which it can buy food in the outside market.
That has two predictable consequences. It means that the large farmers grow fat on the same high prices which are supposed to protect the small farmer. We are left with increasingly large surpluses as the fat farmers bring forth greater produce, which the consumers find more and more difficult to afford to buy. Food mountains are inherent in the structure. It obliges British consumers, including the 4 million unemployed, to subsidise Sir Henry Plumb, to give but one name at random.
We shall not accept that the CAP has been reformed until the burden of social support for farming income is shifted from the consumers' shoulders to where it belongs, on the broader shoulders of the taxpayer. We want the burden of social support—that is what is meant in terms of the small farmer's income—shifted to the national taxpayer. If the French choose, for perhaps good social reasons, to sustain large numbers working on small, uneconomic farms in the rural areas, that is a matter for them, but they must bear the cost of that policy. It is wrong to expect the British consumer to meet the cost of that policy in his bread basket.
Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if that support for the farmer were paid for by an annual contribution, which can be discussed and complained about by those who pay for it, rather than by an increase in own resources, which would be automatic not shown in public expenditure figures, and which would thus put under the carpet the real cost of supporting the farming community?
Mr. Cook: That anticipates the point to which I am drifting. A happy event is coming our way. I do not regard it with the same gloom and doom as it is sometimes regarded by the Foreign Office or the Euro-fanatics. A moment of financial truth is dawning in the Community. It is about to bump up against the upper ceiling. That brings me back to what I said earlier about this year's price freeze. No one in the Chamber, including the Minister, can be in the least doubt that, had heads not been bumping up against that ceiling, we should have had not the price freeze, but the same spendthrift policies that have existed in previous years. That is why it is so essential that the financial ceiling is retained.
Mr. Jackson: When talking about future policy will the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) please tell us how much discrimination against British producers he would be prepared to accept, in the name of social payments by other member states to their farmers, and by how much it would be necessary to cut the price of milk to achieve market balance?
Mr. Cook: Over a period the cut in the milk price would need to be significant. I do not deny that. The
1090
immediate effect of us saying that we are not going to continue the annual ratchet of further increases, but that we intend to look for a cut in the price to find what the market will bear, would be a signal to the whole of the agricultural industry, which hitherto has guided its produce to obtain the biggest subsidy and the fattest price through the CAP.
It is clear from what we have heard in the past few months in the Chamber that the Government are preparing to sell out on own resources. This is exactly the point on which they should not sell out. I hope that the Government will not put the House in the embarassing position of having to reject such an increase in own resources. Opposition to such a proposal will not come from the Labour Benches alone. I can, though, assure the Minister of support from the alliance Bench and I have no doubt that he will rejoice in its support. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) has said that there is a case for an increase in own resources. I assume, therefore, that the alliance will be prepared to vote for any increase, however tawdry the settlement.
We have the SDP record to guide us. We do not need to look to the future. One sixth of the parliamentary party was once President of the EC. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) had control over and responsibility for agricultural policy. It is worth reminding the House of what Agra Europe's director said when he attacked the right hon. Gentleman for his miserable failure
"to tackle the problem of farm surpluses".
He said:
"absolutely nothing has been done by the Jenkins Commission to bring the problems of the Common Agricultural Policy under control. Those problems are, as they were in January 1976: increasing surplus of the major agricultural commodities, increasing costs of disposing of these surpluses, and increasing disparity between the incomes of the rural rich and the rural poor."
The right hon. Member for Hillhead must take responsibility, but he has avoided coming to the Chamber to do so. Given that record of responsibility, I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman will vote with the Minister for an increase in own resources, however miserably the Minister has failed to achieve the two conditions. We shall oppose the Minister in the Lobby so that the social cost of agriculture policies can be transferred to national budgets, where they belong.
The Opposition have said repeatedly that one of the main objectives in reforming the CAP is to shift the balance of expenditure from agriculture to the other areas of Community expenditure. When we examine those other areas we find that some budgets are cast out in the shadows of CAP expenditure. For example, the regional programme receives 5·4 per cent. of the total expenditure, the social programme 6 per cent. and the research and energy programme 6·6 per cent. That compares with the 66 per cent. that goes on agriculture expenditure. Although we all say that those areas should receive more attention and more money—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Who says that?
Mr. Cook: I should not have included the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I do not claim to speak for him, but I can claim to carry both Dispatch Boxes with me.
Mr. Budgen: If the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in favour of increased payments from the social

1091
fund to this country, including Ulster, does he agree that, inevitably, that will result in interference in our domestic affairs because the Community will say that it will pay only when it approves of the institutions to which it pays money?
Mr. Cook: I accept that, of course, a degree of modification in this country's policies will be necessary to accommodate some of the expenditure required from Brussels. Some people in the country, and perhaps in the Chamber, might welcome modification under that pressure. I do not duck the principle. We pay too little attention to these areas of expenditure.
I shall begin by referring to the ESPRIT programme, to which reference is made in paragraph 6.8 of the document. Before Christmas I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the Government's decision to withhold their contributions to ESPRIT. It is a programme to fund and facilitate collaboration and research in high technology by European companies. It is important for Europe. It is exactly the type of programme that is necessary if Europe is to respond collectively to the greater economic weight of the USA and Japan. It is also important to Britain because, despite the industrial dereliction of the past four or five years, Britain retains an important lead in high technology.
Of the 36 private projects designated under ESPRIT, no fewer than 21 involve United Kingdom companies. It is a matter of acute concern that the Government are blocking that programme. The reply that I received from the Foreign Secretary was pusillanimous. He sheltered behind the attitude being taken by the West German Government. I understand that at Monday's meeting the West German Government put forward a compromise to allow expenditure on the programme so that it could go ahead. Did the British Government accept that compromise, or do they still intend to block any funds for the programme — even though it is already one year behind schedule?
The sums involved are modest. The total programme, spread throughout Europe, will cost less than £200 million per annum. That is modest compared with the extraordinarily large sums that we pour into the maw of the CAP. It beggars belief that we can find billions of pounds to subsidise the dairy industry, but cannot find £200 million to support the information technologies of tomorrow. It is politically perverse of the Government to take that action because they are jeopardising much of the support that they might otherwise receive on issues of more central interest to the British case.
That negative attitude is betrayed in the White Paper in a number of other areas such as regional, social and industrial expenditure. There is a penalty for not using the funds positively, which is that we lose out on the very areas where we might wring some benefit—albeit small — from the great expenditure that we pour into agriculture in other European countries.
There is no better example of that than the Belfast project, which comes under the integrated operations programme described in paragraph 6.5 of the White Paper. Only two projects have been launched under that programme—one in Naples and the other in Belfast. Both projects were initiated for discussion at about the same time in 1980. They therefore provide us with
1092
something approaching a controlled experiment for judging the Government's success in obtaining funds compared with another member state.
The project in Naples is now in full swing. Expenditure is being made on infrastructure to provide sanitation, transport, training and industrial investment. About 15,000 jobs are being provided directly by the programme, and many thousands more by the construction associated with the programme. Approval was not finally obtained for the Belfast project until May 1983. There was a three-year delay in discussion while the haggling continued between London and Brussels. There was a spectacular piece of incompetence in that the British Government proposed to use almost all the expenditure on housing, only to discover after two years of negotiation that that was outwith the rules for eligibility of expenditure under the programme.
There is an unedifying contrast between the Italians, whose programme is in full swing, and the British who have taken the same time simply to reach the starting line—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have been generous in giving way. I must now make some progress with my speech.
I have sat through many previous debates with the Foreign Secretary in his previous incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer. When we debated the economy he was given to treating anything that happened in Italy with a certain sense of derision. Indeed, to suggest that the Italians were doing something in economics was to prove that there was no point in examining that idea. I find it a rather odd commentary on those many merry jests that I had to endure in our economic debates that we now find that the Italians have been successful in getting under way their project—which started at the same time as our project—substantially faster than us. It must be an illuminating comment on the failure of the current Administration to use positively the funds that would be of interest and value to the British people.
We can see that same attitude in the social fund. 'The White Paper provides a revealing illustration of the Government's priorities. In the three pages dealing with the social fund there is not a single mention of expenditure on the training of women, although the discussion on that took up a large part of the six months covered by the White Paper. It is not really surprising that the Government wish to draw a veil over that side of their activities. In 1982, of the expenditure on the training of women under the social fund Germany received 57 per cent., France received 23 per cent., Italy received 8 per cent. and Britain received 5 per cent. It is not surprising that the Government's failure to use the opportunity for the training of women has earned them the clear and overt criticism of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
That attitude betrays the Government's Victorian prejudices towards a woman's place in the work force. That prejudice was demonstrated in last July's rather sad debate, when a Minister deliberately mocked the consultative document on women's rights that he was obliged to introduce by an EC directive. That process of sham consultation is a familiar response by the Government to EC initiatives in that area. They did the same with the consultation document under the Vredeling

1093
directive. That document plumbs new depths of cynicism because it was accompanied by a press release showing that the Government are wholly opposed to it, and inviting evidence from business to support their prejudices.
I have no doubt that the Government will obtain such evidence. Some companies will supply them with evidence that is as tendentious as the press release that accompanied the document. They may even obtain evidence from Caterpillar which, two or three years ago, lobbied intensely in Strasbourg and Brussels against the directive. In 1981 that company wrote to Members of the European Assembly saying that there was no need for legislation to oblige it to give information to its employees because it already made a "substantial effort" to do that. On 31 August 1983, Caterpillar announced the closure of its Birtley works with the loss of 1,000 jobs, with no consultation whatsoever with the work force. The first that it read about the closure of its plant was in the local newspaper. That practical example of the extent to which working people were denied information about the future of their plant and of their company should weigh far more heavily in the scales than any mountain of paper of factitious responses that the Government get as a result of trailing their coat on the consultative document.
Nowhere in the European capitals is there more fierce resistance to initiatives than in London. Business Europe this month says that Dublin is "hesitant" about the directive, that Germany is "lukewarm", but that Britain is "vehemently opposed" to it. If in that area the Community faces semi-paralysis—to use the words of the Foreign Secretary—it it is because the Government block every positive move.
The tragedy is that we are denying our industry and our working people precisely those benefits that they could obtain in return for expenditure on French agriculture. The Government need not think that that failure will remain forever hidden by tough talking about the budget, especially as that tough talk appears to be ending in failure.
Nor are we surprised at the Government's attitude towards progress. After all, it is the same Government who have persistently undermined the rights of workers at home and abdicated their responsibility to intervene in the economy to protect the jobs of our workers. It is not surprising to find the same dogmatic prejudices animating their policies in Europe as animate their polices at home. Just as we condemn the damage that they have inflicted on society in Britain, so tonight we shall take pleasure in voting to repudiate the same policies that are damaging the wider European Community.
6.10 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), which was rather unusual. It did not entirely clarify our concept of the Labour party's attitude to the EEC, which is clearly still developing. It will be interesting to see where the Opposition end up.
We have had many of these debates. They are usually rather boring, except to the fanatics on both sides of the arguments, who always like to exchange insults. This debate is rather unusual in two ways. First, while in previous debates we have all aired our complaints about the Common Market and suggested what needs to be done
1094
without the slightest hope that we could achieve anything, we now have a chance of getting something done. The reason for that is simple: the cash is running out.
However, having read the report, and having listened to the Minister's excellent speech and other recent ministerial speeches, I am scared that we are about to throw away a unique opportunity to achieve reform which is open to us this year and may never be open again. If we accept the proposals to increase own resources and then to give power to European Parliament and others to increase the own resources element by further stages of 0·4 per cent., Parliament will lose an opportunity that we have never had before and may never have again.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend should be aware that the British Government and a number of other Community Governments have made it clear that in no circumstances will they agree to the Commission's proposal to enable the European Parliament to make further increases in the level of own resources. We have made it abundantly clear that at any stage any increase in own resources could be authorised only by a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers ratified by national Parliaments.
Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to have that assurance, but I hope that the Minister will accept that even if we allow 1 per cent. to be increased to 1·4 per cent. and no further, the opportunity of achieving real reforms may not arise again for five, six or seven years. In the last 10 years we have not been able to achieve any reforms—although the Government achieved a great deal in getting rebates on our contributions — and there will not be another opportunity for some considerable time if we allow own resources to be increased.
My fear, like that of the hon. Member for Livingston, is that the Government not only do not seem to be hopeful of reforming the common agricultural policy but do not seem even to be asking for reform. I accept that it would be difficult to persuade the continentals to accept fundamental reforms of the CAP, but it is clear from the report and from the declaration adopted by the European Council in Stuttgart that all the countries of the Community agree that we are not in the business of looking for reform of the CAP. The wording of the Stuttgart declaration was that the basic principles of the common agricultural policy would be observed in keeping with the objectives of article 39 of the treaty.
The only reference in the statement is to adaptations and adjustments of the policy. The basic principles, which I think every Conservative would find deplorable if applied to any industry other than agriculture, have not been challenged. The Minister spoke well today and abandoned some of the silliness of previous debates. He should ask himself seriously whether it would be sensible for this country to ask for reform of the CAP, bearing in mind that it is an appalling policy which deserves to be changed. If during the negotiations we do not ask for it to be changed, we will certainly not get another chance.
The second major change has been the adjustment in the apparent policy of the Labour party. In all previous debates of the six-month periods, the Conservatives have said that the Common Market was the best thing since sliced bread and Labour Members have said that they want to get out quickly. The situation has been ridiculous. Government spokesmen have had to search for any possible trend, statistic or clue that might convince people

1095
that the Common Market is helpful to Britain—and on the Opposition side the reverse has been the case. We have read silly propaganda pieces — churned out by the Commission, the European Movement and sadly, on occasion, the Conservative party — about the massive increase in Japanese investment, the fact that food prices have not really risen much, and all our trade with the Community.
The Minister was very helpful. He did not engage in silly political points. I hope that in future debates we will not have to go through the nonsense of trying to find figures and statistics to prove what is not true.
Despite those improvements, what worries me is that, although we have been in the Common Market for 10 years, no attempt appears to have been made by the Government to quantify the real effect of membership. They have provided only slogans. Such an assessment would give us a clear idea of what our direction should be and what changes we should seek.
After 10 years in the EEC, and now that reform is a possibility, the Government should make a serious attempt to look at the reasons for, and implications of the alarming downturn in our trade with Common Market countries. In each of the 10 years before we joined we made a profit on manufacturing trade with the Common Market. In every year since we joined we have made a substantial loss in the trade in manufactures. It has now reached alarming proportions. In a parliamentary answer the other day, the Minister of State told me that even in the first nine months of 1973 we had a deficit of over £5 billion on trade in manufactures. We sold Europe goods worth about £11 billion, and Europe sold us goods worth over £16 billion.
There may be many reasons for that. It may be inevitable that as a member of the Common Market the United Kingdom is a peripheral part of a large area, and that manufacturing industry, investment and decision making will pour towards the centre of the Community.
Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend's figures are correct and the trend is as he has described it, but one can draw quite different conclusions about their implications.
Mr. Taylor: That is why I want the Government to consider them. It may be that the trend is natural and cannot be altered. It may be caused by the extra cost of the CAP and the other consequences of membership. It may be caused by faults in British industry, which does not like dealing with countries where English is not the spoken commercial language. It may be that our investment has been wrongly directed.
The general view is that it is our fault—that the lazy British workers and hopeless British managers are to blame. If that is so, why is our trade with the rest of the world so good? Every year we make up for the horrendous deficit on our Common Market trade by substantial profits in our trade in manufactures with other countries. I hope that the Minister will accept—in the new atmosphere that prevails—that I am not trying to make an anti-Market point. The reason may have nothing to do with the Common Market. However, we must find out why our trade in manufactures with the Common Market has undergone such a disastrous slide when compared with our trade for the rest of the world.
The job implications are substantial. We have heard much silly nonsense from propaganda organisations about
1096
the fact that 2 million jobs depend on the Common Market. If we accept that, it must also be true that 3 million jobs in the Common Market depend upon British trade.
Obviously, we both depend on each other, and that is important. But surely the slump in our manufacturing trade might point to the reason why Britain seems to have suffered more in economic terms than most other European nations. On the basis of those figures, our membership of the Common Market and the consequences of it—which may be the Common Market's fault, our fault or nobody's fault — have led to an increase of about 700,000 in the numbers of those unemployed. The Government must look seriously at that point.
I should like the Government to tell us about the changes that they want to make in the common agricultural policy. The Under-Secretary of State once again said today that Britain had to limit spending on the CAP. We must cap such expenditure, just as we are telling bad local authorities in Britain that they must not spend more than a certain amount. However, the Minister must be aware that to do that has policy implications. If I tell my wife that she can spend only half of the amount she spent last week, there are policy implications. She may change the shop at which she buys her food, I may not get breakfast in the morning or she may not buy any more clothes. Whatever the result, there are policy implications. I am worried, because the Government have not given us the slightest clue as to how a reduction in agricultural spending can be achieved. That is not good enough.
I appreciate the Government's difficulty. In the silly rate capping Bill, we found that the Government wanted to change everything about rates with the exception of charging farmers' rates. We know that farmers have enormous political power. Indeed, the whole City of London is involved. They are all interested in keeping up the artificially high price of land. But how do the Government suggest that agricultural spending should be controlled? Are we to limit the production of our farmers? If so, how? Do the Government intend to tell every farm or every country to reduce its production? Are we to tell the Milk Marketing Board that it should buy only a certain proportion of milk? If the Common Market is to take us seriously, we must give it some idea of how the job can be done.
Mr. Spearing: From an analytical point of view, I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little too simplistic. Is it not possible for the amount spent on the CAP to be pegged and the policies — whether good or bad — to remain? Any shortfall in EEC agricultural support could be made up by national measures. Surely that is one possibility. I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed another point. The Prime Minister and the Minister talk about the effective control of agricultural spending, but that does not necessarily mean capping or stopping expenditure. It could mean a claimed control over the increase in spending. That is quite different.
Mr. Taylor: Sadly, the Prime Minister has said that a condition for increased resources is not stopping or freezing agricultural spending but curbing the rate of increase in such expenditure. As the increase last year was 40 per cent., it is not asking a great deal to curb it. We must give our farmers and the Common Market some idea of how the job can be done.
Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether between us my hon. Friend and I can help my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who mentioned the possibility of deficiency payments. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a very honest gentleman and I do not think that he has had enough time in which to consider the implications of deficiency payments. He said that if we had a system of deficiency payments it would cost a great deal of money. However, he must bear in mind that if there was system of deficiency payments other moneys would be available from the CAP as presently constituted to be put towards them. The price of food would be considerably lower than it is now, so the taxpayer would have more money in his pocket. Under a system of world prices and deficiency payments we would not have to pay a massive impost for the import of preference food from the ECC. Therefore, although deficiency payments may cost money, the cost to this country, to the taxpayer and to the consumer will be significantly less than the current cost under the CAP, and thereby we might make the significant savings that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) seeks.
Mr. Taylor: There is not the slightest chance of getting the Common Market or the NFU to agree to a system of deficiency payments. I should like to see such a system but I do not think that it is a starter.
The Government have not spelt out their intentions. Any significant reform of the CAP would probably hit our farmers harder than those on the continent. If we said that the production of milk had to be curbed to 1981 levels, it would hit our farmers harder, because the increase in our production has been greater. If we told every wheat producer that he had to produce only 80 per cent. of what he produced in 1981, it would hit our farmers harder than those on the continent, because our efficiency and production are higher than theirs.
If we sought meaningful reform of the CAP, we would find to our horror that it would hit our farmers harder than those on the continent. Therefore, reform of the Common Market cannot be achieved. In addition, I very much doubt the Government's willingness to ask for it. If we accept that, there are only two ways out of the budget dilemma. One way was suggested by the hon. Member for Livingston — that, if such agricultural nonsense is to continue we must set up other policies and have a CAP for steel, shipping and for many other industries as well as for regional and social funds. There could be a flood of public expenditure from the Common Market to balance the money spent on agriculture.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend must be aware that the overall subsidy to agriculture as an industry, and as a percentage of the return on that industry, is smaller than the domestic subsidies given to most of the major industries, and particularly to the steel industry. Therefore, my hon. Friend is asking for a mammoth increase in subsidies in addition to the domestic subsidies that are already given. That could only exacerbate the present situation.
Mr. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I was not agreeing in any way with the hon. Member for Livingston. I was pointing out that the hon. Gentleman had suggested one way out of the dilemma, although I would deplore it just as every
1098
Conservative Member should do. We should not try to solve the problem by trying to balance a wasteful and foolish agricultural policy with similar policies that are set up to increase the already massive public expenditure in other areas. I believe that there is only one way out of the dilemma, and I hope that the Government will consider it seriously. It is to abolish the CAP and to let it wither away. The Government may say that it would be a breach of our obligations under the treaty of Rome. However, it would not be. The article only calls on member states to have a common agricultural policy that is fair to producers and consumers alike.
Mr. Jackson: How could the Common Market survive if it was abolished for agricultural products?
Mr. Taylor: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am sorry that I have taken so long to make my points, but there have been many interventions. However, others may find that they do not now have to make their speeches.
If we abolished the CAP, the appalling support mechanism that goes with it and the dumping, every country could decide how it wanted to support agriculture. Inter-community trading could be fixed at levels decided by the Commission and the support given to one's domestic agriculture could be agreed by the Commission, thereby ensuring a common agricultural policy that is fair to consumers and producers alike. Hon. Members may say that the French and Germans would never agree to that. At present, they would not agree, but if the Government stood firm about not increasing resources they would be driven to it. It is the only answer unless the nonsense of the CAP is to continue.
I appeal to the Minister and the Government to accept that the CAP is not only a piece of Socialist nonsense with protectionism, planning, controls and so on, but an evil policy in respect of the Third world. All of us are aware that, although we are entitled, if we so wish, to give every farmer in Britain or France £1 million a week for doing nothing and that is our business, we are not entitled to cause ruin, hardship, hunger and sometimes death to the people of poor countries struggling to build up their agriculture. They will survive in the world only if they get a reasonable return on their production. For example, in Pakistan there is a lot of poverty. It is an ideal country for growing sugar. However, the poor people there can obtain only £100 per tonne for it because the Common Market is dumping surplus sugar all over the world, wherever it can. Our farmers receive their guaranteed £340 a tonne, and every pound of the sugar can be bought. We can have whatever economic nonsense we like, but I hope that the Government will give me a clear assurance that in the long term they will not accept the continuance of a policy that causes terrible hardship to the poorest countries which are desperately trying to build up their agriculture.
I know the silly arguments of Opposition Members. Some say that if we have this policy it will save us from importing. We could put forward the same argument to provide for banana growing in Southend as a major industry. I am sure that we could have an efficient banana growing industry by using glasshouses, and that the industry would create jobs and save us from importing, but it would be nonsense to grow bananas in Southend when there are plenty of places in the world where they could be grown efficiently and cheaply to provide a reasonable living standard for the poor. I hope that there is all-party

1099
agreement that, despite what we do with the CAP, we must stop the agricultural policy from causing genuine hardship, hunger and famine in the poor countries by dumping food.
First, the Government must decide that they will not try to resolve the problems facing us by having extra public spending. Those hon. Members who, like me, voted last week with the Government for necessary curbs on public spending would feel let down if the Government were to agree to a scheme whereby there would be massive public spending increases directed from Europe.
Secondly, I appeal to the Government to make a genuine attempt to examine whether there is any need for CAP. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) has said that the policy is vital to the continuation of the EEC. I am sure that that is not true. Surely the agricultural policy is the one factor that sets the British, the French and the Germans at each other's throats. They are always squabbling. The abolition of the CAP would ensure that the countries of the Common Market could work together more sensibly and agreeably in bringing forward policies of mutual interest.
Thirdly, will the Government give us an assurance that we will stop being the mugs of Europe? As a person interested in the steel industry, I am appalled that in a short time we have cut our manpower in the steel industry by more than half because of a Common Market request. In the meantime, other countries have not made cuts and in some cases they have increased their steel production. Just the other day, during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, British Steel told us that the Common Market had instructed British Steel to make cuts and abolish another strip mill. We must stop being the mugs of Europe.
I hope that the Government, to show that they are serious, will tell us about their fall back plan if we do not reach agreement at the discussions. If the cash is to stop coming from Europe our farmers—they do not have any money — will want to know whether the intervention board will continue spending. Will there still be intervention buying? Will people be given subsidies for exporting goods to Russia? The Government are obliged to make a statement about what will happen if the plan goes wrong. What is the contingency plan? Will we continue paying our farmers and those who export food to Russia and elsewhere if the money stops coming from the Common Market? If the Government expect to be treated seriously, they should make their fall back plan clear. What I have said might be a basis for proceeding. It is important that we do not agree to increase resources unless we can see a great deal for that approach.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I have no ability to control the length of speeches. I realise that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was interrupted several times. We would be able to include most hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate if they spoke for 10 rather than 25 minutes.
6.34 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I shall endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to follow your guidelines.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made a number of valid points, and perhaps the most valid was that this has been a constructive debate. Hon. Members might recall that the speakers so far have been
1100
the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Southend, East who is still associated in many people's minds with Glasgow. It may be thought that the Government Whips' office has now had its way and we are now having a debate on "Scotland in Europe", as the Whips have been requesting for some time.
Given the necessary restrictions on time I shall address myself to the White Paper, "Developments in the European Community, January to June 1983", and apply its words to the problems that my constituents feel ought to be considered and debated. If they do not deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis, they observe them on television day after day. They therefore stand aside and ask, "What contribution has Europe made? What contribution is Europe capable of making? How. in the light of the White Paper, can the House invite improvements?"
I have three major points: first, the White Paper's reference to industrial and regional policy, including the policy on coal and steel which is an appropriate subject in my constituency and Scotland generally; secondly, development aid; and, thirdly, peace. Has the Community been the influence for peace that we were led to believe it would be during the great debate on the referendum? What is the Community's record in terms of human rights?
Europe is facing the great problem of 14 million unemployed, including nearly 4 million in this country. Europe's problem is reflected in the problems facing hon. Members, especially in my part of the country. I realise that those problems are shared elsewhere. In my constituency, far from seeing the type of industrial expansion that was promised, especially during the debate on the referendum, we have seen the contraction and almost total decline of industry with the closure of Cardowan colliery, the last pit in my constituency. We have not seen the type of initiative from Europe to provide new jobs that many on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the major argument in Europe, would wish.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Southend, East said that many people frown upon the reductions in jobs within the steel industry. The steel industry in this country is working below capacity. It is nonsense, given the contribution that Britain has made to European policies on steel, that there should be any doubt about the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh in Lanarkshire and that we should have suffered job losses in other parts of the steel industry. I believe that, because of the sacrifice, we are entitled to say to those in other parts of Europe who are asking for more that enough is enough. Far from conceding jobs, and given our declining industries, we should say that we are looking for a greater share in the employment potential of the Community. Two thirds of the EEC's budget is spent on the common agricultural policy, 5·4 per cent. on regional aid, 6 per cent. on social spending, 3 per cent. on development aid and 6·6 per cent. on research and energy.
Many people see a relationship between those functions and wish to see more achievement than is reflectd in the White Paper. Local communities believe that the benefits of our association with Europe should be more tangible and that, if we have a responsibility to Europe, Europe has an equal responsibility to us.
We recently had a most interesting Adjournment debate on possible job losses at Bathgate. In his opening speech

1101
today, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, with characteristic modesty, did not refer to the excellent speech that he made on that occasion. When he and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) emphasised the possible job losses at British Leyland, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a most interesting observation which is well worth repeating today. Referring to recent industrial history, the Under-Secretary of State said:
"The result has been too much capacity chasing to little business within Europe, which has reduced volumes and drastically squeezed margins throughout the industry.
I mentioned a moment ago that, at the same time as it attempted to weather these storms in Europe, Leyland also faced considerable difficulties in its export markets. These were caused largely by the severe economic difficulties of many important Third world countries, which led to very sharp falls in the demand". — [Official Report, 23 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 748.]
I acknowledge the accuracy of that summary but I urge the House and those involved in the discussions to recognise that it is not too difficult to persuade our constituents that the fight for jobs is consistent with asking the Community to give greater priority to development aid. Indeed, enlightened self-interest makes the proposition attractive. We can help our own industries while giving greater priority to development aid than is reflected in the White Paper. In dealing with the Lomé convention the White Paper illustrates the grave problems of world hunger and food supply. In the discussion on commitment to aid, I have no doubt that the writer of the text on page 8 was well intentioned, but a great deal more imagination could have been shown.
In the referendum campaign the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) impressed many voters by suggesting that the history of war in Europe provided a case for our closer involvement in the Community. If the British people believe that, they must be very disappointed at the contents of the White Paper. There is a greater danger of nuclear war in Europe now than there was when we entered the Community. There is tension in the middle east. The problem of Palestine and Israel has grown since we entered the Community. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) rightly stressed the need for more consideration and debate on the growing problem of the Lebanon, which is also mentioned in the White Paper.
Above all, in recent times we have become increasingly aware of the problems of central America. I have criticised the White Paper, as was my intention, but it may well be right, if indeed it is not an understatement, to say that a political, not a military, solution is needed in that part of the world. President Reagan may pay little attention to the views expressed by the British Parliament and Government, but perhaps he will take on board the views expressed in a document presumably supported by other European countries.
A few weeks ago in the far east I had the privilege to have discussions with representatives of the Asian nations. They were greatly involved in human rights and had specifically excluded Sri Lanka from membership of their organisation. I regret to say that at the same time one of the Ministers of State, Foreign Office described that
1102
country to the House as one of the gems in the crown of democracy among the various countries with which we are associated. A great deal of progress remains to be made in the search for peace associated with the commitment to human rights.
In November, the Foreign Secretary, in a speech in London, referred to the Stuttgart conference and events in Williamsburg. Ministers constantly refer to Stuttgart, Athens and the rest, but my greatest regret is that opportunities have constantly been missed. Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of 1983 was Williamsburg. At the time of the general election the Government seemed to appreciate the importance and potential of the conference far less than did other countries attending.
The White Paper urges the Government and the Community to take these matters seriously. I sincerely hope that the Government will take firmly on board the subjects of peace, human rights and the contribution that Europe can make. I believe that Britain's contribution will be all the better for that.
6.47 pm
Mr. John Stokes: This is the first time that I have addressed the House on EEC membership since the United Kingdom entered the Community. Although always broadly in favour of the idea of the Community, especially as support for NATO and as an expression of the solidarity of the West—the old ideal of Christendom, as it were—I have never been an unqualified champion of all aspects of the EEC.
I have always been concerned, for instance, about the role of the Assembly, or the Parliament as it is now called. Personally, I should prefer to feel that my country was represented in Brussels solely by its Prime Minister, its Foreign Secretary or its Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, responsible to this House rather than by a collection of people who are supposed directly to represent very large constituencies in the United Kingdom.
I do not wish the EEC Parliament to have any more power than it already has and I certainly do not want a federated Europe. The approach of direct elections in June makes it especially appropriate to dwell on proposals put forward by the European Parliament for constitutional reform of the Community. As the House will know, the European Parliament is to consider a proposal for a new treaty of European union. The essence of the change is to effect a shift of power away from the executive Council of Ministers who represent national Governments in favour of a system in which the Parliament's power will be greater than in its present role.
I view these developments with foreboding, because they revive in a powerful way the old arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament that we thought we had settled to our reasonable satisfaction upon accession in 1973. For all their imperfections, the current constitutional arrangements of the treaty of Rome in my view maintain a reasonable balance between the sovereign claims of national Governments on the one hand, and the desire for greater integration on the other. I believe the proposed treaty would tilt the balance unacceptably.
Those of us who support the Common Market do so partly because we know that the changes it proposes take a long time to come to fruition, and thus give member states a chance to prepare and adapt. At present, measures that are liked can be delayed and amended by the Council of Ministers, and this is no bad safeguard. We also support

1103
the Community because we know that the grounds on which legal changes may be put forward are limited to areas where the functioning of the Common Market is directly affected.
The proposed treaty is to be based on the principle that the Community should act jointly only where this would be more effective than members states acting alone. I find this too vague for comfort and, to the extent that a more powerful European Parliament would find itself at loggerheads with national Governments, this strikes me not as an expression of democracy but a denial of democracy.
Most worrying of all perhaps is the abandonment, after a 10-year transitional period, of the national veto in matters of vital national importance. We should vigorously resist this. We should be astute to resist a reformed Community that weakens the authority of national Governments and that can launch irresistible changes on the United Kingdom and its people.
The White Paper covers a vast area of subjects. The EEC does not yet have a harmonised foreign policy, and I believe it may take a generation to reach that stage, but I think the EEC has had from time to time, and can have, a useful collective view. We were certainly very glad in this country, during the Falklands conflict, to have the support of the European Community. On the middle east the White Paper in its EEC policy gives a fair place to the rights of Palestinians, and is probably the only counterpart, however small, to the immensely powerful Jewish lobby in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed, I believe the EEC appears to have a far more balanced view of Lebanon, Syria and Israel than, for instance, President Reagan. I hope the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will continue to work very closely with President Mitterrand and the other European leaders in this matter.
I welcome the decision by Spain to reduce tariffs on some Community car imports, but all of us in the west midlands feel that Spain still has a long way to go before the tariffs are fair compared with our own.
As regards Gibraltar, I hope there will be no question of Spain joining the EEC as a full member until she has given satisfactory assurances about the future of that territory.
I also welcome the EEC's attempts to take defensive action against unjustifiable trading practices by some countries, and above all by Japan, although I am sorry that these moves take such a long time. Our trade to EEC countries, although very large, has been disappointing compared with our imports from those countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out in his, as I thought, fair and powerful speech. The shops here, as we all know, are filled with EEC products, and that visibly demonstrates, I am afraid, to some extent the lack of competitiveness in British firms. In cars, household appliances, television sets, electrical goods, clothing and shoes we have seen massive import penetration from the other EEC countries. Things are slowly improving. Let us hope, for instance, that we can greatly increase our exports to Germany now that that country is coming out of the slump. Recovery here, I believe, is sound and well-based, but still has far to go. Unfortunately, except in cars, it has not yet reached the west midlands.
I do not believe that the EEC should be about matters of trade only. It ought to be about noble ideals. The fact
1104
that we Europeans are no longer killing each other, as we have been doing for centuries is after all, my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, a massive step forward.
The other day in Strasbourg I met a German of my age, a real Prussian, with a big head, short hair and almost no neck. He explained how he had been in the German army on the Russian front in the first months of the war, and he said how cold it was, particularly as they had no overcoats.
Mr. David Penhaligon: I wonder how he described the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Stokes: That is a very good point. After a typically turbid session of the Council of Europe, with all its longueurs and limitations—I do not know the European Parliament, but I expect it is worse—I suddenly began to see what we are all trying to do—in the Council of Europe, in the EEC, in the Western European Union— with all the problems of the excess of butter, the stupidities of the CAP and the unfair budget. We are not, at least, shooting at each other, as I shot at Germans and as my father did, and as the German and his father shot at us and the French. As I told the German this, I saw tears pour down his stern cheeks.
6.57 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: I appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) because I have always regarded our membership of the European Economic Community to be as natural as the fact that my county is a member of the British Parliament. My reason is that by sheer chance—it had little to do with me — I was born on 6 June 1944. Indeed, my parents have told me on occasion that they were going to call me Montgomery as a result. I have always regarded the fact that they did not as my first political break because there are certain problems with getting Penhaligon on a political sticker, let alone Montgomery Penhaligon. The fact of such a coincidence clearly has an effect on one's life.
I regard our membership of the European Community as something to be welcomed. I have always welcomed it. Indeed, it was one of the fundamental reasons why I chose to join the Liberal party some 20 years ago, as opposed to some other organisation in which it might have proved slightly easier to get elected to the House.
I am not a regular contributor to debates on Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) is currently in Moscow with the leader of my party, serving the nation more usefully perhaps than by contributing yet again to a debate on Europe. I see no reason why the Liberal Bench should be ashamed of that excursion from our shores.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doone Valley): Since the hon. Member is explaining the unfortunate absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) perhaps he could explain, first, where the hon. Members representing his partners in the alliance are, and why they are not present. Perhaps he could also explain whether he is speaking on their behalf.
Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Alliance makes a far bigger impact in this House than its numbers represent. Indeed, if he applies some secondary school mathematics to the subject, he will find

1105
that the alliance has as high a proportion of its membership here today as has any other party. In that respect we can probably beat the Labour party's representation in the Chamber by perhaps 0·1 per cent., though I admit that the Conservative party must be in the lead, with nearly 20 out of its 390 Members in attendance. As for my Social Democrat friends, where they are just now I do not know; nor am I responsible.
The irony of the situation is that while the Conservative party negotiated the terms of our membership of the Common Market, it seems to have been forgotten in the debate that it was the Labour party, when in government, which renegotiated the terms, and that was the time when all the reforms which Labour Members claim are absolutely essential—I agree about some—should have been made.
My recollection of that renegotiation was that it produced avalanches of paper—even more paper than is complained of by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—but no discernible progress on any issue of whatever level of significance to which one chooses to apply one's mind. The ironies of these debates are extraordinary.
My party looks forward to a growth in the Community because we believe in it. However, we take the view that there are some fundamental issues, to which reference has been made in the debate, that represent a hurdle over which the whole Community will have to jump before we move into another spell of progress along the lines that we wish to take. Agriculture is clearly the key to that.
While I am aware that I am in an urban-dominated House, it has struck me, while listening to the references made today to agriculture, that some hon. Members think that agriculture is something that happens somewhere else. Occasionally I discuss agriculture with urban friends in my party, some of whom constantly refer to food as items produced by Tesco and Sainsbury. An operation takes place before that stage, to which it would be unwise not to apply our minds occasionally. That stage occurs in the soil of our land.
My first complaint about the Government is that not many months ago the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food attended a meeting of my county's NFU and to a question about what he wanted Cornish farmers to do he replied, "Produce, produce, produce." When questioned further about that surprising statement —given the situation over milk in Europe and the fact that Cornwall depends on little other than milk production —he clearly emphasised that he thought that there was every reason for Britain, Europe, the whole democratic West, the Third world and everybody else, to produce more and more milk.
I am not certain whether that was good advice at the time. The repercussions are there to be seen and one must question whether the problem that we now face is not partially his fault. I understand that the Government's official solution to the milk problem lies in the belief that we can achieve some equality between production and consumption. As a rural Member, I recognise that there is vast over-production which can on no grounds be justified, and we must do something about that both here and in Europe. I am not denying the fundamental problem.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although there is vast over-production of milk in the Community, there is none in this country and that we do not provide sufficient milk for our own people?
Mr. Penhaligon: I recognise that, but that narrow, partisan way of looking at the issue will not provide the solution. If one thinks back a decade, to the rough balance that existed between production and consumption, and if one considers the shifts that have occurred to cause the present surplus, it is clear that Britain's extra production and reduced consumption has made a contribution. I agree that there are countries in Europe which are more to blame for the surplus, but we cannot solve the problem simply by taking that view. It may be the argument that our farmers want to hear, but to discuss the subject in that way is being too narrow and partisan.
I understand that in the view of the Government—I thought that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave it as the Official Opposition's view too — the problem can be solved in total by reducing the price of milk. One of the great ironies of the incredible milk surplus in Europe is that in those places where milk is produced, its production is not that profitable. It is a great myth that all our farmers have a licence to print money. That may be true of some of the grain producers of East Anglia—land prices suggest that there is more than a figment of truth in that — but it is not true of milk producers.
I warn the Government and the Labour party that marginal decreases in milk prices would have the opposite effect to the one that they desire. Even if the price of milk were marginally reduced, the farmers in my constituency would undoubtedly milk more and more cows. Sadly, the production of milk has nothing to do with how fast the grass grows in the fields. It has far more to do with a farmer's willingness to buy food concentrates for his cattle. A solution in terms of marginal reductions in milk prices would not be even a half-credible solution, and I find it worrying that the Government should even be applying their mind to it. What I fear is not that they are looking for marginal reductions in the price of milk but that they are looking for substantial cuts in milk prices.
Mr. Ron Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. Will he accept that this country has no surplus of milk, but that the surplus is produced elsewhere?
Mr. Penhaligon: I thought I had flogged that point to death earlier in my speech, though I am willing to go over it again if need be. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman follows EEC matters closely, but if he considers the situation today in relation to what it was 10 years ago, he cannot reach a conclusion other than that we have contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves in Europe, even if his basic point is right.
It is important for Britain's rural areas, especially those dependent on milk, to realise that the sort of price reduction required to reduce the surplus is about 20 per cent. When I ask experts how they arrive at that figure, they do not give a definitive reply. However, for the sake of the debate, let us take it as factual that a 20 per cent. reduction would reduce production in this country and throughout Europe. I believe that to be true.
I also believe that there will be no solution of the problem without somebody's blood being spilt on the

1107
street; a problem of this magnitude cannot be solved without many people being extremely disappointed, feeling that they have been misled and believing that the investments that they were asked to make represented a misguidance by those in power. I warn the Government that a 20 per cent. reduction in the price of milk to solve the problem would not result in just a little blood being spilt on the street. It would mean the bankruptcy of the entire rural fabric of at least my part of the country, which depends on milk. There can be no doubt about that. Cereals cannot be grown easily in my area. It keeps raining and cereal crops do not like rain. When the wind blows, as it often does, they are flattened.
Mr. Marlow: If the price of milk comes down one can still make a profit, if the price of cereals comes down also.
Mr. Penhaligon: That may be true, but one suspects that if that equilibrium were maintained at its present level, we should be no nearer solving the problem. I am admitting as a rural Member—it is not easy to say this, representing a rural seat — that the farmers of my constituency must look forward to the fact that in five years from now the will be producing no more, possibly less, milk than they are now. As an Opposition Member I can say that there are not many votes in that, but it is a realistic view.
The House has no interest in seeking the collapse of the rural economy. There are two possible solutions. Either we shift the advantages of milk production to those areas most suited to it by taxing the concentrated foodstuffs or fertilisers used on the land — that would not be my solution, but it is a possibility worth considering—or we face up to the immense difficulties that indelibly exist in quotas.
The EEC not only flirts with quotas, but advocates the system and bases it on 1981. There are good reasons for suggesting a year base other than 1981 because of the peculiar weather conditions that year. However, that is a minor point compared with the fundamental point that the Government would serve British and European agriculture better if they stopped looking for a massive reduction in the price of milk and investigated how to operate the quota system. The latter solution would not be overwhelmingly popular, but it would be a better solution to the problem facing the Government.
The House must not forget that fundamental to the problem is the rural economy of our nation. Agriculture is not merely a useful industry in areas such as my constituency; without it there is no future for large swathes of Britain. Hon. Members cannot believe that we have an interest in the short, medium or long term in laying our agricultural areas to waste, but the Government are not far short of committing themselves to pursuing a policy which will, in the final analysis, result in that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say about that later.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, and I have followed with fascination his exchanges with other hon. Members. His remarks demonstrate the imperfections of trying to provide stable and adequate supplies to the consumer and at the same time a secure income to farmers in rural areas, because of the difficulties with the price mechanism. To escape from the traps which he pointed out, we must return to
1108
something approximating to the income support measures and the deficiency payments that we enjoyed before the CAP.
Mr. Penhaligon: That alternative is worth investigating. I have never been convinced that the deficiency payment system works anything like as well in a surplus agriculture situation as it does in a deficit agriculture situation. Under a deficiency payments scheme, world market forces set the price, and the Government set a minimum level for their farmers which the Government pay them to reach.
Given the present position, if we allowed milk to find its real commercial price within Europe under the auctioneer's hammer, farmers would pay milk consumers to take it away. Then the deficiency payments scheme would not result in a marginal contribution towards the costs of producing the foodstuffs, but the Government would pick up the bill for the lot. I do not dismiss the system for all commodities, but it could have only a negative effect for milk.
There has been progress within Europe in the fishing industry. During the past fortnight I have had several conversations with fishermen, and I have reached the conclusion that British fishermen believe that fish are in the sea by ministerial decree. It has nothing to do with a natural biological cycle; if there are not fish enough to catch, in the final analysis it is the fault of Ministers.
I make no apology for raising a local point about mackerel. The Government and the EEC, belatedly — although it is welcomed—introduced in my area what is known as a mackerel box. The idea is that within the box fishing for mackerel is banned, with the exception of hand liners and — unfortunately we missed it at the time — bottom trawlers. There is no reason why bottom trawlers should not have such an exemption, because a genuine bottom trawler does not catch much mackerel. It is possible to catch a few as the net goes down or comes up, and it is even conceivable that the odd drunk mackerel might forget where he is supposed to swim and be caught. However, if bottom trawling is carried out in the way that every fisherman knows that it is supposed to be, hardly any mackerel would be caught.
There is great anguish in my area because the exemption is clearly being fiddled. A new system of fishing has been developed, which can only be described as bottom trawling at mid water. That is due to the suddenly and never previously experienced difficulties of the Scottish fishing vessels, which do not seem to be able to get their bottom trawls down to the bottom. The boats managed it for 50 or 60 years without difficulty, but coincidental with the exemption it appears that bottom trawls will not reach the bottom.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is a pronounced distinction between bottom trawling gear — commercial fishing gear — and pelagic gear. The Scottish fishermen are not quite the rogues that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Does he agree that the box significantly harms the interests of Scottish purse seine fishing vessels?
Mr. Penhaligon: I do not accept that. I said earlier jocularly—perhaps I should have been more harsh—that people talk as though mackerel are in the sea by ministerial decree. The reason why mackerel stocks are in such a ludicrous state is that over the years every conservation

1109
that has been needed has been applied to mackerel two or three years too late. The south-west fleet unwillingly took on the entire capacity of the Scottish fleet when it could no longer catch herring. I am pleased that there has been a great recovery in herring stocks, but there is no doubt that the general conspiracy between the Government and fishermen everywhere except in Cornwall has resulted in a massive reduction in mackerel stocks.
A mackerel is supposed to be a foot long, but the only one of that length remaining in Cornwall is stuffed and in a museum. Mackerel is now one of the great delicacies served in the House — I pay tribute to the Scots for developing new methods of eating it—but the specimens presented to me in the House must have been on a diet. I understand why fishermen do it. They have invested money in their boats, and they have employees to pay. It is not an easy problem, but there is no doubt that the mackerel box introduced by the Government and the EC, and supported by fishermen of nearly every class in the United Kingdom and Europe, is being avoided by this method of bottom trawling.
The solution is simple. The Government must impose a 15 per cent. by-catch limit on bottom trawlers in the mackerel box. The few that they catch on the way down or on the way up will be all right, but if a serious attempt is made to fish for mackerel mid-water the 15 per cent. by-catch limit will stop the abuse of the regulations.
The hon. Member for Southend, East referred to the country's great loss in manufacturing. Why the House cannot face up to what has been a major contribution towards that I do not know. For reasons that are perhaps understandable, although I do not support them, the Government have pursued a policy of a high exchange rate. In the last decade two phenomena have helped to shift the British exchange rate relative to European competition. One was the chance of finding oil and the other has been the Government's internal economic policy.
Many people are manufacturing items that anyone else can manufacture. In engineering that covers much that is produced today. The production of cars is not unique to Britain, Europe, America or the far east. A motor car can be produced anywhere with varying degrees of success. Therefore, the exchange rate of our currency against others is of considerable importance — and "considerable" is not a strong enough word in this context. The Government have pursued a high exchange rate policy. The exchange rate is the result of someone else's perception of the value of a currency rather than being an accurate valuation.
Three or four years ago I said in the House that we had to think out the exchange rate consequences of finding oil and of Government policy. Many effects of Government policy can now be seen. We have lost a large percentage of our industrial base and our balance of payments position relative to Europe, because of the effect of Government policy on industrial production, is bad or appalling, whichever description one chooses. So long as the Government pursue their current policy, that tendency will continue, whether or not we remain in the Common Market. The policy has more to do with internal economics than with membership of the Common Market.
I have raised two or three points. Other hon. Members will want to raise more. Mr. Speaker asked us to take only
1110
10 minutes each. My eyesight is not good enough to see the clock, but I think that I may have exceeded the allocated time.
7.23 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) made clear, there is still a great deal of ground to be covered in the negotiations that are going on in the Community, but the issues have been refined and the choices have been clarified. The outlines of a package deal are emerging to deal with the interlinked problems of net contributions, of CAP costs, and of the provision of new financial resources to financing new policies and to pay for enlargement. I should like to take the opportunity to consider what our policy in Europe should be after we have resolved these difficult issues to which we have devoted so much time and intellectual energy over the past four years.
Our purpose in Europe should be twofold. First, we must seek to increase our influence in and through the Community by making ourselves less of an "outsider" in Community affairs. Secondly, we should bring into sharper focus the European dimension of our efforts to restore the vitality of the British economy.
My hon. Friend rightly stressed that Britain is not standing on her own in the current negotiations. Let us hope that the Government can succeed in ensuring that we continue not to be isolated. For amid the inevitable cross-cutting of interests that have been identified by my hon. Friend, we should not disguise from ourselves the fact that Britain is still in large measure an outsider in the Community. This is one of the reasons why we have had so much difficulty in getting our partners to recognise the seriousness of our problems: if we had been any other country in the Community, I think we would have been able to get it recognised earlier.
Britain still lives with the consequences of our mistaken aloofness from Europe in the 1950s and of the destructiveness of Labour party politics during the 1970s. This attitude has allowed a pattern in European affairs to crystallise so that they are organised around two diplomatic systems, in neither of which we play a part. On the one side there is a fundamental and consistent drive by France and Germany always to find themselves on the same side of every question—although, of course, they will argue from time to time about MCAs and other issues. On the other side there is the tendency of Italy and the Benelux countries to address every question in terms of the opportunities it may afford to advance the process of European integration.
Both these systems in Europe are deeply entrenched, and we are not part of either of them. In particular, the entente between France and Germany has struck deep roots. That is the political fact underlying a Community design which gives economic opportunity to Germany and a kind of political primacy to France.
I do not believe that two systems will dissolve easily, or that they could be easily dissolved; nor do I think it would be easy for us to muscle in on either of them. And I hope I do not need to stress the supreme fatuity of the idea that we could overcome the consequences of these international alignments simply by ignoring them, perhaps by leaving the Community. Our best course is to try to reduce and remove the rigidities in the existing patterns and to diminish the force of the myths that have placed us in our outsider position. If and when we succeed in the

