Lords Sitting of 31 March 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Kensington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Marquess of Queensberry—Took the Oath.

British Airports Authority: Ministerial Direction
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether under Section 2 of the British Airports Authority Act 1975 the Secretary of State has an overriding administrative discretion in connection with the authority's functions which is unchallengeable provided he consults with the authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend's Question is, No. The Secretary of State's power in relation to the functions of the British Airports Authority under Section 2(7) of the Act is limited to giving to the authority, after consultation with it, directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of its functions in relation to matters which appear to the Secretary of State to affect the national interest. As with any statutory power, the exercise by the Secretary of State of this power is subject to judicial review.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that sometimes the British Airports Authority seems to exceed its terms of reference, as, for example, in its dictatorial attempts to make Stansted London's third airport and in the way in which it managed to change the names of the lounges at London Airport the other day?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I would agree with my noble friend about that. In my opinion, the British Airports Authority is a very well-managed organisation and discharges its duties admirably.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am looking at subsection (7) of Section 2 and doubtless the Minister will have a copy in front of him. So, while wishing him many happy returns of the day—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Burton of Coventry: —may I ask him whether giving to the authority "directions of a
1382
general character" covers maladministration where this affects the national interest or where it can be shown to him that such is the case?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fact is, I am informed, that a direction of this nature has never been given, under this section at least, and therefore there is no case law upon which I could base an answer to the noble Baroness. In the absence of any guidance from the courts or elsewhere, I think I ought to refrain from offering a legal advice to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while I accept regretfully that obviously that is a correct answer, is the Minister aware—if I may have his attention—that he is really very good at finding excuses for never being able to give me a proper answer? Does he think that perhaps together with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, we might be able to have a case and create a precedent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry about my improper answers. I can assure the noble Baroness that is has nothing to do with her improper questions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether he conceives it to be within the powers of his department to give a direction to the airports authority concerning the scandalous monopoly enjoyed by duty-free shops at certain of the airports?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I ought to give to the noble Lord the same answer as I gave to the noble Baroness, because to answer the noble Lord, in view of the way that he has put his question, would be to give a specific legal advice much like a counsel's opinion, which would be inappropriate from this Box. But, on the face of it, I should have thought that the type of direction which the noble Lord is suggesting would fall outside the scope of the subsection.

Industrial Stoppages in 1981
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many working days were lost during 1981 owing to industrial stoppages, compared with the average since 1975.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the provisional number of working days lost in industrial stoppages recorded in 1981 is nearly 4·2 million, compared with the annual average of 114·7 million over the six years 1975 to 1980.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his most encouraging Answer to my Question, may I ask him whether he would agree that the figures he has quoted reflect a growing sense of

1383
realism in the workplace, an understanding that profits maintain jobs, and that excessive wage demands damage profitability and result in unemployment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is absolutely right. In order to ensure more employment, industry has to be competitive in price and to be sure of continuity of supply. Of course strikes militate against both those objectives.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that the President of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce yesterday stated that the level of major disputes reflects directly the recession and—as he put it—the unacceptably high level of unemployment, and that no one should be under any illusions that that will remain when the economy accelerates? Is the noble Earl aware that it is widely understood that, because of that situation, his right honourable friend has introduced in another place the repressive labour legislation which is now about to go through Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not aware of the quotation to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, referred. The noble Lord quoted from somebody who is perfectly entitled to have his own view. I am grateful to him for doing so. However, I disagree totally with his concept that my right honourable friend's legislation is repressive.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these remarkably good figures are not widely known in the United States and other countries which are contemplating investment in this country, and that the wider these figures do become known the better for future investment and, therefore, for jobs in this country? At the same time could he possibly give us some figures which would show the disruption which occurs in industry and in our services as a result of go-slows, work to rules or internecine quarrels?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in saying that if these figures are well publicised perhaps people will be keener to invest in this country. I cannot give him the figures which he requested in the latter part of his supplementary question, but perhaps he will take comfort from the fact that in both 1980 and 1981 the number of strikes was fewer than in any year since 1941.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from 1975 to 1979 unemployment was well below the million mark? Could he not add the number of days lost, with a 4 million unemployment market, to the figures that he has quoted on the loss of work due to industrial strikes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer which he has requested without notice.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that much of our success is due to the constructive approach of British trade union leaders who, more than ever in any country in the world, co-operate
1384
with management? Is not it time that management also looked to its own house and put in in order?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that there is any great value in apportioning blame. We must recognise that we are in a state of world recession and that we each—whether management or employees—owe it to each other to try to get out of this recession. The only way in which we can do that as a country is by being competitive, both in price and in work.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that what people do when they are actually at work is every bit as important as how often they miss work owing to a strike? Is he aware that in many Eastern European countries at the moment there are no strikes at all because they are illegal, but that the productivity in those countries is extremely low?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that, of course, is one of the reasons that unemployment is as high as it is now. Much of the unemployment which we see now was, in fact, carried before by firms and now they have had to slim down, so those figures, which were previously concealed, are now, regrettably, on the unemployment list.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that at a rough estimate the number of days lost by the 3 million unemployed is about 900 million, which, of course, is many times the number he quoted in his answer to earlier questions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that even if we have a level of unemployment which is totally unacceptable in this country—as it is, in fact, and has been up to now—we have a higher proportion of our population employed than any other country in Europe, other than Denmark. That is worth remembering.

Enterprise Zones: Designations
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they expect more enterprise zones to be established, in addition to those already designated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, of the 11 enterprise zones announced, 10 have now been designated. We expect the Isle of Dogs zone to be designated by the end of April. We are closely watching the development of the existing zones, but have no plans to designate any more at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, the reasons for which I fully understand. As there is no doubt that the 10-year holiday from imposts and form-filling has already

1385
been proving itself to be a very successful scheme, will the Government bear in mind the possibility of designating other zones, perhaps in four or five years' time?—because circumstances can change considerably in different parts of the country.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing out the point, but perhaps I could offer him even more encouragement by saying that as we are watching this so closely, if the success for which we are hoping is shown, he would not have to wait the four or five years to which he refers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the fact that there will not be a delay for five years? But can he tell the House what is the difference between an enterprise zone and a special development area? Is he aware that special development areas were created in those districts which had the highest unemployment, and that there are special development areas throughout the country with unemployment of over 20 per cent? Would it not be sensible and proper, if these enterprise zones have any validity, to make every special development area an enterprise zone?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Lord knows the great difference between the special development areas and the enterprise zones. Many concessions are given in the enterprise zones that do not apply anywhere else, not the least of which is the freedom from paying rates. At this stage I do not think that the House would want me to reel off all the other concessions, but they are very considerable and there is quite a difference. I know that everyone is hoping that they will be the success which I think they will be.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered my question. I asked him whether he recognised that special development areas have the worst unemployment problem in the country. If there is merit in the enterprise zones, can he not say that he will make these special development areas enterprise zones, so that they can reap the benefits which he has just described?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not know whether the special development areas have the worst employment situation in the country. I hear what the noble Lord says. But whether it is those areas or any other areas, because of the success that we are hoping to see in the enterprise zones, when we are considering where others should be we shall certainly take into account the point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, although I very much agree with what he is doing, it needs a little care? Perhaps he will remember the Gilbert and Sullivan tag:
"When everyone is somebody,
Then no one's anybody".
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I learn something new every day, and have done yet again. I take the point.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the noble Lord referred to the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, is he able to comment upon recent press reports that there have been some unfortunate delays and disappointments in connection with the launching of this by the London Docklands Corporation? Could he comment on those reports?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fear I cannot comment on that. If the noble Lord would like me to look into it further and be in communication with him, I gladly undertake to do so.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend give any estimate of how many small businesses have been helped in the enterprise zones so far started?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, again I fear that it is too early for me to be able to do that. I am sure that my noble friend will know that one of the features within the zones is that we are not calling for as much statistical information and as many returns as one normally does outside the zones. Nevertheless, I understand the point that my noble friend is making and I would think that it will not be long before Government will be saying much more about what is being achieved. I am anxious not to be saying all the goodies which are taking place and then leading to disappointments, but we are very encouraged by what is going on and so, I hope, will be your Lordships.

Criminal Injury: Compensation to Victims
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that victims of criminal injury and assault receive adequate compensation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme for Great Britain, and the similar statutory scheme for Northern Ireland, payments of compensation from public funds can already be made to persons who sustain personal injury, and to the dependants of persons who die, as a result of crimes of violence. Throughout the United Kingdom the criminal courts have wide powers to order convicted offenders to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from their crimes; and in the Criminal Justice Bill we are seeking to strengthen and clarify these powers in England and Wales.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is extremely informative. Could he please tell your Lordships' House how much co-operation we get from countries other than the United States and Germany, whom I believe are both very helpful? Are other countries in Europe being of any help to us?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has been trying hard to establish arrangements for mutual co-operation with boards in other countries. I would add to what my noble friend Lady Sharples has just said that, to my knowledge, we also have good co-operation with Canada and Australia. We hope that mutual co-operation of the kind that we wish for will be a feature of a European convention on compensation for victims of crime which is currently under discussion in the Council of Europe.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the consideration of the Council of Europe of a convention on the payment of compensation, will the noble Lord have regard to the fact that under the present legislation the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board withholds payment from individuals who are alleged to have committed offences themselves even where those offences have nothing to do with the injuries they sustained, and even where the offences have not been proved in a court of law? Does not the noble Lord think that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board should not possess that discretionary power, and will he take steps to see that it is not embodied in any European legislation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but I have not followed the noble Lord. Could the noble Lord put it just a little more shortly and then I shall give an answer?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I was asking whether the noble Lord was aware that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has the power to withhold payment to victims of assault where it is alleged that the victims themselves have committed an offence even when the offence has nothing to do with the causing of the injury to the victim? Does not the noble Lord think that this discretionary power should be removed in any European legislation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord necessarily on that, but I should like to look at it further and, if there is anything I ought to add, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, when a culprit is called upon to pay compensation to someone who is the victim of a criminal assault and declines, or is unable, to pay, what happens?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the Criminal Justice Bill which is at the moment before the House of Commons, the Government are introducing a provision which will require the courts to give preference to compensation over a fine on sentencing where the offender's means are limited. But, of course, cases which are taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme are precisely designed to overcome the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has put to me.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the courts make sufficient use of their powers to require offenders to make reparation for their crimes? Could perhaps magistrates be encouraged to use their powers to make compensation or restitution
1388
orders without needing a request from the victim that this should be done? One has a feeling that often these things go by sheer default.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. When the Criminal Justice Bill comes to your Lordships' House I think it will be found that greater weight is being placed upon this matter. But the figures show that in 1980 there were 128 orders made by the criminal courts, and my advice is that the number of orders being made is increasing year by year.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in further backing up the noble and learned Lord, could not further pressure be put on offenders to assist their victims, possibly by asking the judiciary whether they might let it get around that an offender who showed some sympathy and some willingness to assist his victim might receive a lesser sentence?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that, I think, is a matter for the courts.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people who would be entitled to compensation do not apply because they mistakenly believe that it is first necessary for somebody to be apprehended and convicted of a criminal offence, whereas, as the noble Lord will confirm, all that is necessary is that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board should be satisfied that the injuries have resulted from a criminal act? Can the Government do something to publicise that important fact?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I confirm that what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said is correct. I think that the board has in mind the need to make the existence of the scheme known to citizens generally, but I should like to take away what the noble Lord has said and see whether there is anything which either the board, or the Government indeed, ought to do in response to the noble Lord's suggestion.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, could the Minister say whether the number of requests for compensation for criminal injuries has gone up considerably in the last year, or stayed the same, or indeed decreased? That is, the actual requests for compensation for criminal injury.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not got that information. If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness on that point.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL: BRUSSELS MEETING
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council Meeting in Brussels.

Cities: Regeneration Problems
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to call attention to the problems of the regeneration of inner, middle and outer areas of old cities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there can be no one present today who has not heard of the problems of the inner city. Currently and readily available there are 146 publications listed on a single computer print-out on this very subject. These range from small pamphlets to large volumes. The number of views put forward is almost as diverse as the number of authors.
I know that in your Lordships' House there is a great awareness of the deterioration of the inner city and a desire to see a reversal of the rundown which has become so apparent in recent years. in this debate today I wish to draw attention not only to the problems of regeneration of the inner city itself but to the spill-over effect of these problems as they extend to the middle and outer areas, and further to highlight the need to ensure that measures introduced to help the inner city—measures we welcome—do not adversely affect the adjoining areas and cause a deterioration there.
I read with interest the debate in another place on inner cities, which was mainly about Liverpool. It was interesting to note the similarities and considerable differences between Liverpool and London. It is clear that no one solution to the problems of older cities can be applied nationally. Each city requires specialised knowledge and understanding and each may benefit from the experience of others. My experience of local and regional government has all been in London, in the inner city right here in Westminster and in Southgate in outer London. From the 1981 Census, we see that greater London has lost 10 per cent. of its population in the decade, 20 per cent. from inner London and 5 per cent. from outer London. Westminster has lost over 23 per cent. of its population; more than 20 per cent. of the population are over retiring age and 42 per cent. of those elderly people live alone. That is the highest proportion of any London borough.
That proportion of aging residents in inner London, plus the vast daily influx of commuters, creates strains on the provision of services such as the health services in central London. It is difficult to get doctors to live in rundown areas, and it is far from ideal that they should have to travel considerable distances from their homes to treat their patients. A solution is to provide adequate premises for a group practice where one of the doctors can be readily available at any time, and the rent of doctors' premises is funded through the National Health Service.
The dental problem is different, and I must declare an interest as a general dental practitioner. The NHS pays a uniform rate to each dentist, wherever the dentist happens to practice. That is a piecework rate; the dentist provides his own premises and equipment and the scale of fees is based on a notional rent. The figure built in for rent and rates at present is £670 per year, yet many dentists are paying—I put this as a moderate rent—£3,670 per year; so they must earn
1390
an extra £60 a week before they begin to pay their staff, rates and other expenses. Hospital and community dentists receive London weighting, but not the general practitioner. As London costs have risen ever more rapidly, many dentists have been forced either to close down or give up NHS practice, and I emphasise that unless there is some recognition of actual costs, as opposed to the present notional paying system, the primary health services in the cities will deteriorate and people will find that they cannot obtain NHS treatment.
Polarisation has taken place in London with a loss of the middle income group, the middle age group, the privately rented sector and vast numbers of small businesses. Rising property values have forced young would-be buyers out of the middle areas and then out of the outer parts, and now my constituents find that their children must move out of London altogether if they are to buy a home of their own. Shortage of accommodation in inner London has been aggravated by the squeezing out of the private landlord and thus the privately rented sector.
The percentage who were neither local authority tenants nor home owners fell from about 50 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the last 10 years. The shortage of privately rented accommodation in London, aggravated by successive Rent Acts, discriminates today against young people. There is plenty of accommodation for overseas visitors, but the British born are not welcome. I regret that the recent changes made for shorthold tenure did not include London, as they would have helped many young people wishing to buy a short-term home at the outset of their marriage. It is interesting to note that Tower Hamlets—where four out of five households are owned by the local authority and the private sector is virtually non-existent—has the highest level of overcrowding in London. That surely indicates that massive public ownership of housing is no answer to the housing problems.
In housing, the Greater London Council has pioneered homesteading in this country. Since commencement of the scheme in 1977, 1,437 properties have been sold to homesteaders. They were neglected, often derelict properties which were sold to would-be owner-occupiers who undertook to carry out the necessary work to bring the properties up to standard. About 95 per cent. of those who have now completed the job are delighted and say they would start all over again if they found themselves in the same position. Numbers have varied widely in different boroughs, from 203 in Haringey and 184 in Newham to only four in Camden and three in Westminster. An important factor is that the small, usually two-storey house, ideal for homesteading, barely exists in Westminster and Camden. But there are many larger properties suitable for groups of homesteaders, and I should be pleased to hear from the Minister that the grants for home improvements outlined in the Budget would be available for those cases.
I understand that the GLC and Westminster Council have had informal discussions with some building societies, who have shown a keen interest in providing finance. Tomorrow the first ROWS house—Homes of Westminster Scheme; ROWS has no connection with the Chancellor—will be opened in the City of Westminster. Under that scheme, a building has been converted into four flats. Each floor of the property

1391
will be bought by a young couple, and I understand that the building societies have undertaken to finance the purchase. I urge the Minister to give every encouragement to the building societies to put the sources of private finance into the housing of people in London, because that could do much to make more home units available.
The voluntary sector has a major role to play in housing, and indeed is playing such a role. Notable examples include a block of 60 riverside flats on the Isle of Dogs—the London Enterprise Zone to be—and 125 dwellings which the Toynbee Housing Association have just built in Spitalfields in the heart of London. They are low rise buildings providing the type of homes which people would choose to live in; they have young, active resident caretakers who are taking a pride in the maintenance of high standards of care and cleanliness.
Last week I was talking to someone involved in letting flats on the older Peabody Estates in Central London and I heard to my surprise that they have virtually no trouble letting those older properties. Applicants are often seeking to move from what might superficially appear to be much more attractive and modern estates. Inquiries have revealed two main causes: first, that in the Peabody Buildings there remains a living community spirit and, secondly, that there is a feeling of safety and security, with the attention of a resident caretaker.
Law and order has been widely debated in your Lordships' House and I shall do no more than comment that where residents are afraid to walk the streets by day or night, the community spirit cannot survive. People withdraw into their own private safe areas, which leads to further loss of contact and further damage to the community. Security and personal safety are of great importance in people's lives. The published statement of the GLC leader attacking the new Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police is doing great damage. Instead of these deliberate attacks on the police constantly issuing from the GLC, we should be seeing efforts to support the police and to develop harmonious working relationships between the police and the people of London.
The community spirit developed over generations has often been destroyed by unfeeling redevelopment following mass demolition. Plans must provide for, among other essentials, good recreation and sporting facilities to channel the natural, spontaneous exuberance of the young into healthy and socially desirable activities. Vandalism is too often the product of boredom, and, at this time of high unemployment, boredom with underlying anxiety and insecurity. The paid official "good neighbour" of today's social services department cannot compare with the homespun good neighbour of the past. Sadly, those older communities were often destroyed as part of an official policy.
As the LCC policy moved out the "non-conforming" industries in the 1970s, those jobs were lost to Londoners. The inner city of London lost 44 per cent. of manufacturing jobs between 1961 and 1978. A new force is now driving business out of the capital—the rate burden. Major companies, such as W. H. Smith, have moved their whole operations out of
1392
London, Tube Investments has gone to Birmingham, British Steel has vacated 127,000 square feet of offices near here, and the five big banks have each moved over 1,000 jobs out of London. As the enterprises go, again the jobs are lost to Londonders; and we notice this now, whereas the over-employment of the 'seventies then masked what was really a growing problem.
We must stop the outflow, and we must encourage those who are willing to start up small businesses again in London, especially where they will provide the much needed employment opportunities. Greater flexibility in zoning is necessary where jobs will result. The London unemployment situation is made worse by a mismatch between jobs available and the individuals seeking jobs, and there is special need for less skilled jobs and semi-skilled jobs, particularly in manufacturing.
Let us for a moment consider the rate burden. Westminster City Council has just cut its own rate, but the rate bill has gone up. The Westminster cut of 4½ per cent. means that the city council part of the rate has gone down to about 17½-pence in the pound, but the rate is 141·6 pence in the pound. The GLC rate has gone up from 18·7 pence to 34·85 pence. Inner London education now demands 71 pence in the pound. The rate equalisation levy takes 7·33 pence. The Cities of London and Westminster together pay £63 million to the equalisation pool, from which the 11 other inner London boroughs receive money. Camden receives £12 million, Lambeth £6 million, and the lowest is Greenwich, receiving £3·6 million.
Westminster City Council contributes over £200 million to the inner London education budget—more than a quarter of the education budget for the whole of inner London. It has often been made very clear that the Westminster residents and ratepayers could send every child in Westminster to the best public school for less than it is costing them at the moment to meet the ILEA costs. The Westminster Council's budget is £64 million, but it must collect £108 million for the Greater London Council and £220 million for ILEA, as well as contribute £22 million to the inner London equalisation pool.
An Oxford Street department store will this year pay an extra quarter of a million pounds in rates. The rates now payable for the same store are over £2 million. An international corporation will see an increase from £1½ million to more than £1¾ million. A Park Lane hotel will find its rates going up to £448,000 from £381,000, and for professional offices in the Strand the rates alone will increase from £9,700 to £11,400.
Over zealous and inflexible planning ideas have killed off too many small industries and businesses in the past, and now the rate demands are out to finish off the bigger concerns. I see that the London Chamber of Commerce is hoping that the Secretary of State will introduce abolition of rates on empty property. I recall that this was the situation when I first became a councillor in Westminster, and I must point out to the Minister the harm that this proposal would do. At present if a firm is leaving London and vacating its premises, it remains liable for half rates, and therefore it is very much in its interests to find a successor to occupy the premises. If no rates were payable, there would be great advantages (especially with the current

