Lords Sitting of 24 March 1983

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Education Vouchers: Possible Introduction
Lord Kilmarnock: 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 plan to introduce a pilot scheme for education vouchers covering both the maintained and private sectors and, if so, whether they have given due consideration to the cost implications and to the potential conflicts with existing statute law.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said elsewhere, he is considering vouchers as a means of extending parental choice and responsibility in education, and has yet to reach any conclusions.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Will he undertake to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend during his considerations the effect of the deadweight cost of paying what would be, in effect, a subsidy for all those at present in private education, which would be offset by only very small marginal savings in the maintained sector? Furthermore, would he agree that such a move would probably lead to a very extensive rise in private education, thus removing resources from local authorities and making it almost impossible for them to fulfil their obligations under the 1944 Act?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think the voucher scheme is still very much in the preliminary stage, and I would not like to say if my right honourable friend has considered whether or not the private sector would come into it. But, of course, I would say that any voucher scheme would require amending legislation, and, obviously, would also cause additional expenditure. The matter of additional expenditure must be considered in the context of any commensurate benefits that it would bring.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that, if such a scheme were introduced, it would have the harmful effect of commencing a division between the children of our nation and that, instead of working towards the great ideal of Disraeli of one nation, this would set us back to the days of two nations? Therefore, would he be prepared to consider making a recommendation to his right honourable friend that the proposal ought to be dropped in the interests of the country?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that that is a somewhat hypothetical question, as I do not believe there are any proposals at this moment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the president of the party for which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, speaks was responsible, as a result of her attack on the grammar schools, for the opening of more independent schools than anybody in British history since His late Majesty King Henry VI?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has made a very valid point.
Baroness David: My Lords, if this voucher scheme were brought in, can the Minister say how it would agree with Section 6(3) (a) of the 1980 Act about parental choice, where the duty of giving parental choice does not apply,
"if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources"?
Presumably, there would inevitably be a number of schools which were not fully used, and a number of expensive facilities which were not being used. I should very much like to hear what the answer is to that.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that that is, yet again, a hypothetical question. As I said in an earlier reply, I imagine that legislation would be needed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the 1980 Act has already done away with zoning and requires LEAs to publish examination results and to increase parental choice and influence? Therefore, would he further agree that it is time to let the education service settle down and get on with the job?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that the 1980 Act has gone quite a long way in providing parental choice. Whether it has gone far enough is, I think, one of the questions being looked at.

Defence Secretariats 17 and 19
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the duties of Defence Secretariat 17, and whether they represent a new publicity policy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Defence Secretariat 17, which has been in existence for several years, provides my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with advice on nuclear policy, arms control and disarmament. If the noble Lord is referring to Defence Secretariat 19, then this is a small division which my right honourable friend has recently set up to advise him on how best to explain to the public the facts

1227
about the Government's policy on deterrence and multilateral disarmament. This does not represent a new publicity policy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it the case that Defence Secretariat 19 has been added to Defence Secretariat 17 to work in conjunction with it, and is that a sign that the Government are mobilising publicity and propaganda against the rising tide of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? If so, is that not the use of public money in present circumstances—and I stress "in present circumstances"—for promoting party propaganda in view of the fact that the Opposition has gone on record as being opposed to nuclear arms?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. DS 17 has not been added to DS 19. So far as the second question which the noble Lord asked me is concerned, there is no question of this unit purveying a party political message. It is the duty of the Government, as of all their predecessors, to explain their defence policy to the electorate. In no area is this more important than the part played by nuclear weapons in NATO's strategy of deterrence, and the work of DS 19 will be confined to departmental information work.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does Defence Secretariat 17 advise the Secretary of State on the comparative dangers of conventional and nuclear attack upon this country? Does it also advise upon the need for civil defence preparation against conventional as well as nuclear attack?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that I shall need to write to my noble friend on these detailed questions. The beginning of my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, set out in general terms what are the responsibilities of Defence Secretariat 17, and I repeat them: advice on nuclear policy, arms control and disarmament to my right honourable friend. But if I may I should like to give more detail of that in a letter to my noble friend. The reason why I am not quite so ready to answer my noble friend Lord Renton on that point is that I felt—and I think rightly—that the Question was really related to DS 19.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the additional information about DS 19. Can he say how many are employed in this new unit, whether it is proposed to appoint an advertising agency, how much the new unit costs and what are the precise duties of DS 19? I apologise for not giving notice, but it was the noble Lord who raised the question of DS 19, and I am sure that the House will be interested to know.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the numbers employed are eight and they have been transferred from other parts of the Ministry of Defence so that they are not extra positions, except for that of an assistant secretary. Perhaps it is right just to set that against the fact that since April, 1979, the Ministry of Defence has shed 14,640 Civil Service posts of a non-industrial nature in London. The costs of this unit will be confined to the salaries of those eight posts and
1228
administrative costs. In addition, DS 19 will make use, as necessary, of the services of the Ministry of Defence's public relations staff and the Central Office of Information also provides assistance and services in the publicity field. So far as the duties are concerned, it will be assisting in the preparation of speeches and articles, advising on leaflets and publications and advising on press aspects of the nuclear debate.
My answer to the noble Lord's question on advertising is, no. A decision has not yet been reached on whether to undertake a public information programme involving advertising. In forming a view on this, we are naturally considering past precedents, including the advertising campaign carried out by the Labour Government in 1969 to promote British and NATO defence policies, including the possession of nuclear weapons.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister explain rather more precisely the distinction which he draws between political propaganda and explaining Government policy? I understood the Minister to say that it is the duty of the Government to explain their policy to the people. I believe he also said that there is nothing political in doing so. Can the Minister make that distinction clearer? Surely he would agree that in explaining the Government's policy one is explaining the policy of the party which the Government represent.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the unit is concerned with making available information which is pro-deterrence, pro-membership of NATO and pro-multilateral disarmament. I should have thought that this was something with which everybody in this country would agree.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that all Governments in all parts of the world disseminate information about their policies, the Soviet Union to the exclusion of anything else?
Lord Belstead: Yes my Lords.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether this new secretariat will advise the public as to whether we should insist upon having a second key to the cruise missile? If it is so advising the public, how can the noble Lord say that that is not a direct inter-party political issue?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have twice answered questions on dual key within the last few days. Although I realise that there are differing views about dual key, I do not think that they are entirely confined to inter-party views. Members of your Lordships' House consult their own consciences on the very difficult question of dual key.
Lord Paget of Northampton: But here it is advising.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the second question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton is, yes, if it happens to fall within the scope of the answer which I gave just now to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that sometimes it is rather hard to draw the line between legitimate Government explanation of their policies and party political propaganda? Will the noble Lord agree that it is incumbent upon the Government to make sure that that line is not breached? Will he further agree that some of the films which are being issued under the aegis of this department are highly contentious, and that to this side of the House they feel like party political propaganda? And if the noble Lord were on the other side, they would feel like that to him.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, no. Therefore, the rest of the noble Lord's supplementary question falls.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Lord had the opportunity to read my exchanges with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House (I gave her notice that I was going to raise this matter) on 8th December 1982, in which I asserted that the Government had been sending unsolicited material to schools and that two of these pieces of material, The Balanced View and Peace and Disarmament, which the noble Baroness mentioned, had been sent to the Cleveland authority without any request from it? If the noble Lord has read them, is he aware that since then I have checked the facts and that the view I put forward is totally supported: that this material was sent from the Government without any request and, further, that the NUT, which the noble Baroness mentioned, have a totally different interpretation of their talks with the Government about this material from the one which she gave to the House on that afternoon?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry that after this period of time the noble Lord feels like that. I am aware of his Question. I am also aware that my noble friend the Leader of the House then sent a letter to the noble Lord dated 14th December in which my noble friend the Leader of the House acknowledged that on the occasion of the noble Lord's Parliamentary Question the noble Lord and my noble friend clearly disagreed on the facts at issue, but my noble friend went out of her way in her letter to say that she was in no way suggesting that the noble Lord had misled the House.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it part of the duties of DS 19 to explain to a rather sceptical public the advantages of the Trident programme?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, once again, if what the noble Lord is asking me falls within the scope of the answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, then the answer would be, yes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of any reason why Her Majesty's Government should not send unsolicited material to schools?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that I can answer that question, apart from saying that on this occasion, as set out with great care in the letter dated
1230
14th December by my noble friend the Leader of the House, that was not what was done.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does every department have one or more of these secretariats? For instance, does the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have one?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that I do not know, but I believe I am right in saying that the Ministry of Defence has 20.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Lord Annan: Is it not a fact—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have now spent 15 minutes on two Questions. Because this is beginning to sound almost like a debate, I wonder whether it would be the wish of the House that we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and then move on to the next Question?
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that on several occasions during Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, as is his right, has drawn the attention of your Lordships' House to the existence of the peace studies unit at the University of Bradford and has advocated that such studies should be extended in our schools? Is it not also a fact that those engaged in promoting peace studies are paid from public funds?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for making that information available to the House.

United Kingdom Exports to the EC
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 percentage of the United Kingdom's exports went to the European Community in 1972 and 1982 respectively.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in 1972, 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's visible exports went to the European Community. In 1982, the proportion was 41 per cent.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I hope this trend will continue, that the new policy, Food from Britain, which is based on exports, will be successful and that the Government will back it as much as they possibly can.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments of my noble friend. As the House will be aware, both my noble friend and I have an interest in Food from Britain, since both of us are farmers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of these exports were of farm produce?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, possibly I might be able to, from the plethora of statistics which I have with me, but it might take up three or four minutes of your Lordships' time. With permission, therefore, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord make clear that these exports were exceeded by something like £3,000 million each year by the goods we imported from the European Community?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I did not hear the last part of his question.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that the exports to which this Question refers were exceeded by some £3,000 million a year by the imports we had from other countries in the Eurpoean Community?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, no. I am afraid that the noble Lord's statistics are some way out.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is suggested that were we to withdraw from the Community we could quite easily make good the inevitable shortfall, which would be serious, of exports to the EEC, being outside tariff barriers, by exploiting fresh markets? Is my noble friend able to help the House, including the Labour Party, by saying where those markets are and why they are not being exploited now?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am always pleased to help my noble friend and anybody else in your Lordships' House who would care to receive help. But I would stress to my noble friend and to the House that seven out of the eight major markets for the United Kingdom are in the Community. Certainly my noble friend will not need reminding that membership of the Community gives us in the United Kingdom direct access to a market of 270 million. That is five times the size of our home market and larger than the United States. And between 1972 and 1982 the value of our visible exports to the Community increased at an annual average rate of 23 per cent. compared with a mere 17 per cent. to the rest of the world.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, now be good enough to add to that long list of figures the actual figures for imports from the other European countries?
Lord Lyell: Not necessarily without notice, my Lords, but the noble Lord will be able to obtain such statistics from the same sources as I could.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is unable to give those figures, why did he state with such certainty that the implication of my other question was wrong?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has today taken against me something in the nature of a blunderbuss. The noble Lord has quoted
1232
masses and masses of figures. He has even quoted £3,000 million. Over which years? For which products? Excluding which statistics? Are they net or gross? We could go on discussing these figures for an endless time. The figures that I gave my noble friend were in response to his question.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, do the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in respect of 1972 and 1982 refer in both cases to the present members of the Community?
Lord Lyell: I am sorry, my Lords, I should have made that point entirely clear. The figures refer to the members of the Community as at present constituted, including Ireland, Denmark and Greece.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, give separate figures for exports of oil and manufactured goods? If so, do the figures for manufactured goods show as favourable a picture as the overall figures he gave in reply to the original Question?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we understand that in 1982 there was a surplus on trade in oil with the European Community of approximately £4½ billion. There was a corresponding deficit in our trade in manufactures with the European Community of approximately £4·3 billion. This last figure is on the balance of payments basis; what we would call "net", free on board—both imports and exports.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, to a simple layman, can my noble friend Lord Lyell say what percentage of these exports was oil and what percentage was manufactured goods?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to write to my noble friend with those figures.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also write to my noble friend Lord Beswick? Those who were following the discussion with great interest were disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could not give an answer to a very vital aspect of my noble friend's question relating to imports. Will the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, write to my noble friend as well?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid that I was totally bemused as to which of the many questions and statistics the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, put to me he required an answer. I was totally lost, but I am very pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was not.

Nursery School Places
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they still support the Plowden Committee's recommen-

1233
dations in nursery school places and what plans they have to ensure their implementation.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the Plowden Committee's views on the value of nursery education. As was the case with our predecessors, the economic circumstances that have prevailed since the mid-1970s prevent us from achieving the committee's targets. Nevertheless, the number of children in nursery schools and nursery classes in England has continued to grow, from some 187,000 in 1977 to over 235,000 in 1982, and the proportion of three and four year-olds receiving nursery education in 1982 was 22 per cent., the highest ever. The Government's expenditure plans continue to allow for a gradual increase in the number of places available.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, aware that the Plowden Committee recommended that 90 per cent. of four year-olds should be in nursery school places, and that 50 per cent. of three year-olds should be? Can the noble Earl tell us what percentage has been achieved by this Government up until last year, in 1982, and can he say what are the plans, according to the public expenditure figures, for the next two years?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I thought that I told the noble Lord in my original Answer that the proportion of three and four year-olds receiving nursery education in 1982 was 22 per cent. I am quite certain that the Plowden Committee, when it made its report, could not have foreseen the oil crises that hit us in the 1970s and the consequent fact that we had to cut our cloth to suit our condition in life. The public expenditure White Paper assumes a fall in total provision for under-fives in England from 437,000 in 1982 to 420,000 in 1986. An underlying assumption is, however, that numbers of nursery pupils will rise slowly. Numbers of under-fives admitted early to primary infant classes are expected to fall quite steeply—in fact, they have fallen each year since 1979—and to outweigh the expected rise in nursery pupil numbers.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Earl not consider that the many empty classrooms now in our primary schools because of falling rolls make it an admirable time to increase the provision of nursery classes?
The Earl of Swinton: I would certainly agree with that, my Lords, and that is very much being encouraged at the present time.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, not agree with his right honourable friend in another place, who is reported to have said that nursery education leads to a saving in later life, in a reduction in the necessity for remedial education? Is he agreeing that the public expenditure figures show a fall in the provision for nursery education—not an absolute fall but a percentage fall on the lower number of children of nursery school age during those years—and that that fall is provided for in the present estimate? In view of the Government's
1234
claim that there is a recovery on the way, how can this be justified? Is the noble Earl aware that his right honourable friend in another place, the Prime Minister, promised in 1972 that by 1982 the Plowden Committee's recommendations would have been fulfilled? That was in 1972—a clear promise that this would be achieved by 1982.
Several noble Lords: Speech!
The Earl of Swinton: The wisdom of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is great indeed, but I believe that even she could hardly have been expected to have seen in 1972 what was going to happen to oil prices and the world economy during the 1970s. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has asked so many questions that it is difficult to answer them all. He has been on again about the expenditure plans in the White Paper. The expenditure plans provide for some fall in the total expenditure on all provisions for the under-fives. This reflects the current fall in the number of four year-olds being admitted early to primary schools, and does not have to mean a drop in the level of nursery education provision. As I said in my original Answer, there is a gradual increase in the amount of nursery provision being provided in this country.

Parkeston Quay Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report read as follows:
"1. SHORT DEBATES: DEFINITION OF "BACK-BENCHER"
The Committee have considered whether it is necessary to define the term "Back-Bencher" as used in the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates (Companion to the Standing Orders, Appendix D). The need for clarification arises from the fact that a number of Lords who belong to opposition parties act from time to time as spokesmen for their parties, without having full Front Bench status. However, in the light of undertakings from the Leaders and Chief Whips of the opposition parties that they will issue lists of those Lords who have full Front Bench status, the Committee do not consider it necessary to define the term "Back-Bencher". The Leaders and Chief Whips of the opposition parties also undertook to continue to respect the spirit of the rules governing the conduct of Short Debates, namely, to allow Back-Benchers rather than Front-Benchers the opportunity to raise subjects for debate.
"The Committee also considered whether or not a Motion relating to a Report of a Select Committee of the House is appropriate for balloted Short Debates. The Committee see no reason why such a Motion should not be included in the ballot but consider it desirable that Lords should inform the Chairman of the Select Committee, or Sub-Committee, concerned.
"2. AMENDMENTS EN BLOC
The Committee have considered the proceedings in the House on Tuesday, 15th March when the House divided on two amendments which had been moved en bloc. They are of the opinion that these proceedings were not in accordance with the customary practice of

1235
the House. The appropriate procedure for dealing with linked amendments is for the first amendment in the group to be moved, and the question on it resolved, separately from the rest. If the amendment is agreed to, the subsequent amendments in the group may be moved en bloc, and without further discussion, provided that they are consecutive and confined within a single clause or schedule when the House is in Committee. If the first amendment is either disagreed to or withdrawn, the remaining amendments are not normally moved. There is thus never an occasion when it is necessary or appropriate for a Division to take place on amendments moved en bloc or for amendments to be withdrawn en bloc".
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I should just like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether he sees a danger of all Select Committee reports being taken within this procedure? I hope—and I do not doubt that the Procedure Committee took this view—that it will be very exceptional for the Short Debate to be used for debating the reports of Select Committees or subcommittees for which the Government ought really to provide the time. Obviously we accept this now, but I do so with a warning.
Lord Aberdare: Yes, my Lords, I would have thought that normally an important report of a Select Committee would have been debated in Government time. Certainly so far as the European Committees are concerned they normally make recommendations themselves as to which reports should be debated; but we also felt that nothing should detract from the freedom of Back-Benchers to put down whatever matters they wish to put down for short debates.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Litter Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a strict consolidation Bill; it brings together in one enactment the provisions of the Litter Acts 1958 and 1971, which provide penalties for the dropping of litter; Section 24 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which provides for grants to be made for publicity campaigns discouraging litter and for other measures to combat the proliferation of litter; Section 51 of the Public Health Act 1961, which provides for authorities in England and Wales to provide and maintain litter bins, and the corresponding Scottish provisions. I cannot pretend that this is a very exciting Bill, but at any rate it practises what it preaches and aims to destroy the litter which disfigures the statute book.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor,)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Fishing Boats Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("General duties of Registrar.
. In addition to the specific duties imposed on him by this Act, the Registrar shall have the following general duties—

(a) to promote and facilitate compliance by data users with the data protection principles;

(b) to facilitate the exercise by data subjects of their rights under this Act;

(c) to advise data users and data subjects on the application of the data protection principles;

(d) to promote the benefits to both data users and data subjects flowing from the holding and processing of personal data in compliance with the data protection principles;

(e) to investigate complaints of contraventions of the data protection principles, and to make the results of such investigations available to the data users and data subjects concerned.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause deals with what we submit is an important omission from the Bill—namely, to prescribe duties on the registrar. It is not intended as a kind of penalty to be imposed on the registrar, but to give him statutory authority to do what he ought to do in fulfilment of the object of the Bill, and indeed what he is expected to do to fulfil his duties under the scheme of the Bill.
The whole competence of this scheme of data protection depends upon, first, the registrar's own abilities, and, secondly, his power to do his duties in regard to securing fulfilment of the principles of data protection. Already certain limited specific duties are laid down in the Bill, but no general duties. We on this side of the House think that it is desirable—indeed, necessary—that the general duties of the registrar should be set out. We propose to do so in the five paragraphs (a) to (e) of the proposed new clause.
The first is:
"to promote and facilitate compliance by data users with the data protection principles;".
The principles are set out very clearly; they come from the convention; they are part of the Bill. But there is no provision requiring the registrar to promote and facilitate compliance with them. The next is:
"to facilitate the exercise by data subjects of their rights under this Act;".

1237
That again seems a desirable thing to be regarded as part of the registrar's duties. Thirdly:
"to advise data users and data subjects on the application of the data protection principles;".
Then:
"to promote the benefits to both data users and data subjects flowing from the holding and processing of personal data in compliance with the data protection principles;".
That is really designed to promote the benefits of computerisation, about which I understand the Government are enthusiastic, provided of course that the principles are complied with. Then finally;
"to investigate complaints of contraventions of the data protection principles, and to make the results of such investigations available to the data users and data subjects concerned".
Silence about these duties in the Bill will not ease the position of the registrar; on the contrary, it will make his difficulties all the greater because he may well be put to the question: "Under what authority are you proposing to do this or that aspect of the duties that are set out in the new clause as proposed?"
I have received from the Consumers' Association a letter in support of this amendment, and I understand that they have themselves written to the Minister asking him to consider this amendment and expressing the hope that it may find favour in his eyes. May I express the same hope. This is a useful amendment; it is a considerable strengthening of the position of the registrar. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, there is a lacuna in the Bill, which has been discussed at earlier stages in this House. The lacuna is that there has been a failure to clarify—indeed, to set out—what are the duties of this registrar. To use the happy phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, silence about these duties can only bring confusion and misunderstandings. Therefore, these amendments have the full support of these Benches.
In view of the sympathetic noises that from time to time have issued from the Government in regard to this point, I should have thought there would be little difficulty in the Government being able to accept the majority of the paragraphs of this particular amendment. I support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lords opposite are deeply suspicious of the absence from the face of the Bill of a bald statement of the functions which the detail of the Bill quite clearly reveals as proper to the registrar. They feel, and have made it quite clear, that the registrar should have displayed on the wall of his front office, as it were, something like the ten commandments of his trade. They do not trust his commonsense, they do not trust public expectation and they do not trust even the force of the declared will of Parliament, which has the power to dismiss him from office. They will only repose confidence in a statement in one part of the Bill of what is inescapably to be deduced from the whole of the rest of the Bill. I cannot say that I find this asessment either of the intelligence of the registrar or of the force of public opinion—or, indeed, of the power of Parliament—in any way attractive. But that
1238
is, of course, a subjective objection to accepting this amendment, and your Lordships will expect something of more practical consequence from me if I am to persuade your Lordships to reject it.
What worries me, therefore, is this. Whenever one creates a duty, one creates a requirement that it shall be performed. The amendment describes its contents as consisting of general duties, but if anyone were to ask the registrar why in an individual instance he was not performing one of them he would find that they were too precisely drawn for him to escape into their generality. Let us look at one of them—the proposed duty in paragraph (e) of the amendment to investigate complaints. In fact, regardless of this amendment, the registrar will investigate complaints. That is a principal purpose for which his office is being created. He will be equipped to investigate complaints. He will have the means to investigate complaints, and he will have the power to rectify them. Why, then, your Lordships may ask—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has in effect asked—can he not have a duty to investigate complaints? I will tell your Lordships why. It is because once one prescribes the duty in the statute it becomes mandatory in every instance: anybody—and, indeed, everybody—can require him to fulfil this function in their own case; and, what is more, they can take him to court if he does not. However pressing the need for him to apply his staff and resources in other functions, therefore, this function will be inescapable and he must pursue the trivial complaint, the irrelevant complaint, the complaint which the data user is actually already in the process of rectifying: all must be pursued unless he is to court a writ of mandamus.
That would be absurdly to distort the way in which he discharges the duties we want him to discharge, and ought not to be admitted to the Bill. The same goes for the other requirements brought up to us in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the proposed new clause. For instance, there is the duty to promote and facilitate the compliance by data users with the data protection principles; the duty to facilitate the exercise by data subjects of their rights under the Bill; the duty to advise data users and data subjects on the application of the data protection principles; and the duty to promote the benefits to both users and subjects flowing from the holding and processing of personal data in compliance with data protection principles. They read like a list, perhaps not quite exhaustive but very representative of all that we hope and expect the registrar to achieve. And that is what it ought to be—a list of hopes and expectations. If the expectations are not fulfilled Parliament will very soon wish to know why, and can do so without any amendments at all. But because it is drawn up as a list of duties it is clearly unacceptable.
I can therefore tell the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and, indeed, the Consumers' Association, that there is no lacuna in the Bill here. I am sorry, therefore, not to have the satisfaction of asking your Lordships to approve the amendment. It is, I regret, thoroughly unsatisfactory. It can only lead to a distortion of the way in which the registrar discharges the very functions which the amendment itself seeks to promote. It would be harmful to the purposes of the Bill and to the interests of data subjects and data users

1239
alike. If it is not withdrawn, I shall have to ask your Lordships to resist it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I briefly support my noble friend on one point which I believe is also significant? It is my experience that where one has tight terms of reference for anybody, and particularly someone in a new function, one limits him in the areas one has not covered. I should have thought that above everything in this Bill—and we are dealing with a new subject, a new area, on which administration is very much open to change as experience is gained—it is particularly unwise to put ourselves into a position where the registrar might be constrained not to use his initiative in areas because they are not in this list but where experience may show it to be necessary. I should have thought that in addition to the points made by my noble friend on the Front Bench those are factors which the movers of the amendment might well consider before they take any further action.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the language of satire, which is not usually the sign of strength, the noble Lord the Minister talked in terms of these duties being similar to the ten commandments being written outside the registrar's office. When the Almighty issued the Ten Commandments there was no doubt about his right to do so. The difficulty that we are faced with in this connection is that the registrar has not yet been appointed. We have no power, no right and no privilege of seeing him and interviewing him in this House at this moment—I have an idea that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is making a witty intervention.
The Lord Chancellor: I apologise, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: Not a bit, my Lords. The noble and learned Lord has no need to apologise; he lightens the atmosphere of this House so often. I have an idea that he brought in Moses. If he did, I can only say that I believe I am right in pointing out that Moses had no right to break the Ten Commandments and shatter them in pieces. Therefore, no right exists with the noble Lord the Minister to deal with the amendment in the same way as he seeks to deal with it this afternoon.
However, I return to the issue. It is not a question of whether or not the registrar is being told to do things. Indeed, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, these are expressed specifically to be general duties in addition to the special duties given by the Bill. But my point is that one wants to see to it that no lawyers hereafter can do something that your Lordships would not want them to do, which is to challenge the registrar in this highly technical Bill—and it is—in relation to rights and duties of an entirely new nature never before created by our legislature.
We do not want to find that we have passed a Bill which enables lawyers to argue that the registrar is not acting infra vires. That is the real point of this amendment. If on the face of the Bill—and we make no apologies for putting it on the face of the Bill—one specifically says that the registrar has, in addition to his specific duties, these general duties, one is clearly
1240
setting out for the benefit of the registrar what he can do and what everybody can then see he can do.
The noble Lord the Minister said that there was already written in the Bill a power to investigate. I have not seen it. If it is there, spelt out in clear terms, and if he interrupts my speech and points out where the clause is before I am seated, I shall apologise to the Minister. I find I am still standing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise for regarding the question as rhetorical. We debated at length the power of the registrar to have access to information and to go and look for it; actually to inquire and get evidence. That is the sort of power I have in mind.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships have heard that reply delivered with the same amount of courtesy as vagueness. To say that we have been debating the general power and so on is surely not to answer the straight question: Please, where is the power to investigate, which the noble Lord the Minister expressly said was written in this Bill? We cannot be referred to a debate in your Lordships' House. We want to see it in the Bill if that is where the Minister says it is. A message is about to reach him which may enable me to sit down again and the Minister to rise again.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Lord that the power is implicit and not explicit, which is why I cannot give him a line reference.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so much is implicit in what the noble Lord says in regard to this Bill and this amendment and so little is explicit that I think your Lordships will be grateful to those, including the Consumer Council, who wish everything to be explicit in this innovation, as I said, in our legislation and in the creation of the registrar. I do not think that I can usefully add anything to this—
Lord Elton: My Lords, since the noble Lord has tempted me, may I a third time intervene to say that, if he will look at Clause 16, what I have in mind are the powers of entry, for instance. It is implicit, in that the powers of entry would not exist if the registrar were not expected to inquire, but it is explicit in that the powers of entry are given under the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is typical; it is typical of this Bill. If I may say so in all humility, I am scared about what we are doing. There is no question of a Select Committee taking evidence here and all of us trying to become experts on data, computers and so on. Let us look at the very clause that the noble Lord the Minister has referred us to. Your Lordships will be amazed to find that this is the clause which deals with an application being made to a circuit judge in order that the circuit judge may, if he thinks it justified, issue a warrant for search. How in the name of heavens can that be interpreted to be a power of the registrar himself to investigate? This is the ultimate power of the registrar, when he finds that everything else has failed on investigation, he needs some urgent documents, he thinks that he cannot get them and he applies under this clause to a circuit judge. This is not the normal power to investigate. This is what we are