1111
negotiations on the budget and the common agricultural policy, this will greatly help. In a sense it could be said that we will have completed the accession negotiations 10 years after joining.
In thinking about what we should be doing to get more flexibility into our position, I suggest three points to the House. First, we need to end our rhetorical guerilla war against the common agricultural policy. I shall not develop the arguments put so excellently by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I will only say that it is time we began to bring our words on the common agricultural policy into line with our deeds, which include a massive expansion of British agriculture under Governments of both parties since we joined the European Community. On this point about the gap between words and deeds, I noticed that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in spite of his rant about the common agricultural policy, when asked specifically about his policy on price cuts, immediately fell back into the language of "over a period of years".
The second thing we need to do to get away from our outsider position is to take more seriously the preoccupations of our partners with institutional questions. These are not questions of gadgetry. They go to the heart of the ambitions that they or we have or might have for Europe. What sort of machinery do we need to further the ambitions we have for Europe? I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who made a considered speech, to address himself to these questions.
Thirdly, we must reflect much more deeply on how a more coherent and concerted European economic policy could contribute to the restoration of vitality and growth in the European and British economy. We have to begin to look ahead beyond the peak of North sea oil production, which most experts believe will come in the mid-1980s. After that the oil supply will go more or less rapidly downhill. We must ask what lies on the other side of the hill.
We face a serious danger that is reflected in the balance of trade figures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred. Britain's world trade figures in 1982 showed an oil surplus of £3·7 billion and surplus on invisibles of £3·8 billion. But agriculture showed a deficit of £1·3 billion and there was a deficit of £3·6 billion on manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. Moreover, in the first three quarters of 1983, the deficit in manufactured trade rose to £7·7 billion. This is very serious. How will we be earning our living when the net surplus on oil begins to fade? The remedies in terms of promoting competitiveness lie, of course, mainly in our own hands—and we should be greatly strengthened by a more constructive attitude from the Labour party. But we cannot afford to turn our backs on the possible contribution which a more dynamic European policy could make.
The Government rightly lay great stress on deepening the Common Market so that industrial rationalisation can be carried forward on a European scale. That is obviously a major factor. It is right also that the Government should be taking a close interest in co-operation in promoting new technologies. Let us hope for an early and positive decision on ESPRIT and the airbus. But is this enough? I believe that the Government underestimate the consequences of exchange rate instability for investment
1112
and growth. It is the failure of investment caused, among other things, by that instability that underlies the poor strade figures that we have been discussing.
I shall give a concrete example from my constituency. The Rutherford Appleton laboratory is the organisation through which a large part of our research in high energy physics is conducted. We currently invest £36 million a year in high energy research through CERN in Geneva. Every year there have been problems because costs have been increased by exchange rate changes. Last year it was necessary to find from the science vote an extra £7 million to deal with the consequences of exchange rate fluctuations for CERN. This has produced real concern about the future of our investment in that form of research.
Over the years I have had many arguments with Ministers and officials about these issues. I have always been told that exchange rates do not really matter because any company that wants to invest abroad needs only to buy foreign exchange on the forward markets. I do not believe that that is so. And judging by the way in which the Government have handled the CERN foreign exchange rate costs, I do not believe that the Government find it a practical proposition either.
In thinking about Britain's industrial future as the oil runs out, we need to consider much more deeply than we yet show signs of doing such issues as the scope for concerted demand management in Europe, the scope for promoting exchange rate stability, and the possibilities of developing in the Community a more coherent and effective European external economic and monetary policy in our relations with the United States and Japan.
In the negotiations that lie immediately ahead, Britain enjoys a relatively strong position. It is stronger than some of the Government's critics on both sides of the House seem prepared to admit. However, over the middle to longer term, I believe that our position is by no means so strong. Indeed, it is weaker than some of those very same critics seem to think. We have a giant task ahead of us to ensure that Britain attains a full measure of the influence in and through Europe that could be available to us, and to give ourselves the economic base to sustain that influence. Ten years have passed, and it is surely time to begin.
7.35 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) talked about Britain being isolated and an outsider. I shall demonstrate later why the policy and practices of the Conservative party in this Parliament and the Conservative group in the European Parliament have led to that situation.
The Opposition's amendment draws attention to
"the same negative and destructive policies in industry and the economy which have caused so much damage in the United Kingdom".
Having been a Member of the European Parliament and a member of the social affairs committee, it will not surprise the House to hear that my remarks will be directed primarily to social affairs. A meeting took place on 22–23 February when the
"Secretary of State for Employment took the opportunity at the meeting of presenting a discussion paper outlining United Kingdom's thoughts on how EC Employment Ministers could most usefully direct their efforts, notably in the fight against unemployment."
I have found no evidence of any beneficial effects of that meeting in the fight against unemployment in my

1113
constituency. I conclude that there is a crisis in Western capitalism and that those who are paying the price are those who are least responsible for it—the workers.
Unemployment has risen continuously throughout the Community and is now at least 12 million. In Britain the official figures are that 3·1 million are unemployed, but the job gap is possibly greater than 5 million. Unemployment is turning the area that I represent into a disaster area. In my constituency unemployment is more than 30 per cent. I do not know whether Conservative Members who represent constituencies with much lower levels of unemployment realise what such a high rate of unemployment really means. In my constituency it means that 7,500 are out of work. There are famous phrases about travelling to work, but my constituency is in a borough where the official male unemployment figure is over 26 per cent. It is in a region where unemployment is more than 20 per cent.
There are those who say that there is hope for the future, but an independent study by the projection department of Warwick university shows that unemployment in my area will increase slightly up to 1990. Those who are suffering the most—this shows how wicked and evil Conservative Members are—are the youngsters. Nearly half of those unemployed are below 20 years of age. In the north, 30 per cent. of those under 18 years of age are unemployed while 35 per cent. of the 18 to 19-year-olds are unemployed.
It is clear that the British Government have contributed nothing within the EC to alleviate unemployment. Social fund allocations as a percentage of the EC budget are the equivalent, when dealing with unemployment, of dealing with a man who has been run over by a steamroller by running up to him and offering him a Band-Aid. In other words, the amount of money available would not touch current unemployment, even if all of it were directed to my region.
It is probably because of the Conservative group's isolation in the European Parliament that we have been unable to make the necessary changes. The isolation of the British Government has had a similar consequence. The house will be aware that the Vredeling proposal was based on multi national companies informing their workers of the changes that they wished to make in industry and consulting them accordingly. Unfortunately, Conservatives have contempt for workers. The Member of the European Parliament who produced the report was a member of the Conservative party. In terms of Left and Right, he is one of the most moderate of the Right-wingers in the European Parliament. I suppose he is the equivalent of the TUC general secretary in Britain. I refer to Oscar Vetter. He said:
"We cannot constantly refer to a dialogue while refusing workers in undertakings the simplest rights or granting them no more than ineffectual, sham rights. During the public debate it has been said that information entrusted to workers might not be treated confidentially. I ask myself what image do those who harbour this politely worded suspicion actually have of the worker?"
When I went to the House of Lords to give evidence on the Vredeling proposals, I rapidly came to the conclusion that the people there who were members of the Conservative party had no idea about trade unionists or trade unions. Since I have been a Member of this House, and listened to some of the speeches from the Conservative
1114
Benches, particularly on the subject of trade union democracy, I have concluded that Conservative Members here know no more about it than those in the shop round the corner.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the author of the amendments that gutted the Vredeling proposals was a member of the Conservative party and a QC? He was in the pay of a multinational company — the Mars Corporation. There is plenty of documented evidence, and the Bar Council is now considering it. Unfortunately, the code of conduct for QCs covers only the Palace of Westminster, not the European Parliament. I just wondered whether my hon. Friend realised that the main instigator of the gutting of the Vredeling proposals was a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, who is also a QC and on the payroll of a multinational company.
Mr. Boyes: Yes. The Mars Corporation retained a top Washington law firm, Patton Boggs and Blow, to advise on the amendments for the Vredeling directive debates, and they were discussed with Amédée Turner, the Conservative Member for Suffolk, although, in fairness, he has denied up to now that he is on Mars' payroll.
We saw multinationals at their worst in the European Parliament. Hardly a week went by when I did not receive a glossy brochure from a multinational company asking, demanding, or attempting to twist our arms to vote against the proposal. Ivor Richard, the Commissioner, told us that his carpet was worn thin by multinationals coming to see him almost daily to get him to oppose the Vredeling proposal. A £70,000 video was prepared and hawked about the United States to show the worst aspects, and the Community employers' organisation, UNICE, continued to resist it.
I could go on in detail about Conservative Members in Europe who resisted it. However, in this Chamber I am more worried about the people here. What is the United Kingdom Government's position on Vredeling? It will not surprise hon. Members to know, from John Wyles in the Financial Times in 1982, that
"Mr. Norman Tebbit, Britain's Employment Secretary, stood alone among Community Ministers yesterday in rejecting the idea of EEC-wide legislation to guarantee employees' rights to information and consultation."
In a report in 1983, again in the Financial Times, John Wyles said:
"The extent of the United Kingdom Government's disillusionment with the European Commission's proposals on workers' rights — the Vredeling and the Fifth Directive — is shown clearly in its consultative paper".
He said:
"the paper is less a description of the proposals … a sustained, closely argued polemic against their provisions."
The Economist—I deliberately chose papers that can be relied on to support the Conservative party — said that the British are "frankly hostile". So we are isolated in our activities over there, and it is no wonder that we cannot get the changes that we want.
The hon. Member for Wantage used the word "isolated". Even in the European Parliament the Conservatives could get no other nation or political group to sit with them. They are the only single party group. They may tell me about a couple of Danes, although I gather that one of them attacked Britain in a fishing boat. In fact, the Conservatives are isolated, and within the Parliament's framework they are looked upon by all other

1115
political groups as nationalist and reactionary. That is why, as long as the Conservative party is in power, we shall never get the deal that we want for our workers. As long as the Conservatives are in power, unemployment will continue to rise, particularly in the deprived regions.
Mr. Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House, however, that Conservative Members of the European Parliament were part of a healthy majority in voting to gut the Vredeling directive?
Mr. Boyes: One cannot answer the point about isolation, why Conservatives sit alone and why no one speaks to them, by asking a trivial question.
I want the Vredeling proposal, with the support of the British Government, to strengthen the rights of workers to consultation, to know what is happening to them and to know when new technologies have been introduced in companies. I do not pretend that that will save jobs, but it would at least prove me wrong when I say that Conservative Members have absolute contempt for workers.
Mr. David Crouch: I am learning to listen to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), because he is no fool. However, I have a feeling that he may be in danger of spoiling that reputation. To say that we on the Government Benches are not concerned with better communication in industry and better industrial democracy is to deny the truth. We have been concerned to produce real industrial democracy, not a mock industrial democracy. I have worked in industrial relations for many years. When I was in Brussels many years ago, I met the right hon. Member for Blanau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and Len Murray. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What are you doing here?" I replied, "I am coming to study industrial democracy." "Oh," he said, "you will not get much industrial democracy here — industrial bureaucracy if you like." That was the view of the former Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that to heart.
Mr. Boyes: I shall comment on the hon. Gentleman's words, not on the words of someone else in a private conversation. I do not do that sort of thing. However, that is by the by.
Why do the multinationals use the same words as the hon. Gentleman has just used to me? I sat at a table in New York with representatives of some of the top multinationals and they said, "We do it already—the things that you are asking for." I replied, "If you do it, why are you worried about it being obligatory rather than voluntary? What are you really worried about?" What are Conservative Members worried about?
As an illustration, I should like to recount what happened to a company in which some of my constituents work—Caterpillar. No one wrote me stronger letters against the Vredeling proposal than that company. Yet that company—I hope that every Conservative Member will condemn what that company did — made its closure announcement in Scotland, throwing more than 1,000 men out of work in the area of highest unemployment in Britain where the chances of alternative jobs are nil.
The news was picked up by the Scottish press, and the people working in Caterpillar read it on their way to work. They bought the Newcastle Journal on their way to work, and read the headline that the Caterpillar company was to
1116
close. Some apprentices were interviewed on television. They started work that morning and were told by lunchtime that they were out of work. That is not hypothetical; that is what happened. When that happens statutory obligations should be put on multinationals to inform and consult employees about changes in working operations or conditions. That is no more than any right hon. or hon. Member should expect in 1984.
7.50 pm
Mr. James Hill: If Shakespeare were alive today he would have to say, "Oh cursed CAP." The debate has drifted away from the subject of the CAP. Earlier speeches concentrated on milk, grain, fisheries, olive oil and the 101 other things that the Select Committee on European Legislation must examine. If only we could return to the day in 1972 when the Government were negotiating the 3,000 directives, if only we could have thrown 2,850 of them out of the window and said, "Yes we shall join the Community but please exclude us from the CAP." The CAP is a disaster. It is the root of all the trouble in Europe today. The fine ideals of Europe are being ground into the soil because of subsidies and the lack of money to make deficiency payments.
The crunch is now upon us—31 March will be the day when we shall have to think almost on the lines of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and other almost violent anti-marketeers whom the House has known. We shall have to say, "No more." We must insist that there will be no more money until we get a proper reform of the budgetary system. That system is now inadequate. We are faced with another grave problem—Spain and Portugal joining the Community. They are not industrial giants that will pour wealth into the coffers in Brussels. They are both agricultural countries which will be looking forward to great subsidies from the CAP.
It is possible that the £437 million will be grubbed together and paid to Britain — it should be. If that happens perhaps the crisis will strike again a year later because the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers have once again been unable to agree budgetary commitments. Spain and Portgual will then join the Community and there will be another crisis. When I was in the European Parliament, it was said that the Community moved forward in a crisis, that the Community welcomed a crisis because it gave it direction and forced it to make decisions. It now seems to have gone into a slumberland.
Differences of style at Heads of State meetings in the past 10 years have been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's style is correct. We have had enough. We must have a sensible contribution to the budget.
The House agreed to a Court of Auditors to keep a check on the waste and inefficiencies that were knee deep in the Community. They still are. We have discussed the 1981 Court of Auditors document. I sometimes wonder whether the Commission follows up its findings. Do our colleagues in the European Parliament initiate discussions about the utter waste and inefficiency which the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg has unearthed? That would be an interesting debate.
I have been a European from day one, but I am getting pretty sour about it. I was chairman of transport and regional planning in Brussels when that excellent Commissioner, George Thomson as he then was, was responsible for regional development.

1117
Mr. Bill Walker: He is a good Scot.
Mr. Hill: Indeed.
We thought that we would introduce paradise to the periphery of the Community. That has not happened. There is not enough money to go into regional planning or the social fund because it is being gobbled up by the farmers of Europe. When we got a good percentage— 28 per cent. — of the regional fund allocated to the United Kingdom, I thought that that was the beginning and the making of Europe. That was not so. Transport infrastructure has not benefited. Indeed, there has been hardly any progress on transport in the Community.
It is necessary only to look through the list in the White Paper to see that our Ministers seem to be in constant motion between London and Brussels. They are being faced with some difficult decisions. The Community wants majority voting on most things. That will be the last possible veto against the excesses that the CAP produces.
Unless the rest of the Community demonstrates a reasonable approach on 31 March, I for one will be extremely dissatisfied. If that is their idea of keeping faith, they can keep it.
7.57 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). I was with him when we visited the Court of Auditors.
The House is supposed to be debating the White Paper, so it might be useful if I refer to it and then make one comment on the motor industry. The document is not inspiring. Indeed, we have had no inspiring documents for a long time. Europeans, such as the hon. Member for Test — we are all European in that we were born in a European country—have long since given up any hope of reading good news from the EC in such documents. That is why, I suspect, attendance at these debates is not high.
The White Paper is an account of what we might call the latest state of play in the haggling and wrangling between member states. It is unfortunate that we are looking back at the first six months of last year and considering things only in retrospect. It is an exercise in futility. There have been many false dawns and many people, such as the hon. Member for Test, have become disillusioned.
The second paragraph of the document states:
"The European Council in Stuttgart on 17–19 June launched a major negotiation on the reform of the Community's financial system."
The agenda is then referred to, and the paragraph continues:
"The negotiation will be conducted at special meetings of the Council and the results are to be submitted to the Athens European Council on 6 December."
Although that sounds enthusiastic — we can look back with hindsight—Athens was a predictable fiasco.
The next paragraph states that our net refunds are "two-thirds of our net contribution."
I remember the Prime Minister, when she went to Dublin, saying that she was not willing to be fobbed off with half a loaf, but that is what she has.
Why should Britain pay anything into the budget? If it is meant to be a means of redistribution and if we are one of the poorer nations, surely, in all justice, we should be a net beneficiary. We are a member of a strange club of
1118
nine or 10 members in which only two make any contributions. We are one of those two. That is a monstrous arrangement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Test that enough is enough. Unless a sensible arrangement can be made within the next two or three weeks, we should withhold our excessive contributions.
The next paragraph deals with the "social and employment sphere". The social fund is entirely peripheral. Financially, it consists of peanuts, and we need not waste time on that. Mass unemployment exists throughout the Common Market. The paragraph also refers to the "regional field". If any genuine regional policy operated, the United Kingdom should be a net beneficiary, but the European Community does not have a real regional policy. The rich countries are in no way helping the poor. The policy is nugatory. We all know that the richer countries and regions in the European Community are getting richer and that the poor are getting poorer.
Paragraph 1.9 states:
"the Government welcomed a unilateral decision by Spain to reduce tariffs on … car imports."
I shall say a word about that later.
"The Community concluded an agreement with Japan restraining exports to the Community".
In other words, the EC is lauding import controls. I thought that the EC agreed with free trade, but it is patting itself on the back for imposing import controls on Japan. The truth is that the EC is damaging our motor industry, not Japan's. If import controls are to be implemented, they should be against France, Germany and Italy, not Japan.
Page 6 refers to the internal market, and paragraph 1.15 states:
"The Government welcomed this initiative towards speeding up the process of making the free movement of goods and services within the Community's very large internal market more complete."
In other words, a European Common Market does not exist. I believe that there are now more customs officers than before the Common Market was formed.
However, some developments have taken place. Page 10 refers to the directives allowing wedding gifts to pass across frontiers without being subject to controls.
Page 9 of the document states:
"There were also useful contacts with the United States on the problems in agricultural trade."
We all know that the fact that we have subsidised food exports to the world markets has caused the most acrimonious of relationships with the United States. No wonder the document skates over that subject.
Then the paper turns to fishing. Countries throughout the rest of the world have a 200-mile fishing limit. Such an arrangement would have suited the United Kingdom well. As a result or our being in the European Community, we have an arrangement under which the United Kingdom contributes the largest share of fisheries to the Common Market pond. Our arrangements for quotas allow continental fishermen, who have fished out their own waters, to help themsleves to quotas of our fish.
A brief reference is made to the European monetary system. The figures dealing with the flotation of currencies show they have been used all over the place. Economic convergence has not taken place. The document shows that, with different rates of inflation, there is no chance of fixed parities operating.
Reference is also made to

1119
"a substantial discussion on the draft non-life insurance services directive."
There is nothing more, so that proves that nothing has happened. The Minister is smiling happily. Before we joined the EC, we were told that the City of London was extremely efficient and that great gains would be made, but we have not been allowed to compete.
Page 17 of the report, referring to a discussion on financing, says:
"The Commission produced proposals on future financing in May. They proposed that the 1 per cent. limit on the VAT … take from member states be increased initially to 1·4 per cent., with provision for raising the new limit subsequently by further tranches of 0·4 per cent., subject to unanimous agreement in the Council and a three-fifths majority of votes cast in the European Parliament, without the need for ratification by national Parliaments."
The suggestion is that we should be taxed, for example, at rates and by amounts that we did not decide, by people whom we did not elect and whom we cannot remove and in ways that we did not choose.
We have given away many of our powers. I note that the Minister is smiling. I hope that I can take the beneficent look on his face as confirmation that we shall never submit ourselves to such an indignity. It is absolutely and entirely unacceptable.
Paragraph 5.14 refers to the
"Court of Auditors and Financial Control,"
which should interest the hon. Member for Test. He will agree that on our visit we discovered that the report was really a catalogue of frauds and irregularities. There is no proper financial control whatever in the European Community. That is why discussion on the topic consists of only five lines.
Page 18 refers to the German "butterships". It says:
"Germany has still to agree to abolish the exemption from VAT and excise duties on goods sold on board the 'butterships' sailing on non-landing cruises from North German ports despite a European Court judgment of July 1981."
We have a wonderful picture of hausfraus shopping on the high seas. That is a Gilbert and Sullivan arrangement that is completely illegal. They pay no excise or other taxes, but the Germans are doing great business with their butterships.
The Commission has put forward two draft directives on wine and beer. One is to allow the free movement across frontiers of six litres, not four litres, of wine. It seems that the wine lakes can be moved from one country to another.
Paragraph 5.20 states:
"the commission has alleged that the United Kingdom's duty structure discriminates in favour of home-produced beer and against imported wine."
That is the explanation for successive Finance Bills which have increased the duty on British beer. That is why the price of beer in Britain is being increased.
In a Commission paper on progress towards a common policy for inland transport there is agreement to proceed "step by step". That sounds rather pedestrian and
"specific proposals from the Commission are still awaited."
The main damage to Britain is done by the appalling and horrifying deficit on manufactured goods. That is dealt with in annex F to the document, which says that in the first six months there was a deficit of nearly £4 billion. Our deficit in manufactures with the EC is about £10 billion. That probably costs about 1 million jobs for Britain.
When we joined the Common Market, for every eight cars we sent member states, they sent five to us. Lord Stokes, in his full-page advertisements, told us how our
1120
joining would benefit the motor industry. Today, for every car that we send to Common Market countries, they send us 10.
I was recently with the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir Nicholas Bonsor) on a visit to the Ford Motor Company, which is closing its foundry, where thousands of redundancies are to take place. The fear is that Ford in Britain will operate just an assembly plant.
The Financial Times of 18 January contained two articles. The first, about Ireland, stated:
"Ford Ireland is to close its car assembly plant in Cork this year with the loss of 800 jobs."
The article continued:
"Ford pointed out that tariff protection for car assemblers in Ireland would end in January next year after pressure on the Irish Government by the EEC Commission. To compete in the Irish market against imported cars would have left Ford 'fighting in the free-for-all which is bound to develop with one hand tied behind its back.'"
Ford operated happily in the Republic of Ireland with a limited amount of protection. When the tariffs were removed, Ford was no longer competitive. It was willing to keep the factory working when Ireland was outside the Common Market. When Ireland went in, the company was producing 80 Sierras a day and it was happy, but when it could import them more cheaply from the continent it shut the plant in Cork.
In the same issue of the Financial Times a major article refers to the
"Ford Motor Company's decision to build a $500 million export-orientated factory in Mexico".
That shows the way in which a national Government, even in a country such as Mexico, can lay down conditions for the multinationals and insist that they play the game by that country.
The article states:
"Production of 130,000 cars a year will begin at the end of 1986 … The main factor … behind the Ford venture is that its new plant enables it to comply with the Mexican Government's regulations."
The article explains that in the past the motor industry has
"been a heavy drain on Mexico's balance of payments. In 1981 it accounted for 58 per cent. of Mexico's trade deficit."
That is similar to the United Kingdom's position, but the Mexican Government decided to do something about it and passed a decree in Parliament which
"stipulates that by 1987 all cars manufactured in Mexico must have at least 60 per cent. local content."
The article continues:
"Not only must Ford balance its foreign exchange account, but it also has a $500 million foreign exchange obligation to clear."
The boss of Ford Mexico stated:
"failure to clear the obligation would mean the gradual squeezing of Ford out of Mexico, since imports would cease to be authorised."
Rather than put up with that, Ford is building a new plant which will involve Mexican parts and produce a balance of payments surplus for Mexico. Why do we not do that? Spain did it.
A few years ago Spain had no motor industry, but today Spain produces more cars than the United Kingdom. Spain said to the multinationals, "If you want our market, you will manufacture here. It is your choice. You can have the market, but only if you manufacture here or use a percentage of Spanish parts in your cars." The multinationals complied and built factories in Spain. We could do the same.
Our industrial base is disappearing. It is our responsibility. The multinationals have no loyalty or

1121
patriotism. If they can make more profit by producing elsewhere, they will. Our duty is to our own country. We should lay down the conditions. Why do we not do that? The reason is that it would conflict with the treaty of Rome. We should work out policies that are in the British national interest, regardless of the treaty of Rome. The sooner we have a Government who do that, the better.
8.17 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) criticised the Government's attitude to the Vredeling directive and sought to link that with the attitude of the Caterpillar company to those workers in his constituency whom he said were made redundant without proper consultation. We do not need the directive to deal with that situation, because a remedy is already available in the Employment Protection Act. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, the workers have a remedy and will be advised to make use of that remedy.
I make no apology for seeking to divert the attention of the House from the CAP, own resources and all the excitements to which other hon. Members have referred. I make no apology for raising another matter because it is of fundamental importance in the long run to relationships between the United Kingdom and the European Community.
It is 10 years since Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, described the treaty of Rome and its relationship to English law as being like "an incoming tide." He said:
"It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back."
In drawing attention to that tide, it is not my intention to invite the House to adopt a Canute-like posture towards it, but I suggest that that tide is capable of causing danger of two kinds. Constitutionally the position is deceptively simple. On matters which touch the Community, Community law is supreme. If an inconsistency arises between the two, identified by the European Court of Justice, for example, Community law must prevail. The first difficulty is that not all Community legislation is superior to United Kingdom law. One would need to be in thrall to a quite exceptional admiration for the Community and its works to need much persuading of that.
The second danger is that, even where the merits of the two are more evenly balanced, the automatic and relentless invasion of what has hitherto been our sovereign preserve gives rise to a great deal of irritation and resentment, even among our fellow citizens who are not hostile to the Community or to United Kingdom membership of it. In many instances, the process brings the Community into disrepute.
That feeling of irritation and resentment is not entirely foreign to hon. Members. It is especially marked when we are presented with documents that we are told, correctly, we cannot amend or reject because they are introduced pursuant to directives of the Community or decisions of the Court of Justice, and that we must accept them without question as part of the price that we pay for our continued membership of the Community.
What makes that difficult to accept is that the tide of which Lord Denning spoke seems to flow in one direction only. Unlike other tides, it never seems to ebb. When the European Court of Justice rules that our domestic law is
1122
inconsistent with some Community regulation or directive, the automatic reaction is to set in trend—sometimes sooner and sometimes later—the necessary procedures to bring domestic law in line with the Community edict.
I contend that there are opportunities for reversing the flow and encouraging the ebb tide. We should be astute to identify, exploit and enhance those opportunities. Of course, I recognise that if the Community edict is clear in its meaning and recent in its origin and has received the approval of the Council of Ministers, the Community edict is unlikely to be denied its supremacy and it would have to be enforced. But where those features are absent, that should not necessarily follow.
The edict may be a consequence of a decision taken only by the Commission; it may never have been before the Council of Ministers. It may be outdated and no longer represent what the Council of Ministers may desire in present circumstances. It may be unclear and there may be a great deal of doubt about whether the interpretation placed upon it by the Court of Justice was that intended by the Council of Ministers. In such cases, our initial response should not be to ask, "How do we change our domestic law to conform with the edict?" but to ask, "Does the Community really wish to insist on the supremacy of its edict in current circumstances?"
I shall cite an example of the sort of problem that could and does arise. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 contains a provision that exempts small businesses—firms with no more than five employees—and domestic households from many of its employment provisions. That provision was not put into the Act by a Conservative Government; it has been there since the Act was introduced by a Labour Government in 1975. The year after the Act was introduced, the Council of Ministers adopted a directive on sex discrimination. We must presume that it did so with the approval of the British Government. If the Government of the time had thought that there was any inconsistency between that directive and the Act that Parliament had passed the previous year, they would have sought either to change the directive or to amend the Act. As they did neither, we are entitled to assume that no inconsistency was thought to exist.
The directive and the Act lived together quite happily for many years—but not, unfortunately, for ever after. In November last year the European Court of Justice considered the relationship between the two and found the statute wanting. That point was raised during the debate on the Sex Equality Bill on 9 December 1983, when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) intervened in the observations that I was addressing to the House. I must confess that I did the hon. Lady rather less than full justice in my riposte on that occasion.
The question arises what should now be done about the discrepancy between the directive and the statute. I contend that it does not follow, and should not follow, that the automatic response to the decision of the Court of Justice should be to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to bring it into line with the directive. The automatic response should be to try to amend the directive. Procedures exist to enable such an attempt to be made, and I hope that it will be made.
But we need something more. We need an automatic reference back to the Council of Ministers of any Community measure that is held by the Court of Justice to require a change in the domestic law of member

1123
countries. Of course, if the Council of Ministers affirms the Community edict, as loyal members we must accept that decision. But the Council's view may have changed, or it may never have contemplated that the edict would be interpreted in a particular way. Indeed, it may never have had the opportunity to consider the matter. I suggest that where an apparent inconsistency arises between Community law and domestic law, a change in domestic law should be the last rather than the first resort.
Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he has woken up 11 years too late? We had debates in the House when the then Solicitor-General, now the Foreign Secretary, argued these very points. Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 makes it abundantly clear that enforceable Community legislation and court findings of the EC supersede any domestic legislation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although worthy, is not practical and, unfortunately, goes against the statutes passed by this House.
Mr. Howard: Many of us learn from experience, and I hope that we have learnt from the experience of the past 10 years. We must put that to good use and seek to change the procedures that have not been working well. Although section 2 of the 1972 Act provides for the direct implementation of some Community measures into our law, it does not apply to all the matters that would be covered by the procedural change that I am advocating. It is never too late to seek to change an institution, and I urge the Government to that end. I urge the Government to seek to establish within the Community the machinery to enable those steps to be taken. If we can restore a two-way flow of tide on European law—
Mr. Budgen: Has my hon. and learned Friend taken account of the important analogy, given by the Minister when he opened the debate, of the federation of the United States? Perhaps what my hon. and learned Friend suggests would be analogous to the attempted secession of the south and might even bring an armed attack by other EC countries on Britain.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's vivid turn of phrase is combined with a dramatic imagination. I shall not follow him along that path. I find his analogy rather less persuasive than most of his observations.
I urge the Government to pursue the establishment of machinery to enable the steps that I have suggested to be taken. If that change were introduced, it would do much to affect the attitude of many of our fellow citizens who, although broadly speaking in favour of the Community and of our membership of it, are irritated and frustrated by the many occasions on which our domestic law is obliged to give priority and precedence to the law of the Community without any good reason.
8.31 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the analogy that has been drawn between the development of the United States of America and that of the European Community. [Interruption.] The Minister may have made a Freudian slip, but I refer to the attitude now prevailing in Community institutions. "The Relaunch of Europe", the report of the three wise men and the Spinnelli report all refer clearly to federalism.
1124
Conservative Members should question their fellow Conservatives in the European Parliament, and the Minister should tell us clearly tonight whether the Front Bench merely made a slip or whether we are laying the groundwork for full membership of the European monetary system. Have the documents that have been under discussion for some time — "The Relaunch of Europe", the Spinnelli report and the report of the three wise men—been accepted by the Front Bench? If that is so, the position should be made clear to the British public. I do not believe that the Government have a mandate to move in that direction. We have heard this evening that the 1 per cent. ceiling may well be controlled by the decision-making mechanism of the Ministry and of Europe rather than coming to the House. That is a dangerous development.
The Labour party has been accused of being isolationist in relation to the EC. One of the more positive parts of the Stuttgart communique was on the question of central America. Under the Greek Presidency, the Ministers have agreed to try to activate the proposals of the Contadora group. Whenever the topic has been raised, the British Minister has procrastinated and called for further reports on the situation in central America, with the clear aim of not taking action on the Contadora group proposals. Our Ministers have done us a disservice. It may be that we are puppets of the American President. We do not know whether that is so, but it seems very likely.
Reference has been made to the common agricultural policy and to the balance of trade. The steel industry is a specific industry under the direction of the European Coal and Steel Communities treaty. In the United Kingdom, the industry has been devastated. It has lost 25 per cent. of its capacity over the past five or six years. It has lost 100,000 jobs, more than 50 per cent. of all the steel redundancies in the Community. Ministers are meeting in Brussels as I speak. It is thought that the Italians will not come to an agreement on the steel plans and that by 4.30 tomorrow morning the talks could be in disarray. Arrangements in Europe have broken down. The European steel industry is in disarray and the steel industry in the United Kingdom has been devastated.
Furthermore, the Commission adopts a fairly mild-mannered approach towards the United States and, again, the United Kingdom steel industry has borne the brunt. An agreement was made in 1982 to run from November 1982 to December 1985. It referred to 10 major steel products from the EC, amounting to under 6 per cent. of the American market. In that case, an agreement satisfactory to the Americans could not be reached until we agreed to negotiate on pipes and tubes as well. That agreement is now running, but in 1983 the Americans came back for a second bite at our steel industry and, in particular, the special steels industry. They brought in the argument on subsidies, under section 201 of the United States Trade Act 1974. The argument is that we are damaging their industries. The contents of section 201 of that Act are different from the contents of section 301, which was used in 1982 on the question of carbon steel. Section 201 refers to
"with respect to serious injury, the significant idling of productive facilities in the industry, the inability of a significant number of firms to operate at a reasonable level of profit, and significant unemployment or underemployment within the industry."

1125
The Commission has capitulated. Discussions are still going on under the GATT arrangements but an extension of 40 days has been granted and apparently we shall not be taking on the United States on the special steels sector. Indeed, there may be a capitulation on global trade figures. That would be highly detrimental to the special steels industry, which is an important part of the steel industry and supplies our high technology industries. The Ministers should put pressure on the Commission to prevent such a capitulation. This week it was reported in the International Herald Tribune that the
"Bethlehem Steel Corp. and the United Steelworkers union file a petition Tuesday that asks the government to impose a significant reduction in steel imports, through tariffs, quotas or a mixture of both."
That will affect the 1982 agreement. A complaint was filed under section 201 asking that the penetration of the United States steel market, which stands at about 22·3 per cent., should be brought down to about 15 per cent. If that petition is accepted, if the Commission acts in the way in which it has acted on two previous occasions, and if the United Kingdom Minister who represents us in Europe accepts a deal which resembles the deal accepted in the past, we can say goodbye to the British steel industry. Conservative Members have told us that we have been asked to close down another of the British Steel Corporation's strip mills.
We have suffered a disproportionate amount of cuts both in terms of capacity and numbers employed, and if we continue to accept them, they will lead to the collapse of the British steel industry, whether it is developed under Phoenix 1, 2 or 3. Those cuts are detrimental to the industry. If this further development in the relationship between the EEC and the United States of America continues in the same way, it will have a serious effect on the British steel industry.
8.39 pm
Mr. William Powell: It is worth bearing in mind the context in which the events described in the White Paper came about.
By January 1983 we had just seen the collapse of Herr Schmidt's Government in West Germany. The new West German Government faced an election in March. Thus it was not surprising that that Government were hardly in a position to make significant political decisions about the future of the Common Market. At the same time, the French Government had to come to terms with the fact that their attempts to go it alone had failed. They had to reverse their national economic policies. Meanwhile, in Britain, the first six months of last year were almost entirely taken up with the gathering election momentum, which in itself led to the election in June. In Italy, there was yet another election shortly after the British general election, and before then the Italian Government had been no more than a weak caretaker Government. Against that political background, it is not surprising that the events described in the White Paper should be an immense disappointment.
We must also bear in mind the economic backcloth. However, we need to examine it over a slightly longer period. Between the foundation of the Common Market and the first oil crisis—a period of about 14 years—growth throughout the Community averaged about 4·6 per cent. per annum. The effect of the first oil crisis and the
1126
measures that were taken thereafter was to slow down growth throughout the Community to less than half of that. That meant that the slowdown in growth that occurred in the Community was greater than that in the countries of our principal trading rivals, the United States of America and Japan. The consequences of that slowdown in growth have been absolutely devastating for the economies of western Europe.
The reduced growth has brought about an increase in external debt and a reduction in profits. With that reduction in profits, there has been a decline in net investment. As a result of that decline in net investment, our competitiveness has suffered badly compared with Japan and the United States. One consequence of that has been the much higher rate of inflation experienced in the Community compared with the United States of America and Japan.
An examination of the net profits on sales of the 100 largest companies based in western Europe shows that between 1973 and 1981 they averaged 1·4 per cent., about half that achieved by Japanese companies. In the United States, the figure rises by three-and-a-half times. Of course, there has consequently been a catastrophic decline in manufacturing investment. There has also been a decline in productivity as all western European countries have maintained incomes at the expense of investment.
There has been a capital outflow of funds from western Europe to the United States, as people within the Community have found more profitable investments there. As a result, over that period the countries within the Community have lost 3 million jobs. There are 3 million fewer people in employment in the Community — not just in Great Britain, but throughout the Community—than in 1973. However, in the United States of America, there are 15 million more people in employment.
We can only judge the policies that must be pursued in the EC against the background of the change in employment patterns. I wish the Government well in their attempts to come to terms with the two major problems that dominated 1983 and which still persist. I refer to the problems of dealing with the CAP and with our contribution to the Community budget. Much has been said about those problems tonight and I wish only to observe that they are symptomatic of the fundamental difficulties that the EC now faces. Those fundamental difficulties are the economic protectionism that is now growing in the Community and the political paralysis.
I shall briefly examine each difficulty in turn. The Common Market speaks the language of free trade, but it is just as protected in its institutions as the institutions of the ancien regime of 18th century France or of the Zollverein of Germany in the 19th century. The simple fact is that we constantly try to protect ourselves from the decline in jobs, and each time we do so we beggar ourselves. The way out of the job crisis in western Europe lies not in protectionism but in stripping away the barriers to free trade. That is what we must do.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to the scandal of the customs posts throughout Europe. It would cost nothing to remove all that bureaucracy and red tape. If we did that, there would be a marked effect in improving trade between member countries. People are perfectly entitled to refer to the decline in our manufacturing position, but they should remember that what also matters is our volume of trade. The volume of trade that we have had with the Community since our

1127
membership has grown greatly, and must continue to do so. Economic protectionism is to be found throughout the Community, and nowhere more so — as has been stressed—than in the CAP. The system of MCAs that member states have erected to protect their own agriculture has become one of the greatest scandals of Europe.
We shall make no significant progress in dealing with the growing joblessness in Europe unless we strip away that economic protectionism. The solution does not lie in any country trying to go it alone. That has been tried in Britain and in France. No country in Europe is strong enough to go its own way—not even West Germany. However, if we try to grow together and to achieve a convergence of our policies, there is evidence to suppose that we can regenerate the level of growth that was characteristic of the early years of the Community, and which has been so persistent in its absence during the past eight to 10 years.
Above all, we must deal with growing protectionism in the public sector. It is government that is the principal evil when it comes to the problem of analysing where protectionism exists. We all know that there will be no European aircraft industry unless we have one European aircraft industry that is able to sell to member countries, and, on the basis of a strong home market, export to the rest of the world. There is not a single company based in Texas that regards itself as Texan first and American second. There is not a single company in California that regards itself as Californian first and American second. They work in a free market, whereas we simply talk the language of the free market while erecting the very barriers that beggar us. We need an end to the political paralysis that is preventing us from stripping away those barriers. No hon. Member can feel that there is anything other than complete paralysis in western Europe.
This year I hope that, taking advantage of the political stability resulting from the West German and British elections, a change in direction can be negotiated so that the customs scandals are dealt with, the public procurement policies are eliminated and action begins to be taken on the report that was prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) as long ago as 1977 on a common procurement policy in defence industries. All those actions are necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is fond of reminding us that he became a Member of Parliament in 1950 on Mr. Churchill's slogan about setting the people free. No policy is more necessary now than an attempt to set the people free in Europe by burning all restrictions and protections. That is the only way in which we shall prevent joblessness. In fact, 1983 was the 11th successive year in which joblessness had increased in Europe, and unless we take action 1984 will be the 12th successive year, and the trend will continue.
Respectable institutions reckon that, instead of the present 12 million jobless in the Community, by the end of the decade there might be 20 million. That is not a fact that any hon. Member wishes to contemplate. There is only one way out: a growing convergence of our economic policies and a common desire to sew those policies together and to strip away all the barriers to industry, investment and achievement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, the House will wish to know
1128
that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 9.10 pm. A number of hon. Members still wish to speak. Short speeches will be of great help to everyone.
8.52 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall take your advice on board, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EEC and the fact that they would not be given a "blank card" on accession, which I believe was the expression he used.
The negotiations on Gibraltar will change somewhat with Spain's membership of the European Community, and therefore Spain's fishing fleet concerns me. I would say to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that I know what a mackerel looks like. As someone who made his first voyage to Bear Island and Spitzbergen at the tender age of 12, I can even spot the difference between a cod and a haddock. However, the hon. Gentleman is not here to hear what I have to say about that subject.
I am worried about the EEC's approach to fishing, but I am especially concerned about the social affairs section of the White Paper. I represent a constituency that has massive unemployment and may have even higher unemployment if—perish the thought—Scott Lithgow closes.
About two thirds of the EEC's budget is distributed to the CAP, about 5·4 per cent. goes on regional aid and about 6 per cent. on social spending.
Unemployment in my constituency is high, especially among young people. In Port Glasgow, youth unemployment is as high as 80 per cent. About 3,000 school children in my constituency receive free school meals. What future do they have? Will they move from receiving free school meals to the dole queues? It is not just those youngsters, but often their fathers and mothers, who are unemployed.
Those who suffer other deprivations are highlighted in a book a chapter of which was written by Ronald Young, a Strathclyde councillor. Writing about unemployment in my constituency, he said:
"On a clear day the view would have the estate agents sharpening their epithets for a killing. The Clyde Estuary at your feet—and the sweep of the Argyll peaks beyond putting Ben Lomond to shame. This, however, is Strone-Maukinhill — a council house scheme of 10,000 people, 40 per cent. of whose male population is unemployed. There is no killing for estate agents because about two-thirds of the households are … on rent rebate and the few who could afford a mortgage don't fancy the houses or the area."
Only about half a dozen houses have been sold in that area, one reason being the dreadful dampness that affects thousands of houses in my constituency. Recently, the Secretary of State for Scotland received a letter signed by 45 doctors expressing their fears about growing unemployment and the medical problems generated by it.
Given the dependence of the Clyde, especially the lower Clyde, on shipbuilding and marine engineering, the allied industries should be given equal status with coal and steel within the European Community in terms of accepting the dreadful social consequences in those industries and providing social funds for the people who are so badly stricken. That does not mean that I accept the inevitability of the closure of Scott Lithgow. I have made my views well known to the House on the way forward for Scott Lithgow and on the Britoil contract. Shipbuilding and marine engineering should be given preferential

1129
treatment in areas, such as Strathclyde, which suffer from high unemployment and multiple deprivation. Therefore, funds should be directed to the Clyde for community enterprises and to provide other forms of new employment. That is my plea to the Government.
8.58 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: The debate has rightly ranged wider than the problems of the budget and agricultural expenditure, notably in the fascinating speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) which was marred only by his further maligning the much-maligned King Canute who, in fact, shared Lord Denning's analysis and not my hon. Friend's.
The aspect of the White Paper to which I shall draw attention may at first seem minor but it is related to the more general problems of the Community in that it reveals the Community's structural bias towards the illiberal member states and the producer lobbies and against the more liberal member states and the consumer. Paragraph 3.12 of the White Paper notes a most significant development not just in external trade, which would be significant enough, but in the use of Community mechanisms and influence to escape the letter and spirit of GATT.
The restraints referred to in that paragraph, which were agreed by the Community with Japan for the first time in February last year and have now been followed by further restraint agreements with other newly industrialising countries, cover not just infant industries, for which the protection argument has always been admitted, but an increasingly wide range of ordinary manufactured goods. The so-called voluntary export restraints are not voluntary at all. They are forced on the offending third country by the Community in our name. They are wholly illegal under GATT and are a clear example of growing but covert protectionism.
The agreement with Japan about video cassette recorders in February 1983, which is noted in the White Paper, has been extended for 1984 to no fewer than 10 so-called "sensitive" sectors. That agreement allows European manufacturers to set higher prices than they normally could because it guarantees them sales. The consumer thus loses in two ways. He loses if he buys the European product at the higher price and he loses if he buys the Japanese import because of the secret Japanese floor price fixed by the Commission and Japan.
There is a constitutional point here. Just as it is wrong for the United Kingdom Government to shelter behind Community machinery in negotiating agreements that may contradict the rules of GATT, so it is wrong for Ministers to impose and enforce what are in effect export cartels against their own citizens. I have always supported the Community because I believe that a strong and free common market throughout the Community would not only benefit our industry but would be a force for good in world trade. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to use all their influence to ensure that GATT is upheld not just in letter but in spirit and that no more voluntary agreements will be "endorsed", as the White Paper puts it, by the Foreign Affairs Council.
Finally, I ask the Minister not to allow Foreign Ministers or the Trade Ministers to pander to identifiable
1130
but minuscule job protection, the cost of which is inevitably borne by millions of consumers who are far less politically organised. If he can help the Community to resist such tempations he will ensure its transition from being a convenience for Governments to being a genuine benefit for individuals.
9.2 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) for his brevity, which has allowed me to participate in the debate. If others had taken the same attitude, other Conservative Members who wished to participate might have been able to do so. I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's example.
Dr. Godman: What about mine?
Mr. Walker: I also appreciate the brevity of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
The debate relates to the period from January to June 1983, but everyone is aware that as the EEC comes closer to the day when it will run out of cash much of what took place in that period and much of what has been said since then seems less and less possible or relevant. We are rapidly leaving the age of idealism and entering the age of realism. We now have to find the answers.
Much has been said today about the need for reform of the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke of the need for proper financial control, and I cannot disagree. There is a desperate need for proper control of all Government and European expenditure. At the same time, I remind the House that there is nothing unusual or wrong about using public money to support and protect sectors or areas for what we describe as social reasons or for strategic and defence reasons. It is in the latter two categories that I see the support expenditure on agriculture in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is aware, I am desperately trying to help in the case of Scott Lithgow, as I have done in areas like Prestwick. If the hon. Gentleman were a little more charitable, he would realise that some of us care as deeply about jobs in Scotland as he does.
I believe that the lessons of the last two world wars, when we were desperately short of food, should never be forgotten. That is why I have never found it difficult to support the use of public money to maintain sheep and cattle on the hills of Scotland. What I have never accepted is the view of some of my colleagues that decisions affecting the hill farmers of Scotland were best made in Europe. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Scotland's hill farmers are faced with uncertainty, due to the financial and cash flow problems of Europe.
The raspberry farmers of Tayside are finding to their cost that raspberry pulp from eastern Europe is being dumped in this country via Holland. Indeed, evidence has been produced by the Scottish NFU which clearly demonstrates that, during the period under discussion, more raspberry pulp has come into the United Kingdom from Holland than the entire production from that member state. This is not satisfactory, and cannot be in the interests of Europe or Britain.
Against this background, I view the situation in Europe today with considerable apprehension. I also watch developments in France, in particular the action of French farmers, as warning signs — the combination of the

1131
French economic failure and the failure of the CAP to resolve the problems facing French agriculture, particularly French livestock producers, and the pig producers are the ones most badly affected—that we should not ignore. Indeed, I would go further and say we ignore them at our peril.
Coupled with that is the entry of Spain into the Community, and the difficulties that may arise because of the potential in that country for agricultural expansion—expansion on a scale we cannot comprehend because of the land mass, the weather, irrigation that could be provided from Euro funds and a massive Euro market. That is why I believe that we must take this unique opportunity today offered by the Community running out of funds to bring about fundamental reforms in the EEC.
We were not in at the beginning. Consequently, we were required to accept substantially the conditions on offer when we joined 10 years ago. Sadly, however, if experience is a guide, I believe we will not grasp the opportunity, and the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Assembly will conspire to maintain the status quo. They will fudge issues such as net contributions, and we shall end up with the CAP substantially unchanged. An increase in own resources is more likely, and this will be presented to us in an effort to meet the other EEC programmes. These programmes will involve the collection of taxes in the United Kingdom and other member states, and the moving of these funds through the European institutions and organisations, which can only mean substantial reduction in the worth of these taxes when spent on nation state programmes. Whether this will be good for Europe in the long term, I cannot say. I am sure, however, that, if we do not grasp this opportunity to bring about substantial change now, it may be many years before a similar opportunity recurs.
I believe this will result in the increased probability of people behaving like the French farmers, with all the risks for democracy that this presents. That is why I put my faith in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying for a long time, that we must bring about changes, and her views on these matters are not dissimilar to my own. I am confident that she will not disappoint me.
9.9 pm
Mr. George Foulkes:: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) particularly after he has revealed something that we were all wondering—that is, who is the brains behind the Prime Minister.
I did not think that I would be replying to a debate on Europe and saying that I could agree with some of what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, particularly when he commented that changes on both sides of the House made this a less sterile and more constructive debate. That has, indeed, been the case.
I shall reply to as many of the points that were made in the debate as possible, and I hope that in so doing I shall set an example to the Economic Secretary, who will reply to the points that were made and answer the questions asked rather than read from a Treasury brief prepared some hours, if not days, ago.
The hon. Member for Southend, East agreed with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), in itself a noteable change from previous debates, perhaps brought about by a combination of disillusion and realism. I appreciate why the Minister of State does not like our
1132
amendment; he does not like us to draw attention to the fact that the Government's European policies are as bankrupt and disastrous as the policies that they have pursued in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Speak of the devil.
Mr. Foulkes: I am pleased to see that the Minister of State has returned to the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is aware of the Government's policies in both areas and is aware of their bankruptcy in both. During (he past five years we have seen an increase in inequality, poverty increasing, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We have seen industry being destroyed—reference was made to the steel industry, but the same is happening to the coal industry—because of the policies being pursued by the Government both here and in Europe.
We have witnessed regressive, rather than progressive, policies. The deeds have not matched the words. We saw the Prime Minister being interviewed by Mr. Brian Walden and heard her frank admission, but we have seen this process even more in the European Community. Stridency and shrillness, which is what we get from the right hon. Lady, are no substitute for real action and urgency. Stridency and shrillness are not necessarily the best way to bat for Britain.
It is clear from almost all the contributions today—it is also clear from the choice of the Minister who will reply and from what the Prime Minister keeps talking about at summits and elsewhere — that the central issue is and remains the budgetary crisis and particularly the rebate or refund. It is on this issue that we expect some action arid urgency — not stridency and shrillness — outside the House. But no sense of urgency has been apparent.
I say without disrespect to the Minister who will reply, that he represented the Government at meetings of the Council of Ministers when the European Parliament decided to impose its veto on our refund. That was a matter of great importance to the United Kingdom. It was understandable that other Governments were not represented at the highest possible level. But we did not show the right sense of urgency in getting our refund in not being represented at a higher level. We should have had our big guns firing there, and then we might have got some alteration in the decision of the European Parliament.
It was pointed out earlier that we are now, in time, half-way between Athens and Brussels, and we wonder what prospect there is of success. What indications are there that agreement will be reached in Brussels when it could not be reached in Athens? [Hon. Members: "None".] My hon. Friends say none. I have been trying to discover the answer to that recently from reading various publications, including The Scotsman, one of the newspapers that I take regularly, as the Minister of State knows. I read:
"EEC Foreign Ministers have, we are told, agreed to an eight-week timetable in which to lay the foundations for a new European Community before the Brussels summit meeting in mid-March."
How many times have we heard that? In reality there has been little progress. If we can believe our Foreign Secretary, it has fallen to him to
"inject urgency into finding solutions to problems which have plagued the EEC for years."

