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

My Lords, we worked hard at the recent United Nations Special Session to find an acceptable framework for the global negotiations. However, we were unable to agree on the procedures eventually proposed. We judged that they did not sufficiently protect the integrity of the United Nations specialised agencies. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany took the same view. Discussion will shortly resume at the General Assembly. We hope that it will come to an early and successful conclusion.

My Lords, was this not a modified proposal made by the developing nations, in a sincere effort to try to break the deadlock of the last seven years? Was it not supported by every delegation, except the United States, West Germany and, I thought, a rather reluctant Britain? Did not the supporters include all the rest of Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Japan? Can I have an assurance that the Government will do their utmost in the General Assembly, and at the summit conference next year, to make a beginning to end the hunger of one-third of the world's population?

My Lords, we shall certainly be ready to play our part when the General Assembly resumes shortly to consider this matter. That will be on 17th November. But I do not think it would be helpful for me to speculate now on the chances of success.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister three questions which relate directly to the preparation for global negotiations? First, when the Vienna conference meets tomorrow, is it the case that Britain will not be present? Secondly, is it the case that there has been a much heavier cut in development aid than in any other aspect of Government expenditure in this country? Thirdly, is it the case that this policy of the British Government has been successively criticised and condemned by the Commonwealth finance Ministers, by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth organisation and, finally, by the President of the World Bank?

My Lords, if I may say so, all that goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But it is true that there is a sponsors meeting in Vienna on 7th and 8th November to discuss the timing, agenda and participation of the North-South summit. But the countries attending that meeting are co-sponsors.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the real objection to this proposal, particularly by the United States of America, was not to the procedures, but to the proposal for the restructuring of the International Monetary Fund? May I also ask the Minister this question: Did not the terms of reference include "energy and resource transfers", and has there not been a developed attitude by the OPEC countries towards aid to the third world, supported by Algeria, Venezuela, Kuwait and, sympathetically, by Saudi Arabia? Does this not give hope of some settlement of this problem, if we have the co-operation of the three dissentient Governments?

My Lords, again, if I may say so, the question of OPEC aid goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But as for the earlier part of the noble Lord's supplementary, we think that the specialised agencies have shown that they are capable of evolving to cope successfully with changing needs. We do not believe that any other body could have the skill or the expertise to make decisions on matters for which they are responsible.

My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord the Minister did not, by any means, fully answer my Question. Why is it that the British Government will be absent from the conference in Vienna in the next two days, when most of the industrial countries, who, incidentally, have promised increased aid, will be present?

My Lords, we were not asked.

My Lords, why is the noble Lord so coy at expressing the view that Britain may have some reluctance in arranging for other people to spend our money?

My Lords, with respect, I think that that, as the noble Lord's supplementaries sometimes are, is an over-simplification.

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

My Lords, some 74,800 vacant or tenanted council dwellings were sold in England and Wales between April 1979 and June 1980, the latest date for which we have such information on a countrywide basis. Separate figures for sales to tenants are not available. Up to 31st October 1980, 389,000 right-to-buy claim forms and 675,000 booklets had been distributed by the department, mostly in response to requests from local authorities. These totals include some 57,000 copies of each document sent to individual tenants who had requested them by completing the coupon placed in national newspapers. It is not known how many tenants have asked their local authorities for the documents. The figures excluded the initial distributions of 341,000 claim forms and 691,000 booklets.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very exact Answer. Will he agree that those figures are encouraging for the Government's policy of helping council tenants to buy their homes? Secondly, has he any information concerning certain press reports, alleging that some councils are endeavouring to obstruct the Government's policy by threatening tenants to withdraw work of maintenance or repair unless those tenants surrender their right to buy?

My Lords, on the first point, yes, it is interesting that so many people asked, and we shall have to see how many of those requests are translated into actual sales. On the second point, we know of what we read and what we hear, and we shall watch the situation very carefully. Of course, one would deplore a situation such as that which my noble friend described. I would only repeat what my right honourable friend has said—that we shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the statutory rights of individual tenants will not be frustrated.

My Lords, in view of the moratorium which was announced about a week ago on council building, and which will also include private building and improvements, do the Government not think that, certainly for the time being while this is going on, there should be not increased encouragement for people to buy their houses, together with the giving out of all these application forms and booklets, but a drawing back, because of the numbers of people who are on the waiting lists for houses and flats, who will not get them, and whose condi- tion will get worse because of the increase in sales?

No, my Lords, I do not agree. I should only like to reiterate what I have said before on this point, that because tenants buy the homes in which they live, and in which they have lived for some time, they make neither more nor less of such dwellings available to those who are on any waiting list.

My Lords, I am sorry to follow this up but it is important. With great respect, I was asking the Minister whether or not he agrees that it can make a difference, because many people who are unable to buy their council houses because of the present pressure on council houses for rent will go and find them somewhere else. If they buy them up, it means that people in flats cannot be moved into houses with gardens. This is exactly what is happening in all parts of the country.

My Lords, I do not accept that exposition.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that Socialist-controlled councils and Conservative-controlled councils both have long waiting lists of people who want to buy their council houses?

My Lords, we shall have better intimation of that when the many forms which I described earlier have been processed and handled, but it is no secret that there are great numbers of people who wish to buy, as was indicated by the fact that 57,000 people have sent in a form directly from newspapers.

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the local council valuation department or the district valuer's office settles the price?

My Lords, this is a matter for the individual authorities and it will be done either way. It just depends how they propose to operate the scheme in their individual areas.

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

My Lords, direct investment in the United Kingdom by other EEC countries totalled £1 billion between 1973 and 1978, the latest year for which figures are available. This excludes oil investment. For the United States, the comparable figure is £3 billion and for Japan £50 million. Investment in the United Kingdom by other EEC countries and by the United States has been significantly higher since we joined the EEC, and in recent years the figures have been on a strongly rising trend.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for those extremely stimulating figures, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the £1 billion from the EEC and the £3 billion from the United States have created not only a massive injection of capital but a massive injection of technology and the jobs which go with those two factors? May I ask my noble friend whether these jobs would be put at risk if a future Government decided that we should no longer be a base within the EEC and if we should be compelled to leave the EEC under left-wing policies?

My Lords, the point made by my noble friend is a very valid one. Inward investment of this kind is of great value to the United Kingdom economy, both for the jobs it creates and for the new skills and new products it brings into the United Kingdom economy. There is no doubt whatever that our membership of the EEC has greatly stimulated investment of this kind in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain why, in view of the rising trend of investment by EEC countries in the United Kingdom, there is more unemployment?

My Lords, the rising trend of investment in the United Kingdom has created additional employment in the United Kingdom. The level of unemployment would have been higher but for this inward investment. It is a matter of considerable significance that during the 1970s the proportion of total employment in manufacturing industry, represented by foreign-owned companies, increased from 9 per cent. of the total to 14 per cent. of the total.

My Lords, if we are genuinely trying to assess the consequences of joining the EEC, ought we not to avoid these highly selective figures? In this particular case, can the noble Lord tell us what was the outward investment over this period into the EEC countries?

My Lords, membership of the EEC has given the United Kingdom investment opportunities which otherwise would not have existed. It is of course a complete fallacy to assume that outward investment of this kind is at the expense of the United Kingdom economy. This is not true at all. There is a shortage in this country not of the capital needed for investment but of profitable investment opportunities, and it is those profitable investment opportunities that we need to create.

My Lords, what the noble Lord says may have some truth in it, but would he now be good enough to answer my question? Would he tell me what was the outward investment over the same period?

My Lords, the Question is directed to the inward investment in the United Kingdom. If the noble Lord wishes figures for outward investment, which is the reverse of inward investment, perhaps he would table a Question.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us, with a view to the Japanese inward investment, whether the opportunities for outward investment by British companies into Japan are the same and as easy as are the Japanese ones into this country?

My Lords, I think, with respect to my noble friend, it is valid to make the point that inward investment from Japan is of a very small order indeed. In fact, £50 million over the period 1973 to 1978 does not represent any very significant inflow.

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how much portfolio investment there was, which does not create employment or new products?

My Lords, portfolio investment is a completely different question from investment in British industry.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the outward investment from the United Kingdom to the various sources of investment named here over the same period is considerably in excess of the figures that the noble Lord has given us relating to inward investment in this country? Is he further aware that a large amount of the inward investment in this country in money terms has also been counteracted by some £2,000 million worth of cash contribution out of the taxpayers' money to the EEC?

My Lords, so far as the last point raised by the noble Lord is concerned, the present Government have taken effective steps to deal with the contribution payable to the EEC, a matter about which the previous Administration did nothing whatever, despite their claim to have renegotiated the financial terms. So far as the first supplementary question of the noble Lord is concerned, he is assuming that outward investment is to the detriment of the United Kingdom. It is nothing of the sort; it is of value to the United Kingdom in many directions, not the least because outward investment often provides exports from the United Kingdom.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he entirely misrepresented what I said? In the question which I put to him I did not suggest that outward investment from the United Kingdom was not advantageous to the United Kingdom. He, as he very often does, put those words into my mouth. I asked the noble Lord for his confirmation in quantitative terms, irrespective of the benefits conferred one way or the other, that the outward investment to those sources in fact exceeded the inward input from those sources.

My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I am glad to have his support that outward as well as inward investment is of great value to the United Kingdom. So far as the figures are concerned, I have made the point in reply to his noble friend that the Question relates to inward investment in the United Kingdom. If he wishes the figures for outward investment, perhaps he would table a Question.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the figures he has given refer entirely to capital investment and not to "hot" money coming into this country to take advantage of the high interest rates, money which can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat?

My Lords, the figures that I have given relate to direct investment in British industry in the form of buildings, plant, machinery and working capital. That is an entirely different question from the question of money which may come into this country for other reasons.

My Lords, perhaps I may put one last point. In view of these satisfactory figures and the fact that my noble friend said that there was a rising investment in this country, can he perhaps on some future occasion bring these figures more up to date? It is sad that they relate to 1975–78 while here we are nearly in 1981.

My Lords, I shall be very happy to do so as soon as the figures are available.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("in particular to include some comment from the existing Educational Advisory Council of the IBA on the quality and quantity of the educational programmes broadcast on the Fourth Channel.").

My Lords, I should like to add a word or two in support of this amendment. This Bill creates a fourth television channel in Britain. It will not only create a new service that will try to be different from the three existing services, but will also quite inevitably have profound effects on the other three channels. That is my first and major contention. I believe that the effects will be maximal on BBC 2. Competition for audience ratings has so far been mainly between BBC 1 and IBA 1; BBC 2 has been relatively free to cater for minority audiences. I suggest that, when the fourth channel starts, competition will be between BBC 1 plus BBC 2 on the one hand and IBA 1 plus IBA 2 on the other hand. This will be forced by economic reality, whatever high-minded ideals the authorities may hold. Thus the effects of this Bill will be much more wide-reaching than its influence just on the fourth channel.

Secondly, looking at the special needs of education, the Bill requires that the fourth channel authority shall devote a suitable proportion of time to programmes of an educational nature. What, my Lords, is "a suitable proportion of time"? May I suggest that it could well be zero time, provided that the other three channels cater properly for education, but may I also suggest that should the fourth channel, through enforcing competition for ratings, lead to a reduction of educa- tional broadcasting on the other three channels, the effect will be disastrous and an allocation of even quite a large amount of time on the fourth channel itself for education might be a wholly unsuitable proportion? We cannot know these things in advance. The effects of this Bill will remain mysterious until the fourth channel is in existence.

This amendment, as I said on Monday, imposes no constraint whatsoever on the freedom of the authorities of the fourth channel. All it asks for is a report annually by professional educationists of what the fourth channel is doing. I would, of course, prefer a report that said what all four channels are doing, but it would be wholly inappropriate in a Bill of this kind. What the amendment asks for would at least allow a debate that should take care of the overall situation for education on the basis of what the fourth channel is doing. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I am particularly interested in adult education, as I think a number of Questions I have put down in this House in the past would bear witness. I am also interested in the education of other groups, and I mentioned teenagers and school-leavers the other day, who I think are very important at the moment. What we are worried about is the gap between expressed intention and actual achievement in adult broadcasting on the part of the IBA TV and local radio companies. I think it is admitted that that gap exists, and we do not want that to happen with this new fourth channel. What we want is for the public to know, from the comment by professionals for which we are asking, whether the intention and the achievement are matching up. If they are not and we know about it, some pressure can be brought to bear. Here in this House probably we could put down Questions for oral and Written Answers. But if we do not have the comment available on the quality and the quantity we shall not have the information on which we can act.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke of the existing Adult Education Committee of the IBA the other day and was surpised that I had not mentioned it when I spoke. But I should have thought that the Education Advisory Council was the body to ask for comment and report overall, and it was in a way a bit nit-picking and unworthy of the noble Lord to object on those grounds to what I had had to say. This is a very serious amendment and a very important one, and we feel very strongly about it. I should like to support my noble friend, and hope that the House will, too.

My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend opposite. I think there are some good educational programmes of various sorts on BBC and ITV, but—and it is a large "but" —there are many of us, I for one, who would like more programmes of really good educational content. As I say, there are some on BBC and ITV, but we could certainly do with some more. That is why at this time I will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I hope this fourth channel will give us more educational content programmes from which we really can receive knowledge.

My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Donaldson sponsors a proposal related to education. I naturally, with my lack of knowledge of the subject, feel inclined to support him; and when a noble Lord from the Cross-Benches, speaking—and I say this without any condescension—with expert knowledge on the subject, enters the debate, I am fortified in the view I have just expressed. And what I have said refers also to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said.