1241
faced with on this Bill—I say this with all due deference—vague replies and references to sections which are supposed to say things which, if you look at them, you find they do not say. What we are trying to do is to put down specific duties so that everybody knows where we are and this House knows that it is doing its duty.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, the noble Lord now says "specific duties". I am a total layman in this. Can he say that, whereas in this case a general duty is laid—and all these various general duties—in any particular case that would mean that the registrar would be under a duty to carry that out? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in general terms the answer is, Yes. Quite obviously, if flippant applications were made for the use of the powers, the registrar—and one knows this—is quite entitled to say, "I do not think that this comes within my duty because this is a flippant application and I do not intend therefore to carry out my duty in this connection because it is no duty at all". So what we really have is the registrar's right to act. If you cast a general duty upon him in the terms of this amendment, then he knows that he has a right to act and he also knows that in a proper case he has a duty to act.
Where the noble Lord the Minister was absolutely right was in this. If the registrar did not discharge his duty in an appropriate and proper case, then it is absolutely right that he could be made to do so by an order of the court, and this House knows that no order of the court would ever be made unless the court were satisfied that it was reasonable and proper for such an order to be made for the registrar to carry out his duty. There is no answer to this amendment, and I say that with all deference.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, while I have a certain sympathy with the amendment, I think it is mistaken. The computer, which is really what we are discussing in this Bill, is an extremely new tool. Most of us in this House do not know what it can do or what it will be capable of doing in the future. I feel that this rather roomy jacket that the noble Lords opposite wish the registrar to wear will, as time goes on, become tighter and tighter until it becomes a straitjacket, and, once computers are used for more and more things, will tie the registrar down very considerably rather than give him the leeway that his own common sense should allow him.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I have listened to this argument with the greatest of interest. To begin with I was rather in favour of the amendment. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has concentrated on paragraph (e), but if we take (a), (b), (c) and (d), it seems to me perfectly obvious that each one of those refers to the job of the man who is put in charge of whatever it is; in this case the registrar. If the Front Bench would remove (a), (b), (c) and (d), which are clearly unnecessary, we could then dispute (e) more easily. I should not mind a little bit being added to (e), but I do really think that the noble Lord who is conducting the Bill has made his case about the other points.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to pursue the metaphor of clothing in this matter, but I should have thought that to have—what was the phrase used?—a roomy jacket was better than, to coin a phrase, to go naked into the chamber, or whatever it may be the registrar will have to enter. My submission to the House is that the registrar will be far better protected and served in embarking upon his office to have these duties stated in those general terms, as his protection and his shield. That, in my submission, is a far greater source of strength to him than the risk of proceedings being brought for mandatory injunctions or whatever the other proceedings may be.
There is advantage, in spite of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in maintaining the generality of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). One would expect those duties to be carried out, I quite agree, but it seems to us that, unless they are specifically set out in the way that they are in the new clause, the registrar could he frequently faced with the difficult question: "What is your authority for doing what you propose to do? There is neither a statement of your power to do it, nor an expression of your duty to do it in the Bill as it stands". In those circumstances, I take up the challenge of the Minister to seek the views of the House upon this matter.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 100

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amulree, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Banks, L.

Mishcon, L.

Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Birk, B.

Nicol, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Byers, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Craigavon, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gardiner, L.

Stone, L.

George-Brown, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wade, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

1243

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ingrow, L.

Adeane, L.

Killearn, L.

Ailsa, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Avon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bathurst, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Margadale, L.

Cawley, L.

Marley, L.

Cayzer, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Molson, L.

Cottesloe, L,

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Northesk, E.

De La Warr, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Pennock, L.

Donegall, M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portland, D.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Erne, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Stamp, L.

Garner, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glasgow, E.

Strathspey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Suffield, L.

Gormanston, V.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Torrington, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hayter, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Wise, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Young, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Furnishing of information by data users.
.—(1) A data user shall furnish to the Registrar, upon his request and within a reasonable time, any information about the holding or processing of personal data by that user which the Registrar may reasonably require for the performance of any of his functions under this Act.
(2) If a court is satisfied on the application of the Registrar that any data user has refused, or has failed within a reasonable time, without lawful excuse to furnish to the Registrar any such information so requested, the court may order the data user to comply with that request within a time specified in the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment again, as I submit, seeks to fill a void in the Bill and is intended to strengthen the position of the registrar by giving him power to order a data user to provide him with information. The registrar, for instance, may require information from a person concerned about the
1244
holding or processing of personal data by the user and may do so in circumstances which the registrar thinks reasonable to require for the performance of his functions.
The position at present is that under Clauses 10 and 11 the registrar has to be satisfied that there has been contravention of any of the data principles. But unless the registrar has all the information he needs and has power to require the data user to supply him with the information, how can he reach the stage of being satisfied about whether or not there has been contravention?
One might visualise correspondence taking place between the registrar and a user running on the following lines. The registrar might write, "In recent weeks I have received a number of complaints from different individuals claiming that confidential information about them has come into the possession of certain third parties. The complainants have no direct knowlege as to how this came about, but the single factor common to them all is that they gave the information concerned in confidence to you in the first place. I see that you are on my register as a data user who holds personal data of that kind, but there is nothing in the purposes you have registered which would indicate that you disclose it to others. Indeed, your registration particulars specifically say that you do not. I should, therefore, be grateful if you would let me know whether you have in fact disclosed to any third parties any personal data held by you about any of these complainants. I enclose a list of their names to enable you to check this and I look forward to your reply".
As the Bill now stands, would not a reply from the user to the registrar such as follows be a justifiable one? "Thank you for your letter. At some expense I bought a copy of the Data Protection Act. I see from Sections 10 and 11 that you have powers to serve various notices on me but only if you are satisfied that I have contravened some data protection principles. Clearly, you are not so satisfied at the moment, otherwise you would not have written to me. Indeed, the information you give in your letter would not be enough for any reasonable person to be satisfied that I have committed what would, in fact, be a criminal offence. What I cannot find anywhere in the Act is any obligation on me to give you information which would then entitle you to take steps which I might find very inconvenient indeed, nor anything that you can do to me if I do not supply you with the information. I may, of course, have missed something. Will you please tell me if I have?"
That is not an actual piece of correspondence on which I can draw, but it is a perfectly legitimate potential one. Here at any rate is a place in the Bill where, once again, our interest is to strengthen the position of the registrar with these duties imposed upon him, and to enable him to obtain information from data users in such circumstances as I have described.
In the second part of the proposed new clause there is a provision that:
"If a court is satisfied on the application of the Registrar that any data user has refused, or has failed within a reasonable time, without lawful excuse to furnish to the Registrar any such information so

1245
requested, the court may order the data user to comply with that request within a time specified in the order."
If that became the law, then, as in the ordinary course of events, one would expect that the court's order would be complied with. Here at any rate is a specific area where the need to give the registrar the power to require the data user to furnish information is not at present provided for in the Bill; it is a necessary power and should be provided. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I agree that it is, of course, essential that the registrar should be able to obtain sufficient information about data users, and computer bureaux, to enable him to perform his functions under the Bill. On that, the noble Lords opposite and I are at one. Indeed, in drawing up the Bill we considered the very point addressed by this amendment: should the registrar be given an explicit power to require users to provide him with information for which he has asked or should he not? After careful deliberation we concluded that there should be no such power and that we should instead ensure that the Bill was so constructed as to allow the registrar to operate effectively without it.
Your Lordships will wish to know why we reached that conclusion. There are, I think, three principal circumstances in which the registrar may wish to obtain information. The first is where he is dealing with an application for registration and he is not altogether happy about the applicant. He may suspect that all is not well, while not knowing enough to satisfy himself that the user is, in fact, likely to contravene any of the principles. So he wants to find out a little more.
But here Clause 7(2)(c) makes the necessary provision. It empowers the registrar to refuse an application where he considers that the information available to him is insufficient to satisfy him that the applicant is unlikely to contravene any of the data protection principles. In this type of circumstance the registrar may ask questions of an applicant and, where the applicant refuses to answer them fully and the registrar is not satisfied that the applicant will not breach the principles, he can reject the application. In those circumstances, the powers of the registrar are clearly already sufficient. The user who refuses to answer the registrar's questions will not get what he wants, which is registration, and without registration he cannot operate. If he does not operate, he poses no threat to the data subject.
The two other situations in which the registrar may wish to obtain information are where—as the noble and learned Lord has suggested may be the case—he suspects that an offence under the Bill has been committed, or where he suspects that a registered person has contravened the data protection principles. Of course, in the vast majority of cases the registrar will simply ask, in the courteous tones of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for the information and it will be given to him. No power to require will be called for. The question then is: what of the minority who refuse, voluntarily, in the equally courteous tones of the noble and learned Lord, to give the registrar the necessary information?
The answer is that in these circumstances, at the end of the road lie the registrar's entry powers under Clause
1246
16. Where his suspicions of an offence or a contravention of the principles are compounded by a refusal by the user to provide information, he can request access to the user's premises, and if that access is refused, he can ultimately, under Clause 16(1), go to a circuit judge for an entry warrant.
It is our firm view that the combination of these powers and the knowledge that they are available to the registrar at the end of the day will be just as effective in ensuring that the registrar gets the information he wants as would any new clause of the kind proposed by the noble Lords opposite.
I rather gather from the reaction to what I have said among noble Lords opposite that they feel that this is to wave an extreme power which ought not to be waved. But the power is in the position of a dog on a chain in a garden with a notice on the door saying, "Beware of the dog". If people go into the garden willy-nilly and the householder is unable to cure the offence without using the dog, he is doubtless at liberty to use the dog—to unleash it to bark or bite, as the case may be. In this case the existence of the power threatens the ankles, if I may so put it, of the data user who is recalcitrant, and I think will cause him to behave himself.
However, I would just add one other reason why we preferred not to include a specific power to require information in the Bill. We must have regard to the importance of the privilege against self-incrimination. A provision obliging data users to supply information on request to the registrar could sit uncomfortably with that privilege. Once one makes provision for that, much of the supposed value of the new clause is lost, for those who have nothing to fear will be ready to give the information without being required to do so and those who have something to hide will, for the most part, be able to plead self-incrimination and simply sidestep the requirements on them under this amendment. I refer to "lawful excuse" in the amendment, which is where that comes in.
I suppose I should also mention that the new clause is directed solely at data users and, as far as I can see, absolutely ignores persons carrying on computer bureaux. I should have thought that if there is sauce for the data user here, there ought also to be sauce for the person running a computer bureaux, who would be the gander. For those three reasons I think that this is an unsatisfactory amendment.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we have wandered in our similes and metaphors from Moses walking up Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments, to dogs that are chained in kennels in a way that would horrify the noble Lord who generally occupies the Bench to my left in your Lordships' Chamber. I am really wondering where we are getting. We are not looking upon the data user as being of any canine quality; we are looking upon him as being a respectable citizen who is entitled to look at a Bill and see what his rights and duties are under that Bill.
Everybody admits that prior to registration the sanction is non-registration. But, post registration, the registrar is seeking some information in order to know, if you like, whether a complainant data subject is

1247
putting forward a flippant complaint or a genuine complaint and whether, indeed, one of the principles set out in the schedule is being breached. To say that there is no intermediate stage of being able to point to a clause in a Bill where the data user (or it may be that one ought to add the data bureaux as well) is obliged to give that information—no intermediary stage at all—and to be told that a circuit judge is going to have an application in front of him in order that a warrant may be issued to search the premises and see whether there are any documents available which can give this information, is really a nonsense.
Quite apart from the insulting way in which this provision would be exercised if there were no intermediary stage, how can anybody be sure that a search warrant, which can only be for documents and for machines, is going to reveal the information which the registrar wants to have? It is not a question of looking at the minority of citizens. The majority of our citizens reject—and possibly quite rightly so—the interference of bureaucrats, as they think, into the conduct of their business and their private life.
That is why the Inland Revenue have the powers to insist upon answers to questions, and that is why, where Parliament thinks it necessary, somebody has the right to ask for the information, to call for it, and to demand it. This is one of those occasions. When we talk in terms of, "It might be incriminating", are we really saying that a data user should be protected, although he is breaching every one of these principles, because he is not worried about the warrant and it will not reveal anything? To say that he is going to be protected because if he gave the information it might show that he was breaching any one of these principles, and it is Parliament's duty therefore to protect him, is really making a nonsense of all these provisions and the protection of the data subject, and everything else.
There is no cogent reason for refusing this amendment other than the one that the Minister gives which, if he will forgive my saying it—and I am not trying to copy his analogy with the dog—is a very lame dog reason. That is, that there is the right to exercise the sanction of exercising a power which, I repeat, may do the registrar no good, quite apart from the fact that it is a pretty dreadful power to exercise when all the registrar is doing is inquiring in order to get information post-registration. The noble Lord the Minister, if he will forgive my saying so, must do a bit better than that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thought that the policy of the Tory Government was to diminish the powers of officials to enter private premises of businesses or individuals. Yet here is the Minister coming along and telling us that at the first sign of any trouble with a data user or data bureau, the first thing that is to happen is that the registrar will threaten to exercise the powers that have been conferred on him to enter with a search warrant and turn the place upside down looking for documentary evidence of alleged contravention of any one of the data principles. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just remarked, it is not going to be an easy matter to go through the whole of the files of a
1248
business to discover what may be one minor contravention.
I cannot understand the Minister in his refusal to accept some modest power for the registrar to avoid the much greater sledge hammer of a search warrant and entry on to somebody else's premises. If you take the analogy of the dog which he gave, it is rather as if you said that if somebody comes down the garden path and you think that he has some irregular purpose in mind, you send the Doberman pinscher to bite him immediately, and later you may find that he was only the postman.
The noble Lord is saying that when a complaint is made to the registrar of an alleged violation of one of the data protection principles, the registrar has no mechanism for compelling the person to give him the necessary information to ascertain whether or not that complaint has any validity other than threatening to go in with a warrant. Well, that is absurd. I hope that the noble Lord will have a second thought on this matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may be that the illustration of the dog, which need not be as savage as Lord Avebury's Doberman pinscher, was not a good one. If the noble Lord has cause to send out bills of account to people who owe him money he does not send out a notice saying that he will take them to court if they do not pay. Everybody knows that that will happen if they do not pay a bill. Therefore, the existence of a power to use in the event of a failure to meet an obligation does not seem to me in any way unreasonable when one is saying why the obligation should be met.
Nor is this the instant response. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, read out a courteous letter and a courteous reply, to which a further exchange might follow: "Dear Data User, Thank you for your letter in reply to mine. I am sorry you don't feel able to give me the information I requested. I earnestly entreat you to do so. I have, as you will know, a power under Clause 16 to come and look for it if you don't. This would cause me trouble and expense, and doubtless be inconvenient to you. But I am sure we can arrive at an amicable arrangement. I merely wish to be given the information which will enable me to know whether you have done the thing which it was suggested to me that you have done and which was referred to in my last letter. If you have not, the matter is closed. If you have, I shall ask you not to do it in the future".
He could go on—although I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would think that this was unduly threatening—to say that if he did not propose to desist in the future then under another clause, I think Clause 10, he would be able to put on him an enforcement notice. This is not pointing a pistol at anybody's head. It is a reasonable request to do something reasonable. If it is unreasonably refused then the registrar must have a power to put it right. The noble Lords have spent much of this afternoon saying that the registrar does not have sufficient powers and they are not sufficiently explicit. It is a pity that when we give him an explicit power they find that also a matter for regret.
Lord Hunt of Fawley: My Lords, as a doctor I would feel very strongly indeed about being forced to give

1249
confidential, personal evidence given me by a patient in strict confidence to a registrar. I would go to any lengths to protect that doctor/patient relationship, even if it meant going to prison, It is terribly important that we protect the doctor/patient relationship, otherwise patients will not talk to us and doctors will not make any notes, except perhaps in a shorthand which only they can read.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the House will permit, it is the purpose of this provision to protect this relationship. In the noble and learned Lord's example, if things were being learnt about patients who were all patients of one doctor which were supposed to be confidential, then the registrar would say that there was a breach of a principle and he wanted to be told how it had happened. His duty is to protect the data subject and not to threaten him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, surely it must be at the basis of this operation that the registrar shall be enabled to obtain the relevant information. What is suggested is that the sledgehammer of seeking an authority from a judge to enter premises, to search the premises for information which ought readily to be available, is grotesque. If ever there was a sledge-hammer being used to crack a nut, there has never been a more clear example.
This invasion of premises on a search warrant is very much a last step remedy by executive authority; and to be called in as the first stage remedy, as proposed by the arguments of the Minister, is grotesque, if it is not embarking upon the absurd. In those circumstances, regretfully I must invite the House to express a view on this matter.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Amulree, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Banks, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beswick L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Bishopston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Listowel, E.

Byers, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mishcon, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Gardiner, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

1250

Rea, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Thurso, V.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Stedman, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

White, B.

Stone, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Tanlaw, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ingrow, L.

Ailsa, M.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Avon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bathurst, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cawley, L.

Margadale, L.

Cayzer, L.

Marley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Colwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Molson, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Norfolk, D.

De La Warr, E.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Pennock, L.

Donegall, M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rugby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sandford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Spens, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hatherton, L.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, V.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vivian, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 16 [Powers of entry etc.]:
4.38 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
("(11) Nothing in this section authorises the inspection or seizure of any document or other material in respect of which, or data contained in which, a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be remembered that there was an amendment tabled in precisely these terms on Report. We are here dealing with the issue of legal privilege, a privilege which has

1251
been honoured by centuries of tradition in our law. Indeed, as the Minister said on Report, it has a relevance in Clause 32(2) of the Bill, where, on the question of access, legal privilege is admitted and is therefore an exception to the question of the right of access. The Minister also referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, in which, similarly, this right—which is the right and privilege of the client, not of the lawyer—is protected. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"We must think carefully of the possible consequences for data subjects of the proposed exclusion, and we must not lose sight of the provisions both in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and in Clause 32(2) of the Bill with which we are dealing. For the time being I am pointing to the difficulties and warning against moving hastily before all the implications arc fully thought through. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord"—
referring to my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan—
"will not press the amendment but will give us time to continue our consideration. I hope he will be satisfied that we have taken the point fully on board".—(Official Report, 10/3/83; col. 406.]
I imagine that the noble Lord the Minister has had time further to consider this matter, and I hope that the consideration has led to a conclusion which is rather more favourable than the conclusion that has resulted from his consideration of the other amendments that we have so far moved. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for reminding us of this complex point. When my noble friend Lord Glenarthur spoke to a similar amendment on Report he repeated that the Government acknowledged the existence of an important point of principle, and he explained why for the moment we were doubtful about going so far as proposed in the amendment. Our reservation stemmed from a recognition that most instances in which the registrar might seek access to a solicitor's premises—and I cannot believe that they will be at all frequent—would be in investigating suspicions of breaches of the legislation or contraventions of the data protection principles by the solicitor himself as data user. He might, for example, have grounds for suspecting that the solicitor was disclosing data other than as indicated in his registered particulars, or that inadequate security measures were being taken to protect the possibly very sensitive data which he held. In those circumstances, it would clearly be in the interests of the clients of the solicitor concerned that the registrar should make his investigation. The blanket application of a doctrine of legal professional privilege, as proposed in this amendment, would actually reduce the protection available to those who place information about themselves in the hands of their legal advisers.
However, on Report my noble friend also indicated that we conceded that there were circumstances—not dissimilar from those of which the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill takes account—from which it would be right to exclude the registrar. Just as the police are denied the ability, by warrant, to seek access to evidence which may have been placed in the hands of a legal adviser by a suspect, so, it could be argued, should the registrar be prevented from seeing what a data user, whom he might be investigating for a data
1252
offence, or a suspected breach of the data protection principles, had said to his legal adviser on those matters. It would clearly be wrong for the registrar to seek to strengthen his own case in respect of a data user by gaining access to what that user had confided to his legal adviser. That, I acknowledge, would be to trespass upon what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, termed on Report as the last bastion of privacy.
Having said that, I must also say that the drafting of an exemption to meet that kind of case is a matter of great complexity. On Report my noble friend indicated some of the considerations to be borne in mind. The difficulty of the matter has proved too great for us to be able to come forward with proposals in time for the final stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and I must ask your Lordships to allow us to take action in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out on Report, the amendment would confer on lawyers a very special unnecessary privilege, hugely in excess of anything demanded by the interests of their clients. But we have on board the central issue. It will not be lost sight of in the transition from one House to another, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be content to leave it with us. If he really feels that we shall need to be reminded, then his honourable friends in another place can do that, but I do not think that it will be necessary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when the noble Lord the Minister refers to my honourable friends in another place I am sure that he appreciates that this is a nonpolitical amendment, and indeed is sponsored by the Law Society, among others. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord the Minister said. I can well understand that there are complexities in drafting. In view of his assurance—and I believe that I can correctly define it as an undertaking—I am perfectly happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Jurisdiction and procedure]:
Lord Mishconhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) In any proceedings brought under sections 22, 23 or 24 above any findings by the Registrar shall be admissible in evidence.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would consider what had been said, and that he would honour me by writing to me. That honour has now been enjoyed; the noble and learned Lord was kind enought to write to me on 22nd March. In his letter—if I may quote him—he stated:
"I have considered further the evidential value in civil proceedings of the findings of the registrar, but my conclusion is that what I said at the time is substantially correct, namely that if the findings are such that they ought to be admitted in evidence, they may be admitted under the existing law, but if not, not. Clearly a conviction based on a finding of inaccuracy may be admitted under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. But what of a finding that is not put to the test in court or which when so tested is rejected? To say that a registrar's decision to issue an enforcement notice for inaccuracy should be admissible in proceedings under clause 22 is a bit like saying that the issue by the police of a notice of intention to prosecute for careless driving should be admissible in civil

1253
proceedings for negligence even though the prosecution may have failed or may not have been brought. This is not to deny that evidence which comes into the possession of the registrar (or the police) in one context may not be useful to the plaintiff in another. But there is, I think, no difficulty about the admissibility of such evidence; the general law should suffice".
In view of what was stated in the letter—and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord—I do not think it very advantageous for me to proceed with the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 27 [National security]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("required") and insert ("necessary")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a matter of semantics, and on the last occasion we went through a merry exercise dealing with the question of whether "required " really means "necessary", and whether "necessary" is not a better word. Again in this instance the noble Lord the Minister has been good enough to write to me. Although, if he will forgive me for saying so, I still think that the word "necessary" is preferable, and that the word "required" is ambiguous—certainly to members of the public—I do not think that this is a proper point for me to press on Third Reading in your Lordships' House. If in another place Members take the view that, for the reasons that we tried to give on the last occasion, the word "necessary" is a better word than "required", the time of that House may be better exercised on such a point than would be the time of this House on Third Reading. Therefore I do not propose to move the amendment. I should add that I have in fact spoken to Amendments Nos. 5 to 8.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 21, line 12, after ("that") insert ("the disclosure of ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. In this connection I am trying very hard to improve the draftsmanship of the Government's new clause; and I do so in all humility. As your Lordships will see, the amendment relates to Clause 27(4), which is to be found on page 21 of the Bill. Your Lordships will notice that, if I may say so with respect, the present wording is quite misleading, and I do not think that it fulfils the Government's own purpose. With your Lordships' permission, I shall read the subsection, which is a short one. At present it states:
"For the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that personal data are or have been disclosed for the purpose mentioned in that subsection shall be conclusive evidence of the fact".
If one reads the English logically, that means that the certificate is merely evidence of the fact that the Minister has certified that personal data are or have been disclosed. What the subsection really ought to state—if I may read it with the suggested wording included—is:
"For the purpose of subsection (3) above a certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that the disclosure of personal data is or was necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection shall be conclusive evidence of that fact".
1254
Of course "that fact" is the fact that disclosure was necessary, not that the disclosure has been made, or not made, as the case may be. In those circumstances, I trust that the Government will be gracious enough to thank those who have taken the trouble to amend their own clause only in the hope of making it clearer. I therefore hope that the Minister will think we have achieved a useful purpose.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking noble Lords who, with such assiduity, have given their intellects and time in seeking to amend this Bill at all points, and particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invites me to do so at this point. I regret that my letter to him did not extend to cover this point, also. On looking at this pair of amendments we discover that they have a substantive effect and one that, to our minds, is not desirable. What would happen would be that a person seeking information for national security purposes, in order to allow the holder of the information to qualify for the exemption, would have to show that the disclosure was necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security. That would require a degree of prescience that would be beyond even those who discharge national security duties.
No one can be absolutely certain until they see the information whether or not its disclosure is necessary for a particular purpose, but they will not see it until it has been disclosed. The data user can only count on the protection of the clause against a charge of improper disclosure if the provision in the clause that disclosure was necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security is satisfied. The odd (and, I am sure, unintentional) effect of the noble Lord's amendment would therefore seem to be that the user could never know whether disclosure was justified until after the disclosure had been made. In those circumstances, I think that disclosures would be inhibited, there would be what is now termed a "Catch 22" situation, the user would be very reluctant to co-operate and the national interest would suffer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think that Third Reading is meant to be the stage of a Bill where arguments take place about drafting and words. The noble Lord the Minister must forgive me for saying that if I had wanted to do so I could have answered him at some length; but I feel that, having put on record the reason for the amendment, again it may be looked at between now and the time when it goes to another place, and perhaps looked at in another place. In those circumstances, but in no way admitting that this wording is not far better than that now existing, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Crime, taxation and immigration control]:
4.54 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 21, line 28, after ("which") insert ("the Registrar is satisfied that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I wonder whether your