1133
Hon. Members saw him at the Dispatch Box yesterday. Would he inject urgency into finding solutions? The Opposition do not detect such urgency, and I doubt whether other people do.
Yesterday I asked the Foreign Secretary what would happen if there was no payment of our refund by the end of March, which is the deadline. We received no answer, only the usual guff about taking appropriate action. It was a weak and pathetic response. We repeat the question tonight: what is meant by taking appropriate action? We ask the Government to pledge that if the money is not paid by the end of March, we will withdraw all or part of our contribution for this year. No less than an unequivocal pledge from the Minister on that will satisfy us that the Government is resolved and determined.
The Minister must beware of bargaining and of a tradeoff for an agreement. If the decision of the European Parliament is anything to go by, the sort of trade-off that it requires for an agreement to increase Community own resources would not be acceptable to the Opposition or to many conservative Members.
The Prime Minister has said on television and elsewhere, "We need the money, it is our money," but will the Minister tell us for what purposes the money will be allocated? Will he guarantee that the money will be used for new schemes to reduce unemployment or to combat poverty? Is it not more likely to be used to reduce the PSBR or to pay for the bombs that so delight Conservative Members? I doubt whether the money will be allocated for additional expenditure. The Government lack resolve, and are all talk and little action.
Many hon. Members mentioned the CAP, including the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I did him a disservice, yet he came back fighting, and the score on that battle was Truro 1, Ayrshire 0.
I have now solved the problem of the missing Members—the Euro-fanatics who have benefited so much from the European Community, especially the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who still benefits from it. If I had done the reading I should have done earlier in the day, and which the hon. Member for Truro could not have done, I could have quoted to him the headline in today's Glasgow Herald. It said,
"Roy Jenkins fights for fossils".
We know, therefore, that he is doing something much more worthwhile than being here today.
Mr. Boyes: We should emphasise the fact that every party is unrepresented in the Chamber at times. Although I have not been in the Chamber all the time, I have never seen a member of the SDP here. Does my hon. Friend agree that their constituents should know that it is not enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at 3 or 3.15 pm, at prime time when all the press are present? Some hon. Members have to work on such debates. In view of the SDP position on the Community, would not my hon. Friend have expected an SDP representative to be here tonight?
Mr. Foulkes: In the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East, I shall be generous and say that we regularly see Conservative Members—too many of them — morning, afternoon, evening and early
1134
morning. We regularly see members of the Labour party and the Liberal party here, but we do not see SDP Members regularly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) answered the questions on the CAP raised by Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister will be in no doubt about the strength of opposition to the oils and fats tax. I am not one of those who kow-tows to the United States—indeed, I have been critical of American action in Grenada and on many other issues—but there is no need for the oils and fats tax to aggravate our relations with the United States unnecessarily. Yesterday I talked to the American Under-Secretary for Agriculture, and it is clear that if the tax were introduced it would create much contention between Europe and America. It would cause havoc in some parts of America, and there is no guarantee that people would switch to eating butter simply because the cost of margarine was inflated artificially.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) mentioned steel. The Government's record on steel is pretty poor—
Mr. Boyes: Appalling.
Mr. Foulkes: It is appalling, as my hon. Friend says. The British Steel Corporation has taken an absurd share of the cuts, with 45 per cent. of all steel jobs lost in the Community being British jobs. West Germany has lost only 20 per cent., and France has lost only 15 per cent. Britain is the only country that seems to take Community decisions seriously. Others seem to ignore them, especially the Italians. The Italians threatened to walk out of today's meeting on steel. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will not continue on the suicide trail of job cuts in the steel industry? We cannot continue to lose those jobs when other countries do not contribute their fair share to the European steel policy. That is not what the European Community should be about. As my hon. Friend for Sheffield, Central said, the position could become worse if America continues to find new ways of objecting to steel imports from the EC.
Unfortunately, it has been too easy for the Government, because of their doctrine of cuts in public expenditure, to accept the end of steel subsidies in the United Kingdom. Because of their blind adherence to their philosophy, they have failed to notice the hidden subsidies in other European countries. Coal is subsidised much more than it is in the United Kingdom, freight charges are subsidised in Belgium and Germany, and short-time working payments subsidise the steel industries of other countries. Subsidies in Britain represent only £11 a tonne; in Germany the subsidy is £15, in France it is £18, and in Belgium it is £19.
We need assurances from the Government that they will stand up for Britain on steel, not stridently but with action and urgency. On behalf of all my Scottish colleagues and my colleagues south of the border, although there always seems to be a predominance of active Scots in these debates, I seek a guarantee on the future of Ravenscraig. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is all right for the next two or three years; we need a long-term commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and others, who have a long and honourable record of being critical of the European Community, find it difficult to accept that from time to

1135
time the Community suggests things that are beneficial to this country, especially when we have a Conservative Government and the European Community makes radical suggestions. Some of its suggestions are enlightened and can be used to encourage the Government to take a more enlightened attitude.
I was disappointed that one of my colleagues dismissed the social and regional funds as being of little importance. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, there is not enough money in the funds; resources should be switched from the agricultural sector—
Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Member agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that if the social fund was much expanded, inevitably the EC institutions would want increasing control over the way in which the money was spent?
Mr. Foulkes: No, my hon. Friend did not say that. He advocated a switch, not an increase, in the resources from the common agricultural policy to the social and regional funds. Local authorities in Scotland and England have used money from the European Community to promote local employment initiatives. In the context of the huge number of unemployed, these are relatively small amounts, but they will be even less because of the domestic policies of the Government.
Mr. Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that the Government worked hard to secure a 50 per cent. increase in the social fund last year?
Mr. Foulkes: I shall leave the Government side divided; perhaps I am not sorry that I have brought about a division.
If the Government have their way on rate capping, the reduction in funds for local authorities will mean that the local employment initiatives that have been taken by local authorities will cease. Ironically, this will mean that our net contribution to the budget will go up and the deficit problem will become worse.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and his right, as a Socialist, to be in favour of lots more money being directed to lots more funds to be spent by lots more Government officials and civil servants, but surely he cannot expect a Conservative Government, who want to cut spending, subsidies, waste and bureaucracy, to be in favour of cutting Britain's expenditure and shoving more money into the Common Market.
Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who I knew would be helpful. He has served to highlight the difference that is inherent in the Opposition amendment between Conservative Members and Labour Members. Secondly, he has given me an opportunity to say that I am talking about redistributing the wealth that is available in the European Community. That is Socialism, and that is something of which my right hon. and hon. Friends are proud.
That brings me to the anti-poverty programme, which has received scant attention from the Government. The pilot scheme proved successful, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is aware of that in the area that he represents. I know that he will be disappointed by the lack of attention that it has received. The Government have not acted to try to ensure the continuation of the programme.
1136
It would seem that there are two European Communities that are quite separate from each other. There is a real Community and an imaginary one. The Government believe in the imaginary Community in which agreements appear to be reached. They think that they have been reached, and we saw examples of this after the Stuttgart and Dublin meetings and on many other occasions. That is the Community of sweetness and light. There is the Community of progress, which is the imaginary creature of the Government.
The other Community is the one that we all know and which the people outside the House know. It is the Community of hi-jacked lamb, delay and procrastination. It is the Community of surplus and waste and crisis after crisis leading to deepening crisis as time passes.
We are asking the Government to come to terms with the real Community. We ask them to cast aside the shrillness and stridency of which the Prime Minister is so fond and to get down to some real action. We contend that policies that benefit the working people of Britain, whether they come from Westminster or Brussels, will come only after 14 June, when we return more Labour Members to the European Parliament.
Dr. Mawhinney: Is that the imaginary one?
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my final remark. Such policies will be possible only when a Labour Government are returned to Westminster.
9.34 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): This must be the first debate to take place in the House on the European Community in which all four Front Bench spokesmen have been Scots, although I accept that I am in exile for the time being. Nevertheless, I hope that our partners in the Community will accept that there is a canny team in the House of Commons dealing with Community matters.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that he would try to reply to as many of the points raised in the debate as time would allow. The debate has ranged so widely that it was impossible for him, as it will be for me, to deal with every issue. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said about mackerel boxes. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) talking about restraints of trade. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) talking about dumped raspberry pulp. We had comments about the steel industry from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). Those are all important matters, but I shall have to ask my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentlemen to accept that in many cases I shall have to deal with the matters by drawing them to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Trade and Industry, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
A number of issues were raised in the debate about the future of the Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked what would happen if and when the CAP ran out of funds. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend on this subject. The position is unprecedented, and if that were to happen we should be moving into uncharted territory. In such circumstances, all the member states would need to get together and discuss

1137
how to deal with the situation. [Interruption] Opposition Members may find it funny, but if the CAP were to reach that point, it would be a most dramatic event and would help galvanise the Community into reaching decisions that have been deferred for far too long.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doone Valley asked me to say something about the oils and fats tax. I have no more regard for it than he does, and I can give him the assurance for which he asks.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke about—
Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill-becomes right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to make fun of our discussions in the Community, because when they were in charge of the affairs of this country, and when they had discussions in the Community, they achieved absolutely nothing whatever?
Mr. Stewart: I agree that they stand condemned by their record.
The hon. Member for Livingston raised the question of the ESPRIT programme. Certainly, it is an important programme for the Community. However, although the German Government took an initiative in the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, they in fact proposed that, to be sure of funds being available for ESPRIT within the present 1 per cent. of the present VAT ceiling, other research and industrial support programmes would be held back. We would prefer economies to be made in the CAP to allow the ESPRIT programme to go ahead. However, we shall consider the German proposal carefully.
The hon. Member for Livingston also said that we were blocking the funds. That is not true. There is a provision in the 1984 budget, for which I voted in the early hours one morning in the Budget Council in Brussels, for the early stages of ESPRIT, and the full size and scale of the programme remained to be worked out.
A number of hon. Members asked about the international position of the Community. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) thought that the Community was being too soft. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central thought that the Community was too mild mannered with the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Halsowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was concerned about our trading arrangements with third countries. In all these ways, however, experience has shown during the past few years that the collective voice of the Community is stronger and more effective than the voices of individual Members would be on their own.
Several hon. Members asked about the ultimate future of the Community and mentioned federalism or a European union. If anyone is in any doubt about what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, he should read his speech in Hansard tomorrow. I am sure that his speech will not bear any of the interpretations which have been made today. Federalism is an extremely remote idea. Political union is far over the horizon and very likely to remain there.
Mr. Caborn: The important point concerned the European monetary system. I asked about it because the Minister mentioned it in an aside. Are the Government preparing the ground for us to join as a full member of the EMS?
Mr. Stewart: We keep our stance on the EMS under review. We do not believe now, nor have we believed in the past, that it would be appropriate for sterling, which is a petro-currency, to become a full member of the EMS.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Stewart: No.
Mr. Budgen: Is the Government's stance that they favour joining the EMS in principle but are merely waiting for a suitable time to do so?
Mr. Stewart: We keep the subject under review. I do not regard it as a matter of principle. It is a practical matter which must be decided on its merits.
Several hon. Members mentioned our trade with the Community. The proportion of our exports to the Community as against imports from it has been rising steadily. Between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of visible trade was covered in the early 1970s. That rose to more than 80 per cent. in the late 1970s and it has reached 90 per cent. in the past three years.
Dr. Godman: That is because of oil.
Mr. Stewart: That hardly seems to be an unsatisfactory trading record. Those who maintain that we are put at a disadvantage by being members of the Community must have overlooked the fact that, last month, we had a £700 million balance of payments surplus. I suppose that they blame that on the Community as well.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I am a searcher after truth. The Minister for Trade said recently that in 1972, the year before we joined the Common Market, we had 6·3 per cent. of Europe's market and that now we have only 6·1 per cent. of it. Therefore, our share of trade in manufactures is less than when we started.
Mr. Stewart: All countries, especially Britain, have many aspects to their trade which includes invisible trade as well as trade in manufactures. In the most recent report of the EC, Britain's economy is rated as the fastest-growing in the Community in 1983 and 1984. The arguments of hon. Members who have said that our membership of the EC has inhibited our recovery and economic development are disproved by the figures.
Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: I have already given way too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) mentioned serious unemployment. All industrialised countries now face it. The only way in which to deal with it is to reduce inflation and to achieve industrial recovery

1139
such as is now taking place. The Community has played its part. The social fund has contributed £1,000 million to the United Kingdom. Some of that money has been devoted to youth training and similar projects.
Many hon. Members asked about refunds and the budget. In the past four years we have achieved £2·5 billion-worth of refunds. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) should bear in mind the fact that that represents about 66 per cent. of our gross contribution.
We have had real refunds, and not imaginary refunds as the Labour party received. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked if we would deal—
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister said earlier that he would not give way.
Mr. Stewart: If I give way to every hon. Member to whom I refer in my winding up, I shall be unable to respond to the debate.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked for urgency, which we are applying, and for determination. To describe our approach as one of "taking the appropriate action at the right time" is correct. The circumstances which will develop during the next two months are at present hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether money received from the European Community would represent additional expenditure for this country. We would be unable to maintain domestic public expenditure at the current level if it had not been for refunds that we have obtained from our net contribution.
The serious issue of the Community's own resources running out has been discussed in the current negotiations. I have been asked on several occasions during the debate about the 1 per cent. ceiling on VAT. It will remain in place until there is a unanimous decision to the contrary by all member states. Before the ceiling could change in this country, a resolution would have to come before the House and the change could not become operative unless the resolution was passed.
As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government on many occasions in recent months, we do not believe that the case has yet been made out for an increase in own resources. We remain to be convinced of that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate just before Christmas that the onus is on those who want an increase to demonstrate the need and the case for it. Such a need cannot be considered until the Community takes far-reaching decisions about the new structure which is essential for its financial and agricultural policies in the coming years.
Of course, the CAP is in a serious state. It is reaching a point of crisis. It has been far too effective in the original objective for which it was established—to encourage the development of European agriculture. It is high time that major decisions were taken to deal not only with the general expenditure levels in the Community budget, but specifically with the CAP.
The hon. Member for Livingston discussed reform. I believe that the changes needed to deal with Community expenditure and with the CAP amount to a need for reform. We can see only as negotiations develop and as new decisions are taken what that means.
1140
An increasing number of member states in the Community recognise that greater budgetary discipline is needed and that tighter control must be placed on CAP expenditure from this year. That is a great advance in realism.
We have proposed a strict financial guideline.
Mr. Cook: The Minister will be aware that the Government's position is that reform is one of the conditions for an increase in own resources. For the Minister to tell the House that reform to them means something to be decided as the negotiations proceed is unsatisfactory. Will he say what is meant by "reform" and recognise that this year's price freeze is because the EC is running out of money? If it is given more money, a price increase will result.
Mr. Stewart: That is why it is necessary to get strict control, be it a strict financial guideline or some form of variant which would have a similar effect. Of course. we need strict price control of the individual regimes, and the Commission's proposals this year recognise that. We also need a lasting system of control which will work down to the individual regime and cause changes in its structure.
We believe that revenue should determine expenditure and not the other way round. That is why we have also proposed a proper system to redress the imbalances between member states and their contributions.
Each of our proposals on the CAP and imbalances complements the other because control of agriculture expenditure would reduce pressure on the budget and a redistribution of the burden of financing the Community budget would cause those who are always beneficiaries to think much more carefully about the merits of increasing certain expenditure.
Some suggest that we could resolve the question of imbalances by developing new policies and by more expenditure on the regional and social funds. It is calculated that a 50-fold increase in the regional fund would be required to offset the present level of United Kingdom deficits caused by agriculture.
Fundamental changes are needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said, the crunch will come soon. The Council meeting at Athens was a failure in many ways, but it was a success in one sense. It brought home sharply to all member states the fact that unless major financial changes are made there is no way ahead.
The European Council meets in Brussels in two months time. No one can tell whether a satisfactory solution will be worked out on that occasion. By that time all the representatives and heads of Government will be much more aware of the impending financial crisis in the Community and that urgent steps are needed to deal with it.
It is a bit rich for the Opposition to suggest that the Government have lacked a sense of urgency and purpose in their dealings with the Community. At all stages we have tried to take a positive and constructive view of the development of the Community and at the same time to call the attention of other member states to the fundamental problems caused by the development of the CAP at the expense of other policies. There is agreement in many parts of the House about that.
We are also looking for other changes. We are looking for the creation of a genuine common market in goods and

1141
services. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) referred to protectionism and customs barriers. They must be dealt with. Changes in transport policy and in financial services, particularly in the insurance market, are needed so that the European Community can provide a genuine common market between the member states—a phrase use when the Community was set up.
If we are preoccupied with the Community's financial aspects I fear that the way ahead will be sterile until we have resolved the problems. We have taken every possible step to convince our partners that new policies are important but that the funds for them cannot come out of a continuing escalation in the revenue that member states pay into Community coffers regardless of how expenditure is controlled.
It would make no sense for Ministers to return to their Parliaments to seek increases in European Community expenditure on a major scale when they are making every endeavour to control public expenditure within their own countries. That is why the future development of the non-financial aspects, of many of the special funds and other planned initiatives within the Community depend crucially on resolving the budgetary imbalance and above all, on establishing control of expenditure in relation to the budget and the CAP.
Reform of Community policies is needed on all those fronts. That is the purpose of the Government's efforts in all their negotiations with the Community in the last few months and years. We shall maintain our efforts. We would like to feel that we had behind us a House of Commons with an Opposition which took the subject at all seriously. Even by the Opposition's standards, their amendment is outstandingly daft. It reaches new depths of irresponsibility; it pays no attention to the Government's efforts over a wide front or to the negotiations that have been taking place and the efforts of Ministers in the individual councils of the Community to ensure a better deal for Britain.
It may be well to recall that in 1975 the then Labour Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, returned from what he described as the great renegotiation of the terms and condititions of Britain's membership of the European Community and said from this Dispatch Box:
"The arrangements which the Community has now agreed would, if Britain remains a member of the EEC, give us an assurance of a repayment of hard cash if we found ourselves in the future paying an unfair share of the Community budget." —[Official Report, 12 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 511.]
How much did we get in hard cash out of the financial mechanism that the then Labour Prime Minister so proudly negotiated in 1975? We got not an ecu, not a penny, not a bawbee. Nothing returned to this country as a result of the much-vaunted renegotiation by the then Labour Government.
A number of hon. Members have said that sometimes the United Kingdom appears to be treated as an outsider, isolated from our colleagues. Nothing has done more to achieve that position than the record of prevacaration of Labour Members, both in Government and in Opposition. They have altered their policy on the Community faster than a crew in the boat race can paddle in and out. At one general election their policy is to stay in the Community; at the next it is to pull out.
1142
I shall give a quotation that I recommend as required reading for anyone interested in the subject. It comes from the Labour party manifesto at the last general election.
"The next Labour Government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies … For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain."
The Opposition said that only a few months ago. Is that still their policy? Do they still wish to take Britain out of the Community? Have they abandoned that commitment? If they have, have they abandoned the logic that by staying in the Common Market they will be abandoning also their radical socialist policies for reviving the British economy to which Britain's membership of the Community creates serious obstacles?
Not only have the Opposition already failed to spell out their policies on future membership of the EC, they have produced such a stream of conflicting statements from all their leading spokesmen that not even their own party members—let alone the House—can tell what they are trying to do. They should be judged on their record. When they had the opportunity to deal with these matters, they achieved absolutely nothing. It is approaching impertinence for them to come to the House and charge the Government—who have dealt seriously, effectively and successfully with EC matters during the past four years—with not being urgent and determined in their efforts to sort out the problems that the Labour party left behind. Had they done their duty when they were in power, we should not now be facing such difficulties with the budget.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government in their determined efforts to achieve a satisfactory result in the current negotiations and to reject the irrelevant amendment of the Opposition.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 312.

Division No. 144]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Hoyle, Douglas

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Bermingham, Gerald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Blair, Anthony

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Boyes, Roland

Leighton, Ronald

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

McCartney, Hugh

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

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Caborn, Richard

Maclennan, Robert

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McNamara, Kevin

Clay, Robert

McWilliam, John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Madden, Max

Cohen, Harry

Marek, Dr John

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Mikardo, Ian

Corbett, Robin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Corbyn, Jeremy

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Crowther, Stan

Nellist, David

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Deakins, Eric

Pike, Peter

Dobson, Frank

Prescott, John

Dormand, Jack

Redmond, M.

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Fatchett, Derek

Richardson, Ms Jo

Foulkes, George

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Skinner, Dennis

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

Garrett, W. E.

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

George, Bruce

Snape, Peter

Godman, Dr Norman

Soley, Clive

Gould, Bryan

Spearing, Nigel

Harman, Ms Harriet

Tinn, James

Haynes, Frank

Wareing, Robert

1143

Welsh, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilson, Gordon

Mr. Tom Clarke and

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mr. Allen McKay.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Fallon, Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Favell, Anthony

Alexander, Richard

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Amess, David

Fletcher, Alexander

Ancram, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Arnold, Tom

Forman, Nigel

Ashby, David

Forth, Eric

Aspinwall, Jack

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Franks, Cecil

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Freeman, Roger

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Gale, Roger

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Galley, Roy

Baldry, Anthony

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Batiste, Spencer

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Beith, A. J.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bellingham, Henry

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bendall, Vivian

Goodlad, Alastair

Benyon, William

Gorst, John

Berry, Sir Anthony

Gow, Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gower, Sir Raymond

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Greenway, Harry

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Gregory, Conal

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

Body, Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ground, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hampson, Dr Keith

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hanley, Jeremy

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bright, Graham

Harvey, Robert

Brinton, Tim

Haselhurst, Alan

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Browne, John

Hawksley, Warren

Bruinvels, Peter

Hayes, J.

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hayhoe, Barney

Buck, Sir Antony

Hayward, Robert

Budgen, Nick

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Burt, Alistair

Hickmet, Richard

Butcher, John

Hicks, Robert

Butterfill, John

Hill, James

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hind, Kenneth

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Carttiss, Michael

Hooson, Tom

Cartwright, John

Hordern, Peter

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

Howard, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cope, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Couchman, James

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hunter, Andrew

Critchley, Julian

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Crouch, David

Jackson, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Dicks, T.

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Dover, Denshore

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kennedy, Charles

Dunn, Robert

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Emery, Sir Peter

Knowles, Michael

Evennett, David

Knox, David

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lang, Ian

1144

Lawler, Geoffrey

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Lightbown, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lilley, Peter

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Rowe, Andrew

Lord, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Luce, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Lyell, Nicholas

Sackville, Hon Thomas

McCrindle, Robert

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Sayeed, Jonathan

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Maclean, David John.

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

McQuarrie, Albert

Shersby, Michael

Madel, David

Silvester, Fred

Malins, Humfrey

Sims, Roger

Malone, Gerald

Skeet, T. H. H.

Maples, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Marland, Paul

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marlow, Antony

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Speed, Keith

Mates, Michael

Speller, Tony

Maude, Francis

Spence, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Spencer, D.

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Squire, Robin

Meadowcroft, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mellor, David

Stanley, John

Merchant, Piers

Stern, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Stokes, John

Moate, Roger

Stradling Thomas, J.

Monro, Sir Hector

Sumberg, David

Montgomery, Fergus

Tapsell, Peter

Moore, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Taylor, Teddy (Send E)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Murphy, Christopher

Terlezki, Stefan

Neale, Gerrard

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Needham, Richard

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Neubert, Michael

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Newton, Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Norris, Steven

Tracey, Richard

Onslow, Cranley

Trippier, David

Oppenheim, Philip

Trotter, Neville

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Twinn, Dr Ian

Osborn, Sir John

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Ottaway, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Page, John (Harrow W)

Viggers, Peter

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Parris, Matthew

Waldegrave, Hon William

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Walden, George

Patten, John (Oxford)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Pawsey, James

Waller, Gary

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walters, Dennis

Penhaligon, David

Ward, John

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Pink, R. Bonner

Warren, Kenneth

Powell, William (Corby)

Watson, John

Powley, John

Watts, John

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wheeler, John

Raffan, Keith

Whitfield, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Whitney, Raymond

Rathbone, Tim

Wiggin, Jerry

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Wilkinson, John

Renton, Tim

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Rhodes James, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wolfson, Mark

1145

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Carol Mather and

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Younger, Rt Hon George

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, January to June 1983, Cmnd. 9043.

European Assembly Elections
10.16 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
These regulations make detailed provision for the conduct of European Parliament elections in England, Wales and Scotland. The House will shortly be invited to approve the corresponding regulations for Northern Ireland. The effect of the regulations is substantially the same as that of the European Assembly Elections regulations 1979, which are revoked by article 7. New regulations are, however, necessary to take account of the various changes in electoral law since then, including changes in nomination procedures and the exclusion of Saturdays from the parliamentary elections timetable in 1981, new provisions for the voting rights of voluntary mental patients in 1982 and changes in the subordinate legislation made in 1983. In addition, the regulations incorporate some other changes which seemed desirable in the light of consultations with the political parties, electoral registration officers' representatives and local authority associations. The new regulations are expressed in terms of the consolidation of electoral law effected by the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Before I describe the changes in more detail it may be for the convenience of the House if I say something in general about the arrangements being made for the second general European Parliament election in June this year.
As hon. Members will recall, the first direct elections took place from Thursday 7 to Sunday 10 June 1979, with the United Kingdom voting on the Thursday. Under the Community legislation of 1976, the next elections fell to be held exactly five years later, from 7 to 10 June 1984. However, the Council of Ministers decided earlier this year that it was not possible to hold the elections during that period, which coincides with the Whitsun holiday in several member states. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, informed the House on 23 February last year, the Council originally proposed that the elections should be held from 17 May to 21 May 1984. After consultation with the Parliament, it was agreed that the period should instead be from 14 to 17 June 1984. My right hon. Friend has accordingly made an order fixing Thursday, 14 June 1984 as the day of election in the United Kingdom.
The other member states voting on Thursday will be Denmark, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland. France, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxemburg will vote on the Sunday. As in 1979, the votes cannot be counted until polling has closed in every member state. It is not yet clear at what time on Sunday, 17 June, this will be, but my right hon. and learned Friend will advise the political parties and acting returning officers as soon as the information is known. The regulations require the returning officer to begin the count "as soon as practicable" after polling has ended throughout the Community. It is up to him to decide whether it is practicable to begin on the Sunday evening.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend said a moment ago that Parliament was concerned.
1148
I notice that the document is entitled the European Assembly Elections. Should it not be entitled the European Parliament Elections?
Mr. Mellor: I understood that my hon. Friend was one of those who said that it should be called Assembly rather than Parliament. I do not know whether he wants me to say that it should be Parliament in order that he can correct me, and then say it should be Assembly. I am inclined to leave the matter where it is, unless other hon. Members, apart from my hon. Friend, are acutely discomfited by the way the document is entitled.
I turn now to the regulations themselves. As in 1979, they apply, with modifications where appropriate, the corresponding provisions for parliamentary elections. The most significant "modification" is that, because of the size of European Parliament constituencies, the regulations provide for the appointment of a "verifying officer" whose task it is to ensure that the number of ballot papers forwarded to the returning officer tallies with the number which has been issued. In most other respects, however, the procedures for the conduct of the election are identical with the procedures at parliamentary elections.
Of the changes introduced by these regulations, the most significant is the extension of the timetable. Saturdays were excluded from the parliamentary elections timetable by the Representation of the People Act 1981, to reflect the fact that Saturday is no longer a working day for the local government officers who are responsible for the conduct of the elections. A similar change was made in the local elections and absent voting timetables in 1983. The new regulations, in order to be properly consistent, follow this change through by excluding Saturdays from the election and absent voting timetables at European Parliament elections. Under these regulations, therefore, the last day for the publication of the notice of election would be 2 May, the last day for the delivery of nominations, 15 May, and the latest time for the receipt of absent voting applications, noon on 30 May.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I well understand why these changes have been made, and they comply logically with what happens in the Westminster elections. However, it is my understanding that the exclusion of Saturdays from the computation of time for the nomination papers to be put in, and for the calling of the election, will put back those dates considerably, to the effect that nominations will be in the day before local elections. The consequence, as I am given to understand, is that political parties at that point will have to stop spending the money allocated to them for those elections by the European Assembly, and start spending their own money. This will mean a gap of something like nine days.
I understand that the Minister may not have been aware of that position. Indeed, I was not aware of it until early this evening. In the light of that, would he be prepared to take the problem away and look at it?
Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the matter in that way. Listening to what he says, I hope that it will prove to be not a material problem. I should like to have the option to look at it, and let him know the outcome after a chance to reflect upon. I am grateful to him for raising the point. We attach a great deal of importance — I think rightly — to consistency in electoral arrangements as far as possible. The reason for changing the regulations in this respect is that we should

1149
comply with the changes that have already been introduced into domestic elections as a result of changes that have come about, and been approved by the House, since the last European Assembly elections in 1979.
The period during which the statutory restrictions on election broadcasts applies pending a European Parliament election would be increased from five to six weeks so as to take account of the timetable.
The limits on a candidate's permitted election expenses would be increased from £5,000 plus 2p for each entry in the register of electors, which is the present sum, to £8,000 plus 3½p per entry, taking account of estimated changes in the value of money between June 1979 and June 1984. Other smaller limits that are raised by the regulations are the maximum payment that an agent may make without obtaining a bill or receipt, which is increased from £12 to £20, and the maximum that an individual may pay without the agent's authorisation, from £3 to £5. The maximum personal expenses that a candidate may himself pay without going to his agent would be unchanged at £600. The level fixed in 1979 seemed generous and we saw no reason to increase it.
Mr. John Watson: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me, for I am confused by paragraph 3(8), which reads:
"Any reference in the Regulations of 1983 or the Regulations (Scotland) of 1983, as applied by these Regulations, to any form identified by means of a letter other than the forms referred to in paragrph (7) above, shall be construed as a reference to the form so identified in Scheduele 3 to each of those sets of Regulations, as amended by Regulation 4 of, and Schedule 3 to, these Regulations."
I do not understand what that means and perhaps in the fullness of the debate my hon. Friend will illuminate the House.
Mr. Mellor: It seems to me a masterpiece of the draftsman's art, but I shall reflect on it so that in replying to the debate I may give my hon. Friend an even clearer account than the crystal clear account contained in the regulations.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has had one bite at the cherry already.
Mr. Marlow: This may be the wrong context in which to raise the issue, but I understand that a certain amount of money is being made available by the European Community for spending on these elections. May we know how much is being made available, how it is being allocated and to what extent it may be spent during the election campaign?
Mr. Mellor: Not without notice. If my hon. Friend tables a question I shall write to him. His question does not relate to these regulations, which are concerned only with arrangements by which we shall conduct those elections. That matter relates to the European Parliament and its own expenditure. If he wishes a reply to his question, he can have one in due course.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Mellor: I will give way to my hon. Friend again, but I hope that his intervention is relevant to these regulations, rather than teasing me on issues which are not my responsibility.
Mr. Marlow: I have no desire, and never have had, to tease my hon. Friend. As this money will be available, can it be spent during the election campaign or must it be expended before that time?
Mr. Mellor: I answered my hon. Friend to the contrary, but he must pursue the question of the propriety or otherwise of these sums with others than me because while we in the Home Office have a broad back, so far as I am aware we are not accountable for the matter that he raised.
I hope that the House will agree that the changes that I have described are minor and uncontroversial and simply bring the arrangements for these elections into line with what we accept for United Kingdom domestic elections. We have sought the approval of the House as quickly as possible so that all concerned with these elections on 14 June will know well in advance the provisions under which they will be conducted.
Mr. David Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered the regulations applied in other European countries, whereby foreign nationals can vote in Britain for elections in their countries? Could we allow British nationals living in Europe to vote in our elections?
Mr. Mellor: That matter has been discussed, but, as far as I am aware, we have not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. However, as I was able to make clear in October in Blackpool, we accept that there is a case for some British residents overseas to be able to cast their votes at home in both British and European parliamentary elections. We shall bring forward proposals based on our views, and on consultations with other parties, in a White Paper to be published soon. Although those changes will not come into effect in time for this year's European elections, we shall try to take account of the position of British residents overseas.
Mr. Ashby: Italy, for example, sets up polling stations in Britain. There is a station at Battersea town hall for Italian nationals. They need not cast their votes by post.
Mr. Mellor: Each country has its way of doing things. The method that would command more support in the House would be to permit some British nationals resident abroad to cast votes in what were their home constituencies, both for European and British elections. The House will have ample opportunity to consider that matter when the White Paper is published, prefacing legislation which we hope and expect to introduce in the next session of Parliament to deal with that and other important matters.
I commend the regulations to the House as a sensible way of bringing the regulations for European elections into line with those for British elections, and I hope that the House will approve them.
10.32 pm
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the Minister said, the regulations replace those of 1979 and consolidate the legislation on elections and the changes in electoral law and regulations since then. In the main, as he said, they are non-controversial and non-contentious and make few substantial changes. However, one substantial change, on which I intervened in his speech, is that of excepting Saturdays from the computation of time when determining the notice of elections and the submitting of nomination papers. I am grateful to the

1151
Minister for the way in which he responded to my intervention, and for his assurance that he will consider the problem that I put to him, and report back to the House on his conclusions.
The problem is that excepting Saturdays will mean that the notice of election will be given on the day before the local elections on 2 May. That will have the inevitable result of preventing political parties from spending on elections money given to them by the European Assembly. It could also lead to confusion as to whether expenses incurred in elections are attributable properly to the European candidate or to the candidate standing in the local elections.
The real problem in relation to the regulations is not their substance, but whether they will apply to elections fought on the present European Assembly boundaries or on the new boundaries. It is this issue around which there is a great deal of doubt and confusion. The Minister should have been able to dissipate some of that confusion. To give an indication of the confusion that surrounds the issue I shall quote what the previous Home Secretary, Viscount Whitelaw, said in a written answer on 25 April:
"The commission sees no prospect of completing its review in time for its recommendations to be implemented at the 1984 elections."— [Official Report, 25 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 212.]
Yet a few months later the Home Office in a press release announcing the regulations said:
"If the commissioners report by the end of March there should be sufficient time to ensure that the elections are fought on the new boundaries."
Even if the commissioners for England, Wales and Scotland submitted their final reports to the Home Secretary by the end of March, there would be very little time left for political parties to select or reselect their candidates and for new parties to be formed in the new European constituencies. There will be a great deal of haste and confusion even if the timetable is met.
There has been no excuse for the delay that has occurred. We have known all the time when the elections would take place. It is not as if it was a general election about which there might be doubt as to the precise timing. We have known for years that these elections would take place at this time. Given that, it should have been incumbent on the Government to have made every effort to put at the disposal of the Boundary Commissioners the resources and the manpower necessary for them to carry out their job of ensuring that the elections were fought on the new boundaries.
Leaving that aside, let us assume that there are no substantial problems in the way of the commissioners. The revised recommendations of the English Boundary Commission for the English constituencies have been published only today. Even those are subject to substantial challenge and potential amendment. There are revised recommendations for only 16 constituencies, but some of those are substantial.
For example, the revised recommendations for Midlands West propose that Birmingham West is changed completely. It would lose Edgbaston, Northfield and Selly Oak to Birmingham East; Halesowen and Stourbridge, Warley, East and Warley, West to Midlands West. Again, only West Bromwich, East and West Bromwich, West are
1152
left in the original constituency, to which are added Aldridge-Brownhills, Walsall, North and Walsall, South from Midlands West, and Ladywood, Perry Barr arid Sutton Coldfield from Birmingham East.
The mention of those constituencies demonstrates the substantial changes that the revisions are making in the boundaries and which therefore could give rise to objections.
Assuming that there are not substantial objections, in any event we have to wait the statutory period of a month for objections. If there are objections, inquiries may have to be held. In 11 of those constituencies no inquiry was previously held; therefore, the Commissioners would be obliged to hold an inquiry. They would have to go through the whole process of having to give notification, hold the inquiry, redraw maps, put out further revisions and recommendations, and wait a further month for new objections. Theoretically it could go past the 14 June deadline. Of course, this is before the final list would have been submitted to the Home Secretary so that he could lay the Order in Council that would require the approval of both Houses.
These regulations may not apply to the new constituency boundaries, the proposals for which could be prolonged by objectors from political parties. That is bad enough. It is absurd and unnecessary that so near the date of the elections we have got ourselves into that position. It is worse when the candidates, the parties and the electoral registration officers have to suffer that confusion and doubt.
If the position in England is complicated, difficult and potentially protracted, the problem in Wales is even more anomalous and absurd. I understand from the Welsh Commissioners—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Earnest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member must relate his speech to the regulations and not argue in detail about boundaries.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: These regulations are nothing if they are not applied to the constituency boundaries to which they are related. It is important to find out from the Minister whether the regulations will apply to the new or to the old boundaries. There is considerable doubt about that in the House and outside. We are looking for an assurance from the Government that we are giving our consent to regulations that will apply to the new boundaries. All that I am doing is describing some of the difficulties that could arise if the boundaries are not fixed in time.
The Welsh Commissioners tell me that they are informing interested parties by letter that they have at present no plans to re-write their provisional recommendations for Wales, but that if they later—"later" is their word— decide to do so the usual procedures will be followed. There is doubt about on which constituency boundaries the elections will be fought in Wales.
I should like the Minister to give us some assurance that the elections on 14 June will be fought under the regulations using the new boundaries. I am not sure what the Government can do. I am not sure that the Minister is responsible, but I am sure that the Government's job is to ensure that the confusion and doubt are dissipated and that any chaos that may result from having to fight the election on present boundaries is prevented. That can be done tonight by the Minister giving us a categorical assurance.
10.43 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: At the risk of inflaming debate, which would perhaps be difficult at this time, I should like to say a few words about the vexed question of nomenclature. The regulations refer to the European Assembly, but there is recurrent discussion in the House as to whether is should rather be called the European "Parliament".
The technical position is that the Treaty of Rome refers to an Assembly. It also provides that the Assembly shall be master of its rules of procedure. In 1960, when the European Assembly came into existence, rules of procedure were adopted by the Assembly which described itself as the "European Parliament". It has been so known ever since. That is why it is reasonable, I believe, for Ministers to refer to the European Parliament in their correspondence and communications, as they have since 1979.
It is often argued that the difference between a parliament and an assembly is that the one has powers and the other does not and that an assembly is not a representative body. That was true of the European Assembly, or the European Parliament, in the early 1960s. It had few powers and it was not directly elected. But that has now changed.
In 1975 this House, under a Labour Government, ratified amendments to article 203 of the Treaty of Rome to provide for the introduction of own resources for the budget, and to give the European Parliament powers to amend the budget, to increase expenditure within certain limits, and to reject the budget. In 1978 that was followed — again under a Labour Government — by a Bill providing for direct elections to the European Parliament.
The European Parliament has thus, in a measure, fulfilled the ambition of those who named it such in 1960. It has acquired real powers and it is now a directly elected representative body. Of course, the role of the European Parliament in the Community's constitutional system is radically different from that of this House in the United Kingdom constitution. One is based on a fusion of Executive and legislative powers and the other on a separation of powers, rather like in the United States. But I do not think that this constitutional difference is an adequate basis for differentiating between the concept of a parliament and that of an assembly.
The fact is that the European Parliament is now establishing itself as the "House of Representatives" of the European Community. And in my view those who oppose that tendency—I am not one of them—would do better to resist it, not by seeking to insult the institution in question, but rather by respecting it. I am sure that that is a much more sensible basis on which to confront a tendency or an institution that one in seeking to criticise.
10.46 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who, I believe, represents the Thames Valley in the European Assembly or Parliament—alternative titles, both of which he has just referred to—made a sound point with which we on this Bench agree. Indeed, the argument about nomenclature, as between Parliament and Assembly, increasingly resembles those arguments about whether people should be called chairpersons or spokespersons or
1154
chairmen or chairwomen. It is an obsession with nomenclature which escapes the real discussion and argument about substance.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who raised the vexed question of people living in Europe being unable to vote in this election, even although citizens of other European member states are able to do so. We have taken an excessively long time in this country to resolve that problem. It should not have been left so long. It would have been settled in time for these elections, if it had been dealt with earlier.
Before the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) gets too excited, I want to endorse what he said about the relationship of these regulations to the boundaries that are being applied. It is a matter of genuine concern, and the Government should make the situation much more clear.
However, my main comments do not relate to those matters. I have a simple and straightforward reason for wishing to oppose the regulations. Schedule 1 ofthe regulations applies to paragraph 18 of schedule 1 tothe Representations of the People Act 1983 to the European Assembly elections. The provision in the 1983 Act says that elections shall take place by the simple majority system. Without these regulations in this form, that would not be possible.
When this country entered the European Community, it committed itself to the treaty endorsed by the House that elections should be
"by direct universal suffrage in accordance with the uniform procedure in all member states".
That has not yet been achieved. In my opinion, the British Government have not contributed a great deal towards its achievement. It would have been perfectly possible for this British Government — and, indeed, a previous British Government — to ensure that elections in the United Kingdom took place on a system which was comparable to that taking place in other member countries, and which was at least as fair. The Government should bring before the House regulations which achieve that. Instead, they propose to follow the example of the previous European elections, which took place on the system which these regulations apply.
What was the effect of applying that system? In the 1979 election, the Conservative party obtained 50·6 per cent. of the votes. It did rather well—rather better than it did at the previous general election. What was the result? It won 60 out of the 78 seats which Great Britain has in the Parliament. It is a ludicrously high proportion. In the same election, the Labour party also did very much better than it is doing nowadays. It obtained one third of the votes. It will be a long time before it does that again. As a result, it got only 17 of the 78 seats. The Liberal party stood in that election. We were not doing anything like as well as we are doing nowadays. We got 13 per cent. of the votes. For that, we were given no seats.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Beith: I want to develop my argument a little further and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
That is a quite ludicrous result, and bears no relation to the expression of opinion by the British people in that election.

