My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, considerable progress has been made by the CSCE Preparatory meeting at Belgrade, but final agreement has not yet been reached, including the precise form of the agenda for the main meeting.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask this: Are not the unaligned nations at this conference contributing very usefully to reaching an agreement between East and West? Secondly, since Helsinki, while the concentration has been on human rights—and we all want them—is not the major issue economic integration? Is there any proposal at the Belgrade Conference in the autumn for integration of energy, transport and pollution measures?

My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's question, he is quite right: the non-aligned nations have played a very useful and serious part in negotiations. In answer to the second part of his question, Her Majesty's Government have always thought that all parts of the Helsinki Agreement and the Final Act are of tremendous importance. We shall insist on full discussions on every part of it.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the terrible and vicious manner in which the USSR is oppressing scientists and others desiring to emigrate, by imprisonments, by criminally using mental hospitals to terrify and accuse dissidents, and generally causing tremendous victimisation to people within its land, in abuse of human rights, she will ensure that the review and implementation of the Final Act in respect of the first and third baskets occupy a prominent place on the agenda of the review meeting when it convenes in Belgrade in October, and that any attempt to reduce the scope of the review and its implementation be opposed, and that the review should be open-ended with no final date being set—

Order!

in order to prevent Soviet filibustering?

My Lords, I know the whole House shares my noble friend's concern over this matter, and I also know that the whole House understands that Her Majesty's Government take the gravest view of the serious circumstances he has outlined. We shall continue to watch developments as they take place and we shall not hesitate to speak out both in public and in private. We have always done so and we shall continue to do so. As to the rest of my noble friend's question, we shall continue to press at Belgrade for all the things we think right.

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend.

My Lords, is there not some language difficulty in this sort of agreement? When one is negotiating about such things as personal freedom and personal liberty, do not those words bear such a totally different meaning as between the two participants that it is very difficult to get a meaningful agreement?

Yes, indeed, my Lords.

My Lords, may I ask this of my noble friend: Concerned as we all are about human rights, would not a measure towards détente and peace be a contribution towards securing those human rights?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government strive all the time for détente and peace and, indeed, human rights as well.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, if they wish to acquire it, a small part of the Maintenance Unit at Aldergrove will be available to Northern Ireland Airports Limited, to whom title to the two runways is currently being transferred. Almost half of the larger site will be retained for continuing RAF tasks, which will also offer continued employment to about 146 civilian staff from the Maintenance Unit. The location of the remainder of the site, and the security of the airport, mean that this land must be kept under secure control and it is unlikely that it could be released for commercial development. But I understand that other sites are available for any enterprise that can be attracted and which offers new jobs.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he agrees that a decision against handing over these premises and the highly-developed facilities to the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce will gravely prejudice the chances of the workers there—in number approaching 1,000, many of them with specialist skills—obtaining further employment?

My Lords, I do not think that is the case. If they have skill, obviously their skill would be used; a certain proportion of them will stay on the site, but performing other duties.

My Lords, anent the Answer about Northern Ireland given to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, can the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, tell me whether a more tolerant and less draconic attitude is now taken by the Ministry of Defence to the maintenance of old military sites? Are the Government keeping a watchful eye on this because of the need for much of this land in order to step up our agricultural productivity?

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence are always keeping an eye on things. But the point is that, having transferred the runways to Northern Ireland Airports Limited, plus additional buildings and land, they must retain part of it to make certain that security is maintained over the whole of Aldergrove, which is a civilian airfield in addition to being a military one.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give any indication of how many extra jobs the airport authority would be able to provide? Also, would he not agree that his figure of, I think, 146 is a very small proportion of the approximately 1,000 who are there now, and that unless much more employment is provided this will call into question the sincerity of the promises which were originally made by Her Majesty's Government, to make every effort to find alternative employment?

My Lords, I have said that that is entirely true. But I am certain that a substantial proportion of these 1,000 individuals are established civil servants, who will have work at some site other than Aldergrove. But if the noble Lord is interested in the details, I will write to him.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Mr. Jay's view, with which Her Majesty's Government saw no reason to disagree, was that there was no point in his imposing on the taxpayer the extra cost of a Concorde ticket when he had no need to cross in less than eight hours. Concorde was full on the day in question.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not right that our Ambassador to the United States should be not only Her Majesty's representative but also a promoter of Great Britain? Would she not agree that it would have been a great boost to our hopes for landing rights at Kennedy, if he had travelled in the aeroplane? Also, would she not agree that it was a great let-down, if not an insult, to all the British workers in British aerospace who built this aeroplane? Lastly, if he travelled on British Airways, which is a nationalised industry, surely it would have been only a book-keeping amount as to whether or not it was £74·50 extra?

My Lords, I rather regret the language that the noble Earl used about an insult to workers. I think they know as well as everybody else that Ministers frequently use Concorde, as do even senior civil servants when it is necessary. Many noble Lords opposite worry about public expenditure, yet when a small saving is made it seems to irritate some of them, which I think illogical. The more important point, however, is that Her Majesty's Ambassador is of course one of our best advertisements, and I think that this one is, too. But I cannot imagine that one person flying in it could have made the slightest difference to the opposition to the landing of Concorde, this marvellous aeroplane, in New York, because the reasons why they are against it are completely different.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if Mr. Jay had travelled by Concorde there would have been indignant snarls of protest from exactly those sections of the Press—not including the noble Earl—which criticise him for not going over on it?

My Lords, I think one of the difficulties would have been that anybody could have said: "Arrogant diplomat turns off important businessman from going on Concorde."

My Lords, is not this Question itself a frivolous misuse of the Order Paper?

My Lords, does the noble Baroness not think, on consideration, that it would have been sufficient, if she had confined her Answer to saying that the plane was full, rather than give the impression that to travel by Concorde means excessive cost?

My Lords, the noble Lord is very experienced in putting questions, but I do not really need any help from him.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, since the noble Lord first raised this matter he will be glad to know that we have considered further how we might support the Organisation. Our Ambassador at Dakar has had discussions with the High Commissioner of the OMVS. We have offered to provide planning experts for the Secretariat, and the OMVS has welcomed the offer of British assistance. Discussions are continuing and our help may well include feasibility studies which we should, of course, expect British firms or experts to carry out.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for her welcome statement, appreciating, too, our Ambassador's most helpful co-operation. However, may I ask her whether she will further consider that the ultimate aim of the development plan is also to put 400,000 hectares of irrigated land under a two-crop farming system; ensuring, too, an adequate food supply for the 2½ million people of the area? May I also ask whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to assist in hydro-agricultural projects, some units being no more than 15 hectares in area, others being of several hundred hectares; for instance, those at Dagana, Guédé, Matam and Bakel?

Yes, my Lords; we do indeed welcome the aims to which the noble Lord has referred. As he knows, it is an enormous project covering river ports, harbour installations and every other kind of site, and we should indeed be very glad if some of the help we have offered could be used to assist the development of the kind of projects he has mentioned.

My Lords, could the Minister say whether these projects include the scheme in Senegal for the building of a wall of trees along the Sahara to prevent its extension?

My Lords, I think that we all know of the noble Lord's interest in that project. Her Majesty's Government have always been in favour of it, but I am afraid that without notice I could not say whether we assist that project.

My Lords, bearing in mind the very helpful answer of the noble Baroness, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether in effect they will also recognise that the question of the installation of hydro-agricultural projects is one of the primary pre-occupations of the three States concerned—that is, Senegal, Mali and Mauritania—and that this was brought out very forcefully in the May 1976 report on the OMVS Programme?

Yes, indeed, my Lords; knowing of the noble Lord's interest I even took the trouble to look it up. It is on page 46.

rose to move, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of John Victor Duncombe Webb, Esquire, to be Fourth Clerk at the Table (Judicial) in place of Sir Richard Philip Cave, retired. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. By Statute, the appointment of Clerks at the Table other than the Clerk of the Parliaments is vested in the Lord Chancellor, subject to the approval of the House. The office of Fourth Clerk at the Table (Judicial) was created in 1965 when Sir Richard Cave was appointed. On that occasion my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner explained to the House that the appointment would carry no prescriptive right of succession to any of the other posts at the Table and would not involve any increase in remuneration. These conditions will still apply. My noble and learned friend also said that the appointment was to be regarded as personal to Sir Richard and was not to be treated as a precedent. I am satisfied, however, that the arrangement has proved to be a good one and that it is in the interests of the House that it should be continued on a permanent basis. Accordingly, I ask the House to approve my appointment of Mr. Webb as Sir Richard's successor.

Hear, Hear!

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I should like to be associated with him in his remarks about Sir Richard who has been of great help to us all in the Judicial Committee and elsewhere. I should also like to wish his successor every possible good fortune in his work.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move the first of the next two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may speak to the third Motion while moving the second. Both are procedural Motions with the same purpose: to enable these two Bills, the first of which is a Lords Bill and the second a Commons Bill, to continue their progress through Parliament in the next Session. It is in no way the fault of the Promoters that the Bills have not been through both Houses before the end of this Session. I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion Standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These are purely drafting Amendments. They substitute for references to the Rent Act 1968 references to the Rent Act 1977. The latter comes before your Lordships in a moment and is still a Bill, but we hope it will shortly become law. These Amendments correct drafting errors which have hitherto escaped notice. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8 en bloc. These are all drafting Amendments and do not affect any matter of substance contained in the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. Again this is a drafting Amendment, required to correct a slight error. It makes no change to the Bill other than to ensure that the law remains as it is at the moment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

rose to move, That, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 16th March 1976 and certain Recommendations made in the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting—

(1) the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority ("the broadcasting authorities") be authorised to provide and operate singly or jointly sound signal origination equipment for the purpose of recording or broadcasting the proceedings of the House and its committees subject to the direction of the House or a committee empowered to give such directions ("the committee");

(2) the broadcasting authorities may supply signals, whether direct or recorded, made pursuant to this Resolution to other broadcasting organisations, and shall supply them to any other organisation whose request for such a facility shall have been granted by the committee, on such conditions as the committee may determine;

(3) no signal, whether direct or recorded, made pursuant to this Resolution shall be used by the broadcasting authorities, or by any organisation supplied with such signal, in light entertainment programmes or programmes designed as political satire; nor shall any record, cassette or other device making use of such signal be published unless the committee shall have satisfied themselves that it is not designed for such entertainment or satire;

(4) archive tapes of all signals supplied by the broadcasting authorities shall be made, together with a selection for permanent preservation, under the direction of the committee.

My Lords, I rise to support this Motion moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do so in the knowledge that, as so often in the past, your Lordships' House has been rather the more adventurous of the two Houses. As long ago as 1968 we had a three-day closed circuit television experiment in this House following which the Select Committee recommended an experimental period of public broadcasting of one year. A few months later another place authorised an experiment in closed circuit radio transmission, but it was not until 1975 that the other place agreed to an experimental period of public sound broadcasting. Following this experiment your Lordships' House and another place both resolved that they would welcome the public sound broadcasting of their proceedings on a permanent basis. For that reason the Motions now before your Lordships' House do not require a lengthy debate. On a number of occasions the House has recorded its views that broadcasting should take place. These conclusions are merely the "nuts and bolts" for the implementation of these decisions.

I welcome the terms of the report of the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting on whose recommendations these Motions are based, and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships when I express the thanks of the House for the work done by that Committee and for the common sense of their proposals. In particular I should like to refer to their recommendation in the first part of the Motion now before the House. Previous recommendations from committees of your Lordships' House have recommended that broadcasting should be left to the broadcasters, a principle which another place has hitherto rejected. However, the Joint Committee have come down on the side of the principle supported by your Lordships' House and against the idea that a broadcasting unit should be established by Parliament to do the work which it is proposed that the broadcasters should do. I am sure that is the right way to proceed. It would surely be much more expensive for Parliament to undertake this operation than it would be to leave it to those with the technical expertise.

I am glad that certain restrictions are being placed on the broadcasting authorities in regard to the use that they make of the material. It is obviously sensible that the recorded material should not be used in light entertainment or satirical programmes, and that broadcasters should not be able to make records or cassettes of Parliamentary proceedings without the permission of the Committee which we are to appoint to supervise the broadcasts. However, I think your Lordships all along have taken a rather more relaxed view than another place of the dangers of being included in light entertainment or satirical programmes.

There is one last matter to which I should like to refer; namely, the archives. The task of looking after these sound archives is to be entrusted to the Record Office of your Lordships' House, and I am sure that they could not be placed in better hands. The Record Office fulfils an important service to both Houses of Parliament—a fact of which many people are totally unaware. I think this new development of their function will serve to acquaint honourable and right honourable Members of another place with the work that this office does on their behalf. In dealing with the archives we are really left with three choices from the point of view of long-term records. Either after a certain period we can destroy completely all the tapes that are made, or we can maintain all the tapes that are made over many years to come, or, as the Committee recommends, the tapes should be edited and certain portions only retained. I know there have been various suggestions that to retain all the recordings would be expensive and would take up a great deal of space. I am told that it would require something between 25 ft. and 50 ft. of shelving per year.

There are a number of different opinions as to how much attention these tapes will need in the process of storage, and I hope we may hear from other noble Lords with rather more detailed knowledge than myself, because there appear to be two distinct schools of thought: one that they have to be dealt with on an annual basis, and another that they can just be stored indefinitely.

I myself am not happy about the editing of the records. How is this Committee to decide that the honourable member for X or the noble Lord, Lord Y, who has perhaps made one or two speeches of some, though not necessarily of great note, may not in 20 years' time become one of the most important figures in the country? Certainly, a lot of historians would want to be able to hear what he actually said, how he said it and what emphasis he put here and there. I think this needs further consideration before it is finally decided. We have a respite of at least a year in which this matter can be considered; I hope that further consideration will be given to it.

In conclusion, I would again express my support for the Motion moved by the Leader of the House and hope that it will command the support of your Lordships. It is now over a year since we agreed to the construction of that commentary box, and I think that it is high time it was put to use.

My Lords, like the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Earl, I, too, agree that your Lordships' House has debated this matter so often and with so much accord that there is really little point in repeating all the old arguments. I agree, too, with the noble Earl, that your Lordships' House has set a proud record in this matter of open Government. Indeed, I think we can say that, with the TV closed circuit experiment in 1967 and the readiness to embark on the more recent sound radio experiment, your Lordships' House has blazed a trail which another place is now hesitantly and reluctantly following. Time will show that we in your Lordships' House have nothing to hide, and I think it may perhaps appear that it is not your Lordships' House but another place which may be in need of some reform, if not of abolition. We have already voted the end. All that remains for us is to vote the means, and that I and my noble friends will gladly do. I agree strongly with the noble Earl about the wisdom of not writing in too many restraints so far as the broadcasters are concerned and about the wisdom of relying on the provisions we already have. The BBC operates under its Charter, a Charter which requires it to select programmes fairly, to give proper representation to minority opinion, and in general to be impartial. And, of course, the independent companies operate under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, which similarly restrains them from partiality in any kind of way. In the end, Parliament has the last word. It does not need to have an elaborate system of restraints and scrutiny. In this regard we must trust the broadcasters, and, of course, if it does not work, Parliament has the last word and can always stop it.

Before I conclude, there is one other minor specific difficulty to which I should like to refer. It is one which I raised in your Lordships' Select Committee on this matter. It concerns Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act. Among other things, that section requires the Authority to secure exclusion from its programmes of any expression of opinion on matters of political or industrial controversy or appertaining to public policy by members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, members of the boards of any of the independent broadcasting companies and certain other people. It is a fact that some of the excluded persons under that section are Members of your Lordships' House. It is also a fact that an equal number are Members of another place. We there have a difficulty, in that, once broadcasting starts, if one of the prohibited persons—if I may so call them—is speaking in your Lordships' House and the proceedings are being broadcast, the Authority will immediately be in breach of the law if it is transmitting that person's words on independent broadcasting news.

That seems to me to be a ludicrous position. I have taken it up with the Home Secretary, and he has written me a letter which I received today. He refers to the opinion of the Solicitor-General, that Section 4(2) is capable of being construed as forbidding the inclusion, in programmes broadcast by the Independent Television Authority, of reports of proceedings in Parliament which contain expressions of opinion by, among others, a programme contractor, and recommends legislation to remove the doubt.

I am well aware that right honourable and honourable friends of mine in another place may already be asking the Government to include much legislation in the next programme. I am also aware that the principal complaint here in your Lordships' House is not that we have too little but that we have too much legislation. But I hesitantly express the hope that some attention can be given to this particular matter, because if it is not attended to I think we shall have a nonsense. The Annan Committee has recommended that this particular section should be radically reformed, if not removed altogether. The Committee has suggested that it provides unreasonable restraints on the expression of opinion by a whole number of people. The point is clear; it is that it erects obstacles to the ventilation of their point of view by people working in independent television. Annan recommends that this section should perhaps go altogether.

It seems to me that it would be a very small matter to introduce some kind of measure to make it clear that this section should not apply to Members of Parliament, either of your Lordships' House or another place, who are, of course, merely continuing to do their job. This merely technical matter of them being against the law is surely absurd, when one realises that there are no restraints whatsoever on those people expressing their opinions on BBC channels, be it radio or television.

Of course, the provision may have been wise in so far as individual people are concerned, in that it would obviously be wise to prevent somebody who owns a television company employing his own company to express his own views weekly on television. The Act enables that to be stopped. But why should the same person—say, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein—not be allowed to broadcast on any independent television or radio station anywhere in the country, while he is entirely free to broadcast on BBC? My Lords, I am sorry to go on about this matter. I really think it will have to be attended to; otherwise we shall have a difficulty. With that, let me say that I am entirely in agreement with what has been said on both sides of the House in regard to this matter, and I am sure that my noble friends will support this Motion enthusiastically.

My Lords, I rise to support one point made by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn. That is contained in the fourth paragraph of the Motion before the House, under which the Broadcasting Committee will be instructed to make a selection of the tapes of our proceedings for permanent preservation and to destroy the rest. I submit that this selection is wrong in principle and will be invidious to make. My Lords, history is made day by day. At the moment we cannot know what will be the importance placed in the future on any act, words or voices by historians, journalists or students. There is no doubt that sound recording will be of value to students of history, because sound records convey information and impressions additional to that of the printed word. My noble friend Lord George-Brown has just taken his seat. If he will allow me to say so, all his speeches read very well, but they will be far more interesting if we can hear them, and that applies to many other noble Lords.

My Lords, I make no charge. Noble Lords only have to come.

My Lords, in the future, when my noble friend and I have passed to yet another place, it will be a good thing if my noble friend's voice can still be heard. If selection becomes a decision of this House, which it will if we pass this Motion, on what criteria will the selection be made? Will the Committee instruct the archivist to preserve the tapes of all Questions and Answers but not of all debates, not of all stages of Bills and perhaps not of all Statements? Alternatively, will it require some other mixture? On what criteria will it make its recommendations? If it selects by reference to a subject or to the reputation of the noble Lord who has been speaking that will be flattering to some and scrub others right out. How can the archivist be sure which subject will be of no lasting interest or which noble Lord's voice ought to go down to the grave with him?

Thirty years ago, in another place, I used to sit on the second Bench directly behind Sir Winston Churchill. One evening an important debate was drawing to its close and we had just listened to two very poor speeches, one from each side. I lent forward and rashly remarked to Sir Winston that it was a great pity that we had to listen to so much rubbish when there were such important aspects of the subject left untouched. I shall always remember his sharp reply. He turned to me and said: "Oh do shut up; don't you know that if they didn't make bad speeches, we should never make good speeches!" That is, in fact, Parliamentary wisdom and any noble Lord who thinks that the sound of his speech ought, for its excellence, to be preserved for ever would be well advised to insist on the other speeches in the debate also being preserved for ever in order that a contrast may be made by historians in the future.

It has been said that there will be technical difficulties if we try to keep the whole record of the proceedings of this House. I believe that the fear of these difficulties has been based on an incomplete examination of the processes involved. In so thinking I am supported by the British Institute of Recorded Sound, by the BBC and by the Library of Congress, which has been doing this for a considerable time. As a matter of fact, the only essential requisite is to have a Frigidaire and to keep the tapes at a temperature not higher than 20 degrees. If we do that, we do not know how long they will last because it has not been tried, but they will last for an extremely long time.

I suppose that within a generation your Lordships will be able to search the debates in this House on a terminal linked to a data base which will be capable of both printing out and speaking out the passages to which you wish to refer. It would be a great pity if, at this time, we decided not to keep the whole of the archives intact. Therefore, I hope that the Lord Privy Seal if he is to reply, will give us an assurance that the Broadcasting Committee will be asked to look again at the proposal to select for preservation only a portion of our proceedings. That would be invidious and contrary to good scholarship.

My Lords, as noble Lords have already said, the principle behind the Motion has already been established and there is little more to be said about it. On the other hand, my memory goes back for 12 years to an occasion when a debate on procedure was inaugurated by my noble friend Lord Alport. At that time I fell foul of the Leader of the House because the question of broadcasting proceedings and of a Committee to be a watchdog on reporting Parliament was not regarded as part of our procedure. There is no need to go over that ground again, because paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Joint Committee's report set out the history of the matter.

We are concerned with the terms of the Motion. To my mind, the most important point has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley; that is, that we must push on and that there should be no more delay. Many years have passed since we embarked on this matter and perhaps various aspects will be worked out as we go along. As was indicated by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, all sorts of wrinkles will crop up as time goes by.

I have certain reservations in supporting the Motion, one of which is the question of an obligation to report. The BBC has that obligation under Section 13(2) of its licence and agreement. This it has hitherto fulfilled—satisfactorily in its own eyes, I am sure—by the "Today" and "Yesterday in Parliament" programmes. I am one—I am sure that many other noble Lords will agree with me—who marvels at the skills which go to the making of those programmes. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the television programme on Saturday, 16th July called "Television and Politics" which gave an insight into the mechanical and technical complications involved and the skills of broadcasters. It also indicated the backup which is necessary to the mechanics of these programmes and which is set out in Appendices 8 and 9.

However, the BBC's programmes, which are obligatory, have set a tone and standard which will be difficult to sustain. I agree entirely with the Committee that editorial decisions must be left to the broadcasters. On the other hand, in terms of the obligation, the timing of the publication of broadcasts under this obligation is something at which I believe the Committee must look. I should like to address myself to this matter so that it goes on the record.

I do not believe that, in many respects, the BBC fulfils its obligation, particularly by broadcasting "Today in Parliament" so late at night. I asked a Question on this matter in your Lordships' House the other day and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell was good enough to embellish his reply by sending me a letter which said in regard to the re-scheduling of the time from 11.15 p.m. to 11.30 p.m.:

"In response to enquiries on this point, the BBC explains that at that time in the evening radio audiences are generally very small and that there has so far been no indication that the retiming of the programme by a quarter of an hour has had any particular effect which could be quantified".

I deduce from those comments that hardly anybody listens to the programme anyway. I feel that part of this Committee's task will be to ensure, in terms of the BBC's obligation, not only that broadcasts are made but that they are made at a time when they can reach the ears of the people who want to hear them.

My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier aware that that particular programme is repeated at 9.45 a.m. every morning?

My Lords, it is repeated at 8.45 a.m. in the morning. At that time in the morning most people are out at work and the rating is somewhere between 2 and 3 million. I did not mean to divert my speech to this extent, but the audience at that time of day is very largely white collar workers, commuters listening to their car radios and women in their kitchens. With most working people going to bed by 10 o'clock, and although the programme is repeated, neither time is convenient for many of those who want to listen.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as well as being repeated the programme is also often re-edited at the earlier time in the morning?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is quite right. I did not intend to take this any further, but there was a remarkable instance only yesterday when the programme "Today in Parliament", dealt with the proceedings up to 10 o'clock and the programme "Yesterday in Parliament" contained a report of all the proceedings that had taken place through the night, whereas the proceedings of the previous day had been almost completely scrubbed. That is a technical skill at which I am sure many noble Lords marvel.

But the BBC have that obligation. My second reservation concerns all the trouble and expense to which both Houses of Parliament are going over introducing this procedure. Would it not be proper for there to be a similar obligation on the IBA that, if it takes recordings, it should broadcast them at times which are acceptable? That matter will have to be worked out as time goes on because we do not want to delay matters now. I believe that there should not only be a warranty that the IBA should broadcast, but that it should broadcast the programmes at reasonable times.

I greatly welcome the reference in, I think, the second paragraph of Appendix 7 of the report to the intention of both the IBA and the BBC to be less metropolitan in their broadcasting. It is very important that Scotland, Wales and the Regions should hear more of what is going on here. I hope that this experiment will be put into effect before we begin to debate these awful devolution Bills.

The Committee, indeed, has a task ahead of it. Indeed, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed out, it has to oversee the restrictions, which I welcome. However, I wonder whether a Joint Committee is the right answer or whether, as time goes on, we shall not find that there should be a Committee of each House. However, that remains to be seen.

We do not want to spend too much time on this matter, although it is a pity that we do not have more opportunity to talk about it. However, the important thing is to get on with it. I have been greatly interested in the references made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the archives. I could not put my finger on it because I was so busy listening, but when he replies perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House could say whether the retention of a full record, of which I am all in favour, will not be amazingly complex, especially in terms of annual rewinding which as years go by will be very onerous. It seems to me that although a full record is to be desired, until there are very marked technical advances in the storing of records on tape it may prove to be very expensive.

In conclusion, as I have said I have the feeling that the Joint Committee might be replaced by separate Committees for each House. However, that can wait. The great thing is that no time should be lost in getting the system working and I hope that the Motion will receive the full support of the House.

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House but, first, may I say how pleased I am that we are discussing this Motion at 4.4 p.m. rather than at 3.56 a.m., which was when it was discussed in another place early yesterday morning. This seems to be a far more appropriate hour to cope with such an important matter.

My first wish is that we should have no further delay. It is sad that this country, which has set world standards in broadcasting and in television and which has set the pace in both, should be so slow to introduce broadcasting from Parliament. Denmark started this in 1930, so we shall be only 48 years behind if we start it next year. Norway, Sweden and Finland have had it for decades. In fact, when Sweden rebuilt its Parliament in 1971 it made provision for cables, positions for cameras and television and microphones for sound broadcasting. In West Germany both radio and television have been allowed since 1953, so we shall only be 25 years—a quarter of a century—behind West Germany. France started it in 1966, and will have had it for 12 years when we start.

My Lords, in passing can the noble Lord say what we have missed that they have gained during that period?

My Lords, I shall enlarge on that in a moment; I have a very good answer to that. In Holland both radio and television broadcasting have been permitted for many years, and that also applies to Switzerland. The old Commonwealth has been a pace-setter—New Zealand was the first Commonwealth country to introduce soundbroad-casting of its Parliamentary proceedings in 1936 and it introduced television in 1963. Australia has had radio broadcasting since 1946–32 years before us. I cannot help feeling that that is a sad reflection on us.

My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who is always very much on the ball, asked what we have lost. I think that we have lost something which is very important. This is an age when the main communication media are radio and television. We have dropped increasingly out of the ken, knowledge or enthusiasm of the country and the electors. This Government above all else have preached the importance of communication—as I hope has my side—between the different elements of our population whether it is in industry or in any other sphere. Surely it is wrong that people should be able to listen and to see almost every facet—including the Church—of our public life but not Parliament? Therefore, I hope that we shall make up for lost time.

There is an interest in Parliament. Indeed, particularly at this time of the year when many tourists visit our country, one only has to see the immense queues outside this House to realise that the interest is here. However, why should we ask people to queue for many hours—and they will see only a small portion and probably the most uninteresting portion of a debate—when we have an opportunity through modern communication media to make it available to so many more?

There have been differences of opinion as to whether the broadcasting of the House should be undertaken by a Parliamentary broadcasting unit or by the BBC. I suppose that I should declare an interest here having been in the BBC Television Service from 1937 until the War and then after the War. On balance I believe that the BBC can be relied upon to provide this service and probably will do it best. It must make a feed available to all other broadcasting, organisations. At the moment the only other organisation which may be involved is the IBA, but clearly many others will come along in the next few decades. I prefer that recommendation of the Joint Committee because not only does the BBC know its job but it has proven its capability. It has the producers and the engineers and would have the career structure.

If we had a separate organisation, it might start off being good, but then people serving in it would find that they were up a small and distinguished cul de sac, and there would not be the opportunities which are available to people serving in other spheres of this medium. I greatly hope that not too long after we start broadcasting we shall do as so many other democratic nations have done and allow television. Sound broadcasting of reported speech and of live speech are one thing, but television is immensely more compulsive and tremendously more interesting. Because of the delay we have one advantage in that now cameras are so small, so flexible and so sensitive that they will be far less unsightly than they would have been a decade ago. It is now possible to televise from your Lordships' Chamber without any reinforcement of light whatsoever. We can do it in this light as it is at this moment. Therefore, there has been some advantage in delay.

It is said that the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting will administer and will make judgments on this. The only reservation I have is whether they will be able to monitor the balance; not only the balance as between the Front and Back-Benches, which was mentioned in another place—of course the Back-Benchers won that argument on numbers—but also the balance between the various political interests and between Committees and the Floor. I wonder whether we ought not to have possibly a Parliamentary panel to consider complaints.

And balance between the two Houses.

And balance between the two Houses, as my noble friend says. The Press Council started off by being a body entirely self-governing and self-appointed, but over the years first it had a neutral chairman, and then the new Royal Commission report recommended a further broadening still where other people are brought in. I believe that the Broadcasting Council, which I have recommended from this House, will in the long run come. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested in his report a broadcasting complaints commission. But what they made clear, and what I am sure is true in this day and age, is that no one will trust any organisation which is set up and which is judge and jury in its own interest. It must be more independent, and not within the confines of the BBC, or the IBA for that matter.

We have had a recent example on the question of police cases. It is in a different field but it is also very important. Police complaints were always investigated internally by the police. Eventually the Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Roy Jenkins, took the brave stand, against very strong views of Sir Robert Mark, that there ought to be an independent element investigating complaints about the police. I think that if that is true of the police it is even more true of the media. I hope that perhaps we can work out some form of a complaints commission. Perhaps if a complaints commission is set up as a result of Annan, there could be a broadcasting panel which would deal with matters arising from this initiation of broadcasting from both Houses.

We have been an unconscionable time. I urge that we now get on with the job, and put into practice the communication which we have been advocating in every other sphere of public life. If it is not brought in in this most important element of our democratic system, I believe it will mean that both the House of Lords and the House of Commons will progressively fade out of public interest and public consciousness.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House at the beginning of his speech said that another debate was not necessary, with which of course I am in entire agreement. Indeed, there has been no debate today but a series of statements of approval of varying degrees. Therefore, I think, and I trust the House will think, that it is only fair and reasonable that those who have misgivings should be able to voice such misgivings even though they be swamped by the general approval which the House has given.

The first important point is one which was made unanimously on 16th March, and again today, that we cannot go it alone. If the other place goes in for sound broadcasting then we have to follow. Though I have misgivings, of course I concede that point at once. I am all for the objectives which were so clearly put by my noble friend Lord Ferrier of getting Parliament better known and Parliamentary affairs more widely discussed, but I fear that broadcasting does not necessarily mean better respect for Parliament.

Parliament, to me, is essentially a debating society. I think that debate must inevitably suffer in the future from the consciousness—even though a speaker may not realise it himself—that his audience is not the noble Lords opposite or beside him but an audience of millions. Therefore, it must influence the cut and thrust, or to and fro, of debate. I believe that our debates in this House and in another place are eminently suitable for expert journalistic reporting and summary such as we have in "Today in Parliament". It is too late now, but I must make clear that I should like the alternative—an enlargement in scope and time of "Today in Parliament", rather than have to listen to individual voices reproduced on a tape and listened to by millions of people, whom I do not think will particularly benefit from hearing the individual voices but would probably benefit more from knowledge of Parliament if they had a wise, carefully prepared journalistic summary.

Then the question I ask myself is this. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, will broadcasting increase the knowledge and respect of the public for this House? My fear is that it will not. Our form of presentation in debate is very different, as many noble Lords here will know, from the presentation in another place. Here our debates are less contentious, possibly less exciting, but, I think we can claim on most occasions, with a deeper knowledge than is expressed in another place. It always seems to me that in another place—noble Lords here have done it; I have tried to do it—you make a speech which is a political success among your friends, recognised as a Parliamentary success, but the knowledge is fairly superficial. It is wide but the depth of soil of knowledge is fairly thin, and yet you are congratulated all the same. Here the depth is far greater. The area covered may be smaller but the depth is far greater, and that does not necessarily make for suitable transmission in broadcasting.

For the House of Lords I cannot see greater interest through broadcasting. My fear is that live excerpts from debates may encourage the listener to use the freedom of the knob and turn off instead of going on to listen. I, of course, go with the majority of the House in supporting this Motion, but I think we are being pulled along a road that will lead to no increase of that respect and admiration which is reserved for this House by the public. What will come about we shall see in the future, but I do not believe that I am alone in this House in expressing those misgivings.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him whether he does not think that the reason why Parliament does not have the respect that some of us think it ought to have is due absolutely to the lack of knowledge of the whole procedure in both Houses? When they do have an idea of what is continuously happening, will they not learn to respect us?

My Lords, I wanted to speak just in case there was a repetition of the somewhat dismal tactics adopted in another place in the middle of the night which I greatly feared might happen, but everything seems to be sweetness and light, except for the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, about which I can only say that he does not have a very high opinion of your Lordships' performance in making speeches. Whether he has an equally low opinion of the capacity of the broadcasters to edit attractively is something with which I can deal because I speak with experience of 26 years in the BBC making broadcasts very relevant to the subject under debate, and I have no hesitation in saying that the problems of editing this sort of continuous assembly were solved many years ago at party conferences, so nobody need have any fear on those grounds.

In the debate on this subject in March the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said he was against the whole idea because editing would be impossible. I missed my timing, being very green, because I could have assured him not only that editing is possible but that it goes on all the time; all the mechanical problems of editing and distribution are, and have been for years, well within the grasp of the broadcasters. To those who may think that admitting sound broadcasting of Parliament is the thin end of the wedge leading to television, I can only say to those who dislike it that to refuse access by radio now would be much more likely to bring the introduction of TV closer rather than to hold it back longer.

As for the idea of setting up a Parliamentary broadcasting unit, I am very much against it, mainly for the reasons I have given, but also because it is absolutely vital to maintain the editorial freedom of the broadcasters. By all means let us exert pressure in both Houses and from outside Parliament if we think the broadcasters are not doing their job properly, but the price one must pay for that is to maintain the editorial freedom of the broadcasters.

The operation will be expensive for the broadcasters but they accept that because they know it is worth it. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said about the method of archival retention and I know something about this in the BBC, too. It is a very complex and difficult problem involving the problems of storage and conservation; it is a question of the sheer physical preservation of it all.

If there is to be selection then there is the problem of selection, and in my view there must be selection. I do not think it would be practicable to keep all Sittings of both Houses of Parliament—what about Sittings of Committees?—in toto. It would mean more than 15 or 20 feet of shelf space a year, even if some sort of microfilming of sound tape were perfected and its longevity could be guaranteed.

I also wish to comment on the request by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to the Lord Privy Seal that he should encourage the Committee to look again at the placing of the programme in Radio 4. I think he was especially referring to the placing in the evening and I think that would be wrong. It is part of editorial freedom that the broadcasters should have freedom also to choose when they put it on the air. If one looks at the present Radio 4 schedule—I say this without having talked to any of my former colleagues in the BBC about it, so I have not tested them out—and if one looks at the Radio Times for Monday through to Friday now, one sees what goes on between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., building up an audience for attractive repeats of popular programmes of the past. I should not be surprised if the Controller of Radio 4 wanted to put out the half-hour broadcast of Parliamentary proceedings with the extracts of speeches at that time. I may be quite wrong about that, but it seems to be the logic of present planning. It is a pity it is so late because it is too late for people who have to get up in the morning, and the repeat is after they have gone to work the next morning.

My Lords, I cannot remember whether it was on Friday last, but at 10.45 p.m. there was a quarter-hour repeat of "Take It From Here" first broadcast in 1958.

That is the sort of thing I mean, my Lords. I know that is going on now, but when the new schedule comes in, with vocal extracts recorded in a half-hour programme from our proceedings, the noble Lord will find it quite possible that that half-hour will be between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. I am just guessing.

Very good.

I agree, my Lords. That is when I think it should be. Because noble Lords are no doubt anxious to press on with other business, I will not say more on the subject, except to assure the House that this would be a very desirable move and that the quicker we get on with it the better.

My Lords, when I was talking about timing I was remembering that the BBC's obligation is a day-by-day one; not only is their timing applicable during the day but they are bound to do it daily.

One must not forget, my Lords, that the material from both Houses of Parliament is susceptible to being used in bulletins national, regional and local, BBC and IBA, right through the day and night. That is a valuable factor to bear in mind.

My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak; but I feel that I must make a brief comment in this debate. As one of your Lordships whose career, such as it is, has been made primarily on radio and television, I feel that if the proceedings of this House or of another place were recorded on radio or television, it could do nothing but damage, damage to Parliament and damage to the country. The editing and selection alone would be an impossible task. Who is to choose? Speakers would have their eyes on the light to see whether or not it was on them; they would then not be talking to the House but to the public. I believe it would do unlimited damage to Parliament, though I suppose it is now impossible to stop it.

My Lords, I, too, apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers, but I feel that I must make a couple of points. My noble friend Lord Eccles said they would select some of the tapes and destroy the rest. I do not see in the Resolution any undertaking to destroy. Will they be destroyed or will copies be kept by the broadcasting authorities if they so wish? As the Motion is not quite in keeping with what my noble friend said, I thought it would be useful to make that point.

The other point which interests me is that the Motion distinctly says that no "broadcasting signal" made pursuant to the resolution shall be used in a way which would bring satire against the House in programmes which are satirical. But we know very well that the choice of extracts can in itself be satirical. I have in mind the juxtapositioning of certain statements, and the way in which they are presented. Devoting two or three minutes to debates which may have lasted two or three hours can present the House in a different light than that in which it would appear in terms of the overall debate. I hope that the Committee will keep an eye on this point.

I agree completely with the general point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye; respect for Parliament is not likely to increase. Only yesterday I was talking on the Terrace of the Palace to a member of the Australian House in Canberra. He said that he had no doubt at all that the net result of the broadcasting of that Parliament had been a lowering of the respect for Parliament. That was the view of a person who is experienced in the Australian House, and who is in a position to form a view on the matter. I merely pass on to your Lordships the view of someone who has been a victim of the broadcasting of a Parliament not dissimilar to our own.

I should have thought that the importance of Parliament lies in not how something is said, but in what is said. We must remember the importance of what is said by the legislators in the various points they make and in their recommendations, which, at the end of the day, will result in legislation. My noble friend Lord Ferrier made a very interesting contribution, which included a little sidekick of the kind which often reflects how one really feels about a matter. He said that he was only sorry that there was not broadcasting when what he called "wretched devolution" was on the way. To me that remark clearly indicated that he would not be wishing to impress your Lordships, but rather opinion outside this House. That is natural; there is nothing wrong with it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, it is likely that there will be an impetus behind speeches aimed at impressing opinion outside the House. On the other hand, if one is addressing only one's colleagues, one is likely to be more objective, than if there is either a television camera or a microphone in the way.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. Despite what the noble Marquess has said, I believe this is the first step towards the televising of Parliament. Why should we want to turn your Lordships' House into a goldfish bowl? Why should we create an atmosphere in which people will be more concerned with the kind of impression they make outside the House, rather than with the contributions that they address to their colleagues here? I think this point applies particularly to the other place where everybody feels that he has to impress his constituents—and there is nothing wrong with that. But that kind of situation interferes with the objectivity and the impartiality which I believe a legislature ought to have.

I realise that it is too late to do anything about this matter now. Some of my noble friends have made the point that, once the other place has broadcasting, we have to have it. What guarantee is there that we shall not be put lower down the league in terms of esteem because of the short time devoted to what your Lordships have to say? What undertaking is there that we will have a proportion of the broadcast time which would be appropriate in reflecting the proportion of the power we have in getting legislation through Parliament? If there is one Chamber in the world where objectivity and impartiality are more important than the kind of picture which one presents, or how fluent one may sound when making points, it is your Lordships' House. This House is also the final court of appeal, as well as being Parliament, and I believe that we want the objectivity which can be brought about only if one is concerned principally with addressing one's colleagues on an equal basis, rather than being obsessed with the impression given outside.

My Lords, I did not put my name on the list of speakers for this debate, and so I shall restrict myself to three or four sentences. While welcoming the general conception of this enterprise. I feel rather unhappy about some of the provisions in paragraph (3) of the Motion, particularly that which states that no extract from a tape or cassette is to be used in a programme which is designed as political satire. Here, by a most remarkable coincidence, I find myself taking the same point of view as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Is it not a fact that some of the most valuable analyses of our political history have been made by political satirists? But here we are to impose a kind of censorship, a most drastic censorship, on the BBC, which we do not impose on the newspapers. The newspapers are as free as they can be to indulge in political satire. If we want to get the work of Parliament more broadly understood, we must consider to which part of the newspapers readers generally turn. They do not turn to the whole page of verbatim reports of Parliament, but to the article of the political sketchwriter, who undoubtedly imports much satire into what he writes.

Therefore I feel that when the programme of Parliamentary proceedings is broadcast it may be far more interesting to the general public if it imports a germ or two of satire, rather than be merely a humdrum report, to the effect that "Lord So-and-So" said this, and "Lord So-and-So" said that. I have exhausted my limit of four sentences, my Lords. I think we are being a little too touchy in imposing this restriction on the BBC. While I will not move an Amendment to delete paragraph (3) of the Motion, I hope that at some time in the future, once the programme has got going, the Committee will look at this matter, in the hope that the restriction now being imposed can be modified.

My Lords, we have had a short but interesting debate. I must confess that I always used to be a reactionary regarding this subject, and I do not apologise for that. Occasionally society needs some people who say "No", and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, expressed what was my original opposition to this idea. I was always worried that once we started sound broadcasting of Parliament we would, inevitably, have to have television. I am not going to go into that argument today, but I believe that what we are proposing is right in the circumstances, provided we have the safeguards, and I take note of what noble Lords have said.

I agree with everything that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said. I believe that the question of a Joint Committee, which was also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is important. We should remember that the Joint Committee can certainly be asked to reconsider the decision to keep a selective archive. I was intrigued by the noble Viscount's witty speech; I have in mind his reference to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and, above all, the late Winston Churchill. I am sure that the noble Viscount's point was effectively taken by the House. This matter has been looked at before by the Joint Committee, and a decision in favour of it was made. But we must remember that tapes do not take the place of Hansard as the official record of the proceedings. Nobody has mentioned this, which I regard as an extremely important point.

I do not want to pursue the argument here. I think that the Committee should look at the points which have been raised by noble Lords, especially what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair. I knew the noble Marquess years ago, and I recall that at the time I first met him he introduced me to the BBC programme "The Week in Westminster". He knows so much about broadcasting, and I take careful note of his warnings. He takes the view, quite rightly, that we can go ahead; and I agree with him about editing. I think that we must allow some freedom in this respect, otherwise it would become a tepid programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised other matters, relating to Section 4 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. The IBA regards itself as precluded by Section 4 of this Act from including in its coverage of Parliamentary proceedings speeches, or extracts from speeches, made by directors or officers of programme contracting companies. I believe that this affects a number of Members of this House; and I suspect that it affects the noble Lord as well. The Government propose to bring forward the necessary Amendments to the Act to remove this bar as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs, but it is unlikely that this legislation could be enacted before broadcasting begins.

I realise that many noble Lords have differed on this question. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, took an opposing view to the matter. He regrets this move, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. But I believe that we have to live with this. We must ensure that we have the necessary safeguards, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, repeatedly stressed in his speech. I agree with him. I hope that the BBC will be less metropolitan. After all, London does not represent England, any more than any other part of the country represents England. We want a fair balance between the regions. I accept that. But in fairness I must say that the BBC and ITV have very good regional organisations, as is known by those noble Lords who represent different parts of the regions, as I once did in another place. So I am not afraid of that. I believe that, inevitably, they will understand this. My Lords, I am not going to make a long speech. I have given assurances on the salient points which have been raised, and I hope we can now proceed. Let us try it, and go ahead.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I gave notice to the Whips' Office that I was going to raise my point about the Complaints Commission, but the noble Lord has completely overlooked it. I am sure it is an oversight. What happens if there is lack of balance? To whom do we complain?

My Lords, I am sorry. The Whips are very efficient, but I was not aware that the noble Lord had raised this point with the Whips. It is an important point, and I will look at it carefully. This is an Annan proposal. I am sorry I cannot give a forthcoming reply now, but I will look at it. I know it is always usually said: "I will write to the noble Lord", but if he would like to come to see me personally and have a quick drink, I shall be glad to see him.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for insisting on their Amendments to which this House has disagreed be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their disagreement to the Commons Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 on which the Commons have insisted for the Reason numbered 3. This, I think, my Lords, is the final debate on the Criminal Law Bill, and it is indeed a debate, not just on the powers of the courts in relation to young adult offenders but on the effects of the Bill as a whole. If I may remind the House about the background to this matter, it is this. Last week your Lordships insisted, against the opposition of another place, on Clause 43, inserted into the Bill during its passage through this House. This repeals Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, which imposes restrictions on the passing of prison sentences of medium length on offenders aged between 17 and 21.

Last night the other place made it clear, and I think by a convincing majority, that it did not want Clause 43 in the Bill. Until then, I think it could perfectly reasonably be argued that the view of another place was unclear, because it rested on a fairly narrow Committee decision—I think a decision taken by a majority of only one vote, in the absence, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would agree, of one member of the Committee who might have voted the other way. But last night's vote creates, I think, a new and significantly different situation, because it now falls to this House, either to accept the decision of the other place or, by insisting on Clause 43, to lose the Bill altogether. There is now no procedural possibility of any further to-ing and fro-ing between the two Houses. All that work, all that Parliamentary time, would be thrown away, and all the useful reforms incorporated in this Bill would be postponed until we know not when.

First, I think it would be right to say a little about the subject-matter of this remaining issue, difficult though it certainly is to say anything new. This is, I think, the sixth occasion on which I have spoken in the House on this matter. I think it right, nevertheless, on an occasion such as this, to define the area of difference and, I hope, to attempt to narrow the area of disagreement and, if possible, to lower the temperature. Certainly it is not the Government's case that the present law is the right solution to the problem of custodial sentencing of young adult offenders. The 1961 Act, of course (and we went into this on Second Reading), was not the legislation of my own Party but of the Party opposite; but certainly it was non-partisan legislation, and it was treated in exactly that way during its passage through both Houses—and perfectly properly so, too. It reflected the recommendations of the Prison Commissioners, which had been ratified by the then Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders under—and I think this is a very important point—the leadership of a judicial chairman. Their object was not to frustrate or fetter unreasonably the Judiciary: it was to work towards keeping young offenders under 21 out of prison by building on the best in the British custodial system; namely, the borstals. These, I think, were worthy aims at the time, and I think they remain so.

The difficulty, essentially—and this has been emphasised during the course of all our discussions, both in this House and in another place—is that the courts have found the limitation which Section 3 places upon their sentencing discretion increasingly irksome. How irksome certainly is uncertain. Are there few cases, or are there many? How are they dealt with now? It is sometimes suggested that Section 3 works well in the great majority of cases, and that it is only a few that would have to be dealt with differently if there were no Section 3. I, for my part, find it hard to believe that, if this were indeed so, Section 3 would create quite such a furore in judicial and other legal circles. At any rate, when the Home Office comes to speculating on the effects of the repeal of Section 3, it cannot with safety assume that it would make only a little difference. I went into the reasons for that judgment in some substantial detail during my speech last week, and I certainly do not want to weary the House by going over precisely the same ground this afternoon. It is, of course, not as though there were no other ways to solve this particular problem. Sentencing questions were at the heart of the review of young adult offenders which was carried out by the Advisory Council on the penal system, and certainly I think there is a wide consensus of support for their solution, which is a single custodial sentence for young adult offenders which would relieve the courts of the present restrictions on fixing the length of sentence and, at the same time, would bring the different sentences and penal establishments into a single system. Of course, it is said that we have had the Advisory Council's report for three years and have not acted upon it. That is certainly true. However, it became clear to us at a very early stage of our consideration of this issue that full implementation of the Advisory Council's plan would require a very substantial input of resources which we cannot possibly contemplate in the present economic situation; and to attempt to implement the Advisory Council's plan without adequate resources would be a recipe for confusion for which any Government would, I think, be rightly criticised. It was therefore our hope to live with the present system until the prospects for implementation became brighter: hence the terms of the Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in February of this year.

Now the debates during the Bill on Section 3 have increased our conviction that, rather than wait until we can embark upon the full implementation of the Advisory Council's plan, we ought to press ahead with plans to reshape the sentencing and institutional structure within existing resources, solving in the process the problems created by Section 3. This may sound a simple recipe but, in fact, it is a complex task with various options that need to be explored; but we believe it can be done and it is our intention that it should be done. I beg to move.

My Lords, now that a conclusion on this matter has been reached in another place, that conclusion being the conclusion of the elected Chamber, I, for my part, very much hope that your Lordships should take the view that that conclusion should now be accepted. Your Lordships came to a view in regard to the matter with which we are concerned; you came to a clear view, and then the matter went to another place. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that your Lordships were amply warranted a few days ago in coming to the conclusion that it would be desirable to give another place the opportunity to look at this matter again.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has indicated, when this matter was first in another place it went to a Standing Committee and there were good reasons for wondering whether the votes expressed—the votes being nine one way and eight the other—really represented the balance of opinion in another place. Therefore I think it was absolutely right a few days ago—and I do not understand the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to be dissenting from this—to give the other place the opportunity to go into this; and so it came before the full House and a conclusion was reached.

I, for my part, do not think that any useful purpose would be served if I re-stated the view that I hold. Many noble Lords in this House expressed their views on this subject. I hope that I expressed mine and I hope that I expressed it clearly. I have in no way changed it, but I fully recognise that a different view, held, as I entirely accept, with great sincerity, has now been accepted by a majority in another place, in the elected Chamber. I therefore, do not feel for my part that there would be any advantage in carrying the matter any further. I believe that this is a most important and valuable Bill and I think that great credit should come to this House from the fact that this very important Bill was introduced here. So many of your Lordships spent a great deal of time in endeavouring to improve the Bill, to consider it very carefully, and I really feel that your Lordships greatly improved the Bill.

I, for my part, therefore, not without some regret but with every good grace, accept the decision arrived at yesterday. I think that this is an important Bill and I hope that your Lordships will take the view, also with good will, that it is right now that this Bill should go on its way with the full endorsement of this House.

My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, I, too, am unconvinced by the Home Office arguments. I remain sceptical about their guess—and it is no more than a guess—that if Section 3 of the 1961 Act were repealed more young people would find themselves in prison. I remain deeply perturbed by the fact, and on this there is no doubt, that as a result of the operation of Section 3 some young offenders find themselves in prison for longer than they would otherwise have to serve. I think that one ought to mention that it is not realistic to refer to Borstal as being a satisfactory medium-term sentence when one sees from the prison statistics only last week that the great majority of borstal offienders are released certainly before they have served as much as nine months of their sentence.

Having made those observations, like the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I, too, for my part—and this is not, as I have always said, a Party political matter—would accept the view expressed in the other place last night. Despite some of the observations by some of the more belligerent journalists, I do not believe there was ever any intention of having a confrontation between the two Houses on this particular issue. The thought of fighting a General Election on the question of whether Section 3 should be repealed is not one that I, myself, find attractive.

I am of the view that we should accept the decision of another place despite the fact that some rather extraordinary observations were made in another place last night and, in particular, if I may refer to them, observations about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. Whether those observations were a breach of the conventions of another place it would be quite improper for me to comment upon; that they were obviously grossly lacking in taste and grotesquely inaccurate is perfectly clear to everybody who listened to the distinguished part that the noble and learned Lord has played in this House in the course of the passage of this Bill. I know that your Lordships and the public at large will treat with derision the observations that a Member of another place chose to make.

Arising out of our protracted discussions on this issue, one good feature has resulted and that is that the Younger Committee's proposals are now very much nearer implementation than they were when we started. When the debates began, it was indicated that it was quite impracticable for us to hope that any steps would be taken towards implementing those proposals in the reasonably near future. It is clear from what the Minister has said in another place last night and from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said this afternoon that it is now going to be possible to take some steps towards the implementation of those proposals within a reasonable time. I believe that that is a desirable objective and that that has been achieved largely as a result of the pressures brought about by the debates on this Amendment.

The last observation that I would make is this: perhaps it is time that we began to educate the public into appreciating that when resources are available the building of new prisons will have to have a very much higher priority than it has had in the past. The shortage of accommodation in our institutions has led to total distortion of our penal policy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will agree that the sooner that matter can be rectified, the sooner we can go ahead towards a sensible and coherent sentencing policy and a constructive method of dealing with young offenders.

My Lords, I rather question whether it would have been appropriate for me to intervene at this stage and detain your Lordships still further but for two factors. The first is that I should like to acknowledge with sincere gratitude the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in this matter. He was very gracious to me and I sincerely appreciate what he has just said. Secondly, because he said the remarks which were made last night were inaccurate, I am entitled—if only as a Member of your Lordships' House, and if only in order to justify the part which your Lordships' House has played—to put the record straight. I should not trouble to do so if the remarks had simply been made by an inexperienced Member of Parliament. But they were in fact made by a Member of the Bar who has received a patent of silk from Her Majesty, and who has held office under the present Government, although he does not any longer do so. That would have led one to suppose that the remarks had a certain validity, or that he had taken some trouble to verify his remarks before he had made them.

But they are certainly false and, so far as I know, he had made no effort to verify them before he made them. So far as his speech is concerned, he produced no evidence whatever in support of what he said. He made two charges against me. I may not name him, and I do not attempt to do so; nor may I read what he said, because both actions would be out of order in this House. I say in parenthesis that when I was a Member of the House of Commons it was wholly out of order for a Member of that House to make a direct, personal attack on a Member of this House. It was something which would have immediately incurred the censure of the Chair, and I can only suppose that it was very late at night because on this occasion the honourable gentleman seems to have got away with what he said.

He made two charges against me: one was not in relation to this House, but in relation to the Bail Act. Although I will not read what he said, I will closely paraphrase it and, as the House can see, I am in a position to do so. He said that I had done that to the Bail Act, the result of which was that the Act had no effect on judges at all in the way that they exercised their new powers, and I had done it by an Amendment.

It is quite true—and I speak in the presence of the noble and learned Lord—that at a comparatively late stage in the Bail Bill there was a difference of opinion between the Home Office, as represented by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—of whose personal attitude in these matters I make no complaint at all—and not only myself but noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches and noble Lords on the Liberal Benches as well. The result of that, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows very well, was that I went to see him in his room. We had a most amicable discussion. We thrashed the matter out. I cannot now remember whether the Amendment which emerged was proposed by the noble and learned Lord and supported by me, or proposed by me and supported by the noble and learned Lord on behalf of the Government. But one or the other of those two things happened. The idea that I was guilty of what was described as "insufferable conduct", having support from all quarters of the House and, ultimately, the Government themselves, in having secured that Amendment, is contrary to fact. It is because that is contrary to fact that I feel, without commenting upon the propriety of the speech, that I should put the record straight.

The charge in relation to this Bill is that I did not even trouble—so the phrase was—to intervene in the debate in the Lords. I had spoken on Second Reading on the point; I had spoken in Committee on the point; I had spoken on Report on the point; and it seemed to me that the House was entitled to a change of bowling. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is a specialist in English criminal law and it seemed to me that he was well entitled to go in first wicket down. So I was not guilty of any disrespect to anybody by not making a fourth or fifth speech on the subject.

It was also said that I hung a threat over the House of Commons that they would not be able to obtain a most important Bill reforming aspects of the criminal law because I took a different view from the Government on this one item. The only true fact in that particular charge is that I do take a different view from the Government on this particular item, for reasons which I have now adumbrated four times and with which I will not therefore weary the House again.

What was described as blackmail and as insufferable was that I should threaten to destroy this Bill simply because I disagreed about this. Not one word of evidence was produced for this extraordinary fabrication. Let me say at once, lest the House should think I am painting myself as a Sir Galahad, that I would not hesitate to destroy the Bill if any good would come of it; but if I did destroy the Bill or advised my noble friends to destroy the Bill, and they were foolish enough to listen to my advice—which I hope would always be more sensible than that—the effect would be that the Amendment, Clause 43, would fall with the Bill itself, so that I would not get what I wanted.

I am willing to destroy some of the more idiotic provisions of the Government where it is proper to do so, but where the whole object is to get rid of Section 3, and the whole effect of what I did was to preserve Section 3—because the only way of getting rid of it is by an amendment to this Bill—the honourable and learned gentleman must have thought, not that I was a blackmailer—which is what he said—but that I was a lunatic. It is just possible that, in my old age, I am going senile. But I am not quite so senile as that. I therefore say that I would really rather appreciate it if the honourable gentleman to whom I have referred thought fit to give me an apology.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, may I say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for what they have said and the manner in which they have said it. There has undoubtedly been a significant disagreement between us on this issue, which is hardly surprising because, as we have been reminded, a similar disagreement took place within the life time of the last Government. This is a difficult issue and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, rightly said, there has been some change of attitude on this important question as a result of the debates which have taken place in both Houses. I emphasised that in my speech this afternoon.

May I say something in relation to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has just said. I confirm, in so far as it is necessary for me to do so, the accuracy of the statement made by the noble and learned Lord. He never made any such threat either to me or to any other member of the Government. We certainly have our disagreements—sometimes sharp ones—but he has always behaved with great moderation in matters affecting these suggested changes in the criminal law. He has always taken the view, I think rightly, that these are not matters for the normal character of debate that sometimes takes place between the two Parties; and he tries to raise the level of debate—as he always has—during our discussions on these matters. I would end by saying that certainly the noble and learned Lord has not made any such suggestion to us. I repeat that, in so far as it is necessary to confirm the accuracy of the statement, I should now like to do SO.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.

My Lords, we have before us a Commons Reason on this Amendment and it is, of course, the only Amendment which your Lordships have thought fit to attach to the Bill. Your Lordships will also remember that on Committee and on Report the Opposition sought to delete the whole provision of the office development permit and later modified it to a period either of two years or three years. It is significant that the Government, in speaking to this particular provision, mentioned especially the fact that it was very unfortunate that this time-scale should be attached at all. I believe that the noble Baroness, when she addressed your Lordships on our Amendment, was very concerned that the question of developers should be included and therefore she did rule it out of consideration that the Government should not be allowed the full period of five years. Throughout the consideration of this Bill we have sought to remove altogether the office development permit, and we believe that it will place upon office development a totally unnecessary constraint.

My Lords, you will not wish me to state yet again the reason why the Government prefer a five-year period. We have gone over the arguments so often that they scarcely bear repeating. All I think I can say now is that the Government believe this control is necessary and that it should be continued and extended for a period long enough for the control to be of value. We therefore believe that five years is the only reasonable period for which to renew these powers.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should give no explanation as to why the Government are not able to agree to the writing in of assurances. Certainly this may be something of a repetition of what has been said on many occasions, but I find it disappointing, particularly as we have only argued that this is not a question of changing what the Coal Board could or could not do but a question of the securing within the Bill itself of assurances.

During Committee stage I asked why it was that on so many occasions Ministers considered that oft-repeated and serious assurances should be satisfactory. I have said previously that this may be well understood by Members of your Lordships' House and of another place, but interested parties outside prefer to deal with matter of fact. Why is it, therefore, that these matters cannot be written into a Bill? That would not stop the Coal Board from exercising its powers under the clause in question. All it would have meant was that there would have been an adequate notice given to interested parties that this might happen, and representations could then be made.

I find the whole history of this Coal Industry Bill rather a sad one. It arrived in your Lordships' House rather late and it had, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, a "pathetic debate" on Second Reading, and then we wound a rather wearisome way through Committee and other stages. I remain unconvinced by the assurances given. In talking to colleagues in that part of the industry in which I normally work, I find they are not entirely happy, and therefore it remains to be seen as the years advance whether these assurances are as good as we might think they are today.

Is it not surprising that the Government should point, as proof of their good will, to the fact that the extension of powers illustrates the assurances they gave nearly 10 years ago? They can write those in; they can bring forward into what is essentially a financial Bill additional powers which are written in on the strength of assurances given some years ago; but they cannot write into the Bill assurances which they give today, and I, for one, am deeply and sadly disturbed and sorry about it.

My Lords, I think it is worth saying once again that it is better to put something into a Bill rather than to give an assurance about it. May I give a reason for saying this: an Act of Parliament—

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I think at the moment we are considering Amendments 1 to 3, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if I may anticipate him, seem to be speaking about Amendment No. 6 which refers to Clause 10. At the moment we are dealing with Clause 9.

No, my Lords, I am talking about the assurances to be given as to the proposition's being

"… commercially reasonable and in the national interest ".

We say they should appear in the Bill because this will be an Act of Parliament which gives the coal industry a power to do certain things. It is entirely within its own discretion whether or not it exercises that power. If my noble friend Lord Lucas were to put a question to the noble Lord on the Front Bench, the noble Lord would be in a position to say, "This is a matter for the day-to-day working of the Coal Board: a matter in which the Government cannot interfere". It is such a matter because it is a power which is given to it.

Of course, the noble Lord has said to us: "We have given these assurances and we shall see that they are observed ". And in effect he says he will see that they are observed because application will have to be made for approval of the capital expenditure involved. Of course, that will be true, but it does not in any way modify the desirability—and that is a word which is included in a good many of the Reasons for not accepting Lords Amendments just now—of having it in the Act of Parliament so that the Coal Board itself can see what the limitation of its powers are and the powers for which it would have to obtain approval. That is the reason for having these Amendments. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that, in these circumstances, it is desirable to implement the assurance in the Bill, rather than for the Government to be put in the dubious position of having to try to persuade the Coal Board afterwards—because that is what it amounts to—to adhere to an assurance that the Government have given, which is not binding on the Coal Board.

My Lords, we have a reason of a sort from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for declining these Amendments of ours. But we still have no reason at all for not accepting in the Bill assurances which were given repeatedly and emphatically, and which we on the whole considered satisfactory, so far as they went, during the passage of the Bill. We are still left entirely dissatisfied on that point. But it is too late now to press these Amendments, and we must accept the ruling of another place.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 for the Reason numbered 6.

My Lords, this is, if I may say so, rather more adequately put. There is a disagreement between us, as there has been all along, as to the merit of enshrining these assurances in the Bill, and I could not put the case for doing that better than my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. The fact that the Government have taken the positive step of moving these Amendments out—Amendments which serve only to do what I have just said—can now serve only to increase the very suspicions and anxieties which we and the industry have been feeling all the time, and which we on this side were at particular pains to allay. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was at pains to allay them as well, but the means he chose for doing so were, in our view, quite inadequate. But, once again, I think the moment has come for us to how to the decision of another place. We do so with the small consolation that on the very day that the Lib-Lab pact was renewed, it was also broken in order to support us on this matter.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 7 for the reason numbered 8.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.

My Lords, we regret very much that another place thought fit to attach to our series of Amendments the Reason stated on the Marshalled List. These Amendments have come to be known as the CIPFA Amendments, taking the initials of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and they were the subject of a tied vote in Standing Committee in another place, when the Chairman of that Committee cast his vote. Unfortunately, history in your Lordships' House and in another place has shown a remarkable degree of dissimilarity over what the Liberal Party have thought on this subject.

These Amendments were written into the Bill by your Lordships' House, with the support of the Liberal Party. The Bill returned to another place, where no fewer than 12 out of 13 Members of the Liberal Party promptly voted against them. I do not understand the reason for the change of heart that took place, but I believe that these Amendments were particularly significant and important. One of the most significant reasons which we chose to attach to them was that the CIPFA Amendments were, in another form, involved in two existing Acts of Parliament: that is, the South Glamorgan Act and the Tyne and Wear Act. Taken together, the Amendments would contain a sensible group of provisions which any reasonable authority would adopt and put into practice.

I did not know, and still do not know, why the Government throughout in another place chose to adopt the attitude which they did. Again and again, the noble Baroness's right honourable friend Mr. Freeson said: "If only the original Bill had been introduced, we could then have adopted these Amendments". Mr. Freeson said that not only on all stages in the Commons, but when the Bill returned to another place quite recently. I will not weary your Lordships with a further history, but it is quite apparent that these very important Amendments could, and indeed should, have been written into the Bill. But the opportunity has passed us by, and we must bow to what another place has chosen to do.

My Lords, may I startle the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, by indicating to him that there are some people who are prepared to approach a problem with an open mind, and to listen to the arguments and vote on the merits. What, in fact, happened—and I want merely to put the record straight—was that when the Amendments were considered in your Lordships' House, my colleagues on the Liberal Benches here, with the full support and co-operation of our colleagues in the other place, decided to support the Conservative Amendments, and that we did. After that had happened, discussions took place between the Government and the Liberal Party which as all of your Lordships know, are now invariably harmonious and successful. In the result, when the Minister spoke yesterday he gave a series of undertakings and assurances which were far in advance of anything that had been issued up to that moment. In the light of that wholly changed position, and again with the full support of the entire Liberal Party both in the other place and in this House, it was decided that it was perfectly proper to allow these Amendments to be defeated and to support the Government's line.

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has explained the Liberal situation to his satisfaction, but I doubt whether it is to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. But I do not intend to intervene on that point. Your Lordships will recall that in Committee and at Report stage on this Bill I said that, while the Government accepted readily that there was a need for a comprehensive modern statutory framework for the operation of local authority DLOs, they could not agree that this Bill was an appropriate vehicle for tinkering with the present requirements.

Our overriding reason for this was and still is—I say this in view in particular of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—that the Bill deals with powers which give rise to only a very small part of the total DLO work of a very small proportion of the total number of local authorities. The additional provisions contained in the Amendments made to the Bill in this House can apply only to that very tiny fraction of local authority DLO work. They will not apply at all to most local authorities and only to work done under the provisions of the Bill in the 25 local authorities to which it does apply.

My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, speaking in another place last night, specifically undertook that when he has received and considered the reports of his departmental Working Party and of CIPFA, who are both studying the subject, he will publish as soon as he can a consultation document fully setting out the Government's views on what should be done and on the new legislation which would be necessary. He will also issue further advice by circular to local authorities stressing the need within the existing Statutes for careful and accurate accounting, for fair procedures and for clear comparison with the private sector.

It now seems that the need for the greater part of our proposals is accepted by all parties. Therefore, we look forward to a more constructive approach when the Government's conclusions are known. Meanwhile, in view of the decisions taken in another place and bearing in mind the undertakings that were given and to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred, I submit that this House should not insist upon the Amendments covering Clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. When the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved this Amendment to the Post Office Bill which has now been returned from the Commons, he said that he hoped to persuade the Government to reconsider the merits of the experiment and to allow the House of Commons another opportunity to consider the principle of the Bill. The Government remain firmly committed to this experiment. The other place, having considered the noble Lord's Amendment, decided without a Division to disagree with your Lordships' House. Their reason is that it is appropriate that the experiment in industrial democracy which the Bill enables to take place should begin as soon as appropriate appointments to the Post Office can be made. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that his Amendment has now served its purpose in giving another place a chance to reconsider and that your Lordships' House will not insist upon this Amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is not my intention to pursue the matter at great length now, but in passing may I express my regret that in his remarks the noble Lord made no reference whatever to the entirely changed circumstances that faced both the other place and the Government after this Bill had had its Second Reading in your Lordships' House and prior to its Committee stage. I refer to the publication of the Carter Report which was commissioned by this Government into the workings of the Post Office. The noble Lord will recall that when I moved this Amendment I drew his attention and that of your Lordships to the fact that the Carter Report is very critical of the Government's proposals for industrial democracy in the Post Office. Therefore I thought it appropriate—and a majority of your Lordships agreed with me—that the other place and, indeed, the Government ought to have the opportunity further to consider this matter.

The other place considered the matter, I believe at half past four this morning. Although, as the noble Lord has said, we have a Reason for their disagreement, they did not divide on the matter and your Lordships' Amendment was therefore negatived. I have not yet seen the report of the proceedings in Hansard, but it is hardly surprising that at the end of a long night's business the other place was not able to find time to give the matter the consideration that I believe it deserves. Regrettably, therefore, this experiment in industrial democracy is now to go ahead along exactly the lines which the Government propose.

I shall not repeat the criticisms of that experiment which I have already made except, finally, to say that I greatly regret that the Government have not seen fit to pause and reflect in the light of the most important Carter Report, upon which they themselves have not yet made a judgment, and, indeed, upon which they have invited comment between now and the end of the year.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to one other of the Lords Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7. Your Lordships will recall that this group of Amendments was moved in this House at Report stage. Their purpose was to extend protection to a consumer when a dispute subsequently arose, by giving him an opportunity to avoid arbitration being forced upon him when, for whatever reason, he would rather go to the court and have the dispute settled there. Arbitration clauses are not infrequently to be found in the small print of contracts, and it seems to me to be wrong that a consumer should have arbitration forced upon him when a dispute arises.

I remain of the opinion that these Amendments are improvements to the Bill. I know that they did not find universal favour among your Lordships, although in the event they were accepted without a Division. We have now reached the position where the other place has rejected these Amendments. Time is, therefore, getting very short. To avoid losing the Bill altogether, I would ask the House to accept the disagreement of the other place and not to insist on our Amendments. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to say, as I said when the Bill was going through your Lordships' House, that the Commons have been exceedingly wise. The Amendments affecting arbitration clauses were retrogressive and contrary to the whole movement of opinion in commercial law in both this and other countries. I fully accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but with a greater sense of enthusiasm than he himself has felt able to display.

My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say that it is with slightly less grace than the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that I, too, bow to the views of the House of Commons on this matter, although it may well be that we shall have to revert to it on a future occasion.

My Lords, in support of my noble friend I should like to say that at the end of a Session like this it is always sad when we have to recognise that if we do anything more to a Bill inevitably it will be lost. It seems to be a rather unfortunate point of principle that we have to bow to the inevitable in order to get this Bill through Parliament. However, I was heartened to hear, in the careful words of the noble and learned Lord, that we may return to this matter later.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 to Lords Amendment No. 8. Your Lordships will recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, successfully urged the House on Report stage to accept a provision relating to a contract term (being a term which limits a person's liability to a specified sum of money) that in determining the requirement of reasonableness of such a term, the court should have regard in particular to two matters: first, the resources which that person could expect to be available to him for the purpose of meeting the liability and, second, how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance. That was the Amendment which is numbered 8 on the printed sheet.

This provision reflected what I think was the very real need felt by the noble and learned Lord and others to protect parties to a contract, possibly individuals or partnerships, where the risk they undertook was such that there was no possibility of insurance and where, in going bankrupt, it might well be beyond the capacity of a single person without limited liability to meet the obligations which might arise. As your Lordships will know, the Government spokesman and the Promoter of the Bill agreed with that and we were happy to see the Amendment made. I am now of the opinion that the Amendment proposed in another place should not be accepted and I think perhaps I should explain in a little detail why I take this view.

When the Amendment was considered in another place a qualified view of the matter prevailed. It was there urged that it was not the total of the assets available to a person that should be taken into account for the purpose of the Amendment but only those available in the course of that person's business. Words were written into the Amendment so as to make it refer to

"the resources which in the course of his business he could expect to be available to him"

for meeting the liability. As I understand it, the ostensible purpose of the Amendment was to focus the attention of the court solely on what might loosely be described as "business assets" and to require it to disregard what may also be loosely called "personal assets".

If that is the purpose of the Amendment from another place, I venture to express the view that it is doubtful in the extreme whether the words are in fact capable of achieving that result. But, in my view, a more important consideration is that such ought not to be the result in any event. The view that I believe the sponsors of the Bill take—and I support it—is that we cannot accept the principle which apparently underlines the Amendment for it is a rule of law that where any individual person—not, of course, a limited liability company—is liable all his assets are available to meet the liability. In the provision that left this House we were concerned with the availability of a person's assets as the criterion for justifying his having contractually imposed on the other party a limit on his liability. By the same token the only logical and sensible way to apply such a criterion, in my view, is to bring in all that person's assets.

It may be that the mover of the Amendment in another place was influenced by the fact that the Bill in general applies only to exemptions from liability sought to be contractually applied where the liability arises in the course of a business. But that is not a relevant consideration, for the nature of a liability has nothing to do with the nature of the assets which could be called upon to meet it. Apart from that, I think it would clearly undermine the basic purpose of the provision which was introduced in this House if the Amendment from the other place were to prevail, for a businessman could, for example, so arrange his affairs as to divest himself of assets held for the purpose of his business, for example by assigning them to his wife or some other nominee, with the reesult that he would always be able to assert the reasonableness of the limit of liability specified in the contract term on which he sought to rely.

As to the other Amendment, that is now couched in terms which I regret to say that, for my part, I do not find make any sense at all and indeed would add to the confusion which would already be created by this Amendment. For those reasons, my Lords, my view and the view of the Government and I think of the Promoter is that both Amendments should be rejected. I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendments.

My Lords, I can only endorse what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. I am not now speaking about the problem of time and saving the Bill; I am speaking about the merits of the case, and I wish to give whatever little weight that I can to the very full analysis which the noble and learned Lord has made. I am only rather sorry that these Amendments were inserted on a Friday by two Members of my Party who clearly did not understand the principles involved in what they were doing. I understand that this Bill had a rather curious fate in the Commons because the Government Whips—ha, ha!—had not got a quorum and therefore if they had had a Division they would have lost the business and the Bill would have fallen by the wayside. So they did not put in Tellers, with the result that by a strange quirk of fortune the Amendment was inserted by what is grandiosely referred to as "the elective Chamber" which is so much deferred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches to whom we always listen with great advantage.

But I think it is sometimes unwise to attach too much importance to the fact of election and too little to the sense of what they are doing. I can only say that if either of the two Members of my Party had asked me about these Amendments I should have been only too glad to give them advice, but it is wholly contrary to principle that when a man is trading otherwise than through the means of a limited company he should be thought to be setting aside part of his assets as being alone liable to meet the honourable obligations which he undertakes as a trader, and it is quite contrary to the principles of the Conservative Party, at least, that that should be so.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Redundancy Payments (Variation of Rebates) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th July, 1977 be approved. I do not think that any noble Lord present here today will be unfamiliar with the purpose of this order, which is to reduce the rebate payable to employers from the Redundancy Fund from 50 per cent. to 41 per cent. During the course of debate on the Redundancy Rebates Bill which receive the Royal Assent on 22nd July 1977, it was clearly stated that it was intended to use the enabling power in this way. The reasons for doing so were fully covered, and I do not propose to presume upon the indulgence of the House by going over the same ground again in depth.

I feel bound, however, at least to remind noble Lords that this order, when made, will produce savings to the Redundancy Fund estimated at approximately £1·35 million a month. As I have said earlier, these savings may appear small, but in no way can they be described as insignificant. Neither can there be any question about the effect they will have in reducing the public sector borrowing requirement.

I fully appreciate that strong views have been expressed to the contrary by noble Lords on all Benches opposite, and these were reflected in the Amendments made in this House and referred back to another place. I hope that, having made these views abundantly clear, your Lordships can now accept with your customary grace and understanding that it is right for this House to accept the proposed change.

My Lords, we may have a customary grace, but we certainly do not always show customary understanding of the words of the noble Lord, with which we totally disagree. We on this side have consistently opposed the contents of this draft order as they were originally proposed in the enabling Bill. I should like to say a few words before we conclude this business. The possibility of this draft order being laid before your Lordships' House was, of course, envisaged right from the beginning of our initial discussions during the Second Reading of the Bill under which the order is now laid. As the noble Lord quite rightly says, the matter has been fully debated, and I am certainly not going to go over the same ground again. But there are four points I should like to make.

The first one is this. When the first Bill was originally introduced in another place, in order to reduce the rebate from 50 per cent. to 41 per cent., it was rejected in another place; the Bill, therefore, had to be withdrawn after Second Reading. When we sought successfully to introduce an Amendment in this House, following the failure of that Amendment or a similar Amendment in another place, the Minister in the other place, in disagreeing with our Amendment, made the extraordinary statement in column 1120 of the Official Report of 5th July:

"We cannot now accept from another place a principle which has already been rejected by this House.".

It seems to me an extraordinary statement to make, considering that the draft order is introducing a principle which had been totally rejected by another place on its first introduction. It seems to me that a new constitutional principle creeps into this; that is, that a Minister apparently is not bound either by his previous performance or by his own words. To give as a reason for rejecting an Amendment from this House, that because it has already been rejected in another place we have no right to introduce the Amendment here, seems to be an extraordinary way of going about things to say the least of it.

Secondly, I should like to comment on the question of the savings to which the noble Lord has referred. I must draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Redundancy Fund is now standing, as I understand it, at something like £15 million. When the original statement was made on 22nd July by the Chancellor, it was, of course, a negative sum; but it had already reached £5 million by the end of December. I do not quite see where the noble Lord gets his figure of £1.35 million savings a month, when I understand that the sum paid out—this is the last figure I have—was something like £22,000 for the last week. I am not expecting the noble Lord to go into these figures at great length at this time of the day and at this stage in the Parliamentary year. Nevertheless, I should like to put it on record that it seems rather surprising that it has achieved a saving of £1.35 million when the only sum paid out is £22,000 and the Fund is increasing monthly on the credit side.

Thirdly, I should like to state formally that we on this side of the House very much regret the principle that the Government should tamper with funds contributed solely by employers for a specific purpose, in order to help those employers who are faced with redundancy payments. In our view, there can be no possible justification for the statement by the Minister in another place—column 1119 of the Official Report of 5th July—that the reduction in the level of the rebate will have the direct effect of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and will contribute in a small way to the restoration of the economic health of the country. The reduction in the rebate will, in our view, be of no benefit to the economy. It does not contribute to solving any of the major economic problems with which the country is faced—overmanning, lack of creation of new jobs, increasing pressures on small businesses which are the backbone of the private sector of the economy of this country. The draft order, in our view, does nothing to contribute to the improvement of the economy, but is evidence of a shortsighted attempt by the Government to relieve their own appalling economic mess and their massive public expenditure, to help in some small way to increase their borrowing capacity.

Finally, in view of the statements of the Minister in another place about the kind of power we are expected to have in this House, it is perhaps extraordinary that we are having to introduce this order in this House today, because of the incompetence and inefficiency of the Government yesterday in not having a printed Act available for another place to debate last night. I, therefore, very much regret that we in your Lordships' House have to debate this order before another place. I hope very much that the debate in another place which will follow will have satisfactory conclusions—to which side I will not say. I leave it at that.

My Lords, I think we on these Benches must associate ourselves with the general tenor of the remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. We, too, have opposed this Bill in principle from the beginning, not least because, at a time when, as we see it, the Government should be doing all they can, on the basis of their own avowed strategy, to help industry, more particularly in the matter of mobility of labour, through this Bill they are doing exactly the reverse. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said in his opening remarks, the Government have at least made plain from the beginning that it was their intention, as soon as the Bill had been passed or shortly thereafter, to bring in an order of the kind that is now before us. Having acquiesced, however reluctantly, in the passage of that Bill on that basis, we do not think that we can now do anything else but reluctantly accept the order.

My Lords, I think I should at least gracefully reply to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord. The noble Baroness referred to the Act not being available. Well, with their usual efficiency, the Government took very quick action to put that unfortunate oversight right. This House has had the distinction of dealing with it first, before another place. Therefore, we pass it back to another place, for them to act with the same grace and understanding with which your Lordships have dealt with the order.

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I propose that both of these orders—the Films (Exemption from Quota) Order 1977, and the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 1977—be considered together. While the former order stems entirely from the rise in the levy of prices, and while the latter is necessary due to the unfortunate reduction in the volume of cinema business, both concern the same industry and both are concerned principally with the economic position of a particular section of the industry—film exhibitors.

Dealing first with the order regarding exemption from quota, I think it would be helpful if I were to sketch in the background. The Cinematograph Films Act 1948, now consolidated with the Films Act 1960, provided that all registered cinemas must show a prescribed quota of British films. This is still a requirement, although since we joined the Community eligible films from EEC countries also qualify for quota requirements. At present the quotas are 30 per cent. for feature films and 25 per cent. for supporting programmes.

It has always been the case that small cinemas with a limited turnover might find difficulty in acquiring sufficient British films to enable them to meet the quota requirements, and for this reason the Act of 1948 included a provision whereby cinemas whose weekly takings were less than £100 could apply for exemption from the quota requirements. The exemption limit was raised to £125 by the Films Act 1960 and to £150 in the Films Act 1966.

In 1967, the first year in which the revised exemption limit of £150 became effective, there were 1,774 licensed cinemas in Great Britain. In that year 181 cinemas, nearly 10¾ per cent. of the total cinemas licensed, were granted exemption from quota. This year only 22 cinemas out of a total of 1,571–1·4 per cent.—have been able to claim exemption under the existing limit.

The 1960 Act prescribes that the quota exemption limit may be varied by order, and the object of the order now before the House is to raise the limit to £350. This proposal for a rise in the exemption limit was very thoroughly considered by the Cinematograph Films Council, who felt that £350 was a realistic figure under present-day conditions. I agree with that view and commend the order to your Lordships.

I shall now turn to the draft regulations which are before your Lordships. The Cinematograph Films Act 1957 provided for a statutory levy to be paid by cinema exhibitors in Great Britain for eventual payment to makers of British films, and to others. The rate of levy, prescribed in the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations 1968, as amended, is one-ninth of the price of admission in excess of 7½p, the calculation being made net of VAT. This portion of the net admission price which is not liable to levy has stood at 7½p since 1968. The levy is calculated on the weekly takings of each cinema.

The regulations provide for certain exemptions, the most important of which is in respect of cinemas whose takings in any particular week or whose average weekly takings (calculated from the beginning of the levy period) are less than £700. Each successive period of 52 weeks constitutes a "levy period".

The yield from the levy has been just under £5 million each year for some years past. This yield has remained more or less constant because the rise in prices has been balanced by a significant decline in the number of people going to the cinema. But many cinema exhibitors have for a long time been operating at a loss or at an unacceptably low margin of profitability and, as has already been demonstrated, large numbers of cinemas have closed and others are unfortunately likely to close. The trade associations have therefore made representations that exhibitors should be afforded some further relief from levy liability if they are to remain in business.

The Department of Trade has a statutory obligation in Section 2(3) of the Cinematograph Films Act 1957 to pay regard to the prevailing economic circumstances of both exhibitors and makers of British films as well as the prevailing, level of production. It is in the light of the economic circumstances of exhibitors that the draft regulations now come before your Lordships' House.

The Department has consulted the Cinematograph Films Council as it is required to do by Statute. The Council have recommended that the total amount which would otherwise be payable by exhibitors should be reduced by £1 million. In recommending particular methods for affording this relief, the Council were mindful of the importance of giving help where it would be most effective—primarily the smaller cinemas which attract small audiences. But they also had to have regard to the damage to the production industry if larger cinemas operating on a marginal profit were obliged to close because, as I have explained, the Department has a parallel statutory obligation to the economic interests of makers of British films.

It was the Cinematograph Films Council's recommendation that the two methods provided in the proposed regulations would combine to achieve the best effect. First, total or partial exemption from payment of levy is allowed when a cinema's takings in a particular week fall below £700 or where they fall below an average £700 a week over the levy period. Obviously the main beneficiaries of this exemption are the smaller cinemas, though regrettably larger cinemas occasionally fail to attract a big enough audience in the course of a week to take even these small amounts. The Cinematograph Films Council recommended that this exemption figure should be raised from £700 to £900, thereby increasing the number of cinemas who would pay no levy in any one week or more. It has been estimated that this increase should benefit the exhibitors by the order of some £500,000.

Secondly, any exhibitor paying a levy only does so on a percentage of the price of the cinema seat in excess of 7½p. Further benefit can accordingly be given to the exhibitor by raising this levy-free portion of the seat price and it is proposed that this should now be 12½p. On statistics at present available it is not possible to be certain about the number of cinemas which will be left paying levy once the exemption figure has been raised to £900. Had the number of cinemas remaining liable to levy stayed the same, the effect of raising the levy-free portion of the seat price by the amount proposed would have been of the order of another £500,000. Obviously, with a smaller number of cinemas liable to levy, this second sum of £500,000 will be an overestimate because it includes double counting. Clearly the overall reduction in the yield from what it would otherwise have been and with these two changes operating together must be somewhat less than £1 million. The practical impact must await further review. The Department will see how the position develops in practice. Should the shortfall prove significant, further draft regulations will be placed before the House.

My Lords, the purpose of these draft regulations is thus to reduce the amount of levy otherwise payable by exhibitors by approximately £1 million, and to do that by first increasing from 7½p to 12½p the portion of the payment for admission net of VAT which is not liable to levy; and secondly, increasing from £700 to £900 the amount by reference to which total or partial exemption from payment of levy is allowed. My Lords, I commend both of these orders to your Lordships.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for bringing these orders before your Lordships tonight. I think that they are desirable and appropriate, although clearly they are the natural result of the very high rates of inflation which have obtained in the past few years throughout all sections of our economy, including the film exhibiting and producing industries. I do not think that there is any detailed comment which I could or should make on these orders. I am happy that the Cinematograph Films Council have clearly been fully consulted. Indeed, if I heard the noble Baroness aright, it seems that it was at their instigation that these orders were prepared and laid before your Lordships. I am equally happy to hear that the Government are prepared to keep the matter under review. It may be that we shall have further orders or draft regulations before us in due course. Having said that, I hope that your Lordships will agree to approve this order and these draft regulations.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall put both the Motions to the House together.

rose to move, That the draft Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) (Reserve Fund) (Amendment) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 14th July, be approved.

My Lords, I should like to welcome these regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has explained to us. At a time of severe inflation undoubtedly it will assist air travel firms not to be required to pay into the Fund, and that of course is good. Yet the Fund is there in case of a crisis, which was the intention of the Act that was passed some two years ago. The only note of reservation I would strike is that it seems a pity that the contributions will not be reduced to nil until October, which will presumably help to reduce the cost of holidays. It would have been nice if that could happen just before your Lordships were all going off on your holidays so that we could have benefited in that way.

I should like to ask the Government two questions because, although the noble Lord spoke about the possible reintroduction of contributions to the Fund—and I do not quarrel with that because it may, indeed, be necessary—he did not seem to mention the problem that I can foresee building up if the Fund continues to be untouched. First, what is actually happening to the Fund at the moment? Presumably it is invested—is that the case? If it is the case, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, about the Government's intention as the size of the Fund continues to grow. After all, as the noble Lord explained to us, all air travel organisers have to put up a bond and that is the first line of defence if there is any crisis with an air travel firm—and this is a reserve fund. This money which has been put up and which totals some £15 million—although the Fund stands only at £12½ million because the balance was a Government loan which has now been repaid—is money which belongs to air travel firms. Presumably consideration is being given to the desirability of some repayments to those firms who have contributed if the Fund were to remain untouched for any length of time in the future. I hope that the Government are giving this point some consideration.

For instance, if the Fund continues to rise and arrives at £15 million, £18 million or £20 million, it would be a pity if a Government spokesman was forced to come to the Dispatch Box and say that no consideration had been given as to what on earth to do with that money, which, after all, belongs to someone else. I do not say this in any partisan way. This is a sensible question to be considered. With those two questions I, of course, welcome the passage of the regulations.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his welcome to the draft Regulations and briefly to reply to his two questions. The Fund is invested and, on the one hand, it therefore has interest accruing to it, but, on the other hand, it is subject to corporation tax. Estimates vary as to whether that means it will slightly increase or slightly decrease. However, that is the situation. As to the future, there is power under the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act for the Secretary of State after consulting interested parties, to make an order dissolving the Agency, winding up the Fund and disposing of the assets, if that is considered to be desirable. Thought was given to the problem at the time of the passing of the Act, and that is the situation which could be invoked.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him what happens to the bonds? Are they paid to the Civil Aviation Authority, and how are they held and invested?

Yes, my Lords; I understand that they are lodged with the Civil Aviation Authority when the application for the licence is made.