1255
Lordships will remember the debate which took place in regard to this matter. The exact reference to it is at column 650 of our proceedings of 15th March. There was a debate between the noble Lord the Minister and myself in regard to a very simple matter. We know that we are dealing with a very controversial clause in Clause 28 but everybody now has to take it for granted for the time being that that is the clause in the Bill which deals with the question of exemption of personal data in the cases of the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or the control of immigration.
Then the clause goes on to say that personal data held for any of those purposes are exempt from the subject-access provisions in any case—and I am reciting these words slowly on purpose—
"in which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection".
Who is the judge of whether it is likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection? That was the question that we asked from these Benches last time; because what we wanted to do—and this is the self-same amendment—was to say that the registrar must be satisfied in that connection. The noble Lord the Minister, in dealing with that debate, referred the House (in a way which I know he meant to be helpful but which I could not help thinking was unintentionally misleading) to the provisions of Clause 21(8), where the court has the right in certain circumstances to adjudge upon certain matters. It is useful therefore to refer back to Clause 21(8). Clause 21(8) says this:
"If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under … this section …"—
and I am leaving out words which do not matter—
"the data user in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions,"—
that is the request for access, and so on—
"the court may order him to comply with the request; but a court shall not make an order under this subsection if it considers that it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to do so, whether because of the frequency with which the applicant has made requests to the data user under those provisions or for any other reason".
This is the point that I tried to make last time and about which the noble Lord the Minister could not satisfy me, and I hope that also he could not satisfy your Lordships about it. I am afraid that he has not satisfied me in the courteous letter which he was good enough to send me on this matter. If we leave it like this, the court is in difficulty in deciding whether or not this Bill gives the right to the data user himself to judge (without anybody else having to adjudge upon this matter) that the prejudice exists in regard to any one of those four categories that I have just read out. It is very likely that the data user in this case will be a Ministry. Therefore, the Ministry is presumably to be the judge of whether this is prejudicial, and does not have to satisfy the registrar (unless you have the words that this amendment suggests in the Bill) and when the matter gets to the court, the court is going to be in the difficulty of saying, "Looking at the provisions of this Bill, it looks as though this is purely a matter for the data user to be satisfied about. I am told the data user
1256
is satisfied". In those circumstances, the court has no further power.
It is in these circumstances that one has to put into the Bill perfectly clearly who it is—and the noble Lord the Minister admits that there must be some check upon this; otherwise we are merely giving completely arbitrary powers. Somebody outside the data user has to be satisfied about this matter. We suggested the registrar. The noble Lord the Minister, quite apart from his other arguments, felt that the registrar possibly was not a suitable arbiter. It may well be that what he wants to say, on reflection, is that the court should be the arbiter or that somebody else should be the arbiter.
All that I am saying in this amendment on behalf of my noble friends is that there has to be somebody. We have put the registrar there because we thought it was the most convenient, speedy and expedient way of dealing with the short matter of whether the prejudice exists or not. If the Government were to substitute for the registrar some other independent authority, then my noble friends and I would not complain. But to leave it as it is is to leave a vacuum which a court may find it difficult to deal with, and indeed may find it much worse than that—easy to deal with by saying that it has no power over this matter at all.
If the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual charm, says that it is obvious that the court has the rights and that everything to him is (if I may say so without being disrespectful) so obvious, I wish it were so obvious to Members of your Lordships' House and I wish it would be so obvious to judges in our courts and to the registrar, whoever he may be. If he says it is obvious that there must be somebody who can judge this and that there must be some sort of appellate procedure, I ask him also to deal with this question. If it is so obvious that it is the courts; if it is so obvious that it is the registrar; if it is so obvious that it is some other authority, what is the harm in spelling it out in the Bill with clarity instead of leaving it an ambiguous mess? I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I entirely support the amendment as described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It seems to me that it is consonant with my original amendment at Committee stage which sought to place some sort of checking authority upon officials handling this information and which, at Report stage, I narrowed to consider just those that are covered by Clause 27. I have withdrawn my opposition to safeguarding us against hidden manipulation under Clause 27, because I see that it is very difficult to put that into effect. But—here I am heartened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says he is quite open as to who should do this function—I believe most strongly that officials, however well meaning, however competent, however determined to serve their country they are, are not able properly to discipline themselves if there are no other means by which they should be disciplined.
I believe also that in this area of data, this is, if anything, more important than it is with written records, because written records have their own limitations. There is a limit to how much one can write out with a typewriter, even with modern equipment. But in the data world the possibility of burgeoning

1257
information and of not complying with those parts of the data principles which require one to dispose of information that one does not need—to paraphrase it—will potentially mean, if there is not a check, that this could multiply, and, what is worse, could be cross-connected so readily, much more readily than written records. I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench to listen with great care to the case for this amendment, even if he does not like the actual wording. I hope that before the Bill leaves Parliament there will be something in it which reflects the thought behind this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I support the appeal that has been made to the Government that in the context of this very controversial clause clarification as to who is to be satisfied should be introduced. I strongly support the amendment on the grounds that Lord Mishcon has explained so clearly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it really appears that everything is so obvious to me, I am a great deal cleverer than I thought I was. I have found this a very difficult Bill to master and I had hoped that by tackling those difficulties in public I had helped your Lordships a little towards understanding it. I must rehearse again for the benefit of your Lordships arguments that I have already put to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in correspondence. For it is again a matter on which, after consideration of what he said at the last stage, I can find no defect in the Bill. I will turn to my noble friend in a moment. I shall first address the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble Lord has suggested that if the test for exemption in Clause 28(1) is left at large—simply that one of the matters listed in that subsection is likely to be prejudiced by giving subject access—then neither the registrar nor the courts will be able effectively to challenge a claim of a data user that prejudice was likely to occur. If that really were the effect of Clause 28(1), as drafted, we would seriously consider amending it. But it is not. It could only be, as the noble Lord suggests, if the provision were cast in terms of the data user being satisfied that prejudice was likely to occur, or it appearing to the data user that prejudice was likely to occur. But no such words are found in the Bill.
Instead it is left at large so that others—including the registrar and the courts—can reach their own view. The noble Lord will perhaps tell me, since when have the courts considered themselves unable to interpret the law? If a data subject, making use of the provision in Clause 21(8) to seek a court order for access, goes to the court to challenge a user's right to refuse access on the grounds of prejudice to a Clause 28(1) matter, there is absolutely no question in our minds: of course, the court will not feel obliged to accept the view of the user or indeed the view of anybody else. It will find its own view. I can find nothing to suggest that the courts will be so easily dissuaded from performing one of the very functions for which they exist.
And what goes for the courts here, goes for the registrar too. If a subject seeks his assistance, claiming that a user is contravening the seventh principle by not providing access, he is scarcely going to be put off by simple assertion by the user that a Clause 28(1) exemption was justified. He will come to his own view
1258
on that; and if it differs from that of the user and he orders access, then there will be the tribunal to adjudicate, should the user wish.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that there is no need for the amendment at all. If that were all and the amendment were merely harmless and superfluous, we might be tempted, at least momentarily, to yield to the noble Lord, because it gives him such pleasure to gain his point and we like making this an agreeable process. But as I explained at the last stage, it would further cut directly across the subject's avenue of access to the court. It would, ironically in fact, have just the effect that the noble Lord has, mistakenly I suggest, complained that the clause as drafted has. For it would restrict the courts to one consideration only—the consideration of whether the registrar has satisfied himself that prejudice was likely. That is the harm that the noble Lord asked me to identify that lies in his amendment. If therefore the subject wished to avail himself of Clause 21(8) and challenge the exemption in the courts, he would find that that right was severely curtailed.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone has returned to his suggestion that the registrar should be given some role in supervising the use of data for national security purposes. I am sorry to have to disappoint my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I did not say "national security". I have given up under that. No, it is under this Clause 28. I want to be sure that all officials are properly supervised. That is the great point.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I presume that that embraces the matter of security.
Lord Mottistone: No, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has dropped the matter of security.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, no; I am sorry. I have not dropped the matter of security; I have attempted to make it clear because I thought those of your Lordships who were present at previous stages of this Bill might think that this was so. But, as I wrote to my noble friend, I have accepted the argument on Clause 27 absolutely; but I am only talking about Clause 28. I gained the impression, from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was saying, that somehow the officials dealing with Clause 28(1) were going to get out from under being supervised. That I strongly think is wrong.
I think there should be some sort of data supervision for people under Clause 28(1), which is what my original amendment at the Committee stage sought to achieve. My noble friend at that stage told me that that was perfectly all right because I would find that under later parts of Clause 28 these people are subject to supervision. I was alerted when I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was saying. He may have been mistaken, but if I am mistaken I apologise to your Lordships. The fact is that we really must not have officials able to act without any sort of supervision in the data area. I accept that, in the special circumstances of Clause 27, I have reluctantly to bow to the fact that they need this for national security purposes.

1259
But in this area I do not think they do, and I do not think they should.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have, therefore, to give the same answer to my noble friend as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: that the courts are the guardians of the liberties of this country and, if there is a misuse of powers, it is to the courts that the person against whom they are misused must look for protection. I hope my noble friend can accept that. It is a matter which we have looked at at some length and I am satisfied that that is the right answer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is a weak answer, it is an inconclusive answer and, were it not for the fact that the Minister was so charming, I would say that it was a very wrong answer. He should not have made that answer and I say that for this reason. If the House is frankly to deal with this matter, it must be satisfied—and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, interpreted my remarks absolutely correctly—that we have excepted security here and are now on the entirely different matters of the four categories in Clause 28. Somebody cannot just say, "I take the view that one of these items will be prejudiced", and that will be the end of the matter and the data subject will have no rights at all. Somebody has to supervise it.
I am even going so far in my argument as to concede that the data subject has to go to the courts in order to get his rights, which is not an easy matter for a data subject to do. But I am taking that for granted for a moment. I have looked at Clause 21(8) and I say to the House in all humility that, on the face of it, it does not give the court the power to go behind the opinion of the data user, as to whether or not matters are being prejudiced. This is where I inferred that it was not a complete answer and, as I said earlier, if the Minister were not so charming I would say that it was a very wrong answer to give to the House.
I would have expected the Minister to say, "What we are going to do is this. There appears to be some doubt about it, so why should we not make the statute clear, so that it is not just lawyers who can understand it, with inferred right and so on? Everybody should understand it. What we are going to concede is this. In Clause 21(8), which deals with the court's rights in the matter we will spell out that the court has the right to look into the question of prejudice under Clause 28, and see whether it was a genuine plea that was made by the Government department or whoever was concerned." If the noble Lord the Minister had said that, I would have sat down with some amount of contentment. I would have known that this proper battle which we are fighting had in some way been won.
What is happening is that the noble Lord the Minister is saying to the House, "This is the power which the court has and that is the answer to the amendment." I am saying to the House that I cannot find it, and the noble Lord the Minister cannot show me the words that give it. If the answer of the noble Lord the Minister is that this power is in Clause 21, why make it an inferred power? Why not make it a power that is clearly written in the Bill? If the noble Lord the Minister will give an undertaking, even at this
1260
stage, that it will be written into Clause 21(8), then I, from my point of view, will not persist with this amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I introduce one further minor consideration which seems to me important in the light of his remarks? It is deliberately left at large that the data user and the registrar may consider their view as to whether personal data comes within the exemptions here. If there is a conflict of opinion between the data user and the registrar as to whether a particular piece of personal data should be exempt from the subject access provisions under Clause 28(1), there is no power for the court to resolve that, because it must be the data subject who makes the application which is refused. That leads on to the process of an application to the court under the provision that the noble Lord quoted earlier, Clause 21(8), and, in the event of a dispute between the data user and the registrar, the registrar himself has no power to ask for a ruling of the court. It is only the data subject who has that right of access to the court.
We are thinking of the situation in which the data subject, while he may have an interest in gaining access to the data, has not the means or the skill to bring an action. For example, he may require the information for the purpose of overcoming an objection to his remaining in the United Kingdom, or to entering the United Kingdom in the first place, and this is not a matter on which he may be prepared to spend a great deal of money, important though it is to him, because he may not have the financial resources. But if the registrar considered that access was being unreasonably withheld, then he would have the financial resources to bring a test case in the courts, but the clause in question, Clause 21(8) does not give him the right to do that.
It seems to me that, in any case, it would be best wherever possible to have this difference of opinion—if such exists—resolved before going to the courts. In other words, first of all, the data subject asks the registrar whether he would look at the particular data and see whether there should be access to it. The registrar would then decide that access had been wrongfully withheld and, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were accepted, he would declare that in that case the subject should have access. After that, if the data user still felt that access ought to be withheld, it could be the subject of court proceedings. But I suggest that, in 99 cases out of 100, after the registrar had made a decision, both the data user and the data subject would accept it and that would avoid court proceedings.
We are in the same area as we were in earlier, where it seems to me that the Government are forcing people to go to an extreme to find out what their rights are, when we have a perfectly good registrar who is part of the Bill, and who would enable us to do this much more cheaply from the point of view of the data subject, and much more satisfactorily from the point of view of the data user, than having to be dragged before the courts every time there is a dispute.
Lord Elton: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, if I may speak again, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has

1261
accused me of being charming. It is kind of him to do so, but he has used that as the reason for not saying that I am wrong. Perhaps it would serve the House if I were less charming and said that I believe the noble Lord is plumb wrong, because the fact is that both the registrar and the court can go behind the user, as the noble Lord puts it, and I really cannot see his difficulty in regard to Clause 28(1). Incidentally, for the record, there have been frequent references to Clause 21(8), but I take it that we are all talking to Clause 28(1). In subsection (1), it is laid down that personal data held for any of a number of reasons,
"… are exempt from the subject access provisions in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection."
That likelihood is something which can be acted upon by the data user in his own judgment and appealed against by the data subject. The data subject can go to the court. The court will look at whether or not it was likely to prejudice any of the matters and the court will decide. If it was likely, the data user was right and if it was unlikely the data subject was right and the exemption was illegal. That is what the court is there to try.
As to the other matter which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as I said before, what goes for the court goes for the registrar. If a subject seeks his assistance, claiming that a user is contravening the seventh principle by not providing access, the registrar is able to come to his own conclusion as to whether or not an exemption is justified. The registrar will come to that conclusion, and if it differs from that of the user he will serve an access order. Then there will be a tribunal to adjudicate, if the user so wishes. So we stay out of what the noble Lord regards, perhaps rightly, as the complication and expense of the courts.
This is a simple matter. Not many things in this Bill are obvious to me, but this is pretty obvious and I am a little surprised that it is not obvious to the noble Lord who has so much more experience than I of both the courts and the law. The advice I have had is so wide and so convincing and is, to me, so clearly understandable that I can only express my regret if I have not made it clear to your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, since everything is so clear to the Minister I have one simple request to make of him. On an application by a data subject regarding matters where exemption has been claimed under Clause 28(1) because they are likely to prejudice any one of those four categories, could the noble Lord kindly point to the words in the Bill which give to the court the power to examine the question of prejudice? If the noble Lord reads those words to your Lordships I shall sit down and will even hope to be polite enough to apologise for wasting the time of your Lordships. If the noble Lord does not do so but instead talks in terms of inference, then I must ask him, since this must be ambiguous if it is purely an inference, to give the House the reason why the actual words should not plainly be written into the Bill. If the inference is there, what is the harm if the actual words are used so that everybody can know what their rights are and so that the courts can know it, too? I sit down and invite the Minister to do that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the House is happy for me to accept that invitation, I will read out subsection (8) of Clause 21:
"If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions of this section that the data user in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to comply with the request …".
Lord Mishcon: And with the leave of the House, my Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, those are the words which I quoted. The words do not bar the argument by any advocate that the court has to be satisfied that the data user—the Ministry, as it most likely will be—has not wrongfully used Clause 28(1) because the department in its wisdom has decided that one of the four categories will be prejudiced. The court is not given the power expressly to look behind that provision. If the noble Lord the Minister says that it is and that this is what he intends it to have, I ask him again: why can it not be expressed so that everybody knows it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord keeps asking me to speak after I have finished speaking. I think this is my fourth intervention and it must be my last. The provision in Clause 28(1) is that there shall be an exemption when there is likelihood of prejudice—not in anyone's mind but an absolute likelihood at large for the court to decide. If the noble Lord goes to Clause 21(8), there is nothing there which says that it should be the department which must be satisfied. The noble Lord wanted to ascribe it to the registrar; he must be satisfied. He now says that the Bill somehow says that it is the department which must be satisfied. It does not. It is not in the Bill. The noble Lord cannot get me to read it out because it is not there. It is prejudicial to his case. I cannot speak again. If I cannot make myself clear at this stage I never shall, so I hope the noble Lord will get on with it and divide the House so that we can see who is right.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

George-Brown, L.

Avebury, L.

Glanusk, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bishopston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Jacques, L.

Brockway, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Collison, L.

Kagan, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

De La Warr, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gardiner, L.

Mottistone, L.

1263

Nicol, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ogmore, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Peart, L.

Stone, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Segal, L.

White, B.

Southwell, Bp.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stamp, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Killearn, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lane-Fox, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bathurst, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Molson, L.

Daventry, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donegall, M.

Newall, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ebbisham, L.

Northesk, E.

Eccles, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glasgow, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Suffield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hatherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Hives, L.

Torrington, V.

Holderness, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Vickers, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ingrow, L.

Westbury, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Any personal data disclosed under subsection (2) above shall be reported by the data user making the disclosure to the Registrar together with a description of the data so transferred; and the Registrar shall make a record of such transfer and description.
( ) Any record made in accordance with the foregoing subsection shall be made public after a period of ten years or such lesser period as the Registrar may determine.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the non-disclosure provisions of Clause 28(2) and follows some remarks I made at an earlier stage concerning the representations which a number of us had received from the British Medical Association; and I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the association's views on Clause 28 as a whole. They do not like the idea that medical information may possibly be disclosed to a third party where it is likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
I know that the noble Lord the Minister has assured us on a number of occasions that no holder of personal data is obliged under these provisions to disclose confidential data—but the inference is that he will do so. It has been said on more than one occasion that, for example, the hospital authority cannot be relied upon to observe the same kind of rule of absolute confidentiality in relation to personal data as a doctor would. Therefore, if a police officer, an immigration officer or a tax inspector goes to the hospital secretary and asks for confidential information relating to the affairs of a patient, then the hospital secretary, looking at Clause 28(2) of this Bill, will see that he is virtually enjoined to give that information to the police officer, immigration officer or tax inspector. I am quite sure that there will be an increase in the number of such disclosures of confidential information from medical files as a result of this particular clause appearing in the Bill.
The British Medical Association, of course, would like to have absolute confidentiality, but that is something we shall certainly not achieve in this House, although the Minister may find that when this Bill goes to another place these provisions will excite a little more wrath from the outside world than they have done so far. Just as with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, where people have woken up very late in the day to the inquiry of what the Government are trying to do, I believe that in the case of this Bill, after the British Medical Association and other professional bodies (to say nothing of the right reverend Prelates, who have suddenly got into the act on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill very late in the day) have started to make representations on these provisions, the same will occur. I believe that the Government will have a much tougher battle in the other place than they have had here.
I am trying to do something very modest, and only by way of a marker; to suggest that where transfers are made to exempt systems under Clause 28(2) then the very least we can ask is that a record should be kept of them by the registrar and that this record should include a description of the data transferred, with disclosure after a specified period of time. I am suggesting that this should be 10 years or such lesser period as the registrar may determine (and, in parenthesis, the British Medical Association did not in their proposals say precisely what the period should be). But clearly, if the information was of a very sensitive nature and it was required in connection with the first of the purposes mentioned in Clause 28(1), concerning the prevention or detection of crime, then after the lapse of a certain number of years there would be no conceivable objection to allowing personal access to that information on the exempt system. If we

1265
are not to achieve the deletion of subsection (1)(d), and if we are not to achieve an absolute bar on the transfer of medical data, then this is the very least that we should demand in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, returns here to a proposal that has been considered in one form or another both in Committee and on Report. It is a proposal for a mechanism whereby exempt disclosures under Clause 28(2) will have to be notified to the registrar. Both in Committee and on Report I drew attention to how difficult a question this was and how important it will be to ensure that, if the Bill were to retain any such provision, its detail should be exactly right. I can best illustrate this difficulty by making brief reference to each of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his noble friends at earlier stages.
At Committee stage, we were presented by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, with an 18-line amendment setting out a proposed new procedure in some detail. It required the person making the disclosure to notify the registrar within four weeks of the extent and nature of the disclosure, and it required the registrar within 22 weeks (making six months in all) to publish details of each disclosure notified to him; and it entitled subjects of such disclosures to have access to the data about them that had been disclosed. In Committee I saw some difficulties and dangers in that approach, and I seem to remember that I was not alone.
On Report, the noble Lord offered a scaled down version of the original amendment, containing only the requirement for disclosures to be notified to the registrar within four weeks. That was a probing amendment, of course, but now we have a further refinement of the approach; a requirement to notify the registrar, and then a requirement (it is not stated on whom, but presumably on the registrar) to publish details of the disclosure after 10 years or any shorter time that the registrar may determine.
These three amendments illustrate some of the main difficulties involved. First, there is the question of the time limits. Should there be one within which disclosures are notified, as in the first two amendments, or should there not, as in the latest amendment? More important, should details of the disclosures be published within a certain period of disclosure? Six months was suggested in the original amendment and it is now up to 10 years in the present amendment. That range in itself demonstrates the problem. How does one decide the shortest period of time after which all danger of prejudicing such matters as criminal investigations has evaporated, and, at the other end of the scale, how do we decide what is the longest period of time that can elapse before the purpose of publication has itself faded out? I think there should be either guidance or at least an indication of where the guidance should be found by the registrar in arriving at that conclusion.
First, we have to consider the question whether he should be required to publish the disclosures at all, and, if so, what would publication involve. What does the "extent and nature" of the disclosure or as now proposed the "description" of the data actually mean? These are not idle questions; I am not trying to throw chaff in your Lordships' eyes. At the heart of them is
1266
the question whether the identity of the data subject or subjects should be revealed and published. If a data user were to disclose data about me under Clause 28(2) to the police—thereby, I would hope, eliminating me from an inquiry—I am not sure that I would be altogether happy about publication of the fact. Various conclusions might be drawn. I might be glad to be eliminated from police inquiries in a notorious case, but if the case was very notorious I really would not want it to be generally learnt that I had been included in them in the first place, nor would I welcome the press inquiries that would inevitably follow. Indeed, if the identity of subjects is to be made known, all kinds of practical problems have to be grappled with. And these questions are central to any consideration of the purpose of this mechanism and whether that purpose can be satisfactorily achieved without unacceptable consequences for the registrar, for the bodies needing information for Clause 28 purposes, and even for the data subjects themselves.
This is not an issue that we will lose sight of in the transition from this House to another place. We have it very much under consideration, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be as patient as his noble friend was and not press this particular version. I think I ought to add one word of reassurance. There is no inference from Clause 28(2) that a user would or should disclose anything. It is not true, either, to suggest that Clause 28(2) enjoins users to disclose, any more indeed than the General Medical Council's own guidelines, in which they envisage disclosure of medical records in exceptional circumstances, enjoined disclosures either. I do not think the clause embodies the sort of positive threat that some people feel it does. It is a power to disclose, a right, a justification for disclosure; not an injunction to disclose.
Having said that, we do recognise the sensitivities of this issue. We are aware of the anxieties of the public and important bodies to which the noble Lord has referred, and we are considering how these can be met; but I am afraid we cannot meet them in the, hopefully, not very long time between now and when the Bill passes in this House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance; it is certainly an advance on anything that was said to my noble friend Lord Wigoder or myself at an earlier stage. Perhaps I can get one point across to the Minister before we leave the subject. What people are really concerned about is that these transfers to exempt systems will be taking place as time elapses, and nobody will have any means of monitoring them unless there is some kind of provision as set out in the amendments we have drafted, no doubt defectively. What people will want to know—not just the British Medical Association but, I suggest, the vast majority of patients, and others whose records will be kept—is whether when they go and give information to a hospital they can do so in the certain knowledge that the hospital secretary will not be disclosing it to exempt users for all sorts of other purposes. They will only know that if some record is kept of the disclosures to exempt systems and the numbers of such disclosures that take place over a period of time.