1155
In debating these regulations, we must consider how we can conduct elections based on them which fairly represent what the British voters do in the course of those elections.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in these regulations that deals with the system of voting. We are not debating that issue tonight.
Mr. Beith: I cannot challenge the Chair, but I wish to draw attention to schedule 1 to the regulations which applies to paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Schedule 1 modifies parts of that Act, sometimes substantially, and does not modify other parts. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 is one part of the Act which schedule 1 to the regulations does not affect.Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 tothe Act says:
"The votes at the poll shall be given by ballot, the result shall be ascertained by counting the votes given to each candidate and the candidate to whom the majority of votes have been given shall be declared to have been elected."
Doing that will ensure that any opinion which is spread evenly throughout the country to the extent of 49 per cent. can be unrepresented as a result of the election.
Mr. Marlow: Everyone is aware that it is open to the alliance to win 50·6 per cent. of the votes at the forthcoming election. If it does that, it may win 66 seats, as did the Conservatives at the previous election. Can we take it that the hon. Gentleman's only reason for moaning and whingeing is that he realises that the alliance will do appallingly badly at that election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman pursues that line of argument, I remind him that the House should address itself to changes in existing legislation which the regulations affect.
Mr. Beith: We are entitled to debate the ways in which the regulations make no change as that is specified in the schedule. The schedule contains a list distinguishing between provisions which are being modified and others which are not. It would make for a strange debate if I listed only those paragraphs which apply in modified form. If we apply—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon.Gentleman that whatever the House decides will not affect what he is putting before us.
Mr. Beith: If the House voted against these regulations the Government would have to present others so that some form of election could take place.
Mr. Mellor: I know that the hon. Gentleman is proud of his ability as a constructionist in these documents. Perhaps I can put him, and perhaps the rest of us, out of his misery. The proceedings about which he complains —the first-past-the-post system—do not derive from these regulations. Even if the minuscule numbers on the alliance Benches were enough to throw the regulations out, that would cause us little discomfort as the right derives from section 3 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little more carefully.
Mr. Beith: I am not prepared to vote for regulations which implement paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. I and my colleagues are entitled to say why. If we are not given that opportunity a substantial section of the
1156
population will be denied a voice. I venture to suggest that I might have been able to deploy my case and given the House the opportunity of an early night had I not been interrupted.
If we apply the regulations as they are presented, we shall go through the machinery of an election which is conducted carefully. They contain the exact procedure by which the returning officer should count the votes and by which the marked register of electors at polling stations will be provided. I hope that I have your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am referring specifically to the regulations. They also contain copious references to how postal vote applications and proxy votes shall be dealt with. If we go through the regulations, satisfy ourselves and the electors that no one who casts a vote in conditions which are set down by the regulations has been subject to intimidation or corruption, take the ballot boxes which have been sealed in accordance with the set procedures, convey them to the appointed place and open them in accordance with the provisions set out in the regulations, we may as well throw them up in the air and pick out the first two or three and decide the representation of the parties on that basis. That would be as accurate a means of relating the number of votes cast to the number of seats won as would following the procedures set out in the regulations.
Mr. John Maples: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even with proportional representation, attendance on the alliance Benches would not be significantly different?
Mr. Beith: Only two Labour Members are present and only a tiny fraction of the Conservative party is here.
Mr. Roger Moate: The alliance is obsessed with the issue which is designed to benefit it, yet for most of the debate its representatives have been absent. When we debate the voting system, about which they feel hard done by, suddenly the alliance Members appear.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will return to debating the regulations.
Mr. Beith: I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in some difficulty. I am seeking to remain within the rules of order. I must answer allegations that are thrown at me from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) obviously was not present in the Chamber or he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) speak at some length in the preceding debate. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West would have seen that I was present in the Chamber. He is making an absurd point.
I am trying to explain to the Government why the exercise of the detailed procedures set out in the regulations will be repugnant to anybody who has any respect for the good name of British democracy if, at the same time as applying them on a basis which is supposed to be a guarantee of fairness to the electorate, it is known that they will ensure that the votes are counted and arranged in such a way that the number of seats given to the parties bears no relation to them.
What effect does that have on our position in the European Parliament? It means that at present the Conservative party is ludicrously over-represented and the Labour party is grotesquely under-represented.
I look forward to my party winning 51 per cent. of the votes at the European elections—
Mr. Marlow: It will not.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Northamption, North (Mr. Marlow) has challenged me on this issue, and I must attempt to answer him. We could win all the seats. How can the hon. Gentleman claim from his rather curious and tortured view of the world that for one party to have 51 per cent. of the votes and all the seats in the European Parliament is a fair, reasonable or sensible arrangement?
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) agree that the important issue is not the number of votes gained but from where one gets them? The important issue in our system is who obtains the maximum number of votes in a constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging the historical system by which we have voted in this country for many years?
Mr. Beith: Yes, I am. I do so because the result bears no relation to the votes that are cast. That issue extends far beyond the European elections into Westminster and local elections. Anyone who pretends that the constituency arrangements to which the regulations apply have any connection with the relationship that an individual Member of this place seeks to maintain with his constituency does not understand the nature of that relationship. A constituency relationship in Westminster terms cannot be maintained in a constituency in which there are 500,000 people. It is absurd to claim that that can be so. The individual Member's constituency relationship must be of a quite different character.
There are Ministers who know that there was a better system and who voted for it. The underling of the Secretary of State for Scotland who is occupying the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, knows very well that his right hon. Friend voted for a much better system. I note that the Government are not introducing regulations that embrace England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They cannot do that because they have decided to have a completely different system in Northern Ireland, knowing it to be an infinitely better one which gives fair representation. They know that other countries in Europe are aware of just how evil it would be to try to distort the representation in Northern Ireland by the use of the system that is proposed, but the Government hope that they can get away with it in England, Wales and Scotland. But they will not get away with it, any more than they have got away with it so far in attempting to pretend to the countries of Europe that Britain's good name for democracy is being maintained by regulations of this sort, which appear on the surface of democratic procedures and fairness but which at root are as unfair as it is conceivable or possible to be.
Come election day, it will be the Labour party which will make the loudest complaints. It will suddenly find that it is at the wrong end of the British electoral system. I ask the Minister to consider the arguments now before the issue is influenced by any particular election results. If he seeks to apply these regulations, he will produce a system which will bring the British democratic tradition into disrepute in the European parliament and which will bear no reflection of the balance of opinion within the United Kingdom. We shall be, as we are now, the only member country which sends on the aeroplane to Strasbourg a delegation which bears no relation in its political composition to the country from which it comes.
1158
This is something for which no reasonable man should be asked to vote, but that is the effect of the regulations. I ask hon. Members how they can pretend to developing countries and other countries that such procedures are a perfect expression of democracy when they produce the results that I have described.
There are many occasions when Members and the Clerks who serve us, and others, have occasion to deal with the representatives of other legislatures. They talk about and commend our procedures and explain our election rules. I have no doubt that copies of these election rules will be passed around the legislatures of other countries. They set out how matters can be arranged so that the ballot boxes can be sealed in the proper way, so that the returning officer's mark is put down in the proper manner, so it is known how properly to challenge a voter and so it is known how a blind person can vote. But none of these procedures guarantees that a fair result will be achieved at the end of the day.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the majority of systems in the world are conducted by the first-past-the post system or by the rather curious system that he suggests?
Mr. Beith: There are many countries within the majority of countries that are not democracies. We are talking about elections for the European Assembly or Parliament, and let us keep within the subject. The elections will be conducted in every other member state in Europe by a system which relates seats won to votes cast. The fact that that will not happen in Britain is a scandal. It is a deliberate attempt to distort the opinions of the British people, and one day it will rebound against the very people who are perpetrating the distortion tonight.
11.4 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I thought that we were to debate the regulations. If we are to have elections, we should have elections to govern them. We have the regulations and they seem to be legitimate and in order. I begin to wonder why there is a need for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to protest so much. Could it be that he anticipates 14 June already and, like the good excusists some members of his party are, is making excuses for losses before the race is won?
Whether we like European elections is irrelevant. We must run them by some rules, and it seems that these rules are the correct ones. If the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) had shown that somewhere in those rules there was some flaw or fault, we would perhaps have listened to him with greater attention. But the cause that he pleads is one that he should plead in another forum at another time.
I hope that the remainder of the debate will be confined to the regulations and the rules thereunder so that we can all reach a rational decision as speedily as possible.
11.6 pm
Mr. Mellor: I had some doubts about whether, on a Thursday evening at past 10 o'clock, I would really enjoy the experience of proposing the regulations, but, owing to the virtuoso performance of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), it has been rather fun. The great tragedy is that, just as the hon. Gentleman is reaching the

1159
zenith of his career, the BBC has chosen to abolish its old-time music hall programme, in which he might have found his true metier. As I listened to his extraordinary outburst, I thought once again of what Dr. Johnson said about the walking dog—the wonder is not that it is done well but that it is done at all.
The pleasure for those of us who decorate these Benches late at night is simply to see the Benches filled. It would be too much to expect that anyone speaking from the Liberal Benches could also talk sense at this late hour. If the hon. Gentleman were here more often at this hour, he might rise better to the occasion.
It is an effort to take seriously at least one of the hon. Gentleman's points. I refer especially to his point about the electoral system. We know that self-interest has brought the hon. Gentleman and his colleague here tonight—it is certainly not in the interests of anyone else. He is only too quick to condemn the system under which we have been content to run our elections for generations and which has survived successive Governments, and to embrace another system.
The Government are playing a full part in the discussions in Europe about a common election system. But the hon. Gentleman should be careful before he too warmly endorses the proposals. Is he really saying that if there ever were a Liberal Government—I know that that is a highly speculative subject to turn our minds to tonight—they would have bought the proposition from the European Assembly in 1982 that elections should be fought on the basis of multi-Member constituencies of between three and 15 Members on a list system?
I wonder how many people in this country would be content with elections run on that basis. It is wholly different from the link to which we are accustomed between a single Member and his constituents. I know that self-interest sometimes blinds us all to the deeper matters that are at stake, but there is something to be said for a system that links a Member with his constituency. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot reflect that.
Mr. Beith: Why, then, are the Government enforcing precisely the system that he criticises in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Mellor: That is not a good point. If that is the full extent of the hon. Gentleman's reflections on Northern Ireland, it is as well that he is not the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland as well as on so many other matters.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made a more serious contribution to the debate. I shall deal with two of his points before letting my hon. Friends go to their beds. He mentioned an important point about whether the timetable for the European elections and its coincidence with the local elections would cause any difficulties. I have taken some advice on that question, and I can confirm that notice of the European election will be published at least one day before polling day for the ordinary local elections. I am assured that that will have no effect on party political spending on either the local or the European elections. I will check again, and if I am wrong about that I will let the hon. Gentleman know. He raised the point in good faith and I want to deal with it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Boundary Commission. As he knows, the Government are not in control of the Boundary Commission, which has an independent statutory remit. Quite rightly, that remit is not subject to the direction of the Home Secretary, although
1160
he has overall responsibility for such matters. The final report of the Commission will be addressed to him, and it will be for him to lay before the House the relevant orders that will allow the elections to take place on new boundaries, if the timetable permits and the representations received advise it.
The Boundary Commission itself decides the way in which it should operate, and the timetable will be controlled by its own judgment of what is possible. My right hon. and learned Friend is placed in a difficult position. He has a responsibility to give the House the best advice that he can, but he has no powers of direction. That is probably a good thing.
We have tried to inform the House, at different stages, of how we see the situation. For some months it has been our view that the Boundary Commission will be able to present to the Home Secretary, in time for him—given normal circumstances—to be able to lay the relevant orders before the House, proposals that would enable the June elections to be held on new boundaries. I understand that the commissioners have held all the public inquiries that the representations received required them to hold, and, as a consequence, have published revised recommendations.
The Boundary Commission for England has published revised proposals for 16 of the 66 constituencies in England this week and has invited representations upon them by 26 February. The Scottish Commission has adhered to its provisional recommendations for five of the eight constituencies and published revised recommendations for the other three on 15 December. The Welsh Commission has not so far issued any revised recommendations for its four constituencies. The commissioners should, therefore, be able to deliver their report to my right hon. and learned Friend by the end of March. It is not for my right hon. and learned Friend to anticipate what representations he may receive, but I am sure that he will want to deal as expeditiously he possibly can with the report because he believes it is his duty to Parliament to do so, not gratuitously to delay or expedite the recommendations but to deal with them as justice and their merit require.
The legal framework within which the European Boundary Commission operates is much more restrictive than that which applies to the Westminster Boundary Commission. Considerations such as community links, which caused so much difficulty and indeed distress to many hon. Members in relation to the Westminster elections, do not apply in the criteria for Europe. Accordingly, my right hon. and learned Friend would not expect any difficulties in laying the orders in time for the new boundaries to be in effect by the time of the election, assuming that the Boundary Commission keeps to its timetable of delivering the final recommendations to him by the end of March.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The House will welcome that important assurance and admission. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman cannot give a concrete assurance—that is not wthin his control—but can he say something more about the Welsh Commission? He has told us that on the assumption that the Scottish, English and Welsh Boundary Commissions make their final recommendations to the Home Secretary before the end of March, we will be able to fight the elections on the new boundaries. I accept that that may be a fair assumption. The Minister

1161
will know better than me, because presumably he is privy to more information than me. I should like to press him about that sort of information. To me, the Welsh Boundary Commission still suggested that it might wish to issue revised recommendations later. That is what is causing the worry and concern. Perhaps the Minister could shed a little more light on the matter. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has dealt with this sensitive and difficult issue. However, any information that he can give to allay the doubt and confusion would be welcome.
Mr. Mellor: I shall help the hon. Gentleman as much as I can. The Welsh Boundary Commission has not issued any revised recommendations. I understand that it is likely to adhere to the original proposals that it put forward. Obviously, if there is any more up-to-date information that I can give the hon. Gentleman, I shall write to him as soon as possible.
Mr. Bermingham: I should like to pursue further that timetable point. Under the system, I understand that once the 28 days start to run to 26 February, the Commission has the right to call for further inquiries depending on the volume of representation. Is the Minister prepared to concede on behalf of the Government that in the event of further inquiries or, as happened some 18 months ago with parliamentary boundaries, the commencement of a court action—I understand that there is some talk of that, although not from the Opposition—a clear indication should be given to the House that the existing boundaries will be fought on in order to end the uncertainty for candidates and parties?
Towards the end of March we begin to run into a timetable bottleneck and it is crucial that the parties and candidates know precisely upon which boundaries the election is being fought. Many of us are concerned about the short length of time available between now and 14 June.
Mr. Mellor: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it would not be helpful to comment on hypothetical circumstances. I have made my best endeavours to assist the House.
I am grateful, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to stray a little wider than the remit of the regulations so that I could answer the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed which plainly—as you indicated throughout his speech—somewhat strayed from order, to put it kindly. I should have liked to commend the regulations to the House in good time, but Liberal Members are up at a quite unwarrantedly late time of night for them, and so that they can divide the House, and so prove beyond peradventure to their constituents that they are in the House at this time of night—perhaps for the first time, for some of them, in the whole of their parliamentary careers—and still be at home, tucked up in their beds with cups of Horlicks and improving literature well before midnight, I shall conclude.
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, particularly when he is
1162
speaking from the Government Front Bench, to make factually inaccurate statements criticising another hon. Member, other than on a substantive motion, and without presenting any evidence whatever? After all, the hon. Gentleman's ministerial duties must often take him away from the House. Is it in order for him to refer to an hon. Member in that way when that hon. Member is scarcely absent from this building at any point in the week?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Every right hon. and hon. Member must be responsible for his own speech. I did not hear any unparliamentary language.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 9.

Division No. 145]

[11.18 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Murphy, Christopher

Amess, David

Needham, Richard

Ancram, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Ashby, David

Newton, Tony

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Norris, Steven

Baldry, Anthony

Oppenheim, Philip

Bellingham, Henry

Osborn, Sir John

Berry, Sir Anthony

Ottaway, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Parris, Matthew

Bottomley, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Powell, William (Corby)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Powley, John

Brinton, Tim

Raffan, Keith

Brooke, Hon Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Bruinvels, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Burt, Alistair

Roe, Mrs Marion

Butterfill, John

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Carttiss, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Cope, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Couchman, James

Sims, Roger

Dorrell, Stephen

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Dover, Denshore

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Dunn, Robert

Speed, Keith

Eggar, Tim

Speller, Tony

Evennett, David

Spencer, D.

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fallon, Michael

Stern, Michael

Forth, Eric

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Stradling Thomas, J.

Ground, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Howard, Michael

Tracey, Richard

Jackson, Robert

Twinn, Dr Ian

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Lang, Ian

Walden, George

Lilley, Peter

Waller, Gary

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Lord, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Watson, John

Maclean, David John.

Watts, John

Malins, Humfrey

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Maples, John

Wheeler, John

Mather, Carol

Whitfield, John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Mellor, David

Wolfson, Mark

Merchant, Piers

Wood, Timothy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Woodcock, Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Yeo, Tim

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Moate, Roger

Mr. David Hunt and

Moore, John

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

1163

NOES

Ashdown, Paddy

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Beith, A J

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Carllie, Alexander (Montg'y)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Tellers for the Noes

Kennedy, Charles

Mr John Cartwnght and

Maclennan, Robert

Mr Michael Meadowcroft

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Stan Crowther be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and that Mr. Allan Rogers be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.]

British Rail (Southern Region)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neabert.]
11.29 pm
Mr. George Gardiner: I wish to raise the subject of British Rail services in the southern region.
Under this heading it would be only too easy for me to catalogue the long list of complaints from those obliged to use the railway daily to get to and from their work about the service provided, such as that in southern region's central division last year only 56 per cent. of peak time evening trains actually ran to time, that 23 per cent. were anything over five minutes late, or the complaints of lack of information to passengers when trains are cancelled, or of missed connections. With all this my hon. Friend must be all too familiar.
My purpose is rather to express the anger felt by very large numbers of British Rail's regular daily customers in many parts of the southern region over the curtailment of peak period services under the new timetable that British Rail intends to introduce next. May, and especially to draw attention to the utter inadequacy of the so-called consultations that have preceded it. The complaints spring particularly from the central division, within the triangle roughly defined by London, Chichester and Eastbourne, and from the south-east division, covering Kent and part of east Sussex.
In preparing my case I have received valuable help from the transport users' consultative committee, whose members are amazed by the manner in which British Rail has set about this exercise. I have also had discussions with southern region's deputy general manager and with the chief passenger manager. I appreciate their problems, not all of their own making. I appreciate that they have to work within certain financial constraints, though I would have thought they would increase their share of the commuter market by improving peak period services, not by making them worse. I applaud them for going all-out to capture the bulk of the growing London-Gatwick market, but not for doing so at the expense of their regular daily travellers.
In giving some examples, I start with my own constituency. In 1981 three peak period through trains ran from Reigate to London bridge. Suddenly, at only five days' notice, they were withdrawn, so that extensive resignalling and track-laying work could be undertaken. The promise was given that they would be restored in 1984, when this work was completed. Indeed, I have a letter from southern region's general manager assuring me
"that if work on the two schemes progresses to schedule, every consideration will be given to restoring the three trains concerned without waiting until the new timetable in 1984."
Many other peak period trains passing through east Croydon were affected, and British Rail produced a special leaflet promising "a better, modern railway" in 1984. What sad reading this leaflet makes today. Of those three Reigate-London bridge trains, only one is restored, and that at a time too late to help most London bridge commuters. A through train is added to Victoria, but on BR's own figures the numbers using this from Reigate will be about 16.
A similarly sad tale comes from Dorking, where two morning fast trains to Victoria—trains so popular that often there is standing room only—are to be withdrawn completely. Slower trains are substituted, turning a

1165
36-minute journey into one of 52. Even worse hit are commuters from Canterbury west to Charing Cross. For them a peak journey time of 91 minutes is extended to 123.
These are but stray examples. Commuter services on other principal routes are curtailed too. Fifteen minute frequencies are reduced to 20, 20 minute frequencies to 30; more changes become necessary to get to and from work, with more risk of missed connections. "A better, modern railway" indeed!
Then what about BR's flagrant breach of faith over the closure of Coulsdon north station last October, for which consent was obtained from the Secretary of State on the clear promise to provide nine Victoria trains, morning and evening, from nearby Smitham? These promised services ran erratically for three weeks, then two were withdrawn. Now, under the new timetable, they are further reduced to four trains in the morning rush, and three in the evening. The chairman of London's TUCC rightly describes this as an
"unprecedented disregard for the public inquiry procedure laid down by the 1962 Act."
I come to the fundamental question of consultation, which, in the preparation of this new timetable, has been almost non-existent. I do not know whether the top management of BR understands how basic the pattern of commuter rail services is to many people's lives. For example, four peak period trains used to run each morning from Earlswood, in my constituency, to Victoria, so that many who needed to travel daily to Victoria bought houses there. If they had needed to get to London bridge, they would probably have gone somewhere else. Yet suddenly, at the start of this month, they learn—not by published statement but through press leaks—that from May they are to get only one direct train to Victoria and two to London bridge. When they raise their voices in protest they are told that they are too late.
BR is under a statutory obligation to consult two groups, the transport users' consultative committees and the county councils. Let us consider how the relevant TUCC was "consulted" in this case. The first notice that some strategic changes would take effect in May 1984 was given early in 1983. In September, BR met the TUCC and gave incomplete information on changes to be made to the central division services. Not until last November was the TUCC sent the entire proposed timetable, yet the management of BR tells me that it was in November that it had to be sent to the printers. Two days ago the secretary to the TUCC told me that it had still not been given details of the new south-east division suburban services, though it would seem that they are now being set in type. Is there not something quaintly old fashioned about a timetable to take effect in May being sent to the printers in November? BR's adverts tell us that this is the age of the train. Someone should tell BR that this is also the age of computer type-setting.
Meanwhile, county councils were "consulted" in the same way, but under cover of confidentiality, which means that they had no way of discovering commuters' reaction to the proposals. British Rail tells me that it also "consulted" the various commuter associations, but again on the apparent understanding that its proposals were not communicated to the local press. The bizarre reason
1166
offered for this is that publicity might frighten other commuters lower down the line. Again, the customer learns nothing until the changes are a fait accompli.
I put it to the Minister that there must be a better way than this for British Rail to establish the real needs of its daily customers. As a process of so-called "consultation", it is a farce. Is it too much to ask British Rail to reveal its proposals, openly and fully, at least four weeks in advance of final decisions being taken and the timetables being sent for printing? Why not publish them in London in The Standard and in local papers too? If it also published the changing commuter patterns revealed by its three-yearly origin-destination surveys, discussion of what would be the most popular, and therefore profitable, peak period services would be properly informed.
British Rail must stop shutting its customers out of the consultation process. I urge the Minister to take steps to ensure that rail commuters are treated with greater consideration in future.
11.38 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) told the House about the rail services in his constituency. I understand the concern that his constituents and other British Rail passengers feel if the level of service that they have been used to is changed, and I am sure that they will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern in their interest and for raising this matter.
However, I should make it clear at the outset that the level of service on routes, and the timetabling of services, are matters entirely for the British Railways Board. Ministers have no power to intervene. Nevertheless, I shall take the opportunity to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.
The Government have set broad strategic objectives for the Railways Board. That is our principal task. We have made it clear that we consider that an efficient railway has a vital role to play in the transport system, and that we fully recognise the social value of rail services. That is reflected in the large public service obligation grant paid by the Government to British Rail to support those passenger services that cannot be operated on a commercial basis and that will continue to require subsidy. This year the cash limit on the PSO grant is £865 million—a substantial sum by any reckoning. About one third of that is likely to go to support services in London and the south-east.
Press reaction to the changes proposed for May 1984 has perhaps left some people with the impression that a completely new and radically reduced service is planned. In fact British Rail plans a reduction in loaded train miles over the entire passenger network of less than 1 per cent. In London and the south-east, where the main impact of the changes fall, the reduction is only 2 per cent.
What are the reasons for the changes? British Rail says that they are a response to changes in travel patterns, which in turn reflect changes in population and employment in the south-east. The Railways Board has also described the changes in the 1984 timetable for southern region as a further stage in its response to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, whose report on London and south-east commuter services published in October 1980 urged a review of all services to avoid duplication and to ensure that the best use was made of the resources available.

1167
The initial aim, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) set British Rail in 1981—it is still appropriate today—was broadly
"to maintain the present extent of services, while adjusting service levels to changes in demand, and to meet as far as possible customers' preferences."
Against this background, it seems inevitable that some services need to be adjusted—both peak and off-peak. Services have been reduced where demand has fallen and where, in BR's view, the existing service frequently no longer provides value for money. Elsewhere, where demand is high or likely to increase, improvements are planned.
I have already explained that the level of service on routes is something for the Railways Board to decide, using its judgment of market demand. I know that my hon. Friend had a meeting earlier this week with the deputy general manager of BR's Southern Region. I am sure he will have been able to answer many of my hon. Friend's questions, and provide examples of how services have been adjusted to respond to market conditions or to get a more efficient use of resources through alternative routeing or connections.
Perhaps the main improvements in the southern region is the introduction in May this year of a new non-stop 15-minute interval rail-air link service between Victoria and Gatwick. The coaches used will be specially adapted mark II coaches providing a high quality service designed to maximise BR's share of the expanding traffic through Gatwick airport.
It may be helpful if I outline some of the service changes that will take place in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that not all of them will be welcome, but, equally, the news is not all bad, and perhaps we should view the matter in the round. I shall discuss Redhill, Horley, Reigate, and the points made by my hon. Friend about Coulsdon north station.
At present more than 200 trains a day stop at Redhill. By any reckoning, that is a lot of trains. In the peak hours there will be several service alterations, but British Rail is confident that the revised service will be enough to meet the demand. Off-peak, the through services to London will be reduced from five trains an hour to approximately one every 15 minutes—with respect, that is hardly a poor service. That is a consequence of revisions to the Gatwick service, which will provide the improved service that I mentioned. Many people will welcome that improvement. In addition, Redhill will continue to be served by trains which terminate at east Croydon.
Horley will retain its existing pattern of peak services. It will lose one off-peak service an hour to London, but BR will restore the half-hourly off-peak service to Redhill. I understand that Horley residents' association told Surrey county council that it was satisfied with the proposals.
I come to the position of Reigate last because the situation here is more complicated. When British Rail began the Brighton line resignalling scheme in 1981 it withdrew three trains which previously ran from Reigate to London bridge in the morning peak, to which my hon. Friend referred specifically. I understand that when the new timetable takes effect in May, Reigate will have two through trains to London in the morning peak—one to Victoria and one to London bridge. In the evening peak there will be three through trains, all from London bridge. I am told by British Rail that when the three morning peak hour services to London bridge were withdrawn in 1981,
1168
it undertook to consider reinstatement of all three services by 1984. I understand that the deputy general manager of southern region wrote to my hon. Friend on 20 October 1981. My hon. Friend said that promises were given and broken. I hope that he will not mind if I refresh his memory. The letter said:
"I can assure you that if work on the two schemes"—
that is, Victoria and Brighton line schemes—
"progresses to schedule, every consideration will be given to restoring the three trains concerned without waiting until the new timetable in May 1984."
However, in revising the timetable British Rail has concluded after due consideration that to reinstate all three services would not be the most appropriate use of its resources. It believes that the alternatives available still provide an adequate service for Reigate commuters. These are, of course, operating decisions for BR and ones in which it would not be right for the Government to intervene directly. The good news—again it is British Rail's decision, not the Government's—is that Reigate will benefit from a new hourly off-peak service through to Charing Cross. My hon. Friend can rest assured about that. I also repeat the assurance I gave earlier that the points he made will be drawn to the attention of those responsible in the railway.
My hon. Friend raised the question of consultation on service changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is also in the Chamber. I know that the matter causes him concern as well, and he has suggested that it should be brought to the attention of British Rail. I have undertaken to do that. He believes that the timetable should be discussed with Members of Parliament as it affects their constituencies.
It may be helpful if I explain. The process of revising a timetable is a long one and it involves consultation with transport users' consultative committees, county councils and commuter groups. I understand that in most cases the county councils consult district councils and often even parish councils. It is a two-stage process. As soon as it can, British Rail circulates plans for routes and service frequencies. In the case of the 1984 timetable for southern region this was done on 24 June 1983. The counties in turn circulate the information to district and parish councils, but until the flesh of actual timings is put on, as well as route specifications, it is difficult for local authorities to make detailed comments about connections with bus services and the like.
The second stage is to circulate draft timings for the services, but it takes BR some time to develop its proposals to this degree of detail; in this case these were not available until September 1983. So there is not a great deal of time for further detailed consultation before the timetable plans have to be firmed up by British Rail. Again I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about the timescale to cover printing and so on. I shall discuss that point with the board. However, suggestions come up as a result of such consultation and BR takes account of the suggestions. In the case of the 1984 timetable I understand that a number of very useful suggestions were made during the consultation and the original proposals were amended to take account of them.
I hope that what I have said and what my hon. Friend has heard from the deputy general manager of BR's southern region illustrates how the 1984 timetable has developed in response to changes in demand. By

1169
improving the match between supply and demand BR will be able to improve the efficiency in its operation, making room for improved standards of service and new investment, and reduce the cost to the taxpayer. As I have made clear, however, I am by no means complacent and I must draw the attention of the House to the quite proper division between the responsibilities of BR and those of Government.
Substantial investment is taking place in the southern region, designed to improve services on the commuter network. Smaller scale investment also takes place all the time to improve information facilities for passengers, to improve standards of cleaning trains and to carry out improvements to stations and station facilities, all of which are important for the customer.
1170
In replying to my hon. Friend I have tried to put the 1984 timetable into the broader context of the railway passenger business, operated within the framework of the broad strategic objectives set by the Government and in accordance with the board's own target of good quality service to its customers at less cost to the taxpayer. BR's chairman has said that the task for BR in 1984 is to
"win the confidence of more and more customers".
Inevitably, this means adjustment, balancing improved services for one lot of customers with some lessening of service elsewhere to make room for that and to reflect changes in demand. My hon. Friend may be assured that that is a continuing process and I am sure that in the light of what he has said today BR will continue to consider the points that concern his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o' clock.

ENERGY
  Combined Heat and Power Schemes
  Combined Heat and Power Schemes
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Departmental Administration Costs
  Coal
  Coal
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. John Preece
  Mr. John Preece
  Prison Security
  Prison Security
  Prison, Community Service and Probation Costs
  Prison, Community Service and Probation Costs
  Odeon Cinema, Hammersmith (Disturbance)
  Odeon Cinema, Hammersmith (Disturbance)
  Criminal Law Act 1977
  Criminal Law Act 1977
  Instruments of Restraint
  Instruments of Restraint
  Youth Custody Sentences
  Youth Custody Sentences
  Child Maintenance Orders
  Child Maintenance Orders
  Multiple Voting
  Multiple Voting
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Stop and Search
  Stop and Search
  Sentencing Policy
  Sentencing Policy
  Police (Injuries)
  Police (Injuries)
  Statistics and Information
  Statistics and Information
  Mr. Stokeley Carmichael
  Mr. Stokeley Carmichael
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
ARTS
  Works of Art (Value Added Tax)
  Works of Art (Value Added Tax)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Tourists (Taxation)
  Overseas Tourists (Taxation)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Income and Taxation
  Income and Taxation
  Parliamentary Questions (Costs)
  Parliamentary Questions (Costs)
  Unitary Taxation
  Unitary Taxation
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  Slaughterhouse Acts
  Slaughterhouse Acts
  Dogs (Export)
  Dogs (Export)
  Male Manual Workers
  Male Manual Workers
  Cereals
  Cereals
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Stirling
  Stirling
  Hertfordshire
  Hertfordshire
  Crawley
  Crawley
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Government Accountancy Service
  Government Accountancy Service
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Overseas Visits
  Overseas Visits
  Oman University (Contract)
  Oman University (Contract)
  International Rugby Matches
  International Rugby Matches
  Education and Health (Expenditure)
  Education and Health (Expenditure)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ultra-heat Treated Milk
  Ultra-heat Treated Milk
  Police (Rules)
  Police (Rules)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Hospital Consultants
  Hospital Consultants
  Security
  Security
  Prisoners (Alcoholism)
  Prisoners (Alcoholism)
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
  Integration
  Integration
  Terrorists (Death Penalty)
  Terrorists (Death Penalty)
  Container Lorries (Searches)
  Container Lorries (Searches)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Assembly
  Assembly
  Bangor Hospital
  Bangor Hospital
  Industrial Development Board (Advertising and Public Relations)
  Industrial Development Board (Advertising and Public Relations)
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Prisoners (Compassionate Parole)
  Prisoners (Compassionate Parole)
  Cot Deaths
  Cot Deaths
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  International Rugby Matches
  International Rugby Matches
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Oglesby Report
  Oglesby Report
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Wages Inspectorate (Scotland)
  Wages Inspectorate (Scotland)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Allerdale District Council
  Allerdale District Council
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
  Wages
  Wages
  Low Pay (Scotland)
  Low Pay (Scotland)
  EC (Iron and Steel Redundancies)
  EC (Iron and Steel Redundancies)
  Unemployment (European Community Document)
  Unemployment (European Community Document)
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Redundancy Statistics
  Redundancy Statistics
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  British Aerospace, Manchester
  British Aerospace, Manchester
  Working Establishments (Temperatures)
  Working Establishments (Temperatures)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Kenya
  Kenya
  Namibia
  Namibia
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
  Third World
  Third World
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  "National Audit Office"
  "National Audit Office"
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  London Boroughs (Vacant Land)
  London Boroughs (Vacant Land)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Room Lighting
  Room Lighting
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Zoological Society of London
  Zoological Society of London
  Roofing Slates
  Roofing Slates
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Crown Suppliers
  Crown Suppliers
  Empty Business Premises
  Empty Business Premises
  Rugby Football Union
  Rugby Football Union
  South African Rugby Team
  South African Rugby Team
  Anti-apartheid Movement
  Anti-apartheid Movement
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals Service
  School Meals Service
  Female Manual Workers
  Female Manual Workers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Production and Engineering Design
  Production and Engineering Design
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Product Liability
  Product Liability
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
SCOTLAND
  Historic Houses
  Historic Houses
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Health Budget
  Health Budget
  Salmon
  Salmon
  International Rugby Matches
  International Rugby Matches
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Unemployed Voluntary Action Fund
  Unemployed Voluntary Action Fund
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Angola
  Angola
  Iran
  Iran
  British Council
  British Council
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
TRANSPORT
  Roads Expenditure
  Roads Expenditure
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  Whitebirk, Blackburn (M65-M6 Link)
  Whitebirk, Blackburn (M65-M6 Link)
  Motorway Maintenance (Metropolitan Counties)
  Motorway Maintenance (Metropolitan Counties)
  Rail Services (Funding)
  Rail Services (Funding)
  Airports
  Airports
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  M25
  M25
  South Circular Road
  South Circular Road
  Road Accident Costs
  Road Accident Costs
  Road Accidents (Insurance)
  Road Accidents (Insurance)
  Highways and Transportation (West Midlands)
  Highways and Transportation (West Midlands)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Poaching (Convictions)
  Poaching (Convictions)
DEFENCE
  Service Personnel (Discharge)
  Service Personnel (Discharge)
  Departmental Administrative Costs
  Departmental Administrative Costs
  High Technology (Security)
  High Technology (Security)
  Industrial and Military Literature
  Industrial and Military Literature
  Ministers' Overseas Visits
  Ministers' Overseas Visits
  "Firefight"
  "Firefight"
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Defence Equipment (Purchase)
  Defence Equipment (Purchase)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Service Personnel (Overseas Allowance)
  Service Personnel (Overseas Allowance)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  24-hour Emergency Service
  24-hour Emergency Service
  Manchester Royal Infirmary (Heart Surgery)
  Manchester Royal Infirmary (Heart Surgery)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  NHS (Work Combinations)
  NHS (Work Combinations)
  Surrogate Motherhood Schemes
  Surrogate Motherhood Schemes
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Social Security Frauds
  Social Security Frauds
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Senior Medical Officers (Clinical Freedom)
  Senior Medical Officers (Clinical Freedom)
  Wrexham Local Office
  Wrexham Local Office
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Benefits (Administration Costs)
  Benefits (Administration Costs)
  Vaccine Damage Payments Act
  Vaccine Damage Payments Act
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Social Security Act 1975
  Social Security Act 1975
  National Insurance (Contributions System)
  National Insurance (Contributions System)
  Computer Records (Personal Details)
  Computer Records (Personal Details)
  Griffiths Inquiry
  Griffiths Inquiry
WALES
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Vacant Housing
  Vacant Housing
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  International Rugby Matches
  International Rugby Matches
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

EEC Consumer Ministers' Meeting
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the meeting of the EEC consumer Ministers held on 12th December.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my honourable friend Mr. Alexander Fletcher attended the Consumer Affairs Council on 12th December. At that useful meeting there was some general discussion on the respective roles of member states and the Community in protecting the consumer. The council also considered four specific topics: draft directives on misleading advertising, doorstep selling and product liability, and a draft decision setting out the arrangements for an early warning system in relation to dangerous consumer products.
Some progress was made on each of the draft directives, and I am glad to report that the council agreed to have the Community system for the exchange of information on dangerous consumer products. It should prove possible to implement these arrangements in the near future. There is likely to be another Consumer Affairs Council during the first half of this year.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while knowing that the Minister wishes to be helpful, I wonder whether we can make further progress. Can he say whether or not the draft directives on misleading advertising and doorstep selling were agreed?—because consumer organisations feel that these will be really helpful to consumers. Arising from that, if the draft directive on doorstep selling was not approved, was it because the Danes are against doorstep selling in any form whatsoever and are therefore not able to accept a directive which would seem to permit it? Furthermore, is it true that any decision reached by the EEC consumer council Ministers must be unanimous, and that if there is any disagreement the directive in question must fall?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there was not agreement of the draft directives on misleading advertising and doorstep selling. I cannot answer for the position of the Danes, but so far as misleading advertising is concerned the position there is that we reaffirmed our position that the proposed directive should not prejudice our existing arrangements for the control of
332
misleading advertising and, in particular, our successful system of self-regulation. Therefore, we hope for some more discussions about that point the next time around.
So far as doorstep selling is concerned, we have a general scrutiny reserve on that draft directive, which we felt unable to lift because the European Communities Select Committee in another place had recommended that a further debate should be held there before this matter went any further. Finally, my answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness about unanimity is, yes.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in order to save pestering the Minister with unnecessary questions, can a report of the proceedings be placed in the Library at least, so that all Members may know exactly where we stand? Also, does the noble Lord the Minister recall that on 8th December 1983 he spoke of another meeting of the council? I should like to ask him when that meeting is to take place. Does the Minister recall that on 8th December he said (Official Report, col. 1184):
"I should like to make it crystal clear that the Government are fully in support of a Consumer Affairs Council of this kind, regardless of what may be happening at the council which will be taking place in March of next year"?
I was not clear whether the Minister was speaking of two separate councils or of one. Can he clarify that point?
Finally, and very briefly, can the Minister say whether, in view of the reorganisation which I gather is now taking place at the Department of Trade and Industry, we may now hope that a Minister of State will be appointed in another place to take charge of consumer affairs?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness never pesters the Government; it is always a great pleasure to answer her searching questions. The simple answer to her first question is, as the original Answer said, that we expect the next meeting of the Consumer Affairs Council to be in the first half of this year. If I may say so, I believe it will be fairly early in the first half of this year—but that is a matter for the presidency to decide. So far as the position in respect of a Minister is concerned, while recording the absolute confidence of the Government in my honourable friend and all that he did at that particular council, do not let us forget that my honourable friend and the French Minister were the only two consumer affairs Ministers at that council of all the member states.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in respect of doorstep selling I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has noticed recent experiments by companies such as Unigate in the doorstep selling of alcoholic drink? In view of the damage that has been done by alcohol in this country, to which attention has recently been drawn by Mr. McCartney, does not the Minister consider that the EEC should discourage the pernicious extension of outlets which is represented by such a practice?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as an almost total abstainer, I must confess that I had not noticed that this practice was being undertaken on doorsteps. So far

333
as the Community is concerned, there is still discussion on the directive concerned. We were party to wanting that discussion to continue, by maintaining our general scrutiny reserve.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, did Mr. Fletcher have an opportunity to raise at the meeting in question the protection of the consumer against inflated food prices caused by operation of the CAP?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps we ought not to go into the subject of food prices now, because that is another question. It is fair to say that food prices have risen by a very great deal less than other prices have done in the recent past, and that is a cause for rejoicing. As far as I know, my honourable friend did not raise that matter.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, in the 1970s Governments of both parties made great progress in very important consumer legislation. Can we have a guarantee from the Government that they will take a positive attitude in trying to get these laws accepted by the Community?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, one must distinguish between what it is that the Community ought to do in these matters and what national Governments ought to do. We believe that some consumer affairs issues are best tackled on a national basis rather than through the Community. I am very glad to say that this principle is now accepted by our partners and by the Commission. Having said that, if progress can be made on the draft directives which I have reported to the House in answering the noble Baroness today, then we shall play our part in seeing that they are implemented.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am seeking information and not trying to catch the Minister out, but will he be kind enough to look at what he said on 8th December, and perhaps write to me as to whether he was speaking of one council or of two? The matter is not at all clear.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have the Hansard reference before me but I cannot find that particular place at the moment. If the noble Baroness, before we leave this matter, will just repeat her question then I shall try to give her an answer.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I refer to the last sentence. I quoted the Minister's words exactly. He said:
"I should like to make it crystal clear that the Government are fully in support of a Consumer Affairs Council of this kind, regardless of what may be happening at the council"—
this time, with a small "c"—
"which will be taking place in March of next year".
That statement seemed to me to indicate two councils, and I was muddled.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was speaking, of course, about the Consumer Affairs Council, which I welcomed; and we shall certainly be there, at the council, all being well. I was saying then, arising from
334
a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that that was regardless of what may be happening in the Council of Ministers at that time.

Young Workers' Training Schemes
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the young workers' scheme has been a contributory factor to the failure of the youth training scheme to reach its target entry, and whether they have plans for amalgamating the two schemes.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced in another place on 21st December that from 1st April 1984 the young workers' scheme will no longer be available in respect of 16 year-old school-leavers until they have been out of school for a year. There are, however, no plans for an amalgamation of the two schemes; in the Government's view they can and do complement one another.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply, and also welcome the steps that have been taken in ending the grant for 16 year-olds under the young workers' scheme. I wonder whether the Minister would again consider the possibility of incorporating the 17 year-olds into the youth training scheme—in particular those 17 year-olds who have stayed on at school for another year—where employers would qualify under the young workers' scheme for a grant of £15 per week. Would the Minister consider using this grant of £15 a week, together with the £100 million that it is estimated has been saved on the youth training scheme to expand the youth training scheme and to include the 17 year-olds?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Government considered very carefully the Manpower Services Commission's recommendation to extend the eligibility to 17 year-olds. We came to the view that for 1984–85 it was right to concentrate on developing the quality of training offered and generally improving the existing scheme for broadly the present groups of eligible youngsters. The noble Baroness and the House will notice from my original reply that because the young workers' scheme has been withdrawn from 16 year-olds, and on its new basis will encourage the jobs of more 17 year-olds this should be of benefit to those people who are completing their year on the youth training scheme.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether these two schemes are administered by two different sets of civil servants within the same department; and, if so, what the cost of administration of each scheme is?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not wholly understand my noble friend's question. Both schemes

335
are administered by the MSC, and of course are overseen by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, my successor, is involved in particular monitoring of the schemes. There is a very clear management policy in the MSC. I do not think one hand is unaware of what the other is doing.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there will be a positive education training element in the young workers' scheme for the 17 year-olds; and, if so, how long will that education element be?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think, with respect, the noble Baroness is confusing the young workers scheme and the youth training scheme. The youth training scheme is very specifically earmarked towards training both on and off the job. The young workers' scheme does not have that element.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when the noble Earl the Minister says that the 17 year-olds would not be included but that the effort would be made to improve the quality, does he mean, that therefore more money will be spent on a smaller number of people which will be of benefit to the YTS, the number not being as large as was anticipated?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it was always planned that the youth training scheme would involve 16 year-olds. As the noble Baroness is aware, we are constantly and permanently trying to improve the quality of the training offered to 16 year-olds. We think the modifications to the young workers' scheme will provide incentives to employers to take on those who have been through the earlier training scheme. In the long run what people want is real employment, so this should be a good idea.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is extremely unfortunate that this Question should speak of the "failure of the youth training scheme", when a radical and forward-looking scheme for mainly 16 year-olds at the present time, which is being watched by the whole of Europe and is in its first year, is being looked at by parents and by young people who will become eligible next year? Is it not unfortunate to do anything to suggest that this scheme is at the moment a failure?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am altogether in agreement with my noble friend. While I recognise the genuine concern to improve the quality of schemes and to keep both the Government and the Manpower Services Commission up to the mark, it is unfortunate sometimes that the very people most interested in calling for youth training appear to the public at large to be most critical of it when it is provided.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the noble Minister agree that my Question says nothing at all about failure of the scheme? My Question refers to "the failure of the Youth Training Scheme to meet its target entry". Surely, he has himself admitted that the number of people taken into YTS is 300,000 instead of the 600,000 they were expecting.
A Noble Lord: Tories cannot read.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the only criticism I would make of the noble Baroness's Question is the choice of the word "failure". In fact it is impossible to predict, and therefore to fulfill, exact targets. Apart from anything else, far more young people this year are getting real employment than last year, and we should all welcome that. I think it is the use of the term "failure" when the Christmas guarantee to 16 year-olds has been triumphantly met that causes my noble friend to make the criticism that she did.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Earl be careful therefore if and when the scheme reaches target entry not to describe it as a success?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord and I, not for the first time in our lives, have totally different interpretations of what the word "target" means.

Examination Results: Publication
3.17 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that all schools are fulfilling the requirement to make available examination results to the general public.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, individual schools have a duty in law under the Education (School Information) Regulations to provide parents and others with information on examination results and other matters. If my noble friend is aware of any schools failing in this duty I hope that he will bring them to my attention.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, following the recent speech by the Secretary of State in Sheffield, can my noble friend say how long the Government estimate it will now take to change the examination marking system from relative to absolute standards?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should think rather a long time.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, arising out of that reply, can my noble friend advise the House whether in considering this matter he will bear in mind the Parents' Charter which is written into the 1980 Education Act?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. Of course the original Question is very much part of this. A requirement to publish information is part of the package of measures intended to help parents make informed choices in regard to schools for their children. This will be very much borne in mind.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the noble Minister accept that the number of people leaving school who still cannot read or write is not quite so funny as the Minister perhaps suggests.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think I suggested that it was in the least funny at any stage. In fact when we had a Question on this the other day we went into great detail, and the Government are very concerned about it.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister not tell us whether it is left to the governors of the school to make the final decision as to whether or not a list is published?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, it is not left to the governors at all. I can show the noble Lord the statutory instrument of 1981, No. 630, which is available to all Members of the House, which very definitely says that it is the law of the country that this information shall be made public.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help the House by telling Members what marking according to absolute standards means, because I do not understand it?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think I can help the House. If the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, does not understand it, I am quite certain I do not.

Defence Minister's Duties
3.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister has any plans to provide further assistance to the Secretary of State for Defence in carrying out his ardous duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I am happy to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is entirely satisfied with the performance of his supporting staff and ministerial colleagues, not least the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, and the question therefore does not arise.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: But, my Lords, does the noble Lord realise that in addition to his other duties the Secretary of State has been acting very successfully as chief recruiting agent for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? In view of that, is the Minister aware that a number of Conservatives who have recently joined the campaign have paid tribute to the efforts of the Minister's right honourable friend? In these circumstances, and even more seriously, will not the Minister suggest to the Prime Minister that the time may now be right to appoint a Minister for Disarmament? The Minister will recall that this was a position previously occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in the Administration of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx to assist the Secretary of State in his work for peace.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the appointment of a new Minister is the right answer to every problem that may emerge. I can assure the noble Lord that the problem of disarmament is one which exercises not only my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence but also my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, other senior members of the Government.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Mansfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Hennessy Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Committee stage of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill, second day, will be taken.

Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the control of disease and to the establishment and functions of port health authorities, including enactments relating to burial and cremation and to the regulation of common lodging-houses and canal boats, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. 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.

Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to control the use of dangerous materials and apparatus in educational establishments in Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Telecommunications Bill
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the

339
Telecommunications Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 10,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 11 to 71,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 72 to 96,

Schedules 4 to 7,

Clause 97.