1393
exorbitant rent and rate levels) simply to close up a building and leave it empty. The rate base would then be reduced, and those who had to go on paying rates would have to find even more to meet the continuing expenditure. While I am convinced that there is a direct link between high costs, especially high rates, and unemployment, I believe that a full reform of the rating system is due and piecemeal changes will provide no real solution.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the progress of the enterprise zones. I appreciate that he covered this point when dealing with a Question earlier this afternoon, and perhaps he has nothing further to say about the Isle of Dogs. I know also of the extensive measures which have been introduced by the Government to help small businesses, and I am convinced that they will gradually bring back jobs to London. It is important that new businesses should provide real jobs, with long-term employment prospects—not just artificially created jobs with little future. Earlier today a noble Lord discussed other areas of the country which he claimed now have the highest unemployment, even though they have been special development areas. Obviously there was something wrong in regard to the long-term employment prospects if the situation has changed so dramatically.
There is constant discussion of docklands redevelopment and the opportunities that that will bring, but it seems to be the subject of many squabbles. As I came into your Lordships' House I picked up a cutting from the Standard, which stated that the GLC is proposing to give grants of £720,000 not for redevelopment, but in order to argue and fight over the type of redevelopment and possibly to delay redevelopment in docklands yet again. Jobs are needed all over London, and jobs are needed near to where people live.
I would ask the Minister to ensure that the plans that he has for London, such as the enterprise zones, are well implemented and do not cause an adjoining area to become deprived. Each action in one part of this great city causes a reaction in another part, and we must view the problem of regeneration as a whole. There is need to co-ordinate the measures designed to help regeneration of the city, to provide homes and jobs, recreation and sports facilities, a secure environment, and a mixed community, reversing the polarisation of the past and creating a community proud to belong to this great capital. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised this very important subject today. She has certainly demonstrated that the major cities of our country face a formidable range and complexity of problems. These problems have to be confronted at a time when the major cities are losing population, are skimped of resources and are replete with unemployment and, also, worrying social and racial disturbances. Just today, the Guardian reports that the Census reveals that the metropolitan counties and Greater London lost 1·3 million people between 1971 and 1981.
Yet 37 per cent. of the population of England continue to live in these metropolitan areas, and many more live in other large cities like Bristol, Nottingham,
1394
Leicester and Middlesbrough. They live with major problems which can be effectively tackled only if major financial and physical resources are made available. The people, who really are the most precious resource in any area, whether it is inner, middle or outer, will fade spiritually as well as physically; and the fabric of the cities, which also represents an important part of our resources, will, if we are not careful, continue to be underused and even wasted.
What are needed are roads, railways, sewers, houses, factories, parks and playgrounds; and here I agree with the noble Baroness, that these form an essential part of the social as well as the economic regeneration of any area, and particularly any community. These are investments that we cannot afford not to make. The trouble is that, Governments always being rather short of money, even when their priorities vary there is never enough to put into those things which many of us consider are of the highest priority and which, if neglected, result in more money having to be spent in order to deal with all the physical, social, health and other casualties which result from the decay and decline.
When we were in office we placed great emphasis on helping the inner urban areas of this country. The Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, which I introduced in this House and in the debate on which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who is to speak later, made a very effective maiden speech, gave additional powers to authorities and provided the basis on which more help was made available to areas of greatest need. In doing this, it is true, we concentrated not on the suburbs but on the inner areas, for the inner area of each city is the heart of that city, and that heart has to be kept beating by people populating it or the city as a whole will suffer and wither away. The noble Baroness was wide-ranging in her speech and embraced a great many aspects of this three-headed subject, and in this short debate I shall not follow her in them. I shall concentrate largely on the inner city because of the vital role it plays, and also because of its effect. There is a dual and reciprocal effect from the inner to the middle and outer areas, and also vice versa.
"The current state of inner areas has its roots in social and economic events reaching back to the last century and beyond. Much has been done to ease their problems since the second world war, principally through the relief of overcrowding. But much remains to be done".
Those words are taken from the Labour Government's White Paper of 1977, and they are as true today as they were five years ago.
When she was referring to housing, the noble Baroness talked about the squeezing out of the private landlord. The depletion in private rented property and the squeezing out, as she put it, of the private landlord has been going on since the beginning of this century; and, while the noble Baroness was asking for more shortholds and thought that that would help the London situation, I am afraid she will find out (and I think any figures that the Minister gives in reply will have to illustrate this, though he will not use these words) that it has really been a disastrous experiment. What has happened to housing in recent years is that in both the private and the public sector the housing starts have reached an all-time low. We are now seeing a slight upturn, but, with almost the complete

1395
collapse of the construction industry at one time, it is very difficult to build new and resuscitated inner, middle or outer areas of cities when we have this basic fall-down right in the middle.
One must be fair and say that the present Government have promoted some initiatives in the inner city, by grafting on, for example, urban development corporations and enterprise zones. They have been of arguable value, and although to discuss them would take another debate all on its own, there are a great many problems about them which have been recognised by local authorities, both in relationships with the training boards, with the hold-over of the 10 per cent. of the rate rebate, and in other ways, which make it rather a questionable answer; and where it works in some places it certainly would not in others. While the enterprise zones have undoubtedly stimulated some activity, there is also growing evidence of blight in adjacent areas. This has been reported from, for example, Trafford and Clydebank. There again, this is something which the noble Baroness referred to—the effect of blight on other areas caused through using particular remedies. This is a very great problem, and it is a great problem whichever Government are in power.
But all this, I feel, pales into insignificance beside the draconian financial cuts which have been imposed on inner cities through the reduced rate support grant in recent years. This is a process which has been reversed only in a very limited fashion for this forthcoming financial year. I will try not to weary the House with a mass of detailed statistics, but the partnership authorities' share of the rate support grant, for instance, fell from 16·9 per cent. in 1980–81 to only 14 per cent. in 1981–82. The total loss of grant in partnership areas, comparing those two years, was £390 million.
I have written to the Minister giving a detailed breakdown at 1981–82 out-turn prices to show clearly that, when one allows for all the variables, it is clear that all the partnership authorities have lost, many of them substantially. Birmingham has lost over 16 per cent. in this period, Lambeth over 27 per cent., Tower Hamlets over 35 per cent. and Newcastle 15 per cent. These are only a few instances. Such losses far outweigh the marginal contribution of enterprise zones and the questionable contribution made by urban development corporations. They also add to the higher rate demands to industry about which the noble Baroness was quite understandably complaining. That and inflation makes it extremely difficult, and it is hard to isolate these particular ingredients from the whole of a Government's national policy and strategy.
The Government now propose to restrict the power of local authorities to assist industry by reducing the product from a 2p rate to that of a ½p rate, and authorities such as Knowsley, Tameside, Walsall and Kirklees, which are not designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act, will have their ability to assist in the regeneration of their areas substantially curtailed. Cities which have experienced riots, like Bristol, will also have their financial recuperative powers reduced. If authorities with 20 per cent. unemployment, which unfortunately is not now unknown in this country, will no longer be able to spend to the extent of last year—and many of
1396
them will not if the rate product for industry is cut—then the Government are master-minding not a progressive but a retrogressive step, which I hope they will be changing during the progress of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is going through the House at the present time.
The status of being designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act is of great importance. Under this Act, we designated 48 districts which could enjoy the power embodied in it and receive financial support. It is interesting that the initial list set out in Circular 68/78 has not subsequently been revised by this Administration, since there are many authorities which are making out a powerful case for designation. I know that the AMA have made representations for a review of designations and I should like an assurance from the Minister that designations are being reviewed on the basis of cases being presented and are not being fobbed off by reference to selective census data. We are also concerned about the divergence between the inner cities programme and the regional programme. This differentiation must be difficult for many people to understand, until one acknowledges that Whitehall does not work corporately and that the Inner Urban Areas Act is the "baby" of the Department of the Environment, while regional policy lies with the Department of Industry. This explains, presumably, why Knowsley, for instance, is a Grade 1 Assisted Area (a special development area) but, absurdly, is not a designated district.
I know that this was the situation when the previous Government were in power but then it was early days and we would have hoped for a change. I still hope for a change under this Government because these differences matter very much. Under regional policy, only assisted areas can receive EEC quota funds; inner city areas are not eligible for them unless they are in assisted areas. So authorities in the inner parts of the West Midlands or London do not receive any form of EEC quota aid, which is surely ridiculous. Authorities like Birmingham, Manchester and Hackney are Grade 1 Inner Urban Areas, that is, partnership authorities, but they are not assisted areas. Again there are these anomalies. If the problems of our cities are to be tackled effectively they must receive the resources necessary, whether through the rate support grant or through EEC aid or through a mixture of both. The Government must give higher priority to these areas and make resources available. Such a package could form the basis of a positive economic policy which could begin to lead us out of the appalling recession into which the Government's economic singlemindedness has largely dragged us.
If we are to have—and I agree with the noble Baroness—a much greater input of community spirit into the areas, it is impossible for it to be done without resources being available and used as cost-effectively as possible. It is essential that primary emphasis should be placed upon making the best use of the existing buildings in the city. But that fabric is decaying. The AMA publication Ruin or Renewal, shows what is happening to our housing stock. It is true—and here I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said about the houses that are rotting and out of use—that we should do what we can with our old housing stock as long as it does not take away

1397
from the needs of those who are in greatest housing need on the waiting lists. Too little is being done; too little money is made available.
If the Government want to do one thing to help renewal, they would change the VAT regulations so that repairs are zero-rated rather than paying the penal rate of 15 per cent. New building is already zero-rated. To me it was wrong when we were in office that this was not done; and it is wrong now. The dead hand of the Treasury has yet to be lifted from this particular control. All Governments, it seems to me, fight the Treasury and, alas! all Governments have lost so far. If this Government want to make a name and to stamp an imprint for themselves, they will wear down the Treasury and win this battle. This is essential.
What gives our cities their vital character is the history embodied in many of their buildings. The Committee on Alternative Uses of Historic Buildings, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, which I set up when we were in office, made many recommendations including, I would emphasise, asking for the end of VAT on the repair of historic buildings. In particular, the report highlights the many possible uses which can be made of historic urban buildings; for example, turning warehouses into factories and small craft shops, churches into community centres and even houses and making the best use of places which are beautiful to look at but which must function as well, otherwise, not only are they wasted as physical assets but wasted as a human and social asset for the community.
So far the Government response to the report has been disappointing. I appreciate that there have been some instances when the Secretary of State has taken positive steps to protect an element of our heritage; but this is a rather more specialised point. This House has not yet debated the Montagu Report. I hope we shall do so fairly soon, since it will be an opportunity for the Government to announce some plan for reversing the tragic decay of much of our heritage. As the 1977 White Paper said:
"The regeneration of the inner areas is not, however, a job for central or local government alone. A new and closer form of collaboration is required between Government and the private sector, between Government and the community including the various representative organisations of the cities and bigger towns, with the voluntary bodies, and, above all, with the people living in the inner areas. It is their welfare, immediate and longer-term, which must be the ultimate touchstone for success.".
These are the sentiments of five years ago, but they are as fresh and as necessary today as they were then. The problem is not just one of bricks and mortar, of cubic feet of adequate living or working space, of sewers, of street lighting and of transport facilities; it is also a human problem that requires the human touch: a touch which expresses the visual and emotional needs of people as well as their physical needs; in other words, the framework for the life of a humane and civilised community.

European Council: Brussels Meeting
3.35 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your permission,
1398
I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 29th and 30th March which I attended with my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"At the end of the meeting the President of the Council issued a statement of his conclusions on the economic and social situation and the 30th May Mandate. Agreed texts on political co-operation were also released. I have placed copies of these documents in the Library.
"The Council devoted most of its meeting on this occasion to the economic and social situation, both within the Community and in the world at large. We agreed that, although the specific characteristics of the situation in each member state might call for varying policies, all the member states had the same interest in combating unemployment and restoring economic growth, while preserving monetary stability and ensuring the competitiveness of their economies. The Council expressed its concern at the level of productive investment in Europe, especially in the industries of the future, and agreed that the Community and the member states would take whatever steps were open to them to improve that level, while recognising that an increase in investment would mean a reduction in consumption.
"During our discussions I laid particular stress on the need to complete the Common Market in the services sector. We have made disappointingly little headway with the liberalisation of services such as insurance and air transport.
"We also discussed the role that the Community can play in the development of information technology and the vital contribution that small businesses can make to the provision of new jobs.
"On youth unemployment, which is a matter of special concern, we agreed that each member state would strive to ensure over the next five years that all young persons entering the labour market for the first time would receive vocational training or initial work experience.
"In our discussion of external policies, the Council looked forward to the Versailles Economic Summit in June. We agreed that our aim at that summit should be to encourage increased co-operation between the major industrialised countries. In particular, we agreed that the persistence of high real interest rates in the international markets, combined with inadequate economic activity, was leading to a significant reduction in productive investment and made unemployment worse because of the squeeze on company liquidity and profits.
"The Council urged Japan to open its market so as to integrate it more fully into international bade. We also urged Japan to follow an economic, commercial monetary and exchange rate policy which was more compatible with the balance of responsibilities to be borne by the whole of the industrialised world, thereby contributing to economic recovery.
"On the mandate, we had a relatively brief discussion

1399
in the light of the recent suggestions put forward by M. Tindemans and M. Thorn. We and most other member states were prepared to accept these proposals as a basis for negotiation. I emphasised the need for a solution to the United Kingdom budget problem which gave us a fair scale of compensation, which was sufficiently flexible to take account of either an improvement or a deterioration in the underlying situation and which would last for substantial period.
"I underlined the conclusion we had all reached in London in November that decisions on all aspects of the mandate must be taken together, that is to say decisions on the budget, the common agricultural policy and the industrial and social affairs of the Community. At this point the President of France stated that he would not accept the Thorn/Tindemans proposals as a basis for discussion.
"As the presidential conclusions indicate, foreign affairs Ministers have been asked to do all in their power to secure early decisions. The Ministers will meet in Luxembourg on 3rd April.
"The Council also had a very full political agenda.
"We spoke about transatlantic relations and welcomed the very warm message sent by President Reagan on the 25th anniversary of the European Community.
"We discussed the economic and commercial state of East/West relations in the light of the significant role played by Community trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We agreed that these matters, including the related credit problems, should be studied further by the European Community and member states in close consultation with other members of OECD.
"We also discussed the situation in Poland, where martial law continues in force, many thousands of persons are detained, and a dialogue with the Church and with Solidarity is still suspended.
"We agreed that it was essential not to lose sight of the tragic sufferings of Afghanistan. There can be no solution except on the basis which two-thirds of the United Nations have endorsed, and which the Soviet Union alone has so far frustrated.
"On Central America, our main conclusion was the need to support any initiative that could bring an end to the violence, and we noted proposals by Mexico and Honduras among others. We agreed that economic aid given to Central America and the Caribbean should be co-ordinated and, where possible, increased.
"This was not the moment for a major statement of policy on the Middle East. We expressed grave concern about the situation in the area, especially on the West Bank, The Council welcomed, as a contribution to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, the participation of four member states in the Sinai multinational force. My noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is paying an official visit to Israel today and tomorrow.
"Mr. Speaker, this was a very busy Council in its discussion both of Community affairs and of international problems. While we were all both disappointed and surprised at the attitude of the French
1400
Government on the mandate, the same realism will have to be applied to decisions on those problems as was applied in the wider discussions during this European Council."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement being made in another place by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement itself deals with so many topics and covers so wide a canvas that we on this side of the House will not proceed to question it save in its important detail. We shall prefer to have the chance of seeing the items that have been placed in the Library and read them in association with the Statement. It might also be helpful if we can also have the Tindemans' proposals. I shall be questioning the noble Lord about these presently.
In general, this Statement follows very largely its predecessors to which we have become accustomed these past few years. It is full of generalities. It is full of general aspirations, but it is very short on concrete information as to any firm and agreed decisions that have been made. One cannot blame the right honourable lady the Prime Minister for that, but we on this side of the House think that it is a reflection of the way in which business is being conducted at the present time and the atmosphere which obtains still in the Council of Ministers—one of continued inability to arrive at any unanimous decision on any important aspect of European affairs. We note from the Statement that the Prime Minister is still insisting that the whole question of the United Kingdom's budgetary contribution to the European Community must be firmly linked with the price review. The Statement did not say price review, it said the common agricultural policy. So the first question that I have to ask the noble Lord is: Will he state unequivocally that the Government's position remains, as it was stated to be a few months ago, that the agreement on farm prices is conditional upon a satisfactory solution to the United Kingdom's budgetary problems with the Community? May I remind the noble Lord that we on this side of the House still consider that the Government are bound by the mandate given to them by another place on 15th July 1979 to press for a zero contribution situation? May we have his observations as to whether that is still the Government's aim?
Arising from that—particularly in the light of the Statement reported to have been made by the President of the Commission concerning the possible abandonment of the unanimity rule established at the Luxembourg Convention in 1975 at the insistence of the Government of France—may we have an assurance that the United Kingdom will insist on the maintenance of the unaminity rule? We note from the Statement that all of the members of the Community deplored the lack of investment in Europe at the present time. One observes that the right honourable lady the Prime Minister has indicated that increased investment can only come at the expense of consumption. We on this side of the House would keenly contest that point of view because it is quite clear that one of the

1401
reasons for the lack of investment at the present time is falling demand and continuing falling demand or lack of demand in this country.
To end my questioning on a more favourable note, may I express our agreement with the Prime Minister's insistence that further progress should be made in the freedom of services in the EEC. The noble Lord will recall that many governments other than our own in the EEC have been busily trying to avoid freedom of services being given in the field of insurance other than life insurance. This has been pressed for now for about seven years inside and outside the European Parliament. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that these matters will be pressed for with even greater vigour than they have been in the past?
Lord Banks: My Lords. I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. It is clear, as has already been said, that the European Council had a very comprehensive agenda, and I must restrict myself to one or two points only. The question of unemployment, quite rightly, was an important matter under discussion and we welcome the decision of the Community and member states to take whatever steps are open to them to improve the level of investment of the Community, but I wonder just what that will amount to in practice. Can the noble Lord give us any idea what plans the Community might have in that respect and what plans the United Kingdom Government might have in that respect?
Is it correct that there was a division of opinion over the need for a co-ordinated reflation of the economy on a European basis, with France, Denmark. Ireland and Greece being in favour of it and the United Kingdom being among those who were opposed? We would regret such a situation. We are glad that emphasis was placed on the serious effect of high interest rates and we of course share the general regret that there seems to be no sign as yet of the settlement of the United Kingdom's contribution to the budget. We regret that the French Government have turned down the Thorn-Tindemans proposals as a basis of discussion, but we hope that perhaps they will have second thoughts about that. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that in the long run the only lasting solution must be one that involves an increase in the budget of the Community, with money being spent on policies more beneficial to this country than the common agricultural policy. Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us the position with regard to the Genscher Colombo plan. Is there to be any further discussion of that in the European Council or is it before the Council of Ministers? What exactly is its status at the moment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their interventions following this Statement. If I may first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on the detail of the Tindemans-Thorn proposals, these have so far been made only on an informal and personal basis by the Presidents of the Council and the Commission simply in the nature of a framework for the negotiations. There is no formal proposal yet, and I have no doubt that when one is
1402
made its details will be made available. Therefore, I cannot go into more detail than is contained in the Statement. In any event there was only the briefest discussion on this matter in the Council—substantive discussion awaits the meeting of the Foreign Ministers which will take place later this week.
Regarding the other matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, particularly on the linkage with negotiations on the agricultural prices which are going on this very day and in regard to the Budget generally, I must confess that it seems to me it would be very difficult for the agriculture Ministers to reach a conclusion today in the light of the position which the United Kingdom Government have often stated about the contribution within the total budget to the agricultural policy itself. Regarding our contribution to the budget, the noble Lord asked me to confirm that a zero contribution was still our aim. I would confirm that is still our aim, but I think we would be able to accept some less ambitious proposal, for example, for a very modest contribution by the United Kingdom. I think that would be acceptable in the context of an overall settlement, but if a substantial increase in agricultural prices were to be agreed by the agriculture Ministers in Brussels today, then I fear that would not be attainable because the additional contribution to the budget would come in a large measure from the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also raised the question of freedom of services and particularly asked about the non-life insurance matter—a matter which we have discussed before in your Lordships' House. I certainly confirm that the Government remain most anxious to secure an agreement on this matter, but I fear I have nothing to report on progress since the noble Lord questioned me on this matter a few months ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me in particular about the economic conclusions and decisions taken by the Council. A number of detailed observations were made by them in this context, which are contained in the document which I have referred to and which is to be placed in the Library. I hope the noble Lord will find the information that he wants in that document.
Lord Walston: My Lords, we too on these Benches are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement —a long one and full of many pious hopes with which I do not think many of your Lordships, if any, would disagree. One question I should like to put to the Minister refers simply to one of those more or less at random. The hopes are very good but the implementation is a far more important matter. Could the noble Lord give us any indication as to how it is expected and intended that one of the hopes expressed on Central America will in fact be carried out and what initiative Her Majesty's Government will be taking? It states:
" We agreed that economic aid given to Central America and the Caribbean should be co-ordinated and, where possible, increased".
Perhaps the noble Lord could expand a little on that. With regard to the vitally important matter of the mandate, it is implicit in the Statement that Her Majesty's Government agree in general principle with the proposals put forward by M. Tindemans and M. Thorn and find nothing in them antagonistic to

1403
our own desires and demands within the mandate. Could the noble Lord categorically confirm that that is so and that we are prepared to enter into negotiations within the guidelines set out by M. Tindemans and M. Thorn?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot go as far as the noble Lord asks me to go with regard to the Thorn-Tindemans proposals. They are only a framework for discussion at the present time and the United Kingdom has accepted then as such; but of course the French President dismissed them out of hand, it seems. On the questions about Central America, and particularly the point about aid referred to in the Statement, individual member states and the Community will doubtless be considering this in the context of their own financial constraints. On the political aspect of affairs in Central America, I think that a European Community initiative at this moment would unduly complicate the issue in that part of the world, but we broadly welcome the Mexican initiative which is to help to bring the parties together.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what procedural or institutional reforms in the Community the Government are supporting in order to put an end to these repeated nationalistic dogfights which bring no credit to any country, and certainly none at all to the EEC?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government share the desire, inherent in the noble Lord's question, that the negotiations currently going on with regard to the mandate should be conclusive and not just a short-term thing, which would lead, as the noble Lord rightly points out, to another discussion and further disagreement in a short time to come. This negotiation is now renewing the arrangements which were agreed rather less than three years ago. We certainly think that the negotiations now being conducted should reach a conclusion which should last longer than that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the international section of the Statement, while I welcome the general remarks about Poland, Afghanistan and the Middle East, can the noble Lord confirm that the Government are now firmly associated with other Community Governments in supporting negotiation on El Salvador? One had the feeling that there was a certain amount of tepidness before, but one is now confirmed in the belief that the Government are rather more anxious to co-operate and accept the offer of mediation by the Mexican President. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say a word about that possibility.
On the price proposal side, I think the noble Lord said a moment ago that there was some difficulty about Ministers reaching a conclusion in the talks which are taking place now and tomorrow, and I would not dissent from that. But would he say, if the French Government succeed in securing the increased prices for which they are obviously fighting, but which are totally unacceptable to this country and to Her Majesty's Government, what steps Her Majesty's Government will then take if there is a breakdown in the agricultural talks?
1404
Can he also say a further word about the mandate? Can he tell us what is the implication of the French President's stated attitude on this, because it certainly seems to me to be the cause of what might be a longstanding difficulty. Finally, does he accept generally that failure to achieve agreement will adversely affect the prospects of the world economic summit at Versailles in June?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, first on the question of Central America, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, a moment ago, I do not think that a European Community initiative with regard to El Salvador, or any other country in that region, would be appropriate at the present time. But we broadly welcome the Mexican initiative, which is to help to bring the parties together. The Mexican concept of a regional approach has some merit in this situation, but I think it would be a fallacy to imagine that agreement will be soon or easily reached in that area.
On the question of what would happen if agreement was reached in Brussels today and tomorrow on a substantial increase in agricultural prices, the noble Lord is putting to me what I must regard as a hypothetical question at the present time. We have made very clear where we stand with regard to agricultural prices. It is a fact that the agricultural policy already absorbs 65 per cent. or thereabouts of the budget as a whole, and we think that if that percentage were to increase, or if the policy were to develop the further production of surpluses, that would be very unsatisfactory indeed. But I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me from answering what is, for today at least, a hypothetical question with regard to the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me if I press on him one question which he did not answer? I asked specifically for an assurance that any endeavour to dispense with the Luxembourg convention of unanimity among members—the unanimity rule—would be resisted by Her Majesty's Government. Can he give a specific assurance on that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for not answering that point, which the noble Lord did indeed put to me earlier. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government attach the greatest importance to the understanding that decisions on matters of major national interest are taken by unanimity, and there is no question of our accepting any erosion of this principle.
Lord Banks: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is in a position to answer the question which put to him on the Genscher Colombo Plan?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that was again touched on during the discussion and I think it is referred to in the document which I am placing in the Library. I hope that the noble Lord will find that helpful.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I apologise for prolonging the questions arising out of the Statement, but I should like to put a question connected with the discussions

1405
which took place on youth unemployment. In view of the very grave importance of this subject, and the fact that it is a European problem and not only a United Kingdom one, may I ask the noble Lord for an assurance that, particularly during the early stages of the steps being contemplated and implemented by different states, there will be the very closest exchange of views and opinions about the measures that are necessary to tackle the problem, so that the maximum benefit may be obtained by each from the other?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the major responsibility for unemployment must, of course, lie with member states. But there is, however, an important complementary role for Community action; for example, in improving the co-ordination of member states' economic policies—in particular, fighting inflation through the operation of the social and regional fund. The social fund, in fact, provides significant assistance for training and employment schemes to help the unemployed and those threatened by unemployment, particularly through an increase in the capital of the European Investment Bank. But with regard to youth unemployment specifically, which I think is uppermost in the noble Lord's mind, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 15th December 1981 the Government's plan to help the young unemployed in 1982–83 and beyond. Essentially the Youth Opportunities Programme will be expanded to cover 630,000 entrants next year, with 100,000 new style one-year training places. In 1982–83, therefore, the YOP will be developing towards the new youth training schemes, which will provide for 300,000 young people at any one time, mainly through new one-year training courses in industry and commerce.

Cities: Regeneration Problems
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate on a matter of serious concern not only for people involved in urban areas but for the country as a whole. I think it would be agreed that, if our great cities are in decline, that affects the whole of our society. I am particularly grateful to her for the fact that she did not limit the subject of the debate to inner areas alone, but included middle and outer areas. The problems of inner areas, as I think we all recognise, are very serious, but because of the special aid which is given to them under the Inner Urban Areas Act and other legislation, they are now no more serious, and very often are becoming less serious, than the problems arising in the outer areas where local authorities principally built in the '50s, '60s, and '70s huge dehumanised high-rise satellite towns, such as Kirkby outside Liverpool, or, in the area where I live, the Noctorum, Woodchurch and Ford estates in the Wirral.
The problems of the people living in those outer urban areas affect the middle urban areas in ways which the noble Baroness is perhaps not strictly thinking about. In smaller cities, people are decanted,
1406
very often without full recreational and other facilities, so that they spend much of their time tramping back through the middle urban areas to the inner urban areas, where their families still are, where their recreational facilities are and where the local pub is. Some of the less responsible, or more dissatisfied, of these people, on their trips to and from the inner urban area, do a lot of damage to the middle area, largely from frustration, possibly from various kinds of bitterness and a feeling that the circumstances in which they live compare unfavourably with those in the suburbs, but nevertheless doing damage, causing difficulties and contributing towards the increasing crime rate in this country.
My experience is that the crime rate in the outer urban estates is very often much higher—and, indeed, it is the highest in some parts of Merseyside—than in any other part of the urban conurbation. I have frequently argued in your Lordships' House that the Government's inner urban policies, while recognising the serious problems there, have given too little recognition to the problems of the outer areas.
I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to report on the progress of the Government's special initiative to find, and I quote his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in her statement of 9th October last:
"new ways of tackling the economic, environmental and social problems of inner cities".
It may not surprise your Lordships that I shall speak principally of Merseyside. So far as Merseyside is concerned, what that statement meant was the establishment of a Merseyside task force working to the noble Lord the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and a London based financial institutions group.
This initiative was very much welcomed at that time in Merseyside. Much hope and expectation were placed upon its efforts to do something about the Merseyside problems and those of Liverpool in particular. Your Lordships may recall that the task force was given 12 months to carry through its gigantic mission. Half that time has now passed. I am told that the Merseyside County Council and the other local authorities in the area have made a number of approaches to the task force, including project proposals and major policy reviews of the economy and housing, and that the county council have suggested there should be joint working arrangements with the task force.
Although a number of meetings have taken place, I am told that the response by the task force to the county council's project proposals has been poor, that there has been no response to the policy review documents and that no attempt to develop joint working arrangements has taken place. It may be a deliberate policy on the part of the task force not to work too closely with the local authorities, though I hope this is not the case, because the right honourable lady the Prime Minister referred in the same statement to the role of the Secretary of State as:
"bringing together and concentrating the activities of central. Government departments, and to work with local government and with the private sector".
So far as the local authorities in the Merseyside area are concerned, this does not appear to have happened.

1407
In his covering letter to the then leader of the county council, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"The task force will of course be concerned with policy issues and major problems, including the allocation of resources, rather than with detailed case work".
I am advised this week that, so far as the local authorities in the task force area are concerned, they have not seen any concrete evidence of a concentration of central Government activities. The feeling on Merseyside appears to be that the task force is not working with local people and that most of the effort is concentrated on projects, not on policy issues. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me about this. Since the task force is not accountable locally, no progress reports have been published at local level, which again underlines some of the criticisms which have been voiced at various times in your Lordships' House about the lack of consultation and of working with local government which has occurred under the present Government's régime.
So far as resources are concerned, when there is a Conservative Government in power, the shire counties tend, broadly speaking, to be favoured in the allocation of resources. Since the introduction of the block grant system two years ago and the development of special initiatives which by-pass main allocation systems such as the urban development corporations and the urban programmes, and with central Government's own direct spending, it is getting very much more difficult for people involved at the local level to be sure what the public spending impact on the old cities now is. If the resource allocation mechanisms continue to rely heavily on population figures as an indicator, your Lordships will probably agree that it is inevitable that the older, inner urban areas with the declining populations, to which the noble Baroness referred, will be inadequately recognised, despite the well accepted fact that they face economic and social problems of a horrendous and growing scale of complexity.
Despite the new block grant system's complexity, which again has often been discussed in your Lordships' House, it is in my opinion still too crude a yardstick in some respects for measuring the relative spending needs of local authorities with different problems and in different parts of the country. As I argued earlier, many of the most serious problems are in outer urban satellite areas such as Kirkby, yet the local authority, Knowsley District Council, which covers this area is, surprisingly enough, the only Merseyside district which is neither a partnership nor a programme authority. Therefore it does not gain the benefit of the assistance which is given to other authorities in the same county. Although they have very serious problems, they do not have a problem of the size which Kirkby presents.
Nevertheless—this is an optimistic point in what I suppose may be seen as a somewhat pessimistic speech—a Kirkby study has been undertaken jointly by the county council, the Knowsley District Council and the European Community to examine the problems and, it is hoped, to come up with action proposals in the context of similar problems elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Europe. I hope that the kind of study and the kind of action which is being undertaken
1408
in Kirkby will be followed in many other areas similar to Kirkby which need to be regenerated. Despite being comparatively new, these areas are in great need of regeneration and, to an even greater extent than in the case of the inner urban areas, very often have social and economic problems of a very serious nature.
As has already been mentioned, jobs, housing and recreational and community facilities will probably remain the principal problem in regenerating the urban areas of the old cities. I would suggest that the initiatives taken by Liverpool City Council and other councils in bringing back owner occupation to inner city areas are one extremely important, comparatively cheap and immediately effective way of regenerating the inner urban areas. I would also underline the very considerable work, which the noble Baroness herself mentioned, that housing associations are doing in providing rehabilitated and new-built houses to let. As the noble Baroness said, it is sad that the private sector continues to decline. One would hope to see this decline reversed.
Many of us are concerned that up to now the initiative of the shorthold tenancy does not appear to have met with much success. I believe that there is a role for the private sector, but I would underline that building for owner occupation in the inner areas—I am glad that Mr. Kaufman, the spokesman for the Opposition in the House of Commons, has accepted this—and the housing associations' policy of building to let must he the main means of regenerating these areas.
The problems remain enormous, and it is apposite that the noble Baroness should have brought them to our attention. She will probably agree that it is not just the old cities which have these enormous problems. The many smaller towns where populations have declined—places hardly larger than villages like Blaenau Ffestiniog, where quarrying has almost disappeared—have the same kind of problems, though on a smaller sacle.
I gather that this year we built fewer houses than at any time since the First World War. Rehabilitation, job creation and infrastructure work seem to me to be very important. We have all been regaled by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, about the effect of failing to do infrastructure work on the Roman Empire. I do not think we here are in quite so serious a position, although it is important to take the opportunity of doing important work on the infrastructure which will not only reclaim the infrastructure but will also create jobs—which in itself is probably the most important means, with housing, of regenerating inner urban areas.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating this debate at this time. In part—and only in part—I am sure that the planning not only of our inner cities but also of new estates outside the inner cities has, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said, produced problems of law and order, unhappiness and lack of satisfaction to those who live there.
Before the war I lived for five years in one of the worst slums in Birmingham, where the terraced houses

1409
were back-to-back and where the people very rarely ventured out of their neighbourhoods. The other day, I had the opportunity of meeting some of the people who lived in that area 40 years ago. They looked back upon those days with some nostalgia. We tried to analyse that nostalgia and found that it was due to several things. In those back-to-back, dreary streets there was a neighbourly feeling. For one thing, there were no cars in the roads and so children could play in the streets knowing it was safe and watched by their parents. The children had a playground, albeit not a very satisfactory playground. The women, when their work was done, sat on the doorsteps, talked, and discussed with one another their difficulties, lives and enjoyment. The old men sat outside on those kinds of wooden chairs which were brought out from inside the house. The old men smoked their pipes and talked. There was a sense of neighbourliness and support for one another.
Then came the war. At that stage, I was involved in taking children from London and escorting them to the country. It was a tremendous eye-opener for me, to learn what was in the minds of those children. They were fearful and frightened of the great wide spaces. They were terrified of the sea. They were frightened of the stillness. One child said to me, "Isn't the noise of stillness dreadful?" They did not know what went on in the country. One child with great big eyes said, "I don't understand it. I've just seen a horse with handlebars". I looked up and saw that it was a cow. They had never seen a cow before. Despite the fact that these children had been happy in their neighbourhoods, they were now learning what the countryside was like.
Years later these children returned to their cities. They had high hopes of returning to the inner city areas, but what did they find? They found that it was no longer possible to play in the streets, even if they wanted to do so. No longer were the women able to talk to one another, because of the cars and the traffic and the building of high-rise flats. At that stage, a number of us, having seen children of the inner cities before the war, and having seen children return from the country to the inner cities, realised that one of the things greatly needed was not only good housing but also open space. Several of us made representations to the then LCC. We pointed out that, with the bombing there had been in the East End, here was a great opportunity to set up a park in the East End; why should the West End have Hyde Park and St. James's Park and the East End have none? We thought that this was a magnificent suggestion. It would have drawn together the best of pre-war London and the experiences which the children had had in the country. What were we told? We were told that this could not he done because it was financially impossible. We were told that the land would be needed for housing and that the then LCC would not be able to afford such a scheme because it needed the rates. I went to the East End and, although there was the space, at any rate for a smaller park, this is what we were told. We then made representations to the LCC, asking, if a park could not be made available, could they not dot little squares all over the East End, Islington and the Docklands so that people would have some places to meet? That request was also refused.
1410
How I wish that central and local government could bridge the gap of departmental barriers. How one wishes that planners, architects, civil servants, local government officers and council members could have insight into the emotional needs of people which, if met, would go some way to saving our country money in the very long run and would give happiness to our people.
Many of us are very fond of Post Impressionist paintings and perhaps the most delightful of these shows the Luxembourg Gardens; the old men sitting and talking to one another, the old women pushing prams, the children playing. Such activities do not demand any staff, for they are natural activities in any area. So what now? Even today, when driving through all parts of London, one can still see shored-up buildings which have been bought by the local authority in order to develop them. Has not the time come for us all in central and local government and in the communities to recognise the need that people have for open spaces? Is now not the time to give over what little land is left to open spaces?
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, like the rest of your Lordships, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and to the "luck of the draw", for having this interesting debate introduced today. The matter is one deserving of very careful thought, and it is thought which must be careful and farsighted. In saying this, I am not going to follow what was said by my noble friend Lady Faithfull except that one of my daughters, who was a teacher, said to me some years ago, "Daddy, if ever you get the chance you must beg for spaces where the children can play". This is very important to the environment of a community, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have both said.
I have studied the Statement repeated by my noble friend Lord Bellwin on 9th December on the subject of inner cities. Although, in reply to a question of mine, he agreed that it did not apply to Scotland, he added that the Secretary of State for Scotland was "fully in the picture". Although I shall confine my remarks to my native city of Edinburgh, my remarks will be on matters which concern any city, no matter where it may be, in relation to two particular problems. The problem, as the noble Baroness has said, is a general one.
I turn to the need for by-pass roads, which have received a fillip from recent publications of the intentions of government. They are divided into two sorts: one the by-pass road designed to speed trunk traffic, the other the by-pass road to deal with the concern of this debate, namely, the relief of central inner areas of cities. This brings me to the first point which I believe to be of universal appeal. In a situation which includes the ultimate establishment of a by-pass—it is not every city that has this problem, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, would agree—let the by-pass be constructed as a contribution to the final phase, as early as possible. The need for by-pass roads is now generally accepted, and I see them as of the two types I have described.
The existence of a by-pass will inevitably alter the traffic pattern of the whole area, especially that of the

1411
inner and middle areas of old cities. By-pass problems must be an important contribution to the internal planning; otherwise such internal planning must be based on conjecture. Unless you know what the traffic is going to be like in the centre, plans for roads, buildings and everything else in the centre must be subject to conjecture, and one result of such conjecture can be that, as in the case of Edinburgh, whole areas may, in efforts to relieve traffic pressures for internal road construction, be subjected to "planning blight" which may turn out finally, when the by-pass comes, to be more massive than is ultimately necessary. As for the human issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, they are extremely important and are likely to suffer from excessive road building in inner cities which turns out to be unnecessary in the end.
Nobody has mentioned tower blocks. I had expected my noble friend Lady Faithfull to say something about them. I like the story of the mother in Edinburgh who said she did not like her tower block because, "When I throw a piece out to the wains the seagulls get it before the wains". It is all very well having places for children to play, but from a tower block they cannot be overseen by their parents. Lessons must be learned from what has happened. In whole areas integrated communities in the cities all over the country are being divided; these areas may be broken up and the living environment of the inhabitants impaired or destroyed when existing buildings are needlessly demolished to give place to tower blocks, or these concrete highways which sweep through towns level with the windows. That is my first point—that, if you are eventually going to have a by-pass road, build it first, not last.
My second point has nothing to do with roads but arises from an idea being put forward just now by the Cockburn Association in Edinburgh, whose work in contributing to the conservation of the ancient city over the years is well known. In this connection—I bethought myself of it when the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was speaking—Edinburgh has been irreverently called "the Holy City", because of the ghastly holes in many places where buildings have been destroyed and removed and the sites left gaping, as it were, to the high heaven. Many of them are in the inner centre of the cities; there they are, and Edinburgh is not alone in this respect. The time must come, and the sooner the better, when the development of these vacant sites is taken in hand. Surely, with the success of this Government's policy and resolve, the time has come when construction can begin to be undertaken to revive and reinvigorate the building industry. I say this because one of the major difficulties facing developers in inner cities today is the high cost of land and the high cost of finance. As for the land in local authorities' hands, it is lying idle and unproductive in every way, not only in terms of lost revenue, but also in lost rates. As for finance, in order to encourage filling up the holes with needed buildings the Cockburn Association's suggestion is, I gather, that vacant sites now lying idle might be transferred free of charge to developers who contract to construct thereon, by agreement with the local authority, buildings which the authority will want on completion, to purchase on agreed terms, to be occupied by them or leased by them or sold by them.
1412
In saying that, I turn again to what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said. That is one way of making owner occupation more possible in the city centres: if buildings could be constructed in that way and made available for the local authority to sell, it would contribute to what the noble Lord looked forward to. I gather it will not be long before this proposition or something like it is made to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. It will be very interesting to hear what my noble friend Lord Bellwin may say on this proposal, which has not been touched on before. I hope that this is a worthwhile contribution to the noble Baroness's debate, and I look forward to my noble friend's reply, turning, as I do again, to his Statement of 9th December.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, like other speakers before me, I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating this very interesting and very important debate. Any debate concerned with the regeneration of our cities will almost certainly concentrate on housing, employment and the needs of industry. Although these matters, and the regeneration of wealth, are all essential, we must not lose sight of what is arguably the nation's greatest wealth. That is its children.
There is no doubt that the urbanisation of our society can hit children very hard indeed. Many are born into overcrowded, high density housing, surrounded by increasingly murderous roads. More and more natural play space has been eroded away to be replaced by a hostile, sterile environment of brick and concrete. It has been estimated that in this country an area the size of the Isle of Wight disappears under concrete nearly every year. All these factors stifle the natural instincts and energies of children, many of whom also experience the social and educational problems that tend to have a higher incidence in the city areas.
One of the main requirements is play space and one of the main problems is that land is all too often considered to be too valuable to be spared for the needs of children. We render children's lives quite intolerable if we seek to confine their play to their homes and their usually very tiny gardens. I know that it has been quoted in this House before, but I think that what Lloyd George said in 1925 in a message to the National Playing Fields Association bears repetition. He said:
"The right to play is a child's first claim on the community. No community can infringe that right without doing deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens".
Play is an instinctive need for children as well as a human right recognised by the United Nations in their declaration of the rights of children. Play space is a "must" for children and for this to be used to the best advantage there must be adult involvement in the form of play leaders. Play leaders must make it their aim to see that children do not become bored, because it is when children become bored that we can expect perverted play in the form of vandalism, shoplifting and juvenile crime, of which we have heard a tremendous amount in recent debates in your Lordships' House.
Society cannot afford to deprive children of play opportunities and leadership in their play, any more

1413
than it can afford to deprive them of education. Central and local government spend many millions of pounds educating children for 260 days of the year, but very little is spent on them when they leave school, after school hours and during their holidays. Government recognise that adult play and leisure is of great importance—so much so that they fund the Sports Council to the tune of £21 million, which is a good thing, and the Arts Council to the tune of £80 million. But children's play and leisure is funded to the tune of just a mere few hundred thousand pounds. Government, up to now, have failed lamentably in their responsibility towards children for their play and leisure. It is now time for political acceptance of the importance of play to children as an essential part of their healthy development.
I would urge all those charged with the regeneration of our cities not to overlook the very special human needs that must go hand in hand with economic regeneration. Among those human needs, may significant priority please be given to the very legitimate and important needs of children? Let us bear in mind that today's children are tomorrow's adults. The shape of tomorrow's society depends largely on children and particularly on how they develop into adult life. In this, their play and recreational opportunities have an essential role. Our urban life must necessarily both accommodate and sustain it. I know that funds are limited and that they are needed for countless other commitments. But money spent now on children and their needs for play, will pay tremendous dividends in future years.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I, too, would like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on selecting so interesting a subject for what is, I think, the first debate that she has initiated in this House. It is, of course, a broad subject and there can be few Government policies which do not, in some measure, affect our urban areas. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not respond to all of the points mentioned, some of which, indeed, fall slightly outside my own province.
It is, indeed, in the inner cities that the greatest concentrations of deprivation are to be found: the familiar combination of high unemployment, poor housing, too few job opportunities, inadequate facilities, and socially disadvantaged people left behind as industry and the more enterprising and better-educated have moved to the suburbs or even further afield. It is in those areas that the problems of society, to which the noble Baroness referred, are at their greatest. The communities that remain lack the balance that is necessary if they are to thrive. The problems faced by the people living there reinforce and feed upon each other, creating a vicious spiral of decline.
Of course, these problems are the result of decades of decline. They have not come about overnight and—as much as some of us would like to think that they can—the reality is that they cannot be solved overnight. This Government have maintained their commitment to the inner cities and, as I will show, have taken a wide range of initiatives which demonstrate that commitment. Indeed, I would claim
1414
without any hesitation that no Government have ever before shown such imagination in the width of the range of activities on which they are currently embarked in trying to deal with the problem. For myself, I am particularly pleased to be able to make the Government contribution to this debate because, within the Department of the Environment, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to take a special interest in urban policy.
The Government's aim is to make the inner cities once more places where people want to live and work. But it is no use pretending that it is an easy task. The problems can only be tackled by a co-ordinated approach with the twin aims of getting the best possible value for the huge sums of money already being spent in the inner cities, and by providing additional Government help.
The Government are giving that help in numerous ways. The time available today means that I can give details of only some of them. But the main help is through the special emphasis which we give to inner cities within main programmes, such as dealing with derelict land, and through the urban programme. For 1982–83, despite the general need to control public expenditure, we have been able to increase the total resources available under the urban programme to £270 million—the highest ever in real terms. The great bulk of this will be spent by the partnership and programme authorities; I myself chair four of the six partnership committees and I am responsible for approving the inner area programmes prepared by the 15 programme authorities. In addition, £64 million is being made available to the two urban development corporations which we set up in 1981 to regenerate London and Merseyside docklands. Their expenditure on projects is expected to rise from £15 million in 1981–82 to £50 million in 1982–83.
But we are not in the business of handing out subsidies for marginal projects with little long-term benefit. Making effective use of these resources is at least as important as the volume of resources available. Valuable work is being carried out under the urban programme in many fields. Our priority is, and must be, to secure lasting regeneration by stimulating local inner city economies. For it is only by so doing that the people who live in the inner areas will be able to help themselves—by finding proper jobs and restoring their sense of pride in themselves and their areas. Now more than 50 per cent. of partnership funds go on projects aimed either directly or indirectly at economic regeneration. But all this effort would be fruitless if the private sector were not involved. Public sector activity is not enough. In isolation it does not create real wealth. That is the task of private enterprise, and it is the private sector—not the public sector—on which the inner cities must rely for their future prosperity.
We firmly believe that a new approach to the problems of our older urban areas must involve closer association between local government and the private sector. So local authorities must now first consult in detail with private sector interests before submitting their inner area programmes for our approval. It is essential that they draw in private sector ideas for the inner cities at an early stage, taking full advantage of local

1415
knowledge and experience and, above all, ensure that schemes have local support.
I can tell your Lordships that this co-operation is now most encouraging. I see it happening everywhere and, for the first time, I see a working together between public and private sectors that we have never seen in the past. I do not want to digress, but perhaps I may recall being in a town hall with the local authority membership, when the local chamber of commerce and chamber of trade came in and said: This is the first time for 20 years that we have been here as a body". I thought that that was very encouraging. I should like to be able to say that the meeting that followed was very productive, but frankly it was not. However, it set the base and today, perhaps a year later, there is cooperation between the two sectors; and so it must be.
This same effort to encourage private sector involvement and investment underlines the designation of enterprise zones. Recently I seem to have been asked many questions in this House about enterprise zones, and it is right that I should be asked them. However, I have stressed all along that this is an experiment. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, spoke about blight, and she referred to certain reservations that she has. It is not unreasonable to have reservations because these are still early days. But, as I have said before, I shall say this about it: At least it is an attempt to do something imaginative and to try to see what can be done with areas which, for so long, have simply lain derelict, doing nothing. All we have done in the past is to bemoan the situation and say: "Someone ought to do something about it". Well, someone is trying to do something about it. I am trying to be careful not to go further than I did in answering a Question earlier today, when reporting what is being achieved. Therefore, I shall only say that we are very encouraged by what we see and hope that before too long we shall h able to give more details of why we are encouraged.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps I could ask him a question. As regards enterprise zones, one of the matters with which people are concerned is that of the levy, which in an enterprise zone they cannot pay to the industrial training boards, and are not allowed to. But at the same time they do not receive a grant if they want to send someone for industrial training. This has caused a great deal of disquiet among local authorities, industries and other people. I wonder whether the Government will see this is straightened out. It has been raised before.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I cannot give an immediate answer to the noble Baroness on that point because it is one of the many points at which we are looking. We have appointed people to monitor what is happening and to give an independent view. In addition, we are in touch with the local people who are trying to develop. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, what the noble Baroness says is part of the whole situation which we shall watch carefully. If there is some way in which we can do something better, we shall not hesitate to do so, because this is another genuine attempt to do something about these areas. As I
1416
said in answering the Question, if we are right, and if it is successful, there will be more such areas.
I want to say a few words about enterprise agencies. In answering this debate, apart from picking up the individual points that have been made by your Lordships at the end, it is right that I should give some indication of the various initiatives which are being taken. So it is not just pious words, hopes and generalities; attempts are being made. Therefore, I refer now to the enterprise agencies. For those who do not know it, in the main, these are bodies of the private sector, which come together in various towns with, I think it is fair to say in every case, the blessing of the local authorities and, in some cases, their help. Basically, it is an attempt by people in the private sector—business people, banks, building societies, professional people and even the local press—to get together to form little agencies which will help people who are trying to start in business, who want to be in business, and even those who are already in business and are having difficulties.
There are also many success stories to be told concerning this. At the moment there are some 60 such agencies actually operating. As a result, thousands of new people have started out in business with consequent employment. I do not want to overestimate or overstate the case at all, but there are at least another 50 such agencies which are currently being talked about. If we can spread this enthusiasm throughout the whole country, it would be another major initiative for actually doing something rather than just bemoaning one's fate.
Finally, on that point, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that tax relief will be given on firms' contributions to approved enterprise agencies. I hope that that will be an additional incentive to companies to become involved—perhaps some which may have so far stood back from participation.
Another initiative to involve private sector expertise in our efforts to secure economic regeneration in the inner cities is the secondment of some 40 managers to work with Government for a year. I think that the readiness of companies to come forward in this way must be an encouragement to everyone. Many of your Lordships will also know of what, in the department, we call the Financial Institutions Group, which has seconded to it some 26 managers drawn from banks, building societies, insurance companies and pension funds establishments; they are examining a whole range of questions which they have identified in the older urban areas. They are doing this on their own; they are not being guided or told. We want to see what outside, fresh thinking can bring to the problems and, again, some really exciting ideas are coming forward. We shall see how we can develop them.
Perhaps I may mention the Merseyside task force to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred. He expressed some concern about what it is actually achieving. I thought that what he said was quite contrary to the impression which I had gained from a recent visit to Liverpool, when I spoke to the Liberal leadership of the authority. I thought that they were very keen on what was going on.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, perhaps I

1417
could interrupt the Minister for a moment. The concern that has been expressed has been expressed by the county council, which is controlled by a different party—one further down this Bench from me.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I was about to say that. As regards my right honourable friend's involvement, when he starts to talk to me about things being not "fair" in Liverpool, I know that he is really getting the message there, because he is speaking with the Liverpool accent. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is not here; I am sure that he would come to my aid on that. But he would say that it is not "fair" at all.
The task force is, indeed, concentrating on projects rather than grand strategies, because of the vital need to get matters moving right now and not to wait. If they ought to be more involved in strategies, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, implied, then that and the rest of his remarks that he has made today, will be passed on to my right honourable friend, who I know will be very interested to read them. But, again, it is another attempt to tackle a most serious problem; arguably, in terms of scale, I should have thought the most serious of all the inner urban area problems in the whole of the country. That would be my assessment.
I have stressed the priority we are giving to economic regeneration, but that does not mean that we are not conscious of the need to improve services for people who are already living in the inner cities. Local authorities already spend vast amounts of tax and ratepayers' money on education and social services. This means that the main scope for improvement must obviously be through more effective use of those resources. But a sizeable part of urban programme resources are used for social projects, particularly those which do not fit easily into existing programmes—for example, because they are innovative and involve a voluntary sector, or are aimed at the special needs of particular groups such as the ethnic minorities.
I am particularly pleased to be able to say that through that programme we support about 350 projects designed specifically to benefit ethnic minorities, in addition to the multitude which benefit all inner city residents. It must be remembered that over half the ethnic minority population live in designated inner city authority areas. So in considering area programmes we are always conscious of the special ethnic dimension.
My noble friend Lady Gardner referred particularly to the need for better sport and recreation facilities in urban areas. She is absolutely right. I think at this time perhaps more than ever before there is a need to recognise this. We are doing so. Last year some £22 million was spent on recreational projects under the urban programme, and that is quite apart from whatever the Sports Council and other bodies may do. For the partnerships the figure was £13 million, which in fact represented 12 per cent. of their total spending.
As in other aspects of the urban programme we believe it is vitally necessary for local authorities to involve the local community and the private sector in recreational projects as well. One of the initiatives my right honourable friend was able to take during his first visit to Liverpool last summer was his announcement
1418
that he would match pound for pound, up to a total of £2 million, money that private sporting interests could raise for local sporting and leisure facilities on Merseyside. I understand that the response has been magnificent. As with other initiatives which we are currently taking on Merseyside, we shall want to consider the lesson that this teaches for tackling similar problems in other conurbations.
I want to mention here a point that my noble friend Lady Gardner mentioned when she referred to the problem of what happens when companies move out of the area because of the rate burden. I am anxious not to stress the political side of this whole debate. I recognise it is there and that it cannot go away, but we should concentrate today as far as we can on looking at what really happens. There surely now can be few who would say other than that where rates are high it means that people, businesses, stores, the kind of companies my noble friend mentioned, just have to move out. They cannot stay.
I was in a meeting with one local authority who asked me to try to bring in the private sector—and this was another one who had not been in the town hall for many years. I sat down with them to try to see how they would work together and to help. It was so difficult when a number of them said, "Why do you expect us to come here and help? We are moving out. Why should we pay so much more here?" and I shall not state the figures they mentioned—"when down the road in an adjoining authority we pay much less?", and the figures were staggeringly less. "Why should we remain here?" they said, to which there truly is no answer. Why should they? These were like authorities. One could not say, "Well, one is a shire county and one is an inner city"; they were like authorities. I was frankly embarrassed for the authority I was trying to help.
If we get over to authorities—and, frankly, I think we can; with the odd exceptions of some who are so steeped in dogma that they just do not want to know, the message is getting over—that high spending means high rates, and that means that people cannot afford to continue to stay in their authority area and must look elsewhere, I am hoping that that too will be a situation which will improve.
I am not going to rise to the bait that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, put out about discussion of the figures of grants to the partnership authorities. We are having a healthy correspondence. I am sure your Lordships would like to know that. It goes on pretty much all the year round. At the moment it is dealing with this issue. I could quote figures which I think would show the noble Baroness that her suppositions are not correct, but then We will leave that for another day because time is getting on.
I would say on finance that we are trying to stress the point that there will be room, indeed there is room, for greater capital spending in the inner cities if there is less emphasis, if there is a reduction, on current spending. It has been the almost obsession with current spending in the past which has led to this on-going, continuing commitment of money year after year which has been at the expense of massive cutbacks of capital spending; 65 per cent. has been the cutback in capital spending over the last seven years—I am saying this off the top of my head. This is an

1419
enormous cutback, and has reflected itself in work for the construction industry, and so on.
That is why we emphasise wherever we can the need for more spending where money is there—and it is there. As I mentioned in answering another recent question, local authorities now have some hundreds of millions of pounds of capital receipts which they can spend as they wish. I am hoping that some of that, indeed a lot of it, will go in spending on capital projects for the inner cities. Not all capital spending necessarily has to result in future revenue outgoings as well. If you repair your housing stock, if you rehabilitate it, that has no on-going commitment for revenue purposes. I hope that is something else that will be received.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, mentioned his concern that we should also look to areas outside the immediate inner city. He is quite right. in some cases you get housing estates with problems of dereliction and deprivation every bit as bad as anything you will find in the immediate inner city area. The only difference is that it is not as concentrated. The scale is not quite the same. One is always between the Scylla on the one hand of wanting to concentrate the help so everyone can see that things are happening, and the Charybdis on the other hand of sprinkling it too widely and doing a little to help but in practical terms achieving not too much. In looking at programmes I try to be flexible about this, and I shall go on being flexible, and we shall try to help wherever we can.
May I touch on some of the points raised in the debate. I am so glad that my noble friend Lady Gardner spoke about homesteading. She is right. It is an opportunity. I should like to see much more. The former GLC administration put some 1,300 houses out to be done in this way, and that was good. Unfortunately, the present administration are not concerned about this and are doing nothing. But happily Westminster, as an authority, is now coming forward with an imaginative scheme. That is splendid because any scheme that will take old, broken-down, clapped-out dwellings and give them to people who are willing to work on them themselves, and they can then have their own homes, must be good and a benefit for housing generally.
My noble friend Lady Gardner also spoke about shorthold. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, "Well, it has been disastrous". I say on this issue the same as I said on enterprise zones; anything which attempts to improve a situation and which makes it better can never be said to he disastrous, because it is only making better something already existing. There are now several thousand homes let under shorthold. Certainly over 5,000 was the figure at the end of last year. It is going up now. I would have to remind the noble Baroness (and I do this as gently as I can) that the scheme would have had much more success had her right honourable friend in another place not announced at the time of its introduction that should his party eventually come to office—in that unlikely but not impossible event—they would do away with shorthold. What encouragement under shortholds can that be to landlords to let? So, with respect to the noble Baroness, she must not say too much about the achievements or otherwise of shortholds.
1420
My noble friend Lady Gardner talked about dentists, and I understand that a review is going on along. the lines she mentioned. While I am sure that today she will not expect me to be too specific on the subject, I hope she is pleased to hear me say that. She also referred to exactly what rate increases mean when a district or borough levies its own rate, only to find that the precepts from outside bodies—the GLC, ILEA or metropolitan counties—make almost a mockery of what they have achieved. How can one react, except feel depressed about it? Those concerned with the matter can be assured that the Government are very cognisant of it. I must choose my words carefully; I will only say that it cannot stay like that forever.
My noble friend Lady Gardner also talked about abolishing rates on empty property, which is a real problem for many people. I know of at least two people who have actually pulled down property on which they could not afford the rates. What an indictment that is! I would only tell my noble friend that we have powers to change the 50 per cent. mentioned in the Act, and that we are watching the situation carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, said the shire counties got more favourable resources than the towns and cities. I wish he were with me at some of the consultative meetings I have to attend, when we hear the opposite case put most forcefully. I think everyone would say that certainly this year, in the last settlement, extra emphasis was placed on the GRAs (the grant-relation assessments) for social services and other such factors. There are now 62 factors going to make the rate support grant settlement, and we are attaching much emphasis to those problems precisely to help the inner cities.
Both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned Knowsley. The noble Baroness agreed that her own Government did not designate Knowsley, and she went on to say—I noted her words carefully—that they would have hoped for a change. I am not sure what she meant by that, unless she meant it was hoped we would make a change. Again, I can only tell her—I hope this will comfort her—that we are always willing to review the matter of designation. What we try to do in cases like Knowsley, Sandwell and Coventry—there are areas which are not designated—is to give extra help under the traditional urban programme which, as she knows, is another source of funds.
When we see the programmes for near-miss authorities—what a dreadful term that is; I cannot think of being called anything worse than a near-miss authority—we try to look very favourably at their applications for projects and schemes and be helpful to them. I assure the noble Baroness that the game is not over and that we are looking into the issue all the time. Imagine the position if we were to say, "Yes, we are about to announce new designated areas, but the following will no longer be designated". We should start receiving delegations as soon as the list was published. There is only so much money and it must be spread out.
I have said most of what I wanted to say, although I could go on speaking for hours on this subject which, as noble Lords will be aware, is very close to my heart.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that we had a Statement earlier and that at least 40 minutes remain before we shall have completed two and a half hours on this debate?
Lord Bellwin: I am tempted, my Lords, and in view of my noble friend's interruption, the very least I can do is refer specifically to the point he made about the number of small sites standing idle in inner areas, and he even suggested that some of them should be given away to people willing to develop them. So far as Scottish cities are concerned, I must refer that suggestion to the Scottish Office, and I take pleasure in so doing.
In England, through our land register initiative we are making sure that public authorities take a more realistic view of their land holdings, and we have decided to concentrate on larger sites so far as the formal registers are concerned. Some very interesting results are coming out of the land register procedure, to which I did not refer earlier in the interest of some brevity, despite the comments of my noble friend Lord Ferrier. But as I have been reminded that I might take a little more of your Lordships' time (I hope the Chief Whip is not listening) I should perhaps comment on the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the need for more open spaces in inner cities, a subject to which my noble friend Lord Ferrier also referred. She referred to East London, and I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner will tell us of the GLC's efforts, notably Victoria Park in Hackney and Burgess Park in Southwark, both major new parks.
Under the urban programme, we have helped to fund a number of new open space developments, many of them small-scale environmental improvements; for example, improving the surroundings of some of the tower blocks to which my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred, or opening up some of the derelict sites, surrounded by rusty corrugated iron, which despoil our cities. Some of them have been on a larger scale; for example, the new open space surrounding the Britannia Leisure Centre, which was also built up in Hackney with urban programme support.
Being the final speaker for the Government in debates of this kind—I sometimes feel that I should go into the watchmaking business, I wind up so much—one is always concerned lest one has not referred to the points made by so many of your Lordships, many of which in this debate have been particularly apposite. I promise that I shall write to any noble Lord whose point I have not covered, in so far as it is a matter which concerns the Government, and I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner will have a comment to make about that.
I conclude by saying that urban problems are not confined just to these shores; we are looking also at what is being done in other countries, at how they are trying to tackle their problems, not least in the United States, and some of their experiences are very helpful to us. As I said at the beginning, the problems which the areas we have been discussing face have been developing over decades and the real solution will be slow. However, I hope I have shown, at least so far as the Government are concerned, that we have begun that process, and we are determined it will succeed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to thank those who have taken part in the debate. I have greatly appreciated their contributions, which have been very wide-ranging and which have taught me a great deal about other cities I knew little of. I. also thank the Minister for a comprehensive and detailed reply. I appreciate his comments and I am grateful to him for mentioning the amount the GLC has done to provide open spaces. I would only add that apart from open spaces on the land, they have done a great deal to encourage water facilities and recreation on the Thames and canals of London, and those are not to be overlooked. Again I thank the Minister, and I am most grateful because he covered almost all the points raised in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Copyright, Designs and Performers' Protection
5.19 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead Lord Lloyd of Hampstead rose to call attention to the consultative document on the Reform of the Law relating to Copyright, Designs and Performers' Protection; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was in March 1977 that the Whitford Report on copyright first saw the light of day and, as is often the fate of reports of that sort, it gathered dust for a number of years, virtually neglected by successive Governments and, indeed, by Parliament. So far as I have been able to ascertain, this is the first occasion since 1977 that the report has actually been the subject of a debate in either House.
However, the present Government have at last bestirred themselves, and in July 1981 they produced a Green Paper (the consultative document) which is now the subject of our debate, though one cannot perhaps avoid wondering whether, after all those years, it might not have been possible for the Government to reach conclusions and to give us the benefit of a White Paper. Of course consultation is always valuable, but one cannot help wondering when consultation is going to end. When in the introduction to the Green Paper the Government hope for what they call "a lively public debate", one cannot help feeling that, after such a long period of neglect, it is a little disingenuous to look forward to such a prospect. However, I hope that the discussion in your Lordships' House will at any rate provide some semblance of such a debate. I would venture to think that our hope is not so much for soft words at this stage, but for some form of positive action.
Yet, despite the long neglect, the importance of copyright law is not in doubt. It provides a legal framework within which considerable areas of our cultural and industrial life are able to function. Unfortunately, however, it is also one of the most complex and technical branches of the law, concealed behind almost impenetrable jargon. In this respect the United Kingdom is somewhat worse off than many other countries, because of the peculiar style in which the Copyright Act 1956 is framed. As the Whitford Report says, the Act may be a draftsman's dream but it has proved a nightmare to those who try to understand

1423
it. The report goes on to cite as an example the difference between the German copyright law and our own.
It might be of some interest to your Lordships to have a comparison between the opening subsections of the two respective pieces of legislation. The German statute, by Article 1, provides that
"The author of an intellectual work shall, by the mere fact of its creation, enjoy an exclusive property right in the work effective against all persons".
That is a fairly straightforward statement, I should have thought, of what the Act is about.
This is how Section 1(1) of the English Act begins:
"In this Act, 'copyright' in relation to a work (except where the context otherwise requires) means the exclusive right, by virtue and subject to the provisions of this Act, to do, and to authorise other persons to do, certain acts in relation to that work in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which the relevant provision of this Act extends".
That, your Lordships might well think, is something of a mumbo-jumbo, and therefore one might understand why Whitford called for the whole general structure of the Act to be revised in order that the law might be placed on a plain and uniform basis. The Green Paper has replied that it will attempt that so far as possible. But one suspects that what will probably result will be some piecemeal legislation. I would venture to suggest that what is probably needed in this area is to set up a small, expert drafting committee, not to consider changes in the law, but to redraft the Act itself. Of course, it is most important that that process should not hold up the vitally needed legislation, but there seems no reason why that larger process should not go on and develop while the amending legislation is being put through.
I now turn to the substance of the report. The Whitford Report is a massive document, which took four years to prepare. It called for a complete overhaul of the law, and made over 100 specific recommendations. I should like here to pay a belated tribute to Mr. Justice Whitford and his distinguished team of eight ladies and gentlemen, who devoted so much of their time, over many years, to assisting the public interest in advising how this branch of law might be amended.
In opening this short debate it is impossible to do justice to the wealth of material contained in the report. Therefore, I must be ruthlessly selective and, in so doing, I hope that no one will think that I am overlooking the innumerable matters that I am unable to mention. I propose to concentrate on two areas which have been the subject of particular concern. They both result from technological innovations not even foreseen at the time of the 1956 Act, and which have made further strides even since Whitford.
These two areas are, first, photocopying—referred to in both the report and the Green Paper by the rather unlovely expression "reprography"—and, secondly, recording on sound and video cassettes, including video discs, which I understand are to appear on the British market in May of this year.
First, I should like to make a general observation. Copyright law has to seek some kind of balance between what might be the conflicting interests of authors and publishers, and those of members of the public. The law sets out to protect the products of intellectual creativity and the livelihood of authors
1424
and artists, as well as the great industries which have arisen in modern times for the exploitation of these products. At the same time, there is the public interest which is served by a legal mechanism which encourages and supports creative work and enables the public to enjoy its fruits.
Often, however, it is very difficult to know where the balance is to be struck, and the crux of this emerges in particular in the area of research and teaching, where the taking of copies might be absolutely essential. Does this mean that everyone must first obtain consent of the copyright owner, or pay a fee for every copy that he takes? When copying was a rather laborious affair that was perhaps not a very vital issue, but in the present day, with the ease with which it can be accomplished on a massive scale by photocopying, there is introduced an utterly new dimension.
Authors and publishers, on the one hand, see the rapid erosion of their rights by multiple copying of their works. The eductionial world, on the other hand, stresses the absolute necessity of the enjoyment of these facilities if the whole process of instruction and research is not to grind to a halt. Here perhaps I ought to disclose an interest as at any rate something of a part-time author, but I think I can say that that interest is offset by my equal interest in the educational world. So I hope that I can be regarded as being fairly dispassionate on this subject.
Whitford saw the only solution as lying in providing a blanket licensing system, on the analogy of the Performing Rights Society in the area of music. However, to make this workable, the committee also considered it vital to curtail the existing fair user and library provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The Green Paper is not very explicit on this point, but, as I understand it, it implicitly accepts Whitford's main recommendation about the blanket licensing system, though it has considerable reservations about Sections 6 and 7.
We are faced here with a genuine dilemma. How are we to preserve the features of fair user by the taking of single copies, while restraining abuse by way of systematic multiple copying? There is really no perfect solution. Authors must be protected; or the educational world might end up with no tools of research or teaching at all; suitable texts might simply dry up. At the same time, there is a strong public interest in ensuring access to copyright material, either free or at reasonable cost.
I would suggest that the implementation of the Whitford blanket scheme would be a considerable advance, and that the important thing is likely to be a long and tedious business—one has only to think of public lending right in this connection—so the sooner we get it started the better. Of course, there will have to be some modification of Sections 6 and 7, but I would hope, at any rate, that there would be recognition of the strong case for continuing exemption in the case of university and similar libraries, particularly in regard to learned periodicals.
I turn now to the second problem, which is that of the private recording of audio and video cassettes and discs. Recent developments have effected a technological revolution in our lives. The ease and comparative cheapness with which a recording can be made, either from a disc or from a broadcast programme,

1425
or from another tape, has placed this facility at the disposal of the public at large. The value to the public is undoubted. But what of the copyright owner, whose legal and commercial rights are subject to widespread infringement? There are two aspects here, I think, to he borne in mind. The first is that there is a strong public interest in not being deprived of this facility, provided it is used privately. The second is that it is impracticable to police private copying. Owners therefore have to make a virtue of necessity; but, at the same time, they are surely entitled to the protection of their commercial interests.
There is a considerable threat, both to the recording and to the film industry, of which I suggest the Green Paper makes too light. As regards the recording industry, the Green Paper, while referring to estimated losses of some £50 million a year, contents itself with the comment that it cannot really be precisely quantified. As regards films, we are blandly told that the Government are not convinced that video recording harms the interests of film producers. So far as records are concerned, of course, precise quantification is unattainable. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the damage is very substantial. Moreover, there is a serious effect on the recorded music repertory, which is steadily shrinking owing to the loss of profitability. So far as films are concerned, I venture to suggest that the Government are ignoring the impact that video cassettes are likely to have on the central area of cinema exhibition, as indeed was expanded in the recently published report of the Wilson Committee, the interim action committee on the film industry, of which committee I had the honour to be a member.
The real problem here is likely to arise not so much from the copying of television broadcasts but on account of the widespread copying of prerecorded cassettes and discs. Here it seems to me that the Government are a little naive in their report, because they say that people are unable to copy prerecorded cassettes or discs. I am credibly informed by those whom I believe to be well qualified to speak on this matter that this is far from being the case, and such copying can be effected quite easily. Also, the Government say, it is not worth doing anyhow, but here they appear to overlook the fact that by this copying, as against buying a prerecorded cassette, a considerable saving would be effected.
Whitford favoured the German system of putting a levy on the recording machine, the hardware, for distribution among copyright owners. You can of course also impose a levy on the software, on the blank cassette, and this seems a sensible proposal—and I venture to think it deserves more careful consideration than is given it in the Green Paper. The Government's arguments regarding audio are really not very convincing, and indeed in some aspects are rather trivial. For example, they say that part of the levy would go abroad.
Their main objections are, first, that on the industry's own figures it would need a £1.40 levy per blank cassette, and that this is more than the traffic will bear. I think the answer to that is that the industry do not have in mind any such huge levy; they would certainly be content, on my information, with a levy of 50p, which probably would not make the cost of
1426
blank cassettes prohibitive. The Government's second main point is that the increase in prices is contrary to the Government's anti-inflation policy. This seems to be quite misconceived. Copyright law surely cannot be framed to conform with a particular Government's economic policies. Copyright law has to have an element of permanence, and cannot fluctuate as economic policy changes.
My Lords, I regret that time does not permit my going into numerous other important matters dealt with by Whitford and discussed in the Green Paper. I should have very much liked to have had time to refer to the pressing problem of piracy of feature films, which poses a most serious threat to the film industry. Indeed, the melancholy fact is that London is now the acknowledged centre of this illegal copying trade. I find little consolation to be derived from the fact that one of the main reasons, apparently, why London enjoys this dubious preeminence is because of the superior technical resources that we possess in the film industry, which makes this process more simple.
This matter, anyhow, has received some airing as a result of the Private Bill which was introduced the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher. I should have thought that there was at any rate clearly a strong case for tightening up the law, and particularly putting increased penalties in the place of the really derisory level of penalties for which the present law provides. Other noble Lords will doubtless wish to deal with some of these matters in greater detail, but I have more than exhausted the appropriate time allotted to me and, accordingly, I beg to move for Papers.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for initiating this debate. As he said, it is a large and intricate subject, and we cannot do full justice to it in a short debate. However, many of the proposals in the Green Paper could be discussed only by professionals and by well-briefed interest groups, for the problem of protecting their copyright demands a knowledge of practices and techniques which most of us are unlikely to possess.
Indeed, some of the Green Paper, let alone the Act istelf, is hardly comprehensible for this reason, and because the authors of it have been too economical of space as they have ranged across problems from gear wheels and exhaust pipes, through grand opera to computer programmes via satellite television. However, there is an important range of problems which immediately affect us at the receiving end—the problems which the noble Lord discussed, arising from reproduction in sound and in pictures, in voice and in vision.
A difficulty arises because many of us have been reproducing copyright material for our own use over a number of years, first by our tape recorders, then by the photocopier and finally, perhaps, by video, and the owners of the copyrights have so far muttered a good deal but they have made no effective protest against what has been a fast developing practice. So now, when we are confronted by proposals to claim copyright, we feel as the villagers might do who have been crossing a field for years and then suddenly find that they have no right of way in law and the farmer wants to block the entrance, or even put a bull in the field

1427
to scare them off. The fact is that the record makers have been contemplating something analogous to the bull frightener. They have been searching for a device, inaudible when a record is played but which will make a nasty noise on a tape taken from that record. They have not, it seems, conquered the technical difficulty. I hope myself that they never will. I tape my own records because I find that tapes call for less effort to play and are less easily scratched than is a record. But, first, let us look at what is horribly called, in a kind of Latin-Greek mix up, reprography—a new vice which all of us practise here in our House of Lords Library.
Of course, it has always been accepted that a person could copy bits from a book by hand or even with the help of a typewriter, and it has long been the practice of the teachers to copy out and reproduce passages from text books, from literature or short poems and then to distribute them to the class. One of my earliest childhood recollections was of being given a copy of some verses by Walter de la Mare. But the teacher had to expend considerable effort. She had had to write this out in script and then to reproduce it by a primitive device colloquially known as a "jellygraph". No doubt many people will recall when handwritten letters were duplicated before being sent out. They were duplicated in a great Victorian device, a press-copying book. At a time in my life when the summit of my ambition was to become a clerk at Manchester Town Hall, I had to learn how to use a press-copying book.
Reprography was in its infancy during our childhood and, as long as it was arduous and the quantity produced was modest, this form of reproduction was happily accepted. But the photocopier of today, as the noble Lord has said, is so easily operated and so quick as to encourage proliferation. It adds enormously to the efficiency of teaching. The other day I came across an adult student pouring over a dozen pages of James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake. He told me that all 15 members of the class had received these reproduced pages from their diligent teacher. Previously she would have had to read out the passages aloud and her students would have had to wait to borrow the book. Since they were doing a score of books in the year, it would have been impossible for the college to provide each of the 20 books for all students; but before the day of the photocopier the college might have felt it necessary to provide two or three copies of each of the books; and so there was probably a loss to the publishers in the use of the photocopier in this context.
The practice is to some extent defensible, as the noble Lord has said, when it performs a public good such as in formal education. But this is only part of the story. Many large business firms today have libraries or information units staffed by people familiar with the technical processes and business environment of the firm. It is common practice for these people in the information departments to milk the learned journals and trade magazines for items of particular interest to the firm's executives, to photocopy them and to distribute them around. Previously these firms might have taken several copies of the journals and worked out a distribution plan so that each executive could have a sight of them within a few weeks.
It is this wholesale use of reproducers that disturbs
1428
publishers, and it is not unjust that they should now try to get some reward. The problem is: how should the money be collected? How much should be collected, and from whom? And how should it be distributed, and to whom? One of the difficulties of the subject is that nobody knows how much of this illicit wholesale copying goes on, and how much it damages the sales of copyright works. How does one find out what happens between consenting adults in private?
My Lords, obviously one cannot. The old Whit-fordians recommended blanket licensing of libraries. The owners of copyrights should transfer them to a central collecting society which would levy royalties at standard rates and then disburse them to the original copyright owners. But the Whitford Committee went further. They wanted to remove those sections of the 1956 Act which permit a student to make a facsimile copy for himself for private study and permit the users of the library to buy single copies from the librarian. I think that the Government were quite right to purse their lips and to frown upon this suggestion from the Whitford Committee, although they are willing to tighten up Sections 6 and 7 to prevent or deter abuse.
Of course, it is true that libraries able to give the limited facilities permitted by the section might not find it necessary to take out a licence under a blanket scheme. But if they want to do more than the law now allows, they would have to pay the licence fee. It seems from this Green Paper that already, under the existing law, the copyright owners could band together to create licensing schemes, certainly for industrial and professional organisations, although it would obviously be useful to have an official copyright tribunal to judge disputed rates and conditions.
The British Copyright Council join Whitford in wanting these permissive sections to be removed. They seem not to believe that educational institutions would behave properly and might break the law which would forbid multiple copies of the same material. I do not think that this would happen in educational circles and, if this was applied to schools and universities, I should have thought that the authorities could easily keep a check on what is going on simply by the amount of expensive paper which is used.
My Lords, I have spent some time on this limited aspect of the Green Paper because I think that this is the most important section of the Green Paper. It is most important because it is concerned with education and with the transmission of knowledge and information. The problems set up by tape recorders and video recorders are concerned to some extent with culture but largely with entertainment, with fun. Reprography diminishes our ignorance and adds to our inadequate stock of knowledge; but gramophone records increase what, even without them, would be a pretty adequate supply of entertainment.
With the tape recorder, one must start by saying that not everyone uses them for music and, of course, even for those who do, it is not always gramophone records that they tape. Recorders can be used for a variety of purposes. They are excellent for language studies and for the effortless jotting down of ideas about a book that one is reading, for passages that people may need to know for examination purposes, for drafting essays and speeches. I should imagine that all the students of the Open University tape record

1429
the lectures that are concerned with their courses.
The suggestion of a levy on tape recorders to reward copyright owners is not acceptable, but a modest levy on blank cassettes might be accepted because those who use the recorder as an aid to study need to buy only a limited number of cassettes and, as a great deal of the information on them will be ephemeral, they can be wiped off and used again. It is not unreasonable, however, that the tape should bear some small levy once we put out of our minds the absurd idea that almost every tape made is a record sale lost. Many people will tape a record which they would not dream of buying.
The figures given in the Green Paper do not enlighten us very much. From 1973 to 1979 the economic lean years following the oil crisis—the number of trade deliveries of LPs stayed consistent at about 100 million a year. Almost twice as many people in that period gained access to a tape recorder. The sale of blank cassettes doubled to 35 million a year. To make much of these figures one would have to know a lot more about changes in population, age, income, tax rates and so forth. Yet at the end of it common sense tells one that record companies lose quite a bit, that some people who would buy a particular record avoid doing so by recording a borrowed or a broadcast record.
The Green Paper asserts that to give a degree o compensation would need a levy that was a high percentage of the sale price of tapes. They base this on a survey made in 1977 when 35 million blank tapes were sold, and the conclusion was that their use for unauthorised recording cost the industry 25 million lost sales.
I cannot take this seriously. The assumption that the majority of people who spent something like £1·30 on a tape, would have spent nearly a "fiver" on an LP, does not accord with common sense or everyday experience. Accepting for the moment this figure, the Green Paper estimates the loss would require, as the noble Lord has said, a levy of £1·40 on every tape of this length, which would more than double its price. Obviously, a levy of that kind would kill the tape and the recorder industry.
The White Paper, however, comes to the sensible conclusion that the losses to the record industry cannot he measures, and so if a levy is to be put on the tapes, the percentage is an arbitrary one. Wisely, the authors refrain from saying what that percentage should be. It is, they say, a matter for the Government and they would wish to consult the industry and the consumers.
My guess is that in the end the copyright owners may get a very modest compensation for unquantifiable losses, just as authors get a modest sum for the multiple use of their works in libraries. The number of cassettes sold, according to one of the publications of the British Copyright Council, is 60 million. At 50p each that would mean handing over a sum of £30 million to the companies. That is quite a considerable sum in total. But there is no encouragement even for such as this in the Green Paper.
The Copyright Council's heart must have sunk when they read the dread conclusion:
"The Government has still not received convincing evidence that the introduction of a levy on audio or video equipment or blank tape would provide an acceptable solution; at the end of
1430
the day it may have to be accepted that there is in fact no acceptable conclusion".
Still, all is not quite lost. They say:
"The Government however would welcome a public debate before reaching any final conclusions on the matter
Since, however, the industry has already made its views clear, the only people who have not yet been consulted are the consumers. It is very hard to believe that they would support for one moment any idea that the price of tape recorders or tapes should be increased.
The Government have, one notices, carried on the logic of the tape recorder to the video recorders, which of course are now in a phase of explosive development. There is a tremendous difference between people recording televised material for their own use and the pirates who are making copies for sale and costing the industry very heavy sums of money. However cautiously one approaches the subject of a levy for private recording, one must hope that the Government will do all they can to stop the piracy. We have already explored that subject a week or two ago, in the debate on the Second Reading of the one clause Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher.
The Government, I suggest, should give this Bill the little parliamentary time it needs. It is not enough to say that the Government will not hinder the Bill, which was the reply which the noble Lord gave at the end of the debate; they should really say that they will give some positive help. It is obvious from the Green Paper that with a subject so complex and fraught with difficulties and controversies—unresolved controversies—it is going to be a considerable time before we see a Bill giving a substantial reform of the law of copyright, and the delays are even greater because there is a temptation to wait until there is a European directive on the subject. As one knows, the Community do not act exactly at the speed of light. I think that it will be quite a considerable time before we see a Bill on this subject. In the meantime, the publishers should think again about the Government's suggestions. I do not think that it is going to be possible to persuade any Governments to abolish the permissive sections (Nos. 6 and 7) of the Copyright Act.
But will these permissive sections, if they are amended really make the blanket licence worthless, as the Copyright Council suggests? Surely, if the law allows the copyright owners to protect their right by the use of blanket licences, they should make every endeavour now to protect that right. If it proves in practice to be worthless, then they have a strong case for asking the Government for legislation.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for initiating this debate, for although I wish to speak on only one matter it is, I believe, of some importance. I refer to the relationship of copyright ownership to education. The nature of the educational process has been changing and will continue to change very fast because of the explosive growth of communications technology. It may still be true that education requires only a teacher, a student and possibly a blackboard, but it is no longer practicable on a large scale. Teaching materials as aids in the process are already common. Books have, after all, been with us for a long

1431
time. Even in my young days there were wall charts and slides as well as the jelly graph. Very soon, however, we will have studio and video recordings on tape, disc and film. We will have recorded programmes of computer assisted learning; we will have individual access, via a terminal with a monitor screen, to central computer stores of reference material of all kinds, and we will have other aids based on technology not yet developed, although someone may already be dreaming of them.
Changes of this magnitude raise new problems of copyright. In the Open University we had to think of them rather sooner than most people because the university was to depend on the new technology to reach students in their own homes. It was decided at the outset that conditions of service for academic staff would make it clear that all copyright and teaching materials would vest in the university. I am perfectly certain that this was the right decision. I am equally sure that it is a condition that will have to be applied in future to the staffs of all Government funded educational institutions. I am not trying to take away from individual teachers their rights to make extra money in other ways on the books that they have written or the learned works that they have written. It is therefore vital to define very closely what is meant by "teaching materials". Lecture notes clearly are—text books clearly are not.
In the Open University, staff were given the right to determine the date on which their teaching materials should be withdrawn because they were out of date; and we undertook to permit them to use teaching materials where they wished as pieces of a privately published book or other work. But just as I am clear about it being right and proper to do these things, I am equally clear that there is no justification for payments to a teacher whose lecture notes, for instance, prepared for use in one university, are used in another. But this is the current understanding and it has meant that there has been very little exchange of teaching materials in this way. This perhaps does not matter very much in the case of cheaply-produced lecture notes or slides but it will matter very much with expensive video tapes and expensive recorded programmes of computer-assisted instruction. One hour of student instruction of this type may require one-quarter of a man-year of academic staff-time to prepare, to say nothing of the costs of recording.
Thus it is commercially essential that such teaching materials are used by large numbers of students, and this may require their use in more than one institution. This should not be inhibited by copyright restrictions. If one member of staff in each of 45 universities made one video-recording and all 45 recordings were used in all 45 universities, then, if any award were paid to individual authors, no less than 1,980 such awards would be payable and the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. He already pays the salaries of all 45 members of staff and supports all the students. He should not be further burdened. I hope that the Government will take all the steps they can and will encourage others to take steps, where necessary, to ensure that we do not get into this position.
There is just one other point I should like to touch on. The Whitford Committee has recommended that
1432
when copyright in a work vests in an employer it should be the case that:
"if the work is exploited in a way not within the contemplation of the employer or the employee at the time of making the work, the employee should have a statutory right to an award from his employer."
I very much hope that the Government will reject this recommendation, which can only make the situation worse. It is always difficult to determine what was or was not contemplated; it is wholly impossible to contemplate the technology of tomorrow. The proposal would be bound to cause friction and to inhibit the exchange of teaching materials. The present Copyright Act of 1956 is better left unchanged in this respect.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for initiating this debate this afternoon and for bringing the consultative document to our attention. At the risk of boring your Lordships, I also wish to confine my remarks to the problems of the record industry. In doing so, I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Musicians' Union and I have a group of musicians who have made records and intend to make many more. Having personally financed the making of one LP, I am only too well aware of the way in which the collective skills in manufacturing records can be cheaply copied by members of the public, who then enjoy the product without contributing any cost to the production whatsoever.
The British record industry is a major export earner, with a 25 to 30 per cent. share of the American market, which itself constitutes one-third of the world market. Its trading activity is valued at an annual total of £1,500 million. The large companies have never sought legislative assistance for their problems, as can be seen with their recent success in bringing commercial piracy of their products to below 3 per cent. in the United Kingdom and the prevention of dumping within the EEC of cheap, often pirated, products through action in the European courts.
In 1973, 30 per cent. of the adult population in this country had access to a recording facility—now it is probably in the region of 70 per cent. I think that my figures may be possibly at some variance with those of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, but the sale of blank cassette tapes has risen from 15 million per year in 1977 to a figure probably in excess of 70 million at the moment, of which 98 per cent. are manufactured elsewhere.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, if I may interrupt for one moment, in the Green Paper it goes from 15 million to 35 million but in the paper which was distributed by the British Copyright Council, it goes up to 60 million. You have now added 10 million to that; so at 50p per go that is £35 million for the industry.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am sure that between us we are pretty near to the actual figure. The evidence that vast sale losses are occurring is undeniable. It is estimated that over 200 million LPs are copied every year and that between 50 million and 60 million of those copies

1433
prevent a legitimate sale. This represents about half the United Kingdom industry's current output and about £100 million per year lost by the rights owners from private copying. The industry is now faced with such an enormous problem that it is unable to remedy matters without governmental assistance. The business of home taping is a massive and uncontrollable form of law breaking, for under the present Act it is an infringement to make a recording of a piece of copyright music or of a copyright record.
The law has to change with the times. It would be impossible and impracticable to prevent the copying of records and broadcast items; but some way must be found to compensate the artists and manufacturers for this massive loss in revenue. Successive Governments have always accepted the principle that the fruits of intellectual endeavour should be protected, and this county has traditionally led the world with its protective legislation.
As a musician, I am very aware of the shortage of work for other members of the profession. The number of recording sessions has been cut back, particularly in the classical field, and I feel that this lack of work is due to the growth of home taping and the inadequate protection for our musicians, composers and artists, together with the record companies and publishers. The vastly broadened repertoire of the record business over the last 20 years has made a wide catalogue of music available and there are signs that, largely because of home taping, the recorded music business will be unable to keep this very broad spectrum of music on the market. The music profession has never been an easy one: life as a musician is precarious and there is a relatively low level of government support for music in this country.
I feel that the proposals in the Green Paper are very disappointing in relation to the record industry and to our musicians, who have brought us to the top in world standards. The issue is really very clear—all civilised nations provide some protection and assistance for creative workers. Rapid technological advance makes it essential to keep these protections under constant review.
New technology is rapidly changing our daily lives. How can the manufacturers of video cassette machines, video disc players, cable TV systems and satellite broadcast systems expect anyone to buy their products if there is nothing to show on it? There can only be a product to show if there is a commercial return available for the producers of the product, and there can only be a commercial return if the product is adequately protected both here and abroad. The music industry are united in their response to the developing situation. It was a pleasure for me to meet the Musicians Union secretary, Mr. John Morton, on Monday and to learn that he is in complete agreement with the proposals formulated by the record companies and the British phonographic industry.
Because many citizens are now unwilling lawbreakers, the Government have only three possible courses of action. They can ignore the matter; they can take away the protection at present afforded by the law; or they can act to remedy the situation. I know the Minister has been provided with comprehensive details of the music industry's scheme, so I will not go into too many details of their proposals except to
1434
say that these problems can be solved by charging a royalty on the sale of blank tapes. The industry are entirely happy that they have the machinery to impose and collect this levy, probably with existing copyright protection societies. They have proposed details of the allocation of the money which would benefit the artists and manufacturers and which would also enable the support of a music development trust fund to promote music and musicians who would not otherwise be recorded by commercial companies. The Green Paper admitted, and the music industry agree, that a figure of £50 million would have to be recovered annually to make good present losses. The allocation of this loss to a levy on blank tapes would certainly double the present cost of an average C.90 tape. The Government may feel that it would be a better idea to make the tape levy smaller-50p has already been suggested—and combine it with a flat rate levy on the sale of recording equipment, as suggested by the Whitford Committee. I feel sure that the record industry would agree to this, as there is no doubt that replacement of existing recording machines contributes greatly to the hardware manufacturers' annual turnover.
I am aware that any increase in costs is against the Government's policy, but I feel sure that the sale of cassette tapes and recording machinery has very little influence on their computations for the cost of living. I am assured by the music industry that the problems of exemption from the proposed levy for tapes of 15 minutes or less, and for cassettes for pre-recorded books for the blind, will be easily accommodated in their plans for collection. The Green Paper also suggested that by pre-recording some trivia on the blank tapes, or by setting up direct mail order depots outside the United Kingdom, the levy could be avoided.
It is the music industry's firm belief that, as the majority of tapes are manufactured by reputable companies, and that as they are well aware of the problems affecting the industry, this simply will not happen. They also believe that reciprocal arrangements with other countries, as they inevitably change their copyright laws, will eliminate the problem of a small percentage of the levy going abroad when non-United Kingdom recording companies, writers or performers are involved. I think that the record industry have got it right, but they do not have long. I urge the Government to give their proposals in this field urgent consideration, and I hope that reform of the copyright law will be given a high priority.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Lloyd for having introduced this debate, because it is a subject that is not debated very often in your Lordships' House, and it is one that rightly needs discussion. The noble Lord referred to copyright law as being a nightmare when you try to understand it. I sat on the Copyright Council for a time and I must say that, at the end of that time, I was completely at sea regarding certain aspects of it. Nonetheless, we must do our best, as everybody has said during the debate, to protect the rights of those who produce creative work. I suppose that I must declare an interest here, in that I now have one published work—I had a few more at one

1435
time—and, therefore, I suppose that I come into that category.
One of the chief problems, certainly, seems to be tape recording in the home. Here I speak with ail due apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, because I know that he does not record any copyright work. But a lot of people do, and the figures that I have been given of the estimated loss on the sale of records are these; in 1977, £75 million, in 1980, £200 million and I have no doubt that the figure will go on rising. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, 98 per cent. of the blank audio tapes come from abroad. There is no major British manufacturer of blank tapes.
The rights which are hit come under three chief headings. There are the manufacturer's costs, there is the composer's royalty which comes via the publisher and, of course, there is the artist's royalty. Your Lordships have heard that the British phonographic industry have recommended a levy on tapes, which I think would be a very workable way of solving the problem. I do not see why there should not be a different levy for short and long tapes, because there is no doubt that it is the long tapes which are chiefly used in the recording of music.
One must remember that every time one makes a home tape, as it is called, one is acting in contravention of the Berne Convention, of which Britain is a signatory, and which reads:
"Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this convention shall have the exclusive right of authorising the reproduction of these works in any manner or form".
Therefore, composers have a right to allow or to prevent the reproduction of their works. But, unfortunately, under present-day conditions they have no earthly way of enforcing it. Therefore, it seems to me that the present law of copyright is very little but a farce.
One cannot possibly go around policing home tapes, as has already been said. One must allow people to make what tapes they like, and to be guided by their own consciences as to whether or not they record something. Much the same problem exists as regards photo-copying. Many schools and education centres have photo-copying apparatus, and I firmly hold that they should be allowed to have them without any restriction whatsoever, provided that the copies which they make are used purely for educational purposes. I think one would find that that regulation was very well held to.
Finally, I should like to mention one anomaly which I have always felt exists in copyright, and that is as regards the composer's copyright. As I have never written a book I cannot speak with any authority, but I believe that the author gives his publisher the licence to print, but himself maintains the copyright for his book. The poor wretched composer has to hand over his copyright to the publisher when he has a work published; otherwise, the publisher will not take it. That seems to me a totally unfair, unjust and unreasonable way of working. I cannot see why the same conditions cannot apply to the composer as to the author. Of course, the composer also gets performing rights whenever his works are put on, I remember that one year I received a magnificent cheque from the Performing Rights Society for £1·40. That was my income for
1436
that one year. Of course, other composers have done better, but it is not a lucrative profession and I think that all protection should be given to artistic creators, who are doing their best to lift us out of the ordinary everyday world.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for introducing this debate, which is very timely. I have also to declare an interest, in that I am an author and the owner of a copyright. I am also chairman of the Authors' Lending and Copyright Society, which collects royalties and other sums of money for authors from various parts of the world and from various organisations.
I also share the concern that has been expressed today at the Government's Green Paper on the reform of the law of copyright. Indeed, in common with the British Copyright Council and the 27 organisations it represents I was shocked by the tone of the Green Paper and by its content. It would be unfair to let this debate go by without letting the Government understand the very great anger and impatience which exists in the industry and among copyright owners about the dragging of the feet which has been going on on this issue.
My initial reaction, after reading the Green Paper, was that the Government did not care a tinker's damn about copyright, copyright owners, authors, composers or publishers. If your Lordships think that this is a heavy charge to make, consider this: as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, said, seven years ago the Whitford Committee was appointed to review the law on copyright and to make recommendations as to its reform. It sat for three to four years. It took evidence from dozens of interested organisations and individuals, evidence which took money and time to prepare, and four years ago it presented its report, a report covering a thorough review of copyright law and containing over 100 well-considered recommendations.
The Government reacted to this report with all the speed and enthusiasm of a crippled tortoise. Three and a half years later they emerged from hibernation with a Green Paper. They brushed aside Whitford's most important recommendations and, after a total of seven years of public debate on the issues, decided that there was a need for a lively public debate on the issues. Moreover, it set no time limit on this new period of debate. It could, presumably, go on for another seven years, by which time our existing law of copyright will be as much good as a leaky bucket at the scene of a major fire.
What is astonishing about the Green Paper is that it is full of the most extraordinary contradictions. It begins, solemnly enough, with statements like "Copyright exists to protect the products of intellectual endeavour", and "(Copyright) serves to protect the individual against plagiarism and ensure reward for his intellectual efforts". Fine, marvellous, wonderful—congratulations! But then, through 60 pages of argument, it proceeds to demonstrate why, in this technological age, such protection is impossible or, at best, too difficult. It not only abandons Whitford's most vital recommendations. It abandons the field, retreating with the cry that we need more debate, more

1437
time, that nothing can be done, that the issues are not important, anyway.
Take the issue of home recording which has been touched on today by several speakers. As your Lordships will know, the invention and development of the audio tape and, more recently, the video tape has led to this enormous increase which has been referred to. You can now record, if one can make a new phrase, music from records or films and programmes from television in the "piracy" of your own home. This is illegal. This is theft. I was a little dismayed by the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, on this matter. It is not quite so simple and quite so easy as he suggested in his speech. He referred—using it, I have no doubt, as a shorthand—to "the industry" and to the fact that "the industry" was complaining of its losses. If the noble Lord cares to look again at the Green Paper, he will see from the figures for the sale of one gramophone record, when broken down, that the money received is distributed to dozens of people. We are talking about composers, lyric writers, shopkeepers, all of whom are robbed of a huge amount each year just as surely as if their pockets were being picked or their safes broken into.
Why on earth do people buy a blank tape? Your own common sense will tell you: they are buying it because they want to record something. And what are they most likely to record? Music, poetry, plays—all the things which are written and put on the radio or on records. That is why they buy blank tapes. So do not turn round and tell people in the business, like myself and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who has spoken, that this is not very a important problem. Millions of blank tapes are being sold and they are being used to steal our property.
What is the Government response to this widespread flouting of the law? They argue, in effect, in the Green Paper that since millions of people make illegal recordings, and clearly enjoy doing so, it would be highly unpopular to stop them doing it. This is rather like saying that if mugging is widespread in a certain district nothing should be done by the police to stop the muggers' enjoyment. Surely a law is a law. If it cannot be upheld, then it needs to be revised. The worst possible thing is to allow an ineffective law to creak on without adequate revision.
I am not suggesting—neither did Whitford or the British Copyright Council—that we should appoint an army of uniformed wardens to invade people's homes to see what they are doing. What was suggested is the solution which has been mentioned by other speakers. It is neat, simple and it has been well tried. For years the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society has operated a scheme under which the importers of records from North America and certain other countries have to stick a stamp on each record. I believe that the stamp costs them 61¼per cent. of the retail price. Some 2 million such stamps are sold each year and the money, calculated by computer on the basis of a sample, is distributed to the copyright owners—to hundreds of people.
That would be a very effective and straightforward way of plugging this hole in our copyright law. The machinery is there and it is very simple to operate. For a small cost, the home recordist would be acquitted of piracy, and each tape he purchased would bear a
1438
levy stamp. And, as the Green Paper puts it, the "intellectual endeavour" of the producer would thus be rewarded. It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that if you put a 50p levy on every blank tape it would bring in far too much money: £35 million, £50 million, what-have-you. We are being robbed of far more than that, I do assure my noble friend. In fact, that is a small sum in recompense. There would still be a loss.
It might also be necessary to introduce, as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said, a small levy on the equipment itself, especially in the case of reprography, to which I will turn in a moment. The Government, however, in the Green Paper—this is what worries me, and shattered me—virtually reject this straightforward solution on the grounds that it might be too expensive for the purchaser of the tapes or for the purchaser of the equipment. The fact that it is already very expensive for the copyright owner—for authors, composers and so on—is not taken into account.
The Government then make the absolutely extraordinary claim that it also might be inflationary. Inflationary, my Lords? Surely copyright has nothing to do with the economic policy of this Government, or any other—as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, said. Copyright is a moral right which even the Green Paper recognises. Since when has it been possible to qualify or modify a moral right on the argument that fully to uphold it would cost too much? In this country we have the moral right and the constitutional right to general elections. Supposing a Government were to turn round and say "We cannot have this right any more because it is too expensive"? It is a very dubious path to tread when you accept a moral right on the one hand but deny it on the other by saying that it would be too expensive.
What I have said about home recording applies also to repography. Nobody wishes to restrict the right of students and genuine researchers to reproduce the material which they need for their studies. But there is evidence—and much of it was presented to Whitford—that repography is being abused, again at the expense of the copyright owner. In many colleges, universities and schools round this country they are wickedly and irresponsibly stealing copyright material. I do not want to stand between what is the right of students and the right of schools. But particularly because of the cutback in the allowances to schools, through the rates and so forth, they are being forced more and more on to this path of piracy. And any educationalist in any educational establishment, if he is honest, will tell you that what we regard as the free right is being wickedly abused. It ought to be stopped.
About a year ago I was in a school office where I saw one of the secretaries running off 24 copies of a play by a colleague of mine. She was reproducing them from one copy of the play purchased at a book shop or perhaps purchased by the school. For what purpose? For the school's amateur drama society. My colleague is not going to miss the couple of pounds he would have made in royalties on those books, but it is not a very good education for children to realise that property can be stolen in this way, and it is theft. Multiply that one example, as one must, by hundreds of similar infractions and it adds up to a very considerable sum.

1439
Here again, a fluid licensing system enforcible by law would solve the problem, or would go a long way towards doing so. There is no real difficulty in doing this. There is no need for further public debate or consultation. Everything is already there. The technology exists to implement most of Whitford's recommendations and the organisations are already in place to handle the administration without undue overheads or any cost to the Government. Indeed, the Government would gain because by restoring this lost income to its rightful owners, the Inland Revenue would benefit.
What is needed is the political will to bring the copyright laws into line with the present conditions. The present law has been out-distanced and out-dated by modern technology. It needs to be changed as a matter or urgency. In asking the Government to reconsider their attitude—or at least indicate a timetable for reform of copyright—I am thinking not only of the interests of copyright owners. It is in the interests of all that our arts, and the industries which support them, should flourish. In crude economic terms, they earn millions of pounds for the economy and do a great deal for the prestige of Britain abroad. But they would not have been able to do any of this without the copyright protection which at present exists—and they will not be able to do so in the future unless that protection is brought up to date.
A long time ago, the forethought of our fathers' fathers devised the notion of copyright, enshrined it in legislation, and thus laid the foundation on which artists, authors and composers could live and work. We now have the task of protecting the interests of new generations of creative artists. I hope that it will not be said of us that we failed to respond and that we failed to recognise that copyright was indivisible; that if one allows one part of it to weaken, then the whole fabric will collapse.
6.33 p.m.
The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, I should like to join with the ever-increasing list of noble Lords who are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for bringing this debate at last to the Floor of this House. I want to make only one or two remarks and to underline a few points—some of which have already been submitted by the British Copyright Council—and seek clarification on one or two items in the Green Paper. I must declare an interest as a visual artist and also as the Artists' Union's joint representative on the British Copyright Council. The council brings together 31 bodies (and the number has increased by four since the noble Lord, Lord Willis, spoke a few minutes ago) representing the owners of copyrights under Part I of the 1956 Act: that is to say, authors and creators in the broader sense—literary, musical, dramatic and visual—as well as publishers. In this respect, I believe that the British Copyright Council is unique in the world.
The nub of the problem is that "rights" are a livelihood to the creator. Until these rights are established world-wide, the creator will be vulnerable. Whatever our views on the EEC may be, proposals beneficial to the creator are established in Europe, where the concept of authors' rights is fully understood
1440
and accepted. In this country the same right is seen as a property right and not as an author's right. One could say that it is an intellectual property right.
There is an urgent need for action. Technology has overtaken the 1956 Act and is now overtaking even Whitford's recommendations made in 1977. New technology is here to stay and must be faced. Creators have no way of controlling events. Already, people have forgotten that they are copying illegally. Reprography, video and audio have already been mentioned, and we have yet to cope with the newest technology represented by satellite and cable TV. Without the immediate entrenchment of these rights in legislation, the creator is going to lose rights granted by international treaty to which the United Kingdom is party. The British Copyright Council is therefore most anxious about the fact that the Green Paper talks of "several" recommendations only out of more than 100 recommendations made by the Whitford Committee, which was appointed seven years ago and reported four years ago on its "thorough review of copyright law".
The Council also dissents most emphatically from the way the Green Paper wriggles, eel-like, out of its responsibilities towards the livelihood of creators, by implying that,
"copyright laws must be framed in the light of contemporary economic conditions".
The Green Paper upholds "moral" rights, but maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will elaborate on the term "reasonable modification". Yet, in the "ownership" section, by not emphatically stating that copyright is owned by the creator in all circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are not being consistent. The United Kingdom is isolated in this, as in several other points, as regards provisions in Europe. There is no mention of "paying public domain". This novel way of gleaning finance from all works after the expiry of the life plus 50 or 70 years is for the common good of the community of artists as a whole.
Lastly, I must turn, as a visual artist, to the glaring omission of droit de suite, or artists resale rights. As stated by the Whitford Report,
" the inalienable right of the author, or his heirs, to an interest in any resale of original works of art and original manuscripts is provided for in Article 14 ter of the Berne Convention".
Whitford recommended that artists' resale rights should not be introduced in the United Kingdom, largely because it was thought that the scheme would be difficult to administer. The Green Paper does not feel compelled to introduce it either. Since Whitford—last year, in fact—the Visual Artists' Rights Society has been set up to collect copyright fees and also to press for legislation in favour of ARR. The steering committee comprises representatives from the Art Registration Committee, the Artists' Union, the Artists' General Benevolent Institution, Artlaw Services, the Arts Council of Great Britain, the Association of Artists and Designers in Wales, the Association of Fashion, Advertising and Editorial Photographers, the Association of Illustrators, the Crafts Council, the Federation of British Artists, the International Association of Art, the Printmakers' Council, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain, the

1441
Royal Society of British Sculptors, the Society of Industrial Artists and Designers and the Welsh Arts Council.
Visual artists are alone in this respect. Once the created object has been sold, it can then pass through many hands with the creator deriving no benefit. Many a "middleman" is making an excellent living out of such works. There is a huge market in this country for the works of dead artists, whose families or heirs receive no benefit. The argument that only rich artists become richer from this scheme is unfounded. Recently, for instance, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets introduced artists' resale royalties in their picture buying scheme.
Harmonisation is essential here as in other copyright matters if works are not to escape to countries which may not have artists' resale royalities legislation. Collection is simple in those countries that have this: a few hours of computer time a week are all that are necessary. There is a strong feeling among visual artists that they are owed a share in what they have created, and that is why I read out that long list of organisations in the steering committee of the Visual Artists' Rights Society. For them and for all creators the Government must act quickly and positively. We must not be carried away by the wealth of stars. Many thousands of creators are hardly making a meagre living. Harmonising of copyright laws must be the aim universally. Without strong rights backed up by legislation, and effective means of implementation, the author or creator will remain in a weak or impossible position. Without artists making a living, we are going to have no art.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, has done us a great service because he has enabled us to demonstrate in the House two very important things which have been revealed in this debate; first, a strong sense of urgency in the matter, a strong feeling expressed by every noble Lord who has spoken, that all of us—I do not make any party point on this—have failed to give this subject the urgency it deserves. And this has been the case more recently because, with the widespread development of home taping of both audio and visual character, the subject has now acquired an extraordinary importance, to such a degree that, if it goes ahead without being arrested, will have two disastrous results.
The first is that the development of home taping must necessarily lead, and is already leading, to widespread commercial piracy, so that the whole situation is being undermined, the whole basis of the recording industry in this country is being affected. Already the effects of that can be seen in this way. It has long been the case, for example, in gramophone recording, that the profitable popular music end has subsidised the more classical end, the less profitable end. Profitability in the industry has been held back and the range of programmes of classical recording which have been characteristic in the British industry have been considerably reduced already and unless something is done they will run right into the ground. So we are up against a serious problem.
The only other point I want to make on that aspect is that this is unanimous; it is not only the recording
1442
companies we are concerned about; it is also what are sometimes called the "talent unions" which are wholly in favour of this project because they recognise that unless something is done fairly rapidly they will not have an industry to be engaged in in a year or two. It could be as serious as that.
The figure of 50p has been mentioned as a possible one on a sound cassette. I think that is the sort of figure which would produce a very reasonable result. The figure of £1·40 on a cassette is not anybody's figure but the Government's. They have presented the highest possible figure in order to suggest that this is something which would be widely objected to and would have the effect of creating public resentment against the whole development. It does not need to go at that level. But I think it is equally important that it should go on video cassettes as well as on audio cassettes, and on video cassettes I should have thought they could stand £1 quite easily. There are some people who think that the matter ought to be on a percentage basis. I rather think that that might make it a little too complex, but either of these things ought to be examined.
Having joined in the general feeling that the Government must be urged to take this matter more seriously, to recognise its urgency and introduce legislation to give effect to it quite quickly, I would also like to say something about two other aspects of this complex subject. There are in fact 18 chapters in the Government's Green Paper, Reform of the Law Relating to Copyright, Designs, and Performers' Protection. Each of these 18 chapters refers to a specific aspect of this difficult issue. I want to refer to three of those chapters. I have already dealt with the question of recording of home taping and what needs to be done about that.
I want this time to say something in praise of the Government and that is to congratulate them on their intention, which they announce in their section on performers' rights, to give performers a civil remedy. The Performers Protection Acts of 1958 and 1972, as the Green Paper makes clear, make it a criminal offence punishable by fine or imprisonment to record or film a public and unauthorised live performance. This is something which is already an offence. What the Government do in this decision is to agree with Whitford that this ought to be not only a criminal offence but ought to be available for civil remedy. It does mean, therefore, that if this legislation is introduced, and I hope it will be done quickly, the performer will have the right to sue to recover damages in the event that his performance has been stolen and publicly broadcast. I hope the Government will introduce a Bill which will not only do what they say they are going to do in this chapter but also do what at the moment they are not convinced about. I hope this debate will have helped to convince them on the question of home taping as well.
Finally, I would follow the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, in saying one word about droit de suite. I am afraid we must disappoint noble Lords; this has nothing to do with droit de seigneur. This refers to the right of an artist to follow his work through and to gain a benefit from the resale of his work. It is in the nature of things that a visual artist sometimes sells his work, in the early stages of his career, extremely cheaply. It then passes from hand to hand and can become extremely

1443
valuable. The artist at the moment gains nothing whatever, but the right which is proposed here, to give the artist a percentage in the further sale of his work, is one which is already in practice in some places; for example, it is being carried out in California, I think other states are contemplating it, and it is already the case elsewhere. The Government's suggestion is that this is something too difficult to contemplate. I would suggest that they do examine what is being done in other countries and possibly come back to us with further thoughts on that. There are six countries in the European Community—Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany and Luxembourg—whose legal provisions I think it would be worth the Government looking at.
I shall not go along with my noble friend Lord Willis who felt that the Government were to be wholly castigated. They at least have produced something. They have produced it far too late and they have produced far too little, but they have at least announced the intention of introducing legislation. What we want from them now is to see, as a result of this debate, or following from it, some more comprehensive legislation. We want to see that legislation as quickly as possible, and we want to see it embracing not only those things that they say that they are already convinced about, but also those things which we hope the debate this afternoon will have had the effect of convincing them about.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government's Green Paper on copyright, designs and performers' protection which, as your Lordships I am sure are all aware, was published last July, invited a lively, vigorous and, to my mind, fascinating public debate on all aspects of copyright. For that reason alone I, with I am sure the whole House, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, of Hampstead, for affording your Lordships the very welcome opportunity of discussing some—and I would say only some—of the very important issues which are currently under review in both copyright and related areas. We are all grateful, too, to the other noble Lords who have contributed to this most interesting and valuable debate. The Government will pay very close heed to all the views that have been expressed and we shall take those views fully into account in the deliberations that assuredly will follow the completion of the present consultative phase.
I should like to begin by referring to the noble Lord, Lord Willis. The noble Lord criticised the fact that the Green Paper appeared, having regard to the earlier publication of the Whitford Report. But I am sure that, as he and all your Lordships will notice, the Green Paper explains in the introduction that the Committee was, of all things, not unanimous on a number of very important issues. Subsequent consultations have also shown that it had a very mixed reception. In those circumstances, the Government thought it right to formulate their own views, and to present them in a Green Paper. Having said that, I should emphasise that the Government's views on the reforms that are needed in the various fields of copyright have not yet been finalised and, indeed, will not be finalised
1444
until after the process of consultation has been entirely completed.
The many proposals for revision of the present law which are set out in the Green Paper—and the specific points to which I shall shortly be referring—must therefore be viewed in this particular light. They do not represent the final views of the Government on any of the issues which have been raised this evening; indeed, in some areas the Green Paper does not express a single view, but puts up alternative proposals for public discussion and for public consideration.
Since very shortly after the Green Paper was published, comments on its proposals have been flowing into the Department of Trade from interested organisations and individuals. At the latest count over 120 direct responses have been received, and they are still arriving in substantial numbers. Some important bodies representing both creators and users of copyright material have already replied, but many others whose responses will be of equal significance have not yet done so. In view of the complexity and, indeed, the far-reaching nature of this subject, we cannot wonder that it takes a considerable time for all of these bodies to put together their comments, despite their specialist interest in, and knowledge of, the subject of copyright.
There is one other major factor which is affecting progress on copyright reform. The Commission of the Euroean Communities has for some considerable time been looking at the entire question of the need to harmonise the copyright laws of the member states of the Community, especially in view of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome on the free movement of goods within the Community. The Commission is at present working towards the production later this year of a memorandum which will examine the interaction of copyright with the Treaty of Rome and is expected to contain or lead to some specific proposals. The publication of this document will, of course, be followed by a further period of consultation with the Governments of member countries, and Her Majesty's Government will obviously take a very active part in these consultations. The feedback that has been received since publication of our own Green Paper will greatly strengthen the Government's understanding of the issues and of the many interests entailed during these negotiations within the Community, and will ensure that the British voice is very clearly heard in the process leading towards harmonisation.
The Government will naturally wish to enter into negotiations in the Community in the full knowledge of what United Kingdom interests require of Community copyright. To that end, I must now announce that the Government would like all direct responses to the Green Paper to reach the Department of Trade by the end of August this year. This should allow adequate and, we hope, fully sufficient time for those individuals and organisations who have not yet finalised or submitted their comments to do so. The Government recognise and share the concern which has been felt in your Lordships' House, as well as outside—as we have heard this evening—and most of all in the film and video industry at the growth of commercial piracy in this relatively new area. The Green Paper reflects this in that it contains a number of proposals to strengthen the position of copyright owners against piracy.

1445
I hope that your Lordships will allow me, first, to summarise the existing remedies which are available to copyright owners. Under the 1956 Act, there are both civil and criminal remedies available. The civil remedies which are available under Sections 17 and 18 of that Act provide for relief such as injunction, delivery up and damages. They are very frequently used in conjunction with what we technically call Anton Piller orders, which are granted on ex parte application and empower the plaintiff to enter a defendant's premises for the purposes of inspection or removal of documents and articles which are alleged to contain evidence of, for example, infringement of copyright.
These remedies are now used to very good effect by copyright owners against the piracy of commercial copyright. This is particularly true in the field of sound recordings where they have enabled copyright owners to restrict the proportion of pirate material on the United Kingdom market to a very low figure—I understand, under 5 per cent. of the total. My noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned 3 per cent. So we can see that these measures are, indeed, effective in that particular area. The figure of between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. is well below that which occurs in almost every other country in the world. These existing remedies are available to copyright owners in all fields of copyright. To use them effectively, as in the record industry, requires careful organisation and, I would add, energetic operation. But this can be done, and we believe should be done, on an industry-wide basis.
At the same time, the Government recognise that there are areas where these already effective remedies can be strengthened and improved. The Green Paper makes a number of proposals in this direction. Perhaps I could mention the most significant of them. Already there is a provision whereby, in certain limited circumstances, the court can award exemplary and penal damages in cases of flagrant infringement. The Green Paper proposes that the scope of the courts to award such damages should be extended. It is proposed that possession by way of trade of an infringing copy, for example, of a video or sound recording, in the knowledge that it infringes copyright, should become an infringing act, and also that this should be added to the category of acts that make the person concerned liable to criminal proceedings under Section 21 of the Act.
The Green Paper also proposes that the fines applicable under Section 21 should be increased to make them more effective as deterrents. There are several other proposals, including one that the import restrictions that at present allow a copyright owner in a book to have importation of infringing copies banned, should be extended to cover infringing copies of records and films, including, of course, video. So it is entirely clear that the Government are concerned to reduce copyright piracy as far as is possible. We have made proposals to reinforce the already powerful weapons available to copyright owners.
I hope your Lordships will now allow me to move on to consider the very valuable and, indeed, constructive contributions that all of your Lordships have made to the debate this evening. The first major subject which was raised was that of photocopying. This has several facets. I am afraid we chose a rather odd word—I think that it is called "reprography"—
1446
but photocopying is a fairly clear English substitute for that. Your Lordships will note that in the Green Paper it can be seen that the Government agree with Whitford that perhaps the most practical way of controlling the photocopying of copyright works is by some form of blanket licensing, but they see no need to make this statutory. The current law provides a satisfactory legal framework within which blanket licensing could operate. In another field of copyright, the Performing Right Society operates a successful non-statutory licensing scheme. Furthermore, successful actions in the courts by the Music Publishers' Association suggest that copyright may not be quite so difficult to enforce in the face of photocopying as has sometimes been suggested, although in your Lordships' House this evening, I would not say entirely so.
Of course, there is the fair dealing exception. This allows individual students to make copies for private study. We believe that this is a very important one for education and research. This aspect has been brought before your Lordships with great emphasis this evening by several noble Lords. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, to my mind made a notable contribution in this area. We believe that it should be retained. To limit it by excluding the use of photocopiers would either deny students the benefits of modern technology, which we believe to be illogical, or, indeed, increase their expenses, which we also believe to be unjustified as long as the student is not prejudicing the copyright owner's legitimate interests. But the main object of the library exceptions is simply to extend the fair dealing exceptions so that the student can get his copy from a library, and they should, therefore, be retained for the same reasons. There is nothing in either of these exceptions to prevent blanket licensing from operating in relation to copying outside the area of fair dealing.
Of course, multiple copying is an abuse of the existing statutory exceptions and damages copyright owners' interests. The Government therefore propose a significant strengthening of the copyright owners' position by introducing tighter controls on the related production of multiple copies of the same materials in libraries. In addition, we propose limiting the exceptions allowing copying for research and private study so as to exclude commercial research. It is not equitable that a commercial organisation should be allowed free copying of an author's work for the purpose of its own profit, and this exclusion should facilitate the operation of blanket licensing within commercial organisations. The definition of "commercial" copying will, of course, need careful consideration.
The second and I believe equally important subject, which I think was covered by every noble Lord this evening, concerned what we call recording or home taping, be it audio or visual, depending on whatever one wants to do. I seem to be unique in your Lordships' House in that I have not yet acquired the necessary technical expertise to attempt to copy even with a fairly simple cassette recorder. Any of my efforts have damaged tape, recorder and, indeed, once required the services of an electrician. So I claim no interest in this particular area. It is also equally clear that your Lordships have great technical expertise in this area.

1447
The Government have not received convincing evidence that it would be right to introduce a levy either on recording equipment or, indeed, on blank tapes. As your Lordships will have seen and, indeed, as has been explained and discussed this evening, the Green Paper sets out the relevant facts as far as they were known last year, in July 1981. But part of the difficulty is knowing the size of the problem. There has been talk of hugh losses of anything up to £1 million per day to the record industry as a result of in-home taping; but the figures quoted in the Green Paper suggest something a great deal less than this, even if allowance is made for updating. The exact losses seem, in fact, to be virtually unquantifiable.
Lord Willis: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, does the size of the problem really matter? Is it not a question of principle? If something is being stolen, do not you stop it being stolen, whether it is £1 or £l million?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I shall come to that in a paragraph or two, when I hope to cover his particular point. To charge a levy which would be sufficient even to raise the Green Paper figure of £50 million per year—and I would stress that that figure does not represent a Government estimate of actual losses, but is merely a reworking and modification of earlier figures provided by the record industry—would require a very large percentage increase in the price of tapes, and the Government would be reluctant to impose this upon the public, especially since imposition of a levy would involve what we would regard as rough justice, with many tape users who never record copyright music having to pay; these could include, for example, organisations for the blind, and would also probably cover and catch the educational use, which has been referred to widely in your Lordships' House tonight.
Since publication of the Green Paper, strong opposition to such a levy has continued to be voiced by the users. Any rebate scheme to compensate the users would be cumbersome and, indeed, it would be very expensive to operate. Furthermore, a levy on blank tapes could be circumvented by selling tapes with trivia recorded on them or by obtaining by mail order from abroad. We believe that this is a very powerful argument. As many copyright owners and, indeed, record companies are foreign or foreign-owned we believe that a substantial part of the levy would go abroad, with little compensatory inflow.
Since publication of the Green Paper, the suggestion has been put to the record industry by the Government Minister then responsible that the industry should cease to focus all its hopes on a levy and should instead closely re-examine the possibility of devising a comprehensive and realistically priced and, perhaps most importantly, vigorously publicised voluntary licensing scheme for private taping. The fact that the now defunct amateur recording licence did not raise adequate income need not mean that it is impossible to devise an adequate replacement.
I should like now to turn swiftly to video recording. As your Lordships will have heard, there is new and, indeed, even newer technology appearing day by day
1448
and week by week. Indeed, the Green Paper considered that there was no clear evidence that video taping in the home harms the interests of the video industry, and concluded that it was difficult to see any real case for a levy in the video field. But as on all aspects of copyright, the Government have not yet finalised their view on this issue of video taping, which they appreciate was in its infancy when the Green Paper was published last year but has since burgeoned considerably.
There was further comment from your Lordships on the problems of who in fact owned the copyright. The Green Paper—indeed, it is the Government's view—says that we recognise, as indeed Whitford did, that it is natural for copyright to vest in the author unless he has entered into an agreement to the contrary. We believe that the question of ownership should, wherever possible, be settled by contract, and we agree with Whitford that the law should contain provisions concerning employees and commissioners for use only in the event of the parties failing to reach an agreement. The concern of the Government is to establish a fair balance consistent with modern day conditions, and the Green Paper invited public comment on some specific suggestions. Indeed, there have been a number of responses on this question so far.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, raised the dual queries of moral rights, and indeed he went on with artists' resale rights, which I think he called droit de suite. May I deal first with what he called moral rights. The noble Earl brought this question up, and I think he will see that reference to "reasonable modification" comes from the Green Paper at page 59, paragraph 6. It means that changes should be allowed, if we take one example, when a work is being adapted for the screen. The paragraph goes on to elaborate by saying that reasonable changes are those to which the author could not in good faith refuse consent. I hope that covers the noble Earl's query so far as moral rights are concerned.
So far as the droit de suite is concerned, we would agree in this instance with Whitford that the artists' resale rights should not be introduced into this country because we believe it is not necessarily fair or logical. Indeed, experience abroad suggests that it is not entirely practical either from the point of view of administration—and we believe that sales are driven underground to avoid payment of the royalties—or as a source of income for artists since collection tends to be cumbersome and expensive. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear that the majority of British artists would benefit. The handful of well-known artists whose works commonly appear for resale would be very much enriched, but sales of works of the less well-known artists might be discouraged by the prospect of what we see as a tax on resale.
The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am pleased, as I am sure the House is, to learn that August is now the date set. On the point of moral rights, the noble Lord quoted from the Green Paper, which I have also read. That needs more clarification. If these things come into courts of law artists are going to need certain kinds of protection. I am thinking also in the censorship field and fields where artists' works are cut up and sold in