1267
If it was wholly exceptional and there was only one in the whole NHS in 10 years, nobody would be terribly worried. But I suggest quite seriously that if people find it is being done on a large scale the result will be that they will refuse to give information where it is essential for their own good. I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking this on board, and we will look forward to seeing what is done about it in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Domestic or other limited purposes]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 22, line 41, after ("held") insert ("(hut not disclosed)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14? This refers to Clause 31 of the Bill, where personal data are held for domestic or other limited purposes. The material subsection is (3), which says:
"Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above"—
which means questions of registration of personal data with clubs and people of that kind—
"applies to personal data relating to any data subject unless he has been asked by the club or data user whether he objects to the data relating to him being held as mentioned in that paragraph and has not objected".
The word there is "held". At the last stage—and I must confess I think it was pretty late at night, just after 9 o'clock—the noble Lord the Minister very graciously pointed out that he was going to move an amendment for which the Government could accept no credit whatever; that the credit was due to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, and in a humble way to me, for the amendment that we had put and argued. This was graciously accepted, but my noble and learned friend with the caution for which he is so well-known said (at column 689):
"it would seem that the mischief has now been remedied, but we shall look a little more closely at this group of amendments before the final stage of the Bill. In the meantime, we are grateful to him for having taken up the point and for so generously acknowledging the fons et origo of it".—[Official Report, 15/3/83.]
Some reflection has taken place in the meantime, and while the gratitude is still there from these Benches, we ask the Government to have another look at this, as I hope they have done since this amendment was put down, because, unfortunately, they have not met the point.
As the clause now stands, a user may ask me whether I have any objection to his holding personal data about me. If I say that I do not, he is then, quite rightly, entitled to hold them, but also, quite wrongly, to disclose them, when he has never asked me whether I have any objection to that, that being the disclosure. True, the new user does not have the benefit of my consent, but very likely he would not need it, because he may quite lawfully be on the register as a user who holds such data and collects them from other users, even though he is someone to whom I would never have given the data myself.
Therefore, if I can put it shortly, if I am only to be asked whether I object to personal data about me being held, it would be quite misleading if, as a result, I found myself unknowingly consenting not only to their being held but also to their disclosure. Therefore, the amendment the Government were good enough to put down the last time as a result of our representations does not really meet this point, but I believe the amendment we have now put down does. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, there is a small point that puzzles me, and may puzzle other Members of the House, basically because I am not legally qualified. What in this clause is the meaning of, "family"? How far does it extend?
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the exchanges we had to which the noble Lord has referred. During that last stage we as a Government accepted that the original casting of Clause 31 had the strange effect of allowing exempt data to be disclosed once the subject's consent had been given to their being held. The person receiving the data could then continue to claim for exemption even though the subject knew nothing about his holding the data.
I explained on Report that the original cast of this clause did not properly reflect our intentions—and there is a magnanimous admission! Our Report stage amendments overcame the problem by ensuring that if a user benefiting from the exemption passes the data on to another user, that new user will not inherit the exemption: for him to benefit he too will have to give subjects the opportunity to object to him holding the data.
In the light of this, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. I understand his anxiety but I wonder whether it is altogether soundly based and whether it is altogether sensibly met by his new amendment. We are dealing here with very limited data—details of members of clubs (and then only of clubs that are unincorporated) and names and addresses. Do we really want to go so far as to say that the exemption is only applicable if the data are never disclosed to anybody? If one model railway club asked another for certain members' addresses to send them details of some special offer—to go on a trip to Didcot, for instance—are we saying that that information can in no circumstances be given (whether or not the members might be desperate to make the trip) short of having to register the club as a data user with the registrar?
As for persons under Clause 32(2)(b) making use of the exemption, what would be the effect there against what I hope I may term the computerised vicar—if the right reverend Prelate does not find the term offensive—whom I used as an example earlier? He could never divulge the address of one parishioner from his computer without losing his exemption. It is an interesting question as to whether in sending out his parish magazine through the post, if he could afford so to do, he was thereby disclosing to the postman the data consisting of names and addresses. If so, the amendment would make the exemption impossible to use.
I do not wish to sound frivolous, and I do not want

1269
to sound as if I am quoting from Misleading Cases by A. P. Herbert—and that is always a danger with a layman questioning legislation—but I do think that these amendments go too far. The necessary protection for data subjects does already exist. If they object so strongly to any disclosures whatsoever of their data they can make it a condition of their consent to the holding of the data that there shall be no disclosures. If they consent to a disclosure, the recipient of the disclosure cannot make use of that information without first telling them that he has the data and, if they do not consent to his having it, again they are protected. The amendments approved on Report ensure that when exempt data are disclosed there will be this protection. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the small but well-intentioned amendment that was put in on Report.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I still do not know why the poor data subject in these circumstances should not be told frankly that there is a risk of disclosure, and that his consent should not, in fact, be full. I therefore feel that this amendment is a sensible one. However, again I do not think it is right on Third Reading to persist in an amendment of this kind. The point has been registered and the noble Lord was gracious enough to try to meet it on the last occasion. Perhaps it will be looked at in another place with a more searching eye than we have used on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
5.55 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 23, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Personal data comprising only names and addresses available to any person from published sources are exempt from the provisions of Part 11 of this Act and of sections 21 to 24 above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as the one I put down on Report and relates solely to personal data comprising only names and addresses drawn from public sources such as the electoral register and telephone and street directories, which are available to anyone. The amendment exempts them from registration under Part II and from Clauses 21 to 24 relating to a data subject. It exempts them from having to give the subject access to personal data held about him and from the duty to have inaccuracies in an entry concerning him rectified or erased. It exempts them also from compensation for damage suffered by reason of any inaccuracy and from compensation for loss, destruction or unauthorised disclosure of data about him.
I hope your Lordships will agree that I need not go over the reasons why I have suggested these exemptions. I explained them in the debate on the amendment on Report, and my purpose in moving the amendment is simply to give my noble friend an opportunity to tell the House the outcome of his further consideration of the amendment. Despite some misgivings on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble friend gave the amendment an encouraging reception but said that he would prefer not to accept it at that stage. I hope that he will be able
1270
to give it a still more favourable reception on this occasion and accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I support this amendment in so far as it is a means of legitimising, through the Bill, the business of mail order. It seems to me that mail order is a decent sort of business. It is on the whole well conducted by major companies, although there may be some which do not, and it is an endeavour to find out what people want and then give it to them. That seems to me to be desirable.
As I see it, the mail order business is very much dependent on buying addresses and then addressing people once. If those people reply, they address them a second time in relation to their reply. In other words each time they write round they limit it to those people who are asking for something or expressing an interest. That is absolutely legitimate and I believe that this amendment expresses that fact. That is what I want to see and if the amendment is sound and not inadequate in some way, I shall support it. However, I should say that I speak for myself and not my colleagues.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord opposite, this amendment would not be of great assistance to mail order houses because in order to he effective and keep down their costs they must have more information than just a name and address. There are many names and addresses that one can easily get from telephone books and electoral registers but it is no use writing to try to sell expensive equipment in poor areas. The mail order houses are specialist firms and they do not broadcast generally. They broadcast very selectively. In order to do that, they need far more information than just names and addresses.
Another reason why I do not like this particular amendment is that it is almost impossible to have just a name and address without some other form of information. Names and addresses on their own for most purposes are absolutely useless. Quite honestly, the amendment would not serve any purpose.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Swinfen in his last remarks. It seems to me that this is another version of the unicorn hunt which we last pursued under Amendment No. 82 on Report, and which my noble friend on the Front Bench told me that he very kindly continues to explore with the CBI and others. I should have thought that it was a way of limiting. Indeed, Amendment No. 82 sought to go further. But, for all the reasons that I shall not repeat now, including the experience on the Continent of running these same systems, one needs to limit the register to a practicable size. I should have thought that my noble friend's amendment was one way of doing that and that it needs to be considered under the general heading of "where is the unicorn?"
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Mottistone because I also thought that it was a unicorn we were being lured away in pursuit of on Report. Looking more closely at what my noble friend then said and

1271
taking other consultations into consideration, we have come to the conclusion that what we are presented with here is not a unicorn but a device to meet a specific problem faced by the direct marketing industry when use needs to be made of electoral and other publicly available lists in order to check that the users' own lists remain up to date. That I think explains to my noble friend Lord Swinfen how the information can be so limited in this regard. I hope that I can set my noble friend's mind at rest and convince him that the problem feared in the use of publicly available lists would never in practice arise.
To take first the electoral registration officer, I think that my noble friends feared that the situation could arise of an electoral registration officer who had failed to register commercial organisations as a potential recipient of his (computerised) electoral lists, so that he would be forced, if he were not to fall foul of the non-disclosure provisions, to refuse to make such disclosures in future. But I do not think a problem could ever arise where the intention is to produce lists which are made generally available to the public—whether, as in the case of the electoral register, because there is a legal requirement to make them publicly available, or simply (like the telephone directory) because the general practice is to publish. Those producing such lists would register "the public" as the potential recipients of the data, and that would cover disclosures to commercial organisations, along with everyone else, who together constitute "the public".
My noble friend's other point was that the registrar might refuse to allow an organisation to make use of data derived from such sources—on the grounds, I presume, that it had not been for such purposes that the data had originally been collected. To refuse to register a purpose, however, the registrar would have to be satisfied that a breach of the data protection principles, or one of them, was likely, and that would mean in effect that he must look at the first principle which provides that the information to be contained in personal data shall be obtained, and the personal data shall be processed, fairly and lawfully. But in the case of publicly available data, I do not believe that the registrar could conclude that this principle had been breached, given the interpretation of the principle provided by the second part of the schedule. He would, indeed, be able to ask himself whether the information in question had been obtained fairly, but in doing so would be required (by subparagraph (1) of Part II of Schedule 1) to consider whether any of those from whom the information was obtained had been deceived or misled as to those purposes. Where we are talking about information that is supplied in the knowledge that it is to be made public, for anyone to make use of it as they please, then it does not appear that the ingredients for deciding that an unfair collection has taken place could be present.
I might add—I think it is worth being complete, and it will only take a moment—that subparagraph (2) of Part II of Schedule 1 introduces a further saving provision so far as material collected under statutory authority is concerned—as in the case of the electoral register. This provides that all information shall:
"in any event be treated as obtained fairly if it is obtained from a person who (a) is authorised by or under any enactment to supply it; or (b) is required to supply it by or under any enactment".
1272
This would thus appear to cover both the obtaining of information from the electoral register by a commercial organisation (since the registration officer is required to make the information available publicly) and to the original collection of the information by the registration officer, from those who are required by law to supply it.
I hope that this explanation of how we see the principles operating in this area will serve to reassure my noble friend—and those who work in the area about which he is concerned—that there are no grounds for the fears which have been expressed. I think that the legitimisation that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, sought of the eminently respectable and useful trade of mail order businesses is not here required.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am grateful for those two explanations of two aspects in this amendment. I am sure that this will help others to understand what is really involved here. I do not think that I could possibly agree with my noble friend Lord Swinfen in regard to direct mail. I am advised that this is being done already but at great cost and with great difficulty. The object of the technology behind this Bill at any rate is to enable these things to economise resources and not to have to spend so much money in preparing the lists. But I believe that they do in fact exist at the present time.
As to what my noble friend said. I agree entirely with his definition of this device which I am proposing. I think that this is exactly what it is intended to achieve. What he did not mention was the fact that this is very close, as I said at the previous stage, to what is already mentioned in subsection (2)(b):
"personal data held by a data user only for the purpose of distributing, or recording the distribution of, articles to the data subjects and consisting only of their names and addresses".
The main difference—and it is very close to what I am suggesting—as I said before, is that under my amendment subsection (3) would not be brought into operation, and therefore it would not be necessary to ask the club or the data user in this case whether he objects to the data relating to him being held as mentioned in that paragraph. That process would then be eliminated. There is no real reason why it should not be. In most of these cases what is done is to send out some form of document, pamphlet or whatever to attract the attention of the recipient and to interest the recipient in becoming a customer.
Incidentally, I should like to ask a matter which has not arisen before, I do not think: What is meant by the word "articles" in subsection (2)(b):
"personal data held by a data user only for the purpose of distributing, or recording the distribution of, articles to the data subjects"?
In particular, I must ask whether a piece of propaganda, for example, would count as an "article", or whether would it be necessary, without my amendment, to send out a communication inquiring whether the prospective data subject is interested in the article, publication or whatever it might be that would be sent afterwards. I think this is an important point. Otherwise, as I say, a very great deal of extra cost would be involved, really to no purpose whatsoever so far as I can see. Here is information that is already available and is already being used for this

1273
kind of purpose. There really is no necessity to ask any prospective customer whether he would wish to be placed on the file, so to speak. If there is any necessity to send it out, will the sending of some form of pamphlet be in order, and could it be operated as an inquiry as to whether a person wished to become a data subject or not? This is an important matter in connection with this amendment. As this is not cleared up at the moment, I think that it would be right at the moment to—
Lord Elton: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me, I can just say that the word "articles" in this context is used in the sense of a thing; not a written piece in a newspaper but almost anything the noble Lord chooses to name, including all the very respectable and tempting things that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was referring to in the mail order business. It is an unrestricted phrase.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it would not include a stockbroker's advice, for example, I imagine.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can see no reason why it should not include anything from Holy Writ to brochures.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I feel that we cannot carry the matter any further tonight because my noble friend is obviously not in a position to accept the amendment now. However, I hope very much that it will be carried further in another place. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Application to government departments and police]:
6.10 p.m.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
(" (6) Subsection (1) above shall not be treated as affecting in any manner the responsibility of any Minister of the Crown for the acts or omissions of any government department.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the sole object of this amendment is to have it made clear in the Bill that the contents of the Bill do not affect the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. When I put forward this amendment at the Report stage of the Bill there was a question which I thought was relevant to it, which I asked, and which was this: Do the Government agree or not agree in the case of a computer like the immigration computer that the question of who the data user is is really a question of law for the construction of the court? The data user as such is defined in Clause 1(5) and it is really a question of law, which could be determined at any time by the court, I suppose, on a construction summons, as to who in such a case is the data user. Is it the Minister, the department or somebody else?
In the course of his very courteous reply the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, did not in fact answer that question at all, and therefore at col. 707 of the Official Report for 15th March I said:
1274
"I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am not clear from what he said whether or not he is taking the view that the question: 'who is the registered data user in relation to a Government computer?' is a matter for the construction of the court".
The noble Lord did not make any further reply. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, then rose and he did not answer the question either. So if I am not being discourteous I venture to ask the question again now.
The only reply made to the amendment itself was that it was not a necessary amendment because there was nothing in the Bill which would affect the doctrine of ministeral responsibility. No other objection was made to it. It was simply said that it was unnecessary. It is a very bold lawyer who ever is too certain about how a court will construe an Act of Parliament. Indeed, as we know from your Lordships' House when sitting judicially, even the most learned judges do not always agree.
Here is a Bill of a very special kind. Our Parliament, after all, has been passing Acts of Parliament for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is agreed by the Government that this Bill is absolutely unique in providing as it does, because there has never before been a Bill in which a Government department is treated as a person for the purposes of the statute. That was one of the questions to which I did get an answer last time. The answer is quite clear and quite unequivocal: there is no statutory precedent for an Act of Parliament treating a Government department as a person for the purposes of the Act. So here is something entirely new. If it is entirely new and, therefore, probably all the more difficult to say how a court will construe it, what possible real objection can there be to accepting this amendment which is a plain statement that nothing in the Act affects the doctrine of ministerial responsibility?
There was a further example of the peculiarities of the situation when I asked previously who would be responsible—for example, in the case of the immigration computer will it be the Home Secretary or the Home Office? First, I was told that it would be the Minister—the Home Secretary; then six hours later that was changed and I was told that it would be the Home Office. Now I am told that there is no difference in a sense between the two. So I ask again if the Government would reconsider this matter—it is a very short point—and make it plain in the Act by a simple amendment of this kind that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is not affected and that the Home Office, in effect, means exactly the same as the Home Secretary and does not mean, on the one hand, the civil servants and on the other hand, the Minister. That should be made plain in the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, moved an identical amendment on Report he said that his aim was to obtain information and he has made clear that that again is his intention and that last time I rather failed to satisfy his wishes. I shall try and do better this time.
The noble and learned Lord has again raised the question of precedents for the treatment of Government departments in Clause 35(1) as persons. He has acknowledged our position and I hope that he is satisfied with our earlier response that this is a new situation demanding a new approach. There is not a

1275
precedent for it. The objective of Clause 35(1) is that separate departments are to be treated as separate entities for the purposes of the Bill. I consider that that is the right approach in the interests of protecting data subjects and of achieving comprehensive exposure of disclosures of data between departments. If departments were not separate persons, data would be free to move secretly between different parts of Government entirely untouched by the legislation that we are now preparing. I do not think that that is what is wished.
However, the noble and learned Lord also asked whether we accept his contention that the question of who is a data user is a question of construction for the courts to decide. My answer to that must be, Yes—clearly, any question of interpretation of a statute is a matter for the courts and not for the Government. It is, as the noble and learned Lord just said, a very bold lawyer—and, indeed, a very bold politician—who predicts how a court will construe anything. It goes for politicians as well as for lawyers. As the noble and learned Lord has made clear, we can only act on the assumption that a court will make the construction that we intend. Our assumption has been that departments will apply for registration, and Clause 35(1) makes provision to ensure that in such circumstances central Government will register as a series of separate departments and not simply as one entity, the Crown. Clause 35 (1) would be of no effect if Ministers registered as data users. We believe that the registration of departments as data users would be fully in accord both with the provisions of the Bill and with constitutional practice.
I next come to what is perhaps the noble and learned Lord's principal concern: does the concept of a department as a data user conflict with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and does it detract from the position of the Minister in charge of his department? At the last stage my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made clear that Clause 35(1) in no way conflicts with minsterial responsibility. It is still the Minister who is politically responsible and accountable for the actions of his department. Indeed, I rather suspect that the noble and learned Lord knows the answer to that question already and is merely seeking assurance and confirmation.
Perhaps the best way I can provide that is by drawing a parallel with constitutional practice in one particular part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—with which I have had some passing acquaintance. There, unlike general practice here, Government departments are bodies corporate; and a common practice ever since those departments were created has been to draft legislation not in terms of Secretaries of State and Ministers but in terms of departments which thus have statutory duties and functions vested in them. But that does not affect in any way the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Until direct rule, it was always the Minister at the head of the department who was responsible. It was always he who directed and controlled the department as a whole and the individual civil servants who worked there. There is thus no tension between a role in law for a department and the continuing control of that department by its Minister. And I might add that there
1276
are also many instances where certain Whitehall departments—the Treasury, for example—rather than their ministerial head, figure as such in legislation.
The noble and learned Lord's fund of knowledge in this sphere dwarfs my own. I hope I have been able to reassure him both that Clause 35(1) represents a sensible approach for data protection purposes in this particular Bill, and that it presents no threat to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. This clause is not going to change the fact that it is the political heads of departments who are responsible for the departments acts and nor will it affect the Minister/civil servant relationship.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could answer one question. He said very reassuringly that the object in making Government departments register as separate persons under the Bill was to eliminate the possibility that data would be secretly transferred, as he put it, between one and another. Will he give the House a blanket undertaking therefore that no personal data will be transferred between one Government department and another, except as already provided by statute?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means by "already". If he is talking about the statute which we are about to pass, I think that I can give that undertaking. The intention of the Bill is not to create secrecy; it is to protect the data subject in a way consistent with the efficiency and liberties of the data user. The distinction between departments was very clearly put into the Bill in order to expose the traffic of any information not specifically exempted between departments.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, naturally, I shall not pursue the matter here. I am not objecting at all to the unique course which has been taken in all the circumstances of this case in making a Government department a person within the meaning of the Bill. The only question I raised was as to its effect on ministerial responsibility. In effect, we are at one about it. The Government are saying that this does not affect the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. All I am asking is: Can we not say so in one sentence in the Bill? That is all. If it has to be determined by a court one day, it would be of great assistance to the court—would it not?—to know that in some circumstances this unique Act will not affect ministerial responsibility. That is what I want; that is what the Government want. All I am asking is whether it can be put in one sentence to say so. I can only hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will reconsider this question. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
6.23 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 27, line 9, leave out from ("particulars") to end of line 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the last gasp of the Report stage, at no less an hour than

1277
22.44 hours, my noble friend Lord Mishcon, moved, as a final amendment, an amendment to leave out from Clause 38 a remarkable provision in subsection (2), which deprives the registrar for a period of two years of the power:

"(a) to refuse an application for registration or for the alteration of registered particulars; or

(b) to serve an enforcement notice imposing"

the requirements of the notice and compliance with that.
The consequence, as we see it, will be that for two years after the appointed day this Bill will be nothing more than a sham. No compliance with the convention will be possible or will clearly be made. It is true that there will be a register, but the register may disclose on its face the most appalling scandals or, for instance, offer for sale data information or something as objectionable and clearly to be dealt with as that. But neither the registrar nor anyone else will have power to do anything about it for two years.
There may be a case for not being able to refuse registration for some period, but there cannot conceivably be any case for not putting right even the most blatant contraventions of the data protection principles once the appointed day has come. If what is now in Clause 38 remains, there would be a total failure of compliance with the terms of the convention, because the power of the registrar and the power to act to protect the data user would be compulsorily dormant for two years.
When the matter was raised—as I have said, at a very late hour—my noble friend Lord Mishcon, said on 15th March, at column 716 of the Official Report:
"All I can possibly do, in sheer common sense"—
which, if I may say so, is quite a sensible phrase—
"is to ask him [the Minister] to be good enough between now and Third Reading to consider this point very carefully indeed and either accept the amendment or put down an amendment which satisfies him more than this one does."
My noble friend was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who said that he had the same misgivings as my noble friend; and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, hoped that the Minister would give careful thought to it with a view to putting it right before the Bill was passed.
He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—who is always willing to assist us in these matters—who said that he had listened carefully and with considerable interest to the arguments of my noble friend and those in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and he was willing to consider the matter further. He then hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment. That was duly done, and no doubt my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, turned happily to bed. But alas! nothing has been done. The mischief remains in all its nakedness, and it ought not to remain a minute longer. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his summary of what occurred when discussing the two-year period during which powers should be compulsorily dormant. After certain things said by my noble friend, certain of his noble friends retired to bed, doubtless also to be compulsorily dormant until the following morning!
1278
In moving his amendment, the noble and learned Lord has expressed some degree of surprise at the fact that the registrar will not come into full exercise of his powers until the second anniversary of the appointed day which starts the transitional period. I, in turn, must confess to being a little surprised that he should have been in any doubt on the point. There has never been any secret made of the fact that time would be needed to bring the scheme fully into effect. The White Paper made perfectly plain that the registration process would take a considerable time—we thought at that stage that two years might be needed for it—and that some users might need a substantial period in which to bring themselves into line with the requirements of the legislation. And you cannot accept the need for that and be prepared to allow the registrar to exercise his notice powers, with immediate effect, from a much earlier date. You cannot have it both ways, and I believe the case for allowing users—in the public and private sectors—time to adjust their systems to the demands of the new era, is one which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur argued convincingly earlier on.
This does not mean that the registrar will be without influence during this interim period. He is indeed likely to use this breathing-space between the initial rush of applications for registration, and the coming into full force of his powers, to survey the broad field of his reponsibilities, and to decide where most effectively he can direct his attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has often been publicly aghast at the scope of the burdens and the complexity of the duties of the registrar, will I am sure sympathise with his need to survey the field before he embarks fully upon it. This may lead him to look in some detail at the activities of particular users, and though he would be unable to order immediate compliance with the principles, he will be able to direct compliance from the end of the two-year period. I suspect where this happens that users may often decide to come into conformity as soon as they can, even though they would be immune from the registrar's powers until the two-year point.
So we were, in effect, faced at the outset with two alternatives. We could have said that there would be a delay of two years or more after the Bill was passed to allow users to bring their systems up to scratch—and then the Bill would come into effect with a bang. But that would have meant an uncomfortably long gap between the passing of the legislation and anything being seen to happen. People might well have become impatient—particularly abroad.
On the subject of people abroad, I should mention that other countries with experience of this have given themselves quite comfortable periods in which to bring their legislation into full effect. So we chose the other alternative that allowed an early start to registration, but transitional arrangements thereafter that permitted registered users the necessary time to reach a position of compliance with the principles while not facing demands from the registrar for immediate action.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, not immediate. Under Clause 10(1), the registrar, when he issues a notice, may require the data user to take,

1279
"within such time as is specified in the notice, such steps as are so specified for complying with the principles in question".
So, if you did not have this subsection which is now being deleted, the registrar would have power, if he wished to do so, to give the person two years to comply with the principles.
Lord Elton: My Lords, he would have elastic ability, and I suppose he might just rubber-stamp two years on each and meet it that way. It is necessary for Parliament to visualise the way in which legislation is implemented and not to place upon an individual the necessity of deciding when its wishes shall become effective.
I was saying that we chose the alternative which allowed an early start to registration but transitional arrangements thereafter that allowed registered users the necessary time to reach a position of compliance with the principles while not facing demands from the registrar for action, and I used the word "immediate" and the noble Lord intervened to show that it could have a delayed effect. Time is necessary here. Computer systems cannot change overnight. We always have to recognise that. I hope that the noble Lord will too. The approach in the Bill, on reflection, ensures that users are given the necessary time but without delaying the start of the process of constructing a data protection scheme. That is preferable to a lengthy hiatus after Royal Assent with people finding the apparent lack of activity incomprehensible and even quite possibly sinister.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find it encouraging that my noble friend has thought about it, which is what I had in mind when I intervened last time this amendment came forward. I find myself pretty nearly convinced by the argument. There are a lot of Bills where it is not laid down specifically that it is two years. Two years seems an awfully long time. There are quite a lot of Bills where the Minister can introduce certain stages when it seems to be the appropriate moment. Perhaps two years is right, and of course it has the great advantage that everybody knows where they stand, and it would be confusing for data users not to know where they stood.
Supposing everything goes reasonably smoothly, it should be possible to introduce the full provisions earlier. A year would seem a more reasonable time to me. I do not know whether it would not be a good plan if the Government had flexibility for the Secretary of State to introduce the effect of this subsection at a certain time with six months' notice, shall we say, if it appeared sensible to do so. I suggest that to my noble friend, because two years seems a long time before the data subject can get the full benefit of what this Bill is all about.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the House permits, may I say to my noble friend that of course it is an interesting thesis he has advanced, but it is necessary for users to have some fixed point in time at which they have to be ready? The Government cannot really go on surveying the scene until they see that everybody is up to the starting tape, and then say, "Right, now the thing is going to work". I have the point on board.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister forgive me if I charge him, in all sincerity, with the gravest inconsistency? We have been told in answer to earlier amendments that one really ought not to spell everything out in a Bill. The registrar is an intelligent person, and the registrar, we were told, will know what his duties are without having to be told them in the Bill. The registrar will obviously know what his powers are without them necessarily being spelled out.
Now, extraordinarily enough, the noble Lord the Minister, when it comes to the question of the registrar exercising his powers, ties his hands completely. He tells him that, whatever he may feel like, whatever leisure he happens to have on a Friday—because indeed on that day the applications are not flooding in, or by staying overtime with his staff he has brought everything up to date—even should he encounter the most glaring contravention of the principles to which we are bound by the convention and come across the most terrible case within two years of the appointed day, his hands are tied. The registrar finds that Parliament, instead of allowing him the discretion—which, he will be delighted to read, the noble Lord the Minister was insisting upon giving him in every other provision in the Bill—has used not the words "may at his discretion". He just will not have the power. He will not have the power to serve the enforcement notice to do anything about a contravention, whatever the situation may be.
If the point is that the data user needs time within which to bring his system up to date, can we not trust the registrar to be reasonable about that? Is it really necessary to write into the Bill that the registrar is powerless, in spite of the fact that he has seen that the data user has had every possible reasonable chance of doing things properly and has ignored the registrar's telephone call, or courteous communication, and said. "Well, I am not going to do anything about this. I have another 18 months. Why should I?" That cannot be right.
We suggested last time putting down a period of six months. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says, "Let us have some sort of reasonable period. Two years seems awfully long." But the point of any amendment surely should be either a very short period if this is mandatory, or a discretionary power. Because of the circumstances of the user not having an opportunity of putting his house in order, for a certain period from the appointed day the registrar has the discretion not to use his powers under this Bill.
I repeat as my final sentence that to tie his hands in this way is to do the very thing that the noble Lord the Minister said one should not do, which is to spell out everything for the registrar. We are now spelling out everything against the registrar and his ability to use properly the powers given under this Bill. The clause as it at present stands is a nonsense. I hope that your Lordships, with impartiality, since there is not a scrap of politics in this, will not make your Lordships' House look foolish by allowing this provision to stand—for foolish we shall look in the other place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I would only wish to add one cautionary word. In my opinion the inclusion of this in the Bill would be a serious breach of the

1281
convention. One of the principal purposes of the Bill is to secure compliance with the convention for the benefit of the commerce and industry of this country, and it would be disastrous if on this point the convention was deemed not to have been complied with.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I must put that right on the record. As I say, it is what everybody else is doing. It is not a breach of the convention. It is perfectly in order with our international undertakings. I cannot see that data users would be happy at the prospect of possible but not certain deregistration because of non-compliance with the principles when the user had not had time to get things right. There must be a fixed point in time for which large users of data can get themselves ready.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the point that has been stressed is that the registrar should have the discretion to deal with a scandalous situation which could arise in the interim period instead of being prevented by the terms of this clause from acting within his discretion. For that reason, this is important enough a matter, even at this hour, to seek the views of the House.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 74.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kearton, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bishopston, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Avon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Bauer, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Davidson, V.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Donegall, M.

Birdwood, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

1282

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Newall, L.

Glasgow, E.