—(Lord Cockfield.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this Bill has, on the whole, gone through very smoothly, and I should like to thank the Minister and the officials of the Department of the Environment, who have all been extremely helpful. The main point with which I was concerned was the length of lease to the Courtauld Institute through London University. The answer given by the Minister in Committee that 100 years is in mind (col. 673 of Hansard for 20th December 1983) is very satisfactory, although he pointed out that he could not say what would actually be incorporated in the lease.
There is one legislative fly in my ointment. I should very much have preferred, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby suggested—and he tabled amendments to this effect—that Clause 1(1), which states,
"the Secretary of State…may grant a lease of any part of Somerset House for such period as he thinks fit"
should have included the words,
"as he considers reasonable".
I did not table an amendment today because I realised that we had reached the stage where it would be resisted once again in this House. But I should like to point out that whereas "thinks fit" leaves it absolutely to the Secretary of State's discretion—and one hopes that reason would be one of the elements that may influence him—"reasonable" means that a decision should be dictated by reason, and that alone. I only hope that this point will be taken up in another place. Having said that, we hope the Bill proceeds speedily, and once again I thank the Minister for his help throughout its passage.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. This is a short Bill, and has received ample consideration by your Lordships. Although it appears before the House today completely unamended, numerous amendments have been debated during earlier stages and two important developments have occurred. First, as the noble
340
Baroness said, as a result of her intervention the length of the proposed lease of the north wing to the University of London is to be the subject of further negotiations with the thought that the period of the lease should be longer than was originally agreed. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, obtained an undertaking that the Government will inform Parliament whenever there is a serious prospect of a lease being granted for a significant part of Somerset House.
As the noble Baroness has just mentioned, there is one point of detail, on which I should like to dwell briefly. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, expressed once again his dislike of the phrase "as he thinks fit" and gave me one more chance to come up with an alternative. I have looked at this in some depth. I considered the words "expedient", "suitable" and "reasonable". I have looked at other Acts. In the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, for example, I found "as he thinks fit" in nine different places—and I might have missed a few. I also found the words,
"as appears to him reasonable having regard to the circumstances".
Such a wretched formulation made me turn to that invaluable tool of the draftsman's art, Sir Ernest Gowers' book The Complete Plain Words, with the thought that "as he considers appropriate" might pass muster, as the noble Baroness suggested. But, no; on page 90 of Sir Ernest Gowers' book I find the word "consider" in a list of words which are overworked in official documents. Against that, he suggests the word "think" should be used in its place. Page 102 states:
"Appropriate—(adjective). This is an irreproachable word."
But so also are "right", "suitable", "fitting" and "proper", and I do not see why "appropriate" should have it all its own way. I hope the House will agree that I have tried—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not use the word "appropriate" at all. I used the word "reasonable". Not once did I use the word "appropriate".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, "reasonable" was also in the words that I was investigating. In any event, I have tried very hard to meet this point, and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mancroft and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for their detailed work on this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Cockfield.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before parting with this Bill I must point this out. The Bill was conceived in remarkable circumstances. Particularly in view of the publication of the Gower Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred several

341
times on Second Reading and in Committee, it would have been preferable for the introduction of the Bill to have been postponed until after the House had had the opportunity to consider the far-reaching implications of the report. It is only a little Bill and is not of very wide significance to the population of our country as a whole. Indeed, it is mainly of significance to the City establishment and institutions.
However, it is important that we should realise just what has been done in the Bill. First of all, the voluntary agreements, which are in anticipation and to which the noble Lord referred, between the Stock Exchange and his department will contain terms that must put the proposal outside the law as laid down in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and the fair trading legislation. The noble Lord and his department must have anticipated that, had the case before the Restrictive Practices Court gone to judgment, the judgment would have been far more restrictive on the Stock Exchange than any voluntary agreement which has been before him or which he may be in the process of negotiating.
The second point that has to be borne in mind—but it is not a matter of vast significance—is that the Bank of England is directly involved in the process of arriving at an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Stock Exchange. The third point is perhaps of greater importance. The terms of the Bill, particularly of Clause 2, provide a very important precedent. This is clearly a case where the Executive, acting through its parliamentary majority, has intervened in the course of a case that had not yet come to judgment. We regard that as a very unfortunate precedent indeed. If the noble Lord paid slightly more attention to the legal principles—in which I am sure he is well versed—as against his undoubted political dexterity, he would doubtless come to the same conclusion. We very much regret this. On the whole, we rather prefer the lucid explanation and opinion on the matter given by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones to those of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, if I may say so with respect.
This is a miserable little Bill. I very much doubt that it will be repealed by the next Labour Government, because there will be much more considerable and important priorities which affect the population as a whole. The matters of great damage which have been inflicted by the noble Lord's Administration will have to come first. It is a miserable little Bill. The quicker we forget about it, the better.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, this is a very brief Bill. We have debated it at great length. All the points raised by the noble Lord were raised either on Second Reading or in Committee. On those occasions I replied in depth and in detail. I hardly think that your Lordships would wish me to repeat all the arguments once again. Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Maze Prison Security: Hennessy Report
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
"I shall, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the report published today by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir James Hennessy, on his inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's Prison, Maze, bearing on the escape on Sunday 25th September 1983 and on action I have taken following that report.
"I should like first to record my gratitude to Sir James Hennessy and his colleagues for the way they undertook their inquiry and for their thorough and comprehensive report. I am publishing it in full save for a small number of deletions which are clearly marked and which have been made for security reasons only.
"The Maze Prison holds the largest concentration of terrorists anywhere in Western Europe. It is, in Sir James's words,
'a prison without parallel in the United Kingdom, unique in size, and in the continuity and tenacity of its protests and disturbances… In no other prison that we have seen have the problems faced by the authorities been so great'.
Sir James goes on to point out that its population is unlike that of any other prison, and he says that,
'nowhere else in the United Kingdom have there been such prolonged and wide scale protests of so horrendous a nature'.
He records that 22 members of the prison service have lost their lives through terrorist action, including a deputy governor and others from the Maze. I know the House will join with me in paying tribute to them. As we consider the lessons to be learnt from the blackest day in the troubled history of the Northern Ireland prison service, let us not forget the unique demands which we put on the service.
"The report describes the escape from the Maze in detail. The broad outline which I gave the House on 24th October stands. The report draws attention to the careful planning of a small group of prisoners and to the outside help they received, particularly through the smuggling in of five guns. It also shows the ruthlessness of the prisoners, who stabbed one prison officer to death and seriously injured five others.
"The report is extremely critical of many aspects of security at the Maze. The House will regard these failings with the utmost seriousness. The report points to three main areas where security was inadequate: first, physical weaknesses, in particular in the communications rooms in the H blocks and at the main gate; secondly, poor security procedures, in particular inadequate searching, unsatisfactory control of visits and flaws in the control of prisoner movement, in the selection of orderlies and in the arrangements for responding to alarms; and thirdly, failures by individuals who were negligent or who did not carry out their duties. The report shows that staff at the Maze were complacent about security and that there was widespread

343
laxness and carelessness in the performance of duties at both supervisory and other levels. This conclusion is a matter of the greatest concern.
"There is one other specific point that I would draw to the attention of the House. The report records that before the escape a probation officer seconded to the Maze Prison in January 1983 had admitted to being a member of the Provisional IRA in the early 1970s. He has since been dismissed from the probation service. Following investigations by the RUC, Sir James says there is no evidence that he had any involvement in the escape.
"The report makes 73 recommendations covering each of the three areas to which I have referred: enhanced physical security measures; improved security procedures; enhanced training and investigations with a view to possible disciplinary action in the cases of certain members of staff I accept the analysis and all of the recommendations. The most urgent measures were implemented at once, as I informed the House on 24th October. Twenty-one recommendations have already been put into effect. Thirty-eight will be carried out as soon as possible. And the remaining 14, as the report proposes, will be the subject of urgent review.
"As a result of the action taken, the control room in each H block has been made secure against armed attack: an electric lock has been installed at the main gate; a control point secure from armed attack is in place, and other security improvements have been made. Plans for a new main gate complex with a remote control locking system are being drawn up. A study of closed-circuit television linkage between each H block and the main control room has been commissioned. Changes in the security procedures, most notably searching, have already been implemented, and action will follow in other areas. Discussions are being held this afternoon between my officials and representatives of both the Prison Officers' Association and the Governors' Association in Northern Ireland about the report.
"The report analyses the policy changes made at the end of the hunger strike and on other occasions, and concludes that, taken singly or together, they played no significant role in facilitating the escape.
"The report is critical of the oversight of security arrangements at the prison by the prison department of the Northern Ireland Office and recommends the strengthening of its staffing. This is being done. A team has also been set up dedicated solely to the urgent implementation of each of the recommendations. I have instructed it to report to me on the progress being made.
"While recognising the enormous difficulties involved in running an establishment as large and complex as the Maze, the report concludes that the extent of the deficiencies in management and in the prison's physical defences amounted to a major failure in security for which the governor, who carries the ultimate responsibility for the state of the prison, must be held accountable. In the light of the report's observations the governor has resigned and his successor is taking up his duties today. The governor has served 34 years in the prison service
344
with dedication and courage, and that should not go unremarked: I pay tribute to it. The assistant governor in charge of security has been moved today, and the principal officer concerned with security was replaced shortly after the escape. A governor from headquarters has been appointed to investigate the actions of officers named in the report, including the assistant governor and principal officer, and disciplinary measures will be taken if they are found to be justified.
"Sir James's strictures do not extend to all staff at the Maze. As he says, the service contains many men of ability and courage who respond well in a crisis and who are ready to risk their lives in doing their duty. A number of such officers, including Officer Ferris, who lost his life, are specifically commended by Sir James Hennessy. Though for reasons of personal safety it is not right to publish their names, I can assure the House that I have noted Sir James's comments and will be taking appropriate action.
"As I said to the House in October, the escape of so many prisoners represents a considerable setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland. It is also a blot on the distinguished reputation of the prison service. This thorough report has uncovered a number of serious shortcomings and some grave operational mistakes for which the highest price has been paid. The recommendations are designed as far as possible to ensure that the shortcomings are rectified. I am determined to take them forward with urgency and resolution. The Northern Ireland prison service has an enormously difficult task, but it is of the greatest importance to the community at large that it maintains the highest standards of professionalism and discipline, which will enable it to carry out its essential role in the maintenance of law and order in the Province. I commend Sir James's report to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating what is a most serious Statement. Though the Secretary of State commends the report, I think it unwise to comment in detail until there has been opportunity to read it and study it thoroughly. However, from the points made in the Statement it is clear that the report is comprehensive, thorough and frank, and thanks will be due to Sir James Hennessy and the team who worked with him for carrying out the review and for the report.
I am pleased to note that the report is to be published in full, except for deletions made for security reasons, which we were told would be the case when we considered the previous Statement on 24th October. When we considered the previous Statement I urged that there should be a debate in this House after the report became available. Clearly, most serious and disturbing matters are contained in the report, as well as many recommendations—I think 73 were mentioned—and I hope that there will be opportunity for the report to be debated in your Lordships' House.
I am pleased to note the steps already taken to tighten some aspects of security, and it may be that such measures could lead to harsher conditions. Can

345
the noble Earl give an assurance that remand prisoners will not suffer in any way in consequence of any measures that may be taken?
The Statement refers to a review that will be undertaken with regard to 14 recommendations. Who will undertake that particular review? The Statement describes the escape incident as being a serious setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland and a blot on the distinguished reputation of the prison service. But from these Benches we are pleased to note that tribute is paid to the general work of those who man the prison service, particularly in the serious circumstances in Northern Ireland, which are unparalleled anywhere in our country.
Morale must already be affected and that effect may be aggravated by the report. I would ask the noble Earl what steps will be taken quickly to deal with the situation so as to improve morale, which I am sure must at present be at a low ebb.
In view of the nature of the report, as revealed in the Statement, it may be that it is honourable that the governor has resigned, but I am pleased to note that in the Statement tribute is paid to the governor's 34 years of devoted service. Can the noble Earl say who is the new governor, since the Statement says that a new governor has been appointed?
Does the report make any mention of arrangements made for inspections of prisons in Northern Ireland? Have regular reviews of security arrangements been undertaken with respective governors? If so, by whom were they undertaken, and are the results of such reviews reported to the Secretary of State from time to time?
3.48 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Secretary of State's Statement. It is a very frank Statement, and one which I think covers both sides of this extraordinarily difficult situation. Ten years ago I had ministerial responsibility for the Northern Ireland prisons. I was enormously impressed by the courage and endurance of the governors, the assistant governors, and the prison officers who dealt with a situation which was almost untenable. It was perfectly clear to me, as well as to every governor, that they were, each and every one of them, sitting on a mine which might go up at any minute. This is to some extent true of all prisons, but it was very much truer in Northern Ireland than it is here.
What I appreciate about the Statement is that it does not say that because people are under a very great strain for a very long time that is any excuse for things going wrong; it is not. But at least it gives the public some understanding of how these things happen. They must not happen. They should not happen. But the fact that they did happen is the result not really of negligence but of strain over too long a time in the face of an organisation that is extremely carefully run and very dangerous indeed. Only the day before yesterday, I was talking to a prison officer in England who transferred to the Maze at the time I was there. He told me that the first chap from the IRA to whom he spoke—the leader of those in that part of the
346
prison—said, "Yes, now, your name is so-and-so. You have a wife and seven children and you live here, here and there. We know all about you and it is very nice to meet you". This is the kind of organisation that the IRA has over there, and it is frightfully difficult to deal with.
There are some things in this report which clearly cannot be excused on the sort of grounds I am speaking of. I appreciate, however, that the Secretary of State has stated clearly his appreciation of the difficulties under which the staff and governors work and has also stated clearly that when things go wrong alterations have to be made. I should like to pay tribute to the governor. The name is not mentioned. I think I know him. If so, he is a very fine man who had probably been there too long. It is possible that the kind of strain that being the governor of a Northern Ireland prison exerts should be limited to rather shorter periods.
In any case, I do not think that there is any way out of the kind of solution that the Secretary of State has proposed here. One cannot pass over things which go wrong even though one can understand only too well how they do go wrong. This will never change. The strain of this kind of occupation is such that, every now and then, people will be empolyed for too long and the stain will cause them to make a mistake. It does not seem to me that there has been anything venal, according to the report. That is what we were frightened that we might find. I do not think that there is anything that suggests collaboration. There are mistakes of complacency. If you are searching people day after day, it is reasonable to get careless, and so on.
I can only say that we look forward to reading the report. It has been a most distressing situation. A number of good men have inevitably had to pay the penalty. I think it is right that they should have done so, although I greatly regret it. I thank the noble Earl for repeating this Statement and I commend the action that it is proposed to take.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Donaldson, for their restrained, if that is the word, welcome for this very serious report, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who has very wide experience of the extraordinary difficulties faced by the prison service in Northern Ireland on a daily basis—difficulties that are quite unparalleled in the rest of the United Kingdom. One thing that can be said about the report is that, although it is an extremely frank document that certainly does not duck any issue, it is generous enough to pay tribute where this is due.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether there would be an opportunity to debate the report. I have no doubt, as I think I stated in October, that that can be discussed through the usual channels. The noble Lord will perhaps address himself to that. Some of his questions he will answer for himself, if I may say so, when he reads the report. It is a complex document with a number of interlocking recommendations, which, when carried out, as my right honourable friend has undertaken to do, will, I have no doubt, cause the morale of prison officers to rise. To answer him specifically, my right honourable friend has set up a task force. This will not only carry out the

347
recommendations as they affect the Maze. It will liaise with the governors of other establishments. There will be a review of the management structure of the prison department, with a strengthening of the operations of the security division in particular, so that the lessons to be learnt from the escape can be learnt and applied urgently.
The noble Lord asked about remand prisoners. There are very few indeed in the Maze. It is not a remand prison, but I understand that their conditions will not be changed except in so far as the arrangements for searching visitors, goods and vehicles coming into the prison have been stepped up. To that extent, I dare say that those coming to see them may be inconvenienced. It is not the practice, for security reasons, to publish the name of the governor. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked me any particular questions but I take comfort, as I know also will the Government and my right honourable friend in particular, from his observations.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the report has stated that the Maze prison is a unique establishment not only in the United Kingdom, but also in Europe or, for that matter, anywhere in the world, housing, as it does, not only Republican terrorists but also Loyalist terrorists. In the past, Loyalists have escaped from prisons, although on this occasion it was a set of the most ruthless murderers from the Republican side who were successful in escaping. The governor has resigned. That impels me to ask immediately this question. As this was a very unique undertaking anywhere in these islands, was advice ever sought from, or given by, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons or any other of the senior prison authorities in this island as to how that prison in Northern Ireland should be run? It must be admitted that it is such a unique establishment that no one had any experience of precautions that should or should not be taken. If no advice was given by senior prison authorities here in Great Britain to the authorities in Northern Ireland, it would be very unfair, I think, to blame any individual or any set of individuals there. Twenty-two men have lost their lives in trying to maintain control of that prison.
I know, and, I think, the Minister will know within the next 24 hours, that this has been a great defeat for morale among the prison officers. There will be certain politicians in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Loyalist, bigoted section of the community, who will try to use the conclusions of this report to create further trouble within the prison and to affect further the morale of prison warders there. Those who may try to do such damage to the prison service are, indeed, elected Members of Parliament. Will the Minister say, in view of what has taken place, that one of the most important factors has yet to be taken into account—that those men who are still at large following the prison escape are among the most ruthless murderers that we have ever seen in the island of Ireland? It is up to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of the Republic to make certain that every step that can be taken will be taken to ensure that those men are once again put behind bars.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked me, in effect, about the inspection of
348
prisons in Northern Ireland. I can tell him that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales does carry out inspections in Northern Ireland. Indeed, he was diverted from carrying out a planned inspection at Magilligan to carry out this present inquiry which he has just reported upon, and these inspections will continue.
The report draws attention to the tremendous pressures on the security and operations division of the Northern Ireland Office, which is the division responsible for more regular inspections. As the noble Lord well knows, there have been a succession of crises at the prison; protests by and on behalf of the inmates; and industrial action by those serving there. The real lesson is that what happened should not have happened, but it did happen. The urgent task now is for everybody concerned to work together to restore the level of professionalism which is needed to carry out these very difficult tasks, and those tasks which the community very rightly expects the Prison Service to perform.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions arising from the Statement. First, would he accept that many of us agree with him that, given the fact that grave errors have been committed, it is entirely right that a number of staff changes have taken place? Secondly, although it is perfectly understandable that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of whether there would possibly be a deterioration in relation to remand prisoners, given the fact that five guns were smuggled into the Maze, is it not absolutely clear that there will have to be infinitely more vigorous arrangements made for families visiting that prison?
Thirdly, is the noble Earl aware that one of the most disturbing elements of the Statement he has made is the reference to the fact that a probation officer working at the Maze Prison had a background of work in the provisional IRA? Can the noble Earl assure us that arrangements are now being made to ensure that we are not faced with the prospect of any repetition of such a situation in the future?
Fourthly, is the noble Earl aware that, although this is a grave Statement, it is right to acknowledge the individual courage of members of the Northern Ireland prison service? There are many gallant men who work in that service and I think it is right on an occasion such as this, when errors of judgment have clearly been made, to recognise publicly the gallantry of many of these men and their families.
Finally, may I say—not as an unqualified admirer of the present Administration—that many of us would regret if, as a result of this Statement, there was a repetition of the clamour for the resignation of the Secretary of State. Many of us who do not sit on the Benches opposite have a high regard for him and for the service which he is carrying out on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point—that is the resignation of the governor—I fear that a reading of the report will show how that has come about. The noble Lord is perfectly right to point to the absolutely deplorable fact that no

349
less than five guns were smuggled into the prison, quite apart from the fact that the prisoners had access to chisels and other weapons which they used to stab the prison officers—one to death. All these matters are the subject of a great and intensive review. One can see from the report the various recommendations that Hennessy makes, from—starting from the inside—the searching of the inmates themselves, to the control which should be exercised upon them when they move from one part of the prison to the other, to the searching of those who are in fact employed at the prison; and, above all, those who from time to time (for instance, in the way of visits) come into the prison. All these matters are at the moment the subject of a very intense inquiry.
I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord added his voice to those who are paying tribute to the very considerable degree of courage that was shown by some of those officers on that afternoon. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, some of the men who escaped are the most violent and dangerous people in the United Kingdom. And for the officers to behave in the face of armed aggression in the way in which they did, is worthy of the highest tribute. That courage is something in which the whole community of Northern Ireland can take pride.
Lord Plant: My Lords, I speak as one who has visited the Maze Prison on a number of occasions, in particular when the prisoners were "on the blanket". The governor in question was the governor at that time, and I pay tribute to the work that he did and I regret very much that he has been sacrificed. I believe that we must have discussion about this matter because it is a most important issue. It is a great setback to the prison service and it is a great setback to the morale of the prison officers.
The question has already been raised about how the guns got in and there is a reference to a laxity in searching. But is there a laxity in searching? I believe that it goes deeper than that. I believe that there are insufficient prison officers to do the job as adequately as possible.
There are 38 more recommendations still to be implemented. We ought to have a discussion about this. There should be more discussion with the Prison Officers' Association. I should like the noble Earl to tell us the extent of discussion with the Prison Officers' Association about this very deplorable affair because its members gave their lives and its members are under attack. I believe that they are under-staffed and that they are under great pressure. It is right that the governor should not serve long periods in prisons like this one, but is it not also right that the prison officers should have some relief, some sabbatical leave? It is a terrible imposition on individuals to be in this particular position. I question very much—as has already been questioned—that the probation officer was a member of the IRA. We must have further discussion about this matter if only to protect the prison officers who have done so much to endeavour to deal with issues that are so complex in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I acknowledge the very difficult job which the prison officers perform in the Maze Prison, and, indeed, in other prisons in
350
Northern Ireland, facing difficulties which are very much greater than those faced by their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom. So far as manning levels and resources are concerned—which I think was the nub of the question which the noble Lord, Lord Plant, asked me—I have to tell the noble Lord that the report examined the question of the resources allocated to the prison service and it concluded, in general, that in the area of finance and indeed manpower, the prison service has been "reasonably well treated"—and when I say that I am quoting from the report.
Lord Plant: My Lords, does the Prison Officers' Association agree with that recommendation?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am not privy to the thoughts of the Prison Officers' Association.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, on a more general point, would the Minister not agree that intimidation of both prison wardens and their families might well have contributed to making this break-out possible? Would he not agree that it means that Government policy should focus on building up greater trust with the minority community in order to drive a wedge between them and the provisional IRA?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that prison officers and indeed all who work in the prison service in Northern Ireland are subjected to pressures which are unknown in the rest of the United Kingdom. But of course it works both ways. The inhabitants of the Maze Prison consist of a small majority of Roman Catholics, but there are also a very considerable number of Protestants there too for the same type of crimes and offences. The pressure comes from all sides and from all directions. I do not think that one can read too much into the situation, other than to provide a prison régime in which those who are in the prison service can perform their work as free as possible from pressures and unmolested.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [General provisions as to programmes]:
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 37, leave out from ("shall") to end of line and insert ("insist").
The noble Lady said: I am not moving this amendment, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 46, 46A, 50, 51, 54, 61, 72 and 78.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Lord Hill of Luton Lord Hill of Luton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 10, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) that the maximum proportion of foreign material in programmes shall be that imposed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority on the programme companies in contract with it.").
The noble Lord said: The background to this amendment is the existing arrangement in the two broadcasting services—the BBC and Independent Television—under which, by deliberate policy, they maintain a minimum of 80 per cent. of British material on their screens. I seek to replace paragraph (d) of Clause 9(1) of the Bill with a new paragraph (d) which requires:
"that the maximum proportion of foreign material in programmes shall be that imposed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority on the programme companies in contract with it.".
In this amendment I seek to apply to cable the same kind of percentage of British material requirement, whereas the existing paragraph in Clause 9(1) does nothing of the sort. It says:
"that there are included in the programmes proper proportions of recorded and other matter which originates in the European Economic Community and is performed by nationals of member States.".
That is in no way related to the requirement that imported foreign overseas material should not exceed 14 per cent. and that British material shall constitute 86 per cent. of the broadcast time. In fact, there is no provision in this clause, or elsewhere in the Bill, for securing the application to the new service of the requirements of British material that apply to the two existing services.
In my amendment I seek to put right that situation, so that this new service will, in fact, conform to the same standards in this respect as the existing services. I take Independent Television as my example for purposes of comparison, because that is a service which is governed precisely by Act of Parliament. The Independent Television Authority, required by its Act to apply due proportions, has, in fact, in the light of experience, amplified and modified that requirement in certain detail.
For example, last year it made regulations that there shall be certain exemptions; for instance, material produced in EEC countries is an exemption not covered by this percentage requirement. It exempts 1½ per cent. of Commonwealth material; it exempts all information, news and sport, and education material subject "to consideration by the IBA". There are other exemptions. In other words, by regulation, Independent Television has modified the requirements; it has modified and excluded material and the required material within the general ambit of the existing formula of, on the one hand, 86 per cent. and, on the other hand, 16 per cent. I am seeking to ensure that
352
what is done by Independent Television under the Act and under the regulations it has made is applied to this newcomer to the field, cable television.
The cogent question is: what would be the result in the new service of refraining from any such limitations on imported foreign overseas material? There are no prizes for guessing that one result would be a flood of cheap American material which has earned its keep in the States and so can be sold here at prices far below the cost of domestic production. I have no doubt that that will be the result. While its competitors are required to limit overseas material to 14 per cent., the new service will have no such limitation.
I suppose it might be said that, if that is what the public want, let them have it. One can understand that argument; why apply these limitations? Let it be faced, it is true that cheap American material often appeals to viewers. I believe that we have enough American material at the moment, but that is by the way. However, this cheap American material might well—at least for a time—attract viewers at the expense of British material on our screens. After all, services like Independent Television—which began with a very substantial proportion of this kind of material—very soon learnt that their role was to achieve a first-class standard of British material rather than to dwell on the temporary enthusiasm for imported American material, some of which is good, but much of which is shocking.
However, in any case, the requirement which is applied by the other services for a limitation of imported material should be applied to the newcomer, cable television. That is the essence of the point which I want to make. Why? I want to preserve the existing standards of British television. I know that we are accustomed to looking favourably on "British made", but in this case it is true that the two existing services are regarded throughout the world as first-class services. Forgetting the proximity to me on these Benches of the former chairman of the BBC, Independent Television has achieved some really first-class standards in its competition with the BBC. Are we to endanger that position by permitting the flood of material which will surely come?
A second consideration is that with this protection—and it is protection which is involved, but protection of standards—there has grown up a good number of British programme-producing bodies. Some first-class growth has taken place in that area; and that will be endangered even further". I say "even further" because the fact of establishing cable based on advertisements is going to lead to a diminution of independent television income from advertisements, which is its sole income. That is going to happen. I know that prophecy is dangerous, but to add this is possibly going to lead to unemployment in those programme-making bodies external to the two programme companies which have grown up and done such successful work in recent years.
I ask for support of this amendment to achieve three things. First, that this new service should be on equal terms in this matter of British material with the two existing services; secondly, that the growing industry of programme-making should not be damaged by this; and, thirdly, and most of all, because bearing in mind the excellence of British television I do not want it

353
endangered by a flood of cheap American material coming in, conceivably forcing the existing independent television service, with the reduced income which will follow, to fall back into an excess of American material itself.
I would ask the Committee to support this amendment. I do not suggest that its wording is perfect. I have no organisation or drafting assistance available to me; I have just done my best. If I was re-writing it I think I would not say "foreign material" but "overseas material", to put the position beyond doubt; and I have no doubt that other suggestions of a drafting character will be made. But I hope that we depart from the position in which there is no protection for British material, British production facilities and British men and women engaged in this form of creative work, and in which we do no more than apply to the newcomer the same proportions in relation to imported material and home material as have obtained, and still obtain, with the other services.
Do not let us sacrifice broadcasting standards or employment merely to persuade people to put in for cable companies in the knowledge that they can flood the screen with cheap American and other foreign material. I ask the Committee to insert the new words in place of words in the existing clause that do not mean anything. They merely refer to the requirement to admit EEC material. What I want, and what I seek through my amendment, are the exact arrangements, in general and in detail, which have been adopted and which have been so successful for the existing services. This is an important point of principle as well as practice, and I hope that the Committee will support me in the passing of this amendment.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: May I make it clear at the outset that we on these Benches support completely the principles that have just been enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. I wonder whether the Committee would think it sensible that, instead of having speeches on three separate amendments, we deal in this debate with the principles behind the three amendments. I believe I have the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, to say this in regard to his own amendment, which appears as Amendment No. 41. We can then see where we are going on this principle, and possibly in the light of the reply of the noble Lord the Minister find our way through to a successful and good amendment.
The principles enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, are sound, your Lordships may think. There is of course the background here that we have an authority which we are setting up under the Bill which the Committee, so far in its wisdom, has decided shall be an authority to be nominated by the Secretary of State without anything to bind the Secretary of State on any special interest to be represented. There is no requirement that educational interests are to be represented—and that may be quite right—and no requirement that the entertainment industry is to be represented, or the producers of British programmes. That may be quite right, too. The Committee listened to a debate and decided that the discretion of the Secretary of State ought to be at large. It was a matter
354
on which my noble friends and I had views. Our views were overruled, and that is exactly why democracy exists in your Lordships' House, in the Committee, and in Parliament generally. However, the existing position is that at the moment the authority is nameless. It may consist of brilliant commercial and industrial representatives; it may consist of academics. At this moment your Lordships are uncertain of its personnel.
If that be so—and I am taking it for granted at the moment that that is right—a great responsibility rests on this Committee in regard to the content of programmes in order to see that the Bill which will become an Act clearly lays down what Parliament feels are right and proper contents in regard to programmes. This is to be a commercial enterprise. Your Lordships will not hear any cheap words from me as to the possible ethics of commercial enterprise when uncontrolled. I do not propose to enter into any such discussion from these Benches at this time; but there will be no considerations of national interest unless, of course, we impose them. If we do not impose them—and I am putting the case as lightly as I can—we are at risk. Therefore, one turns to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, raised.
The first point he raised, if I may be allowed to repeat him, was the one of principle that there should obviously be equality of treatment as between the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority. That must be right. The only thing that I thought of, together with my noble friends, in my amendment—and we were possibly a little more understanding than the noble Lord, Lord Hill, when it may be we should not have been—was that we said, "Let us take it for granted that for the first few years of the enterprise it could be that it would be difficult, because of the expense involved after the substantial capital investment, to pay for a percentage as high as 80 per cent. of British materials". When I say "British", I ought to make it clear that I include the EC in exactly the same way as I know the noble Lord, Lord Hill, wants to, and that nobody is going to argue about the word "foreign" in the Treaty of Rome. It is obvious that we are including the EC in this. I say that, looking at the Minister, so that we do not have part of the argument diversified into a completely incorrect direction.
Having said that, we decided that to capture as much support as possible from your Lordships' Committee we would lean over in reasonableness and agree that as long as the percentage was obtained after a few years, and that there was a minimum percentage to start with, it would be reasonable to say 50 per cent. for a certain number of years—we hit upon three years—and thereafter 80 per cent. to achieve that equality.
My noble friends and I will be interested to hear views from all parts of your Lordships' Committee upon whether that is the better way of doing it. The one thing I beg of your Lordships is that we do not lose the principle of an amendment—which is so vital—by considerations of whether we have the right percentage or whether one should link this immediately with the position of the Independent Broadcasting Authority as it is at present. What should emerge from the debate is a united view of the Committee, I hope with the help

355
of the Minister, to put in positive words instead of the completely vague ones at present in the Bill which could lead to no proportion at all, or certainly a minimal proportion.
My second point is that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said that there is no doubt that without such a provision there would be a flood of cheap material, whether it comes from the United States or elsewhere. Many of us would wish that, when we visit the United States and admire so much of what they produce, we could include among those items of admiration their television programmes—certainly their cable programmes. I am sure that it is not offensive to that great country to say that every American we meet who comes to these shores talks about our television and our broadcasting as being the envy of the world. How right and fair they are! In decrying what could happen to cable television (and we have the warning of the United States) we are in no way denigrating many of the great artistic features and other things about the United States of America.
Knowing that we may be facing that flood, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said that it could be argued that it is for people to decide for themselves what they want to see. If that is what they want to see, it could be argued—although the noble Lord did not agree with the argument—that we should not interfere with it.
There is something about entertainment where that entertainment has different applications to public duty. If a definite choice has to be made of entertainment which involves making a journey, paying a price by way of a ticket and walking into a place of entertainment then one has chosen, by a definite act of selection, what one wishes to be entertained by. Our children will get the sort of tastes and background that most of us, without being too parental in our judgment of what ought to happen to our children, nevertheless are concerned about. Their tastes, their background, their ability to be educated in certain ways are grossly interfered with or helped by something which they do not in any way make an effort to see. It is on television, especially on cable television, rushed into their homes. There it will be, even if non-discriminating parents wish to have it on or if the discriminating or non-discriminating parents are out. It will be there on the screen for them to see and from which to make their tastes and their selection of enjoyment. There is a definite civic duty upon us to see that the contents of programmes do not drop below certain standards.
I take the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and I cannot improve on the way in which he dealt with this. Therefore I do not intend to elaborate on it. It was the very point that here we have the opportunity to save the standards—of which we are proud—of independent television and the BBC, or to make them drop those standards in order to try to capture audiences back. We all know that independent television lives on its advertising. If we make cable television, because of the cheap way in which its programmes can be produced, capture audiences who like that sort of material, then standards will drop in independent television as well because they will be forced to compete.
I do not pretend, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Hill, did, that the precise wording of his
356
amendment (if I may say so on his behalf) or of our amendments—and I call the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, one of ours—is necessarily wholly correct. I repeat that I hope of this series of amendments we shall be able to incorporate into the Bill something which reaches equality with the independent television quota, if not immediately, certainly within a period laid down by the Bill.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to follow my noble friend and speak to my amendment, No. 41. If that is not for the convenience of the Commitee I shall immediately sit down. I gather from the signs of assent that it would be convenient and I follow my noble friend in speaking to the amendment in my name and referring to the other two amendments whose purposes are identical.
Amendment No. 41: Page 9, line 10, leave out from ("that") to ("of") in line 11 and insert ("not less than 86 per cent. of the programmes shall consist").
We approach the problem in three different ways. Needless to say I prefer the amendment which I have drawn up myself. But if when the Minister replies he were to say—as my noble friend has suggested he will say and I hope he is right—that in principle the Government accept what is behind these amendments, and if they were to choose one of the amendments other than the one in my name, I would feel compelled to withdraw my amendment. If the Government were to say that they do not like any of the three amendments, but that they accept the principle, once again I would consider that a good invitation not to press my amendment to a Division. There can be no doubt that the principle is vital. We must ensure this afternoon, if at all possible, that the principle is accepted by the Government.
The reason for my saying that is that as long ago as 1954—I had some small hand in the matter so it is fairly clear in my mind—the Safeguards Committee was set up. It was a body consisting of—I will spell these out to your Lordships—the Association of Broadcasting Staff, the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, the British Actors' Equity Association, the Composers' Guild of Great Britain, the Cricketers' Association, the Guildmasters' Association, the Musicians' Union, the National Organisation of Theatrical, Television and Kine Employees, the National Union of Journalists, the Professional Footballers' Association, the Society of Authors, the League of Dramatists, the Radio Writers' Association, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain.
This body got together even before commercial television broke upon us to press the idea of there being a necessity for a British quota. In 1955 a detailed agreement (subsequently known as the "Gentlemen's Agreement") was reached between the ITA and the constituent bodies of the Safeguards Committee. That laid down specific arrangements, which have operated ever since. The BBC subsequently agreed to a voluntary restriction on foreign material, and this was reinforced by a prescribing memorandum of the Postmaster General in September 1964, making the

357
BBC subject to precisely the same maximum proportion of foreign material as ITA. Within one or two percentages, that has remained to this day.
So we have a long experience of a 14 per cent. foreign quota and an 86 per cent. of what is in effect British material because there is not very much material that comes in from the EC. That has operated satisfactorily and it was operated not by spelling it out in legislation but by the method I have described. The question might reasonably be asked therefore: why should not what operated satisfactorily then operate satisfactorily in the present situation? The reason is that we are in a different position altogether. The Cable Authority is very different from the authorities which now govern our television. The BBC covers the whole range of television. It initiates, it runs, it has its engineering, and it does its programmes right through. The IBA's authority, though much more tenuous than that of the BBC, is nonetheless an extremely effective authority; but as the Government have made clear, the proposed new authority will have relatively little control over its constituent members.
So we have this new organisation coming into an existing situation and the danger is that, since the American material will have covered its cost in the country of origin before arriving here, it can be bought for about £2,000 an hour. You cannot manufacture a reasonable television programme ab initio for showing in this country for less than something between £25,000 and £45,000 an hour. That is a modest figure, as I think most of your Lordships would agree, and it is a figure at least 10 times greater than the cost of the imported material which has already covered its costs in the country of origin.
Therefore, the temptation upon authorities which are not under rigid control to interpret "a proper proportion" as being a proportion which will enable them to operate and make a reasonable profit—there is nothing wrong with that—would be very great indeed. But the consequence would be that the cable television programmes would be filled very' largely with cheap imported material and, in addition, it would be absolutely impossible to maintain the 86 per cent. figure upon the BBC and the IBA. They, faced with that kind of cheap competition, would be forced to lower their standards.
If we fail to spell this out very clearly in one way or another in this Bill, the whole level of British television is bound to decline and I would say that within five years the standards would be those which my American friends have spelled out to me in despair as being an aspect of their country which they do not admire and which, as my noble friend has said, when they come to this country they find themselves in much greater disagreement with. So the simple words "a proper proportion" will not do, as I hope your Lordships will agree this afternoon. What a relatively powerless authority will determine as "a proper proportion" in the circumstances we are in today and those in which the Cable Authority would be in today would be very different.
It is noteworthy that, although this figure of 86 per cent. was originally negotiated by a group of producers of television and was argued about a lot—a certain amount of muscle was used—it has become gradually
358
accepted not only by the people who actually make up the television industry (the writers, the producers and so on) but also by the people who are responsible for television. Those people who somewhat reluctantly some 20 years ago assented to such a large quota now recognise that it is that figure upon which the excellence of their own product depends. Also, the British public as a whole, although it might be true to say they would accept what some people would be disposed to call an undiluted diet of something not all that far removed from rubbish, nonetheless are proud of British television. So we have a public which recognises the excellence of British television, likes it, enjoys it and looks at it. It is indeed so popular that it has done the cinema in this country much more harm than the cinema has ever been done in the United States, because in this country it is worth while staying at home and watching television, whereas in the United States my friends tell me it is not.
My view is that it would be best to spell out the simple 86 per cent. as my amendment does, and say that what operates for both the BBC and the IBA shall operate here, too. I recognise that by doing this we shall place the cable operators in difficulty in the first instance, but I believe that the British production industry could rise to that challenge and could produce the 86 per cent. for the cable operators at a reasonable level. It would not all be first-class material. There is a lot of stuff which can be used as filling and gapping, and it is not all bad stuff, but we could meet an 86 per cent. quota, if it were permitted.
As my noble friend has suggested, one might take the view that we should allow the cable operator in the first instance the right to import a substantial amount of cheap foreign material in order to get on his feet. My fear about that is that we would never get back to the 86 per cent. and the IBA and the BBC would come down to the 50 per cent. That is really why I do not like the 50 per cent.; it would become the norm. Even so, of course, it would be better than nothing at all because, take it from me, if we did not have a 50 per cent. restriction we would not have anything like a 50 per cent. implementation and everybody else would be down to something less than 50 per cent. before very long. So ideally I submit that we ought to accept the amendment in my name or, failing that, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, which seeks the same objective in a different way.
I am not sure whether I should move the amendment or not at this stage—my noble friend Lord Mishcon advises me that I do not. However, I do so in theory if not in practice.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: Leaving aside, possibly, some of the commercial interests involved, I think everyone who has looked seriously at this question is agreed about three things: first, that the maximum available British material should be shown on cable television: secondly, that the introduction of cable television should be used to encourage the British programme industry and thus to make more British programme material available; and, thirdly, that the Cable Authority will have a vital role in seeing that this is done. The question is simply: how?

359
What worries me is that none of the amendments which have been moved—and, of course, there has not been the assistance of professional drafting and none of the movers has tied himself to the precise wording—one central dilemma. Where you have a quota on the BBC and the IBA, you are looking at two organisations which, because they are public service broadcasting, provide a balanced programme schedule, and where you are talking about a single channel or two channels for each organisation it is quite possible in that context to achieve that sort of quota. Even so, I have made some inquiries about how this quota is achieved, and there is a very shaded area as to what is counted as foreign and what is counted as not foreign.
But if you look at the cable system of the future, where there are multi-channels—we do not know how many there will be initially, but let us take 20 channels—are the movers of these amendments suggesting that the quota should be applied across the board? If so, many of those channels will be local access, local community, local arts or national arts and there will be no difficulty in achieving the quota. Or are they suggesting that the quota should be applied to each channel?
The one thing that is certain to be on cable is a film channel. The Government have recently had to abolish the film quota because there are not enough British films made, and even if you set a quota of 90 per cent. foreign you may still have difficulty in finding 10 per cent. British. So I, also, am worried about the word "proper". I do not know whether "maximum" is better than "proper", and I do not know what "maximum" means. But I think that people who want to see a quota have to say whether it is a quota across the board, in which case it is relatively meaningless, or whether the quota is to apply to each channel, in which case I do not think it is possible.
The Earl of Bessborough: When I entered the Chamber, I had no intention of taking part in this debate in Committee stage, although your Lordships may know my views on this subject from the general debates which we have had on cable broadcasting. I have already said in general debates on the Hunt proposals that I am 100 per cent. with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in what he proposed, and therefore I support the text as given in Clause 9(1)(d) of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I personally would not wish to specify precise percentages of British material or even EC material. I am a great supporter of the European Community and I very much endorse the present text for that reason. I am a good European, but I am also a good Brit and, with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am sure that every effort will be made by the authority to include as much British material in the programming as possible. It seems to me that it will be the job of the authority, and not of your Lordships' Chamber, to propose these precise percentages.
I like to read books in French or German and, indeed, possibly in translation from other languages, and I do not think that in the publishing world you could possibly tell any Member of your Lordships' House what particular books he or she should read. I think that there is a relationship between broadcasting,
360
television and publishing. I believe in freedom of thought. I also believe in freedom to read or to view what I wish.
I see that the noble Lord who sits next to Lord Hunt does not exactly appreciate the views which I have been putting forward, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would altogether oppose them, even if he might not go quite so far as I do. But I think that the words "proper proportions" should be judged by the authority itself and I trust that its members will have liberal views in this matter, be not too rigid and, certainly, not impose precise percentages, such as 86 per cent., 50 per cent., or whatever.
I am so glad to see my noble friend Lord Eccles here. He has been chairman of the greatest library in the country, and perhaps the greatest library in the world, and I cannot help feeling that he, too, would say that if I go to the British Library I should not be told that 86 per cent. of the books I read will have to be published in English. Much as I appreciate the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who has complete sincerity and tremendous experience in these matters, having been chairman of both the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority—I understand his feelings very well indeed—for the reasons I have given. I should like strongly to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in the text of paragraph (d) as it stands at the moment.
Lord Somers: If I have heard the words "I believe in freedom of opinion" once. I have heard them at least 100,000 times. It is no use. One must face up to the fact that television has an immense influence on the opinions, the moral status and every aspect of the country——
The Earl of Bessborough: So has the printed word.
Lord Somers: Yes, possibly so. But television has particular influence, because of the fact that young children so often sit absolutely glued to the screen and form their opinions by what they see on it. It may be true to say that people should have what they want, but, unfortunately, only too often they want the wrong thing. For instance, we would not apply that argument to drugs. People may want them but, so far as we are able, we see to it that they do not get them. So I sincerely hope that the Committee will see sense and support the amendment as moved by my noble friend.
Lord Aylestone: I think that the problem before us is the actual wording of the Bill. The words "proper proportions" mean very little indeed. I have been trying to think of something more acceptable, such as "maximum attainable", but those words may have legal problems. There is not very much between any of us in the Committee. What we are anxious about is that we should get as much British or EC material as possible into the programmes. On that we all agree. but I think that the Committee needs reminding that the IBA have never been instructed to put 86 per cent. British into their programmes or even 80 or 18 per cent. It has been entirely left to them, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, after many years of discussion with the distinguished Safeguards Committee about the maximum that they could attain.

361
When I say "maximum attainable", I am not of the opinion that we could, even if we wished and we accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, get 86 per cent. at once. Nevertheless, I believe that we could work to it fairly quickly, because there is in this country a wealth of information, knowledge, writers and producers. If a field of action is available, money will be available, and they can move to it quickly.
As a result of my own experience at the IBA, I feel that to write into the Bill an actual percentage of any kind—whether it be 86 per cent. or even 60 per cent.—would be a mistake. A minimum of 60 per cent. could, over a period of time, become a maximum of 60 per cent., and none of us wants that to happen. If we can get Lord Hill's 86 per cent., then let us do so—but I do not think it is possible to do that all at once. As far as putting in any firm figure of 60 per cent. or 86 per cent. is concerned, we on these Benches would oppose that.
Lord Hill of Luton: If I may speak on a point of elaboration, was it not during the noble Lord's chairmanship of the ITA that regulations were issued which laid down the precise figures I quoted to the Committee?
Lord Aylestone: Yes, and I believe it was reached at that point, but it had been going on for a very long time; probably even during the noble Lord's own period, when the earlier discussions of the Safeguards Committee were working to that figure.
Earl De La Warr: Before I start, it is absolutely proper—particularly in this debate—that I do what I have to do every day, and declare an interest as a member of a cable consortium. I was extremely glad that my noble friend Lord Bessborough laid such emphasis on the need to leave this matter to the authority. If we are to go through this Bill telling the authority what they must do, then we shall have an awful lot of legislation and a great deal too little in the way of judgment from the authority.
When we were debating the last Telecommunications Bill, we discussed the report by Professor Littlechild in which he wrote about the "capture" of the authority—that was not, of course, the Cable Authority. I have a feeling that noble Lords on the other side of the Committee are worried that this authority will be too sympathetic to the operators or that it will, as Professor Littlechild said, be captured by them. That is something I reject absolutely, and I invite your Lordships to do the same.
If cable was going to be an exact mirror image of the IBA contractors, it might just as well have been put under the IBA. But, of course, cable is a completely different creature. In my opinion, these amendments are simplistic in the way they deal with percentages. You simply cannot do it that way, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, said, when there is a multiplicity of channels. One of the things many cable operators will seek to do is to produce ethnic channels. Where does Hindi come in that calculation? I ask your Lordships to please realise that this is something that should come under the authority; please lose the idea put up by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that
362
this will be a powerless authority. I can see nothing in the Bill to indicate that this authority will not have as much power as the equivalent authorities.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If the noble Earl will permit me, may I point out that this authority, as distinct from the two other authorities, is asked to do all that it can to ensure that the requirements are complied with. Therefore, it is recognised that the Cable Authority has not the same degree of power over its constituents as have the other two authorities. That is made clear in the Notes on Clauses.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend will forgive an interruption to an interruption, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has reverted to ground we covered at the last Committee stage, when debating amendments in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I believe it was accepted by the Committee that the words used are the strongest applicable and have at least as much force as those applying to the other authorities.
Lord Mishcon: If I may interrupt the interruption of the interruption, I will merely say that the noble Lord the Minister may recall that in, I believe, a Second Reading speech he stated that it was the intention of the Government that the authority should have a very loose rein.
Earl De La Warr: If I may now get back in, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that it was the intention of the Government that they should have a loose rein. If one looks at the White Paper very carefully—although I did not know this matter was going to be raised and so I have not found the place—the whole implication is that they will lose their powers so that, in effect, it is the operators who will run on a loose rein. Perhaps I am wrong. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thumbing very fast through the White Paper. If I am right, will he agree with me that to have a loose rein, and that to choose to run the operators on a loose rein, is something quite different?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, has paused to enable me to reply to his observation, and I am obliged to him. I was referring the Committee to the speech made by the Minister at Second Reading, and I believe that the noble Lord the Minister did assent to the way in which I paraphrased his remarks. I was not referring to the White Paper.
Earl De La Warr: I have not found the reference, but I believe we have dealt with that particular point. I have said all that I choose to say on this subject. I personally regard this clause as being perfectly adequate and I hope that your Lordships will have nothing to do with any of the amendments.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: As the Committee may have noticed, I have not, rather unusually for me, put down an amendment on this clause. The reason is that I cannot for the life of me think of one that is workable. What I would ask is that the Government think again very seriously about the possible consequences of a flood of cheap American material

363
for the production capacity of this country, whether it be films or TV, and the disastrous effect that that could have.
The fact is that almost any quota you can think of is unworkable because it would have to apply across the board, in which case it would be extremely easy to achieve by broadcasting a lot of twopenny-halfpenny access programmes which cost practically nothing to produce. Or it would have to apply per channel, in which case it would be quite unworkable in the case of films and the like. You have to decide how you are going to impose any quota and whether any such quota is practical.
As your Lordships have already been told, no such quota was laid upon the IBA by Act of Parliament. It was a voluntary act in so far as a response to the pressures of the "talent unions" can only be called a voluntary act, and we see the results now. I beseech the Government to look again at this clause, to examine whether the instructions to the authority can be strengthened in a way which will safeguard the position of our light entertainment and drama.
It is light entertainment and drama which are chiefly threatened in this field. Sport, current affairs and the rest I do not see as being greatly threatened; but I do see those particular fields being threatened. If there is any way of strengthening it—telling the authority that they have to pay special regard, or whatever the words may be—I for one would warmly support any Government amendment to that end.
Lord Mottistone: Before my noble friend replies, may I make a few brief remarks in support of him? I would have thought that what the Government say on pages 50, 51 and 52 of the White Paper (Cmd. 8866) expresses an extremely balanced view. I should like to quote from paragraph 119, where they say:
"When independent television began the Government of the day resisted pressure for a specific statutory quota to be prescribed, but instead the Television Act 1954 required the ITBA to ensure that proper proportions of British material were included."
The Government then go on to say that this ended up as the 86 per cent. which appears in these amendments. So it was by discussion that the 86 per cent. came about.
The important point is that the phrase "proper proportions" obviously came from the 1954 Act, and it worked very well; and that is what people have been objecting to in this particular subsection. I would have thought that it is as well worded as it can be, that powers of the right sort are going to be given to the authority, and that it is most likely that the authority will act with the proper sense of responsibility and that the situation will resolve itself in the balanced and sensible way that the Government are planning it should. I hope very much that all these amendments will be struck down, if it comes to that.
Lord Elton: The noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments combine a formidable weight of experience and authority, and they advance a principle which I personally espouse myself: getting as much British material over the cable, and as good a quality, as we can. I am somewhat in awe of present company. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, in particular, stands out in my memory as a familiar
364
Figure, heard rather than seen, during the most testing days of the second world war. His was the sensible voice of the prudent and healthy lifestyle upon which the success of our titanic struggles ultimately depended; the vox sana, as my schoolboy Latin had it, largely responsible for the nation's corpore sano. There will for me, therefore, always be somethng quintessentially English and patriotic about him, and when he advances something that looks so sensible and patriotic as an amendment to a Government Bill, and does so at the head of such a distinguished body of co-adjutors, I approach the task of persuading your Lordships to a marginally different line with a good deal of circumspection.
Implicit or explicit somewhere in each of these amendments lurks something pretty close to the figure of 86 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, wants what I shall henceforth in this debate call domestic programmes, by which I mean—and, of course, I accept noble Lords opposite also mean—programmes that originate within the EC and mostly in the United Kingdom, to be the same as that required by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The IBA requirement is that no more than 14 per cent. of their programmes shall be non-domestic. I abridge the requirement somewhat because the noble Lord has mentioned the adjustments that have been made to it, but in general terms it is not less than 86 per cent. which should be domestic. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, knows this well, for he speaks with the great authority of an ex-chairman of both the IBA and the BBC. He knows also that the BBC also have a maximum of 14 per cent. non-domestic material and that they do so voluntarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who speaks with the authority of an ex-Minister for the arts comes straight out with the 86 per cent. as the minimum. Neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Hill, make any allowance for any sort of teething period during which home producers could work up to this challenging level. I am grateful indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Mishcon, for what Lord Mishcon called his greater understanding in picking up the recognition that this might be necessary while the industry gets itself off the ground.
In the White Paper published in April the Government made clear their belief that cable could and should encourage the making of new British programmes. Indeed, both the White Paper and the Bill before us go some way further in this respect than the exceedingly valuable report produced by the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, whose intervention was extremely helpful. That proposed that at least initially cable should be subject to no obligations in this respect.
Clause 9(1)(d) of the Bill requires the Cable Authority to do all that they can to secure that proper proportions of material of British and other EC origin and performance are included in programmes in licensed services. That is exactly the same wording as the analogous statutory obligations placed on the IBA by Section 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 and indeed that of 1954. So the ancestry of what the noble Lords' amendments seek to remove—it is not even its ancestor, it is the same animal—produced the same situation which they now praise in the broadcasting

365
authorities; the situation was produced by the words in the Bill. We are not therefore proposing something new, we are proposing something which is known to work.
What it is proposed to require of the Cable Authority is what is already required of the IBA. So why is something different asked for? I think the answer is in the amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Mishcon, do not want the minimum proportion chosen as appropriate by the Cable Authority to be no different from that chosen by the IBA for three years. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, does not want it to be different ever. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wants it to be the same now, but to remain at the present level even if the IBA level subsequently changes. The differences between them are narrow and I think they are not of importance.
If the Cable Authority was facing exactly the same problems as the IBA, if its licensees were using the same technology and offering the same level of choice as those of the IBA, I would have a good deal of sympathy with what noble Lords propose. But as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has himself powerfully argued, and as my noble friends behind me have reminded your Lordships, they are not, and in my view they never will be.
What we are legislating for is a medium in which every system will have a multiplicity of channels. Primitive systems may offer only eight or a dozen or so, but they are rapidly becoming things of the past. The systems the cable authority is going to preside over are going to be able to offer dozens or even scores of channels and maybe even more. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked, what will be the meaning of the magic figure of 86 per cent. or any other percentage. Will it be an aggregate figure? Will it be a figure per cable? We know not. I doubt if this is a situation in which we can sensibly apply a set figure.
I could go on, and had planned to go on at length. I do not doubt that others of your Lordships may wish to return to their feet after I have sat down. It may be that if I sat down sooner we would come to a decision sooner. So I will merely conclude by saying that the Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance; they are committed to getting the best for Britain that they can; they think this is the way of doing it.
I have not quibbled over the drafting of the amendments. I think I can bow gratefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, not only for his amendment but for his nudging of the Government about the choice of adjective, and I think I could make the same sort of gesture to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. But basically I am certain that on the principle we are right and the amendments are wrong. We are seeking by what we propose to produce something which all of us want, which is a thriving programme industry of quality, providing material suitable not only for the entertainment of adults but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, have wisely added, for forming the tastes of children. I am glad, therefore, to acknowledge the support of my noble friends in saying that that is what the Bill provides for, and I hope that perhaps we can
366
come to a decision rather sooner by virtue of the three pages which I discarded from my speech.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord comes to the end of this first instalment of this particlar episode and before other noble Lords come back again, does not the noble Lord intend to respond at all to the admirable suggestion put by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, that the Government should have further thoughts on whether they could find wording which would be more acceptable to Members of your Lordships' House, who I believe are all anxious about precisely the same thing?
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I sometimes wrap my meaning in something of a cloak, I fear. 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 be 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.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: May I be one of those who want a small second bite at the cherry? I think that the answer to the eloquent reply which the Minister has given is contained in the Notes on Clauses. The Notes on Clauses say that under Clause 9 the cable authority are to ensure "so far as they can" that all licensed services comply with certain requirements. The notes go on to point out that the reason for the proviso, "so far as they can" is that the authority does not have the same degree of control over the situation as do the two existing authorities. That is precisely why we want it in the legislation. The cable authority will not have the powers that the two existing authorities have. Therefore, if the authority wanted to do this, it could not because, as the Government points out in the Notes on Clauses, the duty of the authority is to "do all it can".
Other comparable duties of the authority elsewhere in the Bill are expressed in the same terms. That, I believe, is the point. There cannot be an absolute duty on the authority to secure that the requirements are complied with because, unlike the BBC and the IBA, the authority does not have direct physical control over the means of transmission. The authority, therefore, is a very much weaker authority than the two existing authorities. That is precisely why it is necessary to spell out the requirement in legislation here, in this House.
Lord Elton: On the other hand, it is the licensing authority and, therefore, the final authority.
Lord Somers: Before we divide on this amendment, may I ask whether there is not something in the fact that this will be a commercial enterprise, and naturally in the course of buying its programmes will purchase those which cost the least? Those which cost the least are invariably the cheap American ones.
Lord Elton: I do not think the hypothesis is right or that the consequences suggested by the noble Lord will flow from it, and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, shaking his head in time with my remarks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to take up that last point about buying the cheapest type of programmes. The good programmes in this country stand so well on their own merits that there is an automatic public demand for them. On the other point made, that there may be a necessary period of growth while money is not coming in as one would hope and the cable industry is not growing so quickly, it may be that at the outset there will be a time during which we shall see too much of the cheaper programmes. That is inevitable. However, as the enterprise grows and becomes successful there will be good programmes. Of that I am sure. I hope that among them, particularly as it is Australia Day today, we shall see some of those brilliant Australian films.
Lord Hill of Luton: It is difficult to resist the charm and eloquence of the noble Lord who replied to the debate—but I am going to. He has not yielded a point. It was beautifully done but he has not yielded one inch from the position set out in the Bill and previous statements on the subject. I have no doubt in my mind that there should be a specific reference to the proportions of imported and home material from the outset. That is the one hope of achieving the maintenance and strengthening of the British industry involved and the maintenance of the quality of programmes in this country, including those from the competitors of cable—Independent Television and the BBC. For those reasons, although finding it difficult to resist the noble Lord's blandishments, I feel I must formally put this to the vote and I formally move.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Question is put, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, only so that all of us who are behind him in principle can show proper support for him but in a wise way, will support me in asking whether the noble Lord the Minister can go this far. He said he finds it difficult, if not impossible, to put an exact proportion in the Bill. Is he prepared to give this assurance to the Committee which I think would help us all? First, will he take back the words, as he indicated, to see whether or not words which are more mandatory and clearer in their requirement than now appear in the Bill could be incorporated without a given percentage? Secondly, is he prepared to give an assurance that the Government will indicate to the authority, in very clear terms, that the aim of the Government will be to see that the same proportions as with the IBA are reached as soon as possible, bearing in mind the difficulties of across-the-board or individual programmes, as were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth? If the noble Lord the Minister can give those two simple assurances I believe it might help all of us to decide whether a Division in Committee is necessary.
Lord Elton: When it comes to blandishments there is no one who quite equals the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I readily cede the crown to him. None the less, with even greater reluctance than the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, I am not going to give him
368
words of comfort. I have already said what the Government are pepared to look at and I think I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that it is very nearly an inch, if it is not quite an inch. We are I think wise to divide—and as the Question has been put we cannot stop ourselves from dividing—because we are discussing a point of principle which we should get out of the way by following the normal procedures and going through the Lobby.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 101.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bishopston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brookes, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Phillips, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Roberthall, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rochester, L.