1449
small lots, as happened to our great friend Rembrandt at one time.
On the question of droit de suite I think that the noble Lord should look into the question that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, raised.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl ought to phrase his remarks in the form of a question so that my noble friend can reply.
The Earl of Gosford: I am most grateful, my Lords. On the question of droit de suite, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and research into how the other countries collect artists' resale rights? It really is quite a simple matter.
Lord Lyell: Indeed, my Lords, I shall take careful note of this particular suggestion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I am grateful to the noble Earl for correcting me if I have misinterpreted anything so far. I take note of his preliminary sortie on the deadline for comments coming into the department.
The House will recall that I have already stressed that the proposals enshrined in the Green Paper do not in any way represent the Government's final views on the future shape of copyright law in this country. These views are not formulated. Indeed, we want to await the completion of the consultative process for which the Government have now set the deadline for the receipt of comments, and that is August of this year. New legislation will also depend on the position within the European Community, but I assure your Lordships that every effort will be made to expedite matters once these developments in both cases have taken place.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him for an assurance on one point—on the question of home taping, as it is called, both audio and visual? It is inevitable, in the circumstances of the case, that what he said to some extent was prior to the debate. Will he be able to give us an assurance that, having heard the debate, he will take back his to noble friends what was said, and will take full account of what has been said on all sides on this subject?
Lord Lyell: Yes, my Lords.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, the hour is late. I understand that there is another subject for debate to follow. I certainly do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two. However, I do not think I can refrain from thanking all noble Lords who have been good enough to participate in this debate, and to say that certainly in my view their contributions have been most valuable and have made this a most stimulating and excellent debate.
I am bound to say that I shall leave the Chamber with a certain sense of disappointment at the reaction of the Government. I did not detect in the reply that we received from the Minister any great sense of urgency. The mention of the date of the end of August for the receipt of final comments is perhaps slightly better than the Greek kalends, but nevertheless it is a
1450
remote date and it is merely to be the time when the documents are to be submitted. How long the subsequent deliberations will take, we do not know.
Dr. Johnson once remarked that if a man knows that he is going to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. I am not suggesting that this is a fate which is impending in relation to the Government, but one would have hoped that by now there would be rather more concentration of mind. However, if this debate has served to create some concentration of mind and I think one can derive some little consolation from the indication by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that the Government have not totally made up their mind yet on some of these controversial questions—I would suggest that the debate may yet be shown to have served some useful purpose. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Queen's Flight
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, when, in the interests of both economy and prestige, they will update the aircraft of the Queen's Flight and amalgamate the flight into one squadron.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Three and a half years ago in your Lordships' House I said that the Queen's Flight was the most prestigious flight in the world, and it still is. The Andovers are washed daily, they are polished weekly, and they are painted every three years. They are no longer 14 years old as they were I last spoke about them: they are now nearly 18. In fact, in about another six months they will have the vote! That, my Lords, is one of the reasons why they ought to be replaced. It is beyond belief that the Head of State, Government Ministers, foreign dignitaries and Chiefs of Staff, should be subjected any more to this somewhat obsolescent form of air transport. The decision is long overdue, and it is a decision which must, if we are to do the job satisfactorily, be taken soon.
The British Aerospace 1–11 production line is now closed and if the Government will not make a decision now, or very soon, we shall lose the last chance to equip the Queen's Flight, in conjunction with 32 Squadron RAF, with a wholly British-built solution and we shall continue the present unnecessarily complex, inefficient, wasteful and out-moded method of air transport. I do not believe there are many noble Lords or honourable Members of another place who would deny the need for the Sovereign, Cabinet Ministers, service chiefs and foreign dignitaries to have safe, comfortable, fast and convenient air travel. It makes no difference which political party is in government, because the same service is required and used. In fact, its use has probably increased because of the United Kingdom's ever-increasing role in NATO and our role in the European Economic Community, and that makes fast travel even more fundamentally necessary.
If we examine the two organisations, for want of

1451
a better word, we have the Queen's Flight at Benson and 32 Squadron RAF at Northolt. The Queen's Flight was formed in 1936 by the late King George VI, and it presently comprises three Andovers and two Wessexes. The Andovers, with average seating, have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles, and the Wessexes about 130. It is interesting to note that last year, from 1st January to 31st December, there were 865 passenger flights in fixed-wing aircraft of the Queen's Flight and 32 Squadron RAF. Of those, 182 flights were on behalf of members of the Royal Family, 261 were for Government Ministers, none for Members of Parliament and 36 for visiting foreign dignitaries. Due to the Andover's inability to fly over the weather and because of its design, with rather low performance, there are few people who fly in it as passengers, royal or otherwise, who appreciate it.
That brings me to 32 Squadron RAF, which at present has three Mark II Andovers, two British Aerospace 125/600 series, four 125/400 series and one Gazelle helicopter. Those aircraft are allocated by the Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations), and the decision as to which aircraft are to be used is based on the number of passengers. But each Government department is required to pay for the operating costs. I have been slightly pre-empted by the tape machine this afternoon, but I shall continue because it did not say that the Ministry of Defence charges levied on the use of those aircraft are often higher than those of a civil charter company. And, with the economy drive of the Government, departments are often reluctant to use the aircraft of 32 Squadron. That may sound all very well, but as a result, air crews are frequently required to fly on training flights merely to maintain their flying proficiency and get their requisite number of hours in. That cannot be economical.
I come to the question of capability. Do the present means, methods and set-up meet the necessary requirements? Could matters be managed in a better way? The Andovers and 125s may be suitable for internal and short overseas flights, particularly when there are not many passengers, but they have a severe limitation over long distances due to their small passenger capacity and short range. That means, of course, that they must stop many times, and much more security is necessary wherever landings take place. I believe that not long ago His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh took two days to get to Canada and nine to Australia. In the England—Australia air race in the 'thirties a de Havilland Comet did it quicker with two tiny engines.
What about senior Government Ministers and foreign dignitaries? Why should they put up with the present state of affairs? It is an exhausting waste of time and an exhausting way to travel. I agree that there are certain instances where small parties can travel commercially, and that, where possible, is the usual practice. But that does not work with major overseas tours by Her Majesty or with major overseas tours and conferences attended by senior Ministers, particularly when a large staff is needed.
The drawback to scheduled services is that they may leave and arrive at inconvenient times. In addition, there is today the ever-present and much greater threat and hazard of international political terrorism if the
1452
Head of State or senior Ministers travel on regular airlines. One may charter, but the wide-bodied aircraft of which there are so many nowadays have made suitable aircraft for charter more difficult to obtain. It is true that RAF VC10s are used; they are altered internally for VIP flights. But two aircraft must be withdrawn from their military role to do that because of the need for a back-up aircraft in case one does not work, so the VC10s are taken out of service, and that must disrupt the defence schedules of the Ministry of Defence.
What can and should be done? Bearing in mind that it is never the right time to do anything about it, a much more rational and economical way would be to set up a combined royal and ministerial squadron with a mix of aircraft to provide for all normal needs and which would largely prevent taking VC10s out of service, except for extremely long distances and multi-passenger tours. The mix could comprise two British Aerospace 1–11/475 series with a range of 2,400 nautical miles, and I shall return to the question of the mix shortly. Those two aeroplanes, the 1–11s, could replace the Andovers, as they have an equal ability and capacity to operate from very short airstrips, and that is extremely important. For other trips with just a few passengers and for very short-range work—to Northern Ireland, Brussels and so on—the British Aerospace 125 would be fine, and the two Wessexes could remain as well as the Gazelle. That would be the most economical way to provide Her Majesty with a modern, British-built jet aircraft for the majority of her many flights, at the end of which she would arrive in much better shape for the often extremely arduous duties which she then has to perform.
This subject has been discussed since 1972, but the issue has always been fudged, for political or financial reasons. There have been lengthy debates in both Houses, and many articles have been written in magazines and newspapers. In fact, the use by Her Majesty of the elderly Andovers has attracted not inconsiderable adverse comment from the British public and in worldwide aviation circles. One cannot compare our methods of transport with those of other Heads of State or even certain top businessmen.
The question of cost is, of course, important and obviously that would decide the types and number of aircraft for the combined squadron, and that would be dictated by the number of hours needed to be flown by each aircraft. The combined unit might comprise two 1–11s, five 125s, instead six, and the three helicopters, which would make a total of 10 aircraft instead of 16. That suitable combination of aircraft merged into one squadron, one wing, or one combined unit—call it what you will—must surely be an obvious rationalisation. The combined unit must be based at one location, as opposed to the present two locations.
Here I wish to digress for a moment. The autonomy of the Queen's Flight would not in any way be lost. It would still be the Queen's Flight of the combined unit—whatever one wished to call it. So no prestige at all need be lost there. But it would lead to considerable further economy in administration, maintenance facilities and costly manpower. I would not dream of trying to tell my noble friend the Minister which is the best location; I would leave that for him

1453
to decide. But I maintain that we cannot continue both stations.
It is true that there might be some initial short-term expenditure, but over a comparatively short period of time that would be amortised. However, the snag is the capital cost, and, so long as the Ministry of Defence has to pay, the answer to my Question tonight is probably going to be, no. But why should the Ministry of Defence pick up the whole tab? Simply because it has done so in the past? Is that any criterion as to why it should have to go on doing so in the future? I maintain very seriously, and so I think do many other people in this country, that the costs should be borne by, and spread over, all of the Government departments. In fact the initial cost would be only about £9 million for the two 1–11s being partly exchanged for the Andovers, and should the Government not feel like putting down the cash, I understand that British Aerospace has some very advantageous hire purchase or leasing terms to offer over a period of 15 years. Lastly, in the event of hostilities, the 1–11 could be used for casualty evacuations, since I gather from the MoD that there are no aircraft specifically earmarked for that operation.
I realise that my noble friend may not this evening be able to answer in as affirmative or as positive a way as many of your Lordships might wish. But I should like to conclude by saying that, if we wait until the Andovers are 20 years old—which is only another two years off—and until the day finally comes for a change, it will have to be made not to British, but to American, aeroplanes. Foreign aircraft may be all right in the British airlines that operate out of this country, but the prestige of the Queen's Flight surely needs the best—and the best is British.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Earl is to be commended for again raising this Question, and I congratulate him on the way in which he has done so. As he said, it is not a new question. The need to re-equip the Queen's Flight with new aircraft has been apparent for some years, and the need to replace ageing aircraft does not recede with the passing of time. I am very much hoping that this discussion will provide the opportunity for the Government departments involved to have another look at the matter and that it will tip the balance in favour of a common-sense solution to the problem.
I add only a very few words to what the noble Earl said about the need. I greatly hope that when the noble Viscount replies he will not again tell us that the Andover is a good, reliable aircraft, Of course it is, and it is superbly maintained. But, frankly, I was a little ashamed when on a recent occasion I saw the Prince of Wales, with all the television cameras on him, step out of this machine. That good, old, reliable aircraft really does not convey the image of a country capable of making some of the most advanced aircraft in the world.
It is probably correct to say that the objection to re-equipment has come from two quarters: namely, a certain section of Her Majesty's present Opposition and the Treasury. I believe that on the basis of the proposals put forward by the noble Earl the objections from both these quarters can fairly be satisfied.
1454
May we look first at what might be thought to be the political objections? These are strongly held by some people, and we must accept, are sincerely held. It can sincerely, if mistakenly, be held to be wrong to spend money on what are thought to be personal aircraft if, at the same time, essential social services are being cut. We have to show, and show much more clearly, that we are not here talking of providing expensive aircraft for some kind of leisure activity for a privileged few. We have to show, and again show much more clearly, that a properly run communications unit can be a cost-effective, timesaving exercise, and not very different from the kind of thing that is operated by many large-scale organisations.
Of course the figures quoted by the noble Earl relating to passengers carried on the Queen's Flight show that the aircraft have not been restricted to the personal use of the Queen or members of her family, but utilisation could be extended, and seen to be extended, if we had a merger with the RAF Squadron. Personally I should be sorry to see the Queen's Flight title go, but I have no doubt that the new squadron could acquire its own special character and prestige without misleading anyone as to its workaday purpose. It is on that basis that I believe that some of the past political doubts about the functional character of the Queen's Flight could be met.
Then we come to what I have called the Treasury objection the narrow objection of cost, or the question of departmental estimates. We cannot across the floor of this House go into the details of a balance sheet, but, given the replacement of the old Andovers with the new 1–11s, given the merger of the Queen's Flight with the RAF Communications Squadron, given the consequent rationalisation of the flight with reduced overheads and increased utilisation, I should be surprised—very surprised—if any accountant could show me that there was not a net reduction of cost to the nation. Certainly there would be a reduction of cost to the nation, if not to a particular department.
There was once a possible response to this cost-saving assertion. It might have been said that it was all very well talking of an annual saving on the basis of conventional amortisation of capital expenditure on new aircraft, but the Treasury looks at capital expenditure in the year in which it is incurred. However, even that objection is met by the offer, which I believe British Aerospace will confirm, that the new 1–11s can be made available on a leasing arrangement. I am sure that the noble Viscount can see that this businesslike offer can be looked at in a businesslike way.
There is just one other point that I mention, and I mention it very reluctantly. Over the years the Air League has most nobly and usefully put forward the case for new British aircraft for the Queen's Flight. But I gather that more recently the Air League has suggested that an additional reason for acquiring the 1–11 aircraft is to show approval that British Aerospace is now, as they apparently put it, denationalised. I very much hope that the Air League, under its new Chairman, will not pursue that line. In the long run it can be counter-productive. In the short run it can divert attention into unrewarding argument.

1455
The proposal to operate a really efficient national air communications unit of which we could all be proud, and which could profitably show the flag in all respects, seems to me to be overwhelmingly sensible, and, if anyone can ensure that it is fairly considered, I am sure that it is the noble Viscount. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but I hope that he will take into account, and I hope that he will be able to tell us that others will take into account in any reconsideration, the fact that since this evening's debate has started the Andover is an older aircraft, and, moreover, that the 1–11 leasing arrangement obviously cannot be held over indefinitely.
7.40 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kimberley and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the contributions they have made in the pursuit of the noble Earl's Unstarred Question. They have both been studying these questions far longer than I have, and they have raised a number of matters of operational significance in relation to No. 32 Squadron and the possible amalgamation which I shall ensure are drawn to the attention of those who are currently again reviewing the whole question of the organisation of both the Queen's Flight and No. 32 Squadron, and other matters arising out of last July's Defence Review, with the object of economising to the greatest possible extent in what we perhaps loosely term the support and logistic areas of the Royal Air Force in order to be able to afford what we need in the frontline.
So I would thank them for their detailed comments; and I think the House would regard it as being almost superfluous, and possibly even impertinent, for me to start by saying that I know the whole House will be of the view that we should put very high priority on anything we can do to lighten the burdens which Her Majesty the Queen and her family carry so conscientiously and, indeed, so superbly in the interests of the whole country. We all know, also, that our Royal Family have never disassociated themselves from practical and budgetary problems. Indeed, many of us believe that they have set a very fine example for us all in this respect.
We believe that the operational efficiency—and I have to say this notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said—and the safety standards of the Queen's Flight are paramount, and we know that under both those headings they are superbly carried out. We know that there could be advantages in being able, at some stage, to replace the Andover aircraft; but we say—and I shall return to this in a minute, if I may—that the main requirements are being met, and met perhaps a hit better than my noble friend has today indicated. But before I come to that let me deal with this sordid matter of money and with my noble friend's points about the fact that it is never the right time.
My old father had a cliché when I was not doing something immediately, when he used to say, "What's wrong with now?" So that is ringing in my ears, and I was brought up to it. But if I may answer his question and also that of the noble Earl, there really are quite a lot of things wrong with now, and it is not just a question of whose budget. The noble Earl
1456
knows very well that the national economy, which has been running down for years, is at a crisis stage; and that, in that situation, keeping a defence budget, and indeed increasing it by 3 per cent. real per annum, and keeping national expenditure under control and, indeed, lowering it in other and non-essential respects, is a monumental task. It is very easy to except any of a thousand very desirable areas from the necessary pressure on public expenditure and the necessary priority selection within a larger defence budget to meet the growing threat—the growing threat and the escalation of cost, which my noble friend Lord Kimberley also knows well, caused by the ever-greater sophistication of the threat and the reply.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? Is he going to leave it at that? Is he going to answer the assertion that is made—made by me and, I think, by the noble Earl—that the cost could in fact he lowered?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am going to comment on that point at a later stage. At this stage I will return for a second to the requirements of the Queen's Flight as such. The requirements are for short journeys and for long journeys, at home and abroad, and for landing on big airfields and small airfields. In that context the aeroplanes that Her Majesty and the Royal Family can draw on at the moment are not too bad a range for doing all those things.
On a fllight to Scotland, for instance (and I have taken one recently in an Andover) you take an hour and a half and you are served with a very good meal while you are doing it—or you can be; I hope very much that the Royal Family has that opportunity, too. That is as opposed to a jet aircraft, which may go twice as fast but still takes an hour because it has to take off and it has to land. That is a measure of inconvenience; but the Andover can land where jet aircraft cannot. When longer journeys overseas are required, VC-10s are made available to Her Majesty, and the Andovers are often pre-positioned—in Africa, for instance, so that when the Queen arrives she can be carried to small airfields and on shorter journeys. I will deal with the matter of prestige in a moment, but in terms of the combined aircraft available to the Royal Family they are not so inconvenient. The HS-125 has also been mentioned. It does not carry the size of party that is often required, but it is a very fine aircraft and it is used from time to time.
My Lords, I note that the noble Earl was beaten, as he said, by the news on the tape. The coincidence of this Question and the news on the tape will strike noble Lords as perhaps being interesting. In fact, I am entitled and am allowed to say that in relation to the trips that His Royal Highness Prince Philip took to Canada and to Australia, which took 2 days and 9 days, I am given to understand that on both these visits, when an Andover was due to be pre-positioned for His Royal Highness's engagements in Australia early in 1973 and in Ottawa and Caracas in September 1980, His Royal Highness chose to travel out in the Andover rather than call upon the services of a VC-10 or charter aircraft. Indeed, the journey to Australia was carefully planned to take a couple of weeks to include several visits en route. So I want to get the media interpretation

1457
of this, which the noble Earl has mentioned and perhaps slightly echoed today, into perspective.
I will return to the economies of the thing, but perhaps I may turn for a second to the alternatives currently available should budgetary and priority considerations allow replacement of Andovers at this time. The BAC 1–11 is, as both noble Lords know, a very much larger aircraft. It is not, I suggest, the last British aircraft that could be available. The BAC 146s are being made, although they are only just coming into service and a much longer time would have to be considered in relation to them. Neither of them are perhaps ideally suitable. Whether the noble Lord's contention is right that there will never be another British aircraft that is suitable, I would question as a statement of certainty. On the capital cost I have to say to my noble friend that the estimated cost that he mentioned of some £9 million is not the net capital cost that would be necessray if two BAC 1–11s were to replace three Andovers. In total, including the requirement to keep them up to the standard necessary for this service, the cost would be in excess of £12 million.
It is perhaps at this point that I have to say to both noble Lords that there have been two reviews (and a third is currently going on) into the whole question of both capital and running costs of the Queen's Flight itself and of the possible amalgamation of No. 32 Squadron at Northolt and the Queen's Flight at Benson. On putting those two stations together, there could be a final economy. There would be an initial cost. So far as running costs are concerned, it is a complicated equation. The noble Earl made a number of interesting assumptions which I shall study with care in his suggestion that the whole affair could he run more economically. On the aircraft, per se, the BAC 1–11 is and would be a more expensive aircraft to operate than the Andover. That is not the whole of the question. I can say to the noble Earl that the figures are very much bigger on all the studies that have been done so far; although a new study on the amalgamation of the squadron and the Flight is currently taking place.
I think there is enormous importance in the Queen's Flight remaining as a separate entity, with all the esprit de corps that it has. The present flight is staffed by specially selected volunteers. The standards of the Queen's Flight are regarded as a pinnacle for the rest of the RAF to look up to. I believe it is important that in any amalgamation that might or might not come out of the current review, we keep the identity of the Queen's Flight, and also maintain the permanent rediness of aircraft for Her Majesty and for her family which is a feature of the present arrangements. There is already overlap in the operational use of aircraft for the Royal Family and other VIPs, as I have described.
So far as Ministers are concerned, I have had to travel within the current arrangements and I am not aware that either my senior colleagues or my immediate colleagues are inconvenienced by the present arrangements. The noble Earl has made a number of points about No. 32 Squadron and its present level of utilisation which I wish to look into and to come hack to him upon. But I say very sincerely that I believe that Ministers, too, take the view that priorities have to be selected for short-term economic reasons and there is no use pushing those to one side. Much
1458
as I should like other departments to augment the Ministry of Defence budget on this subject and in many other areas for obvious reasons, I think that all my colleagues and I are looking at this in terms of the priorities for the Government as a whole in the economic conditions that I have outlined.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me—I hate to disagree with him—I would say that I think my figure of £9 million which I have from British Aerospace is nearer the right figure than his £12 million. Perhaps he will look into it. Could he say whether there was any chance if the Government or the Ministry of Defence do not want to put down the cash in full that they would consider a 15-year lease?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as my noble friend knows very well, whether it is looked at as a capital sum or as a lease, it is a financial burden and a financial burden at this stage. As far as his statement and assertion that his figure is nearer than mine is concerned, I can only say that this has been examined by all the experts concerned and the figure that I have given—which was not £12 million but well in excess of £12 million—I believe to be the accurate figure.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, could the noble Viscount say when that estimate was made?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, in a study which took place in 1980 or 1981. That is my recollection of that particular figure which I noted in preparing myself to answer this Unstarred Question. It is not just the costs of the aircraft; it is the cost of the necessary equipment to maintain them in the kind of permanent readiness, the degree of spares and of back-up that needs to be provided.
If I may say in summary, the Ministry of Defence and the RAF will continue to ensure the maintenance of the Queen's Flight at the highest conceivable standards of safety and reliability. The Government believe that the combination of aircraft available to the Royal Family, including the HS-125s and the VC10s for longer journeys as well as the Andovers of the Queen's Flight, meet the requirements for long and short flights including at times the use of smaller airfields at home and abroad. The strains on the defence budget caused by the increasing threat and the costs of ever higher technology to meet it are well known and are particularly acute at the present time. There are not at the moment any ideally suitable British aircraft available as replacements, and those that have been considered would require a substantial capital cost and, compared with the Andover, increased running costs, also.

Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
The Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
Saint Thomas' Burial Ground (Southwark) Bill
The Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
Thomas Brown and Sons, Limited Bill [H.L.]
The Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House of Lords' Offices
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and ordered to be printed.