Northesk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hatherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sudeley, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swansea, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Teynham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Torrington, V.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mersey, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Merris, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Elton.)
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, having read the Bill, I can find no reference in it—although it is called the Data Protection Bill—to the protection of data. I am talking about the actual tape which contains the data; there is plenty of protection for data subjects and data users. I appreciate that in raising this point I may be entering an unchartered area of legal liability, but having been present all afternoon and having heard the discussion so far, I am anxious to point out something that I do not think has been raised before, and that is how easy it is for data to he erased from tape. America is rather ahead of us in these—
Lord Elton: My Lords, we have already discussed these matters.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, consider what has happened in large corporations where damage has been caused to computers carrying data. The majority of them have had to cease trading, having lost all their vital trading records and other details.
I should just like to make a point, but if your Lordships do not want me to go on, I shall sit down. I really believe that the Bill is George Orwell's 1984 come to life. Personally, I deplore it. iIt is the world dominance of the future by the silicon chip. The computer revolution will have far more influence on our society than did the industrial revolution. I shall say no more, other than to repeat that I deplore the necessity for the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that I should point out to my noble friend that if he will look at the eighth principle in Schedule 1, and the related clauses, he will find that his point is answered.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this is indeed a difficult Bill, and I commend my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for his evening reading the Second Reading speech that I made and the speeches which other noble Lords made. He will find in fact that what we are guarding against is the arrival of George Orwell's world of 1984. But, as I say, this is a difficult Bill. It deals with a subject that is new, complicated, and, on occasions, abstruse. It brings with it a new language of subject access and computer bureaux, of data subjects and data users—and there are few of us who on occasions have not got them muddled. It requires us to bear in mind constantly the needs of a technology with which many of us are far from familiar, and to guard against imposing, in all innocence, burdens that could cripple an industry of increasingly crucial importance to this country. It is also a very wide ranging Bill, with implications for everything from medicine to national security, from tax collection to genealogy, from home computing to statistics and research.
In those circumstances I am particularly grateful to your Lordships for the patience and care with which you have handled the Bill, your individual and collective experience, and the forbearance which you have shown towards me.
Over the recent weeks we have all become familiar with the difficulty and delicacy involved in seeking to look after the interests of both data subject and data user at the same time. A proper balance has not been easy to find. But I think that the Bill leaves your Lordships' House a better measure than it was when I tabled it.
We have improved Clause 16 with additional safeguards for users, by ensuring that the powers shall be exercised only on very senior judicial authority. We have clarified the provisions concerning the information to which the subject has access. We have distinguished clearly between the circumstances in which an enforcement notice and a deregistration notice shall be served on users. We have given valuable emphasis to the role of the registrar in advising individual users and subjects; and we have made many other improvements, not least in the provisions concerning the delicate area of national security.
On a number of points we have not been able to come to a conclusion. This is a quite remarkably complex subject, and it would be rash to hurry into decisions without full consideration of the implications. But we have hunted the unicorn of totally harmless data through much difficult country.
I shall not recapitulate further. I want merely to thank your Lordships for your patience, indulgence, and wisdom. In what could have been a hotly contested field we have but rarely had words that verged anywhere beyond the absolutely considerate, reflective, and polite. Some of those words have been uttered by me, and that I regret. But I thank your Lordships for sending to another place a measure that is better than when I brought it here.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should be less than gracious if, for my part, I did not thank the Minister for his own courtesy, patience, and forbearance during our long debates. On the other hand, I should be less than frank if I did not indicate our grave disappointment at the obduracy of the Government on so many of the issues which we have raised. In regard to the participation of noble Lords, I would say that there have been efforts from all sides of the House to secure relief from the obduracy, and the unfortunate consequence is that what seems to emerge from the discussions and the shape of the Bill itself is that while there was an intention to comply with the convention, there was also a determination that the compliance should be minimal rather than generous.
We concede that there have been improvements to the Bill on some of the matters that the noble Lord has mentioned. I felt that he had more sympathy in making those concessions than in asserting obduracy; though that may be an error of judgment on my part. But, as things stand, the serious complaints that we had about the Bill remain. Outstandingly, Clause 28 remains as the most grave fault in the Bill. It was intended to be a Bill for the better protection of privacy. By reason of its present form it may well mean—and Clause 28 we think could mean—that highly confidential and sensitive information could be secretly disclosed to the police, the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise, and the immigration authorities, without any indication at all on the data protection register that anything of this kind was even possible. I must again remind the House of the comment of the Lindop Committee, which called it a fraud on the public—a grave allegation indeed.
This is no time to recapitulate other matters of complaint. The debate has been conducted with the usual courtesy of this House, but I must draw attention to our grave disappointment that more and better use of the occasion was not made by the Government in order to secure the better protection of the privacy of the subject.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is so charming and affable that one occasionally loses sight of the fact that he is kept on a very short rein by the mandarins of Queen Anne's Gate, not least while we have been passing through the stages of this Bill. If I may say so, it is a pity that many noble Lords imagined that the Data Protection Bill required a knowledge of computing, whereas what in fact we have been concerned with throughout most of the debates have been fundamental issues of civil liberty, in which every single Member of your Lordships' House ought to have taken an interest. I believe that the noble Lord has had an easy passage due to the false assumption made by some noble Lords who are not at present in the Chamber that they needed to know something about technology in order to take part in these proceedings.
However, as the noble and learned Lord said, the primary object was to protect the data user, and in this we have been only partially successful, because while we may technically be in a position to sign the convention—which is of course important in itself—all the pleadings that we have made in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading to

1285
secure improvements to the iniquitous provisions of Clause 28 have been unavailing. I think that the noble Lord will find that in another place the passage of the Bill will be a little more arduous than it has been here, when as I have said, the professions outside wake up to the fact that many of the matters that we have allowed to pass in the Bill are just as evil and wicked as what the noble Lord has in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which has excited so much antipathy in another place.
So while it has been extremely pleasant to argue with the noble Lord the Minister, as it always is, thanks to his charming and affable manner, I think that his colleagues in another place might not have quite so easy a time. However, we have enjoyed our disputes here. We hope that we have pointed the way to our colleagues in another place to take on the Government with a little more determination.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack and both of my noble friends on the Front Bench for their great courtesies to me. I should also like to thank them for having accepted so very many amendments—if not in their original form—especially at the Report stage, for passing on various amendments which they have not been able to resolve for consideration in another place, and for continuing the dialogue on several of the amendments with the bodies concerned which are most interested in them.
I would not entirely agree with the noble Lords opposite in their rather gloomy prognostications about certain parts of the Bill. I am concerned, as are they, to make sure that officialdom does not have on us an extra grip, rather than a lesser grip. But I would not go any further than that, and I should have thought that that applies to all officialdom—not just the bits that are picked out in Clause 28(1). So to that extent I would not agree with noble Lords opposite. On the whole in tackling the various stages, the Government have been as considerate and as thoughtful as they could possibly have been and to that degree I believe that we have done a good job on the Bill. I hope that in another place Members find that they do not have to work as hard on the Bill as they might otherwise have had to do, and I trust that it will receive a very good passage before it returns to us again.
7 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, having listened to most of the debates at all stages of the Bill, I very much regret that I find little reason to change my view that despite the changes made, the Bill is not only difficult, but also essentially bad. The Government have steadfastly maintained that the main objective of the Bill is the protection of the privacy of the individual, but throughout the debates they have resisted almost all attempts so to amend the Bill as to more adequately achieve that objective.
The real objective of the Government in promoting the Bill was to bring domestic legislation into harmony with the European convention so as to facilitate commercial links with Europe, and to do so with the minimum possible change to existing practices of Government departments in handling data. There has been little sign that the protection of the individual is
1286
regarded as of sufficient importance to demand such changes. The result is paradoxical in that, at least in some respects, invididuals may be at greater risk if the Bill becomes an Act than they are at present with no legislation at all. People—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? It is interesting to hear him at this stage on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. It would have been a great pleasure to have heard him and his noble friends moving their amendments in regard to the Bill and participating in the debates. A voice at this stage is not all that useful.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, may I continue or am I out of order?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I would suggest that the noble Lord might draw his comments to a close.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I find it difficult to do so. In the circumstances, I think that I had better sit down.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing and Building Control Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

ECC 8th Report: The Rational Use of Energy in Industry
7.3 p.m.
Lord Kings Norton Lord Kings Norton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on The Rational Use of Energy in Industry (8th Report, 1982–83, H.L. 83).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
We have long been familiar with the expression "energy conservation" which broadly means reducing fuel consumption by applying economical methods in energy usage. The expression "rational use of energy" which is European Community usage covers not only the notion of conservation, but is aimed more broadly at putting available energy to more efficient use and so, by avoiding waste and applying the best technology, achieving higher productivity or higher standards or greater economy from a given energy input. In Community usage, RUE, as we have come to call it, includes also measures to reduce Europe's dependence on oil.
Whereas the Community documents relevant to the inquiry which has produced the report which I am introducing to your Lordships cover the whole field of energy consumption, your Select Committee and its Sub-Committee F which conducted the inquiry, restricted consideration to energy usage in industry. The use of energy in buildings has been studied exhaustively by a Select Committee in another place and the field of energy usage in transport in our view also requires separate consideration. We are therefore,

1287
in the report before your Lordships, dealing, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, with about one-fifth of the energy consumed here, perhaps a smaller proportion than you might have expected, but a proportion in which rational use, or, if you prefer, economical use, is vital to industrial prosperity.
Consequently, your committee believe that RUE demands high priority in the United Kingdom and Community energy strategy. The current plenty in energy supply must not be allowed to induce complacency, not only because in the longer term oil and gas reserves will significantly diminish and even coal may become increasingly expensive to win, but because, even in industries where energy costs are low, achievable economies in usage can still make important improvements in profits. The Commission documents to which I have referred are reviewed in the report and they exhibit a sensible attitude to the energy problem. While an element in EEC policy is support for a variety of projects from EEC funds, the main thrust of the policy is encouragement to member states further to develop incentives and to expand investment.
The proposals in the EEC documents have in general been received sympathetically by member states. It is difficult to decide to what extent the national policies have been influenced by the EEC—probably very little, as the documents are recent—but there is no doubt that some of the national efforts, notably those of France, Germany and Denmark, are far more ambitious than our own. Once again, however, it is not easy to discover how effective they are proving. What seems undoubted is that United Kingdom performance in recent years has been inferior to that of most of the other member states. Fully to understand why this is requires study of the report itself, but noble Lords have to go no further than the summary of conclusions to understand the nature of the criticisms which the report is levelling at sections of industry and at Government. The summary of conclusions is at paragraph 72 and it is so clear and unambiguous that I feel that to recapitulate it would be superfluous.
I feel also, however, that some parts of the conclusions will bear emphasis, particularly those parts where clear-cut steps for improvement are proposed. Perhaps the most important of these is under head (j). In paragraph 16 is the bald statement that because the Government's activities are carried out in a dozen different Government departments, they do not form a coherent programme, and the evidence to Sub-Committee F led to the unusually strong words with which paragraph 53 starts, and which I feel I must quote:
"The Committee support the widely held belief that UK Government measures to promote RUE are neither effectively led nor focussed. Stronger co-ordination is needed to correct the impression that undoubtedly prevails in industry of half-heartedness and fragmentation of responsibility. There should therefore be one single central agency with overall responsibility for RUE, including coordinating the tasks at present scattered through many government departments.".
The paragraph continues in elaboration of this recommendation, saying that the new agency should not be a strengthened conservation division of the Department of Energy, and that it should indeed have
1288
authority and independence in the same degree as the Health and Safety Commission has.
Now, when that recommendation was formulated Sub-Committee F was not aware of the conclusions of the Rayner scrutiny on the way in which the Government handle energy conservation. By the time its own inquiry was complete, my sub-committee had for some weeks been eagerly awaiting the publication not only of the Rayner conclusions but of the Armitage-Norton report on the reasons for industry's poor performance in energy conservation, and of the Government's reaction to the report from the Select Committee in another place on energy conservation in buildings. It proceeded to publish the report before your Lordships, without the benefit of these documents, which indeed have still not been published. The report of the Rayner scrutiny, which was conducted by Dr. Finer was, however, made available to the sub-committee about a fortnight ago. While a great many of the conclusions of the Rayner scrutiny are outside the purview of today's debate, the most important proposal is of the same character as our own recommendation of the creation of a new agency. In paragraph 3.2 of his report, Dr. Finer writes:
"I propose the formulation of a new Division of the Department of Energy to be named the Energy Efficiency Office".
This office would appear to have the same central and co-ordinating terms of reference as we had in mind for our proposed new agency, but it would not have the degree of independence we believe is required.
In our report we say in paragraph 53 that:
"it is not enough merely to strengthen the Conservation Division of the Department of Energy".
That appears to be what Dr. Finer proposes should be done.
Your Lordship's Select Committee's inquiry and the Rayner scrutiny both conclude that a new central organisation is required, but the latter sees it as an office within the Department of Energy and the former sees it as an independent body outside the departments of state. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will be able to tell us how Her Majesty's Government see it. As I see it, on this major and fundamental issue the Select Committee and the Rayner scrutiny are, in principle, at one. As I have said we differ in the degree of independence in the new agency we both ask for, but we agree that the present administrative situation is not good enough and should not he allowed to continue.
This agreement extends beyond the Select Committee and the Rayner scrutiny to a report of the House of Commons Select Committee on energy conservation, to which I have already referred. The case for change to a central and co-ordinating agency is overwhelming.
Another part of our conclusions to which I want to refer is the attitude in industry to energy usage. If noble Lords had had time to examine the voluminous evidence which Sub-Committee F received, they would have discovered that, while it was clear that some companies, notably the larger organisations, followed effective energy conservation policies, and while some industries—we were much impressed by the brewing industry—had made notable strides forward, the criticism of conclusion (c) that there is

1289
widespread ignorance in British industry of the benefits of RUE is unfortunately justified. This cannot fairly be laid entirely at the Government's door, and a greater and more effective effort is required from industry's own agencies, the research associations and the trade bodies.
Indeed, turning to conclusion (k) there is, too, in existence a branch of the Department of Industry—that of the regional energy conservation officers—which does an excellent educational job within its severely circumscribed limits. The committee considers that there are too few of these excellent people—there are eleven of them—and states in paragraph 55 that a modest strengthening of their ranks, in terms of officers and supporting staff, would enable them to reach far more companies than they do now.
I have already said that I do not intend to comment individually on the 13 conclusions of the report. I have spoken on three of them. To do more in these introductory remarks would be an unwarranted absorption of the time of the House. Nevertheless, I hope that noble Lords will, between them, underline the importance of these conclusions and that the noble Earl, Lord Avon will give us the Government's views on them all.
In conclusion, I want Her Majesty's Government to know that we who were concerned with the preparation of the report that I am now presenting to the House are well aware that we have been unusually plain spoken in our criticisms. We feel, however, that the rational use of energy is so vital a component in industrial efficiency, and hence in national prosperity, that to have been otherwise would have been to fail in our duty. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Rational Use of Energy in Industry.—(Lord Kings Norton.)
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I welcome this report on the rational use of energy in industry from the Select Committee on the European Communities. It is an important contribution to a subject that we think is equally important. The Government share the report's concern—underlined so ably this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton—to improve the efficiency with which our society uses energy. Indeed, encouraging efficiency in the use of energy is an important feature of the Government's energy policy.
Our concern with energy efficiency reflects our general concern to improve efficiency throughout all sectors of the economy. Energy policy cannot be considered in isolation but must contribute to our overall economic aim—that is, to revitalise the supply side of the British economy and to create the right framework to enable industry to perform and compete more effectively both at home and abroad.
Our task in relation to energy is to set a framework within which the energy market operates with the minimum of distortion, so that market forces themselves ensure that energy is produced and
1290
consumed efficiently. The economic pricing of energy is a central element in this approach, and I welcome the commitee's conclusion in its report that realistic pricing is essential in promoting the rational use of energy.
There are those who question our commitment to improving energy efficiency on the evidence of the present organisation of the Government's energy conservation effort. While I believe that some of the criticisms are overstated, I regard the fact that the Government commissioned the Rayner scrutiny into how our energy conservation effort is organised, and commissioned the Armitage-Norton study of energy conservation investment in industry, as proof of our commitment to energy efficiency.
I see—as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has drawn to our attention, too—that one of the main conclusions in the summary of this report, paragraph 72(i), bears directly on the organisation of Government effort on conservation, which is the subject of the Rayner scrutiny.
The Government are currently considering this report. It encompasses subjects which touch upon the interests of a number of Government departments and it requires careful study. I am unconvinced that creating an agency outside government is the best solution. The Government hope to reach decisions on the report soon. They will then publish their response.
With characteristic modesty, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, remarked that the committee had restricted its consideration to energy usage in industry. The report that the committee has prepared is, I believe, a wide-ranging one, touching on many important questions. Let me, by way of introduction, make some remarks about the wider questions which the report mentions. The title of the report is The Rational Use of Energy in Industry. I mentioned before that the Government recently commissioned a study by consultants into the question of investment by industry in energy efficiency. The study is really a management tool for those involved in conservation policy in Government. We intend to publish it at the same time as we publish our response to the Select Committee on Energy's report on energy conservation in buildings.
Although the last few months have seen a number of reports on energy conservation and efficiency, from our point of view, and from the point of view of our department, it has also been a time of action. Indeed, as far as Armitage-Norton is concerned, we have action in hand on the three main barriers to investment in energy efficiency which that study identified. Those barriers were, first, that many firms seemed unaware of, or unwilling to use, the technical knowledge and advice available; secondly, that many firms did not have procedures to enable them to monitor their energy use; and, thirdly, that industry tended to give investment in energy efficiency a relatively low priority in comparison with other investment or cost-cutting proposals.
We have work in hand on all these points. On the first, technical knowledge, the Government see information, advice and encouragement as key elements in their energy conservation policies. They promote these through their network of Regional

1291
Energy Conservation Officers, their free newspaper Energy Management and a whole range of schemes designed to improve efficiency in energy use; for example, the Energy Conservation Demonstration Projects Scheme and the Energy Survey Scheme.
On the second point, monitoring of energy use, I share the view expressed in paragraph 29 of the report, that this is a particularly important area—and for this reason it is one of the priority areas in our conservation activities. For instance, last June, my predecessor opened a conference held at Centre Point on Monitoring and Target Setting. This conference was in conjunction with the CBI. The Department of Energy has set aside £½ million per annum over the next four years to aid activities in this field. There are proposals for pilot studies and in five cases work programmes are in progress—in close co-operation with the trade associations concerned. The result of the pilot studies so far is encouraging. Indeed, Armitage-Norton consultants found that even companies with a rudimentary system of monitoring energy use had a markedly better record in energy management than their competitors.
To come to the last of these three points raised by the consultants, the best way to redress the priority which industry gives to energy efficiency investments is to involve senior management in energy efficiency so that they can see the real financial benefits which are there for the taking. We are already in touch with the CBI on this whole question of senior management involvement. I warmly endorse the statement in paragraph 59 of the report, which emphasises the important role which representative bodies of industry, such as the CBI and trade and research associations, have to play in increasing awareness among companies of the opportunities to improve efficiency of energy use.
Over recent weeks, I have spoken to a group of senior managers in the CBI's regional organisation, to one trade association in Manchester, to one in London this morning and to another visiting our research unit at Harwell. I know therefore from my own experience that the CBI has this basic message of information and advice very much at heart and co-operation is close. In addition, the Government have mounted an advertising campaign directed at industrial energy conservation, with a booklet entitled Realising Better Results With Energy. It is specifically designed to reach industrial management.
I should like to explain how Government schemes fit into industrial energy conservation with two examples. I see that the Sub-Committee took evidence from the Energy Technology Support Unit about the Energy Conservation Demonstration Projects Scheme. They will, therefore, appreciate what we are trying to achieve through this scheme. The aim of the scheme is to encourage the widespread adoption of technologies which lead to the more efficient use of energy. It does this by demonstrating their technical and economic effectiveness in practice and by encouraging replication of successful proposals. So far 222 projects have been approved and are expected to proceed. Of these projects. 110 are now operational. It is early days yet, but so far 315 replications have taken
1292
place, spread over 35 of the projects in 303 companies. A major publicity campaign to publicise the results of the projects which we are funding is under way. In 1982, nine open days and 35 exhibitions were held.
Another scheme to promote efficient use of energy is the Energy Survey Scheme. This provides financial assistance towards the cost of employing energy consultants to identify potential energy savings in industrial, commercial and public sector premises. So far, over 60,000 applicants have been reimbursed for short one-day surveys. The savings identified through these surveys are estimated to be worth over £10 per annum for every £1 of Government money spent. In addition, over 2,000 applications for extended surveys have been received. The recommendations in these extended surveys also include changes to capital plant and equipment and the savings identified here are even greater.
If I may come briefly to comparisons with Europe, I know that Sub-Committee F takes a poor view of the United Kingdom's performance in comparison with that of other countries. I should like to mention one published review of the International Energy Agency. This is the 1981 review, Energy Policies and Programmes in IEA Countries. It looked at the United Kingdom's position, again in comparison with that of other countries, and it concluded that
"the United Kingdom's record of achievement in reducing energy and oil consumption in recent years reflects a high level of success in policy measures adopted thus far".
I recognise that this is about consumption, but that, too, is a strong aim of conservation. The lesson to be drawn is that international comparisons in this field are difficult to make, and we should take care before selling ourselves short by ignoring what we have achieved. We should see our present position as one on which to build.
The IEA's review laid particular emphasis on our realistic policies on energy pricing; and, indeed, the Sub-Committee's report, as I mentioned earlier, rightly, we believe, recognises that realistic pricing is an essential element in any policy to promote rational energy use. We have supported the principles of economic pricing and price transparency enunciated in the European Community, and share the Committee's wish that the Commission should continue to monitor effectively energy pricing in the Community. What is important is that the market should be free from distortion, so that price signals are as clear as possible. As the Committee acknowledges in paragraph 72 (f), the Government can have no special knowledge about the future market movements on which prices will depend.
I know that the Committee looked at comparative energy prices. The recent CBI report on energy pricing shows that it is not the case that British industry has to pay more for energy than its competitors. Gas prices are in line with the EEC for firm contracts, and interruptible United Kingdom users indeed have a price advantage. The vast majority of United Kingdom industrial electricity users face no general price disparity except, along with every other European country, against the French. Only a small minority of high load factor United Kingdom electricity consumers can find themselves at a disadvantage.

1293
I was interested to see the Committee's conclusion that the energy supply industries should increase their efforts to promote energy saving by their customers and I generally endorse this conclusion. I share the scepticism of the Committee about the need for a statutory conservation duty. But we shall be seeking discussions with each of the state fuel industries to review their current energy conservation activities and the scope for extending them.
I know that the Committee were impressed by some of the high savings in energy achieved by some individual firms. Paragraph 29 of the report refers to this. My experience so far, as Minister in this department, confirms this impression. I can see why the Committee concluded that it is difficult, during a recession, for companies to find the necessary resources to invest in energy efficiency. This was a conclusion in paragraph 72 (i). But the significant savings are still there for the taking, and often this can be exploited without sizeable capital expenditure. And investment in energy efficiency projects can generate important income within a company and exert a multiplier effect on all operations.
Last week, I visited the Principality of Wales. I spent time with the Wrexham Lager Beer Company, with Monsanto and visited the Clwyd Council—and I spoke at a seminar "Profit from Energy Management" as part of a Welsh Energy Awareness Week organised by the Welsh Regional Energy Conservation Officer, who, incidentally, gave oral evidence to the Committee. During my visit, I was told that the energy saving measures which Wrexham Lager Beer Company had taken over the past six years were now yielding savings of £67,000 per annum. At Monsanto, I was told that the group set itself two targets on energy efficiency. One was to achieve in 1979 a 25 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency compared with 1972 in one year. This goal was achieved so quickly that a second target was set: this was to achieve a 35 per cent. reduction in energy rate compared with 1972 by 1985—The management team is on course for that target, too. One of the speakers who followed me at the seminar reported that an investment of £155,000 in energy efficiency in improving a muffle furnace (this was supported by our demonstration project schemes) was yielding savings of £ 100,000 a year in reduced fuel and labour costs. Indeed, the company were so pleased with the investment they had made that they intend to replicate the project.
The opportunities, then, are there, and it is important that companies should be fully aware of them. I was interested in the committee's conclusion that company annual reports should give information about energy use, In fact, the Government have invited companies to state in their annual reports their expenditure on fuel and the steps taken to save energy. I hope companies will make this move. I hope it will not be necessary to make it a statutory requirement.
I am grateful to the House for allowing me to make these remarks by way of introduction—this seems to be a new form—so that the committee and the House can follow the Government's views, rather than having to wait until the end. I hope the House will find this to be satisfactory. The committee's report has raised many fascinating issues and I look forward to an interesting debate. By leave, I shall try to answer some
1294
of the specific points raised at the conclusion of the debate.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and his colleagues on Sub-Committee F on the full and careful report which is before us today. At the same time, since there is always a need to justify the continuing existence of this House, I should like to underline the value of the work carried out by the Select Committee on the European Communities and its sub-committees. There is no other body at Westminster which undertakes the close and detailed scrutiny of the variety of proposals and draft legislation which pours, like a paper flood, from Brussels. And I doubt whether there is anywhere such a reservoir of experience and expertise to stem this flood and calmly analyse its contents. It is a function of this House in which we can take some pride. Members who regularly visit the Commission in Brussels and the European Parliament will also know that the reports which emanate from the Select Committee command attention and respect. I sometimes feel that we, and our colleagues in another place, undervalue this special contribution that Members of this House make to our membership of the Community.
Having said that, what this report has to say is appalling. Just examine the first three of its main conclusions:
"RUE deserves much more priority in United Kingdom energy policy".
"United Kingdom performance in RUE falls short of other EEC countries and far short of the best".
"There is widespread ignorance in British industry of the savings which RUE can make. British management's performance here is depressing and disturbing".
I believe it is true to say that before the welcome appointment of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, I was the last Minister from the Department of Energy in your Lordships' House. I did not last very long. Some of us up here do not. But while I had the job I could speak directly for the department, as I feel sure the Minister is speaking for the department tonight, although I am not greatly encouraged by what he has said so far. I took up my post hard on the heels of the 1973–74 oil price crisis which precipitated so many of the world's economic problems. My instructions were to get a new energy conservation programme on the road. With the help of some very capable people in the department, that is what I did. We showed that it was possible to save a great deal of our energy resources and, therefore, money. Unfortunately, subsequent Governments seem not to have recognised the need for a continuing RUE programme as an essential component of energy policy. The steam was allowed to go out of it. Consequently, this country has gone on wasting probably billions of pounds worth of its resources and signally failing to evolve an integrated energy policy.
Early in 1979 I had the honour of chairing Sub-Committee F for an earlier look at energy conservation in the European Community. Our report, published in June of that year, was a slim volume. It had nothing like the substance of the RUE report which we are now considering. However, it did point out that,

1295
"Progress since 1974 has been slow and the committee believe that this must to some extent be linked to the low priority accorded to the RUE programme and to the limited resources allocated to it".
In commenting adversely on the progress of the RUE programme we stated that,
"Energy conservation, which will soon become a matter of continual rather than sporadic urgency, depends above all on changing social attitudes".
I invite your Lordships to compare the recommendations of our 1979 report with those of the 1983 report, particularly if noble Lords want yet another depressing example of why this country is where it is today. Not much seems to have happened. Somewhat disturbed political characters, such as the Secretary of State for Employment, seem to be of the opinion that most of our industrial ills stem from the activities of the trade unions. I commend to his attention the conclusion of this latest report: that,
"there is widespread ignorance in British industry of the savings which RUE can make"
and that,
"British management's performance here is depressing and disturbing".
I think the right honourable gentleman could make a more helpful contribution to our national well-being if he accepted the fact that our troubles more often spring from the ignorance and inactivity of management. RUE, for instance, is not something which blooms on the shop floor, with workers remembering to switch off the lights. It is a management responsibility—a responsibility to plan wisely, to set out and implement proper schemes to ensure the efficient use of energy.
The really depressing reflection in all this, and the reason I refer to past events, is that a decade has passed since we ran into the energy crisis and we seem not to have advanced very far along this particular road. In fact, we have regressed to the point where other member states of the Community, who used to send representatives over here to learn from us about RUE, now draw attention to the fall in the relative resources being allocated to energy efficiency by the United Kingdom.
Moreover, as the report says,
"The United Kingdom's conservation effort is fragmented"
and,
"Government policy lacks thrust and focus".
No one would pretend that it is easy to quantify the saving on demand and resources which would result from higher levels of energy efficiency. But, as the report points out, some industries have established targets for energy saving, with systems for monitoring, and have achieved "substantial savings". It is worrying, to say the least, at a time when there is grave public concern about the nuclear reactor programme, which in the United States has led to a cutting back of their programme and in our case is reflected in the Sizewell B inquiry, that no one seems to have any clear idea whether or not investing vast sums in even one reactor or, for that matter, a fossil fuel station is as cost effective as investing a similar sum to achieve much more efficient use of energy.
However, to turn to the specific recommendations in the report, pricing policy is fully covered and, apart
1296
from saying that I agree with much, if not most of the sub-committee's comments and conclusions, I shall not cover that area. What I should like to do in the remainder of a speech of, I hope, approximate brevity for this particular day and hour is to focus upon two of the conclusions reached by the sub-committee. The first I have already mentioned. It is that,
"there is widespread ignorance in British industry of the savings which RUE can make"
and that,
"industry should share with Government responsibility for encouraging energy efficiency".
The current recession is no sufficient reason for firms not to invest in energy saving, as the noble Earl the Minister has just pointed out, because such a wide range of schemes is available, from simple, low cost, housekeeping measures through to more ambitious, longer pay-back projects.
The point is that awareness of the benefits of making efficient use of energy must be raised: that industry must be made aware of the benefits to be gained for themselves by using energy efficiently. People—and this goes for the domestic consumer as well—have to become energy conscious in their own interests. That is the first step and it has not been taken decisively enough by Government. It can be done by putting more money into more effective, better directed publicity and promotion (using examples of companies employing best practice and improving their profits, similar to those mentioned within the confines of this House by the noble Earl the Minister), perhaps by introducing special and attractive awards, certainly by making the qualifying conditions for Government schemes less restrictive and cutting out the delay in processing applications, by redeploying existing resources, and by getting a new drive into a simpler range of short training courses in energy management.
All this depends on the Government taking a fresh initiative and, considering the vast potential for savings on our energy bill and for helping to resolve our overall energy problems, this must be given high priority. As the report says,
"There must be more evidence of political will, and of commitment via the Government to promote RUE".
The second point referred to in part 7 of the report under the heading "How to make better progress", is the committee's recommendation that there should be created one central agency with overall responsibility for RUE, drawing together and co-ordinating the activities and tasks at present inefficiently and ineffectively spread over a whole band of Government departments. The reason for doing this is so self-evident that I shall not labour the point. Suffice it to say that shortly after the "Save It!" campaign was launched in 1974 and 1975, it became clear that other departments which could be called to account in terms of energy saving were busily setting up their own individual schemes and fall-back positions. They did so largely, I suppose, because in the tribal society of Whitehall they were not going to tolerate aliens from the Department of Energy invading their territory. The results were predictable and the report rightly comes out strongly for centralising responsibility and a new body powerful and independent enough—as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has emphasised—to

1297
do what is needed. I am glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that the Government are considering this recommendation—I hope more favourably than he seemed to imply.
Having tried for some years now to make a contribution to the more efficient use of energy at all levels, your Lordships will understand why, although this report addresses itself to industry, I find it hard to resist the opportunity to stress again the case for the ordinary domestic consumer, particularly in these desperate times. Fuel costs bear heavily on the poor, millions of whom live in badly insulated homes which are often equipped with expensive heating systems. A recent paper from the National Consumer Council pointed out that illness, bad housing, or the need to spend most of the day at home—for instance, in the case of people with young children, the unemployed, the permanently disabled and the elderly—can lead to high fuel consumption and literally terrifying hills. Yet it is these people who have responded least to the opportunities offered by the 1978 Homes Insulation Scheme.
More also has to be done to help them, either by improved methods of publicity and information, with more generous financial incentives and improved loan facilities, or by launching a comprehensive direct insulation programme which, in itself, could create employment. Not to take action at this level too is not only to continue wasting our energy resources but our human resources as well.
This report is the most important and certainly the most comprehensive on this subject to have been recommended to us for debate. I hope that the Government and industry will accept the validity of its comments and act decisively upon its recommendations. The problem has been with us for many years and we are not making enough progress towards resolving it. It will not go away or become less urgent, and we shall seriously handicap ourselves if Governments continue largely to ignore it.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, it was a privilege to serve under the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, on his committee and be a part of this report. Congratulations are also due—and other noble Lords have given them—to the staff who made this report not only readable but also a very important document. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Earl the Minister, in his opening contribution to this debate, make reference to company reports and the fact that there should be some mention of energy saving made in them. On the quéstion of the statutory prompting of companies to do this, I had a slight disagreement with the Committee because I thought companies would not do so and that this requirement should go straight on to the statute book. But as the noble Earl has said that he will persuade companies, I shall be happy merely to hear those words at this early stage.
I was most impressed by the other parts of the noble Lord's contribution. It was almost a litany of conservation. As the noble Earl continued I could almost see an aura glowing every time that conservation was mentioned, with all the good and wonderful things which the Department of Energy had done. I believe
1298
that the noble Earl went a little too far when he used the term "300 replications". I have no idea what this means, but if it is a polite word for repeats, will he please say so? Or is this a Euro-word or a departmental word? It should be abandoned rather quickly whether it concerns this subject or any other, hut maybe he can persuade me to incorporate it later into my vocabulary.
Conservation is regarded by most people—and certainly this seems true if one looks around your Lordships' Chamber now—as being rather a dull subject. Those of us who have taken part in this report know that that is not the case. Those who have actually gone so far as reading this report will have seen that it contains not only interesting but also extremely surprising evidence which is relevant to the economy as a whole.
Witness after witness reported on the poor state of British industry and the difficulty of looking to the future with confidence. It was also said that there was a lack of understanding by Government and by Government departments as to the reality of the harshness of the economic situation from which industry was and still is suffering. I believe that their worries were made so great in regard to the finding of work for their workforces, that energy saving appeared to come rather low on their list of priorities. As one witness said, to sum up this general attitude:
"When the ship is sinking, you do not bother overmuch about how efficient the engines are."
To me, this was a very significant statement and summed up a great wealth of evidence on the worry and concern that industry has about its position—let alone towards its attitude towards energy as a whole.
To me personally, and to other noble Lords who sat on the committee, this aspect came as something of a shock and surprise. I say that because even in the past two or three weeks, much of the media, the CBI and indeed the Conservative Party political broadcast last night have given the impression that the economy is once again on the way up and the recession is ending. If one looks at the evidence in this report, one finds that is not the case for 1983. I run two engineering companies, and from my own experience this is not the position as I and my workforce see it, with some of the lowest order books we have ever had in history, which are dependent on the backbone of British industry—British steel, the British coal industry and so on.
It is therefore no surprise to see in the business section of The Times today the chairman of one of our largest companies, which is involved in the forefront of technology and whose company would be one of the first to benefit if there were an end to the recession, is saying,
"there is no sign yet of any upturn in our manufacturing businesses at home or overseas".
I think that that is one point that should not be forgotten and that this report should be seen in the context that industry is still in recession and there is not much hope of doing much conservation when industry is having trouble with survival.
I would just want to mention the question of pricing, which has already been raised. On my desk today there is a paper from none other than the British Manmade Fibres Federation, the British Independent Steel Producers' Association, the British Paper and Board Industry Federation, the British Steel Corporation, the

1299
Chemical Industries Association, the Glass Manufacturers' Federation and the National Federation of Clay Industries. That is a pretty broad cross-section of British industry, and they are far from happy with the present pricing of energy to their respective industries. Perhaps I may quote, to remind the noble Lord the Minister, who I am sure has received this document. It ends up by saying:
"The continuation of the present uncompetitive UK pricing policies of electricity will inevitably result in further contraction of these industries we represent and the transfer of the jobs they provide to our European competitors. We again urge the Government to take rapid corrective action before it is too late".
They are saying this now; this is not something that has not been said before, because the situation has not changed. Therefore, it is rather in conflict, if I may say so with the utmost respect, with what the noble Earl has been saying in his introductory remarks. I would just hope that he will also bear in mind that British industry has had to look to exports to survive. The home markets are just not there. There has been no Government stimulus to the economy. Exports depend on competitive pricing, and, in those industries I have mentioned, that means competitive energy prices, and they are complaining that it is not there at the moment. I hope the noble Earl will bear these thoughts in mind and reconsider some of the pleas put forward by these particular industries.
I want to come on to another point to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, referred: the conclusions regarding what should be done with energy conservation. The conclusions were the same as those reached in the Rayner Report. I suppose one could say that a conclusion is that one should make rational use of civil servants in energy conservation in the same way that one makes rational use of energy in industry. The evidence given to us, and indeed to the Rayner Committee, was that there has been an irrational use of civil servants across the departments. Their energies have been dissipated and diffused, and in some respects have been unproductive. Therefore, I very much welcome the conclusions made in the report, and I hope that they will be pursued. I am also very pleased to see that the Rayner Report came to exactly the same conclusions.
Perhaps I may move on to one point which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. It refers to the embarrassing question of leaks from Government departments. This is the second debate in which I have spoken in this House in the last month where I as a parliamentarian was one of the last people to see the report. I referred first to the Serpell Report, where parliamentarians seemed to be left behind, and I now refer to the report published in the Guardian, emanating from the Department of Energy but suppressed by the right honourable gentleman the Minister himself. Therefore, we cannot discuss it in your Lordships' House. This was touched on in the evidence put before the Committee from the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and it concerns the point raised by Lord Lovell-Davis: would money be better spent in conservation rather than in energy supply?
This is a very big matter of philosophy and of policy. At least we should like to have some facts as to what
1300
is the difference between investing in a nuclear power station or using a similar amount of money in terms of energy conservation. Inside the Department of Energy is a clear-cut report which in fact gives the figures and gives the conclusions. We do not have access to that report, except a doctored version, report DN/S3/NE, which does not really answer this question, for the simple reason that its conclusions are that the efficiency of investment of this kind, in respect of energy supply or energy conservation, must be judged on its benefits to the Exchequer. All I am asking the noble Earl is to look a little wider than this, as he is a Minister for Energy. We have a very major unemployment problem in this country, and we perhaps have less need for as many power stations as had originally been thought.
So I do think this is a moment for the Government to consider this in a little more detail than they have done, or to take the report I have just quoted a little further along the road to see whether or not there is a wider social benefit as well as economic benefits in investing more in conservation of energy rather than in the supply of energy. I think this could be of particular relevance when the alternative is to import another technology, a foreign technology, and to build a nuclear power station, for instance, of non-British design. I believe this has some further distance to be argued than has happened so far before we from these Benches are going to be completely convinced by the Department of Energy's attitude that it is of no benefit to the country or the taxpayer to spend more on direct investment in energy conservation. I would hope that this argument can be kept going and is not going simply to be closed at the end of this debate or at the end of this report.
There are many other points that I should like to touch on, but I feel at this late hour it is best to listen to what other members of the committee have to say, and hope that the Government response will be somewhat better than that which was referred to in the Rayner Report as lack of Government commitment. What we should like to hear when the noble Lord the Minister answers is that there is not a lack of Government commitment, but that there should be more Government commitment to energy conservation as it relates to industry.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, may I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for this excellent report and the study which lies behind it. I think it is an extremely valuable contribution at the present time and obviously should be studied by many people, judging by its conclusions. I also valued very much the comments from my noble friend Lord Avon on the Government's action so far on what appears in this report, and I am glad that they are showing a full awareness of this problem.
I would like to make one or two brief comments on certain features of this report. First of all, I would express surprise, as other noble Lords have done, at the conclusions of this report, in which it speaks very harshly of industry's approach to this particular problem. I wonder where this information all comes from. There is reference here to the Armitage-Norton Report. I do not think that that has been published yet,

1301
or if it has it was only very recently, so we have not seen it and we cannot see where its information comes from. I have seen a reference in one of the technical journals that it arises from a study of 128 firms, which seems a pretty small cross-section on which to have come to a sweeping conclusion as to what is happening in the whole of British industry. However, I can only conclude that the committee has given very careful consideration to these factors in that they endorse these criticisms, and therefore we must obviously take them very seriously. I took them seriously enough to make some inquiries in my own company as to exactly what the position was on this question.
We set up a special task force some 10 years ago to investigate this exact problem. These are the results which I found. The saving on energy consumption in our particular operation, which is a pretty countrywide engineering operation, shows a saving, taking into account changes in manufacturing activity, of some 27 per cent. over the 10-year period. That seems to compare very well with what is recorded in this report for other countries. Over the past five years our saving has been some 14 per cent. So I can only conclude that we must be one of the brighter spots referred to in this report. I should like to feel that there are other brighter spots because I do not think we are in isolation bearing in mind the pressure on industry to control costs.
I do not entirely go along with the views that have been expressed that because industry is hard pressed it cannot afford to conserve its energy costs or for that matter any other items of cost. All my experience is that hard times intensify the effort to reduce costs—hence my own experience in my own company on this particular aspect of energy saving.
My examination also revealed one or two other interesting features in which I think noble Lords might be interested. During this period our consumption of solid fuel has gone down, as a percentage, from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. Oil fuel has gone down from 22 per cent. to 20 per cent. Electricity has gone down from 56 per cent. to 51 per cent. and gas has gone up from 12 per cent. to 22 per cent.—a tremendous swing over that period to gas which has been brought about by the need to switch fuels in order to get the maximum economy in energy use.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the high proportion of electricity. Even with the savings, over 50 per cent. of our energy consumed is in the form of electricity. To put that in its context I must tell your Lordships that we are talking about an energy bill of £40 million-odd a year, so we are not talking about small money. This question of the price of electricity is, therefore, an extremely important factor, not only in my own case, but, I am sure, in other cases as well.
Reference has been made in this debate and in the report, very wisely in my opinion, to the need for realistic pricing and the need to keep energy costs down. I draw attention to the fact that the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, in his 1981–82 report, stressed the urgent need for an overhaul on coal pricing structures and for relating prices to the cost of production from individual sources. This is the main element in the electricity price to which I have already referred. The coal-fired stations of the CEGB produce, I am told, some 83 per cent. of the total power despatched, and of the cost of that energy well over 60 per cent. is, in fact, the cost of
1302
the fuel—in this case, coal. Therefore, the question of realistic pricing of coal is extremely important and the CEGB drew particular attention to the need for realistic pricing and, I quote the chairman's words,
"relating prices to the cost of production from their individual sources".
Energy is a very important part of industry's costs. Therefore, its price is very important to the competitiveness of its products and, therefore, to stability of employment in industry. I think every step must be taken not only to save energy but also to get the cheapest possible energy in industry.
I should like to make one or two other comments on items in the report. There is a reference to the performance of the French which I find very puzzling. It refers to a saving of 15 per cent. as compared with the United Kingdom's 5 per cent. These figures do not seem to gel at all and my noble friend Lord Avon confused the matter in my mind even more when he referred to the International Energy Agency review which did not seem to agree with these figures either. I ask the Government whether this should not be looked into? Is it not possible to make inquiries in France on how they achieved these savings and the methods employed? What were the incentives and what was the cost? Perhaps we could learn something out of that if it proves to be the case that they have done so much better than we have.
I support the reference in the report to the question of competitive energy pricing for bulk users. I listened with great interest to the reference to competitive energy prices with our competitors on the Continent by my noble friend Lord Avon. I have heard it said before that there is some doubt being expressed as to whether our energy prices are the same as theirs, but on examination I am told they are except in this case of bulk users of energy. Is this not something that should be looked at? We are an energy-rich country. We have coal, oil and gas and yet for some reason or other we shy away from making it attractive to have high energy consuming industries in this country.
I ask the Government whether they should not look at this again. Energy consuming industries produce materials which are otherwise imported and this is, therefore, an important element in our balance of trade. They also employ people, many of them in remote places where many of the energy consuming industries are located, and that itself is important. Thirdly, energy consuming industries also purchase much plant and employ high technology, both of which if developed in this country could help our exports to other countries who are utilising similar plants. Therefore, I ask the Government whether that also is not something which should be looked at again. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us something of their views on this matter.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Tanlaw in saying what a privilege it was to sit on Sub-Committee F under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. The noble Lord is a very shrewd chairman with a gift for getting the very best out of his witnesses and keeping his colleagues under the closest of close

1303
control. He also shows remarkable talent in drafting reports. The report which the House is at present debating is one of the best written and most succinct reports that the House has had the privilege of receiving.
I should also like to say how much I welcome the apparently new custom of the Minister giving an indication of the Government's position at the start of the debate. We are all extremely pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Avon, here in his capacity as Minister at the Department of Energy. We very much hope that he will think on what is said in this report and perhaps come to rather more vigorous conclusions than the opening statement with which he regaled us.
The main conclusions of the report are set out in paragraph 72 and comprise five statements and eight recommendations. These statements and recommendations are based on the very wide range of evidence received, both written and oral. These statements and recommendations are worthy of your Lordships' very serious consideration.
The committee's investigation was based on a number of Commission documents which are listed in a footnote to paragraph 1 of the report. I think it is fair to say that the committee found itself in general agreement with the thrust and purpose of all the Commission documents, as did the witnesses, with regard to the use of energy in industry. Some of the Commission's proposals are well in line with the Government's present activities in the energy conservation field and in the rational use of energy, and others of their proposals, in essence, call for an extension of such activities and therefore should be well received by Her Majesty's Government.
With my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford. I do not think the achievements of industry and of Government to date should be understated. They have led to savings in the use of energy which are difficult to quantify exactly but which must currently be in the range of £150 million to £200 million a year and probably amount to well over £1 billion since the campaign started. It is clear from the evidence that some of the larger businesses in this country have been most vigorous in their pursuit of energy savings. I am happy to say that the company with which I had the honour once to be associated has done almost as well as that which Lord Nelson adorns. We set up our energy management scheme back in 1974. I think that the company in fact spends more on energy than Lord Nelson's company and has made correspondingly larger savings.
It is quite clear that the appointment throughout industry of energy managers with wide remits has been most beneficial, with resulting big gains in energy efficiency. But it is also clear from the evidence that we received that a multitude of smaller companies had a long way to go. Some of them had apparently given very little attention to the matter. Some of these smaller businesses appeared to be unaware of their energy costs and of the aid and advice, and sometimes money, which was available from Government sources to enable them to become more efficient. At this stage, reference must be made to, and admiration expressed for, the work of the handful of regional
1304
energy conservation officers. But it is clear that they are far too thin on the ground for the great task which faces them.
The committee was impressed by the wide range of expertise available in the various Government departments which gave evidence. The evidence of the Energy Technology Support Unit at Harwell stood out in this respect. But it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Energy Conservation Division of the Department of Energy has powers for itself which are much too limited and has to do its work in a framework which is inimical to achieving the best results. Some 12 Government departments are independently engaged, one way or another, in energy conservation work—12 separate departments—and there is no effective co-ordination.
We understand that the Rayner scrutiny, under the direction of Dr. Finer, came to similar conclusions. But, whereas the scrutiny came down in favour of centralisation of the Government effort under a strengthened Energy Conservation Division of the Department of Energy, the committee felt, and felt very strongly, that, while such a development would undoubtedly be an improvement, a much better proposal would be to establish a separate agency with responsibility to a senior Minister. This in fact is almost the key conclusion of the committee's report. As paragraph 53 of the report states, such an agency—for which the Health and Safety Commission perhaps provides a precedent—would be a welcome sign to industry of a new firmness of purpose and of political will on the part of the Government. I do hope that, in his winding up, my noble friend Lord Avon will indicate that this firmness of purpose and this accession of new political will will in fact be part of the Government's policy.
The committee acknowledged the part the energy supply industries, which report to the Department of Energy, play in urging their customers to be efficient in the use of the particular fuels and energy sources they supply. In parenthesis, the committee recommended that this activity of theirs should be strengthened. But the committee felt that there was an inherent contradiction in having a department which oversees the spending of vast sums of money on energy supply being at the same time the promoter of schemes to make some of that spending unnecessary. In this connection, I think that some of the observations with which Lord Tanlaw has favoured us during the debate are extremely apt and very much to the point and I hope will be taken on board by the Government.
There are two other paragraghs in the summary to which I should like to refer. Recommendation (h) is that large industrial consumers should be given, by legislation if necessary, the full cost benefit of their pattern of high energy use. It is acknowledged that the Government have indeed made some steps in this direction, but the committee, having heard and weighed the evidence they received, felt that more could and should be done. They felt that such action would be equitable and would contain no element of subsidy. Once again, I should like very much to say that I agree with everything that Lord Tanlaw said on the subject.
The other proposal to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is lettered (i). I think that the

1305
Minister has referred to it and, directly or indirectly, my noble friend Lord Nelson has referred to it. It relates to the reluctance to invest in energy efficiency schemes even when these schemes have a very rapid pay-off. It is a reluctance because of lack of cash flow. I accept completely that Lord Nelson's company finds that difficult to understand because it is the fortunate possessor of a cash mountain which is the envy of many other people in business. But for many companies, especially smaller companies, the problem of cash flow has been acute and lack of confidence in the future was most evident. Time and time again, as my noble friend Lord Tanlaw has said, the committee was told that sheer survival was the problem for many firms. The position given to us was a far cry from the image of a lean and fit industrial sector, full of self-confidence and looking forward to a buoyant future—that image which Government spokesmen sometimes appear to have in their mind's eye. In many cases what we sensed—perhaps to be strictly accurate I should say what I sensed—was something akin to desperation.
Since the committee started the inquiry, the value of the pound has come down against a wide range of currencies, including those of many of our major industrial competitors. Interest rates, while still high in real terms, are also down. It could be that this de facto devaluation, with none of the traumas of the French official devaluation within the EMS, will be the trigger for a sustained industrial revival. But so much productive capacity has been actually lost—not just mothballed, but lost—that the ability of industry to take widespread advantage of the new situation must be in doubt. It is certain that we shall need new investment in productive capacity.
In the energy field—the rational use of energy—the Government's new agency which the committee's report suggests should be set up would have, as one of its major tasks, the promotion of the rational and most economic use of energy in any such new investment. But investment we must have and rational use of energy we must have, and, for these, we need a sense of dynamism, purpose and commitment on the part of the Government which we all hope and trust our noble friend the Minister will reinforce when he concludes.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I have an interest to declare as I am associated with the paper and board industry and it will be about the problems of this industry that I shall be talking tonight. But I ought to say that there are a number of other industries who share the same problems acutely. I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for a very thorough and valuable report.
The report of the committee stems from a communication from the EEC Commission to the Council of 10th February 1982 entitled Investment in the Rational Use of Energy. The Commission document is a wide-ranging survey of opportunities and constraints for and upon industry in its efforts to invest to use energy more efficiently and in particular to use less imported oil. The Commission document concludes with a draft Council recommendation containing 14 recommendations to encourage appropriate investment. The recommendations
1306
contain ideas to reform the structured constraints to investment, as well as touching on pricing and going more deeply into sources of finance and channels for its supply. But it is to the committee's report that I want to come.
The committee has produced an excellent report with 13 recommendations. I want to say at once that the paper industry feels in sympathy with all these recommendations. However, conclusions (e), (h), (i) and (j) seem to be especially relevant to the United Kingdom paper and board industry. I would like to tell the House why.
On (e) there has been much muddle and disagreement about the true cost of energy in the EEC. The Neddy reports of February and November 1981 already highlighted the plight of large energy intensive users. The CBI produced a further report in February this year which indicated an improved position but with still a considerable gap between the United Kingdom and continental competitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, referred to (h) where the committee said that industrial consumers should get the benefit of their size, continuity and, in the case of electricity and gas, attractive load patterns, and accepted that at present there is a major problem which needs Government understanding and action. The committee acknowledged that international price comparisons cannot be a precise art and that there will be considerable variations both within and between countries for various groups of consumers. The comparisons, of course, are also affected by the volatility of currency and foreign exchange.
The CBI report came to the following conclusions in respect of the three major energy sources as at 15th October 1982. As regards oil it said that during the 12 months period up to October 1982 the weighted average of all United Kingdom oil product prices, including duty and taxes, remained higher than the equivalent weighted average for the major EEC countries. United Kingdom heavy fuel oil prices were higher than those on the Continent throughout the period, mainly on account of the higher rate of duty levied in the United Kingdom and the higher prices resulting from the structure differences between the United Kingdom oil produce market and those on the Continent. So some British companies were clearly at a disadvantage.
In the case of gas the report said that the United Kingdom firm gas prices for loads in the range of 1 million to 10 million therms per annum were at the top end or, in some instances, above the general range of prices prevailing in other EEC countries, although, as before, the position was complicated by the fact that the West German prices, which were supplied on a gas-oil link basis, were considerably higher than United Kingdom prices. In all EEC countries except the United Kingdom a range of firm gas prices applied making quantification of price differentials very difficult. However, it said that it is estimated that United Kingdom firm prices were in the area of 10 per cent. higher than the average EEC level. United Kingdom interruptible gas prices for the same load sizes were closely in line with those of other countries.
The movement in exchange rates subsequent to October 1982, irrespective of any price increases in