Denington, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Ennals, L.

Shinwell, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Somers, L.

Ezra, L.

Stallard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hall, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hill of Luton, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jacobson, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jacques, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Bessborough, E.

De La Warr, E.

Blake, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Eccles, V.

Cathcart, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Elton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Erne, E.

369

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glanusk, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Pender, L.

Hampden, V.

Portland, D.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Hawke, L.

Rodney, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kilmany, L.

Sherfield, L.

Kitchener, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd, L.

Soames, L.

Long, V.

Spens, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lyell, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Terrington, L.

Marsh, L.

Teynham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vickers, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Molson, L.

Wynford, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
5.37 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 9, line 12, leave out from ("Community") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: This is a limited amendment on the same matter. It deals with the same part of Clause 9—subsection (1)(d). It merely seeks to truncate the paragraph by removing the words at the end:
"and is performed by nationals of member States".
The earlier part of the paragraph relates to the matters that we have just been discussing. Irrespective of whether we have improved the paragraph, I make it entirely clear that I am fully in agreement with it as a whole. Indeed, I have always believed that the whole question of the stimulation of the private production sector in the United Kingdom is at the heart of the purposes of cable television.
I have expressed certain doubts as to whether in the end cable will prove to be commercially, or indeed economically, viable. I was largely persuaded to support its development on the back of television channels because I felt that it would provide new opportunities for the immense amount of creative talent in Britain which at present has inadequate outlets. I thought that in this way cable would provide new outlets.
The paragraph states:
"that there are included in the programmes proper proportions of recorded and other matter which originates in the European Economic Community".
We might have preferred to say, "which originates here", but noble Lords understand the reasons which make it necessary for us to use the words:
"which originates in the European Economic Community".
The paragraph continues:
"and is performed by nationals of member States".
It is those few words which I seek to delete. There are a number of reasons for that which I shall put briefly.
My concern—and I believe the concern in the paragraph—is with the need to promote the creative industries and production companies in the private sector in Britain. The nationality of the performers in certain companies is a much narrower issue. If I may quote an example, I am an enthusiastic and earnest supporter of the Hallé Orchestra in Manchester. At the moment there are, I think, at least four members of the Hallé Orchestra who are not nationals of any of the member states. They are Israeli, Korean, or other nationalities, but I should not like to see the Hallé Orchestra dismissed as some kind of foreign outfit because all its members are not nationals of member states. I believe that what I have said about the Hallé Orchestra possibly applies also to the orchestras in London, Liverpool and Birmingham.
We should also consider the theatre. Cable companies may wish to present performances of their local repertory company. That would provide a stimulus to creative talent in the area in which the cable company is operating. But would the local theatre company be banned because two members of its cast happened to be what we might call foreigners, who were not nationals of member states?
I turn to another and perhaps rather narrower point. At the moment there are in Britain many people who are properly and legally entitled to reside here, who possess work permits, but who, as a result of the British Nationality Act, are not now nationals of this country. If such people, resident here, perhaps regarding themselves as British, are performing in an orchestra, a dance company, or a theatre company, is the orchestra or company and its concert or production suddenly to be regarded as foreign? I hope not.
Personally, I see no particular reason for the words to which I refer, and if they remain in the Bill they could prove unnecessarily restrictive. There could be all kinds of arguments about the interpretation of the words, and I should very much like to hear the Government's response to what I have said. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: It seems to me that we have already covered some of the ground pertinent to this amendment in debate on the last three amendments. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, and I think in the context of the amendment it is worth repeating that the duty which Clause 9(1)(d) places on the Cable Authority is similar to that which is imposed on the IBA under Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1981. The IBA has indeed managed to implement its duty, very effectively for the past 30 years without falling into the kind of

371
difficulties to which the noble Lord alludes. This, no doubt, is because the duty is couched in general terms: the IBA is not required to impose a rigid quota based on the nationality of every individual performer. It is left with the flexibility to determine what is sensible in all the circumstances. I am sure that the Cable Authority will be similarly sensible.
Secondly, in the form in which it has been tabled the amendment could open up a significant loophoole. An American company, for example, might set up a subsidiary in the EC to make films using American actors. Such films would in fact be wholly performed by American actors. Yet because they were admittedly of EEC origin, the Cable Authority might, if this amendment were made, be forced to treat them as falling within the scope of Clause 9(1)(d). I am not suggesting that the Cable Authority would wish to come to that conclusion, but that seems to me a possible consequence of what the noble Lord was suggesting. The Government believe that it is right to assert on the face of the Bill that the Cable Authority should concern itself not only with where a programme originates, in the sense of where it was made, or who it was financed by, but also where the performers come from.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, concerning the fact that some of our ethnic minorities are not necessarily nationals of this country, I would submit that in practice it would be a very pedantic authority indeed which troubled itself over the nationality of people who are settled here. In any case most members of our ethnic minorities do have our citizenship.
The present drafting of Clause 9(1)(d) states a general proposition and then leaves the authority the job of interpreting and applying it. To make the change which the noble Lord suggests could open up a loophole, whereas leaving the clause as it is enables us to make it clear that we want the authority to concern itself with both the origin of programmes and who takes part in them. The authority may wish to give guidance to licensees from time to time on just how it intends to interpret its duty. I am sure that it will be sensible and avoid taking provision in the rather restrictive way which the noble Lord has drawn to our attention. I feel that his beloved Hallé Orchestra will remain safe; indeed, I am delighted that it will do so. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Somers: I quite understand the difficulties which the noble Baroness has drawn to our attention. But I should like to ask her whether this will mean that we shall be unable to see such eminent soloists as, for instance, Brendel, who is an Israeli, or Yo-Yo Ma, who is Chinese?
Baroness Trumpington: I can reassure the noble Lord that he will have every opportunity, I hope, of seeing his favourite artistes, no matter where they come from.
Lord Ardwick: Is the noble Baroness saying that the clause is not to be read as meaning
"performed exclusively by nationals of member States"?
Is she saying that that is not the way to read the clause?
Baroness Trumpington: I am indeed saying that.
Lord Tordoff: Is the noble Baroness saying that as it stands the clause is badly drafted?
Baroness Trumpington: No; I think that that is rather an unjustified comment.
Lord Mishcon: Is the noble Baroness saying that the provision is capable of more than one interpretation, and that therefore in order to ensure that it shall be clear she may take another look at it before the Report stage?
Baroness Trumpington: In this particular case I am quite confident that what I have said is perfectly clear, and that the clause itself is perfectly clear. I have no intention of changing my mind over anything that I have said, or on anything that the Government wish to say.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her very determined reply.
Lord Winstanley: I note the noble Baroness's determination—a quality which she exhibits not infrequently in your Lordships' Chamber. I listened most carefully to her answer, and I accept that there may well be difficulties in the light of the matter she mentioned; for example, some kind of overseas outfit establishing a subsidiary company in Britain. There may be loopholes if the words were removed altogether, but I cannot say that I was wholly satisfied with the words of reassurance that the noble Baroness gave to me. I may have been wrong, but I understood her to suggest that the wording of the regulations which were drafted and then adopted by the IBA, under the procedures which were earlier outlined to us by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, contained the specific words
"and is performed by nationals of member States".
It also appeared that she implied that the same words were in the rules which the BBC had quite voluntarily adopted so that its arrangements are in parallel with the independent sector.
I should wish to look further into those matters before I finally decide what action to take. I would also wish to consult further in regard to the precise interpretation of the words, which I believe are perhaps ambiguous, and which perhaps have become even more ambiguous as a result of the noble Baroness's attempt to explain them. On the understanding that I shall seek to return to the matter at a later stage in our proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) that the needs of the deaf are borne in mind and that 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: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. I hope that there is no ambiguity about the

373
drafting of this particular amendment. It concerns a very minor matter which I think has been brought to the attention of many noble Lords and noble Baronesses. It is the whole question of the needs of the deaf in relation to television. In our society there is an increasing number of people with impairment of hearing. The number is estimated at various levels, but whatever the estimate, the actual figure is higher because there are many people whose hearing is impaired but who do not actually admit it. A great many people in our society suffer from hearing impairment and require various forms of assistance.
Television has pioneered new ground in assisting people with impaired hearing to enjoy and to understand programmes. There are many devices, subtitling, controls on television sets to enable one person to have a higher volume through the hearing piece than that to which others are exposed and, more recently, language signing of programmes. A programme that I have presented for 15 years for Granada Television in the North, an information programme, was the first programme to be regularly signed. A lady appears in a little box in the corner signing the programme which gives advice to citizens. The same lady signed the party political conferences this year and recently came along to assist with signing before a judicial hearing in your Lordships' House. It does not interfere with the enjoyment or understanding of programmes for people whose hearing is not impaired. But it greatly assists those who are deaf to understand what is going on and what is being said. I accept that this can be done in some programmes by subtitling. I am merely saying that many means are available.
All of us, I am sure, would like to feel that the Cable Authority and the cable companies bear in mind the needs of the deaf. This amendment merely spells out that the needs of the deaf should be borne in mind and that proper and appropriate use should be made of subtitling, signing and other techniques designed to help those with impaired hearing to benefit from cable programmes.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to associate my noble friends with the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord. I was surprised to learn in the literature from the organisation at the BBC looking after the deaf that as many as 8 per cent. of the viewing population suffer from deafness. That is a moving percentage. I do not know whether members of the Government Front Bench will feel that they are particularly sympathetic to the needs of the deaf in view of the fact they have been so deaf to all the entreaties, amendments and pleas made by my noble friends and myself.
Lord Mottistone: As one who is constantly told by his wife that he is deaf, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, whether this is the only form of impairment that needs to be picked out in the amendment. I support thoroughly the concept of making special allowance for those disabled in any way, but I do not understand why the deaf are picked out.
Lord Winstanley: They ae picked out for the simple fact that they cannot hear. They can see. I do not think that one can do anything in relation to television in order to assist those who are blind to see. But to replace the ability to hear by methods of signing is something that can be done. I cannot think of other disabilities that would need special treatment. My amendment is limited. It asks merely that cable companies, in certain kinds of programme, shall bear in mind that there are techniques which can assist deaf people to understand fully the content of a television programme. We wish this to be borne in mind and those techniques to be used where appropriate.
There is no requirement that one channel should specifically be made available for the deaf so that all its programmes are subtitled. This amendment is designed merely to bring to the notice of the Cable Authority and the cable operators, when they come into business, the fact that there is a large section of the public who, without special help, cannot fully enjoy or appreciate television but who, with the techniques available, can get a great deal of enjoyment, and indeed full benefit, from the programmes. I seek no more than that. I cannot, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, think of any other category. There may be other kinds of disability but I cannot think of any that would need special assistance in order to enable the person to understand or follow the television programme.
Earl De La Warr: I believe that there could be something of value in an amendment such as this were it not for the fact that the noble Lord includes it in the clause which requires that the authority
"shall do all that they can to secure",
whereas he states that the authority should draw attention to the usefulness of these things. That would make it easier.
Lord Harvington: I had the good fortune to be lucky in the draw for a short debate about a year ago in which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke. During my research for that debate, it became clear to me that 40 per cent. of the population have some deafness disability. If one looks around the Chamber now and considers that 40 per cent. of us have a hearing disability of some kind, that would be my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Although there are, no doubt, other disabilities, the overwhelming necessity to aid the partially deaf cannot be disregarded.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and other speakers for providing us with this opportunity of discussing the needs of the deaf. The Deaf Broadcasting Campaign has achieved a great deal in recent times in drawing attention to the particular concerns of the deaf. A delegation came to see my right honourable friend the Minister of State in the autumn to put across its views on the implications of cable for the deaf. I well remember my own concern for the needs of the deaf when I was involved in the great breakfast TV franchise fight some time ago. Indeed, it is so obvious. All one has to do is to turn off the sound on the television set to be in the position of the deaf. Having

375
stated those words of enormous sympathy, I still must resist this amendment on behalf of the Government.
The broadcasters are making increasing provision in their services for the special needs of the hard of hearing. While there is always more that can be done, I believe that what has already been achieved reflects great credit on the broadcasters and on the Deaf Broadcasting Campaign. There is, of course, the use of teletext on the existing services to provide subtitles for the deaf and the hard of hearing. Both the BBC and the IBA have been building up the amount of subtitling provided by teletext, and I understand that over the next five years they plan to subtitle all the major prerecorded programmes broadcast at peak hours. This will be of great benefit to the deaf. I can assure the noble Lord that viewers who have access to the broadcast services by cable will be able to receive teletext signals provided that they have the necessary recording apparatus in the same way as viewers dependent on off-air reception.
The BBC and the IBA accept their responsibility to provide subtitling and other services for the hard of hearing, which all, it must be remembered, involve significant expense, as part of their duties as public service broadcasters. Cable will not be public service broacasting and it would not be consistent with that approach if cable were to be required to provide this or that type of service for particular groups with special needs, important though we all recognise them to be. In answer to those who have queried the remark of my noble friend Lord Mottistone about other groups, there are indeed other groups. There are, for instance, the partially sighted who very much came into our discussions at the same time when I was involved with breakfast television. I mention that only because I have personal experience of the matter.
This does not mean that the Cable Authority itself will not be able to encourage services for the deaf. There is nothing in the Bill to preclude this, and Clause 6(2)(a) requires them during the licensing process to take into account the range and diversity of the services proposed. I am sure that the authority will wish to take into account applicants' proposals for specialised services such as those from which the deaf will benefit. I remember well, if I may say so, the consultation meetings when the public were present and the representations which were made both from the deaf and the blind, and I am quite sure they had a very strong effect on the IBA, who were interviewing the various applicants.
In addition, it is a mistake to overlook the consideration that up to a point it will be in the interests of cable companies themselves to cater for the needs of all interests and all their potential customers. Cable is going to have to be sold to people. The public are going to need persuading to part with their money, and if cable operators are going to succeed in persuading the hard of hearing to part with theirs—and we have been told how very many deaf people there are, so the programmes will have to be attractive to them from a listening point of view—they will have to provide them with services which they will value.
The Government do not think that a statutory requirement would be appropriate. We believe that the interests of the deaf will be taken care of both by
376
the continuing provision of the broadcasting services which cable operators will have to relay, and by the ordinary pressures of consumer demand which will make it in the cable companies' interests to meet the needs of all their potential subscribers.
I hope that I have not shown any lack of sympathy. I hope it is clear that I am full of sympathy for anybody who is deaf; I am deeply sympathetic with their difficulties, but I do hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I really would be misleading your Lordships' Committee if I were to say I was wholly satisfied by the reply I have received from the noble Baroness, and I am bound to say that there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Baroness is not sympathetic to the needs of the deaf; she has made that utterly clear, and I assure her that I accept that wholly. But what I do say is that it seems utterly clear that she is determined there are going to be no changes whatsoever in this particular Bill. I think that is rather regrettable because the amendment is really very much more advisory than anything else. It would lay no great burdens on anybody.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said this was too onerous in that it required a duty to do all they could to secure that the needs of the deaf were borne in mind, and that proper and appropriate use was made of subtitling, signing and other techiques designed to assist people with impaired hearing to benefit from cable programme services. That does not mean they have to be used all the time. It does not mean there has to be a massive investment. It is a minimal thing to do occasionally but there are certain programmes, particularly ones offering information, where the information is vital. In those cases, I accept what the noble Baroness says: it is likely that an enlightened cable company may seek to do this as a sensible operation and as good business.
I really do not see why the Government should be so resistant to the idea of putting any words of this kind in the Bill but merely make the assumption that the authority w ill do it. If the Government agree with the principle, why cannot they accept the principle and say if they do not like my drafting or the place in which it appears in the Bill? If that is so, can they not devise some other drafting or perhaps find some other place in which to put it? I think it is not enough merely to leave it and say: "No, it will all be catered for, we are all very sympathetic to the deaf: the Cable Authority is going to be very sympathetic and the cable companies will wish to do everything they can".
I do not think it will be very helpful to push the Committee to a vote on this particular issue at this stage, but I think it is right that I should make it clear to the noble Baroness that I am not wholly satisfied with the assurances I have had. I will, therefore, consult with others in all parties and in all parts of your Lordhips' Committee who take a great interest, and then I will decide whether to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Local advisory committees.
. Following the award of a licence the Authority shall appoint local advisory committees in respect of all localities for which cable television services are provided, and such local advisory committees shall be appointed for one such locality or two or more such localities.").
The noble Lord said: Under the broadcasting Acts which set up independent local radio stations, the IBA were required to do very many things, and among them were required to set up advisory committees for the independent radio stations. Having given a franchise to a company in an area, they immediately got together within the area a group of people knowledgeable about the area who were likely to listen to radio when it was on the air, but who were certainly conversant with television.
These small groups of local people, called advisory committees, began to function almost immediately the franchise was granted, and were of immense help to the newly appointed franchise-holders. They were able to tell them the sort of things which were happening in the area, what the local needs were, what the local sports activities were and how best to cover that area. This was in the case of independent local radio. There is no mention in the Bill that is now before us about a similar situation applying to cable. The Cable Authority are not required under the Bill as it is now before us to do anything of that sort. My view is that the position is not dissimilar.
Immediately on the grant of a licence to a company within an area they would find a great deal of help—even 12 or 18 months before they began to send programmes down the line—if they could hear the views of local people as to the sort of things the area would like cable to cover in addition to entertainment programmes. In addition to that, of course, once cable was being used within the area and they had a number of customers, the information from local people would be more valuable still.
I cannot conceive that what was required of television with national committees, and of radio with local committees, could not be equally as helpful to cable under the Cable Authority. I beg to move.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: When I read the noble Lord's amendment. I immediately endeavoured to find out whether the same thing had been done before local radio. I am very glad to learn that it was. It seems to me an immensely practical and useful suggestion, and I should have thought that a cabling company would eagerly seize this idea and find that it would get great help in the district in which it was operating.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: I support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has moved. I am sure that anything that can be done to increase the sense of involvement and accountability between those who are granted the franchise and the community which they are going to serve can obviously only be beneficial to the character of the service. In another context I have had the honour of serving on one of the BBC's regional advisory committees. It is quite clear from the content of the
378
meetings and the sense of involvement between the broadcasters and the local community how much those who serve on these committees are consulted by members of the community to which we belong.
I slightly regret that in Clause 5, which already stands part of the Bill, there was nothing to provide for holding public meetings before a franchise was granted or any demand that the authority should give reasons why it should award a franchise. I think the advantage of having a local advisory committee would go a very long way to repair those deficiencies and increase the sense of commitment which the local community would have to a cable franchise holder.
Earl De La Warr: I should like to draw attention to a very basic difference between broadcasting and cable. First, one does not buy broadcasting; one buys one's set and listens to or looks at what they give you. In the case of cable, the market place is there to let the cable operator know whether people like the product or whether they do not. That is a fundamental difference. Secondly, I suppose it is open to cable companies to appoint advisory committees to advise them if' they want to do so. But that is not what the amendment says. It says that they shall have these things thrust upon them. For that reason I dislike the amendment.
While I am on this subject, I must tell your Lordships that the bright sparks in the consortia to which I belong said in their application—greatly against my advice—that they were going to appoint an advisory committee. To me that is absolute anathema, because I am rather old-fashioned, and I shall tell your Lordships why I am old-fashioned. I rather like to let the market place tell me whether the public like the goods or services that I provide.
Lord Winstanley: Will the noble Earl tell the Committee if the same people have advised him on how to vote should this amendment be pushed to a Division?
Earl De La Warr: Will the noble Lord repeat his question?
Lord Winstanley: I wondered whether the same people as have told the noble Earl that they are going to set up a local advisory committee have also advised the noble Earl on how to vote if the amendment is pushed to a Division.
Baroness Trumpington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, for giving us the opportunity to discuss how the Cable Authority might keep in touch with local opinion. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. The advisory committee has been used as a means of giving public service broadcasting roots into the community it serves, and the committees set up under the Broadcasting Act have done much useful work in advising the IBA in the exercise of its duties, particularly, as has already been said, in local radio.
What we have to decide, however, is whether the rather different circumstances of cable require us to impose on the Cable Authority the obligation to set up

379
advisory committees. We need to consider what, in the authority's functions, needs general arrangements of this kind or, more especially, the advice of representatives of various interests, such as consumers, which we have already debated to some extent in the context of the membership of the authority itself.
I was grateful for the points made by my noble friend Lord De La Warr. It seems to me that there is no reason why in every case legislation concerning cable television should be a carbon copy of the legislation agreed for the IBA. Cable is not public service broadcasting, and we need to consider carefully before we decide to place obligations on the Cable Authority similar to those which apply to the broadcasters.
Nothing in the Bill will prevent the Cable Authority from setting up committees to advise it on particular aspects of the exercise of its powers. If it considers advisory committees will be useful, it will be free to appoint them. I do not wish anything I say to be interpreted as suggesting that the authority should not have advisory committees. But I do suggest that we should leave the authority to decide for itself whether advisory committees will help it carry out its tasks.
What will those tasks be? Essentially, they are of three different kinds. First, the authority will be responsible for granting licences for the provision of cable programme services and, in the case of prescribed diffusion services, for deciding which applicant should be chosen to serve a particular area. This is clearly a case where the authority needs to take account of local needs and opinions: but Clause 5(3) already requires it, before issuing a licence, to ascertain the opinions of the public in that area and to encourage comments and suggestions by members of the public there. Moreover, it must consult the local authority as well, as required by Clause 5(4). This does not seem to be a case where it needs in addition a local advisory committee, and indeed the amendment in the Marshalled List requires committees to be set up only after a licence has been issued.
The second task is to draw up general rules which are to apply to cable programmes, including for example the code on violence under Clause 10 and the advertising code under Clause 11. But this is essentially a national function, and it is not self-evident that local committees would have any part to play.
Thirdly, the authority will be responsible for exercising some oversight of the programme services provided by cable operators. It is right to emphasise, however, that the Bill is framed on the basis explained in the White Paper, that cable should be substantially free to respond to market forces and that the authority's role should be reactive rather than proactive. It is in this area that the Cable Authority's functions will differ most from the IBA's, and the fact that the IBA obtains valuable help from its local advisory committees for independent local radio is, I suggest, a poor guide to the future of cable.
It will not be part of the authority's function to guide and influence cable operators in the kind of programmes they provide, and to press them to offer material which the authority judges is what the
380
consumer wants or ought to have. Before it issues a licence, the authority will judge which operator can best serve that area; thereafter, the authority will want to assure itself that the operator is not going back on his promises and that he is not contravening the conditions of his licence. Beyond that, the authority has no positive role at all. In those circumstances, it is far from clear what the function of local advisory committees would be. Indeed, to insist that the authority should set up local committees of this kind seems to imply a relationship between the Cable Authority and its licensees which is scarcely consistent with the light regulatory touch which was recommended by the Hunt Report and which the Government accept as right.
The fact that the Cable Authority will need to satisfy itself that the operator is providing the services he promised when he applied for his licence does not in itself seem to necessitate a local committee to advise it. Certainly the role of such a committee would be much more limited than that which exists in local radio. But the Cable Authority might decide that some form of local committee would be the best means of monitoring local services, or it might equally decide that this function could be exercised efficiently without formal local structures of the kind proposed by the amendment.
I think that I have gone on quite a long time about this subject—certainly long enough to make perfectly clear the Government's intentions. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Aylestone: The noble Baroness explained a great deal, but she did not really answer many of my questions. The fact is that, in addition to providing an income (and eventually, we hope, some profit) for the cable licensees, there is another duty, and that is to provide a service to the consumer, and it is in the consumer that I am interested at the moment. I made the point that the word "following" appears in the amendment. As soon as the licence has been granted I am sure that the licence holders—who, after all, are in business—would be anxious to hear from the local people, in an advisory committee type of way, what is of importance in that area. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government think that what is worthwhile in independent radio is not worthwhile in cable. For that reason, I am afraid that I cannot withdraw the amendment.
Earl De La Warr: I had thought that perhaps I had helped the noble Lord with that point, but let me take it one stage further. Nearly all modern systems will be both interactive and addressable. A great deal of thought goes into very advanced forms of market research, making use of the interactive facility. This was started many years ago by Warners in Columbus. Ohio, and they have used it for a long time. If one has an addressable system, one can get right down to cases and find out what individuals think.
Baroness Trumpington: I think that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, when I said originally that there is nothing to stop people from forming local committees. The noble Lord has made clear his intentions, but I did say that cable television was not a public service and that it is different from local

381
broadcasting, as the noble Lord knows far better than 1. But as he has made his intentions clear, obviously I shall not be able to persuade him, and I suggest that we put the matter to the test.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Segal, L.

Hall, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ampthill, L.

Harvington, L.

Avon, E.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Blake, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Boston, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kilmany, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kitchener, E.

Carnock, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Craigavon, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Daventry, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Digby, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Eccles, V.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mersey, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Molson., L.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Glanusk, L.

Mottistone, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Greenway, L.

Munster, E.

382

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Newall, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Norfolk, D.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Swansea, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Rodney, L.

Teynham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Vivian, L.

Selkirk, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Shannon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10 [Programmes other than advertisements]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 46A not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No.47:
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 gift 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 competion not organised for the purposes of the programme.").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether I could take the Committee shortly through the purpose of this amendment. The Committee will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, clearly said—and I think this was accepted generally by the Committee—that the cable companies should not have any advantage which was certainly an unfair one over independent television. I believe that your Lordships would subscribe to that view, certainly in regard to matters of advertising and in regard to an unfair way of competing for contracts or for public viewing. The amendment follows closely the wording of Section 7 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, which has, as an indication as to its meaning in the margin of the statute, "Programme prizes". Precisely the same provisions in general appear in this amendment.
What the amendment means is that the cable companies will not be able, if this amendment is accepted, to do what the independent television people cannot do, and that is to offer prizes,
"to persons subscribing to the service which includes that programme or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons".
That applies whether or not the programme is in an advertisement programme.
If your Lordships will turn to subsection (2) of the amendment, it will be seen that in regard to programmes other than an advertisement a prize is not to be included of any
"significant value (whether competed for or not)…unless—

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

(ii) the aggregate value…does not exceed an amount previously approved by the Authority for that programme".

Then, paragraph (b) deals with the question of,
"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".
It may well he that there will not be the co-operation and co-ordination which we hope there will be in regard to advertising, or the consultation with the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and especially in those circumstances a clause of this kind should obviously be in the Bill. I would emphasise that now that there is the go-ahead for sponsored programmes this clause becomes all the more necessary.
May I repeat before I sit down that this is not a new clause thought up to be a burden upon the cable companies: not a bit. It is a burden which Parliament placed in the Broadcasting Act on independent television because it thought it was proper for that burden to be imposed and that safeguard to be imposed. This amendment merely calls for the same treatment for the cable programme operators. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I do not understand why the noble Lord wants to restrain these prizes in this way. I do not see what is wrong with competition with the broadcasting authorities, because everybody is going to have to carry the broadcast channels whether or not they want to, and people will be able to receive the broadcasts through their ordinary receivers which presumably they will still have. I do not see why they have to be all-square with it, and I do not see why there is any particular merit in restraining prizes. Is the noble Lord seeking to prevent people from doing frightfully well on prizes? Is it right that the football pools should pay such vast prizes? I do not see the logic behind restricting prizes in this way. Could the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explain this?
Lord Mishcon: In regard to advertising, this limitation was imposed upon independent television in order to see that improper inducements were not made which were not deemed to accord with proper advertising standards. In regard to programmes which do not constitute advertising, it was thought improper that programme viewers should be "bought". It is particularly important that they should not be
384
"bought" as between the cable operators and independent television when independent television, as I pointed out, is burdened by this limitation.
The noble Lord's point would have been much clearer if he had opposed, had he had the opportunity to do it, the clause in the original broadcasting Bill which dealt with independent television. But Parliament in its wisdom decided that this was a proper limitation to impose, and I am merely asking that the same limitation should apply to the cable operators.
Lord Mottistone: I do not understand why it has to be the same limitation. It seems to be a non sequitur that the two have to be treated in exactly the same way.
Lord Mishcon: I must not keep bobbing up. I certainly shall not be bobbing up at dinner time, I promise your Lordships. Parliament in its wisdom decided first in regard to advertising that it was improper, and not in accordance with proper standards, for prizes to be awarded on independent television by advertisers. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is good enough to indicate that he understands that part of it, and I rather gather would agree with it. At least I have a vote for subsection (1) of my amendment.
Now may I turn to subsection (2). It was also thought that it was not proper competition as between the independent authority and the BBC that prizes for those who are listening to that particular programme of the independent television should be awarded to those viewers. In exactly the same way I am saying that if independent television cannot compete unfairly in that way with the BBC, so should cable operators not be allowed to compete unfairly with the BBC and independent television.
Lord Elton: I am going to be left in suspense as to what the right reverend Prelate is going to say. This means I feel rather like Napoleon with Marshal Blucher's cavalry lurking behind the hill in unknown strength. In the early days of independent television the whole question of quiz programmes generated quite a lot of hostility, including hostility from the late Lord Pilkington. His committee began by saying (and I shall read only a couple of sentences from my extract):
"In relying upon the appeal to greed and fear, and to the pleasure of watching these emotions roused in others because valuable prizes are at stake".
It now seems that quiz programmes with prizes are widely accepted and appreciated. They are no longer the sole preserve of independent television, any more than Bingo is restricted to converted cinemas and parish halls.
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.
Lord Mishcon: That gives me confidence.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord's conclusion—and he never lacks confidence, as appears from the Marshalled List—is that the Cable Authority should be treated as if it were a public service broadcasting authority. The drafting of his amendment is based, I believe he has said, closely on that of Section 4(4) and (7) of the Broadcasting Act 1981. Those subsections set out the duties of the IBA as regards prizes and gifts, whereas the amendment seeks to impose the same duties on the Cable Authority. The Cable Authority is to be treated, in other words, as though it were just another public service broadcasting authority with all the obligations and responsibilities which that status implies.
But the Cable Authority will not be a public service broadcasting authority and its relationship with the licensed companies will be different from those between the IBA and its licensees, as both the Hunt Report recommended and the White Paper made clear. There are areas in which similar standards can be expected of both cable and conventional TV, but, in our view, this is not one of them.
We all hope that cable television will be of high quality, but the Government do not believe that it should be subject to the same formal obligations of high quality programming as public service broadcasting. This means that the rules for cable channels are bound to be different from the rules for public service channels. If the rules for both systems were to be exactly the same, cable would simply become another branch of public service broadcasting. There is no indication that sufficient demand exists for that to make cable viable. If what I have said leads noble Lords to believe that we think there should be a free-for-all in this respect on cable, let me reassure them.
Clause 10(1) places on the authority a duty to draw up and, from time to time, review a code giving guidance on various matters and to do all it can to secure that its provisions are observed in the provision of licensed services. Subsection (1)(b) already directs attention to approaches to the audience for money by means of appeals. Subsection (1)(c) gives it the duty to deal also with such other matters concerning standards and practice for programmes as it thinks suitable. That will give the authority the powers necessary to deal with any developments that might amount to doubtful practices contrary to the interests of the consumers or, indeed, of the Church.
The matter raised by the noble Lords in their amendment strikes me as being eminently suitable for that sort of interest. They may perhaps feel, therefore, that it is better to leave it to the authority to decide exactly how to deal with the matter in ways suitable to its particular systems rather than to impose on the authority a system specifically designed for another.
Lord Mishcon: I thought from what the noble Lord the Minister said that he had secret information that I was to have the support of the Bishops' Benches. I was looking forward so much to certain speeches being made by the two right reverend Prelates, whom we are delighted to see with us at this time. But my prayers in this connection have not been answered.
The Minister has referred to Clause 11. Normally I should have said that that was a very appropriate
386
answer to make to me, provided I had the assurance that there was a time limit in which the authority, after consultation with the IBA, would draw up this code and that there was a provision that, before the code was drawn up, no licences could be granted. Instead of that, if your Lordships will read Clause 11—which is why the Minister has given no answer to this amendment—it will be seen that licences can be granted, that advertisements can go out without any code, there is no time limit and there is no provision that the licence holder cannot go on with advertisements and programmes most unfairly and not in conformity with standards because there is no code in existence.
Having said that, I propose to leave the Committee with the discussion that took place and the answer of the noble Lord, the Minister, and to revert to the matter when we reach Clause 11 so that we may see that Clause 11 is made to fit with the Minister's answer. We can then consider the whole position when we reach Report stage.
I submit that that is a more sensible way than trying to force a vote on what may look to be debating points between the noble Lord the Minister and myself. When there are debating points between the Minister and myself, he has a habit either of winning or, if he loses, of calling in the cohorts from outside so that the argument may be won in that way. In those circumstances, I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Advertisements]:
6.45 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("after consultation with the IBA,").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment to leave out the words, "after consultation with the IBA", I remind your Lordships that the Cable Authority is placed under a duty to draw up and to keep under review a code governing advertising standards. The Cable Authority will, of course, need to consult widely before drawing up its code and no doubt the IBA will be one, but only one, of the various parties that will be consulted.
In my submission, it is wholly inappropriate to make special reference to the IBA. It is extremely important that the Cable Authority should consult all relevant bodies. First, I draw your Lordships' attention to the Advertising Standards Authority, which, to quote a friend of mine in the advertising business,
"is a non-statutory authority operating a self-regulatory control system".
There are bodies such as the Advertising Association, the Institute of Marketing, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers Limited and others. Why do we thus pick out the Independent Broadcasting Authority? This question brings me to a matter that was touched on by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and will be touched on by me now and more than once this evening by others. To me, it smacks far too much of protection of the established order of things. This is not what new media are all about.
Furthermore, cable television will be in competition for the advertisers' pounds with the IBA's contractors and it will not be the only competitor when direct broadcast satellites arrive. Though it may be hypothetical at this moment, I have always believed that we shall move into a time when pre-recorded cassettes that are used on video recording machines will carry advertising as well.
I repeat, why single out the IBA as the Cable Authority's prime advisers, bearing in mind among other things that it is the prime competitor? In short, that is why I strongly urge that we should leave out the sentence:
"after consultation with the IBA",
and all that that implies. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: I hope that the Government will not accept this amendment. I could not gather from what the noble Lord said what his objection is to the IBA and why the IBA should not be consulted. The IBA is profoundly experienced in what will be new territory for the Cable Authority. I should have thought that it had everything to learn from the IBA. I hope the Government will stand by this. There is nothing to prevent the authority from seeking help and advice from the Advertising Standards Association. They can go to all of them: they do not have to consult the IBA exclusively. I would have thought that the IBA would be the first place that a wise authority would go to.
Lord Glanusk: As I read this, it definitely says, "after consultation with the IBA"—full stop. Surely, had it said, "after consultation with suitable bodies" it would have been quite all right; but to leave the IBA as the only name is nonsense and it will not necessarily give the authority the best advice available.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has drawn our attention to the fact that out of the many bodies concerned with advertising and standards of advertisements, Clause 11(1) singles out the IBA. Under that clause the Cable Authority will have a statutory duty of consulting the IBA before they draw up or review their advertising code but, as my noble friend Lord Glanusk has pointed out, it specifies them and nobody else. Perhaps I might mention to your Lordships that this duty of consultation is, by virtue of paragraph 37(2) of Schedule 3, matched by a parallel duty for the IBA to consult the Cable Authority, so that in future when it proposes to amend its own code it will have to talk to the Cable Authority. So the first thing I wish to say is that this is a reciprocal duty and not a duty imposed upon one party only.
There are two very good reasons why the IBA should be singled out in Clause 11(1). The first is that we believe it would not be sensible for different standards to apply to similar advertisements appearing on the same screen, depending on whether they originated on cable or with the broadcasters. We recognise that the code for advertisements on cable will need to take account of the special nature of the medium, and that means that it will be different in some respects. However, we think it right that the two codes should share the common core envisaged by the White Paper: where there are differences there needs to be a reason for them.
388
The second reason is that in spite of the impressive list quoted by my noble friend, the IBA are the only body entrusted with the statutory duty of drawing up an advertising code. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, says, there is nothing to prevent the Cable Authority from consulting other bodies concerned with standards in advertising—for example, the Advertising Standards Authority—before they draw up their code. The "full stop" to which my noble friend Lord Glanusk referred will not have that effect. Indeed, under Clause 11(5) the IBA's existing advertising committee, which is constituted in part by people representative of organisations concerned with advertising standards, will in future advise the Cable Authority as well, so the authority will be receiving advice from a wide range of bodies with relevant experience of and interest in advertising.
I hope that with the motivation I have revealed and the reciprocity that I have explained lies in the schedule which we have yet to come to, my noble friend will not feel that we are acting partially or unfairly and will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Would my noble friend not agree that, although of course it says they can consult anybody they wish and there is nothing specifically to stop them, the authority of the other advice will be much diminished by the IBA's having been picked out specifically in the legislation? They will always be able to say, if the Advertising Standards Association says one thing and the IBA says another, "Ah, but we have to be consulted because that is what it says in the Act of Parliament. We do not care about what other bodies say, who disagree with us, however expert they may be".
I think perhaps it is a mistake to single out one particular authority: and just because it happens to have the experience of advertising in the broadcast medium, that does not mean to say it is the only one that could give the right sort of advice. I should have thought that if people want to get the sort of experience that the IBA has, all they have to do is to pay enough money to hire IBA people to work for them.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble Lord the Minister will not be seduced by that appeal. I cannot think of a more seductive Member of this Chamber than the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone: nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will not yield to his argument. This is getting to be terribly dangerous. The noble Lord referred to equality of influence of various people or bodies that might be consulted. If indeed his argument were turned the other way and other bodies were to have a greater influence than the Independent Broadcasting Authority, it would mean that the authority is going to be put under precisely the same disability that so many of us fear in regard to its advertising income. The noble Lord the Minister gave the example of the same advertiser being allowed to put out a different advertisement on ITA than on cable, by virtue of the fact that cable was not restricted by the same standards. What we are going to have, if we are not terribly careful, is a weakening of the standards of independent broadcasting and television because they are going to be unfairly robbed of advertising revenue. This is a dangerous course that we may embark upon if we are not very careful.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I think I am disagreeing with the Front Benches on both sides of the Chamber; but because it is known to certain of your Lordships that Bishops do live dangerously, I delicately creep forward. I want to ask a moral question of the Minister about this and I do not think I shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in so doing. If we do not leave out the words "after consultation with the IBA", and if we do not agree to this amendment, are we not putting the IBA into rather the same position that an individual Member of your Lordships' Chamber would be placed in, in terms of having to declare an interest in a particular issue?
Is there not a corporate interest which the IBA find themselves bearing here, simply because they are in competition in certain areas? Therefore, they could be facing moral issues of not stating their corporate interest in this matter by being brought in as a judge, when really they are a fellow partner with the new authority. For that reason, I think there is a certain moral tinge which does rest on the side of the noble Lord who moved the amendment rather than on the Minister or on the Front Bench opposite. With that rather nervous intervention, I will resume my seat on this Bench.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I hesitate to intervene, however briefly, in this rather arcane debate but I feel rather confused about this. It seems to me that the whole question really revolves around what "consultation" means. It seems quite evident that none of the other bodies which my noble friends have mentioned who could be consulted can have any sanctions or any power to impose their will or advice on the advertisers. Does the IBA in fact have any sanctions or any methods of imposing its views or decisions formally on the cable companies or the advertisers? If it does not, it does not seem to me to matter what the Bill says.
Lord Elton: What matters is that where there is one television screen in one sitting room, and pictures may arrive on it either over the air from the broadcasting authorities or over cable from cable programme companies, we should not have a markedly different set of rules for one as against the other. Otherwise, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, interests may prevail which would lead to the advertisements put over by, for instance, cable being more salacious or more improper than those put over the air by the broadcasting authorities.
I suppose that it would be possible to have a third tier above all the authorities to adjudicate between them, but it is our belief that the duties put upon the Cable Authority in the Bill are not such that they will try to outsmart the broadcasting authorities. They are, in fact, enjoined to set up a code of practice to protect public morality and will be doing so under the eye not only of the Home Secretary but of Parliament. Therefore, I do not see any danger of the authorities trying to outbid each other, after an open discussion, by secret decision.
Reverting to my noble friends, with whom I am always anxious to be friendly, but to whom I never wish to offer an opportunity of seduction, for obvious
390
reasons, I have to say that the Government have not, as it were, singled out one at random of a number of people with whom the authority might be required to discuss. They have singled out the only other body with the statutory duty of overseeing advertising that appears on the television screen in the sitting room. It is the only one we have. It will be open to them, in spite of the full stop to which my noble friend Lord Glanusk drew our attention, to discuss with all sorts of other interests, whether they are openly commercial or evidently impartial, and that I do not doubt they will do.
All I want to convince my noble friends of—because it is always just a shade embarrassing to be supported from the other side of the Chamber against arguments coming from behind one—is that there is nothing uneven-handed about this, nor is there anything sinister, nor I honestly believe' is there anything in it that will limit the commercial prospects of the people who will operate under the code that will result from what we propose.
7.3 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: I do not at all share my noble friend's claim that I have rustled up support from the other side. He has, however, continued to give the impression that the IBA is in the position of being primus inter pares. That is the impression he has given to me and it is in that context that I refer again to what was said by the right reverend Prelate. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there is a competitive element here which I do not think is taken into account in the Bill. In the course of its drafting, I believe that this was slipped in and I invite my noble friend to slip it out again, because it has no purpose other than to give a very bad impression.
It is inconceivable that the Cable Authority would not consult the IBA, but we do not want it put in legislation because of the competitive element, and because of the implication that there is an intention behind this to set about protecting the establishment against the new sunrise industry.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, accused my noble friend Lord Mottistone of seduction, and my noble friend Lord De La Warr now casts very grave doubts on the parentage of parts of the Bill. This is becoming a thoroughly improper exchange. But I wonder whether my noble friend accepts my proposition that, where there is one screen in one room with pictures coming from sources governed by two different authorities, it would be totally absurd if they were to be regulated on different moral principles. The commercial principles are, of course, important to the balance sheet and the moral principles are important to the viewers, and between us we have to get both right.
If my noble friend accepts that, then it must follow that he accepts that it is not only right and proper but inescapable that the Cable Authority should consult the IBA, because if they do not we shall not arrive at that happy agreement between the two codes, except by the Cable Authority slavishly following whatever the IBA choose to publish, and I am sure that he would not want that. So there must be consultation.
My noble friend's anxiety is that IBA is mentioned

391
in a prestigious part of the Bill. I have tried to explain to him that it gains no extra prestige from that. Its prestige derives from the fact that it is a statutory body, and the only statutory body with the duty of' supervising advertising, and advertising, moreover, that goes onto television screens. I always think that I can get more eloquent each time I get up, but I think that I have been as eloquent as I can be.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: If it comforts the noble Lord the Minister, he has set my moral qualms at rest. I believe that I see that he is asking for the same quality of advertising, whatever is on the screen. Therefore, he has now settled my moral qualms to the distress, I am afraid, of the noble Earl.
Lord Mottistone: Before we leave this stage, may I draw my noble friend's attention to paragraph 100 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 8866)—not now, but afterwards—because I get the general impression that that states that the Advertising Standards Authority should have equal status with the IBA in the whole discussion area of drawing up the code. I think that the Advertising Standards Authority is not mentioned in this part of the Bill and it should be mentioned somewhere.
Lord Elton: This is not eloquence; this is just trying to be helpful. What I have done is put on the record, very definitely, that there is no question that the Government are granting a status of primus inter pares to the IBA. I hope that that, at least, is useful to my noble friends when they consult outside this House.
Baroness Lockwood: Is it not a fact that the Advertising Standards Authority is a self-regulatory authority of the industry? Is it not also a fact that the Advertising Standards Authority co-operates with the IBA on advertisements, but it does not itself handle them: it passes complaints on to the IBA? In that sense, the Advertising Standards Authority is in an entirely different position from the IBA in this respect.
Earl De La Warr: Before I withdraw the amendment, as I must, I have just one very small parting shot. It is quite clear that my noble friend regards the word "consult" as having an even stronger meaning than I thought. He means consult and, in the final analysis, do what they tell you——
Lord Elton: No.
Earl De La Warr: But we have said everything that could be said——
Lord Elton: I must refute that; otherwise, it will remain on the record. The consultation is free and it is open to both parties to move to a common position. There is nothing in the Bill, in the White Paper or in the mind of the Government to say that it is the Cable Authority which should move to the IBA's position, and that is plainly the intention of the language in the Bill.
Earl De La Warr: That is the burden of the disagreement between us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: Before I move that the House do now resume, I think I should say, for the benefit of noble Lords who are interested in this particular Bill, that we shall resume on this Bill at 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
7.10 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committe.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AMPTHILL in the Chair.]
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Extradition etc.
.—(1) Offences under section I shall be included—

(a) in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870; and

(b) among the descriptions of offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967.