What worries me is how we define education. Some time ago, when the Education Bill was passing through the House in all its stages, I ventured to ask that question, because all I heard from the experts, the intellectuals, the semi-intellectuals, the would-be intellectuals and the pretentious intellectuals, was reference to the machinery of education, the number of schools required, their character, their architectural features, the number of teachers, the school managers and superintendents. That is all I heard, but not a word about the content and substance of education.

When reference is made to education, I recall watching some time ago—I think it was on a Saturday afternoon, when I had nothing else to do—a scientist of repute addressing a vast number of children on what was presumably a scientific topic. Whether the children understood him I am unable to say, but I certainly did not. I will tell your Lordships why; because what he lacked—and this certainly relates to education—was a capacity to speak with some elocutional facility. He mumbled and mumbled and was hardly articulate. It seems to me that when this channel or that channel or a forthcoming channel enters into this sphere of education, at any rate those who are responsible for addressing an audience, whatever the size of that audience may be—it may run into many millions—ought to be articulate. That is one aspect of education.

What is the rest of it? I am on the horns of a dilemma, because I can imagine if some of my colleagues in another place were asked what kind of education should be presented on one of the channels, they would say Marxian economics, dialectical materialism, the theory of social value and all the jargon associated with what is called Marxism. I tried to understand it many years ago and I failed completely, and that is why I remained in the centre of politics, neither on the Right nor the Left. And if somebody else was asked, they would have said more football or more tennis; or would ask: Why do we not have more snooker? Or, are there not other sports which are of an educational value?—and so on.

When we enter into this sphere we find ourselves in some difficulty: at least, I do. Therefore, I venture to ask this question. Will someone tell me—perhaps my noble friend Lord Donaldson, although I do not think he has the right to speak again unless it be with the leave of the House; but I hope he will be allowed to speak again with the leave of the House—the answer to this question, and I want somebody with authority to answer the question: What do you mean by education? Dismiss the school managers, dismiss the architecture, dismiss the number of teachers and the rest of it. What is meant by the substance and content of education?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, even though he may not have defined it, has argued, I think persuasively, in the speech he made, for an important place for educational programmes on the fourth channel, and other noble Lords have argued likewise. If I may say so, they do not need to convince the Government. The Government believe that the fourth channel should indeed have an important educational content, however it is defined, and that is the reason why Clause 3(1)(b) requires the inclusion of a suitable proportion of programmes of an educational nature. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will not ask me what a suitable proportion is. That is why Clause 7(2)—we are on Clause 7 now—requires the IBA to make particular reference to such programmes in describing the programmes both on independent television and on the fourth channel and to give an account of the differences between them for the purposes of their annual report.

I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for dealing with a similar amendment at the Report stage of the Bill in a manner which was unacceptable to him and to other noble Lords. I apologise for any discourtesy I may have shown to the noble Lord. I hope he will not mind my going on now to say that I confess I remain unconvinced of the merits of this amendment. Quite simply, I genuinely do not see how the IBA could possibly discharge the duty—and it is a duty—under Clause 7(2)(a) without reflecting the views of the Educational Advisory Council. To say that the annual report must have some parts of it written by one, and one only, of the IBA's many advisory committees seems, to use a homely expression, a little bit like teaching your grandmother. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has spoken once again of the undoubted claims of the Open University, in particular putting forward the claims for the Open University to have proper recognition on the medium which it needs; namely, on television. Obviously, the IBA will want to have the advisory council's views on this and will take account of them in weighing up the claims of this and of other areas of education for programming time.

However, as I have tried to indicate, I really am a bit surprised at seeing this amendment on the Order Paper. I think one thing is abundantly clear. If, as I may just ask my noble friend Lord Milverton to do, we look at the actual wording of the Bill, we see that the new fourth channel is going to be pointed very firmly indeed in the direction of an educational content for its programmes. Clause 3(1)(b) requires a suitable proportion of programmes to be educational and Clause 7(2)(a) requires the IBA's annual report to deal with its educational programmes on both channels and to explain how much there has been on one channel and how much there has been on another. In carrying out these duties, as it is statutorily bound to do, the Independent Broadcasting Authority cannot avoid reflecting the views of the advisory committee that it is statutorily bound to appoint. It is on those grounds that I genuinely believe that this amendment is not necessary.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would deal with this question, which presents itself forcibly to my mind. Supposing the IBA were in flat disagreement with their educational advisory body; would there not be at any rate some case for revealing the grounds of disagreement so that they might be discussed in wider circles, perhaps in your Lordships' House?

My Lords, of course, it is for the House to decide as to whether the annual report of the IBA and, indeed, the annual report of the BBC are debated in your Lordships' House; similarly for Members in another place. There is nothing to stop the Members of your Lordships' House doing their best to dissect the annual report and to find out exactly what lies not only in its words but behind its words. For some reason which is totally unexplained in this amendment, a duty would be placed upon this particular advisory committee to write part of the annual report, but apparently none of the other advisory committees has got a similar duty.

But so far as I know those advisory committees are not muzzled. There is nothing said as to why a member of an advisory committee should not reveal that they have been saying one thing in advice to the IBA and that they are very sorry that maybe their advice has not been taken. As I flicked through the pages of the IBA's annual reports I happened to notice that one of your Lordships is a member of one of the IBA advisory committees. So these things are not going to be a deep, dark secret. The difficulty about this amendment is that it requires, literally, the pen to be held by the Educational Advisory Council and for part of the annual report actually to be written by that advisory council. It is not showing very much trust in the IBA to make that requirement.

My Lords, unfortunately I have the right of reply, so I shall have to say something to my noble friend before we finish. I do not think the noble Lord has read this amendment; he was looking at the last one. The terms of the amendment are to include some comment. This does not involve a pen. There is only one advisory council to the IBA which is concerned with education. There are some committees, and presumably it subsumes them, if that is the right word; so I do not think the argument about other advisory councils has anything to do with it. The point of my amendment and of our feelings on this side of the House is extremely well illustrated by my noble friend's difficulty in knowing what it is all about. I will now define education in my terms. An educational statement is something which either does, or is intended to, leave the hearer knowing more after than before the statement was made. This seems to me what education really means nowadays, and it is too wide to leave in a Bill like this without some check.

We have been very loyal to the Government, because in another place a lot of my colleagues tried to specify what education meant, to tie down Clause 3. My view was that one could not get Mr. Dell and Mr. Isaacs to do a good job if one tried to do it for them; therefore I want it to be as wide as possible. Having said it has got to be as wide as possible, I want it to have some check outside the people who are paid to do it. The man who is, or will be, paid to do it is my noble friend Lord Thomson, who is going to be the new head of the IBA; and, respect him as I do as a man of total integrity and knowing far more about education than what my noble friend might call a pretentious intellectual like myself, I still think it is absolutely wrong to give him a duty of this very vague kind and leave him to decide whether or not the arrangements he makes are working well.

I do not think we can take it any further. The point that my noble friend from the Open University made is very important; it is that if this does become too general in the form of education and also uses up some of the educational hours which already exist, which of course it will, then one will get less of a formal type of education and more of the Archers type, which is not what everybody means. I do not think it is worth discussing it

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 7, line 21, at end insert—

("(e) a description of the arrangements made by the Authority for carrying out the powers given it by section 12(1B) of the main Act and a description of the methods used by the Authority to utilise such opinions, comments and suggestions by members of the public as it may receive in entering into contracts, or, as the case may be, extending contracts, with any programme contractor.").

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, moved this amendment at the Report stage of the Bill, in the reply I gave I sought to indicate how much information the Independent Broadcasting Authority already gives about this aspect of its activities. It is true that in my reply I referred particularly to what the authority had said it was going to do in order to consult public opinion in the present round of ITV contract applications, rather than to any description of what it had done. My intention was simply to indicate that this area of its activities was one which the Independent Broadcasting Authority regarded as proper and necessary for it to comment on in its annual report.

As regards the award of independent television contracts, the future tense had, of necessity, to be used in what was said in last year's report because the process was then in the future. But I have no doubt at all that, having told us all that it was going to do, the IBA will tell us what it has done once it has done it. Indeed, as the noble Lord knows, we now have the annual report of the authority for 1979–80 and, as he said, pages 7 and 8 and page 44 of the report (which relates to local radio) deal to some extent with these matters.

In his speech the noble Lord complained that there is no code of conduct as to how public meetings shall be held, provided that they are held, to discover what public opinion wishes to say as regards a particular contract. The noble Lord also complained that there is no absolute obligation to hold a public meeting. I should like to remind the House that up until now there has been no specific statutory duty at all on the Independent Broadcasting Authority to ascertain public opinion in relation to the award of programme contracts. This we have put right in the Bill. Clause 33 now imposes just such a duty, and it is a duty, not a power. I find it inconceivable that the IBA, having given details of something which it was doing, which was not in terms a duty on it in the past, will now fail to do so when that activity has been made a duty as, subject to the final stages of this Bill, it will now be under the Bill.

Having said that, I suspect that the noble Lord opposite will want to say to me that, despite the IBA's evident good intentions, none the less we ought to give the authority a nudge in the right direction by putting into the statute the requirements which are set out in this amendment. If I may be allowed to say so, I doubt whether it would be wholly practicable for the IBA to describe all the ways in which it tries to ascertain public opinion and to encourage the making of comments and suggestions.

I shall not run through the different methods which the IBA employs in addition to public meetings, because I mentioned them last time when I quoted from its previous report on this subject. Another difficulty that I foresee with the amendment is that I think it would be very difficult for the IBA to say exactly how it utilises the opinions, comments and suggestions that it receives, other than by saying that it considers, evaluates and weighs them against other relevant considerations.

I should like to make one final point, which is not just a technical point but which goes to the heart of whether or not this amendment is necessary. The amendment for some reason refers to the powers of the IBA under Section 12(1B) of the 1973 Act. But, as a matter of fact, that section imposes duties. We have already agreed to require the IBA, as duties, to ascertain public opinion and to take people's opinions into account before entering into any contract with a programme contractor. It is because this duty rests upon the IBA that I really do not think that it is necessary to add the wording of this amendment to the Bill.

My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord the Minister about how the authority could utilise suggestions except by considering them, they could surely utilise a suggestion by saying, "So and so was suggested, and in consequence we altered our procedure in this respect."

My Lords, at Third Reading stage it is difficult to withdraw an amendment to reword a particular part of the amendment to take account of a specific word which the noble Lord mentioned in his reply. I refer to whether the word "powers" or "duties" should appear in line 2 of the amendment. Therefore, while accepting that the amendment might be defectively worded, it is not, in a sense, open to me not to seek the opinion of the House as a whole at this stage because of some technically poor drafting in the amendment. That would have to be corrected elsewhere if, in fact, the amendment as a whole found favour with the House.

I thank my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger for her support with regard to the word "utilise". What I seek to achieve in the amendment is that the IBA shall show their reaction to the comments and opinions, and to establish that it is not good enough just to say that they have noted what had been said. There is a great problem here, and this comes out in the latest annual report. They say in their latest annual report, I think on page 7, that in fact opinions expressed confirmed the views of the staff of the IBA. In other words, they were using a section of public opinion to bolster the views of the staff. That was a convenient way of showing some reaction to some of the opinions expressed. Having said that, and having heard what the noble Lord has said, I feel that he has still not made out a sufficiently good case for not including this in the annual report. Therefore, I shall divided the House on this matter.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 13, line 32, at end insert—

("( ) that the complaint relates to the broadcasting of the relevant programme on an occasion more than five years after the death of the person affected; or").

My Lords, we must be grateful to the Government for meeting us some of the way. The amendment will give satisfaction to historians and those who work on television programmes. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for going into the matter and tabling the amendment.

I too am grateful to the Minister, my Lords. This amendment at least sets some time limit, instead of the words previously in the clause of great uncertainty, and will therefore place a time limit on complaints of this kind, and for that I am grateful. I should naturally have been happier if the noble Lord had felt able to limit the extraordinary variety of people who may want to complain on behalf of a dead man, even though the dead man may have said when he was alive that he did not care two hoots about the programme, did not propose to take any action about it at all and thought on balance that it had probably done him good rather than harm. In spite of that, an enormous number of people will, for five years, be able to complain, including undoubtedly overseas embassies; but I suppose we shall have to see what happens. I do not shut my eyes to the fact that it may be that the programming companies, in saying, "It looks as though this will put paid to any more of the prestige programmes which have gained us such a high reputation abroad have exaggerated the position. That is of course quite possible, but events will tell. Meanwhile, I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he felt he could.

My Lords, I am sure it must be absolutely right that the House appreciates the compromise that has been effected, and I wish to share in the expressions of gratitude. I rise only because the Minister referred to both Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, one being consequential on the other. I am merely making a plea to him—it may be that it is too late—in relation to the wording of Amendment No. 5. The English and sense of it leave much to be desired. It reads:

"Where, in the case of a complaint, the relevant programme was broadcast within five years after the death of the person affected, subsection (5) shall apply as if at the end there were added"—

and then the words one deems to add at the end of subsection (5):

"within five years after the death of the person affected".

If one turns to subsection (5) on page 14 and endeavours to add those words at the end, it requires a great deal of intelligent analysis to find what the clause means, and frankly I believe that the words which are to be inserted should come after the word "occasion" So that your Lordships will not think the point is trivial, I will read what the amended clause will sound like:

"The Commission may refuse to entertain a complaint if it appears to them not to have been made within a reasonable time after the last occasion on which the relevant programme was broadcast by a broadcasting body within five years after the death of the person affected".

It is very unclear if one adds those words at the end rather than adding them after the word "occasion". Whether it is too late for such an amendment to be made I know not, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the wording seems awfully clumsy at the moment.

My Lords, off the cuff I am not entirely certain whether transposing the words which Amendment No. 5 seeks to insert into the position where they would fall immediately after the word "occasion" in line 7 would not alter the sense. I am not confident on my feet to say whether or not that is so, but I have a feeling that they could alter the sense. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who is a distinguished lawyer and takes great trouble about the way we try to word our legislation, may be right. I do not think it is possible to change the position in which these words would be injected into the Bill. If, when we come to that amendment—which of course will not be put until Amendment No. 4 has been put—your Lordships would not object, I hope it will be agreed that none the less the sense will be secured consequentially on Amendment No. 4 by inserting those words in the place at present intended. I thank noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. It is a compromise—Amendment No. 4, taken with Amendment No. 5—but it is, I believe, a solution to a difficult problem, and I am most grateful to noble Lords for recognising that.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 14, line 8, at end insert—

("( ) Where, in the case of a complaint, the relevant programme was broadcast within five years after the death of the person affected, subsection (5) shall apply as if at the end there were added "within five years after the death of the person affected."").

My Lords, may I say in connection with this matter that if what my noble friend Lord Mishcon says turns out to be correct, I think that the Government would have a chance to put it right when the Bill goes before another place.

In that case, my Lords, I of course give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we shall look at this point very carefully indeed. If we are persuaded by his argument that the amendment should be altered in the way that he suggested, we shall of course do our best to meet his point.

My Lords, I am only trying to be helpful, and I am most grateful for what the noble Minister has said.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

My Lords, at the end of our rather long discussions I should like to say one or two things. First, by trying to tighten up the Bill one has inevitably given the impression that some of us here are critical of the IBA. In fact, I think that this is a false impression. If one is trying to insert safeguards for the future, it is inevitable that one can sound rather offensive towards the body in regard to which one is proposing the safeguards. I hope that we shall not be misunderstood on this.

My second point is that during Second Reading many of us raised a very important question which has nothing to do with the Bill; namely, that the future of broadcasting, with which this Bill is concerned, depends not only on the Bill, but also on a change of attitude towards the question of the amount of money given to the BBC. It cannot be said too often, nor too loudly that if the BBC is allowed to wither away slightly, the whole of broadcasting will go wrong, whatever this Bill does. I think that there is general agreement in the House on that point, but I thought it worth making.

Thirdly, I must say how glad I was that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, did not press his, to me very dangerous amendment, which in my opinion would have amounted to something very much like censorship on the programme makers. Fourthly, I am disappointed that we are unable to do anything about the international aspect, and I shall be surprised if my noble friend does not have a word to say on this. Lastly, my Lords, I am extremely grateful for the modest compromise and concession which the noble Lord gave us in the last two amendments. If I may say so, it is the only concession that we have received in our discussions, which have been going on since last July—but still, better than nothing.

My Lords, I rise to sound a strong note of warning about the starting date for the fourth channel, which is provisionally planned for early 1982. At present public demand for a new channel scarcely exists. I would say that in fact relatively few members of the viewing public are yet aware of it. So we can wait. Indeed, at this time of national economic stringency we certainly ought to pause before going over this particular brink; for it is a new call on the nation's resources, quite possibly at the very worst moment.

It is usually thought that a new addition to the advertising media will automatically generate extra advertising revenue, but from experience I assure your Lordships that that is no golden rule. In business it is a common-place that in a recession a company tends to choose advertising as one of its first cuts, because it is relatively painless so to do. That may not be sensible, but it is what happens. If there is to be enough revenue to sustain, by advertising two channels instead of one, we need a buoyant economy. I wonder whether we can count on that in 1982, or even 1983—

Not with this Government!

To launch the fourth channel during an advertising recession would, in my opinion, be asking for serious trouble. It would seriously damage the longer-term chances of that channel. It could even affect the whole structure of independent television, and not least the quality of the programmes on channels both old and new. We must remember that there is no apparent instrument for controlling the ceiling of expenditure by the fourth channel should advertising revenue fail to emerge in sufficient quantity. Among the casualties would be the levy, which would put an added burden on the public sector borrowing requirement of as much as £100 million a year. One hundred million pounds may not sound like much in terms of the whole borrowing requirement, but I know how it sounds to me: it sounds like a jolly expensive luxury when times are hard.

So for those reasons it is very important for the Government to be able to delay the start of the fourth channel should that in their view seem necessary. But how would that be done, my Lords? Engineering work is already well under way. The board is already appointed; so is the chief executive, and so are many of his senior executives. The authority itself is "raring to go". This wagon, once it starts to roll, would be very hard indeed to stop, or even to check.

Nobody doubts that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary means to delay the start if he deems that right. But for how much longer will he be able to do so? When do we reach the point of no return? For how long can the Home Secretary withhold his final go-ahead? These are the things that we need to know. I should welcome some very definite assurances from my noble friend Lord Belstead about this matter, because I sincerely believe that it could be crucial to the continued success of television broadcasting in the foreseeable future.

My Lords, I do not intend again to go through the arguments that we have had in two very lively debates in Committee and on Report on amendments to the Bill, but it would seem inappropriate if a word were not said, very briefly, before the Bill becomes law, on the attitude that has been taken by so many organisations, in particular religious and charitable organisations, on the absence from the Bill of that international dimension for which we have been pressing.

I fully understand the reservations that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, to whose know-ledge and experience in education I pay tribute. I fully understand, too, that when he spoke at the Report stage he was sympathetic to the cause but was pleading for a form of education which was divorced from the considerations of this Bill. I do not agree with him. I do not agree that there is any longer any such thing as national education. I do not believe that the word "national" can be linked with education if education is to have its true meaning; and on this issue I would simply say that no doubt he and I differ, but so far as concerns the objective of bringing before people, young and old, the different points of view on central world issues, we would agree but our methods would differ.

I also appreciate the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis; but here I would differ much more than I did with Lord Alexander of Potterhill—and I would differ for this reason. I understand that professional broadcasters, like professional journalists and, indeed, like professional artists and professionals of many different crafts, consider themselves to be outside what in the broadest sense one might call the political field. They consider that broadcasting has a unity, an existence, of its own, and that it should be conducted by those who have become professionally trained within it and kept separate from the major considerations that we debate in this House.

My Lords, I do not accept that we can any longer afford that view of broadcasting. Broadcasting can no longer be considered to be mainly an entertainment. The effect of broadcasting can no longer he accepted as a recreation, because broadcasting has become essentially a part of the public educational system. My difference, then, from people like the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is that I believe we have a responsibility here to give much more direction to the professional broadcasters than they would themselves accept as professionals. This issue has been well debated, and we have been assured in this House, as the assurance was given in another place, that those who are in charge of the fourth channel will have listened very carefully to what have been (I think it is fair to say) among the most lively debates during the course of this Bill. But, my Lords, we still come back to consider to what extent we can afford to neglect the contribution of broadcasting, and in this case, particularly, of televising on the fourth channel, to the major events in human history that are now occurring and are going to occur in the last 20 years of this century.

Two nights ago there was a first-class programme on BBC 2. It was presented by two young men, Jack Pizzey and Nick Ross; it was included in the "Man Alive" series; and it dealt with the subject of hunger. This answers the accusations that have been made in some parts of this House in relation to the arguments that I have put forward. It answers them in this way. In this programme you had, first, the human reality of hunger—what it means to be hungry, what effect it has upon the mind, upon the emotions and upon the physical reactions. You then had some assessment of the degree of hunger in the world. But, lastly, my Lords—and this is what I want to concentrate on—at the end of the programme you had a number of experts on development, economists of varying points of view, who did not agree and who argued about the facts that had been presented. That is education; that is good television; that is attractive television; and that is relevant to the issues on which the future of the human race now depends. What we have been trying to say to the Government is that in this Bill there should be a lead given to include that kind of attitude to education in what now exists in the phrase "programmes of an educational nature".

I believe that in the years to come we shall increasingly recognise the vital necessity, the absolute necessity, of increasing this kind of educational programme, and that the fourth channel will be, can be and indeed must be a guiding light in opening the eyes of our people to the realities of the world in which we live. There is one comforting factor that has arisen from this debate, and it is that on both sides in the Division at the Report stage there was at least one Member from every side of this House, including the Government Benches. That, I believe, is an earnest of the future. As I said at the Report stage, I do not believe that this is a party political issue; this is a human issue. I thank those who lent me support in this matter, and I ask the Government to put all their weight, their force and their persuasion behind the sentiments that have been expressed from all sides of this House on the importance of the fourth channel to the real human problems of our time, and to help bring that fourth channel into the field of international education.

My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for the work that has been done on this Bill which has made it a more generally acceptable measure on leaving this House than I think it was when it arrived. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, referred to only one concession being made. I do not think that my mathematics arrives at quite the same total as the noble Lord's; for we have, first, incorporated in the Bill new arrangements for the operation of the fourth channel in Wales. That resulted, importantly, as the noble Lord is saying, from—

My Lords, I must say that that was so long ago; but it was a very important concession for which we are grateful.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; but it resulted originally from a deputation which came to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales which was led by a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Cledwyn. Secondly, by refining the provisions dealing with the award of programme contracts in Clause 33, I think we balanced the need for regular public scrutiny of performance against that of the contractor to enjoy a reasonable period of operation. The third change that has been made followed some discussion, and I am grateful for advice from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and from other noble Lords in the area of the complaints commission. We have just agreed to limit complaints about the treatment of a person who has died to cases where the relevant programme was broadcast within five years of the person's death. One other amendment was made to the Bill when earlier we removed the exclusion of complaints made on behalf of persons who had, but no longer have, a remedy through the courts.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his few remarks made the point that it might seem as though the House had been unduly critical of the IBA and, indeed, of the broadcasting authorities. I think that perhaps what the noble Lord had in mind particularly, and which I should like to echo, is that we have commented in our debates on the great influence which radio and television have on people's views and attitudes today, and on the weighty responsibility which that imposes upon those who broadcast. But many noble Lords have also referred during the debates, and particularly the ones on Report, in appreciative terms to the quality of the broadcasting that we have in this country; and that is something that I should like to endorse.

There have been also a number of matters which we have discussed over the past few weeks and on which I have had to say—and I am afraid that I have become increasingly predictable in saying it—" This is an admirable idea but the Government do not think that we should write it on the face of the Bill." May I say that I have no doubt at all that the broadcasting authorities, who are responsible bodies, will take very seriously what has been said during debates in your Lordships' House, and I am thinking of the discussions about the content of the fourth channel, about the response of both authorities to complaints on such matters as good taste and decency, about the holding of public meetings and the need for the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to contain a proper representation of broadcasting experience, a matter on which I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.

I should like to end by replying to some remarks of my noble friend Lord De La Warr about the start of the fourth channel. I recognise the force of the cautionary note which my noble friend struck in his short speech. Obviously, the wider economic considerations cannot be ignored, but do not let us forget that both Houses of Parliament have now indicated by their attitude to this Bill that they wish to see the start of a fourth television channel and a fourth channel of the kind envisaged by Part II of the Bill, and that this is something which has taken so long to bring forward. Do not let us forget also that there are many candidates for the contracts who are wishing to see whether they can serve the public in this particular way. The IBA's plans are to achieve the level of coverage which we and they think would be necessary to get the channel off to a start by the autumn of 1982. I am not saying to my noble friend that it is categoric that that is the moment when the fourth channel will start; but that remains our hope and our intention. May I finally reiterate that I am grateful for your Lordships' work and indulgence to the Government in the way that this Bill has been taken through and, if I may say so, I am convinced that the work on this Bill has been amply worth while.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Regulated Tenancies (Procedure) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 27th October, be approved. These regulations are concerned with the procedures followed by rent officers. Schedule I deals with the procedures for registering a fair rent, and Schedule 2 with the procedures for issuing a certificate of fair rent. They amend Schedules II and 12 to the Rent Act 1977. The objective of the changes is to streamline rent officer procedures and to reduce delays affecting the quality of service to the public. The proposals flow from a working party, consisting primarily of serving rent officers who reported earlier this year.

Noble Lords might recall that I gave notice of these regulations during proceedings on the Housing Bill last July. Since then we have been diverted by proceedings on another small Bill, so perhaps I might remind your Lordships of the background. When the Housing Bill came before your Lordships' House, it contained a schedule, now Schedule 6 to the Act, which revised the procedures for the registration of fair rents, under Schedule 11 to the Rent Act 1977. I had hoped at that time to be able to put before your Lordships' House amendments to the equivalent procedures in Schedule 12 to the Rent Act, for the issue of certificates of fair rent. I know this was a matter of considerable interest to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Middleton especially, on account of the requirement that shorthold landlords must obtain a certificate of fair rent, before letting accommodation for which there is not already a registered rent. The noble Lord was concerned, as are the Government, that procedures for issuing certificates of fair rent should be as swift as possible, so that landlords are not deterred from letting, when the shorthold provisions are brought into force.

On Report stage of the Bill, my noble friend tabled his own amendments to these procedures, by way of polite inquiry about the Government's intentions to bring forward amendments. In response, I explained that if time did not allow Government amendments to be tabled to the Housing Bill, we should instead bring forward amendments by regulations, after the Summer Recess. Unfortunately there did not prove to be sufficient time; hence these regulations.

If I may, I shall deal first with Schedule 2 to the regulations, as it is this schedule which contains our proposed changes to certificate of fair rent procedures. A certificate of fair rent is a device by which a landlord who wants to let or improve his property may find out from the rent officer what fair rent he will get if he goes ahead with his plans. In the case of shorthold the landlord must get a certificate of fair rent as this will be the most he can charge until a rent is registered. The existing procedures have stood for 15 years, and in the light of that experience we are proposing, in Schedule 2 to the regulations, five changes.

First, rent officers cannot at present take any action on a case where the landlord supplies insufficient information, other than by referring it to a rent assessment committee. This causes delay, due to unnecessary rent assessment committee hearings. The new procedures in the regulations, empower the rent officer to request more information from the applicant, so that cases need not be referred to the rent assessment committee simply because of a lack of information. This will bring the certificate of fair rent procedures more into line with ordinary rent registration procedures. Second, the new procedures provide that where there is no tenant, the rent officer is not required to hold a formal consultation, but to consult the landlord in such a way as he considers appropriate. There would be no formal notices setting up the consultation. This will greatly speed up simple cases. Third, consultations are at present automatically held, where there is a tenant. This often results in delay, through unnecessary consultations. Schedule 2 provides that landlords and tenants will always be asked whether they want a consultation, and will have an absolute right to one, if either so requests, but consultations will no longer be held automatically. This arrangement parallels the procedures for rent registration in Schedule I to the regulations.

Fourth, all cases have a 14-day delay imposed upon them between the determination of the rent by the rent officer and issue of a CFR. Schedule 2 provides that, if the landlord indicates before the expiry of the 14-day period that he does not object to the rent which the rent officer proposes to specify in the CFR, the rent officer will be able to issue the CFR straightaway, without having to wait the full 14 days. This will only apply where there is no tenant, and would again speed up the processing of simple cases.

Finally, rent officers are not, at present, able to save time and effort by holding joint consultations where they are appropriate. The regulations provide that the rent officer may hold joint consultations, in the same way as is provided for in Schedule I to the regulations. May I now turn to Schedule 1? The bulk of this Schedule simply restates the amendments to rent registration procedures which—as I have mentioned—were made by the Housing Bill, and are now to be found in Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1980. However, in discussion with the department on the detailed implementation of Schedule 6, the Institute of Rent Officers have proposed two minor changes to simplify the clerical operation in rent offices when applications are received, and one to give greater certainty. We have concluded that it would be sensible to accept these changes and they are as follows.

First, where the rent officer serves a notice informing the parties that he has received an application, Schedule 6 requires that the notice states the rent sought by the applicant and any amount for services included in it. The regulations instead require that a copy of the complete application (which will include this information) is sent with the notice to the party who is not the applicant. This will give him more information, while not telling the applicant what he already knows. Second, where the rent officer sends information on services to the tenant, Schedule 6 requires that this should also be sent to the landlord—even though it was the landlord who provided the rent officer with the evidence. The regulations remove this unnecessary requirement. Finally, the regulations require that a request for a consultation by landlord or tenant should be in writing, thus leaving no doubt as to whether a request has been made. Schedule 6 did not specify this.

Schedule 1 to the regulations, merely repeats Schedule 6 to the 1980 Act, but with these changes. Why, your Lordships may ask, is it necessary to do it this way, rather than by directly amending Schedule 6? The reason is that Schedule 6 is not in force and thus not embodied in the 1977 Rent Act, hence there is no power to amend it by regulations. It would not be sensible to bring Schedule 6 into force and amend it immediately thereafter because of the administrative confusion which could arise. Thus, if the regulations are approved, Schedule 1 will replace Schedule 6 to the Act and the latter will not be brought into force.

My Lords, I mentioned that these particular improvements were proposed by the Institute of Rent Officers. We have consulted the Institute throughout in the preparation of the regulations, and they are to be congratulated on the constructive way in which they have accepted change, and committed themselves to improve their output. In conclusion, may I mention that these regulations will, if approved by both Houses, come into force on 28th November? That is the date we are planning to bring the main private rented sector provisions in Part II of the Housing Act into operation. Subject to today's proceedings, we intend shortly to make a commencement order and to lay the various Negative Resolution instruments needed to give effect to Part II. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, the Minister has moved the regulations with great clarity. In reading the regulations themselves, they are, as is usual in these cases, long in words and short on comprehension. I am also rather sorry to see—thinking of future students of legislation and historians—that poor old Schedule 6 becomes otiose, and that people who look for it, wonder where it has gone and what has happened to it, will have to find their way through the regulations, if they can. This is of course not peculiar to this Act or, unfortunately, to this Government. It is a result, as usual, of too much legislation, too hastily put through and then having to be caught up in this way with extra reading matter, extra work for everybody to do.

I would hastily say that I do not consider the Minister to be the villain of this piece. He was kind enough to write to me and send me an explanatory note on these regulations. The only remark I should like to make about heaping more regulations on to the Act—although this may be in a rather different category—is in both the Housing Act and the Local Government Bill, which is now waiting for Royal Assent, the number of places in which the Secretary of State has almost complete dictatorial powers and has the right to make regulations, and it all rests with him, have grown enormously.

However, in this instance I certainly have no objection to streamlining and also to cutting down any delays because this is an extremely important factor and has been in the past. It is essential that the tenant knows that he can ask for a consultation now that the mandatory form of consultation is going under these regulations, and that he will not be intimidated by the landlord or feel that he will put himself into a difficult position if he asks for a consultation. In order to show how even-handed I am about this, I can envisage the odd case where the landlord is the less dominating of the two parties. He also may feel a bit timid about asking for a consultation. However, we have to understand, to be fair, that it is usually the tenant who will be in this position because he is the person who is taking a tenancy in the house, flat, or whatever it is, and it is very important that he should know his rights.

I should like to ask the Minister whether this new procedure, and the opportunities open to the tenant, will be set out in simple language and made easily available to tenants. As we all know—and again it is not the prerogative of this Government—so much of people's rights very often become eroded because people do not understand them and they do not know they have them. Even when they find, or are given, the piece of paper the wording is extremely difficult to follow. Also, I should like to know whether the Minister has any idea—he can let me know later if he has not the answer today—how many of the mandatory consultations under the old régime proved to be unnecessary because they were unattended. In other words, consultations had to be held, but the tenant or the landlord and tenant—one or the other or both—did not attend.

Where the rent officer sends information on services to the tenant, Schedule 6 requires that it should also be sent to the landlord. As the Minister pointed out the regulations remove this requirement. I wonder whether there could be cases where all the necessary information is not given. If that is so, is there any way this would be found out? How would it be dealt with?

The other point that slightly worries me is that the requests for a consultation have to be made in writing. I can see the reason for that: somebody may phone and the message may not get through. People may get worried and say, "Well, I did phone" when in fact they have not done so, but they do not quite know what to do. There are all sorts of difficulties, especially if this is going to be carried out very stringently. There are old people, people who are illiterate or semi-literate, who may find it difficult to put their request in writing. I should like to be assured that it would be possible for people to fill in a simple form in the rent office, so that they could go along and then and there put their signature to a piece of paper which simply asks for a consultation. I think that is very important.

Streamlining and cutting down the work of rent officers is all very admirable, but I wonder how this is going to tally with the cut in the rent review period from three years to two years, over which we argued so vigorously and on so many occasions during the passage of the Housing Act. Since this will mean more work for rent officers, how far will this cancel out the streamlining of rent officers' work under the new regulations? The Minister may perhaps reply by saying, as he did during the passage of the Bill, that with inflation as it is it is necessary to cut the review from three years to two years. I naturally would answer—and he will not be surprised—that the inflation is due to his Government's policies anyhow, but I will not go further into that on this occasion.

I would ask the Minister whether the Government will monitor these new procedures to see how many consultations at the end of the year were requested by tenant, or landlord, or both, or how many consultations were held by rent officers when thought necessary, even though a consultation was not asked for. Also, there may be cases where a consultation was not immediately asked for but then the tenant might approach the rent officer within a quite short period. I am not trying to build up a case for more consultations, because I think that anything which wastes the time of rent officers and of other people is unnecessary; but obviously we must welcome anything that simplifies the procedure, as long as tenants' rights, as I said, are not eroded.

My Lords, I will just quickly cover some of the points made by the noble Baroness. Of course, I will gladly write to her and tell her how many mandatory consultations were not attended under the old regime. She was concerned that tenants, under the new regulations, may be afraid to ask for a consultation. I do not see why they should be. The tenant has full security of tenure under the Rent Acts and has nothing to fear in asking for a consultation. However, if there was any hint of a tenant being intimidated, which I would condemn just as much as would the noble Baroness, the rent officer has the reserve power under our proposals to call a consultation himself. It is precisely this kind of circumstance which, albeit remote, has led us to give this discretion to the rent officer.

The same point applies in any case under the existing provisions where the tenant is asked whether he wishes to make representations. Any representations he makes will be copied to the landlord and then discussed at a consultation, so if there is any risk of intimidation—and I see no evidence of it—it is equally there at the present time. However, that is no reason why we should not want to see something better.

I make no comment on the noble Baroness's reference to inflation being due to Government policies, beyond saying that I presume she would accept that the inflation under the previous Government was due in those circumstances to her own Government's policies. I do not think we would quarrel too much about that. I do not think there is much I can add. I will read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and should there be, among the suggestions that have been made, any points which would make things work better, we shall be very glad to contact her and indeed to consider taking them up.

My Lords, there is one point I should like to raise again, if I may. I did mention it, but I should like an assurance that the Minister is taking it on board. It is the matter of the tenants being informed in simple language about their right to a consultation, so that they know exactly what the position is and exactly what they do. These are human points and points of communication. The other point deals with what I think could create difficulties, namely, this request in writing. I should like to feel that this is being taken up by the Government and by the Minister and that something will be done on both points.

My Lords, on the first point I agree that the rent officer must tell the tenant in simple language that he has a right to a consultation, and because of this the Government will prescribe by law the letter to be sent to the tenant. It will be in simple, clear language and, subject to tonight's proceedings, we shall lay regulations before the House tomorrow containing the prescribed letter. I hope that the noble Baroness is duly impressed by the expedition brought forth by her suggestion. I am sure she would also realise that it was anticipated. I should have said this when I responded in the first place. I apologise for not so doing. As regards the other points she has made, as I said, we shall consider them carefully, and if there are any proposals that are helpful, we shall want to take them further.

My Lords, it would appear at first sight that this matter of regulations is a simple affair that can be dismissed following a speech by the noble Lord the Minister and one on behalf of the Opposition. In my opinion it goes much further than that. Far from being simple, it raises many complications, such as the rent that is to be charged to a very large number of tenants in the United Kingdom, the effect on their standard of living, and the financial and domestic difficulties that are bound to follow. When the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, I played no part in it because, quite frankly, I had the utmost difficulty in understanding the implications involved.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is out of order because he did not use the phrase. "Before the noble Lord sits down". I regret that he should have continued his observations.

My Lords, how is this matter to be raised, this matter of regulations?

My Lords, it could have been raised before the noble Lord rose or it can be raised by letter or by word of mouth.

My Lords, let us be clear about the position. The Minister made his speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, replied. The Minister then got up to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I was not aware that it was his final speech. I was waiting to get an opportunity to speak. There was no indication that he was finalising the situation—none whatever—and I am not so sure that that was the opinion of the House, that this was the final word.

My Lords, it is customary when the Minister has made his final speech—and I think it was clear that it was his final speech—that there are no further observations. The only means whereby the noble Lord could have interrupted him was to use the phrase, "Before the noble Lord sits down". He did not do so. If the noble Lord will consult Hansard he will discover that he is out of order.

Then, my Lords, how is this matter of the regulations to be dealt with? Are we simply to accept what the Minister has stated in submitting the regulations, and accept them without any opposition at all, in spite of the large number of people who are being adversely affected? Is that the situation?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is teasing my noble friend and, indeed, the Government, because he is quite well aware of the procedures set out in our Standing Orders and indeed in the Companion. It is possible to lay a Prayer or to make use of some very flexible opportunities.

My Lords, all I have to do is to make a protest. I am disgusted with this kind of action. Here is a matter of the utmost importance. I raised it in the course of the debate and it is the only intervention that I made. It is a question of the rents that ought to be charged. Now that there is an opportunity, when the regulations are submitted, to offer some observations on the subject, I am told that I cannot do so. We cannot appeal to the Speaker, because we have no Speaker. But this is pushed through, under cover almost, in a House that is almost empty. It is a matter of the utmost substance—

My Lords, I must object strongly to the suggestion that anything at all is being pushed through. I come along here in the correct manner, I present the regulations in the proper way and they are discussed by the Opposition or by any other noble Lord who wishes to comment. Because the noble Lord does not stick to procedures, with which I am less familiar than he, he must not, with great respect, say that something is being pushed through. Whatever it is or is not, nothing is being pushed through, because that seems to imply that in some way there is something underhand about this. It is nothing of the kind. It is a straightforward alteration of the procedures. It is nothing more than that. It is an attempt to do things better. It is attempting to change the regulations, but it is not changing the basics of the Act in any way. With respect, to suggest that something is being pushed through in any way is wrong.

My Lords, the Question is, That this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content? To the contrary, Not-Content?

I say, Not-Content.

I think the Contents have it. The Contents have it.