1307
local currencies in the various EEC countries, had by the end of the year removed the average firm gas price disparity and given the United Kingdom interruptible gas prices an advantage. The extension of the United Kingdom contract gas price and freeze until the end of 1983 should ensure the continuation of the recent position in 1983.
However, it is electricity where the real difficulties arise. It is said that industrial electricity prices in England and Wales on 1st October 1982 to most consumers were broadly in line with those on the Continent, except in the case of France whose prices remain the lowest in the EEC. Within this general picture—and this is the burden of my case—significant price disparities existed for a relatively small, but nonetheless important, number of high load and/or high load factor consumers in England and Wales, particularly those unable to take advantage of load management terms.
Paragraph 39 of the report said that strong representations had been made in evidence by some of the energy intensive industries, notably the paper and board manufacturers. They spoke about the disadvantage which they claim to suffer by being exposed to higher energy prices than their European competitors. Although the committee has not undertaken the study needed to evaluate those claims, there was no doubt in the mind of the committee about the strength of grievance or the seriousness of the problems facing these industries, aggravated as it is by surplus capacity due to the recession.
The committee said that it did not support the suggestion that the United Kingdom Government should subsidise energy prices generally so as to equalise them with prices in other countries with low cost energy, because on any widespread scale this would undermine realistic pricing—and I would entirely agree. It said that it was also a matter of debate whether all the most energy-intensive industries can survive in Britain at all when faced with the continued challenge of world recession and competitors with access to low-cost energy. Whether special measures should be taken to assist their survival is a question of industrial policy on which the committee made no comment.
However, the committee said that it is compatible with a realistic energy pricing policy to offer relief to such industries to allow them to adjust to higher energy prices. The Government and the publicly-owned energy industries should review tariff structures to ensure that large consumers do get any benefits to which their higher consumption and pattern of demand may entitle them. Indeed, it would make commercial sense for the energy supply industries to make such concessions, within limits, as are calculated to keep their large consumers in business. Finally, it said that if the nationalisation statutes were adjudged to constrain reasonable flexibility in this respect, the statutes should be amended.
The paper and board industry could not have stated its own case more clearly or more concisely. There have, since 1979, been 15 meetings with Ministers and on each occasion the industry has pleaded not for a general subsidy but that in highly intensive energy-
1308
using industries—and in paper energy is between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of total costs—they should not, by Government action, be put at a disadvantage with their competitors. But there has been little response to those requests. Mills have continued to close and companies decline. In all, since January 1980 when the problem really commenced, 36 mills and 94 machines have disappeared; 15,000 jobs have gone and 10 companies no longer exist.
In pursuing a policy of realistic energy prices, the Select Committee urged that where the financial targets are settled, the policy of the rational use of energy should not be pursued so as to impose handicaps on British industry—and we certainly agree with that—prices should be effectively monitored and the problems of the energy intensive industries, like the paper and board industry, should engage the Government's attention.
Sir Alex Jarratt of Reed International, when speaking for the CBI to the Secretaries of State for Energy and Industry, indicated the international scope of the problem. In particular he pointed to the fact that the angle of the slope of reducing costs in the United Kingdom is not as steep as their EEC competitors, as the intensity of the load factor increases. This is one of the major reasons why electricity in the United Kingdom paper and board industry is higher than that of our EEC competitors.
Sir Terence Beckett restated the case in a letter to the Financial Times on the 8th March. He said that in referring to the CBI report Mr. Nigel Lawson had said that energy prices in the United Kingdom in general compare well with those in most of the Community. This, said Sir Terence, is true as far as it goes. But it omits reference to a highly important sector of Britain's economy employing many thousands of people which is in danger of facing further redundancies and decline if its particular energy problems are not treated more realistically—the so-called "high load and high factor electricity users". These include parts of the steel, chemical, paper, glass, man-made fibre, refractory and aluminium industries and, indeed, I might add the clay-using industries as well. They still face a significant price disadvantage against their Continental competitors, even taking into account the fall in the value of sterling.
The data in the CBI report relates to published tariff information. Even on this basis, allowing for current exchange rates, French industrial electricity prices are lower than in the United Kingdom, irrespective of load characteristics. At high load factors, German, Belgian and Italian prices are also below United Kingdom levels. The urgency has been heightened by a press release to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred, issued only on 21st March, which says, of the seven industries that I have mentioned:
"With the new tariff year due to begin on 1st April, Energy Ministers and the Supply industry have still not made a positive response to representations by the electricity intensive industries to eliminate their competitive disadvantage in electricity prices against European competitors. Prices to these industries in the UK are due to rise in April even though they are already higher than in continental Europe; there, Governments and utilities pursue a policy of offering competitive prices to such customers, in contrast to the bias against high load and high load factor customers in the UK".
In paragraph 72(i) of its conclusions the committee says that reluctance to invest in rational use of energy

1309
reflects British management's lack of confidence in the economy, and greater investment is likely when we get some industrial recovery. I think that that is well understood. Nevertheless, the Government are still in some confusion over their conservation efforts.
According to replies given in another place only last week, several reports on the use of energy—including the report of Dr. Finer on How the Government Handles Energy Conservation, the Armitage and Newton Research Report entitled Invest in Energy Conservation in Industry, the Government response to the Report of the Energy Committee on Energy Conservation in Buildings—have not yet seen the light of day. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Rayner, having been leaked, suggests that he will be proposing some wide-ranging changes for greater centralisation and co-ordination of the whole of this activity. The noble Earl spoke of the consultants' report. Perhaps when we get the consultants' report the whole thing can be tied up a lot more neatly than it has been in the past.
At present the Department of Energy is dominated by supply considerations, while the Department of Industry has much sympathy with industrial energy problems but little direct power. The Department of Industry controls many of the grant arrangements, while the Department of Energy has, or should have, most of the knowledge to judge conservation needs. It may be said that it is up to the paper and board industry to make the effort at conservation. In this respect the industry has not been backward at all. In 1977 it used 238 therms per tonne; by 1981 this was down to 207, and the figure for last year, although it has not yet been validated, shows a further reduction. In terms of the schemes about which the noble Earl spoke, there is a demonstration project in four mills which in co-operation with the Department of Energy, is showing quite encouraging improvements, but the 25 per cent. is not sufficient to make investment possible in hard pressed industries and even those not so hard pressed.
I do not think that I can do better than repeat the last paragraph of the release made by the seven industries that I mentioned. It says;
"The failure of the UK electricity supply monopoly to compete on prices with its EEC competitors places a real burden on the electricity intensive industries for whom, by definition, electricity represents a major cost element over which they have little control. Continuation of the present and uncompetitive UK pricing policies of electricity will inevitably result in further contraction of these industries and the transfer of the jobs they provide to our European competitors."
Again, these industries urge the Government to take rapid corrective action before it is too late, and I hope that the noble Earl-will pay heed to that plea.
8.34 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to Sub-Committee F, I, too, should like to pay tribute to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, moulded together a plethora of often conflicting information into an excellent report with hard-hitting conclusions. I, too, must declare an interest in this subject. Perhaps I have some conflict of interest here, in that outside your Lordships' House I earn my living by producing and selling oil in a falling market and I am here today to try to counsel you to
1310
use less of it. Of course, the cost of oil is not really falling, especially for those of us who have to pay for it in sterling, and that makes the conclusions of the report all the more relevant.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and others, I was saddened by the evidence of apathy and ignorance in British industry and, although I appreciate—as the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, and the Minister have said—that many large companies have been extremely successful in their energy conservation efforts, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, put his finger on it when he said that in his company he had set up a task force. In fact, there are many companies in British industry which are much too small to have task forces, and I think that it is such small companies which bring about the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, of those who are much more concerned with survival than with the efficiency of their boiler or their process plant. The adage, "Who cares about the engines when the ship is sinking?" brings to mind that I noticed in the Rayner scrutiny that the Energy Conservation Unit of the Department of Energy had not concerned itself with energy conservation in transport. That was a pity because, although I do not expect to see British Rail reconverting to coal, I think that the aviation industry provides some very useful examples of energy conservation at work.
The great wars between the major aircraft engine manufacturers have, in fact, been fought on the battleground of energy conservation. The manufacturer who gets the engine contract for a given aircraft with a given thrust requirement is the one whose engines are most energy efficient. I was very impressed by one witness to the committee who said that, of all the savings available to British industry in the rational use of energy, approximately one-third would require quite considerable capital investment, one-third would require pretty modest capital investment, and one-third would require nothing at all.
The aviation industry brings to mind a particular example of the latter third. I think I read that Japan Airlines had managed to save millions of dollars a year in fuel costs simply by printing their inflight magazine on thinner paper. One obviously hopes that they will not go too far in this, or they may decide that they can print it on rice paper and combine it with their in-flight meals.
There are inefficiencies in the whole energy chain. There are inefficiencies in companies' plants and in consumption; there are inefficiencies in the process of energy conversion; and there are inefficiencies on the production side. Hand in hand with the rational use of energy needs to go something that I should like to call the rational production of energy. I am sure that the oil industry greatly welcomes the tax changes in the Chancellor's Budget. This at least means that, in effect, taxes are now on profits rather than revenues, with the abolition of royalty and advance corporation tax. But there are still quite considerable fields out in the North Sea which will never get developed unless there are further changes of sensitivity in the tax system.
On the other side of the coin, there are coal mines into which the resources in terms of money, manpower, effort and, indeed, energy put in are by no means compensated for by the amount of coal that

1311
comes out. So I think we have to look at the rational production of energy on all fronts.
Cheap energy is, of course, an illusion. We are using all fossil fuels far faster than they are being replaced in the earth's crust. Therefore, I think that all the recommendations of this report are particularly valid. I welcome the Minister's response to these and I look forward to hearing of the Government's deliberations in due course on the setting up of an independent body.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I owe a profound apology to the House and to the Minister. It so happens—and it does not often happen to me—that I have to attend a dinner in the Cholmondeley Room which was a long-time prior engagement. Therefore, I have not been here for the other speeches and I must leave immediately after this speech. The rational use of energy and saving energy are really two sides of the same coin. As in the domestic field the better insulation of industrial buildings is probably the most cost effective—if not the most dramatic—way of saving energy. However, I do not want to pursue this topic today but to concentrate on combined heat and power, which I shall refer to as "CHP".
With any prime mover, be it a steam turbine, gas turbine, or diesel engine, only a proportion of the energy used is converted to mechanical energy; at the best about 38 per cent. Most of the rest is rejected as waste heat. In the case of the steam turbine this energy appears at low temperature in the condenser cooling water, in the exhaust gases, with the gas turbine and similarly for the diesel engine, but some waste heat also appears in the engine cooling water.
By using this waste heat for other useful purposes the overall efficiency of a generating station can be raised from under 40 per cent. to around 80 per cent. This is potentially an enormous energy saving, but unfortunately there are difficulties. A privately owned generating station has to balance the electricity demand with the waste heat requirement which is usually needed primarily for some industrial process. To some extent this equation can be balanced by supplying surplus electricity to the national grid, but the price that the CEGB offers is not very attractive and separate boilers have to be installed to give the required flexibility.
In spite of these difficulties there are several industrial CHP plants in use both here and, to a much greater extent, in Europe. If energy saving is an important consideration I am sure that the Government should try to encourage these types of schemes and the CEGB must offer better terms for taking surplus electricity. In fairness however it must be pointed out that the energy gains are not as great as they appear at first sight. A comparison must be made with taking the electricity from the CEGB, with its much more efficient large generating plant, and using a boiler which is about 80 per cent. efficient for the heat load. The more exciting way forward is to use the waste heat from the CEGB power stations for domestic heating. The potential is for some 23,000
1312
megawatts of heat, giving energy savings equivalent to 14 million tons of coal annually.
The amount of waste heat from our large 1,200 megawatt power stations is far greater than most of our cities require but there is no need to take the full amount. The temperature of the relatively cool water from the power station condensers has to be raised to an acceptable temperature of, say, 90 degrees centigrade by bleeding off steam or by using a higher condenser pressure. Both of these methods of course reduce the electrical generation output but overall efficiency could still reach up to 80 per cent. if enough of the waste heat is used.
The problems of making this kind of CHP scheme commercially viable are the capital costs, which include some for the power station but primarily for the heat mains and distribution system. In fact, with a 10 per cent. interest rate and a housing density of 20 dwellings to the acre the interest on the capital spent on the CHP scheme and its maintenance represents nearly 90 per cent. of the cost of supplying the heat to the consumer. Unfortunately, there are few district heating schemes in this country to which a CHP scheme could be connected. This means that to avoid digging up all the streets in a town at the same time the development of any CHP scheme will have to be phased in over a period of years.
Another economic consideration is the way in which our national electrical grid and the power stations operate: only the most efficient power stations are used for the base load; others are then brought in to meet the increased demand. It follows that the operating time for a CHP station may be limited, especially if it is, or becomes, one of the less efficient stations. Hot water storage reservoirs and back-up heating boilers are therefore likely to be needed.
In spite of these disadvantages, a CHP scheme for a medium sized city with a fairly high housing density should at least break even with the Government's requirement of a 5 per cent. return on capital. What of course matters is how the station performs economically during its expected life and the importance which is attached to energy saving in the future. The interesting thing is how much depends on the very artificial and changing criterion of interest rates. This raises the question of how far economic calculations provide the best method for assessment.
No less than 25 of our cities have shown interest in having a CHP scheme. From these a short list of nine was prepared on the basis of the ease of connection to a suitable power station. Possible schemes for these cities were studied in detail by W. S. Atkins and Partners for the Department of Energy. They concluded that all nine cities could be suitable for a lead scheme on reasonably economic terms and could provide a return of 5 per cent. or more on the capital invested on present-day assumptions. As a result of a wide market survey they also concluded that if the heat was sold at 10 per cent. below the cheapest alternative, the majority of consumers would wish to be connected and would make any necessary alterations to their existing heating system.
There is no doubt that the real cost of energy will continue to rise in the future. This, I should think, is as certain as anything is certain in this uncertain world.

1313
With the delay of around 15 years in getting a scheme fully implemented there is no time to lose in starting at least one lead scheme. I earnestly hope that the Government will lose no time in coming to a decision, and will provide whatever may be needed to get at least one—and, ideally, more—lead schemes started. I end by apologising again to the Minister for having to leave immediately after this speech. This is something which I particularly regret.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for the way in which he presented the report, and tribute must go to the committee for the enormous amount of work they did to present the 340 page report which we are discussing. The amount of work they did can be seen from the interviews with witnesses, from reading their detailed submissions, when considering the comments of the committee and after studying their conclusions. Noble Lords will recall the last report of the Select Committee, also introduced by Lord Kings Noton, on another aspect of industry, and I refer of course to the report of the European Communities Committee on Natural Gas which was before the House on 21st October.
The subject we are discussing is of concern to the House because noble Lords will recall the debates initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on energy costs to industry, the last being as recently as 20th January. Those debates contained aspects relevant to today's debate because although we are concerned now with particular aspects, nevertheless we must try to see the whole matter of energy production and use in the proper perspective.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis because he recalled that the Labour Government took production and conservation seriously, setting up the Energy Commission in 1977 representing, as it did, the views of Government, industry, unions and consumer bodies. What has happened to that commission? Has anything taken its place, if it is still not operating, and what are the functions which are now being carried out? The House will also have regard to the Energy Act 1976 which contained powers to implement national and international obligations.
As the Select Committee's report points out, since the increase in prices of imported crude oil from the Middle East in 1973–74, to which my noble friend also referred, there is greater need for the saving of energy. The last Government introduced a "Save It" campaign in January 1975, and it was estimated that total savings from 1974 to 1979, measured in terms of oil, were worth about £3 billion; and a multi-million pound conservation programme was under way and that was expected to save the equivalent of about 10 million tonnes of oil a year from 1988. Following the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, several noble Lords have contributed to the debate and their comments have been well identified with the interests of the industry, and I shall avoid repeating their contributions so far as possible. I wish however to emphasise some points which I think need greater stress.
The conclusion in paragraph 72(j), to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, referred, is of major
1314
importance because, if the United Kingdom's conservation effort is fragmented and there is a diversity of schemes and a diffusion of effort among Government departments, and if Government policy lacks thrust and focus, one will hardly be able to imagine a more critical assessment of the Government's record in such an important matter. The conclusion in paragraph 72(i) is also a factor, for that draws attention to the reluctance to invest in RUE and reflects British managements' lack of confidence in the economy. Greater investment is likely to depend, as we know, on industrial recovery, and vice versa.
The report does not say—or, if it does, there seems little evidence of it—that it may well be that the uncertainty, so evident, could partly be due to the many changes which have taken place in Government energy policy in recent years. Energy, like transport and many other major aspects of national life, needs a clear lead from the top, from Government. There is need for perspectives for a comprehensive policy and for co-ordination among the public and private sectors, and basically industry needs economic and industrial confidence. This is not the occasion to argue about who is responsible for the present situation, as outlined in the report, for if the report is to have the effect and influence it deserves, we must consider what we should do in the future.
Having said that, it is clear that there will be uncertainty for some time ahead while some of the Government's policies are being worked out. I refer, of course, to the changes in policies for the production of energy resulting from recent legislation. One has in mind particularly the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, with the immense changes taking place in those two vital industries. I thought that one of the most significant comments in Part 6 headed "Obstacles to Improvement" appeared in paragraphs 49 and 50, because they are not factors which can quickly be overcome. Paragraph 49—I quote what others have said, notably the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, but certain of the points need stressing again—says:
"Where the opportunities for energy saving are identified, and new investment is required, the investment is not often undertaken … A surprising number of companies are not confident of staying in business long enough to reap the benefits … An analogy given to a member of the Committee by a senior businessman was that when the ship is sinking, one does not bother overmuch about how efficient the engines are".
That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. Paragraph 50 begins:
"Many firms have no money to spare, and if they had they would devote it to immediate survival purposes,".
Those points, which were not touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, are some of the basic problems that we must recognise in making any changes dealing with RUE. I do not wish to be partisan about the economic and industrial situation, but if the Government really believe all they say about the happy and healthy state of British industry—this too was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw—then this is another major obstacle to any immediate improvements being forthcoming.
The paragraphs from which I have quoted might be a reason for the committee's conclusion in paragraph 72(c), which states of British management:
"there is widespread ignorance in British industry of the savings which RUE can make. British managements' performance here is depressing and disturbing".

1315
However, from reading the evidence and submissions of witnesses, the papers of British industry and the TUC, I gained the impression that they were eager to co-operate, given a lead and facilities; so if there is any blame to be attached, I am not sure how much of it should be placed on industry itself, and that point was also dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton.
I thought the noble Lord, Nelson of Stafford, made some valid points, in particular his comment that hard times intensify the need to save, and not the other way round—of opting out in order to save money. Among those who gave evidence and submitted memoranda were the Electricity Council and the Gas Corporation, and their contributions show how much those bodies are sensitive to their responsibilities. Again however we are in the process of change, because the Energy Bill, which is now before Parliament, subjects the electricity industry, like oil and gas, to uncertainties. Already the evidence of the Electricity Council to the Select Committee has been outdated, for it does not take into account those revisions to Section 50 of the Electricity Act 1947 proposed by Clause 19 of the Energy Bill.
Reference has been made to the submissions of the Glass Manufacturers' Federation, who also gave constructive evidence. They draw attention to paragraph 42 of the report, which summarises much of what the industry has been pressing for over the years. Paragraph 42 states that the problems of the energy-intensive industries should engage the Government's attention as a matter of industrial policy. In any case, the Government should ensure that tariff structures do not deprive such industries of the full benefits to which their energy usage might entitle them.
I make that point because although the Government may have a general policy which helps, or is aimed to help, industry, there may be certain exceptions where the industries concerned are not helped. The glass industry, for example, has not shared in the concessions which the Chancellor made in 1982 for electricity users in energy-intensive industries, if they can shape their demands to the supply pattern. The glass industry is a continuous process industry with a high demand for electricity and natural gas; and that demand, due to the nature of their operations, cannot be turned off at a moment's notice to suit the supply industries.
Among the publications which I am sure a number of us have received has been that from the Association for the Conservation of Industry. The association gave evidence—and one is pleased to know of the work of such bodies within industry—stressing that energy conservation is a cost-effective way of promoting RUE, since effective industry sells its own products—as was highlighted in the Rayner Report. The association urges the establishment of a single independent agency to co-ordinate those efforts and to take responsibility for conservation. It points out that about 150,000 new jobs could be generated if Britain were to adopt a major energy conservation industrial programme, which would pay for itself within five years of completion, and would save about £2,800 million-worth of fuel in a full year.
There is also the role of the trade unions to consider. They are often maligned nationally. Their evidence,
1316
which runs to 15 pages of constructive suggestions, indicates in great detail what might be done and also takes into account the context of the European dimension.
Pricing policy has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and of course it features in the report. As we all know, energy costs are a significant proportion of the costs of the domestic and industrial budgets. The Government seem to have rather conflicting views about pricing policy. This topic was suitable for the earlier debate (on 21st January) to which I have referred. Some charges have been increased at Government insistence in order to gain a higher yield from public investment, with direct instructions being given about financial targets in gas and electricity. Some price levels have been forced up for some years at 10 per cent. above the level of inflation.
In the case of the oil industry there have been repeated demands for a review of taxation levels and of pricing policy. Some action has been taken. I am very pleased to note—I must give credit here—that there is a justified welcome for the reduction in taxation, which has been hailed by some oil interests as a "positive stimulus" to development. We hope that the Government will always be sensitive to energy producers' problems as they work in changing legislative and other environments.
On one of the most important points—the need for a lead from the top—it might be helpful to remind the Government of what was said by one of their present Secretaries of State, Mr. Tom King. At a meeting of the Chelsea Young Conservatives on 26th October 1977, when he was the shadow Secretary for Energy, Mr. King spoke of the need for strong leadership in the conservation of energy. He stated:
"What then should be done really to get energy saving moving at the sort of rate we need? First, it must come from the top … The lead must come from the top. That is the only way to co-ordinate the efforts of all departments of Government towards what should be a national crusade".
I believe that that is what we want—a national crusade—not only in terms of the conservation of energy, important though it is, but also taking into account other factors, too.
Although we are considering only one aspect of energy policy, we ought to see conservation as being of equal importance as the creation of energy. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made the point about investing more in conservation relative to the costs of production. All involved in energy production, in both the private and public sectors, have a remarkable record in producing the energy which every aspect of our domestic and industrial life needs.
I must refer to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington. As a former engineer and aircraft designer, I was interested in what he had to say. We all know that in Britain in science, technology and industry we have an excellence in terms of productivity, and there is also an excellent spin-off which can benefit our industries as well.
The production of energy invariably requires not only financial resources, but also what is not always recognised—human resources. There is no aspect of the matter which does not sometimes result in the sacrifice of life itself. Many lives have been lost in getting oil and gas from the sea and from land. Many

1317
lives have been lost in getting coal, and in electricity, nuclear energy and other production. It is time that we gave credit to those who run, and those who work in, these great energy-producing industries. Let us recognise also that when energy is wasted, or misused, or when it is not used to the best advantage, we waste not only money, but sometimes, most important of all, lives. Therefore, it behoves each one of us to treat energy as though our own life was at risk.
9.5 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it has indeed been a stimulating debate, with many interesting points being raised, and I shall try to answer some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davies, said that when he was in my seat he did not last very long in the ministry. May I say that in this respect I am the third one already in the present Government so I, too, am a little nervous about how long I shall last there. However, I am happy to say that my two predecessors have gone both onwards and upwards. I was also pleased that the noble Lord was able to make his remarks more or less on a non-party basis, and indeed, with the exception of one or two observations, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, was similarly uncontroversial. When going around the country I have found tremendous all-party support for energy conservation. It is not a matter of party; it is a matter which crosses all barriers. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I, too, have been told how dull is the subject of energy conservation. But I have been fascinated by it, and have had quite the opposite reaction to it. I try to pass on this feeling when I go around the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said that I delivered a slight litany in my opening speech. I hope that my reply will be more like an evensong. The noble Lord asked me about the word "replication". I thought that it meant making a replica—and I think that is the dictionary definition. The word comes not from the department, but from Harwell. That is the origin of the word so far as I am concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, referred to making better use of energy supply investments, or investing in energy conservation. I shall come to this in more detail later because the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also mentioned it.
As the Committee's report makes clear in paragraph 69, the two types of investment are not precise alternatives at any time. Both are necessary. What is important is that energy is produced efficiently and that energy is used efficiently. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred to the document which I do not think he said was being suppressed but which might have been so. In any case, he could not get a copy of it. The paper concerned does not represent Government policy nor the views of the Department of Energy. It was superficial, based on incomplete—even doubtful—data, lacking in economic analysis and manifestly inadequate. The document was an internal working draft which could at best be regarded as an early contribution to advice to Ministers. I can say categorically that no document intended for publication has been suppressed by the department.
We have, however, provided the paper to the Sizewell B Inquiry. This is in response to the inspector's request for the Department of Energy to
1318
make available the factual basis of its work. This is an extremely thorough paper entitled Investment in Energy Use as an alternative to investment in energy supply. The department's paper is not a policy document. Its publication is a contribution to the discussion of the Sizewell Inquiry as an economic analysis of the extent to which investments in energy conservation can be seen as substitutes for investment in energy supply. The paper has been deposited in the Library. I may mention a few key points. It covers conservation, which is not an end in itself, the overall aim is economic efficiency. Economic efficiency will often mean fuel substitution which may involve using more fuel. Energy supply investments can be as important as conservation investments themselves. I could go on but, as the noble Lord said, this is a fascinating subject and perhaps we had better debate it completely by itself one day.
We then come on to the subject which was raised by a number of noble Lords: to start with by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw; almost entirely by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford and also by my noble friend Lord Nelson—that is, electricity pricing. I must confess that I was surprised at the amount of time spent on it, for the reason that we had a debate on 20th January on the subject, which I remember very well as it was the first occasion on which I stood at the Dispatch Box to answer on energy matters.
As all noble Lords have said, comparisons here are difficult. At that time, I was in the situation as I am now with the Rayner scrutiny of not having CBI figures in order to present a case. Now, at least, we have documentation for me to fall back on. Things have changed. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said they had not. They have changed in two ways. One is the exchange rate going down by 14 per cent. and the other is the Government's announcement earlier that there will be a freeze in average electricity prices this year. Those are two fundamental differences.
We are totally aware of the 2 per cent. (I think we call them) big energy users who are comparatively disadvantaged with their Continental counterparts. I should like to say right at the beginning that if we are going to consider France, there is a different picture because France's electricity prices are considerably below those of the rest of Europe. As we all know, to a large degree this is because they have gone 40 per cent. to nuclear energy for their electricity as well as their hydro-electric works. If we come to the other countries concerned, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, will admit that we have got much closer now than we were last November, almost entirely due to the exchange rates. The Government are looking all the time at getting—
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I do not particularly want to interrupt the flow of the noble Earl's speech but that is not the conclusion of the CBI report, which says that, with the currency changes since October, we still have a differential against British industry.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord reads back in Hansard he will see that I opened my remarks on the electricity prices by saying that I recognise that. What I was going on to say is that we are looking continually at the energy efficiency of the

1319
electricity supply industry. Both the Electricity Council and the CEGB are well aware of the problem. We have asked that as much flexibility be given as possible without having undue preference. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, produced a long list of people who were disadvantaged in this way. I believe that if we look at that list we will see how difficult it would be to help them all without taking the money from somebody else. I think that, equally, he agreed that he did not want subsidy. As a word of encouragement to him, may I say that the Department of Energy and the paper and board industry are having discussions at the moment about monitoring and target-setting studies. The department is well aware of all the industries and the pressures on them of which I have been made aware over the past three months. We shall continue to work so far as we can to make sure that they are not disadvantaged more than they need be.
My noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford in his opening remarks paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, by saying that he had been inspired to investigate by this report, and the very fact that we have been listening to examples tonight has shown that top management is getting interested in energy conservation, which is one of the things we were all hoping to bring out. I was also interested when he mentioned switching fuels, because one of the companies I recently visited has gone to the extent of having one coal, one oil and one gas boiler so that it can get the best of whichever world when the prices happen to move.
I do not believe we can insulate the United Kingdom from the world energy market. We import gas and we both import and export oil; all at world prices. Subject to the need to meet costs of supply and of the bounds of the energy market, we are determined that energy prices to the United Kingdom industry should be as competitive as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Nelson, rightly referred to the importance of competitive coal prices. I agree with him also about the importance of prices in this field and the Government are determined that coal shall be produced as efficiently as possible and priced accordingly.
The noble Lord referred to some international comparisons about conservation. I have in front of me what goes on in France, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. I should not like to weary the House by reading it all out at the moment, but I think I can say that national figures for energy conservation achievements directly attributable to Government measures are themselves difficult to define, and to compare our own with those claimed by other countries, often on different bases, must therefore be an exercise of only limited value. But if he wishes, I am quite happy to let him have afterwards the comparative figures which I have here.
The noble Lord Lord Kearton, mentioned the desperation which he found in some industries. I do not wish to go into an argument on this score now, but I should like to say that from my experience I cannot agree with him and I have been around to a number of different places over the past weeks. I should also like to thank him for his kind remarks when he started his speech.
1320
My noble friend Lord Torrington, in an excellent resumé of the present stivation, referred to air and transport. I thought again that this underlined our difficulties, but transport comes under the Department of Transport whereas air comes under the Department of Trade. I am sure it will please the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, to have another reference to look up on that. My noble friend made particular reference to aviation. I can confirm that the Government are supporting research and development in aero engines, much of which will result directly in major reductions in energy use. However, as this programme is primarily directed to overall engine improvement, we modestly refrain from including this expenditure—some £20 million—within our energy conservation programme.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned combined heat and power. I should like to put on record that we are at present analysing the report of the leading consultants he mentioned with a view to decisions on how best to press forward. In the meantime, we are continuing to demonstrate our support of viable schemes. A new clause has been added to the Energy Bill which we shall be taking in this House next Monday, which places a duty on electricity boards to adopt and support CH P. Copies of this report of the consultants have been sent for comment to local authorities, fuel industries and other interested parties. There is a copy of the report in the Library.
We have had a good debate and I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and his committee for their excellent report.
We now return to paragraph (j). Much has been said about reports not published as well as those awaiting the response from Government to the Select Committee of the House. I am sorry that the delicacy of timing prevents me from giving a response tonight. I can only express to your Lordships my awareness of the real feeling that I know is here and elsewhere. This gives me valuable encouragement. The report we are debating and the remarks of all noble Lords here tonight will add to the constructive input, and I hope the Government will be able to give a full response soon.
9. 17 p.m.
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, I think that all that remains for me to do is to thank all who have contributed to what has been a most interesting and informative debate. I say "informative" because half the speakers were members of the committee which conducted the inquiry and half were from outside that committee. The support evidenced in those speeches is the source of some gratification, I know, to all members of the committee who are here.
I think your Lordships would all agree that the most important of the recommendations was the one for the creation of a new independent agency co-ordinating all the work which the Government are doing in this field of energy conservation. Had he been able to stay, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, intended to point out that the French, who have been notably successful in this field, have created just such an agency for themselves.

1321
That is all, my Lords. Thank your very much for your contributions to the debate. We will not keep the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, waiting any longer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Educational Books: Level of Purchase
9.20 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance that the fall in the purchase of library books for universities, colleges, polytechnics and public libraries will be halted; whether they will outline the measures that they will take to ensure both a restoration of and an improvement upon the levels of 1978–79; and whether, in view of their commitment to the expansion of scientific and technical education, they will indicate their plans for the provision of increased stocks of the essential scientific and technical reference books.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when one asks an Unstarred Question in this House, one does not expect to be listened to, but rather to elicit some information from the Government and, perhaps, to be read later. We have a limited subject and a small but distinguished cast, and I think we can get through our work efficiently and fairly fast. I welcome my old friend and colleague Lady David, who is the Labour spokesman in this House on education, and we are both of us very glad to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, who has many distinctions. But I think of him as the last man in history to combine the jobs of Director of the British Museum with Principal Librarian of the British Museum Library. That was a unique position and we are very glad to have him here.
I put down this Question to seek information and not to attack the Government. If the information is unsatisfactory, to be sure attacks may follow. But I refuse to believe that any Government can, for one moment, be complacent about the supply of books in general, and of educational books in particular, and, to particularise still further, about the alleged scarcity in supply of essential scientific and reference books. No intelligent person questions the importance of books in education, so I shall not labour the point, but will assume that it is common ground to all of us. The Bullock Report can supply arguments, if anybody needs them, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, pointed out in his admirable assault on the Government's education policy last January. But I repeat that this Question is not setting out as an assault and it will be the Government's fault if it ends up as one.
The importance of books in education, then, we can take for granted. The importance of the ready availability of essential scientific and reference books we can equally take for granted; and, in particular, their vital importance not only to tertiary, polytechnic and university students, but also to that unhappy majority of young men and women who have done with their education and have no prospects whatever of a job in front of them. There are various schemes for helping them to continue in education and receive training, and every one of such schemes demands a full supply of the relevant books.
In such a situation, we must seek an explanation of how anything so obviously bad as the slump in public and academic book-buying can have been allowed to happen, and I propose to challenge the Government in a friendly way by putting forward my own explanation. Noble Lords will, perhaps, remember an essay by Bertrand Russell entitled The Harm that Good Men Do. He was attacking good Christians rather than good monetarists, but the phrase is apt for either. I think this failure to provide the young with what they need to equip themselves to face a most difficult future falls into this category.
I do not for a moment think that the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who so often has to defend their policies to us, are anything but good men sincerely trying to do what they think is right. But the harm that we are talking about tonight is certainly a result of their policies—an unforeseen consequence of sweeping actions of a certain kind which the Government are much too fond of. They set their cash limits with one idea only—of spending less, with no detailed study of what the inevitable results will be. True to the age-old Treasury slogan, which echoes round the corridors of Great George Street,
"Never buy today what you can pay more for tomorrow",
they fail to maintain a position until it costs very much more in time and money to restore it to an efficient level than if it had been kept up in the first place.
Libraries, whether public, university, college or school, are obvious examples of this. If the efficient quota of new books to be bought each year is, say, 100 and you cut it to 70, then, as books last something like 10 years or more, you will be short by 30 not for one year, but for all 10. Clearly, this is cumulative. What may not be very serious after one year can become crippling if it is repeated several years in succession.
There is a further fact about books. They are very easy to cut. All you have to do is not order them. So in those organisations which have other things to concern them beside books, such as local authorities and universities, the cuts tend to fall on the books. I should like to give an instance of this from outside the scope of my particular Question. The British Council has been in existence for nearly 50 years and has been severely cut at least five times since the war. Each time, in order to keep going, it has felt obliged to meet the cuts by disproportionate cuts in its books and libraries, which many think its most effective weapons for the job it does as a council for cultural relations.
In 1980 it was again faced with massive cuts. Later, I am glad to say, the Government relented somewhat. But the first reaction to an overall cut which was threatened to be 25 per cent. was to cut by no less than 48 per cent. the £1½ million odd put aside for book purchases and to plan to close four libraries overseas. As I have said, the Government relented somewhat, and things were not quite so bad as expected. But every time cuts of this kind are made it takes years to restore them and restoration is never complete. It is worth noting that cuts of this kind are invariably immediate and at short notice, and, as funds already allocated are impossible to cut, so the burden once again falls on the books.
We must now satisfy ourselves as to the reality and

1323
extent of the harm being done. I wonder whether the Government will accept my figures. They come to me from the most respectable sources—the Publishers' Association, the Library Association, the National Book League. Even if some estimates can be disputed in detail, I shall be very much surprised if the general trend which is alleged can be quarrelled with. I shall be speaking in averages, which conceal the most alarming discrepancies from one institution to another, but I shall spare your Lordships these detailed statistics as it is the trend that I am concerned to establish.
First, let me deal with the public library authorities, the pride of our welfare state, which lend 600 million books a year free of charge—about a book a month for every literate citizen in the country. These public libraries are the most relevant for the unemployed young, who will often no longer have the use of university or polytechnic libraries. Figures for the 119 authorities in England and Wales which control over 15,000 service points, branch libraries and mobile libraries show that the money set aside for book purchases has fallen by 19 per cent. in the last five years.
Turning next to the 42 university libraries, here let it be said that the University Grants Committee admitted that university book spending had slumped by 33 per cent. in three years, up to 1981, and ventured the hope that universities would protect "library materials"—which must mean mainly books—from the 1980–81 cuts. But a good many failed to do so, so fierce was the pressure. Confronted with the rise in the price of books and the cost of obtaining periodicals and Government publications, which is up 56 per cent. since 1980, many have failed to raise their book purchase funds to keep pace with inflation, and report, in real terms, cuts of 20, 30 and 40 per cent. over the last five years. The 31 polytechnic libraries show a similar trend, as do the college libraries. The same slump in book buying is visible in schools, both primary and secondary. These are strictly outside the terms of my question, though Miss Passmore in The Times Educational Supplement has estimated a shortfall in schools of £30 million for this year.
By and large, one can say that the book buying of the public libraries has dropped by one-fifth over the last five years. For the strictly educational libraries the fall is similar but more precipitate and has happened in no more than one year. An equal economy has taken place in trained staff, so not only are books in short supply but so is advice. The effects, as I said earlier, are cumulative, and we are building up for an all-round deterioration in our libraries which will take years to put right. I assume the Government will admit two things: first, that the trend is there and, second, that its cumulative effect is getting more serious and is in fact already very serious.
What I fear the noble Earl in reply will say is that he minds just as much as we do, but that there is very little he can do about it. He will say that he is powerless to intervene because Governments cannot dictate to local authorities or universities how they should spend their money. This, I think, will be the noble Earl's first answer. But a year or two ago the Secretary of State, admitting the situation, said that he would allocate
1324
£20 million extra to help textbook purchases for schools. Can the noble Earl tell us how much of this was in fact used for the purpose stated, and how much for other purposes? In any case, this sum, even if all spent on books, has not been enough to stop the rot, as my figures show clearly.
The situation is so bad that an exception must be made and a further sum granted to be spent on books and only on books. If it can be done for schools, it can surely be done for further education. I know there are many arguments against interference of this kind, but the situation is so bad that effective action must be taken. I can think of no other action which will be effective. It is the job of statesmen to find ways of doing that which has to be done in spite of the opposition it may stir up. There is a way, and probably only one way, and the Secretary of State, to his credit, has used it in a limited way already. I beg him to see if he cannot do so again before the cost of putting things right becomes impossibly high.
I know very well that I myself have often had to use the standard argument that inflation is a fundamental evil and can be stopped only by ruthless economy in all directions. What I am asking the Government to do is to stop and think. Economising on books has already gone much too far and must be reversed. I beg the Government to accept that there must be some exceptions to their ruthless approach and that the supply of books—particularly books for further education—should be one of them.
I wonder my Lords, as there are so few, if I may end with an old and, I think, good—though your Lordships may think it bad—joke. I very much hope that the noble Earl will not give me the famous answer which appeared in the old New Yorker cartoon in which a fond mother is asking her five year-old son, "What are you giving Daddy for Christmas, my love?" The boy replies, "I'm giving my Daddy a book for Christmas, Mummy". She replies, "Oh, no! I shouldn't do 'that. He's got a book". We look forward to a more understanding answer than that from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for putting down this Question, even late on a Thursday, about the very important matter of books. I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest, but i have recently succeeded Lord Roll of Ipsden as chairman of the National Book Committee and my husband is a retired publisher. I was very proud to have myself described as "a friend of the book" when I opened an exhibition of children's books at the National Book League last summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has clearly established that in all educational establishments, whether they be in the university or the maintained sector, in the strictly educational world or in the world of public libraries, expenditure in real terms is down by one-fifth from the figure of five years ago. The situation is deteriorating annually. Unless the Government are wise enough to reverse their policies, matters will grow progressively worse for those using the various library services.

1325
I am told that an additional £6·3 million is needed to restore the position to the level of 1978–79. The educational need of those libraries is greater with every year that passes. The Government have not allowed the student grant to keep up with inflation, so that at a time when accommodation costs are rising at a rate much faster than inflation, the student's ability to buy books essential to his studies is being eroded. Therefore, his need for the university, polytechnic or college library has grown—as has his need for the public library; greater use of public libraries by students is reported.
I want to spend a little time on the public library, which was mentioned briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Since 1850 the public library service has been freely available to all those wishing to use it. It is now used not only for borrowing books but for so much else: newspapers and periodicals are there to be read, reference books of all kinds are there to be consulted; good libraries have children's corners for children to browse and sample books, with a trained children's librarian to give advice to them and to their parents. The unemployed can scan the advertising pages of the papers for job vacancies and advice can be given to them on employment and welfare services. They can find relief from the tedium of their lives by reading and exploring in a warm place which is a change from home, as can the old. In many libraries records, cassettes and video films are lent.
Good libraries again have an exhibition space, where paintings, drawings, china, hangings, et cetera, can be displayed, ideal for introducing people to the arts when they might not be tempted to venture into an art gallery or exhibition. You may just catch them and their interest if the exhibition space is in the right place in the library which they have to pass by to get to the books. There are newer services providing information to commerce and industry through Viewdata and other information systems. Financial information, I am told, is updated as much as 12 times a day. A number of libraries are helping the shopper by having programmes showing where the best buys can be obtained. Gateshead, and maybe other places, provide a service whereby an order can be put through to Tesco and Tesco will deliver to the house. How valuable for an old-age pensioner who cannot get around but can ask a friend going to the library to put the order in, at virtually no trouble to herself. I rather look forward to using this service myself as I come to dislike shopping more and more. I hope I have said enough to show what an infinite amount of good a public library can do to an infinite variety of people, young and old.
Yet 472 libraries have closed in five years, a reduction of 11 per cent. The number of staff employed has been reduced by over 5 per cent. in the same time. Moreover, 36 mobile libraries, giving enjoyment and succour to those least able to travel, for either financial or family reasons, have been taken off the road: The Book Fund has been reduced by 15 per cent.—I believe Lord Donaldson said 19 per cent., so maybe we got our figures from different places. There is a great disparity in the amounts spent by different authorities on their public libraries. A recent pamphlet, Public Library Spending in England and Wales, produced by the Publishers' Association, is
1326
worth looking at. Those members of the public who feel they are getting an inadequate service can learn the facts about what their local authority is up to by how much the spending has gone down, and then tackle their local councillors. I understand that Barnet Council, when it was pointed out that it had cut its book spending by 50 per cent., immediately upped it by 11 per cent.
I want to emphasise for a moment the effects of the cuts on children. There is, of course, the reduced capitation allowance in schools, but schools are not today the subject of debate. There is the reduction in the public library service, fewer books, fewer qualified children's librarians, reduced support for the school library service which is heavily dependent on the public library service. Less than 50p per head, not enough to buy even half of one of the cheapest paperbacks, is spent on school libraries in six counties. Some publishers are giving up their children's departments or drastically reducing them. Children's books sales, depending very much on public library sales, went down by 14 per cent. in one year. I find that extremely sad, because, being very old-fashioned, I am a great believer in reading to children and getting them used to listening and handling books and using them from a very early age. I fear that that may be lost if we are not careful.
The Minister for the Arts is required by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to produce an annual report to Parliament. In the Annexe to the 1982 report the widespread concern over the deterioration in both the quality and quantity of the services provided is referred to. It continues:
"It is … so extensive and severe that the viability and effectiveness of library and information services are being eroded. There is fear that these bodies may cease to be able to provide the information services essential to the country's economic technological, social and cultural wellbeing".
I understand they are to set up a study, but I hope they hurry up and report on it, otherwise it will be too late.
In the Governments's expenditure plans for 1983–84 to 1985–86 there is a sum, under local authority expenditure in Great Britain, of just over £1 million which is not allocated to any particular service. This is in recognition, they say, of the fact that some authorities need more time to moderate their spending. There was no such sum in the 1982–83 budget. This unallocated sum is again referred to in the section on arts and libraries—2.10.A on page 51. May I ask the Minister whether it is intended that a portion of that £1 million is to cover some expenditure on the public library service in recognition that there is a very strong public demand and need for that service which has suffered so much diminution in the past five years?
I have spoken of the educational effects of the fall in the purchase of library books by libraries of all kinds—university, college, and public—and I should like to speak a little of the economic effects. A large proportion of the books and journals in our libraries come from a major exporting British industry—publishing. When its home market base of university and college libraries is so rapidly eroded, its export business is threatened. The Government constantly tell us that exports are vital to us. The academic book publishing industry exported in 1981 £50.6 million-worth of books. That is one-third of its

1327
total sales figure. In 1980, 42 per cent. of scientific hardback books produced here were exported, and 38 per cent. of scientific paper backs. Britain's expertise in the writing and publishing of hooks on scientific subjects is earning vital revenue for the country as well of course as a reputation.
A further result of a forced decline in the industry is that authors cannot get their research findings disseminated. This is a loss to the British economy not only because of lost export sales but also because of the loss of British influence overseas. I repeat, a buoyant home market is essential as a base. A policy that simultaneously undermines the quality of our education and training and weakens the international competitiveness of a significant British industry just cannot make sense.
There is a further danger. If publishers do find themselves in some financial difficulty they are going to be very wary about taking on new authors, novelists or poets where sales can be very low. This is sad for a nation which is justifiably proud of its literature and depressing for young aspirants to literary fame. I hope that the Arts Council is giving this matter sufficient attention.
I am sure the case is established that the Government's policies are doing significant harm to both education and industry. There is the education argument and the economic argument, both demanding change. I hope that the Minister can offer us rather more than sympathy when he replies, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked him. We do not want to listen to the usual excuses about reducing the PSBR.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Wolfenden: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for raising these very important questions this evening. After the noble Lord's comprehensive and persuasive speech and the penetrating comments of the noble Baroness, Lady David, there is very little left for me to say; but perhaps I may be allowed very briefly, and perhaps from a rather different angle, to underline just two points.
For the past few months I have been trying to fill the office of honorary chairman of the University, College and Professional Publications Council of the Publishers' Association—that is quite a mouthful, my Lords. In that capacity I have become aware of many facts about which I knew very little before. For instance, how many of your Lordships knew that in 1981 the academic book publishing industry exported—we all know now because we heard it from the noble Baroness—more than £50 million-worth of books representing exactly one-third of total sales?
This figure seems to me to be important for three reasons. First, it is a modest but presumably not unwelcome contribution to our export trade which I imagine everybody would wish to encourage. Secondly, these export transactions help to make publishing a viable operation in this country. Thirdly, they provide a world-wide dissemination of the writings and researches of this country's academics, which surely is good both for international scholarship and for our own reputation in the world.
1328
But, as has been said, these exports and their advantages cannot continue unless the publishing industry has a solid base here at home. Publishers have to make a living or else they have to stop publishing. Sometimes they take a wild risk or even let their hearts rule their heads—among them they have nobly enabled half a dozen of my own writings to see the light of day—hut obviously they cannot do that indefinitely. So, in relation to exports, a viable home-based publishing industry is vital for the reasons that I have tried to give.
It is precisely the viability of this home-based industry which is being put rapidly and dangerously at risk. Some of us, when we were students (as we should be called nowadays), had the good fortune to be able to rely on our college and university libraries for practically all our academic major reading matter. There were of course books that we had to buy for ourselves so that we could annotate or otherwise disfigure our own property. Sometimes, indeed, we bought them because we fell for them and actually wanted to possess them for a lifetime's enjoyment. I still have, and still read, a good many books which came under this description; and I am sure that many of your Lordships are in the same fortunate position. Very few students today can afford book purchases of this kind out of their grants.
I wonder whether what has been the effect of recent cuts in library expenditure in our universities, polytechnics and colleges of further and higher education is sufficiently appreciated. Figures have been mentioned already. Those that I am about to quote come from the National Book League. As between 1980–81 and 1981–82 there was a decline in cash terms of something like 21 per cent. And the University Grants Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, has stated to a Select Committee in another place that before 1980–81 university book spending had slumped by 33 per cent. in three years. What can we call this but terrifying, devastating and catastrophic?
My Lords, I hope that you will not think that I have concentrated inappropriately on the money side of all this. I spent nearly 20 years of my adult life in university teaching and administration, and, later on, five years, at the University Grants Committee. What I am pleading for is that the students of this and succeeding generations should not be intellectually deprived and starved. The publishing of books and learned journals is a means to an end; and the end is the intellectual nourishing of the individual student and of the academic community as a living whole. Whether we are talking about the precious life-blood of a master spirit or about the latest earth-shaking findings in the laboratory, neither can have any impact unless the words in which they are enshrined are available to a reader.
As things are, the students of our higher education institutions are being progressively denied the opportunity to read. Is this the way to lead Britain back to a position of leadership? The young people in our universities, polytechnics and other colleges—the brightest and best of their generation—are being deprived of their intellectual life-blood. My Lords, this is no way to invest in Britain's future.
9.39 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for affording us an opportunity to discuss this very important question of the level of library provision in universities, colleges and polytechnics and in the public library service. I think that at the beginning the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that this was not to be a battle tonight but perhaps a preliminary skirmish where we see where the troops are deployed. I am not going to take any of the lines of defence which the noble Lord thought that I should be taking. I am going to produce some figures of my own which I think show a slight difference from what he and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, mentioned. If he thinks that this is something of a display of the ammunition that might be used in a future battle, I hope that he is wrong and that the future battle does not take place.
It is extremely important to the educational and cultural well-being of the country that an adequate level of provision of books in libraries should be maintained. At the same time, given the Government's central commitment to restrain public expenditure, it cannot be expected that library services will be wholly exempt from the requirements to make economies and streamline services which are operating in every other field.
Let me make it quite clear, however, that it is not and has not been the Government's intention to prescribe to the universities and local authorities what they should spend on books and related items. It is for universities and local authorities to set their own priorities for expenditure within the limits on total expenditure set by the Government. They must themselves determine in the light of local needs and other calls on resources what level of library provision can be maintained, and they must also scrutinise expenditure in this area, as in others, to see where economies may be possible.
If we consider library provision within the universities, we see that between 1978–79 and 1980–81—that is the last year for which figures are available—expenditure on libraries rose from £44·8 million to £62·7 million. In 1980–81 £65 was spent on each student on library acquisitions. It should also be borne in mind that some £165 per year of the students' maintenance grant is for books and equipment and that increased paper back publications have brought a large number of volumes within reach of the student's pocket. The amount spent on the purchase of library books by universities is a matter for individual institutions. It is for each university to decide how to distribute the grant made available by the University Grants Committee between their various activities, including library acquisitions, after taking account of any general or specific guidance offered by the committee.
In the present period of reduction in funding, the need for economies and for the ordering of priorities extends to the purchasing of library books as to all other activities of universities. The Government are, however, aware that at a time when institutions are having to make reductions, expenditure on such items as library acquisitions might be disproportionately at risk. The Government, therefore, endorse the advice offered by the UGC to universities about expenditure
1330
on libraries and in particular the need for them to pay specific attention in their forward planning to maintaining such expenditure at a sufficient level. This advice applies equally to all areas of library acquisitions, including the purchase of scientific and technical reference books.
For the future, the recent public expenditure White Paper indicated that the present phase of contraction for higher education is expected to be completed in 1984–85. The Government's plans allow sufficient cash, provided costs are contained, to maintain the level of provision in the universities in 1984–85 and 1985–86. This should assist universities in providing adequate library services. Levels of provision are of course a matter for the individual university, but the University Grants Committee has on various occasions reminded the universities of the importance of libraries to research and teaching and the need to maintain expenditure on library acquisitions at a reasonable level, despite the temptation which undoubtedly exists to make easy economies in this area.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, will he allow me to ask a question, because we have no right of reply and we must clear things up as we go? Is the noble Earl denying the trend of the figures that all three speakers have quoted? I am quite prepared to accept the figures which he gives about certain money being spent. We are talking about a trend which is downwards—we think catastrophically downwards. Is the noble Earl saying that that is simply not true?
The Earl of Swinton: No, My Lords, I am not saying that that is true. There is a trend and it may well be downwards but I would take issue with whether it is quite so downwards and quite so steep as some of the figures mentioned by noble Lords would suggest.
In the polytechnics, local authorities' expenditure on books has risen from £6·9 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £9·1 million in 1981–82 or £62 per full-time student equivalent in 1981–82. Those figures, as I am sure noble Lords will note, are one year later than those for the universities. In other major further education establishments expenditure has risen from £8·1 million in 1979–80 to £8·7 million in 1981–82. I must repeat that in respect of polytechnics and colleges it is for the local authority and then the individual institutions to determine where their spending priorities lie. The Government's expenditure plans for local authority higher education since 1980–81 have taken account of the considerable scope within the system for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the use of resources without a lowering of standards. The method of distributing to local authorities resources for current expenditure on higher education in their polytechnics and colleges gives a common level of funding for common areas of work. A special allowance is made for scientific and technical provision, to reflect its higher costs. The method also ensures that the rate of reduction in spending for individual institutions is kept within reasonable bounds. It should therefore be possible for institutions to make reductions in spending asked of them without detriment to the provision of books, in scientific and technical areas or elsewhere. The fact that the real level

1331
of annual expenditure per student in polytechnics was maintained in 1981–82 compared with 1980–81 suggests that institutions are exercising discretion in the allocation of resources.
For the future, the National Advisory Body will be advising on how the provision of academic programmes of higher education in the local authority sector can best be planned so that available resources are used to the best advantage and high standards maintained.
For the public library services, as for the eduational libraries I have mentioned, the final decisions about funding are taken not by central Government but at local level—by the shire counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs, who act as library authorities. Central Government's role in the sector, as in the others, has been to warn against cutting library services disproportionately, and successive Ministers for the Arts have urged authorities not to look for easy savings in this area. It is a mark of their success, and of local commitment to and appreciation of the value of public library services, that, despite the particular short-term vulnerability of much library spending (especially on acquisitions) this temptation has been in general avoided.
The noble Lord is concerned about the acquisition of scientific and technical volumes, which of course present a particular problem for public libraries which seek to provide collections for users who range vastly in age and interests. The investment which can be made in any one type of literature is necessarily restricted, and the high cost of much scientific material is a further constraint on this area of provision, although some major city libraries do maintain impressive scientific collections.
Because of the need to balance a wide range of demand, librarians are constantly examining how far the need to acquire and keep large local collections—the "holdings" approach—can be modified by making better arrangements for users also to reach central, complementary stores of knowledge—the "access" philosophy. "Access" can be achieved in several ways: for example, the inter-lending of books from core collections.
One new development in improving access to information—and this was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady David—especially in the scientific and technical field, is the use of on-line computer services. At this late hour of the night I shall not go in to all the various technical methods which are coming in to libraries, but this is a field which may lead to considerable savings in the future.
Your Lordships will see from all this that the correlation between acquisitions expenditure and the quality of a public library service is not as close as might be expected. We would, therefore, regard any arbitrary target merely based on the number of volumes purchased in 1978–79 as both irrelevant and backward-looking.
I should like to make one or two comments on the individual speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised the question of the famous, or infamous, £20 million. I think that he was the first to admit that this was for use in schools, and so
1332
technically does not come under this Question. I cannot satisfy him over how much of the £20 million to which he referred was spent on books by the schools, because detailed expenditure by local authorities in 1982–83 is not yet available. But I take his point that these things tend to get lost. I am not saying that this £20 million was, but I am most aware of what may happen.
I was also very interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, said about books being published and about exports. The noble Baroness. Lady David, admitted that her husband was a publisher. I really think that the publishers must take their share of the blame here. I know that this House has rather a lot of them, but I am sure noble Lords would like to know that the price of books in fact exceeded the retail price index by some 13 per cent. between 1978 and 1981. Therefore, I think a lot of their difficulties they have brought on themselves by putting up the cost of their books.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I interrupt the Minister for a moment? For a long time the price of books was kept below the general cost of inflation. It was only in the rather desperate situation of the last year or two that it caught up. It was kept down for a number of years.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sure that I take the noble Baroness's word for that. I hope she is not trying to blame that on this Government.
In conclusion, therefore, I would ask noble Lords to remember that benefits as well as short-term difficulties will arise from the careful reappraisal of priorities which this Government's policy of restraining public expenditure has entailed in higher education and public services. For example, there are the possibilities of improved cost effectiveness opened by new technological developments. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this Government are doing much to encourage institutions and local authorities to make sensible decisions about the allocation of resources, so that value for money is maximised and standards of provision are maintained so far as possible within the limits of what the country can afford.
House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.