(2) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences against the person in the case of which a member of a visiting force is in certain circumstances not liable to be tried by a United Kingdom court), at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted, appropriately numbered, the following paragraph—
"( ) section 1 of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1984.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment comes in two parts. Subsection (1) provides that female circumcision shall be an extraditable offence. This is obviously desirable as, these days, all serious offences are extraditable. It is especially desirable in this case because more and more countries are banning the operation. When there is a general move among several countries to ban a certain action, extradition between those countries becomes more a part of the necessary fabric of enforcement.
Subsection (2) provides that visiting forces to this country, which in practice means United States forces, shall be free to proceed against those who break this law under (in that case) United States law. This is in line with the treatment of other offences of violence against the person. Subsection (2) will permit a United States service man or woman who carried out this operation on a United States service woman to be tried

393
in a United States court and not in a British court. The case is so extremely hypothetical that it seems to me logical and not against any other principle that this amendment should be adopted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Notification of operations under section 2, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kennet: I rise to oppose the Motion that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. On Monday of this week we heard a great deal about the freedom of surgeons to operate on girls who wrongly believed that they were malformed. If they were right in their beliefs, then the question would not arise under the Bill as drafted. The Committee decided that this dubious class of operation was not worthy of exemption from the Bill. I believe that was a right decision. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, informed us that it was a question of only 10 or 20 operations a year, in any case.
Clause 3 refers to the application of a whole apparatus of notification and certification. As it applies to all the operations which may be done to the external genitalia of women, and as your Lordships have been informed by the Government that those run into several tens of thousands a year, then it would indeed be onerous to require that doctors obtain certificates, issue certificates, ensure that they are registered, and all the rest of it. This was a defect in the original drafting of the Bill.
With the agreement—indeed, at the instigation—of the Government, I am now moving that those provisions should not be included. Had they been included, little would have been gained because those who are bent on breaking this law would find it no harder to break if the notification provisions were there than if they were not. We are not chasing after the general run of respectable doctors, nurses and midwives, because they will not break the law anyway. We are chasing after those with a criminal propensity, who will not find it hard to evade the notification provisions. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to agree that Clause 3 shall not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title and commencement]:
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment will simply remove any doubt about whether the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, and says that it does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.16 until 8 p.m.]

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 11.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 10, line 15, after ("up") insert ("and publicise prior to the grant of any licences")
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember a discussion that took place on an earlier amendment when the answer of the noble Lord the Minister was that Clause 11 was there in order to see that advertising standards were set down in a code and would be adhered to. I said then that that was all very well but if one looked at the Clause 11—and I obviously reserved all my arguments until we reached it—one found that there was no proper protection. First, there was no obligation to publicise the code, and secondly there was no time limit at all within which the code had to be prepared, with the result that there could be licences granted, and indeed licences operated, prior to the code coming into existence, and there could be advertising which did not accord with any sort of standards at all because none had been laid down.
In those circumstances and to cover the position the noble Lord the Minister himself outlined as the protection, I now bring forward the words of this amendment, which call for the code to be published and also say that this shall be done prior to the grant of any licence. When I deal with the words "grant of any licences", I should briefly say that the noble Lord indicated to us earlier in the Committee proceedings that the operation of the licence was to date from the time of the programmes being started by the cable operating companies and not from the time when, of course, cable might have to be laid down. Therefore, there is no question of this amendment meaning that the code has to be published before any licence is granted to enable the cable to be laid down where necessary. This is to operate prior to the licence being operated by the cable operator. That is the reasoning behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the way in which the Cable Authority should publish their advertising code, and for the brief conversation I had with him before he actually did so. There are, however, reasons which I believe to be sound why the amendment should not be made.
The process of drawing up a code governing advertising standards and practice will quite properly take a certain amount of time. The Government have made it clear that the Cable Authority's code should share a common core with the IBA's advertising code, although at some points there will be scope for

395
divergence, given the distinct nature of the different media. The authority must, therefore, consult the IBA before drawing up their code. Equally the Home Secretary must be consulted, and I am sure that the authority will wish to consult other bodies with an interest in the field of advertising. In the meantime—and this is of particular relevance to the existing licences which the Cable Authority will take over from the Home Secretary—they may decide to rely largely on the IBA's code.
While I accept that consumers and applicants alike should know from as early a stage as possible what the new code is to contain, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to require the authority to delay work on inviting applications and granting licences until the code has been adopted and promulgated. Incidentally, moreover, the amendment as drafted could be held to mean that each time they granted a licence the authority would be obliged to publicise the code. It would, I think, be better to leave the authority itself to determine in the light of all the circumstances the best arrangements for the timely publication of their advertising code.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Baroness concludes—I am sure we have all listened with respect, as we always do, to what she has said—can she find some provision in this clause—and if a slight interval of time is required to answer this I shall well understand—or in the Bill which makes the authority publish other than the word "to draw up", which, of course, is not the same as "to publicise". That is quite apart from the point about this being done prior to the grant of any licences. Can she explain under what code of advertising the licensees will operate before this code is publicised?
Baroness Trumpington: So far as the question of timing is concerned, the Bill places an obligation on the authority to draw up a code, so the authority will be under a duty to do so; that is, as soon as the Bill comes into force. On the question of publication, the authority will have to make the code generally available so that licensees can comply with it. It is relevant that there is no obligation on the IBA to publish its code. I hope that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I do not want to press the noble Baroness unduly or waste the time of the Committee; but I am not quite sure I understand why there should be a duty to publicise implied in an Act when the Act does not specifically say that it should be publicised. Secondly, would the noble Baroness not agree that it is a little unrealistic to ask for applicants to apply without their knowing by what code they are bound?
Lord Mottistone: May I perhaps put a gloss on this which may be helpful? If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, remembers, in an earlier amendment we pressed to have a longer period of getting going and my noble friend on the Front Bench said that the date from which the licence would operate was when people were ready to go, which allowed about three years for the laying of the cables. That will give lots of time for the Cable Authority to get working on its code; there is about three years before D-Day, before anything happens.
396
As to making it public, surely from the point of view of the authority anybody who is going to want to advertise will want to know what the rules are having read this, even without it saying that it has to be publicised. Not all advertisers are children; they are going to come asking. Why should we put in "publicise" when people are going to want to know what the code is in any case. There is lots of time for the code to appear. I do think the noble Lord is labouring a very small point which, with the greatest respect, in practical terms is not important.
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, had finished his dinner earlier, he would have heard me refer specifically to the fact that the noble Lord the Minister had earlier indicated from what date the licence was to operate. I used almost the precise words, if not in such elegant language, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did when describing what the Minister had said. We are dealing with an Act of Parliament and all this talk about, "Well, surely they will publicise and it is only reasonable to assume that they will, but do not let us worry about putting this in a Bill" is not complying with the duty of a legislative body such as ours.
Baroness Trumpington: I am very grateful for what my noble friend said, and as a further answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may I say, as I said originally, that until the code is available the Cable Authority may wish to apply the IBA code. The Home Office has required interim licensees to do so. Some of the services already being offered now are on existing systems. One cannot comply with a code until it is actually set up.
Lord Mishcon: I shall keep my promise and not make further speeches on this matter. The noble Baroness has again said that it is hoped that the licensees will be required to comply with the IBA code. There is nothing in the Bill that says so, but I do not think that at this time it is an appropriate issue on which to ask the opinion of the Committee. The noble Baroness will undoubtedly have in mind what has been said, and perhaps as a result one single concession may be made by the Front Bench. I am thinking in terms of the unpopularity of one Boycott, only because he presented a straight bat for so long, to his own team's annoyance. I am hoping that that annoyance will now go to the rest of the team of the Minister and the noble Baroness so that they will also be annoyed at the straight bat blocking of every ball that is bowled.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord has obviously forgotten the second amendment to which my noble friend Lord Elton gave in willingly and with great graciousness.
Lord Mishcon: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
8.12 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 24, leave out from second ("that") to ("no") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: I have now seen an explanation that the order of the Secretary of the State would have to come for affirmative approbation of Parliament. I had not realised that when I tabled this amendment. If the noble Baroness will kindly confirm my understanding of the position I shall speedily withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: It is with pleasure that I say, "Hooray, hooray". I confirm exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, and I await his pleasure.
Lord Mishcon: In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 53 I should tell your Lordships that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 54 to 57.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: In inviting your Lordships to agree to withdraw subsection (3) I must say that it seems to me, and not for the first time in this debate, that there is too much attempt to regulate the cable industry on the basis of what is being done by the IBA. Therefore, this discussion, in its principle, will impinge on what we have talked about earlier this evening.
Subsection (3) states that the authority must ensure that no more advertising time must be allowed on a cable service which consists of many channels than is allowed on any one ITV channel. That is my paraphrase of the subsection and the Minister will no doubt tell me what he thinks of that. What sort of guidance is that? It does not take into account the multi-channel nature of the cable services. It does not take account of classified advertisements or sponsored programmes, of advertising magazines or even cable shopping. In fact, so far as I can tell, it gives no practical guidance to either the authority or the operator, and that is why I have moved to delete it altogether.
Of course, we must make sure—and I would be the first to agree—that programmes are not stuffed overflowing with advertisements; but I believe that this is certainly a subject that should be left to the authority to determine. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: Surely it does say precisely that: that only those programmes which are analogous to those on ITA should be subject to this limitation.
Earl De La Warr: My trouble is that I do not know how to define that and we do not get the guidance to do so.
Lord Glanusk: Can the Minister tell us what:
"such exceptions as may be agreed between the Authority and the IBA"
will be? That is what makes it unclear in my opinion.
Lord Elton: I may find myself responding to this amendment at slightly greater length than I had intended. The report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, recommended against setting down defined limits on the amount of cable advertising at the outset but stressed the need for a flexible approach. It suggested that this was an area where, after some years of experience, it could become necessary to impose restrictions. The ITV and ILR companies argued strongly, however, that while they accepted that cable would break their present monopoly over the sale of television and radio advertising time, it would be inequitable if they were restricted as to the number of minutes per hour which they could sell while cable channels, which could be offering a very similar range of programmes, were unrestricted. The IBA endorsed the view of the companies.
Against this background the Government recognised that there was something of a dilemma because while, on the one hand, it was clearly right that in many respects cable should have more freedom than public service broadcasting, on the other it seemed difficult, on an issue so central to the finances of the companies concerned, to maintain a ceiling for advertising on independent broadcasting while allowing cable to do as it liked. One way out, in theory, would have been to remove the restrictions from independent broadcasting but the Government took the view that that would be a mistake. The quality of independent television is what it is because the volume of advertisements is not allowed to spoil the programmes. If the amount of advertising on ITV is greatly increased it would change the whole character of the commercial sector of public service broadcasting. Most people would perceive it as a change for the worse.
As a result, the Government opted for a middle course. Paragraph 97 of the White Paper proposed that on cable channels providing services which were broadly comparable to those of independent broadcasting the same maxima should apply for cable advertising as those permitted by the IBA. In all other circumstances cable could carry as much advertising as it thought the market would bear. The White Paper envisaged that the two authorities would need to consult together about the channels to which the limit should apply. Before the Summer Recess the White Paper was debated in this House and another place and I think that the Government's approach on this difficult issue commanded a wide measure of support. There were some who were rather inclined to the view of the cable industry that any limit was unnecessary but, with all respect to my noble friend Lord De La Warr, I think that was not a majority view.
It was suggested on Second Reading, however, that Clause 11(3) marked a shift away from what was proposed in the White Paper. I should like to make it quite clear that that is not the case. The Government accept that cable will offer opportunities for new kinds of channels as well as new kinds of advertising. There is no reason why the amounts of advertising should be restricted in those cases. In the process of translating White Paper prose into statutory language, however, it is often necessary to convey the same thought and achieve the same end in rather different phrases. There

399
were at least two reasons why we could not follow the White Paper wording in the Bill. First, the concept of a cable channel is not one which features in Part I of the Bill because the phrase "cable programme service" is used for the totality of the service provided by a particular operator rather than its constituent channels. Secondly, the idea of services similar or broadly comparable to ITV does not readily accord with the rather more precise formulation necessary in legislation. Consequently, the approach which we have adopted is to state a general principle and then allow for expectation to be made either by agreement between the Cable Authority and the IBA or, in default of agreement, as the Home Seretary may determine.
The effect of this will we intend be exactly the same as the White Paper proposed. The two authorities will in the first instance have to discuss whether they can agree the circumstances in which cable services should not be subject to the same limits as ITV. Where they agree, cable companies will be able to take as much advertising as they wish, because the Bill gives the Cable Authority no general power to limit cable advertising. That is an important point, because it means that where ITV limits do not apply there will be no restrictions. I hope that my noble friend Lord De La Warr will welcome that clarification at least. To continue, where the two authorities do not agree, the Home Secretary will have to resolve the matter. We hope that there will not be many cases which are referred to him, but there is no question of the IBA having a veto. My right honourable and learned friend will of course decide each matter on its merits. What I can assure the Committee is that he has no intention of exercising his power to produce a result which would be any more restrictive than was envisaged by the White Paper.
I recognise that some of my noble friends oppose the principle of limiting the amount of advertising on any cable channels. For the reasons given, the Government do not share that view and would wish to resist the amendment if my noble friends were minded to pursue it further. I hope that what I have set out at rather great length suffices to reassure my noble friends that we are on the same lines as we were before and that there is no overriding power on the part of the IBA. I cannot give a precise definition of instances where there might be channels which are not comparable, but my noble friends will have examples in mind. If there are borderline cases which cannot be decided between the authorities, they can be decided by my right honourable and learned friend, who has, I think, roughly the same general philosophy of life as most reasonable people.
Earl De La Warr: The very fact that the amendment proposed to take the subsection out altogether should indicate that it was in the nature of a probing amendment. I am more than satisfied with my noble friend's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 55;
Page 10, line 35, after ("State") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, may we discuss Amendment No. 57?
Amendment No. 57: Page 10, line 39, at end insert—
(" and
(b) there shall be a clear separation between advertisements and programmes.").
As your Lordships will see, the purport of Amendment No. 57 is that there shall be a clear separation between advertisements and programmes. Your Lordships may well think that that is necessary by virtue of the fact that, if the advertisements are mixed with the programmes, not only are the programmes ruined—and I am sure that will be a thought in the minds of the cable companies—but it is terribly misleading and unfortunate for the viewers, and sets a terrifically low standard, quite apart from being unfair competition, although the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would most likely not accept my reasoning on that basis. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I think there is another aspect to this matter. It is not only a matter of the close conjunction of advertising with programme matter: there is the circumstance with which newspapers, and particularly local newspapers, are concerned. One gets an advertisement for some product and then one gets an article, which appers to be perfectly independent, describing the great merits of this thing which is being advertised, probably on the next page of the magazine. By the same token, one wants protection against television personalities slipping in recommendations about products, which products are about to be or have been advertised. I think that is a point which requires consideration.
Earl De La Warr: I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has in mind about advertising magazines, as they are known.
Lord Mishcon: In a case of that kind, it is clearly a question of advertising alone. In those circumstances, no confusion is caused.
Lord Elton: We accept that cable could create opportunities for developments in forms of advertising which, although not appropriate within the framework of independent broadcasting, where there are as yet only two television channels, are entirely acceptable in themselves. I think that that is what my noble friend Lord De La Warr has in mind. Shopping magazines, recruitment advertising and sponsored programmes are all possibilities which we do not wish to rule out. Certainly there must be safeguards, but the effect of this amendment would be to make it very difficult for any of these developments to happen at all. If it is a probing amendment, I apologise for resisting it on those grounds. But it would be contrary to the flexible approach which was recommended by the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and which has been endorsed by the Government.
There are two assurances which I wish to offer the noble Lord. I think that this may be what he is after. First, the Government accept the principle laid down by the Hunt Report that sponsorship should be permitted on condition that there are certain clearly defined rules. Those rules would include in particular the separation of advertisements from editorial

401
matter. That is not the same as a separation of advertisements from programmes; it is in fact a concept which it is not really possible to encapsulate in statutory language. Rules will need to be carefully drawn and no doubt revised from time to time in the light of experience. For that reason, they are much more suited to a code than to legislation; but we have clearly signalled to the authority that sponsorship is one of the areas to which it will have to address its mind. We have done that by referring to sponsorship specifically in Clause 11(1)(a). Moreover, the authority will have to consult the Home Secretary about its rules on advertising, and under Clause 11(4)(b) he will have the power to give directions about the classes and descriptions of advertisements and methods of advertising which may not be employed.
There is one other assurance that I can give, and that is that the Government accept, as I believe do all people concerned with advertising, that all advertisements should be clearly recognisable as such. That is a principle which applies across the whole field of advertising and certainly extends to any elements of sponsorship in programmes. People should always be aware whether what they are watching is designed to promote the cause of a particular commercial interest. This is something which the Cable Authority will need to ensure through the detailed rules which it draws up in its code, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will take a close interest in this particular aspect also when he is consulted by the authority under Clause 11(4).
Lord Mishcon: Our amendment has produced two very valuable assurances. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. If I went on with any speech on the amendment, the assurances may be withdrawn. I hastily accept them and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 56:
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: I hope that this amendment is sufficiently clear for it not to be necessary for me to make a speech. The amendment merely seeks to have advertising rates properly shown, so that everybody may know what cable companies are charging in the way of advertising rates, so that fair trading will obviously ensue. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I shall try to be as brief as was the noble Lord, but the matter is not quite so simple as that. Advertising time on cable is likely to be sold in a variety of ways; and it is, I think, a mistake to try—as I fancy may be the intention behind the amendment—to draw too close a parallel with independent broadcasting in this respect. The existing ITV companies have a local monopoly of selling advertising time. With cable, though there may be only one operator, there may be many channels carrying advertising, and in each case the advertising
402
may be sold in a different way. With a local channel, the operator may himself be responsible; with a national channel, it may be the national programme provider who will sell the advertising time and receive the revenue; with others, there may be a mixture of national and local advertising. The Cable Authority's direct control extends only to its licensees, and there would be difficulties in providing for the authority to have a locus in the transaction between third parties, such as the programme provider and the advertiser, even if there were a real problem here to be tackled.
That sounds a little dismissive; but I hope that, if the noble Lord reflects on what I have said, he will realise that the requirement is not one that can be expressed exactly as simply as he has proposed to do, because very often it is not a question of comparing like with like on the same service.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether between now and the Report stage the noble Lord the Minister will be prepared to consider that the amendment very carefully reproduces the words which really mean "use best efforts". in that the authority is required merely to do all that it can to secure what is referred to. The amendment does not say that in each and every case there must be a presentation of advertising rate cards. It states merely that there should be a proper and fair presentation. Where it would not be proper by virtue of the difficulties which the noble Lord has mentioned, no such duty is placed on the authority. Where it would be perfectly fair not to have a presentation in the way that the amendment proposes, again there is no duty on the authority. However, as there has been an exchange of views, which is a useful function during a Committee stage——
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I think I detect that he is most helpfully and courteously about to withdraw his amendment, and perhaps he will allow me to say that it may be that I did not quite clearly enough direct his attention to the difficulty. It seems to me that the difficulty is not merely in regard to not comparing like with like. The noble Lord seeks to impose a requirement that something shall happen between second and third parties over which the authority has no control. If there is a requirement that rate cards shall be shown in a particular form, or should be up to a particular standard, or whatever, that will bear upon a whole variety of people over many of whom the authority will not have jurisdiction. Of course, I shall look extremely carefully at what the noble Lord has said, as no doubt he will look at what I have said, and thus we can both perhaps withdraw from our present positions.
Lord Mishcon: Indeed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: Under Clause 11(5), the Broadcasting Act 1981 is amended so that the authority shall have access to the general advisory

403
council set up under the 1981 Act. The authority will be able to make use of its advice on such matters as misleading advertisements and the principles to be followed in making judgments about advertisements generally. I believe that it is a good idea for the authority to have this access, but I suggest that, if it is to have such access, it will be wise for the advisory council to have its terms of reference widened so as to be able to offer advice about all forms of advertising appearing on cable that do not—because they are not allowed to—appear on ITV channels. So the amendment does not seek to qualify in any way, but simply to extend the scope of the amendment to the 1981 Act, so as to allow the council to give the authority the full range of advice to which the authority is certainly entitled. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether my noble friend Lord De La Warr will be so kind as to take his next amendment at the same time as this amendment, because the two amendments go together, and it would be much easier if we were——
Earl De La Warr: I am so sorry; I should have said that, in moving Amendment No. 58, I wished to speak also to Amendment No. 59.
Amendment No. 59: Page 11, line 26, at end insert—
(" ; and
( ) the reference to the giving of advice to the Authority in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 16 of the 1981 Act included advice as to the sponsorship of programmes included in cable programme services, the provision of classified advertisements and other services and facilities for advertising on cable programme services.").
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend Lord De La Warr has emphasised the importance of ensuring that cable advertising is not forced to conform to the independent broadcasting mould. I can assure him that the Government accept that there will be forms of advertising on cable which have not been appropriate within the confines of public service broadcasting. That does not mean a lowering of standards. It is simply a recognition of the fact that, where there is an abundance of channels, new approaches can be tried. Cable will not be confined to spot advertising. There may be longer advertising features. There will be a place for sponsorship, subject to certain safeguards, and we have recognised that by making a specific mention of sponsorship in Clause 11(1)(a). There may also be classified advertisements, though if they do not involve sounds or moving pictures, they will not be subject to Cable Authority licensing, so the advertising code will not apply.
Having said that, I am satisfied that the Bill already achieves what my noble friend is seeking. Under Clause 11(5), as it stands, the joint advisory committee's task will be to advise the two authorities on their respective codes. The committees will need to take account of the ways in which the two media differ, as well as the ways in which they are similar.
The amendment is not satisfactorily drafted, I am afraid to say, and is not in any case necessary because the Bill already does all that my noble friend wants it to do. I hope therefore that, in the light of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl De La Warr: This is not a very important question. I shall accept the point made by my noble friend that, in view of what is earlier stated in Clause 11, the powers of the advisory council are already sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Inclusion of certain broadcasts]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): In calling Amendment No. 60, perhaps I may add for the information of the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, it will not be possible for me to call Amendments Nos. 61 or 62.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It shall be a condition of every licence granted by the Cable Authority for a diffusion service provided by any person in any area that, subject to any exceptions for which the Secretary of State after consultation with the Authority and the broadcasting authorities may by order made by statutory instrument provide, the service shall include, by the reception and immediate re-transmission of the broadcasts, the programmes included in each broadcasting service provided by a broadcasting authority for reception in that area without any matter being added to or deleted from those programmes.
( ) An order made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the "must carry" rule. I want to avoid any of the arguments which have taken place at some length in this Chamber on the question of whether the phrase "do all that it can" is weak or strong. In the amendment that I have put down I have endeavoured to avoid any such arguments by stating that it must be a condition of the licence that the "must carry" rule must be written into it. If the phrase "all that it can" is a weakness, pressure can be brought to bear, if there is only one particular applicant for a certain area, by saying that if they must carry, they will be in great financial difficulties. On the other hand, the same result can be achieved, if we take the strong meaning of the phrase "all that it can", by writing the "must carry" condition into the licence itself.
The Secretary of State should have to consult with the broadcasting authorities as well as the cable authorities before making any exception to the "must carry" rule. We also suggest that every broadcasting service provided by the broadcasting authority should be carried and not just television and sound services. This is really reverting to what I talked about on the last occasion that we discussed the Bill in Committee. Teletext could perhaps be included as being a television service. We could also include under "must carry" things such as downloading of computer programs and other data services broadcast for general reception.
We also include the words "broadcasting service" instead of television or sound broadcasting services as proposed in the Bill. It may be worth noting, because

405
some of your Lordships may not know, that computer programs are now being transmitted on sound radio as well as by teletext. A series of 10 weekly programmes called "Chip Shop" began on 14th January. Associated with each is a short three-minute sequence of software being broadcast four nights a week immediately after the midnight shipping forecast. It is carried on various wave lengths. The radiated code—this is where I am talking about new forms of service that were not perhaps thought of when the Bill was drafted—is in the form of sinusoidal tones with frequencies of 1,200 to 2,400 Hz. That is why those words are included in this portion.
We also suggest that no material shall be added to, or deleted from, the programme under the "must carry" rule. I am perhaps being super-cautious but it occurred to me that where you refer to a programme, there might be some doubt about what a programme consists of. What about the gaps between programmes, in other words, those bits where ITV is apt to put in advertisements, and the BBC new trailers for its programmes—incessantly for something like the "Thorn Birds"? We do not believe that there should be an opportunity for the cable programmer, whoever he may be, whether the chap making up the programmes as a whole or the chap sending it over the wire to substitute his own message for that portion. In other words, the continuous programme should be carried continuously.
There are occasions when exceptions can be made by the Secretary of State. I believe that these should be laid before Parliament for affirmative resolution before being made. I have developed the arguments previously. I think that they are even stronger here. There should be very few exceptions. The Secretary of State or a Minister should be required to come to this House or the Lower House and tell that House why he believes that exceptions should be made. After all, we are dealing with an important exception that could be of considerable financial benefit to the cable company concerned. I see no reason why they should not come entirely clean on this subject.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has proposed a rewriting of Clause 12(1) in the hope that it would meet some of the concerns of the broadcasters about the effectiveness of the "must carry" rule among other things. I must start by emphasising that the Government also attach great importance to that rule. Both the Hunt Report and the White Paper saw it as an important safeguard for our system of public service broadcasting. Everyone who is on cable should have access to the same range of services which anyone can currently receive with an individual aerial. In addition we believe that once DBS begins cable should be required to make that service available to those of its customers who wish to take it.
The noble Lord's amendment would make a number of adjustments to the present Bill. I feel that I must go through these in turn. I am afraid that I cannot acquiesce in all of them, but the noble Lord may find that I can offer him some encouragement on a couple of points. He should not look so pleased or delighted until he has heard the dimensions.
406
First, the amendment would require the authority to include a specified condition in each of its licences rather than to do all that it can to secure a particular objective. We have discussed the "do all that it can duty" on a previous amendment and noble Lords have heard arguments on both sides. If, in this Bill, we were to attempt to spell out precise conditions which the authority had to include in the licences, we would risk actually weakening the authority's powers because it would have to write into each licence the exact words used in the legislation.
The approach which we have adopted means that the authority must use all its powers and insert all such licence conditions as appear appropriate to enable it to fulfil its statutory duty. These may well include and, in fact, almost certainly will include at some time conditions which we cannot from our standpoint in time see as being appropriate at all.
Second, the amendment would require the exceptions order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This seems to the Government to be somewhat cumbersome. It is certainly not our intention to use this power to undermine the general application of the "must carry" rule. I can give the noble Lord a firm assurance on that point. But there clearly has to be some sort of safety valve to deal with particular sets of circumstances. Clause 12(1) is not confined just to prescribed diffusion services, in other words, those provided over wideband systems. It applies to all diffusion services. So, for example, the existing cable operators who are being allowed to offer new services over their narrowband systems and provide individual aerials for the reception of the broadcast channels will need to be covered by an order under Clause 12(1). Otherwise, once the Bill reached the statute book, the authority would have no option but to reimpose the "must carry" obligation. Another example concerns radio. Clause 12(1) requires cable operators to relay all BBC and IBA radio services intended for their area but there will inevitably be circumstances in which this is not appropriate, for example, where the system is an old-fashioned one with limited capacity or where the broadcaster is providing split networking on VHF and LF or MF. Without departing from the principle of must carry we may find that there are many small instances where some limited exception is necessary and everyone agrees it is sensible. To require a parliamentary procedure in each case would be very cumbersome and expensive. Having said those hostile but not unfriendly words, I am glad to say that I can at least meet the noble Lord on the question of consultation. Clause 12(1) requires the Secretary of State to consult the Cable Authority before making an order and the Government are prepared to bring forward on Report an amendment to ensure that the broadcasting authorities are included in the consultation process. I hope that the noble Lord will regard that as deserving of gratitude or at least his appreciation.
Finally the noble Lord's amendment makes it clear that the operator must not add anything to or delete anything from the programmes. If the noble Lord is thinking of the possibility that an operator might break into BBC1 and BBC2 by inserting his own advertisements, I think that the Cable Authority can be relied on to prevent that. But on the wider question

407
of ensuring that the operator does not subtract the teletext signals or any computer programs which are intended for general reception as a radiating code or otherwise (I am picking up a great deal of useful technical jargon as I go along), I am glad to repeat the assurance I gave on Monday. It is certainly the Government's intention that he ought not to be able to do that and we shall look further at the drafting to make sure we have got it right. I hope that with those two crumbs of comfort the noble Lord will be content.
Lord Glanusk: Did I understand the Deputy Chairman correctly? Did he say that if this amendment is passed we cannot take 61 and 62?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That is correct.
Lord Glanusk: May I possibly speak on Amendment No. 62 now?
Lord Elton: If I may counsel there, I think I detected that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was hesitating on the brink of withdrawal. If I am wrong, the noble Lord will of course have to leap into action, but I hope he was deciding prematurely.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: Perhaps I can save the time of this Committee by saying that I do not intend to press these amendments. If I said they were a bit crumby I might be thought to be speaking in derogatory terms, but the noble Lord the Minister himself used the term "crumbs".
I still believe that this should be a part of the licence. I understand why the noble Lord the Minister is opposing it. I also accept that, in the debates that we have had so far, which, of course, have taken place since one originally put down the amendments, the number of assurances which we have had on the question of how the Cable Authority is going to do its job fill several pages of Hansard. We hope we can rely on those assurances in the future, and that in fact this is not a weak duty laid upon the authority but a very strong duty indeed.
Similarly, I can see that we do not wish to take up too much of the time of the Committee by insisting on any exceptions going through the full burden of the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope, nevertheless, that they will be properly and fully reported to this House, and, if necessary, justified. Under those circumstances, I am prepared to get on with the business which we seem to be doing fairly briskly at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
8.53 p.m.
Lord Glanusk Lord Glanusk moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("but the number of DBS services the inclusion of whose programmes the Authority shall do all it can to secure in any one licensed diffusion service shall not exceed five.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 12, the "must carry" clause which we have been discussing, compels the operator to carry all the channels broadcast by the
408
authorities, including the DBS channels. At present, the first satellite will have five channels, two of which I believe are allocated to BBC and two to ITA. This means that if the cable operators were to start up today they would be carrying eight compulsory channels. But there are at least three more satellites planned, each with five channels. If these are allocated in years to come this will mean that your compulsory "must carry" channels could or would rise to 23. This is a very major part (something like three-quarters) of the maximum capacity of the cable available to the operator, and we think this is excessive.
I believe that cable is going to rely for its main future on the non-entertainment circuits that it can offer, and all the other features that have been discussed possibly somewhat vaguely because no one quite knows what will be able to be offered in the future. If therefore we block 23 of their channels, their chances of maintaining a long-term future are nowhere near so bright. We therefore think that a clause to limit the number of DBS channels to five, making a total of nine compulsory channels, is a fair compromise between the two positions. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: To add to what my noble friend has said, it would not be a satisfactory answer to say: "Oh well, of course the public broadcasting services will not take up all their DBS channels". One has read in the papers that they are rather reluctant to take up the ones that have already been allocated to them, and that may indeed be the case in 1984, but in six or seven years' time—if there is no restraint in this area—for one reason or another the public broadcasting services might want all these extra DBS channels. At the moment I cannot see that they would, and no doubt neither can any of your Lordships, but it might be the case. It is only fair that the cable operators—who, as my noble friend says, are going to depend very much on the supplementary sort of services which will be offered (supplementary, that is, to the entertainment world)—should be protected at this stage from too many "must carry" requirements. I do hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us very firmly, or even better still, accept this amendment as it stands.
Earl De La Warr: There is also the point that each cable channel takes up a great deal more band width than a terrestrial channel. Indeed, it might take up the equivalent of between two and three channels: therefore, five channels can result in a very high proportion of the network being filled by what are essentially programmes that have to be relayed.
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend Lord Glanusk has made clear his fears that in time the number of DBS channels included in the "must carry" rule might rise to more than five. He submits that this would place an unreasonable burden upon cable companies, and his amendment seeks to limit the number of DBS services which might be included in the "must carry" rule to a maximum of five.
I listened with interest to the remarks of my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, and to those of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and, so far as the foreseeable future is concerned, my noble friends' concern is

409
misplaced. The United Kingdom has been allocated frequencies for only five DBS television channels, so there is no question of the "must carry" rule applying to more than that number of DBS channels.
If we look into the more distant future, there may be frequencies which in time it will prove possible to use for further DBS channels. But the technology to enable those frequencies to be used is still developing. I have no doubt that, in parallel with the development of that technology, cable technology too will have developed. Before ever we get there it may be that cable will be able to carry such a multiplicity of television channels that those to be included in the "must carry" rule would appear as a mere drop in the ocean. But that is to look very far into the future and I do not think that we can attempt to cater for that sort of situation now.
The point is simply this. For the foreseeable future we are limited to five DBS channels and my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary. For the more distant future we cannot see where technology will have taken us. There are, in addition, two other important safeguards for cable companies which I should like to underline. First, under Clause 12(1) the "must carry" rule applies only to services provided by the BBC and IBA. We touched on this in discussing Amendment No. 60 of the noble Lord, Lord Howard. If we are looking into the crystal ball for a time when, hypothetically, there may be more than five DBS channels. I think that we should beware of assuming that they would necessarily all be run by the BBC and IBA. Indeed, as the noble Lord knows, there are still many uncertainties about the arrangements for the first five channels. It is far too early to say even when or how all of them will be taken up.
Secondly, the Home Secretary has the power to make exceptions by order to the "must carry" rule, and before doing so he must consult the Cable Authority. If the operation of the "must carry" rule were to prove entirely unreasonable to cable companies because of an untoward increase in the number of DBS services beyond what is currently envisaged, the Home Secretary would always in the last resort be able to make exceptions if that proved necessary. While, therefore, I appreciate the wish of the cable companies for some certainty in these matters, I hope that, in view of the explanations and assurances which I have given, the noble Lords will be content.
Lord Glanusk: I thank the noble Baroness for that statement, but she seems to be trying to have it both ways. Normally the Front Bench is always telling us that legislation must last indefinitely or for 25 years or more. Now it seems to be telling us, "Forget about the future; it will all sort itself out. The techniques will change and no doubt you will be able to cope with more than five channels". I find that a slightly poor argument; but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("broadcasting authority") and insert ("person providing the licensed diffusion service").
The noble Lord said: Clause 12(2) relates to the problem that may arise when reception in an area
410
covers, in effect, two broadcasts simultaneously. The concluding line gives power to the broadcasting authority to determine which of the two shall be taken by a particular cable. We believe that this is unreasonable; that the broadcasting authority may not be the best person to make the decision as to whether a particular part of the country has to listen to Welsh television instead of British television, or whatever it might be.
Lord Elton: I am sure that my noble friend is aware that the Welsh are British. They would be very offended if he were to suggest otherwise.
Lord Mottistone: I should have said "Welsh or English". I have got so much out of the habit of talking about the English; that is the terrible thing. The Scots and the Welsh have done this to me. There are not any Scotsmen here—what a pity! Whether one has to listen to one programme or another—and let us take it back to England and say the Birmingham area or the Southern area—the people who are most suitable to make a decision as to what service shall be provided to their customers, who are paying them for the service, are the cable operators. They are the chaps who will know. It seems unreasonable that another authority, which may have other axes to grind and which is not particularly governed by the practical knowledge of the market that the cable operator will have, should make that decision. So we say that, instead of the broadcasting authority, the:
"person providing the licensed diffusion service"
would be the more appropriate person for this particular task. I hope that the Government will bow to what one might call the practical needs of the market and, in the last resort, the needs of the common customer. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: This of course arises under the "must carry" rule. We are therefore dealing with public service broadcasting, and public service broadcasting considerations should apply rather than purely commercial broadcasting or narrowcasting considerations. Therefore, the broadcasting authority is the correct and proper organisation to make that determination.
Earl De La Warr: The noble Lord, Lord Howard, makes much of the fact that it is public service broadcasting. Those of us who have been in the relay cable business for many years know well that the contractors hate having the area of their market upset. That is really why they like to control the areas that are being covered by cable. It is no more and no less than that.
I will not embark on any further description of it, but I have known this happen between Thames and Southern, and between Anglia and Yorkshire. I invite the Committee to accept that this is a commercial request from the IBA, and I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend Lord Mottistone has most eloquently moved his amendment expressing the view that it should be for the person providing a diffusion service to decide

411
which programmes included in a broadcast service he will relay under the "must carry" rule, if a choice is open to him. Under the amendment the appropriate broadcaster would have no say in the matter.
It may be of some assistance to the Committee if I give some explanation of the reasoning behind subsection (2) of Clause 12. It deals with the case where a diffusion service is provided in what we may term an overlap area—for example, where the programmes of two TV companies are intended for reception—or where the area in which the diffusion service is provided straddles the boundary between the areas of intended reception for two ITV companies, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr mentioned.
This provision is not only of relevance to ITV, because there are also regional variations in BBC1, and, of course, as between England and Wales, in Channel 4. But I use ITV as my example because, with its federal system, the regional variations are more marked. The purpose of Clause 12(2) is to provide that, in the circumstances I have outlined, the "must carry" obligation extends to only one of the services. The cable operator may wish to take both, but what the Bill says (and I think that my noble friend accepts this) is that he should not have to do so.
The purpose of the amendment brought forward by my noble friend is to give the cable operator the choice of which service to carry in an overlap area, rather than give the broadcaster the final say, as the Bill conveys. We do not think it would be right, however, that in an overlap area the provider of the diffusion service should be free to decide which of the services he provides to fulfil his obligation under Clause 12(1). We are, after all, talking about the broadcasters' services. It is they who decide which transmitters to allocate to which services, although for topographical reasons there are overlaps at points—and I think that Wales is one such place.
This geographical allocation of transmitters is particularly important in the case of ITV, because an ITV company's income from advertising is in part dependent upon the size of the market; that is, the number of homes served by the transmitters allocated to that company. To allow the provider of a diffusion service reaching, possibly, several hundred thousand homes to choose how to fulfil his obligation under the "must carry" rule could be to risk undermining the respective policies of the IBA and the BBC in respect of transmitter allocation.
I think that the problem which we are discussing is a fairly narrow one because, as I have already said, the cable operator will be able to relay more than one service and, no doubt, if there is a demand for more than one, it will be in his own interests, if he is in an "overlap" area, to do so. But for the reasons which I have given, the Government think that it would be wrong for him to be free to choose how to fulfil the "must carry" obligation, and therefore I cannot support this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am extremely disappointed—more disappointed than I have been throughout the passage of this Bill so far. I really am. It is such a "most un-Conservative" approach as to be quite disgraceful.
412
It is the sort of thing that one would expect from noble Lords opposite. It tells us that the ordinary person who has a set of customers cannot make a decision as to what he has to do; he is forced to have four channels, whether or not he wants them. He must have another five, or even more, DBS channels using up his space; he is now told that if his customers do not like, say, Harlech Television, because it is half in Welsh, he must take it, but he can have another channel from, say, Birmingham at, so to speak, his own expense. I think that this is disgraceful. It is quite contrary to the principles of the party to which I have the honour to belong. I think that this is the most terrible statement that I have heard from my Front Bench.
I should like to have some sort of assurance that my noble friend will think again on this point, because to protect the ITA people and all those dreadful characters who are trying to run this Bill in advance of its time is carrying matters too far. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some concession which will prevent me from taking more stringent action.
Lord Mishcon: I always know, and I believe that Members of the Committee know, that it is just when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, gets angry and uses extreme language that he realises he must be on a very weak wicket, because when he is on a strong one, he always speaks with such moderation and persuasiveness and threatens no one.
Lord Mottistone: I think there are moments when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, goes a bit far. When I get angry, I get angry for a very good reason—because I think that the fundamentals are being challenged. I may try to be persuasive in order to get views across in situations where I am not carried away by a sense of deep, deep emotion. But I do not do that because I am on weak ground and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would withdraw the implication that I get annoyed only if I am on weak ground. There are some people who play things that way, but I never do.
Lord Mishcon: The last thing in the world I thought I was doing was offending the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. In trying to introduce a light note at this hour, if anything that I have said has offended him, I withdraw it completely. Perhaps, rather more peacefully, I can now say what I wanted to say. It is not because of any ideology that my noble friends and I would support what the Minister has said; it is really on the pure case of justice. It is a question of whether you ought or ought not to be judge in your own cause.
I am perfectly sure that this would not happen with many cable companies, but there could be the position where a cable company wants to get the best viewing public it can, which is a very natural objective and a very proper one. On this criss-cross of two programmes coming from ITV or the BBC, one programme may be a rather popular one and the other may be less popular; one may be in a language which is not usually adopted by the members of a certain area—and I have in mind Wales—and one may be rather more acceptable to that population. If one is a judge in one's own cause, there could be a grave

413
temptation to choose the less popular programme from the BBC or the ITV, because that will increase the customers of the commercial operator. In those circumstances, therefore, the proper people to judge which is the more acceptable programme are obviously either the BBC or the ITV.
If the noble Lord—who I hope has graciously accepted what I hope he regards as a gracious apology and withdrawal, because I have no wish to offend him—would take that as a moderate argument from these Benches, not based on any ideological considerations—which he accused us of having in a manner which is not acceptable to him—I hope he will realise that that is a perfectly proper argument against that which he has nut forward.
Lord Mottistone: I am very happy to accept the apologies of the noble Lord. I also see that from his point of view the argument he has put forward is a proper one, but I do not believe it to be so. I think that in this case the proper argument is that the cable company must have the opportunity to sell its services to meet the wishes of its customers. The ultimate ruler is the customer. It is the customer's view that matter.
Quite frequently in parts of this country even today geography forces us to listen to what we do not want to listen to, or to see what we do not want to see, because we happen to be in a particular district. That is bad luck. But if you have a cable it may be that you will be able to see the bit you really want to see. It is the customer that I am looking after. That is the point where we differ. But I accept the argument of the noble Lord. It is the sort of argument I would expect him to put forward. I am sorry I got extremely angry, but I really do get annoyed when people attribute the wrong things to me, and that is going a bit far.
Baroness Trumpington: To use my own words, I have been feeling somewhat "piggy in the middle". To use the words of the late Lord Reith, I would say to both my noble friend Lord Mottistone and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, "I hear you". I would further say, due to this little debate, that I cannot undertake to bring anything back to the House at Report, but I can assure my noble friend that I shall report the great strength of his feelings to my colleagues in the interval and ask them to consider the text both of his argument and of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend. At the same time, I shall see whether I can devise an amendment which satisfies me and the Government, but it will probably not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, that is another matter. I shall do my best. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("DBS") and insert ("pay")
The noble Lord said: This is preparatory to a fairly major amendment which comes somewhat later on.
414
The Government appear to be envisaging that pay services will occur only on DBS.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Lord give way for a second? May I ask him whether it would be as well to discuss together with Amendment No. 64 his Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 119 and 121. They seem to hang together?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I should be delighted to do so. I beg leave to move this series of Amendments, Nos. 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, and 71.
Lord Elton: I think the numbers are 64, 69, 70, and then we leap ahead to 119 and 121; but I can always remind the noble Lord when we get there. The noble Lord moves only one amendment and speaks to the remainder.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I am sorry. Not altogether surprisingly, I have got myself somewhat confused, too. We have here 64, 69, 70, and much later 119 and 121, but really 69 and 70 are the ones which go with 64.
Amendment No. 69: Page 12, line 15, leave out ("DBS") and insert ("pay").
Amendment No. 70: Page 12, line 15, leave out from ("a") to end of line 17 and insert ("broadcasting service by virtue of which the broadcasting authority receives money or other valuable consideration either—

(a) in respect of the provisions of broadcasting services for general reception from those to whom such services are provided; or

(b) where the service is provided by means of the technique known as direct broadcasting by satellite or DBS, in respect of the broadcasting of advertisements or the inclusion in a broadcast of any matter which is provided at the expense of a sponsor (that is any person other than a broadcasting authority, the Open University and the performers) for the purpose of being broadcast for general reception and is the subject of a broadcast announcement mentioning the sponsor or his goods or services.").

Amendment No. 119: Clause 34: Page 31, line 9, leave out ("the BBC or the IBA") and insert ("a person licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to broadcast programmes for general reception").
Amendment No. 121: Page 32, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) References in this Act and in all other Acts amended by this Act to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority either together or in the alternative shall be deemed to include a reference to every person licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to broadcast programmes for general reception.").
I hope I can be extremely brief on this matter. In due course, in this wonderful year when there are going to be heaven knows how many lines per cable—when I shall fortunately long be dead—there will be methods of distributing pay services other than direct broadcasting from satellites. We already have what I suppose I could call indirect broadcasting from satellites; in other words, broadcasting from satellites to lower power which is then put down cables. We have things known by initials which I am not sure that I can remember correctly. Is it the MDS? It is the multi-propagation distribution service, which is done in a different way.
There will no doubt be terrestrial transmissions in due course, pay services, which will go down cables. There will be all sorts of new methods about which we do not know yet, including, I have no doubt whatsoever, broadcasts along lasers. In fact, in the long

415
run lasers, or possibly even masers, may hold the greatest future, rather than cable itself, for the transmission of signals, whether they be data or entertainment.
I therefore want to ensure that this legislation, for which 25 years was mentioned as a possible life, can certainly not be struck down in just a few years' time because somebody has discovered that we can actually send pay services in ways other than by DBS. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships have already heard much concern about the "must carry" rule and the burden it might impose on services. These amendments would significantly widen the potential scope of the "must carry" rule. The present structure of Clause 12 presupposes that everything broadcast over the BBC and IBA terrestrial networks is freely available off air and should therefore be relayed over cable without any financial transaction between the broadcaster and the cable operator. In the case of DBS we accept that whether or not the service is offered on a pay basis, cable operators should be able to negotiate financial terms with the broadcaster.
These amendments are based on the hypothesis that the BBC or the IBA or, I would deduce from the later amendments, some person as yet unknown, might start to provide a pay television service other than by DBS. That is what the noble Lord has suggested. What this means is that the broadcasters might offer pay television over the terrestrial transmitter networks during the night when the normal services were no longer running. Technically this could be done if the coded signals were received by a special device associated with a video recorder in the home which stored the programmes for later showings.
One has only to reflect on the idea for a moment to realise that it raises wide questions about the nature and organisation of all our broadcasting services in this country. It is a speculative and hypothetical idea and I do not believe that we can start amending Clause 12 to cater for something which is no more than a glimmer in the scientist's eye in some unspecified form at some as yet unknown date. Until we know what such services might be we should not create the presumption contained in the amendment and which I think is the principle that the noble Lord would like to see in the Bill, that the "must carry" rule should apply to them also. This is interesting because the noble Lord, Lord Glanusk, was taxing us a moment ago with suddenly not wanting legislation to last for ever. That is to ask it to remain in force when the conditions for which it was designed have been totally changed.
When we discussed Amendment No. 62 it was made clear that the "must carry" rule is seen by many as having reached its limit. Although the Government were unable to accept that amendment, we are equally unable to accept this one which, far from setting a limit, would open up the prospect of a whole new range of potential obligations for cable operators.
What I should say is not to address myself to the detail of the amendment, but what the noble Lord wants to know and what I can tell him is that we do not think that the art of legislation is so developed as to
416
enable it to be designed to cope with technological developments which we really cannot foresee. Therefore, while I am obliged to him for opening our minds to the possibility, I should pass a word of thanks. He referred to his last amendments as "crummy". I would not say that; at some stage I should slip in a complimentary word to his draftsman for his meticulous and painstaking work, but I am afraid we cannot use this example of it.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I hope that, even if the Minister cannot accept the amendments I have put down on this occasion, he will at least consider the possibility of from time to time the Minister specifying such other services as might be subject to this rule. I do not believe that one can draft on one's feet. I certainly believe even less that a Minister can be expected to accept amendments which are drafted on the feet. However, I ask that the Minister and his advisers should again consider the questions for the future. We are all looking to the future. We are all trying to look beyond the immediate period of this year or next year and to what will happen in the 1990s, what the shape of broadcasting, narrow casting, broad band cable, and so on, is going to be. All I ask is that he goes back and looks again at this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 12, line 8, after ("otherwise") insert ("but subject to subsection (5) below").
The noble Lord said: Here again, if the Committee agrees, perhaps we might take with Amendment No. 65 Amendments Nos. 68 and 71.
Amendment No. 68: Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the person appointed for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3) above shall consider the matters which remain to be agreed between the parties and, after giving to the parties an opportunity of presenting their cases respectively, shall make such order as he may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances having regard to the actual expenses incurred by the person operating the diffusion service in sending the sounds, visual images or other signals (as the case may be) to the subscribers to the service and shall, on request made by any person and on payment by that person of such sum (if any) as he may reasonably require, furnish to that person a copy of his order.
(5) The person appointed for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3) above shall not be entitled to make an order pursuant to which the operator of the diffusion service is entitled to charge the subscribers to his service for the reception of the pay service any price other than that at which the pay service is available to subscribers direct from the broadcasting authority or such other price as the broadcasting authority may specify.").
Amendment No. 71: Page 12, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) An appeal shall lie to the Court on any question of law or fact arising from any order, or arising in the course of any determination, by the person appointed by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (3) above.
( ) The person so appointed may, if he thinks fit, make an interim order at any time during the course of his determination or, in the event of an appeal, after making his order and any such interim order shall be binding on the parties until the final order is made or, as the case may be, becomes effective.
( ) Where any interim order has been made, such adjustments shall be made when the final order is made or becomes effective as are necessary to put the parties, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the position in which they would have been had the final order taken effect at the time when the interim order was made.

417
( ) In this section "the Court"—

(a) in relation to any determinaton in England or Wales, or in Northern Ireland, means the High Court; and

(b) in relation to any determination in Scotland, means the Court of Session.").

These amendments relate to a disagreement which may arise between the cable people and the broadcasters. The provision says that if there is not an agreement then a person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State shall determine what the disagreement is about, whether it is over financial matters or otherwise. It seems rather unsatisfactory that there are no terms of reference to determine the financial or other provisions as between the broadcasters and the cable operator. It is worth mentioning under the procedures in the Bill that it is not an arbitration or any kind of judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, and the person appointed would make his order purely as an administrative act.
There may be some safeguards in administrative law. I am no lawyer but, as I understand it, it is relatively new and rather undeveloped jurisdiction and certainly there ought to be express safeguards of the kind I have proposed in the amendment in relation both to the procedure and the amount which the cable operator is to keep or to be paid; and the publication of his orders should facilitate settlements being reached elsewhere. I think that covers the basis of what I have proposed. The question of price, of course, also enters into it. The only relevant provision appears to be in Clause 12(3), which determines whether financial or otherwise. I do not believe that is entirely satisfactory. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I will be brief but I feel there is an obligation on Ministers, when noble Lords putting amendments are very brief, not to curtail their remarks beyond the point which the noble Lords who have made the curtailment would wish to hear expressed. When DBS starts, there can be no guarantee that the negotiations between the parties would necessarily result in an agreement and the Government therefore had to provide in the Bill for a means of bringing the matter to a conclusion, so that the "must carry" rule can apply. We must remember that by the nature of the "must carry" rule neither party has the right to refuse to co-operate with the other. The cable operator must consent to include the DBS service in his package of services and the broadcaster must agree for his service to be carried over cable.
The noble Lord's amendments would seek to spell out the precise procedure to be followed in the case of a dispute. We are not attracted by this formalised approach to the problem. Obviously the person appointed by the Home Secretary to determine the matter would need to act impartially and reasonably. To say specifically that he must allow the parties to present cases is probably superfluous. But, more important, our view is that if the whole process is to be formalised the result is almost certainly going to be delay—perhaps quite massive delay—and I do not believe that would be in the interests either of the customers or of the business. Delay is expensive and ought to be avoided.
418
The Government therefore believe that the "wise man" should be left to determine both the procedure which he follows and the criteria which he decides to take into account. The noble Lord's amendment suggests some criteria. If there is to be a list, I am sure that the cable companies would argue very strongly for a very much longer one. It does not seem to the Government that this is a matter on which Parliament can be expected to lay down definitive criteria.
There is one point which the Government fully accept, however, and that is that the broadcaster might have the power to determine what price the individual consumer is charged for his service. The negotiation and determination procedures are about the share-out between the broadcaster and the cable operator, and not about the basic cost. It was not our intention to suggest anything else in Clause 12(3), but we shall certainly have another look at it to see whether it offers the broadcasters the safeguards which we should certainly wish to provide.
On the question of rights of appeal and interim orders, I would simply repeat what I have already said about the undesirability of turning this process of resolving disputes into a sort of quasi-judicial exercise, because of the necessity to reach a swift conclusion.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I am sorry if I was unnecessarily brief. I had been urged earlier to speak as sharply as might be, so that your Lordships may get home. But if I was so brief as to be incomprehensible, I apologise to the Committee. It seems to me that this Government do not always know on their right hand what their left hand is doing. The noble Lord the Minister has said that he does not want to see a list of criteria which the person making this determination should be required to observe. If he would speak to his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, he would find that that is precisely what they are doing under the Agricultural Holdings Bill. They are issuing an enormously long list of criteria, when previously there were no criteria at all except for a definition of what was the rent properly payable. I suppose one must not say that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, though as a landlord perhaps I am entitled to say that. Anyway, I hope that the department can look again at certain aspects of what I have suggested.
I do not want to erect an enormous apparatus which will take months to work out the answers. I want, just as much as the Minister wants, a quick process which can achieve swift and sure results. But I do not believe you will get this by leaving it entirely in the air, without any kind of guidelines as to what the person making the determination, on appointment by the Secretary of State, should consider. We do not even know what sort of person he will appoint. I would certainly appreciate it if this could be further elaborated, if not at this stage of the evening, perhaps at the next stage of the Bill, when the Minister might indicate what is in the mind of the Government in making such determinations. In the confident hope that we shall hear something on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 12, line 10, leave out from first ("by") to ("and") in line 11 and insert ("the Authority").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should like to take the new manuscript amendment No. 66A and Amendment No. 67.
Amendment No. 66A: Page 12, line 11, leave out from ("payable") to ("in") in line 12.
Amendment No. 67: line 13, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Authority").
This completes the consequentials and is not of importance to the Committee. The point at issue here arose in the first instance from the concluding lines of subsection (3) of Clause 12, which read "in such proportions as he may determine". We thought that the "he" applied to the person so appointed in line 12, and we considered it a little ridiculous that the person so appointed should be deciding on his own fee. Looking at it again, I am sure that this is meant to refer to the Secretary of State, but it is not at all clear which it should be. Whatever else comes out of this amendment, I hope that the Government will make sure that the wording ensures that the Secretary of State is referred to, if that is what is intended.
We then asked ourselves: why the Secretary of State? After all, we have this splendid new Cable Authority, and this is just the sort of task they can do. The broadcasting authorities may think that they are awfully pompous and large, but they have the burden, in this case, of dealing with financial affairs, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has just been telling us. He tried to safeguard their methods of dealing with financial affairs.
It seemed to us to be quite a simple matter. One needs an arbitrator, and who better than the Cable Authority, which will know all the ins and outs by then? It is a straightforward battle between the broadcasting authorities and the individual cable operators. That led us to add the further amendments to replace,
"a person appointed",
and insert
"the Authority".
I think that is a nice, simple solution. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may stick my neck out and say that I did not read this clause in the same way as, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, read it. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected; but I thought I should put the other point of view.
This person is sitting as an arbitrator. As I understood it, it is not an uncommon procedure for the arbitrator to decide, having heard the parties, in what proportion the cost of the arbitration—namely, his costs, his fees—shall be borne. I read it therefore that the proportions were to be fixed, in regard to the fee, by the various parties—the arbitrator having heard the dispute and having decided—in such proportions as he (the person appointed by the Secretary of State) shall determine.
If I happen to be wrong—and that is something which occurs very frequently—then the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has made a very good point, because
420
it is obvious then that there must be some doubt regarding the grammar of this clause, which should be corrected for the purpose of clarification.
Lord Elton: I can first undertake to have the drafting very carefully tested; I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right. If there is doubt, then, on first blush, anyway, it is not satisfactory; and we will certainly look at that point.
There are other issues in the amendment which my noble friend has put down. While we hope that the broadcaster who provides a DBS service and the cable company who will distribute it will be able to reach agreement over the terms on which the DBS service is relayed, there is obviously a need to provide for what will happen should that not be the case.
In drafting the Bill we gave careful consideration to who should act as the referee in the case of disagreement. Of course we considered the Cable Authority as a candidate, and I have no doubt that, as a responsible public body, they would have carried out the duty as fairly as they could. But they are (are they not?) to be under a statutory duty to promote the interests of cable. After all, that is to be in the Bill. This is a sensitive area and one of great importance financially, both to the broadcasters who will be providing the DBS services and to the cable companies. It is essential that the mechanism for resolving disputes should not only be fair but be seen to be fair.
In view of the Cable Authority's general duty under Clause 4(8) to use their licensing powers in the best manner calculated to promote cable services, it would verge on the impossible for the authority to demonstrate beyond the risk of challenge that they were completely impartial as between the financial interests of the cable companies and those of the DBS broadcasters. That is why we decided on the solution of a "wise man". As to the fixing of his fee, even advisers sometimes hesitate to commit themselves, and I will certainly not do so until I am able to write to my noble friend—probably next week.
Lord Mishcon: I say this only so that the record will be clear, and I shall take just one brief second. The arbitrator or referee whom we are dealing with here does not fix his fee; he fixes the proportions in which his fee shall be paid, and that is having heard the parties. I should have thought it logical that that was the proper interpretation of the section. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, may be right and I may be wrong.
Lord Elton: I committed the forgivable sin of leaving out half a dozen words which I should have said. The noble Lord is right.
Lord Mottistone: I am sure the noble Lords are right, but it is still not clear to me from this who fixes the arbitrator's fee. However, I accept fully what my noble friend has said about having a good look at the wording and I accept his other arguments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Manuscript Amendment No. 66A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Restrictions on inclusion of certain events]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
9.42 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 20, after ("event") insert ("or a restricted event").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, and I think on this occasion that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I do not take with it all the other related amendments. Some of them might fall automatically to be not moved, or whatever, when we come to the appropriate point. I think it would be appropriate now if I were to say something, and I will try, in view of the beady eye of the Government Chief Whip, which is fixed upon me, and perhaps even more so in the presence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to speak briefly on this matter.
We now come, under Clause 13, to a series of amendments intended to deal with the protection of the interests of the consumer in certain special categories. I have found this—as have no doubt the Government, both when preparing their White Paper and when preparing the Bill—by far the most difficult area in which to attempt to reconcile the proper functions of the broadcasting authorities, the prosperity which I genuinely wish (though they may not believe me) the cable companies, and, above all, the interests of the consumers.
Although at this stage I am only speaking formally to Amendment No. 73, I think it is essential for me to establish or outline the general problem in order to understand why I propose a somewhat different machinery for achieving what most of your Lordships would agree is a desirable end. In doing so, I am making the assumption, which may or may not turn out to be justified, that cable proves over the years to be a success in Britain. But even the word I have used, "success", should perhaps be used in inverted commas, since it would inevitably leave a high proportion—how high we do not know—of listening and viewing members of the public out in the cold with no possibility whatever of physical access to a cable system, however much money they might choose to try to pay for it. What that proportion will be I do not know, but the audience will certainly never begin to approach the 99 per cent. or so who can receive terrestrial transmissions from BBC and ITV, or a potential audience hardly less, possibly even more, than that which will be able to receive satellite signals on DBS.
Before the advent of broad band cable, the problem was dealt with relatively simply by agreement among the broadcasters whereby it was agreed that certain national events should not be exclusively available to either service. There are reserve powers in the Broadcasting Act 1981 for regulations to be introduced should the need arise, but all Home Secretaries, present and past, are I am sure very glad that they have never had to activate those provisions.
There is a wide difference between the kind of events which are intended to be protected in this way. So far as I know, ITV has never attempted to cover the Boat Race. It has not been particularly interested in Test matches and after a while abandoned its coverage of Wimbledon. In the same way the BBC ceased to broadcast the Derby despite getting considerably more viewers for its coverage of this single horse race in an afternoon than did ITV, and left ITV alone in the field because of its contract with Epsom racecourse to cover other races on the same day. The expenditure in those days of about £40,000 to cover this one race was not considered to be justified.
The principal event which continues to be covered by both services is the football Cup Final. Over the years this led between the ITV and BBC and even, dare I say, within the board of governors of the BBC itself to considerable arguments about something called alternation. Coverage of the Olympics led to the same kind of arguments. People asked why the channels should broadcast the same events at the same time because it gave them no alternative even though they had different commentators on the same event. Nothing could be more different in their nature than these two happenings which are both referred to as "events". I am talking about the Olympics and the football Cup Final.
This indicates that they are trying to reach sensible answers. The football Cup Final is a single event lasting 90 minutes, unless there is extra time, and occurs at a single location. The Commonwealth Games, soon to take place in Edinburgh, are on this occasion in this country but stretch over a considerable period and cover events in different locations. The Olympics cover even more events in more locations spread over a longer period and in any event take place this year, and probably for years to come, outside this country. Even where there is only one location in the Olympics, two events on track and field may be taking place simultaneously in the same stadium.
A Test match may take place in one location but may cover five leisurely days. The World Cup and its preliminary rounds are held in many different stadia and may lead, for example, to Scotland playing in one match on the same afternoon as England is playing another match 200 miles distant. Wimbledon stretches over a fortnight and although at the end all interest is focused on the finals on the Centre Court, interesting matches may well be taking place in the early stages on the outer courts.
I think I have said enough to illustrate that the set of rules which is designed to prevent monopoly coverage of sporting events of national interest is far from easy to devise or apply. I have not attempted to mention non-sporting national events such as Trooping the Colour, Royal weddings and world events such as landings on the moon, for all of which I suspect it would be wrong to permit exclusive coverage to one channel in this country.
The other factor which has been changed quite enormously over the years since the advent of ITV—and I do not for one second suggest that it has anything to do with that—is the increasing commercialisation of sport, whether by way of sponsorship or shirt advertising or the earnings of its

423
leading practitioners. The Olympic Games may still in name be a gathering of amateur athletes from all round the world, but the attitude and earnings of those athletes are a very far cry from the days of "Chariots of Fire".
Far be it from me to wish to reduce the amount of money which the governing bodies of those sports can earn through television and plough back into the sports themselves. I am very conscious, for instance, of the sums—literally millions—which Wimbledon has ploughed back into the LTA for coaching and other purposes from its earnings from television—largely, it is true, from what it is able to sell overseas. But the days are long since gone when we can imagine that the broadcasters or the cable companies are dealing with anyone but the most hard-headed negotiators and representatives of the clubs and individuals concerned.
I may so far seem to your Lordships to have been speaking rather in terms of a Second Reading speech than to the amendments which stand in my name. I have tried to set the scene in this way to show why I believe so passionately that in relation to sporting events money must not be the only factor which is allowed to speak. It is precisely because cable will never by any stretch of the imagination provide that universal coverage which broadcasters can, whether operating by terrestrial or satellite transmitters, that I want to try to ensure that this sizeable proportion of the population is not deprived of sporting events which it has in the past been accustomed to viewing or listening to.
By far the simplest system would be a complete prohibition of pay-per-view on sporting events. The reason for this is that, while pay-per-view may be prohibited for a limited list of events, it would still be available for the less important events where a sporting programme provider—and I imagine that it is highly likely that we shall have at least one programme provider who offers his services to numerous cable companies—would almost invariably be able to outbid broadcasters for these particular events. This they will be unlikely to be able to do if the payment by him for these events has to come out of the general pool of his expenses over a year for all the sporting events which he provides on that particular channel.
If pay-per-view was available to these people, we would reach the absurd position, which could not for long be tenable, whereby the supposedly less important event could earn a great deal more money than that which could be earned by what hitherto had been regarded as the premier event. I do not know whether the prestige of Wimbledon is such that it could survive such attractive terms being offered to its players by tournaments such as those held at Bournemouth, but I am certain that the Football Association would start to cut up very rough indeed if a single particularly attractive league match could earn more from a cable sports programme provider than its own Cup Final could from the broadcasters.
The Government have in some measure done their best to cover this by the indication of the events described in subsection (2)—and which I have for convenience called a "restricted event" in Amendment No. 85—in addition to protected events.
424
The main object of my various amendments is to make sure that these also have the benefit of the protections already inserted for protected events. My first amendment, No. 73, endeavours to put them on the same basis, and a comparable terms basis formula would thus apply to restricted events. I beg to move.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has brought us to the beginning of a series of amendments which address themselves to an issue of very great importance and very general interest. I think that I must follow him by giving a brief introductory background (as he did) to what we have attempted to achieve in Clause 13.
What we are seeking to deal with is a very difficult conflict of interest, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord De La Warr is in his place, because it was his late father who spoke in your Lordships' House 30 years ago at the Report stage of the Television Bill, and spoke, what is more, as Postmaster-General. Though he was talking about the impact on the BBC of the introduction of ITV, what he said summarised very well the dilemma which now faces us arising, as it does, from the possible implications of cable for the BBC and independent television. He said:
"We are faced with a very real dilemma here. On the one hand, I think that we are all agreed that it is most undesirable that a certain limited number of events…can be bought up and restricted to a small number of viewers. On the other hand, it would be grossly unfair to take action which would depreciate the value of selected events solely because they are especially popular and important, and that is what may be done by embarking on restrictive legislation against them".
That is a reasonably fair summary of the position in which we stand 30 years later. It is quite outside our power to ensure that anyone actually obtains the television rights for anything. The right to decide who, if anyone, may cover any particular event lies, in the last resort, with the organiser of the event. That is something which we need to recall constantly. We all know, of course, that television coverage can greatly enhance the value and prestige of some events, but that certainly does not mean that televison has anything like an automatic right to cover anything and everything. I need point only to the Football League to illustrate exactly what I mean. It is only this season that the Football League decided that it would allow some live coverage of league matches.
The third general consideration that we need to keep in mind is as follows. It is an inevitable consequence of the growth of cable and other new forms of television, such as satellite broadcasting, that the cost of the rights for the most popular programme material will go up as competition increases. Whatever safeguards we seek to build into the Bill for certain particular categories of programming, we cannot, on the one hand, encourage new services to develop, and, on the other, simultaneously try to stop them competing with the broadcasters for the whole range of material which the broadcasters have traditionally had to themselves. Cable will mean more competition for programmes and for audiences, and the challenge facing us is not how to limit the competition but to see how we can obtain the full benefits from it and at the same time see that the broadcasters continue to offer the wide range and excellent standard which we have come to expect.

425
The report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, recommended that although cable needed to have a wide measure of freedom to acquire and produce popular programming, there were two particular areas in which the public interest justified certain restrictions. First, it suggested that cable should be prevented from acquiring exclusive rights for the great sporting or other national events—events which the ordinary viewer had come to expect to be able to see on BBC or ITV. For all the foreseeable future cable will cover only parts of the country, and the inquiry accepted that it would be unreasonable if it were to take away from those who would continue to depend on the broadcasters the possibility of seeing this particular category of events.
Secondly, the inquiry thought that cable should also be prevented from offering any programmes on a pay-per-view basis, at least for the time being. The reasoning behind that was that though cable would have to depend to a very large extent on pay television generally—in other words, pay-per-channel or set of channels—it ought not to be able to charge for individual programmes. The inquiry held that that would give it an unfair advantage over the broadcasters in acquiring rights, in particular rights to sports events.
In the White Paper the Government endorsed the inquiry's view that safeguards were needed for both the great national events—which in both the report and Clause 13(1) of the Bill are called "protected events"—and a wider range of events which might be bought up and offered over cable on a pay-per-view basis. So far as any of the protected events are concerned, paragraph 108 of the White Paper and Clause 13(1) of the Bill propose that a cable company should be able to cover them only if the broadcasters also have the opportunity to do so on comparable terms.
On pay-per-view the Government did not think it necessary to impose an absolute ban in all circumstances. Cable interests had very forcefully made the point that there were many new events which cable might wish to cover and that there could be no possible objection if they were offered to consumers on a pay-per-programme basis. What the Government proposed and have now sought to give effect to in Clause 13(2) is that cable should be allowed pay-per-view but not in circumstances where the event is one which has regularly been covered by the broadcasters.
I started my introduction referring to my noble friend's late noble father when he spoke 30 years ago as Postmaster General. I would only refer to him again by saying that he described this very issue as the most difficult problem in the Bill. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. I wish to make clear 30 years later that we shall wish, after the Committee stage, to reflect carefully on all the points made during the discussions on this clause to see whether, as we certainly hope, we have found quite the right words to achieve our intention. This is an important and complex clause. If there are improvements that can be made, we shall be happy to be guided by the Committee.
The effect of the change that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, would have us make in Clause 13(1) would be to prevent cable showing not
426
just one of the protected events but any event that the broadcasters had regularly covered unless the Cable Authority was satisfied that the broadcasters had had the opportunity to acquire the rights on comparable terms. This would be a very significant extension of the events covered by Clause 13(1) and it would go much further than anything which either the Hunt inquiry or the White Paper recommended, or, I suspect, my noble friends would endorse. It would greatly restrict the freedom of cable companies to negotiate deals with the rights holders.
It would require the Cable Authority to form a judgment on whether comparable terms had been offered to the broadcasters in a potentially large number of cases. Assessing the comparability of terms, given the intricacies of these sorts of transactions, will not be an easy task. The Government accept that such an assessment is a necessary precaution against the possible acquisition of exclusive rights for the great national events. But we do not think that it would be right to extend it to everything that the broadcasters have regularly covered.
The Government fully endorse the wish of the broadcasters to continue offering the public the services which they have come to expect and which the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has done so much to ensure that they should come to expect. Equally, the Government do not wish to put unnecessary obstacles in the path of the development of cable. In our view, the approach we have adopted in Clause 13 strikes roughly the right balance. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, would tip the balance decisively against the interests of cable and, indeed, the rights holders themselves. They do not therefore commend themselves to the Government nor can I commend them to your Lordships.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: May I inquire whether the Minister is referring to all the amendments that come under this clause, including those which relate to seven days rather than 24 hours, and so on?
Lord Elton: Indeed not. The noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 73 and said he would come to others later. I have strayed, I think, into Amendment No. 85 and possibly nudged Amendment No. 79. But these are all on the same issue. It is the meat of Amendment No. 73. I am not seeking to inhibit the noble Lord.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I do not wish to press this. Above all, I do not wish to restrict competition unduly. As I stated earlier, we have a difficult position. We wish sport to be better funded in this country. One way it can be better funded is through television and radio. So anything that restricts competition in this field in itself is not necessarily good for sport. I keep coming back to the high proportion of the population who will never be able to receive cable. I ask that all your Lordships who have occasion to consider these and other amendments at a later stage should think of those people. Of course, not everyone can get everything as of right. I would not pretend that they should. But where for many years they have been accustomed to receiving all or the greater part of a

427
sporting event as it occurs, I believe that they should continue to be allowed to do so. On the understanding that the Government have been applying their best thoughts as to how this very difficult problem may be solved, just as we have, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment no. 73.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved amendment No. 74:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("a broadcasting authority") and insert ("the broadcasting authorities").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we could discuss No. 75 together with No. 74 because they both do the same thing: they turn the singular into the plural; they turn "a broadcasting authority" into "the broadcasting authorities"; and they turn "a programme contractor has" into "programme contractors have".
Amendment No. 75: Page 12, line 22, leave out ("a programme contractor has") and insert ("programme contractors have").
This is dealing with the question of protecting the protected events and making them available to other broadcasters.
I was glad, I confess, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howard, say that he found Clause 13 difficult, and I think the noble Lord the Minister confessed that he found it rather difficult. This emboldens me to think that it was not just my stupidity which made me think Clause 13 was difficult. I was very grateful for being able to have the Government's Notes on Clauses which were available from the Printed Paper Office. When I saw one of the notes which referred to these two amendments, I thought the Government were firmly on my side, because I read in the notes:
"A major event of national interest such as the FA Cup Final cannot be brought up for showing on cable unless the broadcasters"—
plural—
"have the opportunity to purchase the rights at the same price".
Then it seemed the Government changed their minds because in paragraph 3 of the same notes one reads:
"The effect of this is that cable cannot acquire the rights to a protected event unless at least one of the broadcasting organisations first has the opportunity to buy the rights on comparable terms.".
I must say I should have thought that the Government's first thoughts were best, for this reason. I suppose that the Cable Authority are going to be anxious that cable television will succeed, and one of their best chances, I should think, would be to get hold of a popular sporting event and have the exclusive right to show that. That would bring in new subscribers as nothing else would.
I imagine that the broadcasting world is a fairly small one; that the Cable Authority and the other broadcasters and the programme companies will know each other pretty well; and the Cable Authority in relation to a particular sporting event, will have a pretty good idea which of their rivals would be anxious to show that event, and which might not be interested. If the words of this subsection are in the singular, the Cable Authority will be able to select their rival who they least think will be interested in this event, have it offered to him on comparable terms, hope that he will refuse to take it, and then they will get what they want. I do not believe that that is the Government's
428
intention at all; I believe the intention is that all the other broadcasters shall be given this opportunity to show the event on comparable terms.
As the subsection is printed, there is going to be awful trouble, because one day either the BBC or ITA are going to say, "Now 95 per cent. of the viewers have lost their chance to see this because we would have shown it, but it was never offered to us". But cable will be able to say, "But we offered it to the Welsh Authority"—or one of the programme contractors—"they turned it down, we are within the terms of subsection (1) and you have nothing to complain about". I think that we need the plural here instead of the singular. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The broadcasting authorities have a long-standing agreement among themselves not to acquire exclusive rights for the great national events. So once one has access to one event, in practice both do. That is why we prefered the singular to the plural, but if there is a danger in this I will certainy look at it between now and Report. That goes also for the other danger to which the noble Lord drew our attention.
Lord Airedale: I am very much obliged. I think that when the Minister has read my speech he will think that there is something in it. Having had that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 12, line 24, after ("comparable") insert ("financially and otherwise")
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises under the same subsection and I have sought to insert after the word "comparable", the words "financially and otherwise", because it occurs to me that people, when thinking of terms, tend to think principally, if not exclusively, of financial terms. In the matter that we are discussing, other terms are extremely important. I am thinking of the familiar Saturday afternoon situation when the BBC and the ITV are both trying to please everybody all the time and are showing about six different sporting events which are all going on at the same time. One gets a short snippet of one, and then one is switched over to the next event. Cable may not want to do that; it may want to show the whole of one event—for example, a cricket match.
The terms under which the BBC shows snippets to a huge audience may be comparable to the terms under which cable wishes to show the whole thing to a much smaller audience. But the other terms are totally different. In the one case it is only snatches of the event, and in the other case it is the whole thing. That is why I feel we need to emphasise that here we are talking not only about financial terms, but also about the other terms which are very important too. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I should like to add that the snippet versus whole-event argument applies equally to DBS. I have always seen one of the great advantages of DBS as being that it can show the whole event, as opposed to edited highlights. Whatever sporting event it may be that particularly interests

429
one—for example, a motor race—it can show the whole drama, which is absolutely different from a half-hour snippet. Anything we say in relation to this matter should apply equally to DBS.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is absolutely right; there are other considerations which can be as important as the financial considerations. The danger of elaborating any of the terms is that as we highlight one we put the others slightly into shadow. I can assure the noble Lord that the Bill as drafted does cover all the considerations.
So far as extracts of events are concerned, I think we shall be discussing that issue further when we come to Clause 13(2) because it relates more strictly to pay-per-view than the protected events, most of which are likely to be ones which the broadcasters would wish to carry in full, or almost in full. However, I can confirm that there is nothing in Clause 13(1) as it stands, to prevent cable companies showing the whole of an event if the broadcaster wishes to show only extracts. The test would be simply whether the broadcaster had the opportunity to acquire the rights of a whole event on comparable terms, and not whether he actually decided to do so.
Lord Airedale: I am much obliged and reassured by that reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("would be granted").
The noble Lord said: This is a small but rather curious matter. The whole tenor of subsection (1) is to explain the circumstances in which the cable operator shall not be granted the right to show the programme, but the last line of the subsection relapses into the past tense and we read:
"that person acquired the right".
This simply does not seem to be a very happy piece of drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I regret to say that the noble Lord has advanced his amendment in terms of art rather than science. If I am to reply in the same terms, all I can say is that the tense which jars on his ear chimes correctly on mine. I think that, as it is not a matter of great substance in the Bill but is a matter of great interest to the noble Lord and myself, rather than delve into this at greater length if the noble Lord is content, we might correspond or even talk about it at a later time.
Lord Airedale: I should not want to delay the Committee after 10 o'clock at night on a matter of drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I have to point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 77A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 78, 79 or 80A.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 12, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out subsection (2), which I believe is an unhappy subsection, and I have two separate quarrels with it. One is the use of the words in the penultimate line:
"an event which…is of a class or description",
because it seems to me to destroy the whole purpose of what has gone before. I can only explain this by giving an example. Let us take show jumping. Throughout the summer there may have been quite a number of show jumping events which have been broadcast by the BBC and the ITV. They then decide that they have had their fill and do not want to broadcast any more show jumping; but yet another show jumping event comes along and cable sees its chance and wants to show it, and why should it not? Its viewers would very much like to see it and the show jumping authority would be very pleased to have the television fee.
However, under this subsection as drafted cable is denied the opportunity because show jumping is:
"of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority".
I simply do not think that this subsection achieves what the Government seek to achieve.
Again, I am strengthened in this by the Government's own notes on Clause 13, because they appear to make it clear that they are not really talking about events of a "class or description"; they are talking about particular events. In paragraph 8 they say:
"New events, or ones which have not had regular coverage in the past on broadcast television, would be allowed. It will be for the Cable Authority to determine whether an event is one that has been regularly broadcast by one of the broadcasting authorities."
So they are not talking about events of a "class or description", they are talking about particular events which occur from year to year.
If the class or description was my only quarrel with the subsection, I should have put that down as a separate amendment. However, I think I must point out to the Government that there will be great difficulty in determining what is a particular event as it occurs from year to year. It is quite easy if it is a cup final, or some immensely famous event, but supposing it is a second-tier horse race, for example. Let us go for a moment with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, back to Epsom Racecourse. You have there a second-class race.
If the title is changed, presumably that does not make it a different event from year to year. If last year it was the Baked Beans Handicap and this year it is the Golden Cigar Handicap, and the other terms and conditions are the same, presumably it is the same event from year to year. Suppose the prize money goes up or down from year to year and the other conditions are the same, no doubt it is the same event. But supposing last year it was run at the spring meeting and this year it is going to be at the summer meeting. Does that make it the same event or a different event?
Supposing last year it was for three year-olds and four year-olds, and this year it is going to be for three year-olds and upwards. Is it the same event or a different one? If last year it was run over 10 furlongs

431
and this year it is going to be over nine furlongs, does that make it the same event this year as last, or is it a different event? I know I am being destructive and I am afraid I am taking up time, but sometimes one can be helpful in pointing out difficulties even if one is not able to point to the remedy.
For these reasons, I feel that subsection (2) is unsatisfactory. The purpose of it is to prevent cable outbidding the other broadcasters, but we must be a long way from that. Surely there will be other matters to do with cable that will need amending legislation before very long. I hope that we shall not make the mistake of looking so far into the future that we have to try to legislate on this difficult matter of subsection (2). We should forget it for the moment and deal with this matter of the outbidding of the other broadcasters nearer the time when this threat starts to loom up, if it ever does. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: May I begin by briefly saying why Clause 13(2) is in the Bill? It is our expectation that pay-per-view, by focusing the cash of viewers on specific events, will give it considerable buying power. The extent of the buying power will depend largely on the level of public interest in the event, and nobody will doubt that public interest in many events has been generated very largely indeed by their having been regularly featured on conventional TV. The more successful those programmes and the bigger their audiences the greater their potential value to pay-per-view.
Very large numbers of people will not for many years have the chance of becoming cable viewers. They will remain viewers of broadcasting authority programmes and they will see no others because nobody will bring a cable to their door. There would be a certain irony if the avidity with which they had been watching a particular sporting series, a particular final or race year after year, was to be the reason for that series, final or race being bought out of their reach for ever by pay-per-view. It is to avoid that irony, and to protect public service broadcasting against that threat, that we have drafted subsection (2) into the Bill. Such events will of course include protected events in Clause 13(1) because they will almost inescapably have been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority, and those at least escape the definitional difficulties described by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
The noble Lord was kind enough to give me notice of some of his intentions. I am sorry that I was not sufficiently acute to detect this particular line of argument that he advanced on this amendment in time to give him specific replies to the chain of examples he gave me. I can say that wiping subsection (2) out of the Bill could wipe off thousands of television screens programmes which millions of viewers have come to expect from public service broadcasting over the years.
Much of what the noble Lord has said I do not wish to dismiss, because I understand the difficulty of where the line is drawn. I cannot give the noble Lord a homily on how the line is to be drawn, because I do not have the specific detail to hand. I must ask him to be patient. If it proves to be a matter which he wishes to
432
be ventilated—which he may—there is a later stage. What I write to him may reassure him in the interim.
Lord Airedale: I am very obliged. I am certainly not proposing to divide the Committee on this. I am grateful for the reply, but I give the Minister notice that I shall, on Report, do my utmost to get rid of this expression "a class or description" of event, because I believe that when the Minister looks at it he will see that those words destroy the whole purpose of subsection (2). I shall return to this on Report unless we have agreed something in the meantime. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
10.26 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Page 12, line 28, leave out from ("a") to end of line 31 and insert ("restricted event")
The noble Lord said: I have a strong suspicion that my earlier withdrawal of Amendment No. 73 has rendered this amendment invalid. I shall therefore not move it.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 80A:
Page 12, line 29, leave out from ("a") to end of line 31 and insert ("prescribed event")
The noble Earl said: Much that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said has made it possible for me to speak very shortly, because we both agree that Clause 13(2) does not do the job which the Government would like it to do.
Possibly the easiest thing is to quote a few lines from the White Paper, because I am assuming that it is exactly what is put in the White Paper that the Government intend to achieve. I quote from paragraph 115:
"The Government accordingly proposes that pay per view should be permitted except in those particular circumstances where it would pose a specific threat to public service broadcasting. The Cable Authority will therefore have a duty to ensure, by means of the conditions attached to operator' franchises, that no programme shall be offered on a pay per view basis if an event customarily shown on one of the existing public service channels would as a result no longer be available for such a channel".
I assume that this is what the Government intend to achieve. I am perfectly happy with Clause 13(1); it is only with Clause 13(2) that I find great difficulty. As it is drawn in the Bill there is liable to be an almost complete ban on a cable operator's ability to do any pay per view at all. The phrase,
"of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority",
is wide; and it is also very indefinite as to the type of events intended to be covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, went into this in much greater detail, and the clause could arguably cover all horse-racing and all football because of its catch-all nature. The clause will not allow the cable operator to provide the event, even if he were prepared to pay for it on a non-exclusive basis which would not affect in any way the broadcasters' rights to broadcast.
It seems to be to be essential—this is my solution—to remove the offending words which my amendment does remove at the end of Clause 13(2). We come here to a difference, but my contention is that it is not practicable at all to identify the event to which Clause 13(2) does apply by any sort of generic description that we could possibly think up. So I am brought to the view that the authority should themselves build up and maintain a list of those events which cable operators cannot show on an exclusive basis. The events on this list I have called the "prescribed events". It needs a definition and this appears at Amendment 83; and I apologise to my noble friend and to your Lordships because I am talking to 80A, 80B and 83 together.
Amendment No. 80B: Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (2) above shall not apply when the Authority are satisfied that the inclusion of the "prescribed event" in a programme in a "pay-per-view" diffusion service will not prevent a Broadcasting Authority, the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor from acquiring broadcasting rights in respect of the prescribed event on terms comparable to those on which the person providing the pay-per-view diffusion service acquired the right to include the prescribed event in that programme.").
Amendment No. 83: Page 12, line 37, at end insert—
(""prescribed event" means a sporting or other event of national interest regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority being included in a list maintained by the Authority for the purpose of this section and any such list shall be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for bringing to the attention of persons providing licensed services.").
I believe this is the best way to deal with the matter in order to keep in line with the White Paper. The Government may say that it would be an enormous list that the authority would have to draw up. I do not think it would be. If the Government think it out very carefully I believe they would find that it would not be a great list and it would have that precision which is essential. However, the real point is that, whatever my noble friend thinks about this, I hope he will take the point that, as it stands, Clause 13(2) just does not give the cable operators a look in in the way that is envisaged in Clause 115 of the White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's first object is to narrow down what he sees as the rather wide category of events currently covered by Clause 13(2). The restriction would apply only to sporting or other events of national interest which had been regularly broadcast. In support of this it has been suggested that an event of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority could go very wide and include virtually all forms of popular sport at all levels. Here he followed the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. That would be to give the words a rather wider construction certainly than we intend. We obviously need to build some flexibility into the clause so that the authority has the power to specify a category of events rather than having to name each single time, place and event. To take an hypothetical example, the authority might wish to say, "All rugby union international matches played in the United Kingdom". That would be a reasonable interpretation of the phrase "class or description of events which has regularly been broadcast". I very much doubt, however, whether any reasonable authority would conclude that because all international rugby matches
434
have regularly been shown, all club rugby matches should similarly be precluded from pay-per-view showing. A further limitation is that the prohibition on pay-per-view applies only for the first 24 hours after the event has taken place. After that there is no restriction.
The second object of the amendment is to waive the special pay-per-view restriction in those cases where the Cable Authority is satisfied that the acquisition of the cable rights has not prevented the broadcasters from having access to the broadcasting rights on comparable terms. Taken together, these two qualifications would mean that there was very little difference in substance between subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 13.
That seems to me to be a very serious defect. We should end up with two lists, both confined to events of national interest, but one kept by the Home Secretary and the other by the Cable Authority. In both cases the Cable Authority would have to assess whether comparable terms had been offered to the broadcasters and to the cable companies. I am not sure how this would work because the broadcasters would, by definition, never be able to acquire the rights for pay-per-view on their existing networks. Still, it would be a mistake to require the authority to undertake this difficult task in more cases than absolutely necessary.
A further problem is that his amendment would make it more difficult for the authority ever to permit pay-per-view. I also fear that my noble friend's amendment would make it rather difficult for them ever to refuse it. I was referring to the previous amendment there. That suggests to me that the middle course, which Clause 13(2) attempts to set, may not be so had after all.
I would remind my noble friend that I said at the beginning that we wish to pursue the objective which we set out in the White Paper. I shall read very carefully the report of what he and everybody else have said, in order to reassure myself that this is what we are achieving in the present drafting of the Bill. If we find that we are inadvertently achieving something else, then we shall wish to adjust it. As I think that that is the undertaking which my noble friend wanted from me, I shall not address any other defects which I imagine in his otherwise perfect amendment.
Earl De La Warr: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I should perhaps have said before what I shall say now, that during his previous remarks on various amendments it became quite clear to me that he was indeed thinking exactly in terms that I find suitable, and exactly in terms of the words of the White Paper. He has very kindly said that he will have a look at what I said I found wrong and unacceptable about Clause 13(2) and I hope I may accept that. On that basis, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80B not moved.]
10.37 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—

435
("( ) With a view to preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting of protected events, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the grant to the BBC, to the IBA and programme contractors, to the IBA's subsidiary and to the Welsh Authority respectively of broadcasting facilities in respect of such events.
( ) Regulations made under this section shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any event specified in the regulations where the transmission is made more than seven days after that event.
( ) Any regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that we discussed earlier the question of regulations which the Home Secretary was in a position to make and which, because he was in a position to make them, he had not had to make, since, whether or not under the threat of those regulations, agreement had been reached between the ITV and the BBC. This is an equal kind of fall-back position, which the Secretary of State may be able to preserve without actually having to operate it. That is the first purpose for which the amendment is designed. I hope that in trying to be brief I have not said too little about it.
The next point is the question of the number of days before which there shall not be a broadcasting of a record of any event. I believe that the Government were originally thinking in terms of seconds only. Then the 24 hours appeared and, subsequently, I came up with seven days. In fact, seven days has a good precedent in legislation. That is what it is all about.
The third matter is something which I seem to be raising at frequent intervals. It is about a statutory instrument being of an affirmative rather than a negative nature. As usual, I shall obviously be withdrawing the amendment, but I shall welcome the views of the Minister on the first two points that I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord may save me a moment if he will refresh my memory. Am I to understand that one of his primary concerns is to extend from 24 hours to seven days the delay in broadcasting? I ask him that because I do not want to read through a longish speech to reach the nub of it.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I believe there should be the reserve power to make regulations for protected events. We were in a way discussing this matter earlier, when we debated whether the authority or somebody else, such as the Home Secretary, should make up the list. I believe that there ought also to be a reserve power for the Home Secretary to do so, because this would be a very stong inducement for others to do so and not fall under this terrible imposition.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The noble Lord's amendment is very nearly the provision our predecessors came up with in 1954. It was against the background of that provision that broadcasters agreed not to compete for the rights to certain major events, such as the Derby and test matches.
The amendment as it stands would add little if anything of substance to the statute book. The
436
provision adopted in 1954 now resides almost unaltered in Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, as I am sure the noble Lord realises, and the amendment now before us would almost exactly duplicate what is already there. If I may say so, a particular weakness of the amendment is that it makes no reference to the acquisition of cable rights, only to broadcasting rights, and as a result will provide powers which exist already elsewhere in the statute book in respect of the broadcasting authorities. It will create nothing new in the Bill for the new authority and the new service for which we are now legislating.
I will certainly look at what the noble Lord has said. I regret that I was in fact following what I thought was a different proposition that he wanted to put to me, about the reserve powers. I should not like to respond succinctly to a point which might require a longer answer than I could give in the light of what the noble Lord has said already. Perhaps we could speak between now and Report stage, and if the noble Lord is not satisfied he may return to the subject.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: Does the noble Lord the Minister have any views on the period of seven days as opposed to 24 hours?
Lord Elton: That was the point I was pursuing. The purpose of the 24-hour delay is simply to prevent transmission of events live. Sporting events are rather like those flat slabs of bread one buys in Morocco: they are delicious for the first 12 hours, and after that they turn to cement. The purpose of having the delay is simply to ensure that the really fresh article is not brought in as unfair competition.
If one says that events shall not be brought in live, it is still perfectly possible to use a machine which takes a match off-air from a camera and records it onto tape. Then the tape is passed across the room and put into another machine, and 35 seconds later it is broadcast on the air. As I understand it, such a broadcast is not "live" as the law sees it. We did not want to encourage that happening under the Bill, and a convenient period of delay seemed to be 24 hours. In suggesting a period of 7 days, the noble Lord is obviously wanting a loaf which is not merely like cement but has probably gone green as well. I would have thought that was unnecessary.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: Precisely. The bread is still just edible after 24 hours, but it will have gone mouldy after seven days.
Lord Elton: I believe my noble friends behind me will bear out that stale bread is not something that will win many customers, and I do not consider that the noble Lord's fears are justified.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 12, line 32, at end insert—

437
(" "national interest" includes matters of interest to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland individually as well as collectively,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a matter of clarification. I may be told that it is wholly unnecessary. It proposes a new definition of "national interest" to avoid tensions or arguments to the effect that a particular event should be excluded from a list because it is of interest to only one of the countries of the United Kingdom. It is one more endeavour to preserve the Kingdom united. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for this amendment. I cannot begin to think of a reason why we should protect the FA cup final south of the Border and not the Scottish cup-final north of it. If that is indeed the effect of this provision, or if it in any way offends against proper national sentiment, we shall, of course, seek to amend it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I think the noble Lord accepted the amendment, wonder of wonders! Is that not so?
Lord Elton: I understand that the amendment as it stands would not do, but I shall be happy to advise the noble Lord of terms in which he can move it at a later stage, when I shall be happy to accept it.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: Wonders will never cease! I am most grateful. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 83:
Page 12, line 37, at end insert—
(" "prescribed event" means a sporting or other event of national interest regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority being included in a list maintained by the Authority for the purpose of this section and any such list shall be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for bringing to the attention of persons providing licensed services.")
The noble Lord said: We seem to be getting on so fast that I can hardly keep pace. We are back to restricted events and the business of agreeing between the broadcasting authorities, the Welsh Authority and so on. As we are going to look at all this again, as I understand it, with a view to satisfying everybody if we can, even the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I shall not move Amendments No. 83 to 89.
[Amendments nos. 83 to 89 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc.]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Broadcasting Complaints Commission")
The noble Lord said: Can we have any information at this stage about the length to which we are to proceed tonight, because I have certainly not given thought to some of the later clauses? Perhaps the Chief Whip thinks we are getting on with such speed that he wants to get on with more. I beg to move.
Lord Denham: I think the suggestion that found general favour was that we should complete Clause 14 and go no further than that.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I beg to speak also to Amendment No. 91, which stands in my name:
Amendment No. 91: Page 13, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
(" ( ) Schedule (Application of Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1981) shall have effect with respect to the Commission and to complaints of the kind mentioned in the preceding subsection.")
This clause deals with complaints about unjust or unfair treatment and the infringement of privacy. So far as the BBC and ITV are concerned, the noble Viscount who is now leader of the House saw fit, when Home Secretary, to introduce a programme complaints commission, which dealt with precisely these matters. This commission was entitled to receive complaints from individuals about the way in which they had been traduced and treated by those terrible people, the BBC and the individual programme companies which lie under the IBA. The amendment I have put down of course has to go on much further and introduce a whole string of stuff into the schedules, but I will not bother with that at the present time.
This point, which I made on Second Reading, was answered by the noble Lord with what I thought, quite frankly, was an extremely specious argument. He suggested that because the BBC and the IBA were directly responsible for their programmes—at least, the IBA was directly responsible because it actually transmitted the programmes although it did not make them—we had responsibility to answer the complaints about programmes through a statutory complaints commission. It was no good dealing with them ourselves because we might have been supposed to be parti pris in such cases and not be able to judge them fairly as an authority, or as the BBC, because we had made the programmes and, therefore, could not take a dispassionate view. However, this new Cable Authority is in no such position. It has absolutely nothing to do with programme transmission or the making of programmes, so it is beautifully placed to consider complaints of this nature.
I am undoubtedly paraphrasing the words of the noble Lord, but I am saying that I should have thought the authority was in precisely the same position as regards this type of complaint as are the BBC and the IBA. It is perfectly true that it is not in the same position when individuals complain that companies have not adhered to the propositions that they made in their applications for franchises, and so on. This is a wholly different matter. We are dealing with individuals, and individuals will find it extremely confusing. If they are traduced, or believe themselves to be traduced, by programmes emanating from the BBC or IBA, they go to the statutory programme complaints commission, but if the programme has been sent by cable they have to go to the Cable Authority.

439
Furthermore, if the programme is a BBC or ITV programme which has been transmitted by the cable company under the "must carry" rule, I am not sure to whom the complaint should be directed. It would surely be very much simpler to deal with the whole matter under one head. After all, it is not as if so far, to my knowledge, the programme complaints commission has been greatly overworked. Its members are all paid on a part-time basis, and I should not like to tell your Lordships how handsomely, on a per hour basis, that has so far worked out for the members simply because their work has been very light. I should not imagine the work would be very much greater under the Bill, and I heartily recommend that your Lordships place complaints in precisely the same position as they are under the Broadcasting Acts. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: May I add a very brief word in support of this amendment? It seems to me that a most valuable history of precedents will have been set up by the complaints commission and that it would be a little ridiculous to ignore those precedents and the experience that has been obtained by having the authority listening to the same sort of complaints. Moreover, if one separated them one would get the position where different decisions would be made on complaints of precisely the same type by the two bodies. At first sight this seems to be a very wise amendment.
Lord Elton: While we have followed the pattern set for broadcasting in proposing a formal complaints system for cable, we have placed the duty to consider complaints not on the existing Broadcasting Complaints Commission but on the Cable Authority, and that is the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. The noble Lord suggested that it would be appropriate for the commission to be responsible for considering complaints, and said that it would ensure consistency of treatment if the same body were to deal with complaints about cable as well as complaints about radio and television programmes. I accept that there is some force in those arguments, but I believe that there is rather more in the case for the choice of the Cable Authority to do the job.
The choice stems from the essential difference between the structure of the broadcasting and the cable services. Cable is not broadcasting. The broadcasting authorities are directly involved in producing and transmitting programmes. It was because of this involvement that the Annan Committee recommended that an independent broadcasting complaints system was needed in the first place. But the Cable Authority will take no part in producing and distributing programmes, and it will act wholly in a supervisory role. As a result℄and the noble Lord has correctly paraphrased my remarks℄it will be in a position to exercise an independent judgment about cable programmes such as a broadcasting authority would not have been. Equally important, it will be recognised by the public as being so able. As well as having the necessary independence, it would be of positive advantage to the authority in assessing how well its licensees are carrying out their functions to deal with the whole range of complaints to which their programmes give rise.
440
There is also the interest of the consumer to consider. I agree that we do not wish to confuse him. It seemed to us that it would be much more straightforward for him if there were a single authority responsible for complaints about all cable matters, whether about the quality of the programmes or about privacy and unfair treatment. To have two statutory bodies, each responsible for particular aspects of cable complaints, seemed to us unduly complicated and bureaucratic. Cable companies are understandably anxious not to have to deal with a large number of different public bodies each with their own area of responsibility.
As regards the desirability of ensuring that the same standards are applied to the treatment of complaints about broadcast and cable programmes℄a point which I think the noble Lord may have had in mind, although I did not hear it℄it will, of course, be open to the Cable Authority and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to consult together with a view to adopting a common approach, and we expect that they would wish to do so. I think that this is of interest to the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon.
For all these reasons, I regret that we do not feel very well disposed towards these amendments. But I should once again like to felicitate the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, on the immense amount of work which has gone into working out the detail of what he proposes in many of these amendments.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I fear I am not convinced, but this is no time to press a matter such as this to a Division. We have a very thin and unrepresentative House. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that in the way of bureaucracy Pelion is being piled upon Ossa and that we should do very much better at the end of the day with one statutory programme complaints commission, which would achieve more uniform standards and all the other factors which I and others have mentioned. If the Government remain unmoved by my pleas, I shall certainly return to this matter at a later stage of this Bill. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Denham: In moving, That the House do now resume, I think that I should say that I expressed a hope that your Lordships would complete Clause 14 and would do so by 10 o'clock. I think that it would be churlish, having achieved half my ambition, not to thank your Lordships for the expeditious way in which this business has been carried out. I think that the shortness of speeches and the lack of waste of time have indeed improved debate. I beg to move, That the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

  THE 30-YEAR RULE: RELEASE OF PAPERS
  THE 30-YEAR RULE: RELEASE OF PAPERS
  BUILDING SOCIETIES: LEGISLATION
  BUILDING SOCIETIES: LEGISLATION
  EXPORT OF WORKS OF ART 1981–8
  EXPORT OF WORKS OF ART 1981–8
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS