Sitting of 11 April 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures for Aberdare, mid-Glamorgan and Wales; and what percentage these are of the working population.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On 10 March 1983 the numbers of claimants unemployed were 3,874, 33,141 and 175,816, respectively, giving unemployment rates of 17·7 per cent., 16·4 per cent. and 17·1 per cent.
    Mr. Evans: How does the Secretary of State justify the worsening living standards of the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Wales when at the same time the Government are giving the new chairman of the National Coal Board a salary of £50,000—which is understandable—and putting £500,000 each year for the next three years in a New York bank? Will he ensure that the capacity of the coal industry in Wales is not cut in the next few months, as has happened in the steel industry in the past three or four years?
    Mr. Edwards: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, almost as much as any other hon. Member, would believe it right to obtain the best possible management for the coal industry. Mr. MacGregor has clearly displayed a high degree of competence in every sector in which he has been involved. I am sure that he will bring the necessary skills to the management of the coal industry.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is not proud of the Government's record as it affects some of the towns in west Wales where unemployment today is 30 per cent. Therefore, what plans does he have to help them in future?
    Mr. Edwards: Clearly we cannot be satisfied with high unemployment, even although it is increasingly matched in other countries. However, I believe that the Government have laid the foundations for economic recovery. All the indicators now show an upturn in the economy, both here and in the United States. I am sure that it is right to build on the foundations that have been laid rather than to throw away the progress that has been made.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the report at the weekend that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry,
    532
    my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), is to have special responsibility for the midlands, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no change in the Government's policies on regional aid for Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I assure my hon. Friend that this appointment within the Department of Industry does not represent any change in regional policy. It is based on the belief that in a critical area to the British economy, where unemployment is very high, particular attention should be given to the need to ensure that every advantage is taken of the wide range of measures that already exist to produce improved industrial performance in that area.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State answer one simple question: when does he expect unemployment in Wales to come down?
    Mr. Edwards: Like the right hon. Gentleman in his time as Secretary of State, I have never made forecasts about unemployment, and I do not intend to start now.

    Job Creation
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of new jobs created (a) in Wales and (b) in the county of Clwyd since May 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Comprehensive information is not available. However, for the period 1 May 1979 to 31 December 1982, projects for which offers of selective financial assistance have been accepted, or which were allocated Government factories, promised to provide 38,400 new jobs for Wales as a whole and over 7,000 in the county of Clwyd.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Would I be right in assuming that that represents only a fraction of the number of new jobs that have been created in Wales, not necessarily by Government intervention, over the past four years? Does not the brightest future for Wales lie in accelerated change in those industries that have a bright future rather than in trying to hang on to jobs in obsolescent industries?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right to say that many projects are not supported by section 7 assistance or do not involve the allocation of Government factories, and these are, of course, additional to the figures that I have given. My hon. Friend is right about change, and he will particularly welcome the number of new industries that have come to Clwyd, of which the most recent is the United Paper Mills project.
    Mr. Barry Jones: With 16,000 job losses in Clwyd in the same period, those industrial swallows do not make for a summer of content. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 25,000 jobless people in Clwyd? Has he taken any further interest in the Nissan project?
    Mr. Edwards: I have no further immediate information about the Nissan project. None the less, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the UPM scheme should provide about 270 direct jobs in his area and about 1,000 elsewhere, of which about 80 per cent. are expected to come to Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: Earlier, the Secretary of State said that all the indicators were pointing in the right way. Is the creation of new jobs one such indicator, and on what basis does he say that that is pointing in the right way?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows enough about these matters to recognise that an upturn in the economy always precedes an upturn in employment and a fall in unemployment. I shall not forecast how long the lag will be on this occasion, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join in welcoming the improvement that has been shown recently and the forecast that has been made by the CBI and others that such trends are likely to continue.
    Mr. Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman has been somewhat coy in his answers this afternoon. How many jobs have been lost in Wales during that period? On a subject that he need not be so coy about, how many jobs were created between 1976 and 1979?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not have the numbers of jobs lost, but I can certainly answer the hon. Gentleman's second question. Between May 1975 and April 1979, 26,000 jobs were created by the Labour Government, which was substantially less than the figure of 38,400 that I have just given to the House.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of the grants allocated to Wales from the European regional development fund since November 1982.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Grant commitments since November 1982 amount to £21 million.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such grants make an important contribution to the economic strength of Wales? How much has Wales received in grants from the European regional development fund since its inception?
    Mr. Edwards: Certainly they make a welcome contribution. The £21 million commitment that was approved in November 1982 was the largest single allocation since the fund began in 1975, and the resulting total for the year of about £50 million is the highest annual allocation since the establishment of the fund. It means that Wales has derived about £166 million from the fund.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Had we not paid £1 million a day in membership fees, plus a whole host of other liabilities as a result of our membership of the Common Market, would not any British Government be in a better position to assist Wales with many projects and have a better understanding of the position in Wales than remote bureaucrats in Brussels?
    Mr. Edwards: Many manufacturing firms which provide employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have told me that withdrawal from Europe would have disastrous consequences for employment.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Development Corporation for Wales, as shown by the evidence that it presented to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, is of the opinion that
    "most of the overseas companies which came to Wales within the last 10 years were attracted there because Britain was a member of the European Community"?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that that is right. Many have said so to me, and many have said that if we withdrew from Europe they would probably have to close down or severely reduce their operations here.

    Educational Establishments (Inspectors' Reports)
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many reports by Her Majesty's inspectors on educational establishments in Wales have been made public under the new arrangements announced in November.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): Six reports were made public on 22 February and four on 28 February.
    Mr. Hooson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the response to the publication of those reports, or will it be some time before people realise how much valuable information about educational establishments is now openly available for the first time?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am reasonably satisfied, because there has been extensive coverage on television, radio and in the newspapers. The Welsh Office has so far received over 100 requests for copies from universities, schools, libraries, parents, members of the public and students. Reports have also been available from the local education authorities. The publication of such reports has been generally welcomed. They will be a useful contribution to discussion and thought about the future of our education system.
    Mr. Rowlands: Has the hon. Gentleman read the report on Cynfartha school in Merthyr Tydfil, in which two observations were made which I want to bring to his attention? First, it says that the school has been doing a fine job despite the current industrial and economic position facing the community. Secondly, it mentions the desperate need for an improvement in pupil-teacher ratios in the school. I am sure that that applies to other schools in the community.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: Yes, I have read that report, and it is encouraging. However, pupil-teacher ratios are matters that we have very much at heart. I am glad to say that the position in Wales is marginally-only marginally, but at least marginally-better than in England.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: How will the Minister ensure that for schools on which reports have been made, such as Ysgol y Moelwyn at Blaenau Ffestiniog, where there are clearly substantial problems and a leeway in expenditure to be made up, there will be adequate provision within the rate support grant for education expenditure?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: Within the terms of responsible policies, we shall have to do the best that we can. I appreciate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but at the moment the reports are a useful contribution towards seeing how best scarce resources can be allocated to overcome those problems.

    School Meals
    Mr. Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of pupils in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Wales who received free school meals in each of the past five years.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Based on an annual census, the percentages of pupils present receiving free meals in primary schools in the maintained sector in each of the five years up to 1982 were 18, 15·4, 13·5, 17, and

    535
    19·6, respectively. The percentages for secondary schools were 14·2, 11·7, 8·8, 11·1 and 13·4, respectively. The figures for 1982 are provisional.
    Mr. Wardell: Does the Minister accept that the national figures hide disturbing increases in those eligible for free school meals in some education districts? For example, Gorseinon in my constituency had an increase of 30·87 per cent. in that figure between September 1981 and September 1982. Does he accept that, if that is so, part of the burden of the Government's poverty programme is falling on the poorest children in some parts of Wales?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I reject the slogan of a poverty programme. That is no part of the Government's policies. Local education authorities in Wales are obliged by law to provide a midday meal free of charge only for pupils whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Authorities which exercise their discretion to provide free meals more widely than that minimum criterion obviously add to their costs, but it is a reflection of their views of local needs and priorities, and they must be the best judges of those requirements.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the reported remarks of the director of education for mid-Glamorgan, who said that the county just could not cope with the number of requests that it was receiving for help and maintenance allowances? Does that not show an increase in poverty, and is it not incumbent upon local authorities faced with such a position to increase the allocation of resources to meet those needs? Is that not perhaps one reason for the increased expenditure of our local authorities?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: That matter is entirely for the discretion of local authorities. They are the best judges of the local position, which will vary from one part of the Principality to another. They must make their decisions on the basis of local need, and that is a policy that the Government support.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that the increase in the figures in several districts is disturbing? The Morriston education district in my constituency has the highest increase in the county at almost 75 per cent. from 1,161 in September 1981 to 1,945 in September 1982. Is not that figure one of the best indicators of the increase in poverty in south Wales? If the Minister agrees, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: No, I do not agree. The present planned provision will permit authorities to meet their statutory requirements. Furthermore, the change in the general policy supports the Government's view that the previous system was not meeting consumer demand. It is too simple to suggest that it is merely an outcome of recession or poverty. Pupils are choosing for themselves, and that is something of an advantage.

    Job Losses
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total numbers of jobs lost in each of the coal, steel and manufacturing industries in Wales since May 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am informed that manpower on the National Coal Board's colliery books is estimated to have reduced by some 4,500 from April 1979 to
    536
    February 1983 and that employment in both BSC and the private steel sector fell by approximately 32,700 in broadly the same period. It is estimated that the numbers in employment in the manufacturing industries fell by 92,000 in the period June 1979 to September 1982. This figure takes no account of the self-employed.
    Mr. Powell: In view of the figures that the Secretary of State has announced of the total number of redundancies since the Conservative Government took office, will he tell the House and Wales—although he is not prepared to forecast—whether there is any chance of a recovery to the 1979 position? In reply to a previous question the right hon. Gentleman said that 38,000 jobs were being or had been created, but the figures that he has just announced show that Wales has lost about 120,000 jobs. When does he envisage an end to the present unemployment in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I stated two contrasting facts. During the recession, the Government have introduced a record number of new factories to Wales. Although the Opposition advocate massive reflation, the French Government, who have followed such a policy, are now introducing unparalleled austerity measures and a cutback in growth.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that at a time of such high unemployment it is crazy to close coal mines when coal can be mined and to pay miners to do nothing rather than pay them to mine coal? Surely it is better to maximise employment in the coal industry at a time of high unemployment.
    Mr. Edwards: It is right to maximise employment in the most productive pits. It is not a sensible policy for the coal industry to devote disproportionate amounts of limited resources to loss-making pits rather than to new investment and the creation of jobs for the future. The Government must tackle many problems today because that course of action was followed so often in the past:.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Distressing as are these job losses in the nationalised industries, do not the vast losses that are still being incurred by those industries represent an outpouring of public money that could save many more jobs if it were channelled into more productive areas, such as profitable pits and tourism, which are capable of great expansion?
    Mr. Edwards: The figures that I gave for manufacturing industries did not include figures for some of the sectors to which my hon. Friend has referred. Much of the talk about losses in the coal industry comes ill from the Opposition, because during the period 1964 to 1970 there were 18,000 job losses in the coal industry in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that there are nearly 170,00 Welsh people out of work?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes.
    Mr. Rowlands: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of the small business sector in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I should like to see many more successful small businesses in Wales. The Government seek to improve the conditions in which small businesses can flourish in Wales as elsewhere. The enterprise package announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is especially helpful in this regard.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that thousands of small businesses have closed during the past four years, especially in rural Wales. What plans has he to save the rest?
    Mr. Edwards: Throughout the same period many more small businesses have started up. I have just received the latest national figures. They show that since 1980 there has been a net gain of about 20,000 small businesses. There are far more start-ups than losses.
    Mr. Hooson: As Wales is a land of small businesses with a large proportion of its working population employed by small firms or self-employed, was not the Budget especially relevant to the needs of Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes.
    Mr. loan Evans: Have not job losses of nearly 100,000 in the manufacturing sector and more than 30,000 in the steel industry had an effect on small businesses in Wales? Have there not been more liquidations and closures under the present Government than for many years past?
    Mr. Edwards: I have just given the House the figures. Although there have been more closures and liquidations, there have also been many more start-ups than losses.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that many small businesses in Wales are directly or indirectly dependent on public expenditure through the contracts that they are awarded by local authorities and so on? When will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the reduction of public expenditure creates unemployment in the small business sector?
    Mr. Edwards: Practically every small business that I come across wishes that the burden of rates and public expenditure could be reduced and advocates that as the greatest help that the Government could give.

    Housing Maintenance (Resources)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied that adequate resources are available to local authorities in Wales for the purpose of maintaining housing in a good state of repair in both the public and private sectors.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Yes. Local authorities were told that in the 1982–83 financial year they could spend on renovation grants without regard to their housing allocations. In the current financial year they will receive additional allocations to cover any renovation expenditure in excess of 50 per cent. of their housing allocations. There is no lack of housing finance, as the fact that local authorities underspent by £35 million in 1981–82 and by an estimated £50 million in 1982–83 demonstrates.
    Mr. Wigley: The Under-Secretary is not paying attention to local housing problems in Wales. Is he aware that in Dwyfor the demand for grants for housing repairs
    538
    has increased by 700 per cent., from £400,000 to £2·8 million? The figure of £400,000 was in the block grant allocation. As a result, adequate finance is not available in Dwyfor. The grant programme for housing repair has been suspended until September. Will the hon. Gentleman examine this problem and ensure that money is made available for Dwyfor?
    Mr. Roberts: I have examined the position generally, but I shall have a special look at Dwyfor. Many authorities are refusing to deal with applications for grants, but there is no excuse for that. Throughout Wales authorities are generally underspending on housing. During the first nine months of last year they spent 63 per cent. of their allocations, but only 51 per cent. of the total that they could have spent. I now urge them to try to deal with those applications.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister be fair to local authorities and point out that when the Welsh Office told them by letter in October last year that they could spend without regard to allocations, only five months of the year remained? The Welsh Office specifically told the local authorities in that same letter that there was no commitment for the current financial year and that the Public Expenditure Survey Committee indication was that housing expenditure should be 17 per cent. less.
    Mr. Roberts: On the contrary, we have told local authorities that all renovation expenditure in 1983–84 that is above 50 per cent. of the housing allocation will be underwritten by additional allocations. That is the true position.
    Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in Cardiff—which urgently needs these improvement grants—over the council's reluctance to process applications? What can my hon. Friend do to put a bomb under those involved?
    Mr. Roberts: I am doing everything that I possibly can, and that includes what I say in the House. I hope that local authorities will take heed of the encouragement that I am giving them. This subject will feature as an issue in the coming local elections, and I hope that the electors will elect councillors who will ensure that the council carries out Government policy.
    Mr. Coleman: Has the Minister seen the report in yesterday's edition of the Sunday People concerning latent defects in council houses sold to tenants under the Government's legislation? Have there been any reports of similar problems in Wales? Will the grants that the Minister has spoken about be made available to tenants who, having bought their council houses, find that they are defective?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement that we have made concerning defects in Airey houses which have been discovered after their valuation. Of course, a 90 per cent. repair grant is available to occupiers who purchase their homes in ignorance of the problems. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the statement on Orlit houses by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. Other reinforced concrete houses that have been purchased in ignorance of defects in them are under consideration.

    West Glamorgan and Dyfed (High Technology Industries)
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the number of new high technology industries attracted to the counties of West Glamorgan and Dyfed.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I believe that there is scope for improved effectiveness in the efforts made to attract high technology industry to all parts of Wales, including West Glamorgan and Dyfed, and that is why I have established Winvest to spearhead an intensified effort in this area.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware of today's NEDO report stating that high technology jobs are likely to be one of the few growth sectors during the next decade? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that high technology industries such as Mitel at Caldicot and Inmos at Newport apparently cannot be attracted further west than east Gwent and that no Japanese investment has been attracted further west than Bridgend and Hirwaun? Under the Government's present policies, what prospect is there of attracting such important growth sector jobs further west?
    Mr. Edwards: We are witnessing a lengthening of the high technology corridor along the M4. Align-Rite's recent announcement that it is setting up a plant in Bridgend is evidence of that. However, I agree that we must intensify our efforts. That is why I support the initiatives being taken, for example, by Swansea university and why we are working on the development of proposals for an industry technology centre under the umbrella of the Welsh Development Agency and incorporating the very enterprising Indis scheme developed by Mid-Glamorgan county council, which will also embrace the other counties in Wales.
    Mr. John Morris: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the technologies that is badly needed in west Glamorgan is a new hot mill at Port Talbot? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall intervening, not once, but twice, in my speech on Welsh affairs, and promising that a statement would be made before Easter? Despite the Western Mail's plaudits, going as far back as last November, has not the Secretary of State fallen flat on his face and made no attempt to explain why that statement was not made before Easter?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree about the great importance of the hot mill project at Port Talbot. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry made a statement to the House and explained why he could not come to the House with full details of the corporate plan before Easter. However, the corporate plan has been submitted by BSC and includes proposals for the hot mill. I know that my right hon. Friend will hope to make a statement on the whole issue very soon.

    Newport (Motorway Noise)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning noise and other environmental inconvenience caused by the proximity to the M4 motorway suffered by residents living in the St. Julian's area of Newport, Gwent; and what action he is proposing to alleviate the difficulties.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: After representations about the widening of the M4 motorway through Newport, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided in 1982 to accept lower qualifying noise levels. As a result, some 300 properties, 75 of which are in the St. Julian's area, are to be provided with insulation against traffic noise. More recently, representations have been received from residents in the area to the west of the Caerleon interchange; these properties are not directly affected by the road widening and do not qualify for noise insulation.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not appreciate that the Welsh Office's sheer insensitivity to the problems of those in the St. Julian's area is appalling? There seems to have been an attempt to hide behind obscure regulations. Why does not the Minister personally take his officials to see the problem and to meet those who are suffering? He might then come to a different conclusion and take some urgent action.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I reject any accusation of insensitivity on the part of the Welsh Office. The regulations governing this matter were passed by the House. Of course we are considering the matter seriously. We appreciate the difficulties, but there are no powers to deal with properties that are more than 300m from the road. Proposals for relieving the congestion—which will make a major contribution—are under consideration.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the operation of the right-to-buy legislation for (a) houses and (b) flats by (i) Cardiff city council, (ii) other local authorities and (iii) housing associations in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will not be satisfied until all public sector tenants who wish to exercise their right to buy and qualify to do so have been able to complete their purchases.
    By 31 December 1982, 22,596 council dwellings—including 182 flats—and 13 housing association dwellings—including four flats—had been sold in Wales. Of these, Cardiff city council had sold 1,740 houses but no flats. The Cardiff city council and other local authorities took some time to establish their service charges and this led to considerable delays on the sale of flats. I regret that these delays have taken place and I hope that the authorities will now do their best to meet the legitimate aspirations of their tenants.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an absolutely deplorable figure from Cardiff city council and shows quite deliberate political foot-dragging on this issue? Is my hon. Friend saying—as he did in an earlier reply—that the only answer is the election of Conservative councillors at next month's local elections?
    Mr. Roberts: I can say yes to both parts of that question.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister willing to agree that tenants should be able to buy the leasehold rights as well as the property?
    Mr. Roberts: That does not strictly arise from the original question, but the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is on the statute book and leases are purchased under it. This Government amended that Act to make it easier for certain leaseholders to purchase.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Since the introduction of this legislation, has there been a reduction or an increase in housing waiting lists?
    Mr. Roberts: I have said again and again that the sale of a council dwelling to a secure tenant does not reduce the total housing stock, and therefore does not have a bearing on waiting lists.

    National Health Service (Privatisation)
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to district health authorities in Wales to effect the privatisation of services in the National Health Service in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on 18 February.
    Mr. Coleman: What response has the Minister had from health authorities to his advice? Have the problems that will arise where the requirements of diets have to be met been raised with him? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the past private laundries have refused to undertake the laundering of soiled linen and clothing, especially from mental hospitals? If the Minister is concerned about cost effectiveness and economies, might he not do better to consider whether they could be made within NHS facilities?
    Mr. Roberts: There is nothing new about private contracting in the NHS, in Wales or elsewhere. Private contractors are used extensively. We are determining whether certain types of work within the NHS can be done less expensively by private contractors, with the resultant savings. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that where savings can be made by private contracting, that means that more money will be available for direct patient care.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister address himself to the question about the response from district health authorities in Wales? How many have agreed and how many have disagreed?
    Mr. Roberts: We issued the circular to health authorities only very recently. We asked them to test the cost effectiveness of their domestic catering and laundry services by comparing them with tenders obtained from commercial contractors. We have not had an extensive response as yet, but I am meeting chairmen of health authorities next month, when the subject will undoubtedly be on the agenda.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Despite the objections put forward by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), will my hon. Friend continue down this road, which holds out the promise of concentrating public resources on health care and saving very large sums of money on ancillary services?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The entire object of the exercise is to provide services at less cost to the NHS and to apply the resultant savings to patient care.

    Welsh Development Agency (Grant-aid)
    Mr. Tom Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of the staff of the Welsh Development Agency are wholly employed processing applications for grant aid.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: None.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient staff in the agency to process applications thoroughly, without creating bottlenecks? Is he further satisfied that the assistance given to Intermagnetics UK Ltd.—a company in my constituency that has merited publicity recently—was granted only after adequate scrutiny of the company's background?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is the only person who has suggested that there is a shortage of staff in the WDA, which does not usually provide grants. With regard to Intermagnetics UK Ltd., all that the WDA did was to provide factories. It did not take a financial interest or provide grants. I am advised that Mr. Rajinder Anand has served a writ for libel against the publishers of the New Scientist, so I do not wish to go into detail about the Welsh Office involvement.
    Although the usual extensive commercial inquiries were made, we do not make it a practice to investigate all the court records to determine whether there have been individual convictions. That would be both undesirable and impractical.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the WDA has done such a good job in providing factories and establishing small businesses, why are 175,000 people out of work—80,000 more than in May 1979?
    Mr. Edwards: We have been passing through a severe recession and suffering from the failure to modernise and compete over many years. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that the period of transition has been especially painful. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the good work being done by the WDA and not seek to belittle it.

    Education Vouchers
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is yet in a position to say when he will announce his conclusions concerning the possible introduction of an education voucher system in Wales.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that reply.

    Forestry Commission Woodlands
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of Forestry Commission woodlands are within national parks in Wales; and how many of these woodlands the commission is proposing to sell.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: There are approximately 33,100 hectares of Forestry Commission woodlands within national parks in Wales. Thirty hectares of woodland have been sold, and approximately 1,000 hectares are in the process of being sold or have been approved for sale.
    Mr. Thomas: We all welcome the announcement of the paper mill. Will the Minister accept that there is no

    543
    economic reason—and there never was an environmental case—for the sale of Forestry Commission woodland, especially in national parks? Will he assure the commission that it need not continue with the sales? Whenever sales are forced on the commission by Government policy, will the Minister ensure that the national parks have adequate funds to purchase woodland in sensitive areas for environmental reasons?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I cannot give any guarantees, but I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the policy is wrong. The Forestry Commission is respected in all sectors, both private and public. The commercial disciplines inherent in the policy are welcome to the forestry industry as a whole. I can make no commitment about funds. However, as a general principle, maximum consultations will take place. I shall always support that.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Trade Union Discussions
    Mr. Canavanasked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what subjects he expects to be discussed at the next meeting between the Commission and trade union representatives of staff of the House
    Mr. Beith: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) in response to a question in similar terms on 7 March.
    Mr. Canavan: Has the hon. Gentleman anything further to add to the reply given to me in April 1982 about the no-strike clause for House of Commons employees? In view of the understandably outraged opposition from the trade unions, does the Commission seriously believe that that is still a good idea, or is the management pushing for that measure, which would make the House of Commons look even more Right-wing and reactionary than the Secretary of State for Employment?
    Mr. Beith: Both the Commission and the trade unions are anxious to secure a satisfactory procedural agreement. To that end, further proposals were put to the unions in December. I understand that they are now the subject of further discussion between the various unions involved. The hon. Gentleman's form of words do not give a true picture of the discussions now taking place, and I would not wish to prejudice what appears to be good progress by adding anything to what has been said previously.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Electronic Publishing
    Mr. Wolfsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he is making with his discussions on electronic publishing.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): The working group which I established to consider this subject has just produced a discussion document, which has been sent for comment to a number of interested organisations. It will then be revised and published.
    Mr. Wolfson: How long does my right hon. Friend expect that process to take? Are there any time limits?
    Mr. Channon: I hope that the replies to the discussion document will be forthcoming in the next couple of months. In the light of those responses it might be a good idea to publish the document and, perhaps, to have a meeting of all the parties concerned. It is clearly a major development for publishing in the future, although not the immediate future. It is important to start a debate about the matter.

    Arts Expenditure
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of total Government expenditure is spent on the arts.
    Mr. Channon: Central Government expenditure on my arts and libraries programme in 1981–82 was about 0·3 per cent. of total central Government expenditure.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister admit that total Government spending on the arts is an absolutely miserable pittance? Does he agree that the total public spending on the arts would be even less if many local authorities, especially those controlled by Labour, were not doing their best in severe financial circumstances to give more support to the arts? Will the Minister try to ensure that local authorities are given more encouragement so that more money can be spent on supporting the arts, and especially on participation by youngsters?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Considering the difficult economic position, the amount of money provided by the Government for the arts has been very good. If the hon. Gentleman had asked about the percentage of total expenditure spent on the arts by the Labour Government that he supported and by this Government, I could tell him that the percentage is almost exactly the same.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend please remind the House of how large was the increase, either in percentage or in absolute terms—depending on which is the more convenient for him—in the total arts budget and, within that, of the Arts Council budget, which comprises the biggest component of the arts budget taken as a whole? May I remind him that this was received with general satisfaction when it took place?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. At the moment the best available figures are the outturn figures for 1981–82, for which central Government expenditure was £195 million. In 1983–84, the estimate is for £231 million. In view of the difficult economic circumstances, that was a good increase. I also believe that it was widely welcomed inside and outside the House by those interested in the arts.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: What progress is the Minister making in response to the major report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts on the public and private funding of the arts?
    Mr. Channon: I told the Select Committee that I hoped to be able to reply to it in the spring. That still gives me some leeway.

    Arts Council
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost of salaries and expenses of the Arts Council in each of the past three years.
    Mr. Channon: The council's total operating expenses throughout Great Britain were £3·9 million in 1980–81, £4·4 million in 1981–82 and an estimated £4·9 million for 1982–83. The cost of wages and salaries alone was £2·1 million in 1980–81, £2·4 million in 1981–82 and an estimated £2·7 million for 1982–83.
    Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he examine the administration of the Arts Council in the light of the public concern about certain peculiar and perverse grants of public money to different bodies, in particular to political fringe theatre groups? Will he consider setting up a departmental review and inquiry into the workings of the Arts Council?
    Mr. Channon: With regard to administration, the operating costs of the Arts Council represent only just over 5 per cent. of total expenditure in each of the three years in question, which, compared with many other organisations, is not at all a bad figure. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it has long been the tradition under Governments of both political persuasions to observe the arm's length principle, which means that Governments do not intervene in the way the Arts Council allocates the money. I have not heard complaints of the type to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he has any specific complaints perhaps he will be good enough to write to the chairman of the Arts Council or to me about them and I shall willingly have them investigated.
    Mr. Freud: As the Minister is so satisfied with the level of salary expenditure, might he consider investing in some marketing men for the Arts Council?
    Mr. Channon: The Arts Council has that very much in mind. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) makes a valuable point to which I shall draw its attention.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Arts Council conducted a marketing survey, it would find that the arts need more and more subsidies because the council puts on more plays, music and arts exhibitions which the people for whom they are meant do not want? Is it not time that we catered for the needs of people who actually pay the taxes?
    Mr. Channon: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is a one-sided point of view. I find that the audiences for theatres and other activities in the performing arts continue to rise. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The box office returns are increasing both in the commercial and the non-commercial theatre and more and more people are going to the theatre. With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that the facts bear out what he has just said.
    Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition entirely support his reproof of his hon. Friend and his defence of the arm's length principle? It is entirely right that the Arts Council should be master in its own house when deciding which forms of art should be subsidised and in which way. Does he nevertheless agree
    546
    that there is a case, when this funding is considered, for looking at the imbalance between what the centre receives and what some of the regions receive?
    Mr. Channon: That matter is continually being reviewed by the Arts Council and the trend is clearly towards more money going to the regions—a view that the House generally shares. I should not wish it to be taken from what the hon. Member said that I in any way wish to reprove any of my hon. Friends, who are perfectly entitled to put their point of view, which happens to be one with which I do not agree. Nevertheless, they are perfectly entitled to put it.

    Theatre
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he is giving to the problems of the theatre; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: In addition to the help to the theatre made possible by my grant to the Arts Council I am very glad to have been able to give £125,000 to the theatre investment fund to help relaunch the fund as an investor in the commercial theatre.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that grant to the theatre investment fund is the first use of public money for the commercial theatre? As that money will be matched—many times over as I understand it—by commercial contributions, should not this principle be strongly applauded? Will he undertake to continue this principle in future years?
    Mr. Channon: This is meant to be a one-off grant to help relaunch the fund, which has lasted for many years after an initial modest investment. I am sure that it will attract private investment to complement the public money that has gone in from the Arts Council and from the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend that it will be a valuable assistance to the commercial theatre, and has been widely welcomed by it.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Would not one way to encourage theatregoers be for the Government to reduce VAT on theatre tickets, which has increased from 8 to 15 per cent.? The Minister has spoken of the help given to the arts but have not the Government increased taxation of the arts?
    Mr. Channon: The question of VAT has been debated many times. Under Governments of both parties it has been felt to be impossible to have a different VAT rate for the theatre. That, I am afraid, represents the Government's position, is widely understood outside the House and, indeed, was the position of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Rather than try to alter value added tax treatment for the theatre, will my right hon. Friend press his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the discriminatory treatment for tax purposes of those who invest in the theatre, so that they are encouraged so to invest?
    Mr. Channon: I take note of what my hon. Friend suggests. He will have seen the parliamentary answer on this issue given by one of my hon. Friends at the Treasury recently, but I will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend is made aware of my hon. Friend's views.
    Mr. Whitehead: We rely on the Minister, as a friend of the arts—as he has shown by this grant, which we

    547
    welcome—to go back to the Treasury and argue again on the points that have been put from both sides of the House, in particular, the support for the so-called theatre "angels" and the question of zero rating. Is he aware that those are of greater essential value to the support of the theatre than anything that he has been able to do with his grant?
    Mr. Channon: Both the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Naturally, I take a close interest in both matters and I can assure the House that he will be made well aware of the views of hon. Members who have spoken today.
    Mr. Jessel: Has it been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend that, in London, an increasing proportion of theatres appear to be starting their evening performances at 7.30 pm instead of 8 pm? Has my right hon. Friend any information on how this affects attendances? Does it reflect the views in the report commissioned by the Society of West End Theatre Managers, which showed, two years ago, that the public were put off from going to theatres, not by the price of seats, including VAT, but by the general inconvenience of going to theatres in London? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the earlier start at 7.30 pm will have helped some of the people in the audiences?
    Mr. Channon: The time that performances start must be for the commercial judgment of those who are responsible for theatres. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point when he says that the real reason for the difficulties of the theatre is not so much VAT as all the other difficulties in coming to London, such as parking, the cost of tickets and the other matters to which the report he mentioned refers. But the House must not take a gloomy view. The total paid attendances at London theatres rose by 5 per cent., reaching a total of £9 million in 1982. More theatres are open now than in the equivalent periods in 1980 and 1981. Two theatres that are at present dark are shortly to open with new productions.

    Works of Art (Export Licences)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions he has accepted recommendations from the reviewing committee on the export of works of art for the suspension of export licences for works of art after applications for such licences have been made and his Department has been consulted.
    Mr. Channon: Since the Government took office 45 such recommendations have been accepted.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury about the effect on some of the great collections still in private hands—which may soon become subject to such a ruling—of the decision to levy VAT when transfer is made to the nation in lieu of capital
    548
    transfer or death duties? Has he seen the reported remarks of Lord Scarsdale, of Kedleston Hall, that he may have to plunder his own collection and, in his words, "Do a Mentmore" if this ruling is revised?
    Mr. Channon: I have actually seen the reports in the newspapers, but I must tell the House—as must be crystal clear to hon. Members—that questions about value added tax are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, not for me.
    Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to pass the buck to the Treasury, but is the Minister saying, as Minister for the Arts, that he has no locus in this matter? Is that the situation?
    Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a bit rough to accuse me of passing the buck. As much as I should like to be responsible for the administration of VAT, the Prime Minister has so far not entrusted me with that responsibility. I think that it is extremely unlikely that she will do so. If and when she does, however, I shall take what action I can in a variety of ways. The administration of VAT is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Labour Government were in office the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had the same responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend has this responsibility and I dare say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will retain it for the next five years while a Conservative Government are in office.

    Arts Sponsorship
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps is he taking to promote sponsorship of the arts in the regions.
    Mr. Channon: I continue to take every suitable opportunity to promote business sponsorship of the arts throughout the country and I have plans to visit a number of areas later this year. I have also had the pleasure of attending a number of regional events sponsored by businesses, which indicate their growing interest in this subject.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I listened carefully when he said that he would be visiting a number of areas. I ask him to visit Humberside, which has been especially successful in persuading businesses to sponsor the arts. Does he accept that business sponsorship is a way of raising much money for the arts without recourse to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is encouraging that the figures reveal an enormous increase, which I believe is still occurring. I shall be visiting Lincolnshire and Humberside in May. I shall be delighted to discuss the programme with my hon. Friend.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1983

2. Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1983

3. Merchant Shipping Act 1983

4. International Transport Conventions Act 1983

5. British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Act 1983

National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
3.31 pm
Mr. David Ennals: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of public importance that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Minister for Consumer Affairs to authorise a grant of only £3 million to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux instead of the £6 million paid last year, and the damaging comments about the bureaux made subsequently by the Minister".
The NACAB is a national body that is responsible for 850 local advice bureaux manned by about 1,000 paid personnel and 12,500 volunteers. As most hon. Members from all parties will be aware, the bureaux provide an invaluable community service. I pay warm tribute to the Norwich citizens advice bureau. Last year the bureaux dealt with over five million inquiries centrally and locally, an increase of 500,000 over the previous year. The bureaux are non-political.
The Minister has authorised the payment of £3 million instead of the £6 million that was paid last year. He has stated, but not to the national association, that the other half will be paid
"when they put their house in order".
He has said that he has been trying for a year to ascertain how the bureaux managed their affairs and where the money went. It is urgent that these disparaging remarks and the impression of political bias be cleared up immediately. The Minister has a respresentative on the national committee and no complaints have been made. The only three complaints that have been made by the Minister have been carefully examined and found to be groundless.
One individual concerned, Mrs. Joan Ruddock, is the chairperson of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She works part-time for the Reading CAB. I have had it confirmed this morning by Elizabeth Filkin, the director of the NACAB, that Mrs. Ruddock has been scrupulous in devoting none of her time to political issues during the hours that she works for the citizens advice bureau and has the complete confidence of her colleagues nationally and locally.
The NACAB is a magnificent national service. The officers are appalled that their reputation has been so maligned by the Minister, and it is urgent that the issue is debated in the House. Alternatively, the Minister should have the guts to make a statement about the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I should tell the House that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) notified me of a similar application. I took the application that I received first.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) gave me notice before 12 midday that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
"the decision of the Minister for Consumer Affairs to authorise grants of only £3 million to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux instead of the £6 million paid last year, and the damaging comments about the bureaux made subsequently by the Minister."
The House knows that this is not the only procedure under which the issue may be discussed and that I am limited to deciding whether it is of such a nature that it

551
must take priority over all our other business either today or tommorow. The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Cardiff, North-West (By-election)
3.35 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have not had an opportunity to give you notification of this point of order. I shall be grateful for your ruling and guidance on the notification that has been given by Conservative Central Office to the press lobby but not the House concerning the date of the Cardiff, North-West by-election. The lobby has been notified that there will be an announcement on 10 May, but nothing has been said to the House.
The constituency of Cardiff, North-West has been kept disfranchised despite the four main parties having selected candidates. Is it in order for any hon. Member to move the writ for the by-election?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to comment on how either side of the House deals with the press. I shall deal with the application for a writ when it reaches me, but it has not come yet.

Cardiff, North-West (By-election)

  Ordered,
  That the Marriage Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day

  Data Protection Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Wherever we look, the information technology revolution is having its effect—in the banks and the building societies, in the retail trade and mail order business, throughout commerce and industry, and increasingly in Government. Thanks to computers the use, transmission and communication of information is becoming daily both more complex and more proficient. The developments have been considerable even in the short time since Sir Norman Lindop's committee published its report on data protection in 1978; still more is this true of the period since the subject of privacy was last fully debated in this House, back in 1973, following the report of the committee under Sir Kenneth Younger in the previous year.
  These developments have undoubtedly brought substantial benefits, more effecient business transactions and the rapid movement of information needed, for example, for proper decision-taking in matters of health, social welfare, and so on. The great majority of computer systems are, as they say in the trade, "subject friendly"—that is, they benefit those about whom information is stored.
  If we are to continue to improve efficiency and productivity, maintain our trading competitiveness, and keep up the service that Governments supply to the citizen, we must ensure that the information technology industry flourishes. And that is the purpose of the Bill. To achieve that purpose the Bill must do two things: reassure the public that the holding of personal information on computers is properly controlled, so dispelling any lingering unease that might otherwise inhibit their use; and, secondly, protect our international trading position by bringing us into step with the increasing number of European countries which already have protection legislation in force. Companies operating on a multinational basis—and thousands of jobs are involved—depend increasingly on the international interchange of computerised data, including personal data. If the flow of data to this country were interrupted, the operations of many of those companies here would be threatened.
  Last April's White Paper on data protection said that there had been few reported instances in this country of the misuse of information held on computers. That remains the position, but that does not mean that there is no potential for abuse. Nor should it blind us to the real concern that that potential could become reality if suitable controls are not introduced. In view of some of the criticisms of this Bill that I have read and listened to during the last few days, let me make one thing absolutely clear from the outset. The Bill provides the individual for the first time with a general right of access to data held about him and it requires the registration of the holding and use of data. It gives no new powers to the police or to any public authority other than the data protection registrar.
  554
  Before I turn to the details of the scheme, there are two further points that I would make. The first relates to the committee under Sir Norman Lindop, to which I referred in passing earlier. I want to pay tribute, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor did in another place, to the substantial and painstaking report which that committee produced, and from which the Government have greatly benefited in the formulation of the present proposals. We have not followed the committee in all its recommendations, but I hope that the members of the committee will note the various points at which their recommendations and ours do coincide. I hope also that, where we have diverged, they will come to appreciate why we have gone in the direction that we have.
  Secondly, I draw attention to the European dimension. In January 1981, the Council of Europe convention on data protection was opened for signature. Together with the guidelines on privacy protection of the OECD, the convention offers an international standard for data protection. This has provided us with a yardstick against which to measure our own proposals. Our intention is to ratify the Council of Europe convention, and we have kept its provisions firmly in mind in drafting the Bill.
  With the convention now widely accepted as setting a necessary standard, we shall find increasingly a division between those countries with data protection, and those without. The latter will be more and more at risk of action from countries determined to prevent the undermining of their own data protection laws by the export of personal data to countries without protection. We must not allow any excuse for sanctions against the United Kingdom. That is what makes it imperative that we legislate without delay. Even if we were not already convinced of the rightness of legislation in this field, we should be compelled by this consideration to bring ourselves into line with European practice.
  In designing the scheme contained in the Bill we have paid particular attention to other countries' direct experience of data protection legislation. My right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Home Office, visited four European countries last September. The following month the fourth international conference of data protection commissioners was held in London. For some years the Council of Europe interest in this field has encouraged a continuing international interchange of views in which the United Kingdom has played an active part.
  We have found that the constitutional, administrative, and judicial background against which legislation has been framed is very different in each country. Each national statute is therefore quite different and designed to meet particular national needs. The Bill likewise steers its own course. The experience of other countries has been invaluable to us, but the Government have concentrated above all on designing an answer to the problem as it exists in the United Kingdom.
  A few moments ago I referred to the Government's belief that the fundamental problem is the fear of the capabilities of computers. We, of course, fully recognise that damage can be caused by the misuse of information, regardless of whether it has come from a computer or an ordinary manual file, but what we are discussing today is not a measure for the general protection of personal information; it is a measure designed to meet the particular threats, actual or perceived, which derive from the use of computers—by which I mean their capacity to store a mass

  555
  of information, and their ability to locate specific items of information, virtually instantaneously, and then link it no less rapidly with other information about the person in question. That is the threat with which we are attempting to deal, not the much broader concern about the use made of information about one person by another.
  For these reasons, the Government have restricted their Bill to automatically processed data. To do otherwise would require a monstrous bureaucracy and place intolerable burdens on users—and even then there would be grave doubts about whether it would be enforceable. It would certainly require a scheme totally different from that contained in this Bill. Let us not overreach ourselves unnecessarily, and, in the process, lose the benefits of what is at this time within our grasp.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the Government's major tasks is to encourage people to use new computer technology. By insisting on registration in one area and not in another, is there not a danger that many local authorities will continue to keep information on manual records rather than on computers because one will be registered and the other will not?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think so. I am proceeding on the basis of the Lindop committee and of the Labour Government's White Paper and on which the Council of Europe convention was opened.
  The Bill takes from the convention eight general principles which are set our in schedule 1—principles which owe their origins to the work of the Younger committee in this country more than a decade ago. The principles relate to the use which is made of data—the way in which data are collected, held and disseminated. They require data to be used only in accordance with the purpose specified for them and they provide for the quality of the data in question—accuracy, relevance and so on. The principles establish a right of access for data subjects to the data held about them, and provide for the correction or erasure of the data where appropriate. They require adequate security measures to be taken to protect the data.
  We have made compliance with these principles enforceable through the medium of the registrar, so establishing a single authority on the subject who can consult, advise and negotiate before taking action. A vital feature of the scheme is his capacity to use his discretionary powers to tailor his response to the circumstances in each case. This flexibility of approach, we believe, is much preferable to any scheme in which, say, a user collecting data unfairly or holding inaccurate data is directly liable to criminal prosecution.
  We have gone for a single registrar rather than a multimember authority for positive reasons. We see it as by far and away the most economic use of resources. Since the scheme will be funded by data users themselves, that is of particular importance to them. We believe that an individual registrar will be able to act more rapidly, authoritatively and consistently in this complex and infinitely varied field than could a committee. His interpretation of the principles, and determination of what in particular circumstances constitutes contravention of the principles, will place a premium on consistency and the kind of build-up of understanding and expertise that an individual can best achieve. Because of the variety of cases that will arise, we think that a registrar who is able to look for and accept advice from wherever he sees fit in
  556
  the special circumstances that he faces will be better equipped than a committee representing an inevitably incomplete range of interests.
  At the heart of the scheme is the requirement on data users to register. The process of registration will not be onerous. It is important to make that clear. Registration will entail no more than answering half a dozen questions and paying a small fee, and acceptance on to the register will in most cases be automatic. Thereafter, the vast majority of users will not be bothered again by the registrar. We have deliberately kept the requirements of registration to a minimum to ensure that users do not face unreasonable burdens. The registration process will require data users to specify the purposes for which they hold data, thereby satisfying the second of the data protection principles, and bring into the open the processing of personal data, thereby meeting the fear of unknown activities taking place in secret. The establishment of a register to which anyone can go to discover the uses being made of automatically processed information is a key feature of the scheme.
  The register will serve a further purpose. It will provide the registrar with an up-to-date account of the uses being made of computerised personal information and the purpose for which data users claim to be engaging in that activity. The register will give the registrar a snapshot of the whole field and it will be the starting point from which he will be able to decide whether a particular user is sticking to his declared intentions and whether there is any cause to investigate a possible breach of the principles.
  In providing for a registrar with a supervisory function of this kind we have had to strike a delicate balance. On the one hand, there is the risk of setting up a cumbersome bureaucracy, continuously at the heels of legitimate business activity and impeding technological developments. On the other hand, we must guard against the registrar being ineffective, lacking the powers and resources to give any teeth to the legislation. The Government do not want some vast new quango that will jeopardise efficiency in every area of national life: thus we have gone for a compact organisation which will not interfere unnecessarily. The burdens on law-abiding data users will be kept to a minimum. On the other hand, it is nonsense to suggest that the registrar will be ineffective when the need for action arises. We have said that his staff will be quite small, but it will be adequate to deal with abuses when they occur. Experience from Europe shows that a large staff is not needed for this purpose. What matters is the role to be performed and the powers available to carry it out.
  Sir Dudley Smith: As a United Kingdom parliamentary delegate to the Council of Europe, I assure my right hon. Friend that everyone is most grateful that he has brought forward this legislation. In talking about the registrar, however, will he bear in mind the possibility of considering, perhaps at a later stage, a more flexible system in relation to registration details, especially in view of the representations made by the Consumers Association about the key role of the registrar which my right hon. Friend has just emphasised?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, especially his comment that we are right to bring forward the legislation at this time. As for the details, it is clear from much that has been said that there will be

  557
  opportunities to examine the Bill in Committee. No doubt some hon. Members will seek to amend it in Committee and it will be right for the Government to approach the Committee in an appropriately positive sense, as has been done in other cases.
  The powers which we have given the registrar under the Bill, and which I shall describe in a moment, add up to a substantial armoury for him to use when necessary. In the majority of cases the registrar will proceed by means of negotiation and agreement, but if ever the process of negotiation breaks down he will have effective means of ensuring that the data protection principles are complied with.
  I shall now attempt to guide the House through the detailed provisions of what I am aware is a technical and complex measure. The Bill has five parts. Part I contains definitions of the basic terms used throughout the Bill and, with schedule 1, introduces the general principles of data protection. Part II is concerned with the registration and supervision of data users. Part III deals with the rights of data subjects. Part IV provides for exemptions. Part V contains some general provisions and further definitions.
  Clause 1 sets out a series of definitions which are crucial to the scope of the Bill. In the definitions we have concentrated on what I described earlier as the main perceived threat to personal privacy posed by computers—their ability very rapidly to extract information about a specific individual and then to link it equally rapidly with other information about the same person.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these days one must ask what is a computer and when is a computer not a computer? Once the Bill becomes law, other means of retrieving information far more rapidly from more conventional methods of storage may come more and more into use. That would not be covered by the legislation.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think that we had better move one step at a time. As for when a computer is not a computer, there must be many people far more qualified than I to answer that question.
  Clause 2 introduces the data protection principles, Clause 2(3) reflects article 6 of the Council of Europe convention which demands that sensitive data be given "appropriate safeguards". The convention does not necessarily require special provisions over and above those offered by the Bill in general, but the clause provides a power to lay an order amending the principles in regard to those sensitive areas if experience suggests that this is necessary. Clause 3 provides for the establishment of the data protection tribunal, to which data users will be entitled to appeal against the decisions of the registrar.
  Clause 4 deals with registration and the provision of particulars to the registrar. Clause 5 makes it an offence to hold personal data without having thus been registered or to use data in a way incompatible with the registered details. Clauses 6 to 9 then set out the procedure for renewing a registered entry and the limited circumstances in which an application for registration may be refused.
  Clause 10 contains the first of the powers to which the Bill invests the registrar in carrying out his supervisory function. It empowers him to serve a notice requiring some specific form of remedial action, while the following clause enables him to remove all or part of a user's entry
  558
  from the register—the difference between them being that the latter power must be kept for those circumstances in which the former is inadequate to deal with the mischief in question. In both cases the registrar must be satisfied that one or more principles have been breached. In deciding whether to take either form of action, he must consider whether the contravention in question has caused, or is likely to cause, damage or distress. Failure to observe an enforcement notice will be a criminal offence.
  Clause 12 contains a further notice power, but applicable in respect only of proposed transfers of data outside the United Kingdom. The aim here is to ensure that the transfer of data abroad does not circumvent the domestic provisions, while at the same time maintaining respect for international obligations to transmit data and acknowledging the general importance of data flowing freely between the United Kingdom and abroad.
  Clauses 13 and 14 reflect our consciousness that potentially considerable powers are being vested in the registrar, and provide for an appeal to a specially constituted tribunal, empowered to amend the registrar's decision in any way in which he himself would have been able to act. The final schedule to the Bill provides for the making of rules governing the conduct of the tribunal's proceedings.
  Of the remaining clauses in part II, I would draw attention to clause 16, which provides a power of entry for the registrar, but only after he has obtained a warrant from a circuit judge by satisfying him that there is reason to believe that evidence will be found of a data protection offence or a contravention of the data protection principles.
  Part II, then, provides the means by which the registrar can ensure general compliance with the principles. Part III provides the rights directly available to data subjects, enforceable where necessary through the civil courts. Clause 21 establishes the right of access to data, and the circumstances in which that right may be exercised. Clauses 22 to 24 establish a right to compensation for damage done by reason of inaccurate data, or, in certain circumstances, where data have been lost or disclosed without authority. Where appropriate, when damage has thus been caused, the courts will be able to order the rectification or the erasure of the data concerned.
  Part IV, dealing with exemptions, is of course the aspect which has generated much interest and by which, in many people's minds, the rest of the scheme will be judged. I want to emphasise, therefore, that these clauses have been constructed from the starting point spelt out in the Government's White Paper, that exemptions from the scheme would be kept to a minimum. Apart from data held for domestic and other limited purposes, the only data wholly outside the provisions of the scheme are those concerned with national security. It has been generally recognised, as a fact of the world in which we live, that special provisions need to be made for national security, and clause 27 provides accordingly. All other data, including data held by the police for the purposes of crime prevention, will be registered and accessible by the registrar.
  Access cannot be given to all police records if the prevention and detection of crime is not to be put at risk. Obviously, to provide a data subject with access to his file, where the file relates to police suspicions about his criminal activities, would be nonsense, and the Council of

  559
  Europe convention recognises that. Article 9 specifically provides for derogation from most of the data protection principles, where this is necessary,
  "for protecting State security, public safety, the monetary interests of the State or the suppression of criminal offences;"
  and
  "for protecting the data subjects or the rights and freedoms of others".
  Clause 28 accordingly deals with data used for particular purposes—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. Data held for those purposes are exempt from the Bill's provisions in regard to subject access if—but only if—the granting of access would prejudice any of the specific purposes.
  Clause 28(2) allows data to continue to be disclosed for those particular purposes without falling foul of the new prohibitions on disclosure introduced by earlier provisions of the Bill. At present there are no statutory prohibitions on disclosure, and it is the holder of information—manual or computerised—who decides whether or not to disclose it to somebody else. Generally, where computerised personal data are concerned, the Bill will prohibit disclosures except in accordance with the holder's registered particulars. Where crime prevention and the other matters are at stake, the holder must clearly not be prevented from disclosing where he himself judges it to be in the public interest to do so. Finally, clause 28 provides for exemption from the first data protection principle—fair and lawful collection of data—where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to those specified purposes. With these exceptions, the remaining principles will all be applicable in these areas. Our intention has been to keep exemptions to the minimum consistent with the efficient operation of law enforcement agencies and I would point out—especially to those who have suggested that the Bill provides only the bare minimum that is consistent with the convention—that we have stopped substantially short of the exemptions which the convention would allow us to make in these areas.
  Continuing with part IV of the Bill, clause 29 empowers the Secretary of State to make an exemption from the subject access provisions in regard to data held in respect of health and social work. Clause 30 exempts from subject access data held by a Government Department relevant to the making of judicial appointments. Certain other exemptions from certain provisions, in specific areas, are included in clause 32.
  The one other area of total exemption from the Bill, to which I referred briefly a few moments ago, is clause 31, which relates to data held for personal and domestic purposes—the annual Christmas card list is an example—and where data is held for the purposes of a club, or distributing articles—although only where the data subjects have signified that they do not object to the data being held by the user and, in the latter case, where the information consists solely of names and addresses.
  I shall, in conclusion, draw the attention of the House to just two of the provisions of part V. The first is clause 35, which applies the provisions to Government Departments and the police. There are difficult constitutional problems about applying any provision of this kind to Government Departments which, by convention, cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. We have endeavoured, by the provisions of this clause, to
  560
  ensure that Government Departments will be placed under the same legal obligation in regard to data protection as any other users.
  The other provision to which I would refer is clause 38, which deals with the transitional arrangements for bringing the scheme into force. This provides for an appointed day to begin the transitional arrangements, which will themselves fall into two parts: an initial six months period, during which applications for registration can be made, but in which none of the criminal sanctions will apply; and a further 18 months in which the offence provisions will apply but in which the registrar will not be able to insist upon observance of the data protection principles. We have adopted this approach because it may take some time for data users to bring their systems into line with the requirements of the legislation. I believe that the House will recognise in these transitional arrangements a further indication of the Government's determination to provide an effective data protection scheme but one with which data users can comply without unnecessary inconvenience and expense.
  These, then, are the Government's proposals on data protection. As I have emphasised from the start, they have been constructed with the aim of meeting people's fears in the face of advancing technology and of keeping this country in step with overseas data protection practice. The balance between the demands of data protection and the legitimate objectives of data users is delicate. Let us not forget the other crucial role of the Bill. It will enable us to ratify the Council of Europe convention, and ensure that there is no risk of sanctions to inhibit the transfer of personal data to the United Kingdom. We shall thereby safeguard the increasing number of concerns that depend on the free international interchange of computerised data, and so safeguard the many jobs in that area.
  This is a Bill to meet public concern, to bring us into step with Europe, and to protect our international commercial and trading interests. It sets out to achieve those objectives in a way that places no more burdens on users than are necessary. It is an important Bill. It is also a sensible, realistic and pragmatic one.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: During the final moments of the debate on the Bill in another place, one noble Lord complained that his colleagues had made the fatal error of assuming that only experts on information technology could debate data protection. I promise the House that at least I shall not make that mistake. Indeed, by rising to speak, I have acknowledged that it is necessary for some of us who do not claim expertise on specific subjects to make comments about the general principles that ought to govern the use of such data.
  I speak in the debate as that most lowly of all persons, the data subject, one of the 50 million people for whom the Bill ought to provide protection. I believe in one particular. The Bill makes an important and vital contribution to the protection that we, the data subjects, need. For all its inadequacies, the Bill establishes the principle that the private citizen has the right to know what information about him or her is being held by private companies or public agencies, the right to inspect that information, the right to correct any errors of fact that that

  561
  information contains and the right to the assurance that those data, which have been necessarily and properly obtained, will not be subsequently misused.
  It is because of the legal recognition of those principles that is belatedly given by the Bill that I shall not vote against its Second Reading, nor do I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so. We have in a sense, through the schedules and through the recognition of the principles in them, made some progress towards the objects of the Younger committee's report and the European embodiment of those objects in Council of Europe legislation. While those principles are properly enshrined in the proposed legislation, I do not believe—and more people outside the House do not—that the Bill is anything like a perfect instrument for providing the protection that society needs. Indeed, the Bill contains major flaws.
  In some areas the Bill makes sensible progress towards putting the principles to which it subscribes into practice, but it is increasingly recognised by the press and especially by the professions most closely associated with personal data that the Bill contains exclusions that are too sweeping and exemptions that are too easily manipulated by those who wish to frustrate the purpose of a Data Protection Bill. The Opposition hope to make improvements to the Bill in those particulars in Committee and on Report. We hope to amend the Bill in a way that limits, if not prevents, the opportunities for abuse by either private companies or public agencies. I shall refer to some of the specific criticisms that will be made in more detail in Committee, particularly on clauses 27 and 28.
  Before I do so, I shall say one thing about the principle embodied in the Bill and its glaring, major omission. The Opposition believe that a Data Protection Bill essentially should be part of a general policy to preserve and protect the right of the individual to keep his affairs private and secret if he or she wishes to do so. The protection of data is only one part of the concept of the right to privacy. Until the majority of the House is prepared to give its support to that general principle, the privacy that we seek will not be obtained. It will not be obtained by a measure as limited as this. There has been a great deal of dispute about it before today. The House has heard the Home Secretary, with his customary candour, make it clear beyond doubt that the Bill is limited to the protection of data that are obtained, stored and distributed in one way. In truth, the title of the Bill is a misnomer. It implies, wrongly, that if passed into law, it will offer protection for data of every sort. I repeat that the Home Secretary has made undoubtedly clear and absolutely plain the fact that the effect of its provisions is more accurately represented by its long title, which makes it clear that it concerns only
  "the use of automatically processed information."
  Manually processed data and hard copy files are wholly excluded. Their exclusion seems to many people and to me to confirm the suspicion that was aroused when the Government published their White Paper, that the Bill is less an extension of civil liberties than an enabling Act to make possible the Government's information technology programme. Without an Act of some sort providing minimum protection of computer-stored data, the Government would be unable to ratify the European Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data. Until that
  562
  ratification is possible, British computer companies, data-processing and data-holding companies will be denied access to the information held by their European collaborators. Therefore, without ratification, the whole British information technology programme might be put at risk and the operations of many companies that depend on it might be put in jeopardy.
  I do not minimise for a moment the importance of protecting the growing industry of computer and information technology. I do not minimise the necessity to protect companies that operate in Britain, but could not operate successfully because in the total absence of data protection here, they would, be prevented from sharing information with their European collaborators. This is a necessary protection and an aim that the Government are right to pursue. My only complaint is that since that seems to be—on the evidence it can be demonstrated as being—the main and principal purpose of the Bill, the Government would have done well to be frank about their intentions rather than dress up what is a limited measure as if it were a genuine attempt to protect the individual and the data that might be used to the individual's detriment.
  I should like to ask another question about the European convention, which will have to be pursued in Committee and which it is absolutely necessary for the Government to make totally clear. There is a good deal of opinion, some in Britain and more in Europe, that the exclusions and exemptions under the Bill, not only in clauses 27 and 28, but in some of the clauses that follow, may yet mean that we would not be in compliance with the European convention even if the Bill were passed into law. I am sure that the Government will insist that that is not so, but the Government have got their European obligations badly wrong before. Two years ago, when we were saying that the Government were not in compliance with the regulations that required the admission of the husbands of women who were British by registration, we were told that the Government wanted conformity with the declaration. That was proved not to be so. We need absolute evidence and assurances that the Bill will meet the European need, not simply from the Home Secretary but, I hope, in Committee from one of the Law Officers, who can make the position absolutely clear. While obtaining the right for our agencies and companies to work with their European collaborators is not in itself a justification for, or the proper content of, a Data Protection Bill, it is an important object, and as it is the main object of the Bill I hope that we can be assured that the Government have got it right.
  The major objection to the exclusions in the Bill relates to the Government's decision not to include anything about manually processed data. The Government have offered two excuses for making no provision for such material. The first is that such a comprehensive coverage of all data is impracticable and the second, which the Home Secretary repeated twice, is that the ease with which electronically gathered and stored information can be misused causes most public disquiet. The Home Secretary described that as "the main perceived threat"—a description which seems to have come out of a computer itself.
  I accept that the "main perceived threat" is the dramatic possibility of information being quickly gathered and distributed by electronic means, but if we take data protection seriously, that possibility is not the only danger. The nightmare about which newspapers talk is material that is easily retrieved and quickly transmitted. Computer

  563
  data excite the most apprehension, but some of the most sensitive information about individuals and their private matters is still stored manually. The obvious example is medical records, only 5 per cent. of which are stored on computers.
  There is a great fear, which I express today and which many organisations have expressed in recent weeks, that when the Bill becomes law, increasing amounts of sensitive information will be moved from electronic systems to manual systems.
  Let us put the potential problem at its lowest. It will be possible for a disreputable company to register under clause 4 and subsequently, by transferring some of its data to manual records, to go on using manually stored information without check or regulation. I hope that the House and the Home Secretary will accept that we ought not to dismiss the problem of manual records as if it were a trivial point.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. There is little evidence of abuse of computer-stored information and sensitive information has been recorded manually for many years. Does the right hon. Gentleman claim that there is much evidence of such sensitive information being abused in manual systems?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I do, and so do some of the reports on these matters and all the organisations representing the medical profession, which have led the outcry against the exclusion of manually stored information.
  As I said, we base our belief in the need for an extension of the principles in the Bill not only on the Lindop report, which dealt exclusively with computer data, but on the Younger report, which made wider and more fundamental recommendations about the right of individual privacy. That right ought to include the right not to have private information manually stored and misused. It is a serious issue.
  Over the past 15 years, Labour Governments have set up committees in the hope that improvements could be made. The committees have reported on how it might be possible to improve matters, but the Governments that set them up have been defeated before the recommendations could be put into operation.
  All the organisations concerned with sensitive information, and particularly the medical profession, which, for some perverse reason, the Home Secretary seemed determined to offend and alienate, regard the exclusion of provisions relating to manually stored information as a major omission from the Bill. A disreputable company can behave in the way that I described. It will be able to register and appear legitimate and subsequently remove records from its computer system and continue its disreputable practices through its manual records.
  I accept that the Government could not implement their present concept of data control for every company that stores manual records. If we are to go down the route of registration and a registrar, it will be impossible to require every company with manually stored personal records to register in the way suggested by part II of the Bill. But that is the Government's chosen route. They could have chosen a different route to enable a more comprehensive coverage of wider areas of information.
  564
  For example, the Government could have chosen to implement the Lindop proposal for a code of practice for data users. If that code had been made enforceable in law and individuals whose information had been misused had recourse to the courts, it would have been possible to include small companies that process information manually.
  The Government chose to reject the concept of legally enforceable codes of practice. The Home Secretary eloquently asked the Lindop committee, and asked the House, in passing, to understand why he had not been able to accept all the committee's recommendations. I assure him that we understand why he has been unable to do that. The Lindop committee wanted a comprehensive system of data protection and the right hon. Gentleman does not. There cannot be such a comprehensive system without the codes of practice that the committee recommended, but which the Home Secretary has rejected.
  The Government have chosen to implement the minimum proposals that, in their view, will bring us into line with the rest of Europe and which they can attribute to the two major reports submitted since 1971. Those reports were both initiated by Labour Government and both committees reported at times when new Governments had been elected or were about to be elected who did not have the same enthusiasm for the freedom and protection of the individual as had the Government who set up the committees.
  Indeed, the Government who inherited the Younger and Lindop reports have been frank in saying that they wanted the minimum restriction and regulation. In the much-quoted speech of the then Minister of State, Home office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on 8 June 1981, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Goverment's proposals, which we are debating, represented a fairly limited level of enforcement. In fact, in the absence of the codes recommended by the Lindop committee, there is virtually no enforcement of good practice.
  Companies must register, must open their data to inquiry, must correct errors and must, in general, conform with the principles in the schedules, but there is virtually no way in which a user can be sure that he has proper redress if information is improperly used. Most often, a user will not even know about the information and if he or she does know about it, there will often be no opportunity to put matters right.
  If the House doubts that, the Bill is weighted in favour of the operators, as distinct from the users, I ask hon. Members to consider what the Home Secretary said about the tribunals. As I read the Bill and the notes on clauses, I believed what the right hon. Gentleman said about the tribunals to be right but I could not bring myself to believe that that was the Goverment's intention until the Home Secreary confirmed it.
  The tribunals will be set up exclusively to protect computer companies. If a company is prevented from registering, it can appeal to a tribunal. However, if users believe that a compancy is inappropriate for registration because of its behaviour or conduct, they cannot appeal to the tribunal of exclude the company from the register. The tribunals are part of the computer company protection process.
  The Opposition would like to see something more comprehensive, positive and better. We should like to see

  565
  the inclusion of legally enforceable codes of practice, the omission of which is the major departure from the Lindop recommendations.
  The second major departure from Lindop is the substitution of a registrar—a single individual—for the committee's recommendation of an independent data protection agency. We should all be fascinated to hear from the Minister of State who is to reply what sort of individual the Government have in mind to appoint as registrar. I do not expect names to be named or even precise categories to be described, but we should like to know whether the registrar is to be someone who knows about the law, and can deal with the legal aspects, someone who knows about computer technology, and who will understand that if rubbish goes in, rubbish comes out, or someone of a different sort who will have supreme authority over these matters.
  In our view, it is a deterioration of the proposals that there should be an individual rather than a tribunal. An individual rather than a protecting agency has one crucial defect—that the individual appointed by the Government will not be able to stand up to the Government in the way that a data protection agency should, would and must if the Bill is to become effective. The Government should realise, although they seem incapable of realising, that a proper Data Protection Act must provide protection for the individual against the Government.
  The Home Secretary's record on private information, as shown in the proposals in the Bill and in his continued support for some of the provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, displays a reckless disregard for the privacy of other people's confidential information, matched with a determination to keep Government data just as secret as he or the Government choose at any one time. The Labour party believes that the balance should be struck differently and that it is the individual who needs protection in two ways. First, private information relevant to him or her should be protected against the state, and secondly, information possessed by the state that might result in detriment to the individual should be made available to that individual.
  Saying that and attempting to lay down those principles leads me to clauses 27 and 28 of part IV. Clause 27 blandly asserts that personal data held by a Government Department is exempt from the provisions of part II and III of the Bill if the Minister of the Crown certifies that exemption is required for purposes of safeguarding national security. I am sure, as the debate goes on, that we shall hear time after time from the Conservative Benches the view that we should all believe in the protection of national security. We do, but we do not all believe that a Minister has only to say "national security" to justify practices over which there is no check, for which there is no redress and for which no democratic House should give blanket approval. The Bill gives the Minister stipulated in clause 27 no guidance as to how national security is to be safeguarded or defined. Therefore, there is no limit placed on the Minister's personal judgment when he is exercising his powers in these matters.
  Let us hypothesise an example. If the Home Secretary or his putative successor, the Secretary of State for Employment, announces that national security requires the abandonment of the protection that the Bill provides, he has only to say so and that protection is abandoned. There
  566
  is no check, no appeal and no redress. His action can be, and in many cases would be, arbitrary in the literal sense of that word.
  Clause 21 allows a raid on Government records if a Minister announces that a raid is justified for purposes that he does not have to describe or explain. Clause 21 and 23 allow raids on private records if a Minister similarly announces. I make no claim that the Bill promotes or initiates such raids. However, it removes the records that I have described from the protection of the Bill if the Minister announces that the removal of protection is necessary for national security. This is an arbitrary power that should not be in a Data Protection Bill and disqualifies this Bill from enjoying that title.
  It is no good for the Government to say, as they said in various press briefings over the past couple of weeks, that we have to rely on ministerial good intention in these matters. The object of the House of Commons is to avoid the necessity of relying on individual good intentions, and to pass legislation that is distinct and precise in itself. In a free society, there should be legal checks on the possibility of the arbitrary and capricious behaviour of Ministers, and there is no such check in the power described under clause 27.
  In the opinion of many people the contents of clause 28 are even more unacceptable, because while clause 27 allows exemptions after ministerial fiat is provided, clause 28 provides general exclusions from protection in stipulated circumstances. It means that information supplied in good faith to the Government for a specific purpose may be used for quite different objectives to those for which it is provided. Sometimes, the information will be given to the Government because of a legal obligation on the part of the person supplying it. It may then be used for a different purpose to the detriment of the individual who has provided it.
  The doctors of Great Britain have complained with most determination, most loudly and in a sustained and convincing way about this aspect. It is their fear, as it is mine, that this clause, which removes some information from the protection of today's Bill, combined with the objectionable clauses that cover such matters in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, will deeply undermine the relationship between doctor and patient. It is impossible not to relate the two things in the professional mind of doctors. It would be wrong were the clauses not related in the legislative mind of the House. Everyone who has examined the proposals that information provided for the Government in confidence for one purpose might be used by one Government Department or another for a different purpose has found that concept unacceptable.
  The Lindop committee in its entirety, giving evidence to the Home Office about the Bill, described this provision as a culpable fraud on the public, because it is obtaining information for one purpose and using it for another. I know that the Government will say, and certainly the Minister of State if he follows his normal practice will tell us several times, and loudly, that they are removing the protection for admirable purposes, for the protection of crime, the prosecution of offenders, the assessment of collection of taxes and the control of immigration. I accept, as the Minister will again tell us, that the Bill does not compel such information to be passed from one Government Department to another. The compulsion will be applied by the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Clause 28 allows information to be passed

  567
  from hand to hand in Government, and I suspect that because that concept of information supplied for one purpose being used for another is to be embodied in law, it will encourage such information to be passed from hand to hand and from one Department to another in Government.
  Confidential tax records, or tax records that until today have been regarded as confidential, will be used for different purposes and every contrivance will be used in the pursuit of the Government's unhealthy obsession with illegal immigration. If the House doubts the intention to use these clauses for that unhealthy preoccupation, I ask hon. Members to read the House of Lords Hansard of 22 February and the views of the noble Lord Elton on the possible use of this Bill to avoid immigration regulations. His example concerned persons who, in his words:
  "do not follow our rigid Christian/surname formula".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 February 1983; Vol. 439, c. 703.]
  I suspect that he did not notice that some people do not do that because they are not Christians. He went on to say that the Bill would enable the Government to catch people who, by not following that rigid formula, operate under two names and are therefore given the opportunity of avoiding our immigration regulations. It is deplorable that an Act of Parliament that is supposed to protect the liberties arid freedom of the subject should be proclaimed in a House of this Parliament as having that object and purpose.
  Mr. Timothy Smith: If the individual illegal immigrants to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring are not subjects of the United Kingdom his point is irrelevant.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman makes my case, for he is assuming, as most of his party assumes, that people who might be illegal are illegal. I do not have the right to examine the possible pseudonyms under which he operates in case he is an illegal immigrant. I do not believe that that right should be imposed against people who happen to be called Khan rather than Smith—two equally common names in the two societies in which those names are found. It is intolerable that the assumption of illegality should be brought into our consideration of this Bill. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) makes my point far more eloquently than I could have made it.
  The point is so strong that some of the most distinguished legal authorities fear that clause 28, far from protecting public data, makes misuse of public data easier than it is now, before the Bill passes into law. I do not make that charge. I simply make the charge that clause 28 removes the proper protection which should be in a protection Bill and therefore disqualifies the Bill from the title which it claims.
  As you will have seen, Mr. Speaker, my criticisms of the Bill are characteristically moderate. I denounce it not in the language of the Financial Times and even less so in the violent terms used by the Society of Conservative Lawyers. I simply believe it to be inadequate.
  I hope that the Bill can be improved in Committee. If that is not the case, the Opposition will be forced to change their mind and our abstention of tonight will be changed into opposition on Third Reading.
  4.42 pm
  Sir Edward Gardner: Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.
  568
  Hattersley), I must confess that I do not pretend to be an expert on data protection, but I suppose that I, too, must allow myself to be called a data subject.
  There is no doubt that no one who values his reputation and good name can be indifferent to the Bill and the consequences which may flow from it by way of advantage or disadvantage once it becomes law.
  Inevitably, with legislation of this kind which touches so sensitive a subject as the individual's right to privacy, there is criticism. Some of that criticism suggests that it is not so much what the Bill does as the way that it does it. Others, including doctors and lawyers who have their own professional fears, suggest that the Bill may disturb the confidential relationship between themselves and their patients or clients. There are some who say that the Bill does not do what it should do or does not do enough.
  As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, recently a report was published by a sub-committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers chaired by a distinguished member of the legal profession, Mr. Rodney Hylton-Potts. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a copy of the report, and I feel sure that he will give it attention and consider the matters raised in it, although I expect that he will not necessarily agree with all of them.
  My concern is with the ability of the legislation to protect the rights of an individual to privacy without imposing unnecessary and unreasonable bureaucratic burdens on business and industry. The Government have made no attempt to conceal—they have gone to great pains to make clear—that the legislation is needed to bring our law into line with that which at present governs the use of computers in other European Community countries. The law is necessary so that we may ratify the Council of Europe convention and, in addition, to avoid our computer industry being put at a disadvantage compared with its European competitors. All those seem to be the most valid and powerful reasons why we need legislation of this kind.
  But there is another purpose for the Bill, and in the 'view of most people it is the paramount argument for the Bill in the sense that it has the purpose of protecting the right of the individual to privacy.
  The title of the European convention sums up very adequately what ought to be and what I believe are the aims of the Bill in terms of individual privacy. The title of the convention describes it as being
  "for the protection of the individual with regard to the automatic processing of personal data."
  In other words, the intention of the convention, arid one of the intentions of the Bill to match it, is to protect the individual against the use or misuse of the computer.
  Those of us who prize the right to privacy arid want it extended rather than narrowed see in the Bill a means of extending the right to privacy at least in terms of computers. Anyone who has had the experience of writing to a mail order firm only to discover that from that moment his letter box is overwhelmed with a stream of letters, pamphlets and forms from other mail order firms will realise just what it means to have his name and address on a computerised list.
  It is elementary that computers do what they are instructed to do, provided that they are working efficiently. They are indifferent to the accuracy of the information with which they are fed. We have all had experience from time to time—some would say all too frequently—of the mistakes that bank computers can make. We see our statements and we can correct the

  569
  errors, but there are documents stored by computers about which many of us have no knowledge. That information can be of the utmost relevance to our futures. It can damage our reputations. It can injure our employment prospects. It can touch upon our credit ratings. We know nothing about it. It can be wholly inaccurate, and we can be the victims of a computer mistake or the mistake of a computer processor. The Bill will at least do something to repair, or help to repair, damage of that nature.
  There is no doubt that legislation of this kind inevitably raises formidable problems. I raise some of them now so that they may be dealt with; and in the hope that the anxiety that is felt about them may be dissipated by the explanation that we shall be given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State when he replies to the debate.
  I am concerned, as is the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, about the distinction between manual and computerised information, but to suggest that the Bill should contain provisions to deal with manual storing is to close one's eyes to the prodigious problems that that raises. It is not without interest that in 1975 the Labour Government produced a White Paper on data protection and privacy. If my memory serves me aright, there was no suggestion in that White Paper that manually stored information should be included with the provisions dealing with computerised information.
  The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), who asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, "What is a computer?", asked a question that is difficult to answer, and I am not sure that this Bill makes it any easier to reach a solution in that regard. I have in mind the Philips Megadoc which by some miraculous means that I do not understand can store the equivalent of 4 million sheets of foolscap, which would fill a corridor 100 yds long and 6 ft high, in a compact optical record mode. What sort of a machine is that? Is it a computer? Does it come within this Bill? I do not dare to suggest an answer, but some day someone will have to answer that question.
  The other matter to which I wish to draw attention concerns the functions of the registrar. I am very anxious, as I am sure are all right hon. and hon. Members, that members of the public—the data subjects, as they are called—who want to find out what is contained in the information that is being stored by a computer and who are refused access to that information shold have a proper remedy and should have someone to look after and follow up their complaints to see that they get the information that they seek. I wonder—I put it no higher than that, and with no more emphasis than that—whether it is right to leave all these functions in the hands of a single registrar.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way, and perhaps I should declare an interest, in that I am connected with a banking organisation which has a great interest in transfers of information, although this point is much more relevant to the individual. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the very wide powers of the registrar may be assisted by the introduction of a data protection advisory committee? I am against quangos, but in this instance a quango might be of help to the individual.
  Sir Edward Gardner: My hon. Friend and I are very nearly on the same line; either he or I am on a branch line. I was about to suggest that it might be wise to consider
  570
  introducing another figure into the picture, in the form of an ombudsman, who could deal with complaints, hiving off that responsibility from the registrar.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I am particularly interested in my hon. and learned Friend's views because of his legal experience. I take it from what he says that he does not feel that the tribunal proposed in the Bill would meet the situation.
  Sir Edward Gardner: I think that it would help to have this to augment such provisions as are contained in the Bill. If there is a complaint, there should be someone who could concentrate on that function. We should not leave it to the registrar, or the tribunal, because ultimately the tribunal may be the forum that will have to decide an appeal on facts which the ombudsman, if he were appointed, would have to consider.
  In one sense, this is a forbidding Bill because it seems so technical. In another sense, it is a fascinating Bill. Certainly, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is a most important Bill, and I wish it well.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), I give a somewhat guarded welcome to the Bill. I welcome it in the main because it at least does something for the data user, and—of even greater importance—it does something for the data subject as well.
  As the Home Secretary suggested, there is a long history of activity in this area. Something needs to be done, otherwise the United Kingdom will be in considerable difficulties because many other countries have preceded us with legislation in this connection. Sweden legislated as long ago as 1973, and since then many countries, including Luxembourg and even Iceland, have introduced various forms of legislation. Clearly, if nothing is done, British data users may find it difficult to get their data accepted by other countries which have already provided a legislative basis.
  As my right hon. Friend said, there has also been a long history in British terms, in that we have had two major reports, several private Members' Bills going back as far as 1966, and even two White Papers. There may be some truth in my right hon. Friend's suggestion—indeed, I am sure that there is—that perhaps Labour Governments go down when legislation is pending. Nevertheless, irrespective of politics and Governments, the matter has been in the air for a long time, and it is high time that something was done.
  I have real doubts, some of which were expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, about whether the Bill does anything effective about the problem. Whatever Conservative Members may think about quangos, there is an argument that there should be an effective body in this important area. Clearly a data protection agency would be much more able to operate that a single registrar with a small staff of about 20. Irrespective of the Home Secretary's assurance about what has happened in some European countries, many hon. Members have serious doubts whether a registrar with a staff of 20 would be able to cope with the incredible size of his task. Even in the hard computerised data sector,

  571
  there is an enormous area that could be covered in that way. I have great doubts whether a registrar with a staff of 20 could make an impact on controlling and carrying out the necessary inquiries in that area.
  I have received a letter from the Computing Services Association which makes an important suggestion. It says that there should be an exemption in the registration of what it calls common files—files common to every business such as sales and the normal payroll ledgers without which no individual in a firm can be paid. Clearly the work that is involved in such day-to-day common data registers is enormous and would form the great bulk of a registrar's work. In its letter, the Computing Services Association says:
  "These functions comprise the day-to-day activities of many data processing departments and it seems unnecessarily cubersome and bureaucratic to require their registration. It is estimated that well over half"—
  I should go much further than that—
  "of the administrative workload of the Registrar could be eliminated if the registration of these 'common applications' …was not required."
  If, as the Government apparently at this stage intend, the mechanics of the system are confined to a registrar with a staff of 20, there is a strong argument for eliminating such files about which there are few problems.
  The real arguments against the Bill are mainly on the other side in the sense that it does not too much, but too little. My right hon. Friend has dealt far more adequately than I can with some of the exemption problems that arise. Many of the exemption areas, whether covered by the global word "security"—we all accept the need for that—police and medical files, are the very areas that people become worried about and that is perhaps the basic weakness of the legislation. Some of the areas that are exempted or which border on exemption are those about which there is general concern and on which representations to hon. Members are made.
  My main concern, upon which I touched previously, is that computerised data deal only with a small part of the data pool. As has been suggested, one of the peculiarities of the legislation is that it might turn back the clock. People who have been moving data into computers may suddenly start to switch it back into manual and semi-manual operations. Some of those mysterious things which appear in the police computer may go back into police files. The danger is that the legislation may turn back the clock.
  There is the real difficulty, which I put to the Home Secretary and which was followed up by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde, of defining in hard terms an automated operation. As many hon. Members will know, more and more semi-manual systems with highly complex retrieval systems are coming into being. Such retrieval systems can effectively retrieve data where necessary in much the same way as what is formally described as a computer.
  A critical question that may arise from the legislation and which will become more and more of a problem is: when is a computer not a computer? The definition that we have is not enough to enable the registrar and his staff to cope with that problem. The Standing Committee will have to consider closely a much more effective method of defining precisely what is covered by the legislation.
  As I have said, on the whole I offer a welcome to the Bill because something must be done if we are to ratify the convention of the Council of Europe on data protection.
  572
  It is important that we should do so. My only doubt about the Bill is whether it is adequate to satisfy the convention's requirements. The Home Secretary should consider that carefully because serious doubts have been raised not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, but by many people in industry. It is vital that we should have a Bill that will enable us to ratify the convention of the Council of Europe because that is the only way in which our data will be acceptable to other countries.
  Even more important than that, I welcome the Bill because whatever its failings it removes a few—not all—of the many uncertainties which face data users and, more importantly, it removes a few of the uncertainties that face data subjects. For that reason, I hope that we shall proceed with the Bill.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I welcome the Bill even though, inevitably, it will be but a first step along a long road. The House must be careful not to panic or to panic those outside into believing that every citizen is in grave danger. I do not believe that. If we wish to live in a world in which we can go into a shop and buy goods without money in our pockets, someone must have a record of our creditworthiness. That information will have to be quickly accessible if people wish to walk out of a shop having bought goods.
  The way in which data are described in the Bill will become part and parcel of everyday life. I wish to declare a personal interest. I should like to take up the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and also to ask the Minister whether he can clear up a problem of definition. A great deal has been said during this debate about what the Bill does and what data are as stated in the Bill.
  Clause 1(2) states:
  "'Data' means information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose."
  Clause 37 states:
  "'data material' means any document or other material used in connection with data equipment;"
  That could lead to a significant difference in interpretation. It could meet head on the point made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook about hard copy. Data can be stored in several ways. Tape is the simplest form but more usually it is on disc. The print-out from a computer, known as "hard copy", is little more than a straightforward file. The impression has been given by the Opposition today that the Bill deals only with those data, that can be used through a machine. Perhaps the Minister will at some point clarify the distinction between the interpretation in clause 1 and clause 37, because that is a material point.
  Mr. Henderson: I have been following the remarks made by my hon. Friend very closely. I have a suspicion that a computer print-out as not data protected under the terms of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend have a view about machine-readable print-outs, such as are frequently used for cheques?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) has raised an important area of doubt. I understood from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the House was dealing exclusively with material that could be machine read in the terms of

  573
  a computer. Comments were made about the manual handling of data but clause 37 shows that the net is wider. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East and I will have to wait until later in the Bill's passage to find out which of those two views is correct.
  The background to this Bill has received some comment in the debate. The genesis was the Lindop committee, which was set up in 1976. That may not be a long time to many people, but in this area of technology seven years is a long period. Are the contents of the Bill truly relevant if they were drawn up in the light of the Lindop committee's recommendations, which were published in 1978? As technology has taken giant steps since then, should the Government make it clear that the procedures that have been established in this Bill will be subject to daily review to take account of technological changes which may occur?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman said he has a personal interest. I am reluctant to intervene, but will he tell the House what it is?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am associated with companies in the manufacture of computers, but not in the storing of information.
  The interesting factor about the computer of today is that it can communicate with machines of different makes. It is possible, as was shown the other day, for the computer at the Swansea registration centre, which deals with vehicle registration numbers, to communicate directly with the Hendon police cental computer. Abuse of the system can lead to grave breaches in the law. Recently a doorman at a gaming club was able, through a contact in the police force, to pass on information that someone had made a large sum of money, identify the car that that person drove away in, discover quickly through the contact to whom the car belonged and subsequently there was a major robbery which removed from that gentleman all of his lovely winnings. That speed of contact through different systems will be come more widespread.
  I appreciate that the private home computer operator is left out of the terms in the Bill. With the correct mode it is possible for an individual to go in through Post Office lines to a wider network of other users. With the establishment of the local area networks and subsequently the national area network, the House must be careful to keep a watch on the group that is presently exempted because of its ability to communicate on an almost national basis with computers. This is an area where the problems of coercion, bribery, the ability to break security networks and to know passwords, which will let a person into another computer terminal, must be carefully monitored.
  The Bill could be seen in two totally distinct lights. First, I do not, as an individual, wish anybody to hold any information about me on a computer without my permission. That could be a perfectly logical way of examining the question of computer data storage.
  The second position is that everybody should have access to as much information as possible. The Bill is and will be the subject of a great deal of interest outside the House. Hon. Members will be lobbied on those two distinct attitudes. Either my privacy is not to be invaded at all or there should be the freest exchange of information possible. To draw up a Bill which will satisfy those two
  574
  extremes of opinion is virtually impossible. The Government must proceed slowly and ask what the various terms in the Bill mean. It is suggested in clause 2 that the information should be held for one or more specified and lawful purposes. Would that included having creditworthiness established for a person to hold a credit card and to allow that person to enter a shop and buy goods or would that also enable a mortgage company to have access to that information for the purchase of a house? We need some clarification.
  I am also concerned about how an individual data subject—as it is termed in the Bill—will know that he or she has the right to all the information promised in the legislation. According to the legislation, information shall not be withheld from data subjects if they require it. I should like to know how the Government intend to make that more widely known. Will there be an advertising campaign telling people who are concerned about what is held on computers how they can find out about it? Without something like that, this legislation may well be of interest merely to a very small group of individuals, who are probably in companies dealing with the information anyway. I am concerned that the legislation should become not just a register of the good but should also take account of trapping those who are not so good.
  I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I should think it unlikely that the ombudsman would be able to do anything about the registrar. Presumably, the Office of Fair Trading would be able to do something. Again, it would help the data subject to know whether there is a fallback position should the Bill's provisions not provide the answer that he seeks. There is a danger that Parliament may try to legislate for everything. Governments of all colours tell the electorate that legislation will be simplified. Many of us have always hoped that legislation would be limited, but it never is. When the Bill is enacted, it will be a useful guide, but I suspect that many of its provisions will be subject to interpretation in the courts. Therefore, we must make it clear that we are not crossing every "t" and dotting every "i". Information will inevitably exist, but the point at issue is its abuse. I very much hope that the Bill will not merely endorse the good behaviour of those who are already doing a first-class job, but will also ensure that neither the doorman at the gaming club nor anyone else is allowed access to information that is detrimental to society in general.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I give this Bill a rather mixed reception. On the whole, the Government have missed a good opportunity to introduce a major piece of legislation. When they look back at the Bill over the next few years, they will realise that they failed to take that opportunity. I have a suspicion that the Government have not even met the requirements of the European convention and, if so, that is tragic. Equally, the Government have failed to reassure the public and to increase their confidence in the information that is held, particularly on computers. If the Government have missed those opportunities, it is very sad. It will no doubt mean increasing demands for more effective legislation in the next few years.
  Almost everyone is afraid of being held on some list. When I was in primary school, one of the teachers had a system for controlling the whole class that seemed to work admirably. When there was a little too much noise in the

  575
  classroom, the teacher simply announced that unless we were careful, our names would be put on a list. At that age, we never stopped to inquire what list, but the threat of being put on a list quelled the noise. On rare occasions on a Friday afternoon—usually a wet Friday afternoon when games had been cancelled—the teacher had to go a little further and would threaten to get the book out in which the list was kept. I do not suppose that there was a list, but it certainly kept us youngsters in good order.
  Most people fear that they could be on a list and know nothing about it. In addition, they feel that they have a basic right to know whether they are included on someone's list and what information has been put down against their name. They want to know, partly out of curiosity and partly out of concern, that the list is accurate. All hon. Members have met constituents who have been concerned because they have found difficulty in obtaining credit. It has been found that they were on someone's credit rating list and have either been inaccurately included, or have had inaccurate information put against their names. Some of my constituents have clearly been on an employer's blacklist. Again, that causes them great concern.
  About five years ago, one of my constituents applied for four or five engineering jobs in Stockport and each time he was turned down. Eventually, I spoke to one of the personnel officers, who rather indiscreetly told me that so-and-so must have worked at that factory and led a dispute there, and that is why he could not get a job. When I checked, I found that the man had never worked at that factory and that the reference was to someone else with the same name. It was clear that there was a blacklist that applied and that my constituent had been identified on it quite wrongly. I could cite many other instances.
  All hon. Members will have come across constituents who have received demands—usually printed by a computer—for various sums of money. They have then either paid the money or have got in touch with the firm and have corrected the information. However, some months later they have received further demands, because the correcting of that information never found its way on to the computer. That is another instance that justifies the fears about the way in which lists are kept.
  I am particularly concerned about school records. As an ex-teacher, I am well aware that many of the school records kept on children are inaccurate, out of date, badly dated and often include opinion rather than fact. Indeed, the opinion is also often out of date. I have frequently described the school record of a child who was going from junior to secondary school. It simply had on it "Suspected thief." That was written against his name and was almost bound to colour the attitude of any teacher that saw his record on his arrival at secondary school. Did it mean that he had been caught in the cloakroom from which money had disappeared and that it was almost definitely him, although some teacher had been squeamish about saying so, or that the whole class had been present when some money had disappeared and that a teacher had carefully noted it on the records of all of the children? That information should not have been passed on to a secondary school unless there was hard evidence to show that such theft had happened not just once, but repeatedly.
  I have seen other comments on school records about the relationship between a child and one of his parents, about the fact that his parents were splitting up and so on. Such information should not he included in school records. In
  576
  addition, parents should be able to check the accuracy of those records. Once children have reached 15 or 16, they should have the right to look at their school records. Often a precis of the school record is sent to an employer and can effect an individual's job opportunities. I am frequently told that, if parents are allowed to check on the records, lots of things will not be recorded. That would be good. From time to time, pieces of information about a child—such as difficulties at home—may be relevant for a week, or for a month or two. If that information is in a teacher's mind, or is passed on to other teachers, it will be remembered as long as it is relevant. However, once it has become history, it will no longer be relevant, will be forgotten and there will be no need for any continuing record of it.
  For many years I pressed first the Labour Government and then this Government to do something about school records. I was always told that that would have to be included in a major piece of legislation covering the whole issue of data protection. I admit that during the passage of the Education Act 1980 the Government reluctantly agreed to bring forward regulations dealing with school records, but to date they have not given the right of access to parents. However, some local authorities have gone some way towards achieving that.
  It is unfortunate that this legislation does not deal with school records. Indeed, in many ways it makes the position worse because if a school keeps its records on children on a computer at the school, that will be covered by the legislation, but if a school uses manual records, that will not be covered. The Government have made a great drive to encourage the introduction of computers into schools. It is therefore crazy to teach children to use computers when their teachers are still recording information manually, especially factual information about children's attainments. It will be logical for children to ask why that information is not kept on the school computer. If the school uses a computer it will be covered by the legislation, whereas manual records mean that there is no right of access to information for parents or children.
  If the Government introduce legislation that covers computer systems, but not manual systems, that will discourage people from transferring from manual systems to computer systems. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the legislation is comprehensive and covers information held under all systems. We have already been told of the difficulty of defining a computer and the types of equipment covered by the legislation.
  The British Medical Association and others have put forward a fundamental point about medical confidentiality. We must ensure that information collected for one purpose is not passed on to other groups of people. There must be no exceptions. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that this legislation, when coupled with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, provides major areas for concern.
  Several local authorities and local authority associations have expressed concern that the legislation will create considerable additional costs for them. I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that local authorities should be exempt. It is important that they are included. However, some local authorities such as Stockport have been trying to pioneer the use of computers for maintaining many of their records and information. The legislation should not put such local authorities at a

  577
  disadvantage. Stockport keeps all its information on housing benefit for individuals on a computer, and will be subject to the provisions of the Bill—yet the supplementary benefit offices that keep almost identical information will not be subject to the legislation and there will be no way in which an individual can check the accuracy of the information. We should deal with them in the same way.
  Stockport allocates its houses on the basis of points given for certain reasons. I hope that the Government will confirm that the legislation will cover not only the right of an individual applicant on the computer to be told the basis on which the points have been accumulated, but also provide the right for him to see the manual records from which the information is fed into the computer. It would be nonsense if an applicant could see only the computer print-out and not the manual information on which the number of points were originally allocated.
  I hope that the Government will make it quite clear that they will deal with those anomalies, which appear to discourage local authorities and others from moving from manual systems to computer systems. It is important to ensure that everyone registers and that we do not discourage people from moving to the newer technological records for keeping information.
  The unsolicited post that people receive has already been mentioned in the debate. It causes me a great deal of annoyance. Can the legislation be used to check on the practical problems caused by people being able to sell mailing lists that have been acquired in many different ways? I am on a list as A. C. Bennett, and I receive a large number of unsolicited letters addressed to that name. If I could check on who sold the original list, I could ensure that my name was changed. However, I do not think I could have my name taken off the list. I see little point in having my name corrected, when what I want is that my name is taken off the list altogether so that I do not receive so much rubbish that fills up my dustbin. A previous owner of my home still has his name on a list and I receive a great deal of post addressed to him. Could I stop that post by letting the person who sold the list know that the address was now out of date?
  I am concerned about how long information can be kept on computer records. After a period of seven years, minor criminal offences are no longer recorded. How long will information about people's creditworthiness be maintained on records? There is concern that if someone is given a low rating for creditworthiness it will be extremely difficult to have that corrected. Although that information may be factually correct, it may have been a bad debt when a person was only 19 or 20, and he may how have reached 30. If criminal records can disappear after seven years, surely tardiness in paying a debt, or even court action to obtain payment of a debt, should be treated in the same way. I understand that the legislation covers only those inaccurately placed on a list, and does not impose a time limit.
  I agree with the comments made about the advantages of the use of plastic cards to pay debts. There has been a great deal of fuss in Greater Manchester about the attitude of the chief constable to the arming of police. I very much regret the way that he obtained publicity for what he was doing. He did not concentrate on one of the major problems, which is the need to reduce the amount of cash that is moved about in such areas as Greater Manchester
  578
  and which makes a target for crime, especially violent crime. He would have better served the community if he had stressed the advantages of money being moved not in cash, but as cheques and plastic money. That would reduce the opportunity for criminal activity. I fully accept that that means that we must have credit ratings for individuals but a move towards a cashless society would greatly reduce the opportunities for crimes of violence involving cash, although it might provide more opportunities for forgery.
  I hope that we shall see systems of creditworthiness which encourage the development of a cashless society that are fair and do not provide one system for the rich and another for the poor. If one already has a bank account or plastic money, it is surprising how much credit one can get without any questions. People on low incomes who do not have those opportunities are severely disadvantaged.
  I therefore give the Bill a doubtful welcome. We need a much more effective Bill. I hope that it can be improved in Committee but, if not, I am sure that the House will return to it on many occasions until we have an effective measure that meets the requirements of the European convention and the basic requirement of people in this country that they should not be on someone's list without knowing about it.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I share some of the reservations of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and some of the other reservations that have been expressed today. Apart from that, I broadly welcome the Bill but regret the length of time that it has taken to bring it before the House.
  As the computer revolution has been under way for at least 20 years—I received in my post this morning a press notice about a new book entitled "Towards Fifth Generation Computers"—the Bill can be regarded as somewhat overdue. The Younger report on privacy was published 11 years ago, and the White Paper was published eight years ago, so I accept that it is not the Government's fault that legislation has not been introduced before now. I also accept that there appeared to be little tangible evidence in last year's White Paper that information held on computers in this country was being used to threaten personal privacy, but that is certainly not the case in the United States where the computer revolution is much more advanced than in Britain.
  It is difficult not to gain the impression that the Bill would not be before the House now but for the fact that we are required to ratify the European convention. Even though I am one of this country's representatives on the Council of Europe, I do not always agree with the conventions that come out of the Council of Europe, but I accept that, as a member state, we should abide by them.
  The delay in introducing the legislation should have enabled us to benefit from the considerable debate in the Council of Europe, which gave rise to the convention. I hope that that has been the case. It should also have enabled us to anticipate any consequences of the rapid development of equipment and the use of computers in schools and colleges. The Government's policy has been to introduce computers into secondary schools, primary schools and colleges of advanced education. I hope that that has been the case, although there is no reference in the Bill to show that the Government have taken that into

  579
  account. I hope that no reference will prove to be necessary in the future, or we shall have missed an opportunity.
  One of the opportunities that has been missed, to which reference has already been made, is that we are not also legislating to protect against manual records and against, as I understand it, computer print-outs. The Dorset branch of NALGO has written to me to point out that half the complaints received by the European Data Protection Commission are the result of manually recorded records. That is, of course, obvious as it takes time to put manual records on to computers. School reports, which have already been mentioned, employees' references and doctors' files on patients are held manually until they go on to computer. Political records are also held on manual records. I do not know whether any political party has it in mind in due course to place the records of its membership on computers, but the House should know that, for some time now—indeed, ever since it was formed—I have been a member of the SDP. Ever since the party was formed—I will not use the word "established" because it has not yet been proved that the SDP has been established—I have received a wealth of information through my door—I moved house two years ago but I assume it is still coming through that door—because my name had been included in its membership files. I think that I am honoured—I do not know. Perhaps I am not. However, I must stress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, although I received a membership card saying "Membership subscription paid"—the annual subscription to that party is £9—the party missed out on that score. The SDP said, about a year ago, that it was Britain's fastest growing political party but, clearly, if it is sending out membership cards saying "Thank you for your subscription" and including my name and many others on its list, there are a lot of bogus names on the list of Britain's fastest growing political party. I do not know whether the Bill protects me from the SDP or the SDP from me, as my name is on its list of members. I believe that clause 31 protects the party from me, because it applies to members of clubs and I assume that the SDP is probably still small enough to be described as a club.
  Mr. Henderson: This is an extremely interesting point. I would not say that the SDP is a club, although there are those who say that it is a very cosy club indeed. But my hon. Friend is not a member of the club. Despite that, his name is on its list. Therefore, it is not holding records only about members of the club and it would have to register.
  Mr. Atkinson: It is a difficult problem. While the number of Members of Parliament under the SDP banner is now sufficient to fill more than one taxi or telephone box, whether that will apply to members of the party outside the House I cannot say.
  Manual records will be with us for a long time to come. For example, it is estimated that about 95 per cent. of personal medical information in this country will be held on manual records for the foreseeable future. Excluding them from the Bill may encourage data banks to revert to manual systems for their more personal, sensitive data—a fear that has already been expressed in the debate. I regret that we are not using the Bill to protect the individual against the unauthorised disclosure of information held on manual recording systems. The principle is the same. My
  580
  right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier that that would require an expensive bureaucracy. Nevertheless, there is evidence of abuse and mistakes, not least by Government Departments.
  Last month a constituent came to see me to express concern that a decision that had been made by a review body on his claim for an attendance allowance had been turned down because of inaccurate information about his wife who, he pointed out, had not had a hip replacement operation as was stated on the records. That was not the reason why, according to him, she required an attendance allowance. He was even more concerned because the decision on the claim for attendance allowance which was returned to him—the decisions are apparently returned with a copy of the original appeal—referred not to his case but to a claim for attendance allowance on behalf of someone else. The confidential information to back up someone else's claim for an attendance allowance was sent to him by the Department of Health and Social Security in Norcross near Blackpool. That was disgraceful. If the person whose information had been sent knew about it, he would clearly be concerned. I am sorry that the Bill excludes from protection the information held on manual records.
  Many of uŚ have had our attention drawn to the initial concern expressed by the British Medical Association before the Bill received a Second Reading in another place. I have not checked the Official Report to discover how the Government allayed the fears that were expressed, if, indeed, they have, and so I shall repeat some of them now.
  Part IV deals with exemptions from access by individuals and the non-disclosure by certain categories of user. If, in exceptional cases, a transfer of information is made to a computer system which is classified as exempt, the BMA believes that each transfer of personal medical information should be recorded, together with a description of the type of information that has been released. The BMA believes also that adequate safeguards must be incorporated for the destruction of medical information that is transferred to exempt systems when the purpose for which the transfer was made is no longer relevant.
  Representations have been made by the Guild of Catholic Doctors to the effect that if a doctor seeks clinical information about one of his patients it should not normally be necessary to obtain the patient's consent, or that of his nearest relative if he is detained or incompetant to give consent. If information were sought by a third party, including a doctor not treating the patient, information could be given only with the patient's consent or, if he were detained and incompetent to give consent, with the consent of his nearest relative, if available and able to give consent. If the patient were incompetent to give consent, the certificate of consent should be provided by a responsible medical officer.
  I recall an interesting and important debate that took place when we were considering the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in Special Standing Committee last year. The debate turned on the definition or substitution of the term "nearest relative". In today's society it is a description that is no longer quite so easy to define. Clause 29 provides the Secretary of State with powers to order exemption or modification of the provisions of access. Will this be relevant to health records?

  581
  I shall be glad to have my hon. and learned Friend's advice on social service records. For example, what will be the rights of a foster child to apply for information—computerised information and records—on his birth and his real parentage? Will he or she be able to gain access to that information only after reaching a certain age—for example, 18 years? Will it then be considered sensible for that information to be available to him or her?
  On Second Reading in another place, it was suggested that an amendment should be made to ensure that the right of subject access should be excluded when it related to medical information that had been disclosed in confidence. Safeguards in respect of releasing medical information to the police were also called for. These calls are already familiar to us. They have come from doctors, priests and the press, which is concerned about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The powers that are offered to the police in that Bill will allow the inspection of non-computerised records of the professional advisers of suspects and potential witnesses. They appear to me to nullify the protection that this Bill offers in respect of computer records.
  This suggests that a bill of rights defining the powers of Government and the rights of citizens to appeal against them is long overdue. I recall the commitment that appeared on page 21 of our manifesto to discuss the possibility of a bill of rights with all parties. I understand that that has yet to happen. I look forward to learning from my hon. and learned Friend what plans the Government have within the context of the Bill for a bill of rights to protect individual freedom.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr. Atkinson) referred to the time that has been taken to introduce this proposed legislation. I heartily agree with the criticism that he levelled at previous Administrations, but I appreciate that we are not dealing with an easy subject and that that may be a reason for the delay. However, the first attempt to place legislation on the statute book was made as long ago as 1961 in another place. On that occasion, Lord Mancroft sought to introduce a Bill. That was followed in 1967 by the attempt of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) to introduce a Bill on privacy. The Minister for Industry and Information Technology also sought to introduce a Bill in 1969. There is a long history of attempts by individual Members and Administrations to take action on this issue.
  Some of the objections to the Bill could be covered more adequately if we had introduced the recommendations in the Younger committee's report on privacy. There is within the range of those recommendations enough material to construct a Bill to protect citizens' rights of privacy. I regret that it has not been possible to place the recommendations of the Younger committee on the statute book.
  It has been suggested that manually-kept records have been excluded because the Lindop committee did not recommend in 1978 that they should be covered by the measures contained in the Bill. However, the Lindop committee's report followed two White Papers on this subject which were published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). Its terms of reference were restricted to computers, and therefore, it
  582
  cannot be said that the recommendations of that report form a justification for the Bill's lack of coverage of manual records.
  Although the Bill will be given a fair passage on Second Reading, it has been criticised because it has considerable deficiencies. Like others, I see it as a missed opportunity by the Government to introduce a more comprehensive measure that would protect individuals' rights to privacy.
  The Government have sought to demonstrate that the Bill will ensure the protection of those rights, but it is my impression that the Government are promoting a Bill to bring our domestic legislation into harmony with the European convention so as to facilitate our commercial links with Europe. They are doing so with the minimum possible change to existing practices of Government Departments that handle the data that will be covered by the Bill's provisions. It is unfortunate that the thrust of the Government's action has been an attempt to introduce a Bill that will comply with the European convention instead of taking the opportunity to protect more fully the rights of the individual.
  One of the major criticisms of the Bill is that the right of individuals to have access to personal data held about them in computer files may be denied on the ground that such access would be prejudicial to national security, the prevention of crime, the detection of criminals, the collection of taxes and duties, or the control of immigration.
  In my view, and in the view of many of my hon. Friends, the exemptions are drawn too broadly. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through the House, the exemptions will be tightened considerably to ensure that those who are not presently to be given access to information will be able to do so. For instance, the test for exemption might be strengthened to require serious prejudice to be demonstrated in relation to criminal offences rather than to provide for only prejudicing the outcome of a case.
  I understand doctors' anxieties about the confidentiality of their records. The Government should take note of those anxieties and try to meet them in Committee. Patients should also have access to some of their files. Doctors sometimes unnecessarily restrict access to information, although a more enlightened view is often taken today. A restriction might rightly be placed on information because it could damage a patient's health. Such a restriction and limitation is fair and reasonable and would not upset the doctor in carrying out his work, but it would give the patient adequate access to records. Reference has been made to how damaging some records can be to an individual's future.
  Several other aspects of the Bill which have not been referred to also worry me. Clause 22 provides a major loophole in relation to liability to pay compensation. It excuses a data user who holds inaccurate data if the data are supplied by a third party. A data user will not be liable to damages when he fails to check the accuracy of information supplied by a third party. A data user should be required to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied.
  Some people argue that data users should be liable for the accuracy of their data as they create the risk of harm by activities from which they profit. It is clear that the loophole is unacceptable since many data are supplied by third parties rather than by the data user's researchers.

  583
  That major loophole should be closed to ensure that third party information is not used unless the holder of the information is liable for any inaccuracies.
  The Bill contains another serious defect. It does not require separate register entries for personal data information obtained, held or used for different purposes by the same user, although it permits such separate registration. That could be dangerous. The Bill requires the registration of data users rather than data banks or data systems held by the users, but it makes no provision for control of linkage, correlation or transfer of data between systems held by one user—for example, an enormous Department such as the Home Office. Each system or data bank should be required to be separately registered and connections between such data banks or systems should be regarded as disclosures subject to the data processing principles in the Bill. Otherwise, major computer systems with numerous different data banks—some have a substantial number—will be able freely to exchange data between banks created for separate and distinct purposes without any supervision, regulation or control. I hope that the Minister will respond to that and that, if he cannot explain it today, we can discuss it in Committee.
  A right of appeal for data users is contained in the Bill. The House should also consider the data subject's position. The person whose information is contained in the data bank cannot appeal against a decision to register a data user or a decision not to issue any of the notices which the registrar can issue. A data user's interests are protected by appeal, but the subject's interests are not so protected. Since the basic purpose of the legislation should be to protect the data subject's interests, a right of appeal for subjects detrimentally affected by a registrar's decision is appropriate. I hope that the Government will consider including such a right in the Bill.
  Reference was made in another place, in the press and elsewhere to the broad provisions for exemption relating to national security. Clause 17 refers to a provision to which I have long objected—section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. That clause allows the registrar access to information. He, his staff and tribunal members, or their servants or agents, are covered by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. That is too broad a provision. I am opposed in principle to section 2. We need a narrower definition, but I do not believe that the Bill should provide that the registrar, tribunal members and their staff are covered by it.
  A major defect in the Bill was referred to by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he spoke about the Lindop committee and the establishment of a registrar's office rather than a data protection authority. Lindop recommended that a data protection authority should be established and that legislation should enshrine the principles contained in the Bill. The committee also recommended that the data protection authority should have maximum independence consistent with public accountability. It said that it should be a full regulatory authority, not merely an investigative and advisory body.
  The registrar established under the Bill is not of the type envisaged by Lindop. Partly for the reasons mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I do not think that the registrar will retain respect and confidence. I hope that the Government will reconsider. I know that the Government are worried about the attitude of some of their Back Benchers towards quangos, but if they want the Bill
  584
  to be effective they should reconsider. Some of the registrar's duties set out by Lindop are not contained in the Bill.
  One of the duties recommended by Lindop was to issue legally enforceable codes of practice applicable to the various types of data held, the purposes for which they are held, and the various data user/data subject relationships. Each code must specify the data handling to which it applies and the measures to be taken by users to achieve the level of compliance with the statutory principles considered necessary in each category. The committee sets out detailed codes of practice for data users. It is unfortunate that that proposal by the Lindop committee has been dropped. I hope that the Government will consider codes of practice to help users to operate within guide lines of the kind envisaged by Lindop.
  The Bill is a missed opportunity, but it is a move in the right direction in that it will establish a form of authority to monitor these matters. It therefore deserves a Second Reading, but I hope that, by the time it returns for Third Reading, it will have been modified to give greater powers to the data subject and to strengthen his rights in a way that the Bill, as drafted, does not provide.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I wish to make a number of points, but I shall do my best to compress them into a short speech.
  I welcome the Government's introduction of legislation in this area. The House spends a good deal of time legislating about nationalised industries, crime, local authorities and education, but we are always behind in producing legislation made necessary by advances in technology. That certainly applies to computer storage of information, and the European convention that we have signed makes the legislation even more urgent. Incidentally, I am also concerned about the danger to our copyright business. I believe that that parallels the danger to our computer industries, which the Bill is designed to protect just as it is designed to protect the data subjects.
  The Bill is not a bill of rights. I know that my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), favours a bill of rights in this area. Perhaps we should debate the need for such legislation, although I should probably find myself on the opposite side from my hon. Friend but the Bill before us is not a bill of rights and should not be regarded as such.
  I do not share the views on individual privacy expressed by many hon. Members on both sides. I see nothing sinister in other people holding information about us. In general, I favour an open society with more open government. I welcome any move towards that and I see openness in individual matters and in Government matters as going hand in hand. To me, therefore, there is a major inconsistency on the part of those who argue for more open government but regard any third party obtaining information about individual citizens as sinister and a development against which the individual should be protected.
  Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), I am not unduly frightened at the amount of unsolicited offers and correspondence that comes through my letter box. One of the easiest tasks of my day is directing all the free offers and information about free cars and other prizes into the waste paper

  585
  basket, although I have some sympathy with those who receive large numbers of unsolicited letters from their Members of Parliament.
  I am concerned about the misuse or abuse of information held about individuals, but I do not believe that the Bill will seriously check that. That is why I asked the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), about the misuse of manually stored information. Such information has certainly been abused over the years and people's positions have been prejudiced in various ways as a result, but I do not believe that that problem would be solved by setting up a large register or even by giving people the right to know what information is held about them. In my view, that is not the whole and is possibly only a very small part of the answer. People need to be protected in terms of their employment, their race or their criminality, by safeguards in those specific areas.
  The development of mechanical processing of information makes it more important to guard against abuse in the future and brings a new dimension to the problem. Nevertheless, as others have said, in three years of work the Lindop committee apparently found no one who claimed to have suffered as a result of the practices against which we are so concerned to protect the data subject. Moreover, the right of access for the data subject under clause 21 and the strength of that protection have not been adequately brought out in the debate.
  My worries about the Bill relate principally to businesses, especially small businesses. First, there is a very wide definition of "personal data". The European convention, too, gives a wide and uncertain definition. According to the Bill,
  "'Personal data' means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual who can be identified from the information."
  and
  "'Data' means information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose."
  That is extremely wide. It seems to me beyond doubt that the Bill will cover information held on a computer of any kind as well as word processors, microfilm equipment and the wide variety of electronic machines on which information is now held. The number of businesses that have information on word processors, for example, must run to many thousands. Any information or documentation held on such machines could be the kind of personal data that are subject to the registration requirements.
  The registration requirements are very strict. It will be a criminal offence to hold personal data unless the holder is registered as a data user and to use it other than for the purpose for which the user has been registered. A considerable amount of information will be required by the registrar. He will require a description of the personal data to be held and the purposes for which it is to be held. The purposes are bound to change from time to time, so the suggestion that registration would be a once-for-all matter is pretty far off the mark. The registrar must also be informed of the persons to whom the information is to be disclosed. That class of persons, too, will probably change from time to time. He also requires to know the countries to which information is to be transferred.
  The implications of all that are very far-reaching, affecting small and larger businesses and creating a
  586
  massive amount of extra work. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the need to avoid cumbersome bureaucracy, but my first impression of the Bill suggests that it may come close to creating just such a bureaucracy. Most information that is stored will fall within the definition set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Timothy Smith: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the bureaucratic burden on small businesses, but is he right in saying that the Bill extends to word processors and microfilming? If so, that would worry me. Processing is defined in clause 1(7) as
  "amending, augmenting, deleting or re-arranging the data".
  I wonder whether either of those two machines is capable of doing that. Word processors process words, not data, and microfilming involves merely a reduction in the size of the information.
  Mr. Baker: Words contain data. My understanding of the Bill, which is supported by a number of professional lawyers in London who have read the Bill, is that word processors are included. One example is that people keep standard forms of documents on word processors, and one only has to have individuals' names, or anything that could be defined as personal data, in such standard documentation to be well within the definition of the information about which we are talking. I hope that the Government will consider this and assuage our anxiety. I am worried about this matter.
  I believe that the Bill will cover small tradesmen keeping information about customers. It will apply to the press who store information on such machines, printing trades and journalists. If that does not worry my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it will worry the press.
  The registrar has the power to enforce compliance with the rules and the power to remove users from the register. Both powers are severe. I am a little worried about the power of deregistration. It could halt a business and prevent someone from carrying on his business. I believe that the powers given to the registrar in that respect are not flexible enough.
  I believe that the cost of the registration system, for the reasons I have outlined, is likely to exceed the £650,000 mentioned in the preamble to the Bill. I cannot believe that an initial requirement of 20 staff is likely to last long. I share the worry that has been expressed by others about the cost to local authorities, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that it would be wrong to exclude local authorities from registration.
  The Home Secretary should reconsider the registration system because I believe that virtually every business—I declare an interest as a partner in a business of 150 people which has word processors and a small computer which is clearly within the definition—will hold a mass of trivial and unimportant material as will the register. I do not believe that the convention required registration. I suggest that we should have a registrar but not require the automatic registration of everyone who falls within this wide definition. Legal, criminal sanctions on those who misuse information, as that is defined, should protect data subjects.
  I believe that the Bill should give the Secretary of State power to require registration of certain topics. The registrar also should perhaps have the power to require registration on certain grounds. Those that I have in mind

  587
  are the ones set out in clause 2(3)—politics, health, race, criminal activity and other matters. We all agree that they are of great interest and sensitivity to individuals.
  I have some minor worries about the Bill that I wish to mention briefly so that they can be considered in Committee if they are not answered at the end of the debate. I believe that the registrar should be required to give preliminary notice of an infringing practice rather than to take immediate steps to enforce an order which would, in effect, put a data user out of business before he has had the chance to correct the infringement.
  I believe that the individual's right to rectification of any inaccurate personal data is not strong enough. I refer the Minister to the rights of individuals under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which are much stronger and offer a good model.
  There are difficulties for businesses transmitting information to branch offices overseas which, when professional and other businesses are expanding overseas, should not be dismissed lightly. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter.
  Although I have a number of worries about the Bill, I support its intention to protect our computer industry. I welcome the protection for data subjects, but I hope that the Minister will consider the anxiety expressed on both sides of the House on the points that have been put forward.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: As most other hon. Members have said, I believe that this is a potentially useful Bill and one for which I have called strongly in the past. However, I believe that it has been ruined by the small print of the Home Office's seemingly ineradicable passion for secrecy and obstructiveness. It is not a civil liberties Bill, and that is the basis of so many objections to parts of it. If it were, the Government would not have stamped so ruthlessly two years ago on the Freedom of Information Bill 1981, which was the opposite side of the data protection coin.
  Like others, I believe that the Bill is more an attempt, under pressure from a number of multinational companies such as Lucas, to block the loss of exports to the United Kingdom arising from the current lack of safeguards for transborder data flows. That bias is in the motivation behind the Bill is all too apparent and has allowed Home Office officialdom, compatible with the crucial commercial objective, to reduce or even negate the civil libertarian aspects of the Bill. It does this most obviously by excluding manually-held data.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrok (Mr. Hattersley), in what I think was a singularly learned and effective speech for an ignorant data user, made the point extremely forcefully and well. Most complaints are about manually-held data. That is hardly surprising because the overwhelming amount of data, including sensitive data, is held manually.
  I believe I am right in saying that all west European data commissions, with the possible exception of Denmark, have manual data within their purview. This exclusion restricts the relevance and usefulness of the Bill as a great deal of sensitive data is held manually. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, 95 per cent. of medical records—from what the BMA tells us—personnel records in small companies, detailed files on social security claimants, child abuse registers and so on is held
  588
  manually. That overwhelmingly important change must be made in Committee or before Third Reading before the Bill can make any claim to respectability.
  First, the exemptions go far too wide. I follow in the footsteps of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I am glad to say, some of the criticisms by Conservative Members, in saying that. It is not a party point. No one suggests that genuine national security records should be revealed. No one is so stupid as to suggest that. However, where it is known that the security services are assembling a computer capability—I refer to the Ministry of De fence X computer in Mount row, Mayfair—to hold a comprehensive filing system on every individual in the country, the argument for at least supervision of such a system by an independent registration framework, is surely all too clear.
  When it is also clear, as it is from the Bill, that a transfer of data could be made from a registered user to a non-registered user—for example, by the security services and the Special Branch—without that transfer being known to the individual, being made public in any way, or registered, surely that is deeply disturbing to all hon. Members. When information can be given in good faith by an individual to one authority for one purpose, and then it is transferred without his knowledge or consent to another authority—for example, the security services—surely 1984 is with us with a vengeance. That serious aspect of the Bill would worry most people.
  It is also essential on this issue of exemptions, which I am sure will dominate the Committee, particularly in respect of the security services, that Special Branch files, while not being revealed—no one will ask for that—should be independently supervised. We all know that police information—after all, the police are fallible, like us all—can often be irrelevant, out of date, incomplete or inaccurate and that the unchecked circulation of such material can often be extremely damaging. The notorious case of Mrs. Jan Martin illustrates that point well. About two years ago she was deprived of a job because while holidaying on the continent her husband had been falsely identified as a member of the Baader-Meinhof gang by someone who told the Dutch police, who then told Scotland Yard.
  I say all that in the light of the known fact that when chief constable Alderson, to his credit, ordered that Special Branch files in Cornwall and Devon should be investigated, they were found to contain dossiers on certain persons on no other grounds than that they were anti-nuclear, anti-apartheid or gay. There is no reason why we should not adopt the Swedish precedent of having a duly-appointed security-cleared officer who would at least inspect such files and ensure that the material on them was appropriate.
  My second criticism is that the right of access for an individual to see the files on himself or herself is by no means automatic under the Bill. It is shot through with huge gaps. It is wrong that records of criminal convictions will not be disclosed under the Bill as it stands, since information that is wrongly distributed can be extremely damaging to the individual. It is not right that medical records should be exempted from disclosure when the British Medical Association has no objection to disclosure. It is anomalous that social work records should be shown to teachers, educational psychologists, doctors, other

  589
  medical workers or the police and not to the client. I sometimes think that confidentiality is observed only in respect of the individual.
  This is a most important point. The right that is accorded under the Bill to the Home Secretary to restrict access where the data
  "appears to him to be of such a nature that its confidentiality ought to be preserved"
  represents a monstrous loophole with regard to the individual's right to access, when intervention by the Home Office is entirely uncircumscribed. I hope that we shall pay close attention to that in Committee.
  Above all, it is contrary to natural justice that, when the individual finds out that a record held on himself or herself is incorrect, he has no automatic right under the Bill to have it corrected. The procedure envisaged under the Bill is that the individual must go to court, which we know to be expensive and difficult for many people to do. He also has to prove that he has suffered damage as a result of that. That is contrary to the European convention, which states:
  "The data subject shall be entitled where appropriate to have personal data corrected or erased".
  That is another important facet of the Bill that must be changed.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Schedule 1 to the Bill states:
  "An individual shall be entitled—

  (a) at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense—

  (i) to be informed by any data user whether he holds personal data of which that individual is the subject; and

  (ii) to access to any such data held by a data user; and

  (b) where appropriate, to have such data corrected or erased."

  It states further:
  "Appropriate security measures shall be taken against unauthorised access to, or alteration, disclosure or destruction of, personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of personal data."
  Therefore, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was right in his remarks.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the operative word is "may" and that there is no automatic right. The registrar has no automatic powers to secure erasure or change. That is what is wanted. Although the Bill makes a nod in the right direction, it does not provide the guarantee that the Opposition want.
  Thirdly, the provisions on specially sensitive data are unsatisfactory. As the House will know, when data concern political or religious opinions, criminal convictions, sex life, physical or mental health and racial origins, the European convention requires additional safeguards. The Bill says that the Home Secretary may make additional regulations in such cases. That is unacceptable on two grounds. First, there is no requirement for additional safeguards in such cases. It is left open. There may or may not be safeguards. Secondly, an independent registrar or registration system should do that and not the Home Office, for the good reason that the Home Office keeps many of the most sensitive files and records.
  The whole system of supervision and registration under the Bill is defective. The Home Office has never provided any good, satisfactory or plausible reason why it rejected the Lindop recommendation of a data protection authority. There has been talk about the Conservatives' dislike of
  590
  quangos. However, that is not a satisfactory explanation. The Government have substituted an independent registrar. No doubt he will be an extremely distinguished representative from the list of the good and the great, but he will be one person, aided by only 20 civil servants. Whatever else the proposed framework represents, it will not have the resources to provide a proper inspection system. That will be necessary if the system is to work. The registrar may be dynamic and effective, though there is no guarantee of that in the Bill, but he will have no duty even to investigate complaints, and he will have no power to order the rectification or erasure of incorrect data.
  The codes of practice proposed in the Bill lack adequate sanctions. The Home Office has rejected the Lindop recommendation that statutory codes should be drawn up by an independent data protection authority. The Bill proposes that the codes should be a voluntary effort by professional bodies and trade associations. That is unsatisfactory for two reasons: it is contrary to the concept of the independent supervision of data; and, because the principle will not be backed by effective sanctions, it will be unenforceable and consequently ignored.
  I believe that the general judgment of the House is that the Bill is deeply disappointing. Proper data protection for individuals is desperately needed, but the Bill does not provide it. It is concerned far more with commercial interests than with civil liberties and it is in line with the ethos of a Government who three years ago promulgated the iniquitous protection of official information measure and a year later stamped on the Freedom of Information Bill.
  Unless the Bill is radically transformed in Committee, the Opposition should seriously consider whether its defects outweigh its merits and whether we should support it on Third Reading.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Timothy Smith: Having listened to the debate and, in particular, the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I conclude that in many ways the Bill is aimed at the wrong data user.
  Before the debate, I was unenthusiastic about the Bill, and I remain so, because I think that its target is the wrong data user. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) said, it will cover many small businesses and could even embrace individuals who use computers. It will impose substantial bureaucratic burdens on them, while the exemptions to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred will mean that the Bill will be ineffective in some important areas.
  Schedule 1 sets out the eight data protection principles, and the object of the Bill is to ensure that they are observed in practice. Like all hon. Members, I support those principles, but it is difficult to be enthusiastic about the Bill because of the way in which it tries to implement those principles. There will be a data protection registrar with whom all personal data users will have to register.
  I understand that the Government attach considerable importance to the concept of universal registration, though I am not clear why that is so. I should like to know what estimate the Government have made of how many users will have to register. There was an estimate of 80,000 in today's Financial Times. but I think that the figure will be much higher, and that hundreds of thousands of users will have to register. Even if that is not the case immediately,

  591
  it will be so in future, because of the rate of growth of the computer industry and the fact that there will be many users of smaller computers.
  Many small businesses and even some users of home computers will be affected by the Bill. I was worried by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North said about the possibility of word processors and microfilming machines being included in the ambit of the Bill. My hon. Friend is a lawyer and I, as an accountant, accept what he says. If the Bill covers such machines, it will embrace even more users of mechanical equipment than I had thought.
  The European convention was drafted some time ago, before the use of computers had become so widespread. It was clearly designed to deal with personal data of a sensitive nature, such as criminal records. That should be the target of the Bill. Its range is too wide.
  The convention does not require registration—it does not even refer to registration—and even if users of personal data do not register under the Bill, they will still be bound by the data protection principles. That demonstrates that we could live without registration.
  If the registrar is to have a staff of only 20, they will be hard pressed even to monitor registration satisfactorily, let alone deal with complaints and so on. Perhaps their time would be better spent in dealing with complaints rather than in the more mechanical process of registering an endless number of data users.
  If we are to have registration, perhaps we could look at the possibility of exempting small businesses and organisations—it would be unfair to add a further burden on them—or take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) who told us that the Computing Services Association had said in a letter to him that many day-to-day applications could be left out altogether. After all, many users have computers only for payroll, sales ledger or purchase ledger purposes, and no one outside would be interested in those.
  I am the parliamentary consultant to the accountancy profession, which wrote to me to say that the Bill, as drafted, will not achieve its objectives and could be widely disregarded. The letter says:
  "Our primary concern is with the scope of registration which will impose an onerous burden on small businesses and individuals who wish to operate in a modern and efficient manner. We also believe that the Government has seriously underestimated the numbers of staff which the Registrar will need to operate the register and enforce the principles of the Bill."
  The balance of interests between the data user and the data subject is a matter of fine judgment, and views could be expressed either way, but in some circumstances placing additional burdens on data users could operate to the disadvantage of data subjects. For example, I do not know whether the Government have given much consideration to the effect of the Bill on the operation of examination boards, but it seems to me that the proposals could prejudice their work.
  There is a period between an examination and the announcement of results when a certain amount of judgment is involved in arriving at those results. If examinees are to have the right in that interim period to information held on computers, that could affect the approach of examiners.
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales wrote to me:
  592
  "the processing of examination marks and the determination of results … are normally conducted on a confidential basis, not for the sake of secrecy, nor for any sinister reasons, but for the sake of the good and orderly conduct of examination work, and in the best interests of the candidates."
  I should stress that that is the reason for the manner in which this is done. It is in the best interests of the candidates who, in these circumstances, would be data subjects. The letter continues:
  "Most examining bodies have some subjective element in the determination of their results, some degree of 'fine tuning' … If the disclosure requirements of the Bill were to apply to examination marks and the determination of results, the likely effect would be for this flexibility to be dropped, to be replaced by a more rigid system which could be justified in absolute terms in correspondence with enquirers or complainants, so avoiding arguments about the application of any subjective element."
  As a result, the Bill would operate to the detriment of the data subject—the examinee.
  Another example that was discussed in the other place relates to information given in confidence for references. This is one example of confidential information that could be prejudiced by the Bill. For example, most referees for job applications give a frank and candid account of their opinion of an individual on the basis that that information will not be released to the individual. Referees might be inhibited if the Bill were implemented as it is, and this would not be in the public interest. Clause 30 makes an exemption in this respect for judicial appointments. I do not understand the justification for this. If there is a case for exemption for judicial appointments, there is a case for exemption for almost any other appointment.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North about rectification. The provision on rectification needs to be strengthened and perhaps the Consumer Credit Act would provide a good model.
  Clause 16 deals with powers of entry. A useful provision would be to require the registrar, if he were to take computer information away, to ensure that the data user was allowed to keep a copy, because his business could be disrupted if he were not allowed to keep a copy and the information was removed from his premises without any notification.
  Having expressed those individual worries, I return to my opinion that the balance of the Bill is wrong. I believe that it should be aimed at dealing with aspects of a sensitive nature—often information held by large organisations or Government Departments. There is no need for registration in the universal sense in which the Bill seeks to apply it. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who said that we should reject the Bill. The Bill constitutes a useful step forward, but I have reservations about it.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill has already been subjected to various criticisms with which I and my colleagues agree. It was an admission by the Secretary of State that gave away the game as to the reasons for which the Bill has been introduced. He said that it was to ensure that the industry of information technology could flourish, that our industrial trading position should be protected and because the Government were afraid of sanctions being applied against us by our partners in the European trading network.
  Belatedly, reluctantly, and, it is clear, inappropriately, the Government are trying to comply with expectations that others have of us. As the explanatory and financial

  593
  memorandum says, the Bill's purpose is to implement last year's White Paper and to ratify the European convention of 1981. The purpose of the Bill should be entirely otherwise. A Bill with this subject should ensure that before we reached 1984 individuals were protected against the traffic of information that was against the interests of their liberty.
  I was pleased to hear both from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the defects that the Bill seeks to remedy are attributed to the fact that we do not have a bill of rights. If we had enshrined in our law, as we should have had long ago, a right for an individual to know what records were kept about him or her, we should not have the problems with which we are trying to deal in the Bill.
  The commercial lobby has rightly been pressing for a Bill to deal with some of the problems with which this Bill seeks to grapple. However, the Government are doing what is either the minimum or slightly less than the minimum, depending on whether the Bill complies with the convention—something that we may later discover. The Bill does very little to protect the individual and many things to endanger him. It is apparent now that, as one of today's daily papers said, our problem is that
  "having offered a glimpse of this promised land of a more accessible information system, the Bill brings down shutters, not only in the exemptions but because … it will remain simple and quite legal for anyone to sift sensitive information"
  into a manual system instead of into an information and computer based one. There is no warning to the individual about where those records are kept.
  The debate in the other House ended with a contribution from my noble Friend Lord Avebury. I was delighted to hear him quoted by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Where better to look for inspiration than to a Liberal peer? My noble Friend prophesied on 24 March that the professions would wake up to the dangers that the Bill presents. It is clear that since then they have done so, and have written to hon. Members and to the national press. If a Government Bill receives eight pages of criticism from the Society of Conservative Lawyers, there must be something wrong.
  The Liberal party will oppose the Bill not today but later unless there are, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, radical—I add fundamental and substantial—modifications in Committee. We are not against data protection. Indeed, we are passionately and wholeheartedly for it. However, we are against a pretence of data protection while the gathering of unchecked and uncheckable information in many important personal and private aspects of individuals' lives goes on apace.
  The Liberal party has objections to the nature of the Bill. After the ridiculously long preparation in its conception, the Bill in haste applies the wrong principles and starts from the wrong end. That is nowhere more manifest than in the definition clauses which follow the pattern of inadequate and loose definition set in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. What is more, the Bill is not extensive or sophisticated enough.
  We should want a Bill on this subject to achieve four things that this Bill does not achieve. They are all things that have been carefully rehearsed as arguments for a Bill of this nature since the Younger report in 1972 and the
  594
  Lindop report in 1978. First, as many hon. Members have said, we should remove the unnecessary expense and requirement for much of industry to register every species of system that would encumber businesses that already have enough difficulty in operating.
  Secondly—and this is most important—we should need to make sure that the exemption provisions that are completely without definition and are wide beyond any acceptable limit are carefully restricted in a way that allows both the country and the individual to be satisfied that Big Brother is not having the opportunity wherever it counts to keep information that is unchecked by the individual.
  Thirdly, we complain bitterly about the concept of the registrar. I share the view of those who have said today that a job of this nature and importance cannot be taken on by a registrar, however eminent, and 20 staff. He will not have the resources to investigate complaints, nor will he have the opportunity to do much of the work that the Bill requires from the time that it is enacted.
  The fourth substantial criticism is that it is the Home Secretary—the member of the Government who runs the Government Department holding the most sensitive personal information, whether it be immigration, police or prison records, national security information and other matters—who is to be responsible for almost every major area of the Bill's development and of the monitoring of information. It is the Home Secretary who will appoint members of the tribunals which are to hear appeals from the registrar, and it is the Home Secretary who will be responsible for making regulations and for fixing the budget of the registrar.
  Those are the four substantial objections and complaints about the Bill, and those are the four areas on which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will seek to modify it in Committee.
  I deal briefly with one or two specific clauses before I come finally to the major area of concern, which is clause 28 and the exemptions that it provides.
  Clause 2 has already been much criticised. The sort of data to be protected is limited to what is at the moment a very small area of the data on individuals. It is those records kept manually or capable of being transferred to be kept manually which will fall outside the provisions of the Bill.
  Under clause 3, I have already criticised the nature of the responsibility and accountability of the tribunal members and the nature and strength of the office of the registrar. A further substantial objection is that it is proposed that the registrar will only be able to start enforcing the powers given him within two years of the Bill coming into operation. Such a period will allow all sorts of alterations of the places where information is kept and allow all sorts of abuse, because two years, with the knowledge that the shutters are to come down, can be used very well by those with malicious or other unhelpful intent.
  Under clause 4, there should be a requirement to record and register systems as well as users. We are aware of the problem of the Government Departments which have many different systems under which information about an individual might be recorded for all sorts of reasons. It is not sufficient for the user, when that user is as large as a substantial Government Department, to decide the way in which the record is made.

  595
  The access of an individual to the records is wholly inadequate. How is anyone to know who has records about him? The obligation should be in the other direction. The obligation should be upon those bodies who keep the records to tell the individual that they have the records, and the individual should be entitled to check their accuracy. That extends even to criminal records in respect of the individual who is recorded in that category—and even to security records within the criminal category. There is no reason why the individual in question should not be allowed to see the records about him. As the Home Office admits, the possibility otherwise is that the individual's option to investigate what records are kept about him will be hardly used, because the individual will not know that the records are there and, if he does know, he will have to pay on each occasion that he requires to discover what records are kept.
  The principle set out clearly in the Lindop report has been turned round. A possible way of describing the Bill is to say that it is Lindop on its head. Lindop on its head is not satisfactory.
  Other hon. Members have discussed the problems and inadequacies of the clauses in part III. How can individuals in many cases be expected to prove damage to them caused by inaccurately stored information? How will it be possible for them to correct the information when they do not know that it is there to be corrected?
  I do not have to reiterate the arguments which have been advanced against part IV and clauses 27 and 28, which allow the exemptions of national security, the control of immigration, the assessment or collection of tax or duty and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders as well as the prevention and detection of crime to be continued and data to be transferred between the bodies which deal with those bulk amounts of information.
  It is the experience of many of us that people have information about us which is inaccurate and the source of which we find it difficult to discover. My personal experience recently is a minor one. A reminder to renew a television licence was sent to an address three miles from my own to a person with the same surname. It happened to be my younger brother, who had moved from my address. He had never owned a television set, but the Bristol televison licence centre sent him a reminder to his new address, and inquiries by me failed to reveal how information had reached the licence centre that anyone with that surname had moved to that address from mine. That minor example shows the sort of instance when one should be entitled to obtain information.
  We have heard instances of people being the subject of inaccurate information when applying for mortgages. Council tenants may be the subject of inaccurate information when they apply for transfers and can only know details of the points that they have instead of the reasons why they are given those points.
  But perhaps the most important aspect which has not been dealt with in sufficient detail is that everyone in the country has records about himself or herself under one of the two major categories—those held by the Inland Revenue, and those held by the Department of Health and Social Security. There are some 45 million people on DHSS records, and the DHSS planners have set out their plans to reference and index their systems of information in a comprehensive computer network. A person's record will appear under his national insurance number. The key to it will be a very simple one allowing much of the
  596
  information to be retrieved: the national insurance number, the location of the records, and the name and address and date of birth of the individual concerned. Similar information is on the police national computer, and Inland Revenue officials tell us that within a few years they will have computerised in a similar way PAYE, tax and other records of theirs.
  In a year or two it will be all too easy to have transfers between the great bodies of state which hold the bulk of the information. There is an open-ended risk and the frightening possibility of all sorts of information being transferred if the exemptions in clauses 27 and 28 are not reduced substantially, and soon.
  Although in some respects the Bill is welcome, it is a way of building towards Big Brother if it is not amended substantially. It is too little and, as the Government themselves admit, it is nearly too late. The Secretary of State said that we ought not to overreach ourselves unnecessarily. It is not to do the unnecessary that we need to work hard to make sure that no legislation such as this gets through the House. It is to do the necessary that we should have done a long time ago to protect not only the industry of information technology but the individuals whose prosperity and progress information technology is intended to benefit.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Although my view of the Bill is inevitably coloured by the fact that I spent much of my working life in the computer industry, I see it as a positive merit that the Bill will help in further encouraging information technology in this country. I was disappointed to hear someone on the Opposition Benches decry the Bill apparently for that reason. I hope that Liberal Members will take a more open view of the matter on Third Reading, consider what is in the Bill at that time, and, if it is not positively bad, vote for it.
  I could make many criticisms of the Bill. I wish that it were a better Bill, and I hope that, before we have finished with it, it will be a better Bill.
  The Bill starts with a practical and useful objective. If it achieves that objective, it will have performed a useful service, and for that reason it should be supported. The fact that it does not do all hat one would wish it to do is surely not a reason for voting against it on Third Reading.
  Another point that I wish to put to the hon. Member for Bermondsey is that in the four years following the 1975 White Paper, the Labour Government, despite the Lib-Lab pact, did absolutely nothing to bring in data protection regulation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think about that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It was not for lack of support from the smaller part of the partnership at the time, but, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the fact that time ran out, as with the previous Labour Administration, that that Bill did not become law in that period.
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, but it is only four years since this Government came in, arid they have managed to bring forward this Bill. I was saying that the Labour Government, supported by the Liberal party, did not find four years sufficient time to bring in the appropriate legislation.

  597
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made rather a good speech this afternoon. I agree with much of what he said. If I thought that he really believed some of the words in the latter part of his speech, that might be a reason for voting against the Bill, but somehow I think that he did not wholly believe in the somewhat horrendous images that he conjured up.
  Any Home Secretary who brought before the House a Bill of this character would be a sitting duck. No Home Secretary could introduce legislation of this character and believe that he would get an easy ride through the House. No doubt that is why the Lib-Lab pact failed to come up with the answer before. It did not have the courage to carry through a plan that could become legislation. At least my right hon. Friend has done that. I shall have certain things to say that he will not like, but I am glad that he has brought forward this legislation, not only for the specific and practical reason that it will help the information technology industry, but because it contains some good things, not least the principles that are set out in schedule 1. Opposition Members should bear in mind that the Bill will be a step forward if only because it puts on record the fact that these are the principles which are to guide personal data held by data users. Let us remind ourselves briefly of the principles.
  The first principle is that the information shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully. That is an important principle. Public anxiety in this respect stems from the fact that data have not always been obtained and processed fairly and lawfully.
  The second principle is that personal data shall be held only for specified and lawful purposes. I am paraphrasing, because I do not want to detain the House by quoting all the schedule.
  The third principle is that personal data shall not be used or disclosed in a manner that is incompatible with these purposes. I hope that the hon. Member for Bermondsey will stop me if there is anything that he wants to vote against.
  The fourth principle is that personal data shall be
  "relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose"
  for which it is used.
  Fifthly, data shall be accurate and kept up to date. The sixth principle is that personal data shall not be kept for longer than is necessary.
  The seventh principle is perhaps the most important—that an individual shall be entitled to be informed when a data user holds information of which that individual is the subject. One of the most valuable parts of the Bill is that an individual shall be entitled to access to any such data and to have any such data "corrected or erased" in appropriate circumstances. In my opinion, those principles constitute a major advance on any legislation that we have at present, and I hope that Opposition Members will bear that in mind.
  I am a little more sceptical about the eighth principle:
  "Appropriate security measures shall be taken against unauthorised access to, or alteration, disclosure or destruction of, personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of personal data."
  It is an admirable sentiment. I should have thought that any well-organised computer department would do all those things as a matter of routine. The situation is more problematical for smaller installations. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) reminded us that
  598
  the Bill will reach some of the smallest computers in the country. I dare say that their problem will be to make sure that they do not lose the data altogether.
  As far as I am aware—perhaps Opposition Members had not taken this fact fully into account—there is no enormous public demand for this legislation and for the even more advanced legislation that some hon. Members have advocated. In a pub, canteen or club, one does not hear intense discussions about the need for data protection legislation. Public concern is more about unsolicited direct mail or matters which are probably better dealt with in consumer credit legislation than in this legislation. What worries people most is the possibility that data used for a particular, legitimate and sensible purpose might be transmitted unlawfully to third parties.
  Again, the Bill should be supported on Second Reading if only because it introduces part III, dealing with the rights of data subjects. In clauses 21 to 25 specific rights are available to data subjects—rights which have never been available before to people in this country on such a generalised basis. These are all important and useful steps.
  We have heard quite a lot from the more strident elements in the civil rights lobby, but I think that their main targets are outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill is not necessarily the worse for that. If those people want a Bill that deals with some of the matters about which they have talked, by all means let them press for them, but this Bill is no worse for not having them. It might have been better with them, but that is a different matter. May I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that the great black hole about transfers between the protected and unprotected areas in the Bill give that lobby something to latch on to. That matter will have to be dealt with in Committee.
  There is some concern about the privacy of an individual who could be identified by the data subject. That aspect of the Bill does not seem to have been referred to. It may be that I have misunderstood the Bill. It is all very well to arrange that information about a person must be disclosed, but if in disclosing that information the reasonable privacy of some other person is breached, we should also consider the protection of that individual. I shall refer to that matter in a slightly different way when I come to examination results and so on.
  I shall give an example of the kind of thing that I have in mind. Apparently, Germany introduced a splendid system for checking the speed of road vehicles, part of which included the ability to take a photograph of the front of the vehicle at the time that the vehicle's speed was registered. That was fine. It helped positively to identify who had committed an offence. However, it had unforeseen consequences. Several times when someone was up before the beak for a minor motoring offence, there were all sorts of unexpected and unfortunate consequences, such as divorce actions, because the picture revealed persons in the vehicle who were not expected to have been there. In that instance, the German authorities had so to organise their cameras that they photographed that part of the vehicle below the level of the windscreen in order to protect the individual privacy of the motorist. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will consider whether some aspects that are otherwise good about requiring a data subject to have information that is held about him will also have regard to the privacy of anyone who legitimately might have provided that information.

  599
  Council house points systems have been referred to at least twice, once by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and once by the hon. Member for Bermondsey. They asked why people should not know not only the points system that they had been allocated and its basis but the reasons for those points. That raises a difficult question, for example, about medical opinions. Do we think that it is appropriate that medical practitioners' opinions of the degree of medical need of a potential tenant should be given by the local authority to that individual? I am not sure about the answer to that question. I suspect that we probably do not, because, if we did insist that such information should be given to the tenant, the source of useful information to a local authority in determining its proper allocations according to need might well dry up. We should end up with anodyne remarks from medical officers if they knew that those remarks would be made immediately available to the potential tenant.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can help us—we may need such help quickly—because I am puzzled as to whether canvassing records fall within the ambit of the Bill. As the Bill stands, it seems that if canvassing records are held in a computer, that would be data requiring the computer system to be registered, whereas, if canvassing records are held off line, it would not. That matter is distinct from membership of a club, which was raised earlier when we discussed whether the Social Democratic party was a club or a party.
  We must give credit to the Government for taking the kind of stick that they knew they would get this afternoon. The hon. Member for Bermondsey said that it leapt out as an admission that the Government's real motivation was to assist the information technology industry. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology and others frequently declare in many forums that among the Bill's objectives was the achievement of that end. It is not an admission; it is clearly one of the Bill's objectives. The Government knew that the Bill would have a difficult passage in many respects, and it is all credit to my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends that they have introduced it.
  The Computing Services Association has particularly welcomed the Bill. I should have to take its view a little more enthusiastically if it had not turned out to be one of the few organisations whose spokesmen seem to think that there is something good in the Labour party's recent policy document. It rather makes me wonder whether the Computing Services Association's view is as valuable as I had previously thought. No doubt its members will sort out its spokesmen in due course.
  Not least is the fact that the Bill will enable Britain to fulfil its obligations under the European convention. It is a pity that the European convention is becoming a little elderly. As has been said, it was drawn up a long time ago. If it were drawn up today, I think that it would be drawn up rather differently, and we should find it easier to draft a more sensible and better Bill.
  I accept that the Bill has practical objectives, but I am not sure whether the means by which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to implement them are as practical as I should have liked. Let us look, first, at the major issue of the distinction between computer and other data. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who mentioned word processors, that they are merely computers with particular software which
  600
  enables them to carry out word processing activities. I have no doubt that many hon. Members have been looking at the beauties of word processing systems for their own purposes. I am sure that they will find among the benefits not only that they can turn out letters to order with variants thereof, but that they allow an index of files to be kept and names and addresses of people in categories.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker:I apologise for missing my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. but he is right about word processors. They are minicomputers—first-stage computers. I am sure that he will accept that they store personal data. It may not be very sensitive—I doubt whether in many cases it is—but surely the danger is that they are the recipients of large amounts of varied information which is thoroughly boring, uninteresting, not at all sensitive, not what the Bill ought to be concerned about or what the data subjects are concerned about, but which could give rise to an immense amount of work.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I agree. In many ways word processors came along after computers, not because they were different in hardware terms, but because clever software made a computer do easily and readily that which can be done by a typist.
  The Bill says that sin is all right except when it is on a computer. That is why there is a weakness in the principles of the Bill. There is no distinction in nature between data held in a manual system and data held in a computer, especially when one considers that the security of data held in a computer is almost certainly infinitely superior to that of data held in a manual system. It is easy, relatively speaking, to break into a filing cabinet or to examine what is in a file on someone's desk and to understand the contents of that file. It takes a specialised nosey parker to break into a computer in an unauthorised way and extract the information he wants on a particular party. The House is considering the most secure aspect of data holding but measures must be taken to ensure that nothing goes wrong when a vast area of manual records exists containing personal data that are far less secure. I am concerned with the scope for cheating that arises from the terms of the Bill because of the distinction drawn between manual and computer records.
  The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) in an interesting speech asked when is a computer not a computer. One clever answer to that question might have been: "When it is a telephone." Nowadays, a microprocessor is often embodied in a telephone to make it a little cleverer. Given that a microprocessor in the telephone can store addresses, telephone numbers and names, and can even dial numbers, that seems to be a computer system within the meaning of this Bill. It is holding personal data that can be accessed by another person. I hope that the Bill does not encompass that unless the scale of personal data so held is substantial. Most telephones hold only dozens of data. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) might be able to give the House more information about that. There is no reason why a telephone cannot have held within it hundreds, or indeed thousands, of names and addresses, telephone numbers and other data. That is not the intention of the Bill, which is related to the processing and storing of records on data subjects. That is why it is slightly unfortunate that the European convention came

  601
  out as long ago as it did, because it is out of date in this respect. It must be clarified when the Committee examines the Bill in due course.
  Mr. John Golding: Would that not be covered by clause 1(2)?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes. That is why I said that the telephone apparatus that I was describing would be encompassed within the Bill and would be data to be protected accordingly. That is how I read the definition to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has referred:
  "'Data' means information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose."
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable flexibility under the convention? I think that he was suggesting that the Government were tied very strongly by the terms of the convention. That is not the case. The convention is pretty loose. It is a bit old. It is a pity that it was put forward so long ago. The Government's hands are not quite as tied as he might suggest.
  Mr. Henderson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He has a better understanding of the legal aspects of this matter than I. Back Benchers are not concerned with how the Bill will fit with the convention. We must take the word of the Front Bench, with all its expert advice, that the Bill will meet the requirements of the convention. I accept that as a sine qua non. If the Bill did not meet the requirements of the convention in spirit the House would not really be performing a useful operation in carrying it through.
  A practical problem that arises from the distinction between manual and computer records is that it seems perfectly possible to have coded references on line pointing to off-line data and still not be caught by the data protection regulations, although that is one system of retaining information about persons. Until that loophole is closed, there is a weakness in the legislation. In case it might be thought that I am talking of hypothetical situations, I wish to refer to a paper that was produced by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom on 25 January 1983. It said:
  "There remains, however, the problem of computerised records held by individual universities containing information on students' examination results and assessment records."
  It refers to.
  "the view of universities that it would be unacceptable to allow students access to confidential information of this nature and that it would be a retrograde step if legislation forced universities to transfer these records to manual systems."
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North referred to a similar position in schools. He was arguing that children ought to have access to such details. The university vice-chancellors and principals are arguing that students ought not to have access. I do not think that it is for hon. Members to make a judgment at this stage on that subject. It is not something immediately before the House, although it may arise in Committee. The fact that records of personal data kept manually would not be available to the data subject, but, if they go on to a computer would have to be made available to the data subject will decide
  602
  the way in which data records are handled. There is the distinction in the Bill between computer records and any other records. That is one more reason why it is extremely unfortunate that there is this artificial distinction.
  A real anxiety of people is whether they are getting a fair deal when accurate or inaccurate data are held about them, be it on a manual or on a computerised system. A much greater danger, about which nothing can be done, is what the old boy network says about them, perhaps based on entirely erroneous data. There is no way at present that one can prevent a bad word being passed on, perhaps over the telephone. There is no way that anyone can check what was said about a person, whether it was valid or whether they have any right to know what was said about them.
  Registration has made the Government make the artificial distinction between manual and computer records. If I can persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that registration is not needed, perhaps manual record keeping can be embraced within the ambit of the legislation. That would be valuable and worth while.
  Nothing that the Home Secretary said in opening this debate did anything to change the minds of several of my hon. Friends who felt that the nature of the Bill would result in virtually every commercial computer system in the country having to register. I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the then Minister of State, Home Office, asking whether routine pay rolls, purchase ledgers and sales ledger information would be within the ambit of the legislation. From what he said then, I understood that that was so. At that point, there was no end to the number of computer systems that the legislation would embrace. I think that it was the hon. Member for Cannock who suggested that we could make a distinction between perfectly normal routine commercial transactions and others. Originally, I pursued that line, but I do not now think that that is the right way to go about things. Nowadays, an automatic part of a sales ledger package is a payments history, which really gives the sort of personal data, including creditworthiness, that the Bill is concerned with.
  Therefore, perhaps we should face the fact that, just as it is inappropriate to make a distinction between computer and manually held data on card indexes or whatever, it is probably wrong to distinguish between routine commercial transactions and others. I do not believe for one moment that 20 people will handle this vast registration process effectively or competently or with any guarantee that the Bill's intentions will be fulfilled by the registrar. We shall have something of a bureaurcratic monster, with a little minnow at the tail in the form of the directorate, which will try to give the impression that we have real data protection. Those involved will be unable to see the wood for the trees. Perhaps we could get away from the idea of registration and simply say that for all practical purposes every computer system and any manual system that is holding personal records should be required to fulfil certain obligations, such as the principles described in schedule 1 and in the Bill's very valuable part III.
  If there were a duty on every computer operator and user to behave in the way set out in the Bill and if anyone caught behaving otherwise was clobbered, it might provide a more valuable approach than the massive registration process envisaged. If there is to be any

  603
  registration, it should involve those who professionally handle data on people with a view to selling it, albeit legitimately. It gives rise to legitimate anxiety if data on someone are held and stored with a view to selling them to a third party. It may well be worth registering that, but to register every computer system in the country would be ridiculous.
  The goodies who are trying to do what they want to do, but who on occasion make an error, are likely to be hurt as things stand, whereas those who have clever lawyers and clever computer technology people at their beck and call could still do the sort of thing that we do not want to see. If improvements can be made in the distinction between computer and manual systems and in getting away from the concept of registration as being at the heart of the matter, the Bill could be vastly improved. However, I am grateful for the fact that we are at least legislating after all these years.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: Unlike numerous speakers with interests in computer firms or small or large businesses, I have no interest to declare. I decided to speak in the debate on behalf of ordinary folk, because they do not usually own computers although they are for the most part the subject matter of information held by them.
  The Bill is long overdue, but it is still quite unsatisfactory. Numerous Opposition Members have said that we shall not object to the Bill this evening. However, in Committee we hope to see some logical and sensible changes. It is obvious that 1984 is with us and that "Big Brother is watching you".
  There is a growing awareness about records and it is a regrettable fact that they instil great fear in ordinary people. The computer industry and information technology seem only to serve big business. They certainly do not serve ordinary people. There is growing anxiety and unease. Indeed, I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have received many letters from constituents who are concerned about the number of channels directing computerised information at them. There are the regular debt collectors, and the book clubs which, through inefficiency, make demands on our constituents for debts that they do not owe. That is all part of the mish-mash and inefficiency that is often found in the computer industry.
  Although we do not oppose the Bill, we must ask whether it is effective enough. Obviously, in the world of information technology there are many grave abuses. Fleeting reference has been made to human rights. We have fallen far short of the mark of achieving human rights for ordinary people. We lag seriously behind the rest of Europe. Ever since January 1981, we have been waiting for the convention to be ratified. Unlike some hon. Members, I do not believe that the Government were very enthusiastic about introducing the Bill. It is only a sop with which they hope to gain some respectability. We have been waiting for ratification for a long time yet the Bill, as many hon. Members have said, is inadequate.
  I thought it might be useful to make some comparisons and to look at the recommendations of the 21-nation Council of Europe. The preamble to the Council of Europe's document is quite different from the Bill. It sets out the need for a convention, saying:
  "Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity between its members based in particular on
  604
  respect for the rule of law as well as human rights and fundamental freedoms; considering that it is desirable to expand the safeguards for everyone's rights and fundamental freedoms and in particular the right to the respect for privacy; taking into account the increasing flow across frontiers of personal data undergoing automatic processing and confirming at the same time their commitment to freedom of information regardless of frontiers; recognising that it is necessary to reconcile the fundamental values of respect for privacy and the free now of information between peoples".
  The convention has 27 articles, with which I basically agree. They include information that may not be recorded, such as religious beliefs, political opinions, racial origins, sexual life and so on. The Bill falls far short of the convention's recommendations.
  I seriously question whether the penalties in the Bill are sufficiently heavy. A serious abuse of information could ruin a person for the remainder of his life. It is difficult to assess adequately the amount of compensation for the hurt and damage that may have been caused. Far more serious sanctions should be imposed on people who are negligent in keeping correct information.
  The Bill refers only to computerisation of records and related types of equipment. As other speakers have said, there is no mention of other methods of record keeping. It is a pity that card files and films are not included. On occasions films are taken that could have serious implications for a person.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) referred to children's school records. There was a major uproar in Manchester when we decided to examine the types of files and records kept on children. We felt that there should be a radical rethink about the collection of information and the appropriate types of information that should be kept on school children. We also examined access. We found that teachers who had nothing to do with certain children from other classes had free access to their records. That practice has now ceased. We also gave serious thought to locked files. Many departments of local authorities, such as social services, housing and education, have locked information that can seriously concern people, especially those on whom the information is kept.
  Before I entered the House I worked in the engineering industry. Any trade unionist in that industry knows of the consequences vindictive managements keeping unjustified records of their workers. We call them blacklists. Those lists can condemn workers—usually trade unionists—to unemployment. Craftsmen are often unable to find work with their skilled trades for the remainder of their working lives. The lists are compiled by prejudiced management, and no sanction can be used to stop that. Some sense must be introduced into the legislation to provide a controlling influence on those who unjustifiably keep such records. I have once or twice previously mentioned records kept by industry. We must wait no longer. The time has come to include a clause in the legislation to protect ordinary people.
  The Opposition do not oppose the Bill, but they hope that it will be sharpened to make it more palatable to, and protective of, ordinary people—rather than big business, small business and the computer industry.
  The Home Secretary said that the legislation would be controlled by a team of 20 people and a registrar. That is wholly inadequate. The proliferation of the ownership of computer systems and the hundreds and thousands of computers on the market pumping out all sorts of information—often intimate information about ordinary

  605
  people—makes it impossible for such a small team to have any real influence. The legislation must be monitored, and when it is found that the team is inadequate, the number must be greatly increased. There are more than 50 million people in this country and there are millions of files. It is simple to collect information—often unnecessary information—and store it on computers. Before we know it, computers will record colour of eyes and hair, whether a person wears glasses, whether he has one leg and so on. Guidelines must be issued showing what information is appropriate for recording on computer files.
  A great deal of information is being collected that is wholly unnecessary to the operations of businesses and computer firms. Yet because of a whim and a feeling that the technology is great and can perform so many tricks, more information is pumped in. We must question the justification for keeping unnecessary information.
  The Bill does not go far enough. If the Government have an open mind and a genuine intention to improve the lot of ordinary people, they must give an undertaking tonight that when the team of 20 and the registrar are found to be inadequate, the numbers will be reconsidered. I hope that the Government will also seriously examine the type of information that it is proper to record and issue guidelines to companies.
  The Bill is wholly inadequate. I hope that the Government do not beat their chest and boast that it is a great Bill. It is a face-saving measure because Britain is part of the Council of Europe. The convention has lain on the table for two years, awaiting support from the United Kingdom. That is the only reason why this half-baked Bill is before the House. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction on both sides of the House because of the Bill's inadequacies.
  8 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I last addressed the House on this subject a year ago this month in an Adjournment debate which I had secured on a Friday afternoon. The House will not be surprised to know that at that time the subject interested the press. I was booked for radio and television and the national press was taking a tremendous interest in the subject, but then, on that very day—2 April—the Argentines invaded the Falkland Islands, and my Adjournment debate faded into insignificance. The Argentines had a total disregard for the people living on the Falkland Islands and, indeed, for my Adjournment debate. I am a little nervous because I have secured the Adjournment debate this Friday.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) said that pubs and clubs were not discussing data protection. In my opinion, they should be because, whether they like it or not, they are data subjects. Everybody in the United Kingdom is affected in some way because information somewhere is being collected and stored about them.
  Privacy and protection is a difficult subject to define. However, I shall consider three forms of rights to privacy. First, we have what can be regarded as general rights, usually specified as protection from intrusion in domestic affairs and from surveillance, harassment, exposure and embarrassment. Secondly, there are specific legal rights which touch on privacy, such as those protected by the laws on confidence, defamation, trespass or contract.
  606
  Thirdly, we have what are best described as procedural rights such as the rules governing the use of personal information, especially that required compulsorily by Government, banks, insurance companies, credit card agencies and bodies such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea and the central police computer. This information includes school records, medical records and so on. Today the House concentrates on the third area—data protection—but before moving on to my central theme I should like to say a few words about other areas of privacy.
  I am still deeply concerned about the spread of telephone tapping, surveillance of the Royal Mail, the bugging of premises and so on. It appals me how easily electronic devices can be purchased in the United Kingdom by individuals or private detectives to intrude illegally on people's privacy. I know that the Home Office is taking this matter very seriously and I applaud it for that. I hope that we shall have a debate on that subject on another occasion.
  It should be understood that personal information, especially financial information, whether obtained improperly or legitimately for a specific purpose from the subject or a third party, with or without his knowledge or consent, gains a currency and value of its own. It is quite alarming how such information is traded without reference to the interests or wishes of the subject and can be, and indeed is, used as the basis of important decisions, such as the refusal of credit or employment, without the possibility of redress or, in most cases, the knowledge of what has caused the refusal. Data protection must place a great responsibility on those who gather and store information. How many overseas contracts are we losing because we are not paying enough attention to data protection? If international companies gain access to our computer data they will know our quotation price for, as an example, a power station worth £750 million. When prizes are big, people will do all sorts of things for information. To gain export guarantee facilities companies are required to reveal to the Export Credits Guarantee Department a breakdown of the price. When the sealed bids are opened overseas on the same day, is it any wonder that we lose major contracts because of commercial espionage? It is common knowledge that banks lose millions of pounds from computer fraud, but I do not expect confirmation of that because it might lead to a loss of depositor confidence in the banks.
  Computers are wonderful tools of commerce, industry and Government but a memory bank is like a sieve. I believe that we need a data protection squad of computer experts reporting to an independent data protection authority who would act like ferrets, hunting and delving into any scent of infiltration or intrusion into privacy. I am not convinced that our friend, the registrar, with his 20-strong team, will be big enough for the job. I do not know whether we can broach that matter in Committee, but it must be considered seriously.
  There are examples of negligent care and disposal of manual records which have convinced me that they should at least be subject to general data protection principles, even though, on practical grounds, registration would not be possible. It may not be possible to register and supervise manual records, but they must be subject to sanction for not adhering to the general principles. It was accepted in the debate in the other place that the long title

  607
  of the Bill will not permit the inclusion in it of manual records, but I shall continue to press vigorously for manual records to be covered in subsequent legislation.
  When the Home Secretary announced that the United Kingdom would sign the new European convention at an early date, it was disappointing that he said at the same time that he would not set up an independent data protection authority. That is the condition for any credible data protection legislation and the basis for all the European data protection laws. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is in an impossible position. In all the hundreds of Government computer memory banks which hold personal information—health, social security, taxation and many other areas of the citizens' private life—there are only three with interests hostile to the people with whom they deal—police intelligence, national security and immigration. The Home Office is responsible for all three.
  In a great effort to protect the work of the Department it is possible that any legislation to protect individuals' privacy will be diluted. I do not suggest that it would be done wilfully—I am not questioning the integrity of civil servants in the Home Office or of Ministers—but it is a great temptation for the Home Office. The Home Office may not be the right Department to present such legislation, but we have to press on and try to make a good Bill of it for the sake of individuals. We must monitor how the exemptions work and we must watch carefully how the registrar system works. We must give it a try.
  The issue of statutory protection for automatically handled personal information was first assessed in the Younger report in 1972. It was established by the Conservative Government in 1970 as an examining body. It established a series of principles to apply to the handling of information. The Council of Europe analysed the issues at length throughout the following decade and in 1981 produced the European convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data. The convention was signed by the United Kingdom in May 1981. Consequently, it became necessary to introduce legislation so that the convention could be ratified, and that is what we are doing now.
  The Bill was drafted in the light of the report of the Lindop committee of 1978, which was set up by the Labour Government in 1976 to examine the issues and make proposals for possible legislation. The report was an extensive analysis of the problems of operating a satisfactory scheme of privacy safeguards. It contained a wide review of data protection matters. It proposed the establishment of legislation based upon the principles outlined by the Younger committee. However, it contained two sections which the Government felt that they could not accept. First, it proposed a multi-member data protection authority to enforce legislation. The Government rejected that proposal in favour of an individual registrar who would be independent of Government.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who was then the Minister of State, Home Office, addressed a meeting of the Parliamentary Information and Technology Committee on 4 May 1982. He said:
  "We believe that this will keep to a minimum the burden placed on resources; and will also encourage action to be taken rapidly and efficiently by a person with real authority. Our Registrar will not have representatives of various interest groups sitting alongside him; but he will have ample opportunity to
  608
  acquaint himself with their views in the course of his duty. The key point is that the independence of the overseeing body … must not be in doubt."
  Secondly, the report recommended codes of practice which would have created a host of new criminal offences. The Government did not consider that it was right constitutionally to confer responsibility for drafting criminal law on an independent authority which would not have the competence to undertake a task that is properly one for Government and Parliament.
  My right hon. Friend addressed the BMA conference on data protection on 15 September 1981. He said:
  "In our approach we … concentrated on putting the responsibilities where we believe they belong … Our concern will be to establish a sound basic framework capable of being built on and expanded progressively with more detailed provisions as we gain experience."
  Part I of the Bill establishes an independent data protection registrar. He is to be appointed by the Crown to enforce certain personal data principles with respect to the holding of information on computers. The principles are set out in clause 2 and schedule 1. Schedule 1 provides that personal data
  "shall be obtained, and personal data shall be processed, fairly and lawfully … shall be held only for one or more specified and lawful purposes … shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose … shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date and … shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or … kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."
  That sounds an improvement to me, but I come to the part of the schedule which I like best, which is based on protection of the individual. Probably everybody in the United Kingdom will be entitled
  "at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense"
  to have access to data of which he is the subject and "where appropriate" he may have
  "such data corrected or erased".
  The provisions continue by stating
  "unauthorised access to, or alteration, disclosure or destruction of, personal data and … accidental loss or destruction of … data"
  shall be subject to appropriate security measures.
  Part II of the schedule deals with the
  "Registration and Supervision of Data Users"
  and is largely in accord with the European convention. Much has been said about the registration duties of computer owners. The registrar and his small team of about 20 will face a mammoth task in ensuring that they carry out these duties. The owner of a computer must supply his
  "name and address … a description of the personal data to be held by him and of the purposes for which the data are to be held or used … a description of the source or sources of … detach … a description of any … persons (other than the data subjects in question) to whom he intends or may wish to disclose the data; the names … of any countries … outside the United Kingdom to which he intends or may wish to transfer the data; and one or more addresses of individuals who will be responsible for dealing with requests from data subjects for access to the data."
  The registrar will be required to maintain a register containing specified details of users, including personal details. The register will be open to public scrutiny and it will be an offence to operate in contravention of the registered detail. The latter provision is especially important.
  The Bill will enable data protection arrangements in Britain to be consistent with standards that have been adopted in other European countries. It will ensure an

  609
  atmosphere in which there is confidence that individual citizens are not being put at risk by the spread of new technology.
  In Committee I should like to see a move towards codes of practice. The Bill is proposed general legislation that covers at least 50 different categories of organisation that collect information about individuals. Many of the criticisms of the Bill arise from its general nature. Its application will vary according to which category of data user is involved. Codes will be needed to interpret how the general data protection principles apply to each category so that both data users and subjects will have clear guidance on how to proceed. The registrar must have the power to ensure that the spirit of the data protection principles is observed. The way in which data subjects proceed to obtain information and advise and complain is especially unclear as the Bill stands. Separate codes could more usefully spell out the steps that individuals should follow in the same way as, for example, consumer credit legislation specifies how individuals can obtain information about themselves and how to change that information if it is incorrect.
  Having referred the devious ways in which personal details are used in response to applications for credit and employment, I shall provide other examples of misuse. A great deal of information is required if an individual is to qualify for certain credit cards. The information must be supported by evidence from the individual's bank, his accountant and his company. If the print-outs of the credit card company's clients are delivered into the hands of mailing companies, the result is that unsolicited material arrives through the post, which can be a great nuisance. Whether such lists are obtained unlawfully or legitimately, they provide a list of individuals whose earnings are above a certain salary. A mailing list of executives earning more than a certain salary would result in a better return than a list of lower earners. A list of higher salary earners in the wrong hands would surely be valuable to criminals who specialised in robbing domestic premises.
  I am glad that there will be no Division on the Bill tonight. Both sides of the House believe in the Bill and think that it should proceed to Committee. Most speeches today have expressed nervousness about the Bill's provisions, but everyone agrees that we must have the Bill. I have called for such a Bill for many years, but it must be the right Bill. We must do a fair job in Committee. The Government and the Civil Service must accept sensible amendments. The Opposition must be a real Opposition. We do not want a guillotine because of lengthy speeches on the early clauses with the result that other clauses are not examined in detail. We want to be brisk and to make a good Bill.
  We do not want radical changes, but the Bill will do—as a first step. I hope that the Government appreciate that, if the legislation is approved and tidied up, next time we shall expect more if, in the light of experience, we discover that the registrar system, for instance, does not work, or if the responsibilities involved are not understood properly. I hope that the Government will feel free to think again if the codes of practice are not accepted and the system does not work as we hope.
  Much work is involved for Committee members, but we must make a go of it. Over many years Governments have put the issue to one side and have failed to get on with
  610
  the job. I hope that the Bill will not be used as a political football and that both sides will appreciate the desire for the legislation. I hope that we can work as a team and bring tidier legislation back to the Floor of the House.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. John Golding: I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) on his speech. If he had been in my class at school he would have been given a gold star for reading. In Committee, I am sure that he will be heard at length and Committee members will look forward to that.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to the speech that he prepared 12 months ago, which did not receive the press that it deserved because—if I understand him correctly—it caused the Argentines to invade the Falklands Islands. I hope that he has more success this time. I was put off about the hon. Gentleman's expertise when he talked about putting ferrets into the computers. That is not to be recommended on technical or any other grounds.
  I represent the Post Office Engineering Union, which has had a long interest in data protection and which supports the Bill's general principles but not its detail. One item has become important in the past few weeks. The Telecommunications Bill, which I opposed strongly, contains a safeguards for transmitted information. In the past few weeks it has been revealed that British Telecom may start to provide detailed information about customers' bills. How confidential will that information be? If personal telephone calls are open to scrutiny, that could cause a breach of privacy. I hope that the Minister can explain how the privacy of detailed billing can be safeguarded.
  Other Members have referred to the rights of data subjects, which include the right of access to personal data and rights to compensation, rectification and erasure. I have been the victim of a false computer entry. On a visit to the national exhibition centre, I was shown Prestel. The gentleman showing me the system thought that he would please me by showing me my own entry, among the entries for Members of Parliament, retrieved through electronic means. Immediately the name "Golding, John" appeared on the screen and the entry "Sacked by Michael Foot." I have never been sacked by my right hon. Friend. I have never held an office to be sacked from. I immediately started to try to rectify the defect. The incident brought home to me the dangers involved in the holding of such information. I had to send a message to a faceless databank, informing it that its information was inaccurate. My right hon. Friend may have wished to sack me, but one cannot sack anyone who does not hold office. That information would have been transmitted to and used by Prestel users without my knowing what was on the computer.
  What is wrong with the Bill is the great barrier created by the fact that one can do nothing to secure the right of access, get compensation of inaccuracy and secure rectification and erasure except through the court. The Minister looks at me sceptically, but as I read clause 21 the only access is through the court. I may be wrong—if the Minister wishes to tell me so, I shall be glad to let him—but it appears to me that the court is called in under clause 21(8).
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I intervene because I suspect that the hon.

  611
  Gentleman wishes me to do so. One does not necessarily have to go to court. The registrar might intervene because he felt that one of the data principles had been ignored. He could then use his power to issue an enforcement notice or begin the deregistration process. Not all the rights of the subject depend on the courts.
  Mr. Golding: It is possible, however, that the principles might not cover a particular case, and one would have to resort to the court. That is unsatisfactory, because there are still great barriers facing ordinary people of limited means wishing to bring an action before the court. Every week we discover at our constituency advice bureaux that people do not get their rights if those rights depend on going to the courts. The courts may be fair and reasonable, but solicitors generally advise ordinary people at a very early stage not to go to court unless they have a substantial amount of money behind them. That is a grave defect of the Bill. The right of access to personal data is very important, but it may be too difficult for ordinary people to exercise that right. It should be made easier if not to obtain compensation at least to ensure the erasure of information that the individual claims is erroneous. It is wrong that information about an individual should be constantly flashed around the country when the individual has no immediate right to say that the information is wrong and must be withdrawn, and is seems wrong that the individual should have to go to court to enforce that right.
  Clause 22 deals with compensation for inaccuracy. Again, it does not seem entirely watertight. Subsection (1) states:
  "A data subject who suffers damage by reason of the inaccuracy of personal data held by a data user shall be entitled to compensation for that damage from the data user."
  Subsection (3), however, states:
  "For the purposes of this section data are inaccurate if incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact, but data accurately recording information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party and indicating that it consists of such information shall not be regarded as inaccurate because that information was itself incorrect or misleading."
  The get-out there is to use a third person who is a straw man. It should not be a defence to say that the information was obtained from somebody else. The Minister is an able lawyer. He may tell me that my intepretation of the clause is wrong, but, if it is not, he should reconsider the matter. Otherwise, there will be a gigantic loophole in the structure of the rights of data subjects.
  The exemptions are also important. Clauses 26 to 32 are the copouts. This Data Protection Bill purports to defend data subjects, but there are sweeping exemptions. Clause 28 will certainly cause great controversy in Committee. It is the Home Office's self-protection clause. It provides that there shall be no rights if they impinge on the work of the Home Office. There are sweeping exemptions with regard to crime, taxation and immigration control. If the exemptions are not far more tightly worded, the legislation will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
  I do not believe that there is any Opposition Member who would not wish to act with the Government in defence of national security or in opposing those who involve themselves in serious, especially violent, crime. At the same time, we must ensure that the exemptions do no make nonsense of the Bill. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was right when he pointed out the Bill's grave deficiencies.
  The Bill will require and receive a great deal of scrutiny from both sides in Committee. It will be a worthy piece
  612
  of legislation if it is tightly worded. It is right that people should have privacy. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was right to attack industrial espionage and to mention the increasing use of commercial information to the detriment of British interests. However, considerations that affect the privacy of the individual are more important than commercial considerations.
  The Post Office Engineering Union deals with the world of data transmission and new information technology and it is the first to realise how important it is to have control. Please let us have stricter control than the Government propose.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I wished to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary define clearly what the Home Office and the Government hope to achieve by the Bill and what future legislation on this subject they propose. I was in Sheffield at the annual meeting of the chamber of commerce. Sheffield is worried about the decline of its traditional industries. At the meeting the outgoing and incoming presidents and many leaders of industry expressed their wish to use the new technologies. Information storage and retrieval, information technology and the microchip are new technologies that the city of Sheffield would welcome.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) expressed the opinion, which has been expressed throughout the debate, that the Bill does not go far enough. That will be my theme. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) listed many matters that have been excluded—credit rating, bugging of telephones and industrial espionage and its effect on exports and the pinching of information held on company computers
  The Bill deals with personal data and privacy and 1 wish to ask a series of questions. To what extent is a bank statement personal data? Access to bank statements can be obtained easily if there is a mistake in the computer locking. Does the Bill hit the nail on the head, and, if so, what nail? What nail does the House wish to hit by the legislation? I have been interested in the transmission of information, data communication and storage for some time, within the House as a member of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee and the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and also within the Council of Europe.
  The Bill has been scrutinised by the House of Lords, which has done much useful work. I have read many of the debates in the other place. However, I have realised that what is desirable may amount to asking for the impossible. Perhaps the convention and the Council of Europe are asking too much. Perhaps those with the vested interest of looking after the individual are also asking too much.
  I read schedule 1 with fascination. It made me think about personal data. Reference has been made to personal files other than on a omputer—medical files in a hospital, social security files and personal data files held everywhere. Looking through the debates and the wind-up speech in the House of Lords—I presume that this matter has been raised already in the debate—I thought that the intention was that the Bill should deal only with information on a computer and not with that on ales. However, much vital information need not be stored on a computer bank. I know that from experience in industry.

  613
  About 20 or 30 years ago, when I put in sales and statistical systems using the forerunners of the computer, I found that basic information was being prepared on a listing machine and tabulated quite easily. Therefore, when tackling the computer, is the House going far enough if it ignores the file? I should like guidance from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State when he winds up.
  Files are only too readily accessible in Ministries, hospitals and Government offices. A person who knows his way around files can have access to them out of hours, put them through a duplicating or photocopying machine, and that personal data and information can get out. That is undesirable. Such activity must be related to the activity with which the House is trying to deal in the Bill.
  I welcomed the White Paper that was published a year ago, and the European convention, which was brought to my attention when I entered the Council of Europe for the second time. It had been achieved as a result of a report of the Science and Technology Committee, of which I am now a vice-chairman. That committee is now monitoring with interest what national Governments do. The resolution fascinated me. Paragraph 1 stated:
  "The Assembly,

  1. Convinced that the pace of technological development in data processing and telecommunications should be matched by effective national and international legislation to protect the rights and interests of citizens, and in particular the right to privacy in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights".

  The resolution went on:

  "a. to invite the European Parliament to direct its attention to how action within the framework of the European Communities could most effectively strengthen the principles and provisions to be embodied in the convention on data protection of the Council of Europe;

  b. to call on national parliaments in those countries where such action may still be necessary".

  This measure meets that convention.
  I shall relate some interesting experiences. I followed data transmision many years ago in the services and as an industrialist, but I find keeping up to date a challenge. I am a subscriber to Prestel. I have an account number and a call number and access to some computers. I am worried about the confidentiality of Prestel and similar operations, particularly when individuals use their services in the wired city and in the home, and about whether such facilities are covered by the Bill.
  A robber can always gain access to files and photostat them, and it will be possible for the more sophisticated robber in the wired city to gain access to a variety of files. A person wanting to gain access to files will need the correct code and key, but we have heard how easy it is to buy transmission lines.
  It is important that files are kept up to date. I have recently received letters from two insurance companies telling me about the wonderful bonuses that I have earned from insurance policies that I took out 15 or 20 years ago. However, I cashed in those policies 10 years ago. Obviously, no notification was given to the computer and if I claimed the money on those policies I am sure that the computer will be corrected. I shall be trying that in the next few weeks. My experience shows that those who put information on computers must be careful to manage the installations correctly.
  Clause 19 sets out the penalties. It seems from clause 20 that even if an individual is part of a corporate body he
  614
  will not be exempted from the penalties. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000 and, given that information can often be worth much more than that, I wonder whether the proposed fines might be regarded as trivial. I would welcome guidance from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.
  I have in mind the pressures of the European convention and I am anxious about enforcement. We have talked about the registrar, the tribunal, the registration and supervision of data users and those matters can be examined in Committee. But they all depend on enforcement.
  Will anyone be aware that a third party has found the key to give him access to databanks? All Parliaments are seeking to ensure that if a criminal in the wired city is obtaining valuable information in that way he will be detected.
  It is easy to say that the Bill does not go far enough, but it is right that the House should endeavour to take a first step on solid ground. I welcome the fact that the Bill is supported on both sides of the House.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) as he has a great deal of specialist knowledge on computers and therefore on this subject. The Bill raises complex questions. However, they do not, as those of us who do not know one end of a computer from another feared, need technical knowhow to understand them. Our task is to determine how and in what way the law can pick its club-footed way between the various pressures, interests, and conflicting rights that go to make up the basic problem.
  Individual privacy versus needs of state is the best-known and most argued conflict, but in some ways it is the most straightforward. Much more difficult is the individual's or private organisation's rights to make efficient use of the full range of information available to it against the right of another set of individuals to its own privacy. Moreover, it is often in an individual's interest to be known about—something that is forgotten. A mental handicap is a condition of which the details should generally remain private. However, it is often a great help to the patient and his family if his circumstances are known to other agencies and services. There tends to be too little co-operation within the National Health Service as it is, let alone with other bodies such as the local authority welfare organisations, and voluntary organisations outside. I fear that one of the demerits of the Bill is that it may make it more difficult for this co-operation to increase, or even to take place. I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State would reassure me on that point.
  The Government have been criticised for delay in producing the Bill. I congratulate them for steering a way between the rocks and shoals of this difficult subject and putting legislation before the House. I also congratulate them particularly on rejecting the Lindop recommendations, which would have meant an unwieldy data protection authority and a multitude of codes of practice that I suspect would have ensured only one thing—neither the data processor nor the data subject would know where he stood.
  I congratulate the Government also on not including in the Bill provisions on manual records. Had they done so,

  615
  we should still be waiting for the Bill. I can see no possible way of devising satisfactory legislation that would have brought this provision in, although I hope that it will be possible to do so in the future. We are legislating because the electronic means of storing, adding to, retrieving and reassembling data has infinitely extended the fears and concerns that apply to manual data. It would be physically impossible to achieve the same result with manual data.
  If I understand the Bill correctly, the non-disclosure provisions do not operate for security, taxation, police and immigration, where the appropriate authorities are seeking information. What I am not clear about from the Bill—no doubt it is my careless reading of it—is what sanction the authorities have in insisting on disclosure where the hospital, bank or any other organisation in control of data feels that its first loyalty is to its patients or customers. I assume that the powers are not in the Bill, but are perhaps part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend would make that clear.
  There is another side to the Bill that is worrying me and a number of other hon. Members. If all electronic methods of storing information have to be licensed and come within the ambit of the law, there is an incentive for organisations to eschew technical advances and avoid trouble. I fear that the effect of the Bill in this respect may be a negative one, though I am glad and relieved that where information is held purely for statistical purposes—which did not seem to be the idea when the Government produced their first thoughts—access will no longer apply, because that would have dealt a mortal blow to market research companies and some forms of academic research. It is clear from this that the Government are open to persuasion and representation, and I suspect that there will be other areas in Committee where the same qualities becomes apparent.
  I am also worried that the Bill appears to apply to all computer data except that concerned with purely domestic matters. What worries me is perhaps best shown by an example. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology is vigorously and with great gusto thrusting minicomputers into schools up and down the country. Under the Bill, I presume that if an enthusiastic football captain wrote into the school computer the qualities and attributes of his potential players for his private guidance, he would be committing a criminal offence if he was not registered or if he did not provide access to all on whom he was very frankly making his private comments. I hope that the Minister will deal with that possibility because I believe that the extensiveness of the Bill and the fact that it appears to apply to all computer systems, large and small, could make the law look ridiculous.
  I am also concerned that the principle enunciated in schedule 1 may have the effect of making industry less flexible and responsible. What happens when information collected for a specified purpose—a purpose duly registered—is needed because of some other development for a different but in itself wholly legitimate purpose? What is the position of the data and the data processor there? Can the data processor go ahead and re-register himself under a new purpose, or will this be a matter for the registrar's discretion? This would be absurd, but it is the logic of the position: would we have to go back to all his sources of information and start again?
  The Bill gives useful additional protection to the individual as a data subject without taking any existing
  616
  right away from him. We can be grateful for that. It takes some rights away from data processors. I hope that the price to be paid will not be the under-utilisation of computer systems which can do so much to benefit everyone.
  I am certain that the Bill will not be the last legislation on the subject. That is why the Government are right to bring forward a relatively modest measure. The establishment of the registrar and especially the duty placed upon him to report annually will, I suspect, prove to be the most fruitful and significant part of the Bill. I hope that it will be the means whereby, in what is by general agreement a very complex area, the real problems and potential abuses are genuinely understood and the remedies canvassed can be examined not merely for their effectiveness in dealing with the problem in question but, just as important, for their side effects on the quality of services which rely on personal data to function to the benefit of the individual and society as a whole.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: It is a great pleasure to follow the extremely well researched and thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd).
  I gained the impression from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that he and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench felt it important that, with the notable exceptions of himself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it was advisable to be an authority on computers to participate in this debate. I do not share that view. I believe that it is the principles not the technicalities, that are important in the debate.
  It is not necessary to be well versed in the art of computer hardware and software, or even to know the difference between spools and floppy discs. We all know sufficient about computers to be aware that the information that they collect can be a great boon or a vile menace, depending on the hands in which the information is held.
  I do not agree with Opposition Members about the desirability of a commission instead of a registrar. I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) about the number of staff required to perform the task, but I am sure that the power would be far weaker if the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration were replaced by a commission with a chairman and members. If real action is required, there must be a single controller, although, of course, appeals will properly be dealt with by a tribunal.
  It has been said that this legislation arises directly out of the requirements of the European Community. We have been told that the Government were ill advised previously on the subject. I do not agree. Many people in this country are reluctant to be dragged behind the European bandwagon, particularly on an issue of this nature. We are rightly considering the matter in our own way, and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is right and proper that each should consider the matter as it affects that specific country.
  It is true that mistakes in financial affairs can have serious repercussions, so information collected on computers can have a most serious effect. The irresponsibility of some people in money and other matters is well known, but we have all heard about the student at university who, with the help of hire purchase, buys a secondhand car which breaks down soon after delivery and

  617
  there is then a dispute with the vendor. There will be an indelible effect on his financial affairs for the rest of his life if the matter is recorded on a computer. I am sure that none of us wants such an event to be recorded and held against a person for the rest of his life.
  However, it is important to know who the bad payers are, because ultimately the cost falls on the rest of society. Therefore, the computer should take its rightful place in establishing creditworthiness. We should take full advantage of the sophistication that is now available in this regard so that the costs of hire purchase or credit services are kept to a minimum in the interests of the vast majority of respectable and responsible citizens.
  However, I have reservations about the Bill. There are considerable areas of doubt about limited liability and the people who operate through these bureaux. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will assure me that it will not be possible for an individual to set up in business running a computer bureau, pay a fine—if a fine is assessed—and subsequently re-establish another business under another name. I hope that the penalties are personal and held against the individual. The penalty should have a lasting effect on the person, not on the limited liability company, because it is easy to hive off responsibility in that way.
  The tribunal and appeals structure set out in the Bill seems to leave plenty of room for manoeuvre for the unscrupulous. I should have liked some limitation to be imposed in this connection, because the person or organisation concerned should not be able to postpone for considerable periods the real effect of being struck off by the registrar. It is important that one should be able to deal quickly and efficiently with the matter. I know that that is dealt with in the Bill, but I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that such a measure can be effectively and efficiently introduced, even part of the way through a process, if it appears clear that legal formalities are being used purely and simply for the purpose of wrongly continuing in business.
  There is an obvious need for the Bill, and I welcome it. I hope that the Bill will proceed through the House and that during its passage it will be considerably improved.
  9.5 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Today we have been debating what is in effect a computer data protection Bill. Its effects are that fundamental issues of civil liberty are still at stake. Its provisions lag behind those of other European countries by several years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, an opportunity has been lost.
  People can be exposed to serious risks from computerised and manual information systems but in Britain at the moment there is no legal right to privacy and the Government should have borne that in mind in drawing up the Bill. It should have been a privacy Bill as well as simply a Bill on computers. Several attempts to amend the Bill sensibly and constructively in another place completely failed in the Division Lobby. The Government were rightly accused of obduracy and of a determination that compliance with the convention should be minimal rather than generous.
  The Lindop committee's two major recommendations, the result of a wide-ranging study of this subject which took two years, have been ignored in the Bill. The
  618
  committee proposed the setting up of a statutory data protection authority with powers to inspect computer systems. That is not in the Bill. The committee also asked for detailed codes of practice for computer users to be drafted by the authority, which would acquire the force of law. That is not in the Bill. The Home Secretary did not really explain why those important recommendations were excluded.
  Legislation is long overdue after 15 years' research and debate. No doubt Conservative Members will say that the Labour Government should have brought in such a Bill but that does not detract from the fact that now that the Bill is being brought in it should be something far greater than this mouse of a piece of legislation. It would appear that it has been stimulated only by a necessity to comply with the convention.
  The House agrees that privacy and accuracy of data are important in jobs, academic qualifications, health, politics, criminal records, race, religion and so on. However, the serious deficiency of the Bill that has been pointed out by so many hon. Members today is that it is concerned only with information on computers and not with information on manual records, cards, files or computer print-outs. At the moment most data are kept on such manual records. Several hon. Members have said that the Bill will create a positive incentive for industry to transfer data from computers to manual records or to prevent it from being transferred from manual records to computers. That would damage the development of the United Kingdom computer industry, which is vital to our economy and would not be a good contribution to information technology year, which the House is supposed to be supporting and celebrating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) said, it turns back the clock on computer technology. The Society of Conservative Lawyers has made this point very strongly.
  How much information is on manual records at present and what protection do those records have? The Bill gives them no protection at all. The experience of most western European data commissioners is that manual records provide the majority of data subjects' complaints and they are the main threat to individual privacy in this country. The information can be inaccurate, irrelevant, incomplete, out of date and liable to unauthorised access. The previous Minister of State visited four European countries but he did not see fit to visit America. Under USA privacy legislation no distinction is drawn between manual and computerised systems. It would have been useful if he had visited that country and tried to emulate that aspect of American legislation. That view is strongly held, not only by Opposition Members but by consumer organisations, the British Medical Association, many computer bodies and the Society of Conservative Lawyers.
  The data protection principles leave much to be desired. I quote the Society of Conservative Lawyers to which the Home Secretary did not refer in his speech. The principles can be modified or supplemented by the Secretary of State. The lawyers have said that the provisions for making regulations do not amount to an appropriate safeguard. The result of the Bill will be, in effect, that the Home Office will draft the regulations even though it is that Department that keeps many of the records involved, such as criminal, security, immigration and prison records.
  The Labour party welcomes the fact that the registrar will be appointed by the Crown, although it objects to the fact that a single person should hold this huge

  619
  responsibility and that an authority has not been appointed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, which could stand up to the Government. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary will appoint the registrar's staff and control his budget.
  I come to the right of individuals to obtain details of personal data about themselves. This point was strongly felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). This part of the Bill is totally inadequate because it does not provide any effective right to challenge or to correct the contents of personal records. There is no point in granting a right to access and to inspection of a personal record unless that carries with it the right to challenge its contents. There should be an easily available and simple administrative remedy, as is provided by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is a precedent there.
  Under the Bill a person can be informed that a data bank contains his or her personal data unless it is exempted. He can be provided with a written copy of the record. If it is inaccurate, there is no power for the individual to require the data user to correct the details, nor does the registrar have to deal with such complaints, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) pointed out. If the registrar does not deal with the complaint, the only remedy is for the subject to bring legal proceedings, which are expensive, complex and lengthy. Even then, he has to prove that he has suffered damage through the use of inaccurate personal data before he is entitled to a court order that the data be corrected. That is another difficulty in his path. Why is there a refusal to secure correction of data? Schedule 1 makes it even more confusing. On the one hand it quotes the European convention that
  "a data subject shall be entitled, where appropriate, to have personal data corrected or erased."
  On the other hand, schedule 1 also states that
  "The correction or erasure of personal data is appropriate only where necessary for ensuring compliance with the other data protection principles."
  That makes the whole issue even more confusing. Perhaps the Minister would explain that discrepancy. We suggest that the registrar should be given the power and duty to investigate individual complaints and, where appropriate, order the rectification or erasure of data.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and other hon. Friends have already referred to the vexed question of exemptions. Clause 28 is far too sweeping in its powers and is possibly the gravest fault in the Bill. The key principle of data protection is that information should be regarded as held for a specific purpose and not used without appropriate authorisation for other purposes. The four items that are exempt from the subject access and non-disclosure provisions are all very well taken on their own, but great concern has been expressed about the implications for the privacy of data.
  As a result of clause 28, highly sensitive information could be secretly transferred between the police, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and immigration authorities without any restrictions or safeguards. The Lindop committee called it a "fraud on the public" in a memorandum to the Home Office in June last year. Again, the Conservative lawyers and the BMA have objected strongly to the implications of clause 28. The clause refers to data held for
  "the prevention for detection of crime"
  620
  being exempt. Does that mean all crime; even the most minor seat belt and parking offences? Should not "crime" be defined and restricted to serious criminal activity?
  The relevant article of the European convention refers to
  "a necessary measure in a democratic society in the interests of protecting state security, public safety, the monetary interests of the state, or the suppression of criminal offences."
  As the provision is worded, it is far too sweeping to be acceptable.
  In the past few months the Home Office has succeeded in politically antagonising doctors more successfully than at any time since the post-war Labour Government established the Health Service. Doctors are normally too busy and preoccupied to enter public political debate, but there has been a flurry of press statements, lobbying and letters to Members of Parliament from the BMA since the new year, both nationally and at local branch level. Even the disastrous reorganisation of the Health Service by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), now Secretary of State for Education and Science, did not produce such activity from the BMA.
  Three issues have generated the doctors' concern. The BMA has totally condemned the Government's assumptions about the possibility of the population's survival in the event of nuclear attack and about the ability of medical services to operate. On the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the doctors have combined forces with both Anglican and Catholic bishops, the Law Society, the National Union of Journalists and many others in strongly opposing the important parts of that Bill that deals with the protection of the doctor-patient relationship and confidences between them. They want to protect that relationship from unjustified intrusion by the police or anybody else. Notes on patients are a vital part of any doctor's health care and fight against desease. A physician who taught me always used to say, "Listen to what the patient is saying, he is telling you the diagnosis." The patient tells a doctor not only about the physical complaints, but about his family and his most personal circumstances. There are more than 20,000 general practitioners in Britain today, 95 per cent. of whom write notes by hand and do not use computers. Hospital doctors do not use computers to any greater degree than general practitioners. None of those records is covered by the Bill, and no privacy is ensured.
  The computers covered by the Bill pose a serious threat to the confidentiality of records. Patients want to feel free to disclose to a doctor—and only to a doctor—details about their personal lives. Doctors want to preserve that trust and do not wish information to be disclosed to a third party without the patient's knowledge. An inherent part of the Hippocratic oath states:
  "Whatsoever things I see or hear concerning the life of men … which ought not to be noised abroad, I will keep silence thereon, counting such things to be as sacred secrets."
  I regret that the Home Secretary, when he opened the debate, did not even mention the strong representations made by the BMA. It was as though it had never written to him, spoken to him or voiced a view. It was wholly ignored in the right hon. Gentleman's justification of the Bill.
  The proposals made in another place for a mechanism whereby exempt disclosures under clause 28(2) would have to be notified to the registrar and authorised by the responsible doctor or patient—the registrar would keep a record of them—were rejected by the Government Minister. He did, however, say that he would consider the

  621
  matter. I hope that in Committee the Government will see fit to come forward with the results of their consideration. As the clause stands, it permits a doctor to disclose personal data for certain purposes, without him being liable to penalty. Such blanket exemption may not require disclosure, but it will make it difficult for doctors not to do so when asked. Medical data should be disclosed only under the compulsion of law. Anybody in charge of medical data should have a statutory responsibility to keep the information safe, and should face criminal sanctions if the information is leaked.
  The Home Secretary has received a letter from Sir Douglas Black, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, representing the views of the college, the BMA and the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Midwives. It was pointed out that the proposal in the Bill is wholly unacceptable. If patients believe that confidential information may be passed on without their knowledge, or sent to computer systems, or if doctors believe that people with access to their records can pass on the contents without their knowledge, patients and doctors will obviously limit the information given and received. Yet all attempts to improve the Bill were opposed by the Government in another place, and defeated in the Lobby.
  The 1982 White Paper on data protection recommended that an advisory committee should be set up to advise the Government on possible changes to the legislation and to advise the registrar on his functions. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House why that recommendation has not been adopted. The advisory committee could advise the Government or advise the registrar, but no such committee is included in the Bill.
  The registrar will have an enormous job in overseeing the registration of different data users. We do not know how many there are—different estimates have been given throughout the debate—but there are estimated to be many thousands, all dealing with different subjects. It would surely help if the registrar had access to a body of experts who could provide advice and be consulted, if necessary. Such a committee would be able to advise simply and without delay on a range of aspects of data protection.
  Under clause 33(2) the registrar has a wide range of powers, but few statutory duties. There is a clear difference between powers and statutory duties. He is left with far too much discretion whether he does or does not do something. Again, in another place, attempts were made to remedy this. We recommend that an amendment should be introduced to stress to data users and data subjects not only the fact that advice can be sought from the registrar but the benefits of electronic data processing. As it stands, the Bill makes no provision to require the registrar to promote and facilitate compliance with the principles set out. He is not obliged to comply with them. It would help the registrar if he knew exactly what his duties and powers were. It would help the public and the registrar if these were clearly included in the Bill.
  Clause 13 is too restrictive on appeals to the tribunal. It should be possible to appeal to the tribunal if one is a data subject complaining that the registrar has been too lax with the users of the data or to question a decision of the registrar. At present a data subject cannot appeal to the tribunal. As the Bill stands, only data users complaining that the registrar has been strict with them can appeal. The
  622
  Lindop committee has criticised that as a deficiency in the appeals system of the Bill. Clause 3 states that the tribunal will consist of barristers, solicitors and those with
  "professional knowledge or experience of the use, design or manufacture of data equipment."
  Should it not also be laid down that the ordinary data subject should be represented on the tribunal? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley agrees with that, because he said that he was speaking on behalf of ordinary folk, not on behalf of industry, lawyers, doctors or computer operators. He wants to have injected into the Bill the right for ordinary people to preserve their privacy and to have rights with regard to the powers of the registrar and appeals to the tribunal.
  The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who is no longer present, made a good speech, and I am sure that in Committee he will be voting with the Opposition on all our amendments. As the hon. Gentleman said, a data user could wait up to two months for the registrar to inform him whether his application for registration or for the alteration of registered particulars had been accepted or refused. Representations have been made by several companies—British Airways, British Caledonian Airways, BP International, Unilever and the Bank of America—that this delay could unduly restrict business activity. This, again, was raised in another place, and the Government said that they would consider how to achieve more flexibility in the requirement. Perhaps the Minister will say what has been the result of his consideration. Has he considered allowing data users, whose original registration details have already been approved by the registrar, to implement the required change to their registered details while notifying the registrar at the same time? They would be aware that if they offended against the data protection principle they would be punished with deregistration. Surely that suggestion would cover the concern of the companies that I have mentioned.
  It is regrettable that if the Bill, as it stands, becomes United Kingdom law, data protection and privacy law will lag behind the legislation of most other industrialised countries. The Bill is deficient and difficult to understand and operate, and merely pays lip service to the privacy of the individual. The most glaring deficiency is that it relates only to one type of record keeping—the minority type. The majority of record keeping is not covered by the Bill. If the most personal details of an individual's life are automatically processed, there is a chance that he will be able to see and possible correct them, but if they are handwritten he will have no rights whatsoever.
  The Bill goes some way towards protecting the rights and interests of individuals, but it will need considerable amendment in Committee. If it is not amended, we shall have to vote against it on Third Reading.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I am especially glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the Minister for Overseas Development, on the Government Front Bench. When my right hon. Friend held my present office in the Home Office he did a great deal of work on data protection and consequently made my task that much easier.
  I have no doubt that data protection is an issue of considerable concern. One thing is certain—we are all data

  623
  subjects. Everyone in the Chamber must figure on scores of computers. However, we also have an interest in the well-being of data users. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, "I am a data subject," but I hope that he did not forget at that moment that, like all of us, he is a beneficiary of the existence of data users. Government Departments can provide a better service to the public because of the use of computers. Industry and commerce can be more efficient and also provide a better service. Clubs, charities, trade unions and all data users are able to do a better job as a result of using computers to process information.
  There have been many strands running through the debate, but there has been one constant theme. A general welcome has been given to the idea of legislation for data protection. I detect little feeling on either side of the House that the Government are wasting scarce parliamentary time on a measure of this sort. The principle of data protection is clearly accepted. Although the Bill's consideration in Committee will no doubt produce interesting suggestions for amendment, I think that few do not want legislation to reach the statute book this Session.
  In answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborne), we hope to hit two separate nails on the head. Of course, people's reasons for wanting the Bill differ. Some see the Bill predominantly as a means of safeguarding the little man against "them"—the faceless, heartless ranks of databanks which they claim swallow, digest and regurgitate personal information with scant regard for the individuals who are the subjects of that information.
  In opening, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary emphasised that the Government do not subscribe to the view that there is abundant abuse or misuse of personal data that are held on computers. The Lindop committee reported that there is little evidence of abuse. That is a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) drew attention. We recognise the potential for mischief and the public's wish for controls to prevent mischief. We must put the matter in proportion and recognise that there is no evidence of great abuse.
  It is legitimate for people to use the measure to safeguard British commercial and trading interests and jobs. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) recognised that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Many European countries have already legislated in this sphere. Having ensured the protection of personal data within their borders it is understandable that they do not want such data sent abroad if, in the process, domestic protection is lost.
  International business increasingly depends on trans-border flows of information, much of which is personal. It is therefore vital that we take action to reassure others in Europe that personal data sent here will benefit from protection equivalent to that which applies on the continent. I make no bones about that.
  Of course the Bill is important. It is very important for trade purposes. I was surprised when the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), came close to saying that the Bill did not seem all that important. The Government have a foot in both camps. They recognise the force in the privacy and individual rights argument and in the commercial and trading interests argument.
  624
  It is not a partial Bill. We are seeking to help subjects and users alike. The delicate balance to be struck between subjects and users interests will be referred to repeatedly in our detailed consideration of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will heed the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) who spoke of proceeding briskly.
  There are two schools of thought. Some say that the Bill is too weak; others that it goes too far. Some say that manual data as well as computerised data should be covered. That was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and Huddersfield, West.
  The Orwellian prospect of legislation aimed at every box file does not fill me with enthusiasm. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) said, that would put an intolerable burden on users in industry and commerce which would be relieved only if the legislation were found to be unenforceable. After all, it was computerised information with which Lindop was concerned.
  Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about the American experience? In America, legislation on both computer and manual information is in force.
  Mr. Waddington: I do not have first-hand experience of what happens in America. All I know is that those who have examined the problem here have come to the conclusion that such legislation would impose an appalling burden on British industry. I should not like that burden to be placed upon British industry at any time, let alone at the present time. Lindop dealt with computerised information. The public's concern is about computerised data, not manually-held information.
  I do not believe that people will give up using computers for sensitive information as a result of the Bill, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Cannock. It would be commercial madness for anybody who now has the benefits of a computer to throw them away.
  The hon. Member for Halifax said that the registrar should have clear statutory duties that would guarantee that he would take action in specific circumstances. She said that he ought to have to deal with specific complaints. But it would not be right to tie the registrar down in that way. He will be faced with an infinite variety of cases in which data of all kinds are used in a vast number of different ways, and he will need to exercise his discretion. If we did what the hon. Lady recommends, the registrar could be faced with a cascade of complaints, which would waste a great deal of his time. What we want is the appointment of a sensible independent-minded person who would concentrate his attention on the areas where it is really required. To impose specific duties on him would almost certainly mean action being taken which, while damaging to the user, would do nothing for the subject.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and others said that the exemptions in the Bill, particularly those in clause 28, were too wide. However, everyone would concede that there must be exemptions. That must be common ground. The European convention recognises the need for exemptions, and all European laws in this area contain exemptions of one sort or another.

  625
  The exemptions certainly do not give the police or any other body any new powers. The police are given no powers to compel data users to divulge information. This is a Data Protection Bill, not a data disclosure Bill. Clause 28(2) states only that, whereas normally the user must not disclose personal data for a purpose not specified on the register, he may so do if he has reasonable grounds for believing that failure to disclose the information will be likely to prejudice, for example, the prevention or detection of crime. It is his decision, and his decision alone.
  There is no compulsion. Indeed, there are no implications that disclosures are desirable. There is simply a recognition that a user may himself judge it to be in the public interest that he should disclose information to, for instance, the police—although, as one would expect, disclosure for the prevention or the detection of crime is not one of the purposes specified in his registration particulars. It would be irresponsible of us, and would show a complete disregard for the needs of the community, if we did not provide for such an exemption and if we prevented the user from doing what he thought right when asked for assistance by the police.
  There is nothing in the Bill to oblige anyone to disclose medical records. The Bill does not alter the law in any way against the interests of doctors. Doctors are in no way compelled to disclose information.
  There are those who say that the Bill goes too far. They say that certain types of information should not be covered by it.
  Mr. Golding: Will the Minister name the hon. Members who have claimed that the Bill goes too far? What arguments did they use?
  Mr. Waddington: Some hon. Members have said that certain kinds of personal data should not be covered by the Bill. One hon. Member said that opinions about people should continue to be confidential and should not be revealed to the subjects. Others suggested that certain information was so harmless and well known that there was no need to bring it within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Cannock referred to the fact that certain data might be so harmless that it would be unnecessary to include them in the Bill.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: My point was that the limited facilities and staff available to the registrar would make it impossible for him to deal with the enormous problems in this area. Therefore, if the Government insisted on that arrangement, one area that would have to be excluded would be that of common files, payrolls and so on.
  Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not have suggested that common files should be excluded if he believed that they ought to be included, so I was right to say that he suggested that in at least one respect the Bill went too far.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the exclusions were so wide that we might not comply with the convention. I am sure that he is wrong. Certainly no European country that has legislated has suggested that our proposed legislation will not fulful our obligations under the convention or will present them with any problems as
  626
  to whether to allow computerised information to pass from that country to this. The scope for exemptions in article 9 of the convention forces one to conclude that we could have made our exemptions a great deal wider and still have complied with the convention.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister telling this Parliament that he has shown copies of the Bill to other European Governments? Is that correct? If that is the case, what observations have they made and what suggestions, if any, have they made for the improvement of the legislation?
  Mr. Waddington: I said that so far as I knew no one had suggested that when the Bill reached the statute book we would not be in full compliance with the convention. Article 9 of the convention provides:
  "Derogation from the provisions of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of this convention"—
  the access provisions relating to data principles, special protection for racial data, and so on—
  "shall be allowed when such derogation is provided for by the law of the Party and constitutes a necessary measure in a democratic society in the interests of:

  (a) protecting State security, public safety, the monetary interests of the State or the suppression of criminal offences;

  (b) protecting the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others."

  One can hardly envisage greater scope for exemptions than that provided by the convention itself.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that Labour Governments were always defeated before they could legislate to provide a general right of privacy in these matters. I do not know whether it is unparliamentary to say "Ho, ho" to that, but it is certainly nonsense. The Labour Government had ample time to legislate for a general right of privacy if they had wished to do so, but they did not do so. I assume that that was because the Younger committee recommended against such a general right. I have enough respect for the common sense of those in positions of authority in the Labour party in those days to assume that that was the reason.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he did not understand why we had not gone down the Lindop road and brought in a code of practice, but we should have needed not one but 50 codes of practice. I believe that we were right to reject the idea of so many codes of practice to deal with the almost infinite variety of circumstances that have to be dealt with in this area.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook said that under the legislation the tribunals would protect data users and not data subjects. Data users enjoy a right of appeal to the data protection tribunal against the decisions that the registrar is empowered to take in regard to them. He may, for example, refuse registration, serve notices requiring changes in user systems or deregister users. Those are potentially far-ranging powers. It is right that their exercise should be subject to appeal. The registrar will exercise no such decision-making powers in regard to data subjects. His role, in effect, is to ensure that the interests of data subjects are protected. He can take no decision to their detriment.
  Data subjects who believe themselves harmed by data users can approach the registrar to use his powers on their behalf. Where the registrar is satisfied that there has been a contravention of any of the data protection principles he

  627
  can serve notice requiring correction of the fault. Part III of the Bill provides an avenue to the courts for data subjects seeking compensation.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister has described the provisions of the Bill comparatively adequately, but he has not answered my question. Why is an appeal by one side—the data user—possible but appeal from the other side—those people who may suffer from the data user—not possible? Why does the tribunal act as a long stop for one side only in the dispute?
  Mr. Waddington: I was courteous and spent a long time dealing with that issue. The registrar is there to protect the data subject. If he acts against the data user considerable financial loss can be caused. I spent a great deal of time meeting that point. I should have thought that it was obvious why there should be a right of appeal in one case and not in the other.
  Mr. Hattersley: If it is plain, will the Minister explain? He has not done so yet.
  Mr. Waddington: I have explained it. I am not going to waste any more time.
  The right hon. Gentleman then said that it would be better to have an agency or authority rather than a registrar. I submit respectfully that it depends upon the quality and status of the registrar. if one has a man of independence of mind and of the quality, for instance, of our Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, there is no earthly reason to argue that the registrar will not be able to provide as great a protection for the data subject as would an authority.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde wondered whether there was a separate role for the Parliamentary Commissioner. I should not have thought so. If one has a registrar of the status that I have suggested, he is the person who ought to enforce observance of the data principles and carry out all necessary investigations.
  The hon. Member for Cannock raised a point which was of interest to a number of hon. Members. He referred to word processors, semi-manual systems and the like. The Bill does not define what is or what is not a computer. It concentrates on activities undertaken by computers. That is the answer to the question about word processors. Word processors may be within or without the scope of the Bill. It depends entirely on whether they are being used for the purposes set out in clause 1(7) which defines processing and says:
  "'Processing', in relation to data, means amending, augmenting, deleting or re-arranging the data or extracting the information constituting the data and, in the case of personal data, means performing any of those operations by reference to a particular data subject."
  If one uses a word processor for any of the functions described in clause 1(7) that word processor would be caught by the Bill. The essence of the matter is not to look at the definition of computer, because one will not find it, but to look at the purposes for which any device might be used.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) raised that point and also referred to the definition of data material. As far as I can remember, that definition is contained in schedule 3. It has nothing to do with clause 1, which does not use the phrase "data material" at all. Schedule 3 enables rules of procedure to be made to provide for the inspection and testing of data
  628
  equipment and materials, such as floppy discs, for the purposes of proceedings before the appeal tribunal. Therefore, one can forget about the definition of data material when one is dealing with clause 1.
  My hon. Friend was worried about the exceptions for domestic use. They are limited. Such detailed matter is well suited to consideration in Committee. My hon. Friend asked whether there would be an advertising campaign telling people of their rights. We shall have to consider in due course whether any advertising should come from the registrar or from the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said that he nursed a resentment for being included on a computer used by the Social Democratic party. I do not blame him. He mentioned the important points raised by the British Medical Association. I have dealt with them. There is no question of any information having to be transferred as a result of the Bill. No data subject will be a jot worse off as a result of the passage of the Bill. Most data subjects will be much better off.
  My hon. Friend dealt with clause 32. There ought to be provisions in the Bill for exemptions so that, for instance, when it might not be desirable for an adopted child to find out its true parentage, it would not have access.
  The hon. Member for Thornaby mentioned clause 29, which refers to exemptions for
  "personal data consisting of information as to the physical or mental health of the data subject."
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that that power is included in the Bill, but the regulations will be formulated as a result of consultations with all interested parties. We merely want to do what is thought to be right by those who operate in that area.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that he would prefer an authority to a registrar and referred to the use of codes of practice. His remarks were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West. I repeat that I was not filled with enthusiasm when I heard that, if codes of practice were to be used as the route forward, there would have to be about 50 of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North was concerned about interference with small businesses. He was one of those who hinted that in some respects the Bill went too far. It is precisely because we recognise that intolerable burdens should not be imposed on industry that we have cut down the formalities attendant upon registration to a bare minimum.
  I hope that at the end of the day the House will give a warm welcome to the Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) got it hopelessly wrong. He said that the registrar would have no power to order the correction of inaccurate data. That is entirely untrue. The registrar will be able to use his threat of deregistration to ensure that defective information is corrected.
  The Bill is a useful step forward. It will help British industry and will help to secure British jobs. It is also a useful step in the direction of increasing the rights of individuals in the community.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

DATA PROTECTION [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,

629
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate the use of automatically processed information relating to individuals and the provision of services in respect of such information, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the charging on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for paying a salary to, or paying (or making payments towards the provision of) a pension, allowance or gratuity to, or in respect of, the Registrar appointed under that Act;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) the expenses of the Registrar;

(ii) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in respect of the Tribunal established by that Act or the members of that Tribunal;

(iii) any expenses incurred by a government department in complying with the requirements imposed by that Act on data users and persons carrying on computer bureaux;

(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Major.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Ways and Means, the Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill, the Matrimonial Homes Bill [Lords], the Mental Health Bill [Lords] and the Pilotage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  DATA PROTECTION
  Resolved,
  That any Act of the present Session to regulate the use of automatically processed information relating to individuals and the provision of services in respect of such information may—

  (a) require the payment of fees in connection with the registration under that Act of data users and persons carrying on computer bureaux; and

  (b) provide for the payment of those fees and of other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Major.]

Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Eyre.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will acknowledge, the Opposition have given the Bill a speedy passage and have not sought to obstruct its progress. I should put it on record, so that there is no misunderstanding outside the House, that our action has not been due to any lack of concern or interest. The reverse is the case. It is precisely because of our great interest in the ports of London and Liverpool that we have been anxious to ensure that the Bill made progress. We have been accommodating to the Government because of the parlous state of the ports. However, we must reiterate that nothing in the Bill will solve the long-term problems of the two ports.
This is the fourth time that the Government have provided financial assistance of one sort or another to the ports of London and Liverpool. The Bill is another ad hoc arrangement to deal with the problems. No one doubts the Under-Secretary's sincerity, but I am sure that he will not take it amiss when I say that everyone who is interested in the ports knows that either in this Session or the next—provided that events that may be decided at 10 Downing street do not interpose themselves on our affairs—the Government will have to return with another Bill.
Everyone connected with the ports is desperately keen to ensure that their financial regimes are arranged in such a manner as to allow their affairs to be settled on a long-term basis. The Bill will not do that.
Clause 1 allows up to £26 million of loans to the Port of London Authority to be written off. Clause 1(1)(b) provides up to £36 million for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and clause 1(2) provides up to another further £22 million for the PLA.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary pointed out that until the Bill reaches the statute book and the sums can be written off, some payments of principal will have to be made. That is one reason why we have allowed the Bill to make speedy progress.
The Bill was printed on 18 February and there were obviously discussions before it was presented to the House about how much should be written off. I understand that, precisely because of the principal falling due, an upper limit had to be put on the Bill. We must now ask the Minister whether the sums to be written off have been agreed. If they have not been arrived at and finalised, I hope that we shall be told what the sums of money are before the Bill reaches the statute book.
We have been willing and happy to accommodate the Government, and we understand the peculiar way that the Bill was drafted, allowing sums up to those printed on the face of the Bill. However, the Government should not allow the Bill to pass without agreeing the sums of money. The discussions that I have had with those concerned in the ports recently showed that there had been no agreement. I know that the Government wish to save every penny that they can on these matters, but for reasons that I am sure the Minister will understand we want the uncertainty to be put at rest as soon as possible.

631
If the Minister is not able to tell us the agreed sum this evening, or unless he can give us an assurance that by the time the Bill reaches the statute book there will be an agreement on what the sums of money are, some Labour Members may come to the conclusion that our generosity over time has been taken advantage of, and it may be that if the Minister brings in another Transport Bill in this Session of Parliament he will find that we are not so trusting again, and he will be in for a rough passage.
It is clear that we do not wish to obstruct the Bill and we want to see it on the statute book. One does not want continually to have Transport Bills, but we expect that once the Bill has passed it will not be long before the Minister is back again because the problems of Liverpool and London are far too deep-seated to be solved in the Government's piecemeal fashion. We shall not oppose the Bill, but we await the Minister's answers with interest.
10.7 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before we agree to this £26 million write-off, I should like my hon. Friend to give us an assurance. It is clear from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that we are constantly passing Bills to write off cash, and we sometimes gain the impression that the organisations involved are useless and spend a great deal of taxpayers' money. I hope that my hon. Friend will make the simple point that, despite the sums involved, the management of the Port of London Authority—the chairman and the managing director—has achieved a great deal in a short time. It has brought about an enormous reduction in dock areas. The PLA is now nearly down to Tilbury. The management has also had to deal with some of the most difficult labour problems. I hope that as well as pointing out that money has been spent, my hon. Friend will pay tribute to what has been achieved in the PLA by all concerned.
I seek a minor assurance. As my hon. Friend knows, and as is registered in the records, I am the adviser to the Port of London Police Federation. I hope that before we agree to writing off the money, my hon. Friend will give me an assurance that he will take an interest in this small body, which is older than the metropolitan police and has been a major selling point for the PLA because of the good security provided through the work done by the men.
The numbers are now so small that it is difficult to talk in terms of a police force with a proper career structure. My hon. Friend will be aware that the PLA, in an endeavour to deal with the problem, had discussions with the Essex county council with a view to proposing a merger. Unfortunately, these proposals did not meet with the approval of the Home Office and will not now be carried out.
There is now a very small police force with no real career structure, but with experienced, dedicated and good police officers. My fear is that if the numbers go down further, it will not be a police force in any sense at all. I understand that there is a possibility of the transport police thinking of some kind of merger. I hope that people will not wash their hands of an extremely good police force that has a long tradition and reputation for doing good work and has helped the PLA to obtain business from foreign customers.
632
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me an assurance that in the discussions involved in writing off these sums, he will take a personal interest in the future of the small numbers left in the port of London police.
10.10 pm
Mr. Eric Ogden: The Government ask for support for a Bill of some two pages and two clauses, which may seem modest at first sight. At least the price is modest; it costs only 75p. But it is a much more complicated Bill than that. I suggest that this is one instance where the Government are asking for the support of the House in what is undoubtedly a good cause but with the minimum of information. The Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading because the needs of the port of London and the ports of the Mersey were well known. The only opposition in Committee was some muted objection from hon. Members representing Felixstowe and Bristol, but they agreed about the needs of the ports of London and Merseyside.
Whereas the Bill is modest in its size, £84 million—not £26 million as the hon. Member for Southend, East: (Mr. Taylor) said—is no nominal sum.
Following its unopposed Second Reading, a number of amendments were moved in Committee in the course of which hon. Members sought information. They asked whether the Government could give any hard facts and figures about the Bill and the amount of money that was required, when that amount would be made available to the ports of London and Merseyside, and how much was "up to" £84 million. That final question was the one asked just now by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). However, with respect to him, I do not think that it is enough for the Government to say "Pass the Bill, and perhaps we shall tell you." Hon. Members need that information before they give the Bill a Third Reading and lose control of the amount of money involved. Virtually all the information about the Bill that hon. Members have received has come from outside the House and not from the Government.
According to the explanatory and financial memorandum
"The Bill empowers the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury"—
I for one wanted the consent of the Treasury omitted, though that did not prove possible in Committee. We then read under the heading "Financial effects":
"The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to reduce the debts of the PLA and MDHC by up to £48 million and £36 million respectively."
We all have great respect for the Minister and for his judgment. Sometimes we think that he is put up at the Dispatch Box to secure the good will of the House and to get through a measure which some of his more obstreperous colleagues might not get through so easily. However, tonight the hon. Gentleman simply moved the Third Reading and sat down. That is not good enough. I suggest that this is one occasion, among a great many others, when, if the House is to do its duty, hon. Members should have been given a great deal more information in Committee. It is a classic example of the procedural need, which a number of hon. Members are trying to secure. A Bill of this kind should be referred to a pre-legislative Committee so that hon. Members might ask representatives of the port of London and the ports of Merseyside how much they needed.

633
I do not like using clichés, but here we are virtually giving blank cheques. We know the needs of the ports of London and Merseyside and elsewhere. This is one of several Bills that should be brought forward by the Government. But it is the duty of the Government to prove the need, to give hard facts and to say how much money is required and when. They have failed in that duty.
We are prepared to allow the Government to have their Bill only because we know the needs of London and Merseyside. I see the learned Solicitor-General in his place. He represents Southport, and I hope that he will lend his support to the Bill.
We know, from outside information, that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, not from any information that we have received here. For this Government of all Governments, who are supposed to be careful about money and cautious about expenditure, to ask for a sum of anything from nothing to £84 million with the amount of information that they have given us to justify their case is pushing the good will of the House too far.
I hope that the Minister will give us some more information when he replies to some of the questions that have been asked in this debate. How much money will be made available to the port of London, and when? How much money will be made available to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, and when? Will it be all of £36 million and all of £48 million, or will it be part, and in what part will it be paid, and over what period? The need is urgent, and it is only because we recognise that need that we have not been more difficult than we have been in Committee and here tonight. I wish the Bill well, but I also wish that the Minister had given hard facts to justify his asking the House for its confidence tonight.
10.15 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Bill writes off £26 million of capital debt of the Port of London Authority and £22 million of loan—£48 million altogether.
The Bill has been characterised by a lack of any information from the Government about future policy for the port of London, as has been amply shown by those hon. Members who have already spoken. Money is policy. Any money spent by the Government should be expended in pursuit of a policy or, if not a policy, linked to a known set of criteria or objectives. That is what the Government, Parliament and the control of public money are all about.
In Committee, we were given little or no information on the policy that the Department of Transport has in mind for the port of London, and in particular what responsibility it has for that part of the port upstream of Tilbury. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said that the port of London is now virtually confined to Tilbury. Of course, that is not so. The Thames goes from the Nore to Teddington, and, as always, a major part of London's traffic has been in and on the river, and has not got into the docks at all. That is an increasing trend. Although I freely admit that Tilbury is now the major dock area, it is still outmatched by a large proportion—perhaps five or 10 to one—of traffic in the river itself. Therefore, we are talking not about the Port of London Authority, but the port of London in the river that would exist even if Tilbury docks were closed, which I do not for a moment think will happen.
634
I cannot oppose the Bill, nor can any other hon. Member. I tabled an amendment that we should pass it only if there were some form of public inquiry. It would not be in order for me to read my amendment in full, but I took the view that we should not vote this money until the Government took certain steps. My remarks tonight will relate to the way in which the money is spent—that part of the £26 million debt which, in effect, will be expended by the Department of Transport because that Department has the Port of London Authority as a wholly-owned subsidiary.
The first point that I wish to put to the Minister relates to the constitution of the board of the PLA. When the PLA was established in 1908, it was responsible to those who used the port and constituted by election. In 1968 it changed its constitution. In effect, certain bodies nominated the members of the board. In 1975, that was silently changed, and now it is the Secretary of State for Transport alone who appoints 14 members who have experience in certain areas. No doubt they discharge their financial duties well within their limits, but that constitution also says that up to six permanenet members shall be co-opted on to the PLA board. There are aspects of that which at least require some attention. I leave it at that.
The PLA, being in debt, can have no real problem relating to policy-making, because if the Minister tells it to do something, or if the accountants that he has appointed advise that something would be prudent, it must comply. All that goes on in the PLA—a publicly-owned body which is written about in textbooks throughout the world as the prototype of a publicly-owned body—without any public knowledge at all. We did not hear much about the PLA's financial or other policies in Committee.
The PLA's future on the river and in the docks and its financial viability will depend to some extent on how it competes, or does not compete, with the ports of northwest Europe. We have had three debates on those lines, each more unsatisfactory than the last. This is the fourth dose of cash that has been administered to the PLA almost carte blanche. On one occasion, when I was speaking about the port of Dunkirk, one of your predecessors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pulled me up and asked how it related to the port of London. I explained that nowadays Dunkirk, Le Havre, Antwerp and Rotterdam are competitors of the port of London. Of course, they always have been, but they are more so today.
On Second Reading of the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) quoted Mr. John Lunch, a previous managing director of the PLA who, in 1974 said:
"It is well known that Continental ports have many of their costs borne by local or central government and provide special inducements to industry in the form of cheap land, low interest rates etc., since the main objective is to attract basic industry to seed economic growth. In contrast the financial policies for Britain's ports are probably at the extreme of world practice. We require our ports to bear all the costs and to charge the customer accordingly. Hence British ports always appear to the user to be much more expensive than Continental ports."
My hon. Friend went on to say:
"That is the subsidy argument. He continued to discuss British ports and said that if we allowed that practice to continue, transhipping would make Britain a feeder port rather than a major port. That is exactly what happened."—[Official Report, 16 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1368.]
My hon. Friend said that three years ago about a speech that had been made in 1974.

635
In Committee, I asked about the grid system. I asked the Minister whether the system of subsidising land transport onward from ports by the shipping company applied also to continental ports. I do not know whether he can reply to that question tonight. If not, some other branch of the Government should reply. If that system applies, it is clear that not only the port of London but most British ports will become outports of the continental giants. If the PLA still has to compete under those conditions, we shall be back here time and again. We have said that three or four times already. We shall receive an annual bill; we shall not tackle the basic problem.
I have the annual report and accounts of the PLA for 1981. The 1982 report is not yet available. Under major income, "Dock and conservancy charges on ships" are £12 million, "Port rates on goods" are £11 million and "Sundry services and facilities" are £8 million. Representations received from the London Wharfingers Association were discussed in Committee. It is clear that while port rates apply only to it, continential competitors—as shown by the Touche Ross report—can undercut it by 50 per cent. or more. I shall not quote the figures because they are out of date. When they were brought out, Hamburg rates could undercut London port rates by 80 per cent. Those are charges for ships coming into the river. Time and again these matters are raised, but the Government make no reply. We must conclude that they are not worried about this at all. Continental competition will go on and the House will have to vote more money.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) laughs. The trouble with this country is that some of its more educated people do not understand the basis of its historical growth and industry. London is the biggest port in this country, and the port is the heartland or core of this city. The amount of interest and knowledge shown by official agencies, especially the Conservative party, is appalling. A social historian will one day map the decline and fall of the port of London and perhaps the whole of British industry because of the Government's lack of knowledge of the basis of their so-called wealth.
As to the writing off of capital, the question is whether the Port of London Authority has written off the upper docks altogether. This matter was discussed in Committee, and I made some remarks about it. In the debate about the London Dockland Development Corporation vesting order just before the House rose for the Easter recess, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment having refused to give way or to reply to my remarks said:
"The hon. Gentleman has made a significant attack on people who cannot answer for themselves and I am providing him with the answer."—[Official Report, 28 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 154.]
In my speech I named a civil servant, but I did not attack him. I named him because his name appeared in a document. I would not attack civil servants. They are under instructions and have to do what they are told.
As a result of matters that I related in Committee, I wrote to the chairman of the LDDC drawing attention to the matters therein mentioned and asking him certain questions. If he wishes to reply he can do so. The Minister was wrong on that. The chairman of the port of London authority, Mr. Page, has written letters to me. If I get any facts or judgments wrong, he is perfectly entitled either by letter or speech or in any way to say that anything I have said is unfair, inaccurate or illogical. The trouble is that
636
we have not had a proper dialogue, despite the fact that the port of London is a public highway and a public corporation.
The relationship between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment is important. In Committee, I made public the fact that the LDDC had authorised one of its officials to approach the Department of the Environment to get an assurance that it would not approve assistance to the port of London authority in respect of the upper docks. I had no official communication on that. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport is not responsible for the Department of the Environment, but he is concerned with port policy. I say that, because the only reply that I had from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was that I should go and talk to the LDDC. In reply to a question that I tabled, he said:
"I shall be guided in my plans for regenerating industry and employment in the area, including the question of water access by the advice of the corporation, which has initiated a joint study with Newham borough council, the GLC and the port of London authority on the future of the royal docks."—[Official Report, 31 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 227.]
The royal docks, which are a big capital asset, are being written off. I have read before the paper that the LDDC produced, but I want to put on record that, although it is the first report of the officers' working party on the royal docks, there is no mention in the six pages relating to transport of water transport. That is an example of the way in which the fundamentals of port operation and the potential for water transport are being ignored. How can one write a report on the future of the royal docks without discussing their potential for water transport? That would be an extraordinary omission in the literature of any public body, still less that of the "dockland" development corporation.
The administration both of the PLA and of the port as a whole appears to be insensitive to its weaknesses as well as its strengths and potential. In Committee, I related how ship repair had been literally driven out of my constituency by arbitrary action on the part of the PLA, how firms that wanted to use water transport in the royal docks area had effectively been denied the opportunity to do so. and how the PLA arbitrarily and without notice withdrew water access from the royal docks and produced controversial and questionable figures relating to the alleged cost of maintaining water access.
That ship repair has gone down to the Medway. Good luck to the Medway. But why should it be on the Medway and not in London? How much other traffic is being driven away by such policies? How long can the Government connive at this ridiculous policy and at the extraordinary contortions of public organisations for which they are responsible? In writing off £48 million of public money, with very little public interest in London, the Government appear to be writing off not only public money but the port of London and the east end.
10.33 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): The purpose of this short and straightforward Bill is to relieve the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company of certain debts, so as to bring the capital structure of those two port authorities into line with the revenue that they can expect to earn.

637
Under the Bill, in the case of the PLA, the debt reduction will be in two parts: first up to £26 million of debt to the Government will be written off; secondly the authority will receive grant of up to £22 million to enable it to repay the amount outstanding on a commercial loan, which is currently being guaranteed by the Government. For the MDHC there will be a write-off of not more than £36 million of the company's debt to the Government. The Bill provides for these debt reductions—up to £84 million in all—to count against the £360 million limit on assistance to the PLA and the MDHC which was set in the Transport (Finance) Act 1982.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) asked me for further particulars about the nature of this debt and how it will be written off. In the case of London, the amount to be written off will be £22 million of commercial borrowing, known as the Lazard loan, plus £26 million of debt relating to unused assets. That is clear for London, but the position is rather more complicated for the MDHC. The exact amount to be written off is being discussed urgently with the company. We should arrive at the precise amount soon. The figure should be about £30 million to £36 million, which will be written off as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Until the write-offs can be achieved, the two port authorities will have to continue making payments of principal as they fall due. We shall provide them with grant for that purpose. That is why I used the words "up to". We cannot exactly determine the amount of the payments until we know the exact date on which the Bill will receive Royal Assent.
Mr. Ogden: If I correctly understand the matter, for the port of London the sum will be £48 million once the Bill receives Royal Assent; for the MDHC it will be £30 million to £36 million, depending on the agreement between the accountants, the Government and the port.
Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is right in his summary of the position. The factors that I mentioned will obviously affect the amounts to be written off under the Bill.
I wish to refer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He raised a number of matters that come within the management responsibility of the PLA. He mentioned the royal docks. He covered the history of developments in the royal docks in Committee, and I listened carefully to all that he said. I recognise that he remains unhappy about some of the decisions that have been reached in dealing with the royals, and I understand the strength of his feelings. In responding to the hon. Gentleman's points in Committee I tried, at some length, to explain the background against which the difficult decisions must be taken. I know that the PLA chairman, Mr. Paige, has written at length to the hon. Gentleman and remains ready to explain the reasons for the PLA's actions. The hon. Gentleman's further points will be noted by the PLA, which is responsible for the decisions on water access to the royals. It is right that on any operational matters the hon. Gentleman should address his further queries to the PLA.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the extent of the application of the grid system. That matter comes primarily within the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. However,
638
I am making inquiries on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I shall ensure that he is written to as soon as possible.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the grid. However, he is really only explaining the ignorance of his Department. Does not he agree that the matter is of great significance for all British ports, and that it must be followed up? If there is any effect, the matter must be taken up on an international level. While the Minister knows that I have received a great deal of information from Mr. Paige of the PLA, does he agree that in respect of the costs of water access to the royal docks, there has been a stalemate and the PLA has not provided a breakdown of the £700,000 that it claims is the annual cost of maintaining water access from the river?
Mr. Eyre: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the grid. I assure him that all necessary considerations will be borne in mind.
The hon. Member for Newham, South spoke also about the role of the LDDC. He was good enough to send my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment a copy of the letter that he wrote to the chairman of the corporation. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot comment on matters that do not fall within my area of responsibility and do not come within the Bill. I am sure that the chairman will let the hon. Gentleman have a reply to the issues that he has raised in due course.
Whatever differences of opinion there may have been about past decisions I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the urgent priority now is to look forward to the new activities and employment opportunities that will be brought to the area following the establishment of the LDDC.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has shut them out. He has pushed them out.
Mr. Eyre: I know that the local authorities and the PLA are keen to play a constructive part in these developments. We should look to these developments to bring substantial and long-lasting benefits to the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South and to those who live there.
The discussion of the Bill in Committee and on Second Reading showed that there was broad support for its objectives. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for the support that he gave again this evening for the purposes of the Bill.
It has been suggested that if the PLA and the MDHC cannot meet the remit that my right hon. Friend has set for them, they will be able to turn to the Government for more money. I repeat what I said on Second Reading about the Government's attitude to future financial assistance to the two boards. We shall for the time being continue to meet the full cost of severances, to provide loans for essential capital investments and to guarantee limited overdraft facilities to meet day-to-day trading fluctuations. However, there will be no more operating subsidies for either body. That sort of help came to an end last December and will not be resumed. It is vital that everyone involved in the two ports keeps that essential consideration in mind.
The hon. Member for Newham, South suggested that the Bill was no settlement of long-term problems. The

639
future of the PLA and the MDHC depends not on the Government but on the efforts of the managements and work forces. Further manpower reductions are needed and I hope that they will be achieved under the current extremely generous special severance offer under which dockers in London and Liverpool, as well as other scheme ports, who apply by the end of April can receive severance payments of up to £22,500.
I can confirm in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that under the present management the PLA, due to the efforts of the management and the work force, has made considerable progress in dealing with its problems. Arrangements are under discussion for the police force and if my hon. Friend will permit me I shall write to him fully on that issue.
I am confident that London and Liverpool will continue to be major ports for many years to come. The assistance that we have made available, culminating in the Bill, has given the PLA and the MDHC a base from which they can achieve financial viability with continued effort and commitment. It is now up to the ports themselves to make the most of this opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Matrimonial Homes Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.45 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is purely a consolidation measure. It brings together the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, as amended, and relevant provisions in subsequent legislation, including portions of the Matrimonial Homes and Property Act 1981. As always, we are greatly indebted to the Joint Committee for checking that the Bill will not alter the law.
We must correct one small error in Committee, but I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
Committee tomorrow.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.46 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This measure is purely a consolidation measure, bringing together the law relating to mentally disordered persons. The principal Act is the Mental Health Act 1959. The Act has been amended on numerous occasions over the years. The Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 made further extensive amendments and introduced new provisions for the treatment and discharge of mental patients. This is a good time for consolidation.
The Bill was considered by the Joint Committee, to which we are indebted for its labours. Minor amendments will be necessary in Committee, but I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
Committee tomorrow.

Pilotage Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.47 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is also purely a consolidation measure. The law on pilotage was last consolidated in 1913 and has remained substantially unamended until 1979. The Merchant Shipping Act 1979 amended it extensively and introduced new provisions. This is a suitable time for consolidation. Some provisions in the 1979 Act are not yet in force. They are included in this Bill in the usual way and when the appropriate commencement orders are made they will come into force in substitution for the provisions in the existing law also included in the Bill.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee, to which we owe a great debt. Because the law has altered slightly since the Bill was considered in another place, it will be necessary for further amendments to be moved in Committee to catch up with developments.
10.48 pm
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I could not let this occasion pass without congratulating the Solicitor-General on creating something of a mini-record in moving three Second Readings so concisely and informatively in precisely three minutes. I am satisfied that the Bills are consolidation measures and we await heated and lengthy debates on the amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
Committee tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  HIRE-PURCHASE
  That the draft Hire-Purchase (Increase of Limit of Value) (Great Britain) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Question agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE G
Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Dentists Bill [Lords], Standing Committee G have leave to sit twice on Tuesday 19 April.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Tourism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
10.52 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the important subject of the future of the tourist industry in the United Kingdom. I have a personal interest in this subject, both as a west country Member of Parliament and as the parliamentary adviser to the British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers Association.
This is a most appropriate time to hold a short debate on this important topic. The Minister, whom I welcome to the front Bench this evening, is currently engaged in a fundamental and far-reaching review of all aspects of the tourist industry, the results of which are eagerly awaited. The first question that I should like to ask him is whether he can tell us when he hopes to make a statement to the House.
This debate will probably be the final opportunity that the House will have to make suggestions and proposals. The Minister has been most thorough in inviting all interested parties and organisations to participate in the exercise. I would like to thank him personally for visiting Looe in my constituency. During his visit he met representatives not only of the tourist industry but of the local chamber of commerce and trade, and he discussed many aspects of the tourist industry.
It is important to put the tourist industry into its true context, and to be aware of its contribution to our national and regional economies. I shall discuss the industry in the context of the south-west. In 1981, the south-west attracted 15 million visitors, tourists from both the United Kingdom and overseas. In comparison, 13 million people visited Scotland and 11 million visited Wales. The estimated income for the south-west from those visitors was about £885 million. A total of 160,000 full-time jobs have been created as a consequence, together with many more in ancillary activities.
On a national level, over 11 million visitors from overseas countries visited Britain in 1981. These visitors spent some £3,000,000 in valuable overseas currency—far more than our earnings from car exports. One and a half million people are employed on a regular basis in our tourist industry. I hope that the House will appreciate from those figures the importance and significance that the tourist industry has assumed.
Tourism today is big business and a successful industry. It is essentially a private sector economic activity, but occasionally it looks to central Government for some tangible encouragement. For that reason, the recent Budget was disappointing. The Government continually tell us in ministerial statements, including one by the Prime Minister, that they acknowledge the contribution of tourism to the national economy, but unfortunately that is as far as they have gone. I give three examples to illustrate the point.
First, we have constantly argued that industrial building allowances for hotels should be raised from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent., in line with the increase in industrial building allowances for manufacturing premises from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. some two years ago. If the allowances for hotels and associated buildings were increased in that way, the revenue loss to the Treasury would be just £10 million, but many of us would argue that

643
the money generated through regained tax and national insurance contributions and in other ways would far outweigh that loss.
My second example relates to the Government's failure to zero-rate VAT in respect of charges on overseas visitors staying in United Kingdom accommodation. In a parliamentary answer to me the Chancellor estimated that the revenue loss would be £100 million. I remind the Minister, however, that tourism is an international market and that most of our European competitors operate a rate of VAT on overseas visitors to their countries far lower than the 15 per cent. that applies here.
My third illustration of the Government's failure to appreciate the significance and worth of the tourist industry to our national economy relates to section 4 assistance under the Development of Tourism Act 1969. That assistance applies to approved tourist projects, which are very important in improving the quality of tourism provision in the regions. I appreciate that in real terms expenditure on such assistance is now more than double the figure in 1972 when it was first introduced. In Wales, £2 million is now allocated for section 4 assistance. In Scotland the figure is also £2 million. Until recently the figure for England was £5·3 million. We welcome the recent increase to £8 million. That is undoubtedly a real improvement, but it does not hide the fact that there is widespread disappointment throughout the tourist industry at the Government's attitude to tourism. It is felt that little has been done to create the climate of confidence that is necessary if the industry is to prosper and develop, especially in the regions and resorts of this country that are so deserving of support and encouragement.
It is right that I should relate to the House today the generally held view of the industry that it is now looking to my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for tourism to turn Treasury indifference into action. That is one of the principal reasons why my hon. Friend's review of the way in which tourism in the United Kingdom is administered and operated is so eagerly awaited. My hon. Friend has already made a start with his announcement in the House on 16 March when he responded to the financial review undertaken by independent consultants on the expenditure programmes of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. I certainly welcomed his announcement of a change of emphasis in the priorities and the redeployment of financial resources.
My hon. Friend's decision to concentrate more funds at the two sharp ends of tourism is important. I refer, of course, to the promotion of Britain overseas to attract overseas visitors and the further provision of quality tourism projects for those visitors to enjoy when they arrive here. That is being helped by the sensible and welcome increased provision of section 4 aid. I welcome also the Minister's decision to increase subvention to the regional tourist boards.
I come now to what I consider to be the major reform required in the tourism infrastructure—the creation of a single tourist authority for the United Kingdom embracing all facets of tourist infrastructure headed by a full-time professional executive chairman. The Development of Tourism Act 1969 has existed for some 13 years. Sufficient time has elapsed to enable us to pin down its weaknesses and successes. I believe that the existing structures allow for an overlapping of functions and too much bureaucracy. The present structures are less cost-effective than they should be and the enormous financial
644
resources devoted by central Government to tourism are being diverted from what must be the fundamental objectives of any tourism structure—the attraction of overseas visitors and the provision of tourist attractions in the United Kingdom.
I appreciate that primary legislation would be required to change these structures. This issue has been discussed by the all-party group on tourism. There is a general consensus that a single tourism authority would be desirable within the United Kingdom. Obviously, members have disagreed about individual emphasis. I envisage that this authority would have two divisions. The first would be an external one, whose functions and responsibilities would correspond approximately to those being currently undertaken by the British Tourist Authority. The second essential component would be the internal division. In this context I should hope that far greater emphasis would be placed on the work being undertaken by regional tourist boards. The Scottish and Welsh tourist boards should and would continue and I would hope that they would be continued to be funded by their respective Secretaries of State, although I appreciate their sensitivities and responsibilities.
I hope that the House and the Minister will agree that important overseas promotional work should be undertaken by the external division of this single tourist authority and, for the Scottish and Welsh tourist boards it should be carried out in the same way as the BT A already undertakes the external promotional work on behalf of the regional boards within England. Of course some of the work of the Scottish, Welsh and regional tourist boards would have to be co-ordinated at the centre by the internal division of the new body. However, I am certain that the individual details of that reorganisation can be resolved. Implicit in these proposals is the abolition of the English Tourist Board. It is superfluous to our future requirements. Its existing functions could be distributed and absorbed within the new body that I have outlined.
We all agree that there is an increasing awareness that tourism will play a vital part in Britain's economic future. Tourism is one of our major economic activities for the reasons that I have already outlined, with the relevant statistics to back up that view. We must ensure that new resources flow into tourism and leisure development and that our tourist institutions are capable of meeting those new challenges. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us what his thinking is and what his hopes for the future are and so convince the tourist industry that the Government not only understand the industry but are prepared to assist in its future development in a tangible manner.
11.6 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) has taken this opportunity to bring the subject of tourism to the attention of the House. I congratulate him on what he said not least because he is indefatigable in advancing the cause of tourism, particularly in the west country and, as always, he has put forward the case for tourism extremely cogently and forcefully.
As I hope to show my hon. Friend and the House, the Government fully recognise the importance of this vital industry, which during a period of recession has held up remarkable well. My hon. Friend has also rightly concentrated on the future of an industry that has potential

645
for growth both in terms of employment and in earnings of foreign currency. My hon. Friend will understand, I know, that I am not yet able to announce the conclusions of my review of the way in which tourism is handled in this country, but I hope to do so before this month is out, if I possibly can.
Given the importance of the industry, I am conscious of the need to draw the right conclusions from the mass of evidence that has been put to me over the past nine or 10 months. I have been highly impressed by the variety and depth of the material that has come to my notice. I should like to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members, especially those officers and others attending the Conservative Back Bench tourist committee, who have gone to the trouble to bring particular points to my attention during the review. I should also like to say how grateful I am for the views of the all-party tourism committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), to which my hon. Friend referred and to which I shall make a brief reference later.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have already announced some preliminary decisions on this year's funding of the two tourist boards for which I have responsibility; and which he mentioned. I decided that although the total sum available for the Department of Trade's support to tourism should be maintained at the level shown in the published estimates, the expenditure on individual elements of support should reflect a substantial change in priorities. These changes make a start in cutting out areas of waste and needless duplication of effort by the boards and redirecting their available resources. I want to see the British Tourist Authority active in overseas markets where it has earned a reputation for professionalism which is highly regarded by its peers.
At the same time, the BTA board has accepted that it should withdraw from some domestic activities which, if they need to be done at all, can be taken over by the other tourist boards, other organisations or by the industry itself. So important do I regard BTA's role overseas that I have invited its board to put proposals to me for spending an additional £1 million on overseas promotion.
I am glad to say that the board has already responded and I am giving careful consideration to its plans. For the ETB, I have decided that in 1983–84 I want to see a substantial increase in the amount that it provides in grants for tourism projects. Therefore, I recently announced an increase in the Estimates provision for that purpose from £5 million in 1982–83 to just over £8 million in 1983–84.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should have a single tourist board and he suggested doing away with the ETB. That is an extremely interesting suggestion, and I was doubly interested to hear that it has the backing of the all-party tourism committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the idea to my attention, and I shall consider it very carefully in the final drafting of the review.
Even though my review has not been concluded, there are certain factors that it would be appropriate to mention which will have a bearing on the final decisions. First, there is the sheer size of the industry: it employs about 1 million people; it earned in 1982, some £3·3 billion in foreign currency contributing to a total turnover of approximately £8 billion; it touches upon numerous sectors in the service industries ranging in scale from
646
transport and accommodation on the one hand, to smaller but none the less important activities such as guide services on the other. It is a changing scene—the traditional midsummer holiday at the seaside resorts developed in Victorian and Edwardian times in competition with new developments such as all-weather leisure centres and all-the-year-round short-break holidays.
Nor should we overlook those areas of tourism outside the leisure sector. In 1981, for example, business tourists from overseas constituted over 20 per cent. of foreign visitors and contributed a quarter of our overseas tourism earnings. Incentive travel is a growing aspect of business tourism, well developed in North America and with important potential for this country. It is essential that our tourist industry adapts to changing tastes and new developments. Failure to do so will have serious consequences, since it will become increasingly difficult to regain lost shares in a highly competitive international tourism market.
My hon. Friend will not need me to remind him that it is the industry—not Ministers and not the Government—which must set the pace. The Government's job is to create the framework of a favourable climate within which entrepreneurial skills can operate to full advantage. Not even the tourist boards are the doers. Their task is to act as catalysts, to bring together the fragmented parts of the vast tourism industry, and to take the lead in showing how our tourism products can best be promoted. All these efforts will be of little avail, however, if the people of Britain are not convinced of the importance of tourism. There are still too many who view the tourist as a nuisance, at best only to be tolerated.
During my review, however, I have had many occasions to meet and talk to people who fortunately have not taken that view, but have seized the opportunities which tourism brings to benefit the community as a whole. For example, in London, the development of the old Covent Garden site is an attraction as much for London residents as it is for Japanese or American visitors. Further afield, I should mention Bradford city council's pacesetting tourism development scheme. There are countless other tourism projects whose development can only add to the quality of life of the local community.
I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make further mention of London. It is a unique attraction in tourism terms and an important gateway to Britain as a whole. Its success in that dual capacity is vital to the health of our tourist industry in the rest of England, in Wales and in Scotland. Whatever the attractions of the rest of our country—and there is no doubt that in Britain we have the finest tourism attractions in the world—it remains a fact that for many of our first-time overseas visitors London is the magnet. On the success of that first visit will depend their attitude towards repeat visits, more often than not to other areas of the country. Everyone will benefit from London's prosperity and its success as a tourist magnet.
That the whole country has an important share in tourism is fully recognised by this Government, who decided last August that grants for tourism projects under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 should be available on a national basis. I have already referred to a substantial increase in the amount of money available for England this year, and I shall wish to be assured that the grants are used to support projects which have the best potential, wherever they are. I hope to say more on another

647
occasion about the kind of project which should be supported from this source of assistance, but I am coming to the view that we should do more for our primary attractions, than for secondary facilities.
I have mentioned the importance of the overseas visitor, but my hon. Friend—representing, as he does so well, a Cornish constituency—will know probably better than many others that the domestic tourist is equally important to us. It is not for this Government to decree where their people should spend their holidays, but there are important economic and social reasons for encouraging our own people to spend their own money in this country.
Mr. David Penhaligon: Does the Minister recognise that tourism in my part of the country will be severely restricted if trains eventually terminate at Exeter?
Mr. Sproat: I am sure that is true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise that with those of my hon. Friends who are responsible for railway matters. It is an important point.
We must ensure that the tourist delights and attractions of our country are not solely promoted overseas. We have a marvellous product and we should not be ashamed to market it on our own doorsteps.
Let me, in summary, mention 10 factors that underpin the Government's approach to tourism.
First, the Government, the public, and the tourist industry have in the past, too often, undervalued the importance of tourism to this country.
Second, we have failed too often in the past to give enough recognition to the service industry as a whole, of which tourism is a vital part.
Third, tourism is a major growth industry of the future, with enormous potential for creating new jobs.
Fourth, tourism bestows benefits on local communities as well as on visitors from outside. The Covent Garden site that I have already mentioned is a prime example.
648
Fifth, London, like it or not—and some do not—is the number one gateway to Britain. Its promotion is crucial to the promotion of Britain as a whole. If we undersell London, we undersell Britain as a whole.
Sixth, tourism is too important to be a mere adjunct to regional policy. That is why we decided to broaden the range of section 4 grants from applying only in assisted areas to applying throughout the country.
Seventh, we must support and develop the appeal of our primary attractions, not only our hotels and secondary facilities.
Eighth, tourism is not made by tourist boards or by the Government. The dynamic of the industry depends on local interests and private sector initiatives.
Ninth, we must also emphasise the attraction of our own country for our own people far more than we have in the past.
Tenth, we should never be ashamed to say that this country has a truly wonderful product to sell. No other country can rival the variety of its tourist attraction, scenery and architecture, history and tradition, of artistic heritage, sporting and leisure facilities, theatres, galleries, museums and shops.
I hope that my hon. Friend, who has done a great service tonight in bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, will be content with these preliminary thoughts on the future of the tourist industry. I intend to say more just as soon as my review is complete, which I hope will be this month. In the meantime, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to take a look at an industry that has such an important part to play in the future well-being of our economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
TRADE
  Welshpool Timber Co. Ltd.
  Welshpool Timber Co. Ltd.
  European Community and Japan
  European Community and Japan
  Dunellon Hotels Ltd.
  Dunellon Hotels Ltd.
  Villagate and Jovine Ltd.
  Villagate and Jovine Ltd.
  Bernard Clarke Group
  Bernard Clarke Group
  Video Recorders
  Video Recorders
  Night Flying
  Night Flying
  Seafarers' Paintings (Exhibition)
  Seafarers' Paintings (Exhibition)
  Marine Pilots (Early Retirement Scheme)
  Marine Pilots (Early Retirement Scheme)
  Exclusive Purchasing Agreements
  Exclusive Purchasing Agreements
  Soccer (Broadcasts)
  Soccer (Broadcasts)
  Miniature Circuit Breakers
  Miniature Circuit Breakers
  Imported Goods (Safety Measures)
  Imported Goods (Safety Measures)
SCOTLAND
  Car Ownership
  Car Ownership
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Claypotts Castle
  Claypotts Castle
  Parents Charter
  Parents Charter
  School Placings (Tayside)
  School Placings (Tayside)
  Pensioners (Support Funding)
  Pensioners (Support Funding)
  Infant and Perinatal Mortality
  Infant and Perinatal Mortality
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Students (Language Studies)
  Students (Language Studies)
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Elderly Persons (Health Care)
  Elderly Persons (Health Care)
  Burials
  Burials
  Old People's Homes
  Old People's Homes
  Elderly Persons (Travel Concessions)
  Elderly Persons (Travel Concessions)
  Elderly Persons (Advice Service)
  Elderly Persons (Advice Service)
  Free Port (Aberdeen)
  Free Port (Aberdeen)
  Peterhead Bay (Management) Limited
  Peterhead Bay (Management) Limited
  Public Housing (Dampness)
  Public Housing (Dampness)
  National Health Service (Privatisation)
  National Health Service (Privatisation)
PRIME MINISTER
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  House of Lords (Members' Appointments)
  House of Lords (Members' Appointments)
INDUSTRY
  Factory Lettings
  Factory Lettings
DEFENCE
  Argentine Prisoners (Death and Injury)
  Argentine Prisoners (Death and Injury)
  Belize (British Garrison)
  Belize (British Garrison)
  HMS Hermes
  HMS Hermes
  RAF Bentley Priory
  RAF Bentley Priory
  Service Injuries
  Service Injuries
  Martin Ketterick
  Martin Ketterick
  Service Men (Actions for Negligence)
  Service Men (Actions for Negligence)
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mail Raids
  Mail Raids
  Residence Applications
  Residence Applications
  Refugees (Residence Applications)
  Refugees (Residence Applications)
  Polish Seamen (Asylum)
  Polish Seamen (Asylum)
  Cigarette Fires
  Cigarette Fires
  Cypriots (Deportations)
  Cypriots (Deportations)
  Harmondsworth Illegal Immigration Unit
  Harmondsworth Illegal Immigration Unit
  Visitors' Landing Cards (Bootle Computer)
  Visitors' Landing Cards (Bootle Computer)
  Travellers' Suspects Index
  Travellers' Suspects Index
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India (Laparoscopes)
  India (Laparoscopes)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Agusan Del Sur (Loan)
  Agusan Del Sur (Loan)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Falkland Islands (Supply)
  Falkland Islands (Supply)
  Argentina (British Schools)
  Argentina (British Schools)
  Information
  Information
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Arab Delegation (London Visit)
  Arab Delegation (London Visit)
  Namibia
  Namibia
TRANSPORT
  Railway Lines (Closures)
  Railway Lines (Closures)
  Bicycles
  Bicycles
  M25 (Services)
  M25 (Services)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Rayner Scrutinies
  Rayner Scrutinies
ENERGY
  European Community (Budget Rebate)
  European Community (Budget Rebate)
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
ENVIRONMENT
  Rehoused Hostel Residents (Report)
  Rehoused Hostel Residents (Report)
  Tealham and Tadham Moor
  Tealham and Tadham Moor
  Radioactive Waste (Warrington)
  Radioactive Waste (Warrington)
  Draft Maps
  Draft Maps
  South Liverpool Docks
  South Liverpool Docks
  Grand National
  Grand National
  Fishing (Lead Weights)
  Fishing (Lead Weights)
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Mobile Home Sites
  Mobile Home Sites
  Building Control (Inner London)
  Building Control (Inner London)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Private Cars (Allowances)
  Private Cars (Allowances)
  Exchange Control Restrictions
  Exchange Control Restrictions
  Expenditure and Debts (Statistics)
  Expenditure and Debts (Statistics)
  Company Profits (Taxation)
  Company Profits (Taxation)
  Mainstream Corporation Tax
  Mainstream Corporation Tax
  Claims Branch Edinburgh
  Claims Branch Edinburgh
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Free Port (Fraserburgh)
  Free Port (Fraserburgh)
  Customs and Excise (Airports)
  Customs and Excise (Airports)
  Customs and Excise (Concessionary Facilities)
  Customs and Excise (Concessionary Facilities)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Social Security Budget
  Social Security Budget
  Value Added Tax (Ice Cream)
  Value Added Tax (Ice Cream)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Budget Proposals
  Budget Proposals
  Business Start-up Relief
  Business Start-up Relief
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
WALES
  Powys (Aid)
  Powys (Aid)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure and Rates)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure and Rates)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Victoria and Albert and Science Museums (Local Purchase Grants)
  Victoria and Albert and Science Museums (Local Purchase Grants)
  North-East London Polytechnic
  North-East London Polytechnic
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Estate Duty and Capital Transfer Tax
  Estate Duty and Capital Transfer Tax
  Scottish Universities (Qualifications)
  Scottish Universities (Qualifications)
  Hillview School, Welling
  Hillview School, Welling
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Hereditaments (Rateable Value)
  Industrial Hereditaments (Rateable Value)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Emergency Provisions Acts
  Emergency Provisions Acts
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Homes for the Elderly
  Homes for the Elderly
  Geriatrics (North-West Region)
  Geriatrics (North-West Region)
  South London Hospital for Women (Closure)
  South London Hospital for Women (Closure)
  State Pension (Contracting-Out)
  State Pension (Contracting-Out)
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Secure Accommodation
  Secure Accommodation
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Retirement Pensions (Form BR 2101)
  Retirement Pensions (Form BR 2101)
  Labour Force Survey
  Labour Force Survey
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Lead in Petrol
  Lead in Petrol
  Service Widows (Pensions)
  Service Widows (Pensions)
  Replacement Kidney Operations
  Replacement Kidney Operations
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Caesarian Births
  Caesarian Births
  Home Computers
  Home Computers
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Spina Bifida
  Spina Bifida
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Deaf and Blind Babies
  Deaf and Blind Babies
  Doctors (Pay)
  Doctors (Pay)
  Tobacco Industry (Agreement)
  Tobacco Industry (Agreement)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
EMPLOYMENT
  Motor Industry (Dispute)
  Motor Industry (Dispute)
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Enterprise Allowance (Melton)
  Enterprise Allowance (Melton)
  Factories (Registered Premises)
  Factories (Registered Premises)
  Factory Inspectors (Visits)
  Factory Inspectors (Visits)
  Part-time Employment
  Part-time Employment
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Accidents
  Accidents
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operatives (Grants)
  Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operatives (Grants)
  Whirling Disease
  Whirling Disease
  Inland and Coastal Fisheries
  Inland and Coastal Fisheries
  Salmon Poaching
  Salmon Poaching
  Ultra-heat Treated Milk
  Ultra-heat Treated Milk
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Heather and Grass Burning
  Heather and Grass Burning
  Food Content
  Food Content

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol

The Commonwealth: Economic Co-operation
2.38 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will call a special Commonwealth Conference to examine economic co-operation and related matters.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): No, my Lords. Such matters are under constant review in Commonwealth fora; most notably the annual meetings of Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the biennial meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, and I can understand a part of it; but this is an ongoing business with the British Commonwealth of nations of which I am a passionate supporter. Is the noble Lord aware that the present world crisis to which we are moving—the industrial crisis and related matters—might call for something special to be done within the British Commonwealth which could be of benefit to the Commonwealth and possibly the rest of the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting the Commonwealth Secretary-General was commissioned to convene a group of experts who produced a very useful report: The North-South Dialogue: Making it Work.
2
That is one example of the way in which the Common-wealth tries to follow the road recommended by the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the shortage of grain now predicted is likely to cause even greater hardship in many parts of the world including the third world? Does he not agree that there is something radically wrong with our civilisation when efficient farmers are encouraged to go out of production and about 500 million people are suffering from malnutrition? On the question of the Commonwealth, does the noble Lord not agree that the conference of the Royal Commonwealth Agricultural Society, which is to be held in Harare in Zimbabwe in two or three weeks' time, will present Her Majesty's Government with a forum to discuss these matters in a constructive way? Can the noble Lord tell the House what initiatives the Government are proposing to take when that conference opens?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, on the difficulty of overcoming hunger in parts of the world which are so afflicted when other parts of the world are producing too much can best be met by doing everything possible to support improvements in the agricultural systems of the countries which are afflicted. This is certainly the general line which I know we shall be taking in Harare on that particular aspect. The noble Lord asks me to be specific, but may I refer to the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Melbourne in 1981 and remind him that it maintained the practical commitment to development through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. There, for example, is a tool which is used to effect to try to overcome the problems to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I fully agree that every country should be encouraged to develop its own agriculture to the full, and that it is our duty as a country to give what technical and expert assistance we possibly can? But

3
does he not agree that there are occasions when, all too frequently, these countries are afflicted by drought—as is Ethiopia at present—causing unimaginable hardship to many people? Can the noble Lord say what practical assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to countries in those circumstances?
Lord Belstead: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Although I am not briefed on the specific supplementary question that the noble Lord asks, I think I am right in saying that we are giving aid in Ethiopia for that precise reason. This is something that we feel we should do when there is a sudden need for it. It is fair to say that Britain tries to respond when problems of that kind arise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord take this opportunity of agreeing, as I believe he will, that the Commonwealth, with its broad span, is a most suitable forum for discussion of the grave economic questions that the whole world is at present facing? Further, will he suggest to his right honourable friends, both in the Foreign Office and the Exchequer, that they might very well discuss with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth the results of the expert examination which he mentioned before the world economic summit at Williamsburg next month?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it was because of what the noble Lord calls the Commonwealth being an appropriate forum to discuss the grave economic problems which have been affecting the world that at the last Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting held last year the Commonwealth Secretary-General established a group of experts to study the international trade and payment system, including the role of the international economic institutions. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, it is the international economic institutions which have been behind the rescue packages which have had to be mounted for certain countries in recent months.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the other ongoing meetings of the British Commonwealth. Would he not agree that with all the researches that are going on to which he has referred, and the possibility of the world summit next month, it might then be the correct and judicious moment for the British Commonwealth to have its summit to see how it can fit into all these proposals and make its contribution to the whole of mankind, which I happen to believe it most certainly can?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the short answer to the noble Lord is that he is asking for rather too many meetings to be fitted into any one year. If I may say so, perhaps the noble Lord disregards for a moment the importance of the Commonwealth Secretariat which is based here in London and which fosters practical economic co-operation within the Commonwealth on an ongoing basis. So far as the great international meetings which are to take place within the next three months are concerned—namely, UNCTAD Six, the ministerial meeting of the OECD and the Williamsburg summit—there has been
4
some good preparation for them within the Commonwealth—I repeat fostered not least by the ongoing work of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government can approach the meat importing industry with a view to securing more of our imports from the Commonwealth and far less of those imports from Argentina?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not hear the noble Lord's question.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Government approach our meat importing industry with a view to seeing whether they can import more of their meat from the Commonwealth and less of it from Argentina, which we do not view very favourably at the moment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that we are now getting a little wide of the original Question.

Lead Contamination of Vegetables
2.47 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to ensure that vegetables grown in gardens and allotments in London and other large cities are free from excessive lead contamination and safe to consume.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, home-grown vegetables form only a small proportion of the diet of the average consumer. Research has shown that even in areas where there are high natural levels of lead in soil and above-average consumption of home-grown produce the total intake of lead from food is well within the limit set by the World Health Organisation. There are, of course, stringent regulations about the lead content of vegetables and other food offered for sale, which accounts for the major part of the average diet.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a completely unsatisfactory Answer on the part of the Government? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is considerable public concern about this matter, in addition to the fact that there is an implied threat to the health of pregnant women and young children? Is he further aware that it is no use whatever telling people in inner London and other great cities not to grow their vegetables in that area but to go to the greengrocer, because in point of fact—and I live in north-west Kent—considerable quantities of produce are grown immediately adjacent to motorways and, therefore, are open to a considerable amount of lead pollution? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give a more satisfactory reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, found my reply unsatisfactory. The fact is, of course, that lead pollution of vegetables is by no means a proven factor, and, even if it were, what is important is the amount that is actually consumed by the people eating the vegetables. The evidence as a whole suggests that petrol lead—the noble Lord referred to motorways—is not the main contributor to total intake in the United Kingdom. The results of the recent European Community blood lead survey show that the United Kingdom blood lead levels, even in areas of heavy traffic, are generally low and are virtually indistinguishable from those in areas with less heavy traffic. In the very few cases where high blood lead levels were found, the cause was invariably either exposure to lead in drinking water or careless stripping of old leaded paint.
The noble Lord also referred to the dangers to health for pregnant women and children. I would refer him to my department's recent press release on the subject of lead and children's intelligence, No. 151, dated 7th April, in which it is reported that investigators from three major United Kingdom research groups will shortly be reporting the absence of any statistically significant lead effects in large-scale studies of children from city centre areas in London, Leeds and Birmingham.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have seen the press statement and that I have read it? There is much to be said in regard to the point that social background should probably he taken into account; but the Government's Answer is completely at variance with scientific reports that have been made recently, not only by CLEAR—the organisation responsible for a press campaign—but also by other reputable scientific organisations. Is the Minister aware, or will he admit, that there is sitting at the moment a Royal Commission, the report of which is due on 18th April, which is a notable date, since it is my birthday? Will the Government undertake to give very careful consideration to the Royal Commission's report, come forward with their conclusions and place the matter before both Houses of Parliament? Judging from what the Minister has indicated, at the moment the Government do not seem to have a clue, and are completely dodging the issue.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, the Government are far from dodging the issue. My right honourable friend knows full well, as do I, of the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; and, as is always the case, the Government will study it with great care and attention. The Government know that on this particular subject, on which at the moment there is much public concern, as evidenced by the noble Lord's series of questions, the Royal Commission report will add greatly to the debate on the topic. I should be the last to deny the critical level (shall I say?) of expertise contained in reports issuing from the Royal Commission, but it might interest the noble Lord to know that, over and above that report, the Ministry of Agriculture has in hand two research projects on the uptake of lead in vegetables from lead in the air.
6
That shows that the Government take the matter seriously and are studying it at the moment. But, as I say, the report will give added impetus to the study.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the evidence that we have so far from a number of sources is that the amount of lead uptake from the soil varies very greatly with the type of vegetable in question, but there is little doubt that some vegetables, in particular brussels sprouts and lettuce, take a large amount from the air? Will he also agree that if they are not adequately washed,were grown in an area near a road and were subject to a large amount of lead from vehicle emissions, they would most certainly exceed the permissible limit by quite a margin?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; the noble Viscount is absolutely right. In the washing and culinary preparation of vegetables there is achieved a substantial reduction of the deposited lead, in any event. It has been estimated to be as high as 50 per cent., though that is by no means proven.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the press notice to which he referred—a definitive press notice—was decided upon before or after the recent medical and scientific report which came out in favour of lead-free petrol?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question, but what I do know is that the press release is concerned with long-term studies at the University of Birmingham, the Institute of Psychiatry, the Institute of Child Health at Great Ormond Street, and the University of Southampton. I should imagine that the studies have been going on for some considerable time. I should think they were going on while the arrangements for the publication of the study to which the noble Lord referred were also being worked out.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that studies made in the United States of America, Japan, and Australia were sufficient for the Governments of those countries to decide to phase out lead in petrol, since they reckoned that it was dangerous to the health of children in their countries?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not yet clear whether the studies in other parts of the world, especially in the south-western United States, were in fact comparable, in that the conditions were different: there were different amounts of traffic, and different amounts of air movement.

Wandsworth: Refuse Disposal
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the statement of the Wandsworth

7
Borough chief auditor that shopkeepers have paid privatised dustmen to have rubbish taken away is consistent with Lord Bellwin's statement that none of the complaints of this practice has been substantiated.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, in the series of Questions which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has put on this topic he has blurred the issue by confusing allegations of demands for payment being made, and traders choosing to make unofficial payments for the removal of refuse. As I have consistently stated, the chief auditor's investigations into the press allegations of bribery found no evidence of demands for payment of money being made. What the chief auditor did find was that some traders had chosen to make unofficial arrangements for the clearance of trade refuse which should have been dealt with under official arrangements with the council.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the noble Lord suggests that the issue is blurred, would it not be clarified if the Wandsworth Borough Council was to ask its chief auditor to publish a report on the investigations to which the noble Lord has just referred?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, surely that is up to the local authority itself to decide. The noble Lord so often reminds us that authorities should act under their own powers and practise autonomy. I am sure that this is a case where the council will take note of his Question.

Hyde Park Corner: Traffic Lights
2.56 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total estimated cost of the traffic light experiment at Hyde Park Corner, and how much of this sum ranks for Government grant.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that the Greater London Council originally estimated the cost of this experiment at £75,000. Additional works have been undertaken, but the cost of these is not yet known. The experiment is part of a programme of minor schemes accepted by the Department of Transport as being eligible for transport supplementary grant purposes. However, it is for the Greater London Council to decide how that block grant is allocated between its many eligible schemes.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that no one would greatly resent the expenditure—though it is likely to be more than double the figure when the final scheme is installed, and when maintenance is allowed for—if in fact there were any improvement in traffic flow? Has my noble friend
8
observed that when the amount of traffic is light, or at a medium volume, the flow is quite satisfactory, as it was before the lights were installed, but that at peak hours in mornings and evenings it is quite chaotic? Will my noble friend draw the attention of the GLC to the fact that at all hours during the day time, and often in the evenings as well, Grosvenor Crescent, which constitutes a main feed into the circular system at Hyde Park Corner, is now choked the whole Way back into Belgrave Square?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand from both the police and the GLC authorities that since the installation on 27th March of the additional traffic lights there has been some improvement in the traffic flow. Additionally, I can tell my noble friend that, as we return from post-Easter holiday traffic, the monitoring will be continued, and a certain amount of fine tuning has to be undertaken, in particular in relation to the light sequences. However, I should remind my noble friend that the primary concern of the Greater London Council in putting this traffic management scheme into operation was to reduce the excessive number of accidents that have taken place in the area in the last few years.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has any break-down of the accident figures, showing the time that they took place and whether they involved people or vehicles? Secondly, may I ask what happens to the lights, fine tuned or not, when the Household Cavalry crosses Hyde Park Corner?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's last supplementary question, I can tell her that the lights remain operative, whether the horses are crossing or standing still. With regard to the accidents, there have been a number involving personal injury. The most important accident figures for 1982 comprised 10 involving pedal cyclists, 13 involving people in motor cars, and 10 involving people in PSVs. In all, in 1982 there were 56 personal injury accidents; in 1981 there were 62, and in 1980 there were 48.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is it not natural that there are fewer accidents when all the traffic is standing still and vehicles are not running into each other? Is not one of the unfortunate results of the installation of the lights that more police have to be employed during the rush hours sorting out the traffic blocks?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot confirm whether or not more police are employed at this stage. Certainly I can tell my noble friend that until such time as the system has been accepted by the motorist—it takes some considerable time for motorists to accept any change in traffic movements—and until such time as the fine tuning has been accomplished, there may well be people who perceive congestion when there may in fact be none. I have little doubt that as the system gets under way and becomes accepted by motorists the blockages of which he speaks will be minimised.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, I use this route two or three time every day. Is my noble friend suggesting that what motorists have to do to improve it is to avoid it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that prior to this experiment most sensible motorists wished to avoid Hyde Park Corner? Has not the department stated that the matter is to be monitored? Would it not therefore be better to wait until the monitoring is completed? Should not the Metropolitan Police and the Greater London Council be congratulated for trying to deal with trouble spots? Is it not the case that only time will tell?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for that intervention. He is absolutely right. If we take his advice and examine this gyratory system in three or four months' time we shall be better able to make a more sensible judgment than at a time only two or three weeks after it has been fully in operation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised this matter in the House he was correct? There was almost total chaos. The reason, it would appear, is that the scheme was introduced piecemeal and by instalments. It seemed for some time that both the police and motorists were completely at a loss over what was happening. As the scheme has developed and is now reaching fruition, the position seems to be improving dramatically.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. He is right. I replied first to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on 21st March. Since that time the additional lights have been brought into operation. That was on 27th March. The GLC observers, the police and officials from my department who have made observations report in a manner that suggests that the scheme is more likely to be profitable and practical than otherwise.
Lord Annan: My Lords, while paying tribute to the nerves of steel that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is known to possess and to a skill in manoeuvring his car that rivals that of Mr. Lester Piggott and Mr. Willie Carson on the racecourse, will he not accept that some noble Lords believe that the scheme has been extremely beneficial to their nervous system and that there has been an improvement? Will he also accept that now that there are three sets of traffic lights working at Hyde Park Corner there has been a marked improvement in bumping and boring on that particular racecourse?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will be taken to heart by those who support the scheme. I can only repeat that time will tell. There has been very little time for assessment to date.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that thorough and scientific analysis
10
took place before the lights were installed and will continue to take place during the period of the experiment so that adjustments can be made and improvements effected? Will he not agree that the matter should not be left as it is, when there are clearly some areas where traffic was flowing perfectly satisfactorily before the lights were installed which are now very badly affected?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. Engineers from the Greater London Council traffic department are monitoring the scheme in a proper and acceptable manner. Adjustments to the system will be made as they become necessary. This will not be left to chance.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the noble Lord simplify one of his statements? He said that at Hyde Park Corner there were 13 PSDs. What is a PSD?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I stated that among the numbers of accidents listed there were 10 personal injury accidents concerning passenger service vehicles—PSVs.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
International Transport Conventions Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the privilege amendment considered and agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1983
Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1983
Merchant Shipping Act 1983
International Transport Conventions Act 1983
British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Act 1983

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Housing and Building Control Bill might be said to mark my coming of age in your Lordships' House. It is the twenty-first Bill that I have had the privilege of presenting to your Lordships. As its title suggests, the Bill falls into two parts. Both parts honour specific commitments that

11
have been given. They promote the Government's wider policy objectives. I shall deal with each in turn.
The first part of the Bill concerns the rights of secure tenants. It is principally an extension of the right to buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980, which have proved such a resounding success. In moving the Third Reading of the 1980 Bill in another place, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction suggested that the Bill would provide the springboard for the biggest single extension of home ownership the country has ever seen. That claim has been completely vindicated.
Since the Government came to office, some half a million tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations have bought their homes, more than half of them under the right to buy. That is a level of sales quite beyond anything previously seen. The benefits both for the families concerned and for the community at large are enormous.
This part of the Bill builds on the success of our present policies. It extends the right to buy to some important groups of tenants who have hitherto been excluded. It opens up the possibility of shared ownership for those who have been unable to afford to buy outright. It also makes a number of changes to the 1980 Act which will help to strengthen the position of tenants seeking to exercise their rights.
First, the Bill extends the right to buy to tenants of leasehold property. It was our intention to bring forward amendments to the 1980 Bill to extend the right to buy to tenants of dwellings held by the landlord on a long lease as well as to tenants of freehold property. In the event, it proved impossible to bring forward the necessary amendments in the time available. We are now fulfilling our promise to the tenants concerned. There are about 50,000 tenants in this position throughout England and Wales. They will no longer be prevented from exercising their right to buy simply because their landlord's interest is a leasehold interest. Tenants of leasehold property will be given the right to purchase a long lease of their homes, subject to the landlord's own outstanding interest being not less than 21 years in the case of a house, and 50 years in the case of a flat. Tenants living in houses will be able to go on and buy the freehold of their homes, provided they qualify under the normal leasehold enfranchisement rules.
Landlord authorities are, in fact, already free to sell to tenants of leasehold property on a voluntary basis where their own lease permits them to do so; but for political reasons some refuse to do so. This has had absurd results for some of the tenants concerned. We know of cases in South London where the tenants have themselves acquired the freehold of their homes and have offered the freehold to the local authority as a gift in the hope of establishing their right to buy under the present Act. The council has refused to co-operate and clearly this cannot be right. We know of another tenant denied the right to buy, because his home was held on a lease originally granted in the 17th century, even though the lease had 600 years left to run and was therefore, to all intents and purposes, a freehold. There is no reason at all why tenants should be denied the opportunity of owning their homes in these circumstances.
12
The main purpose of Clause 2—and I know that your Lordships will want and expect me to go into it in some detail even in this opening speech—is to extend the right to buy to certain secure tenants of charitable housing associations and housing trusts. This provision has been misunderstood and, may I say, misrepresented in several quarters. I sincerely believe that anyone who is prepared to examine the issues with an open mind will see that there is a compelling case for this modest extension of the right to buy. I am sure that your Lordships will listen most carefully to the explanation of Clause 2 that I feel it is proper that I should now give. The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to give the right to buy, so far as possible, to the tenants of housing associations. In the 1980 Housing Act we conferred the right to buy on around 100,000 tenants of non-charitable associations. Since the 1980 Act, we have had many representations from tenants of charitable housing associations who regard their exclusion from the right to buy provisions of that Act as unjust.
We have given most careful consideration to how we might respond to the entirely understandable aspirations of these tenants, while giving full weight to the fact that charitable associations had, prior to 1974, invested their own money in housing. As a result, we have reached the view that a limited extension of the right to buy should be made to tenants of charitable housing associations, living in dwellings provided—and I stress this—wholly or overwhelmingly with public funds, in the form of housing association grant. These tenants have exactly the same legal status as secure tenants as those tenants of non-charitable associations. Their homes have been provided with public money in exactly the same way as those of non-charitable association tenants living in accommodation funded with housing association grant—and those tenants, as I have already said, have the right to buy. It is manifestly inequitable that we should continue to deny these people the right to purchase their homes. This is my first main point: that these tenants of charitable housing associations deserve equality of treatment with tenants of non-charitable housing associations.
My second point is that the dwellings which will attract the right to buy under Clause 2, are publicly created assets, financed with public money. They are not—and this, too, I stress—assets which have been created with charitable funds. The significance of this feature of Clause 2 cannot be emphasised too strongly. The dwellings with which we are concerned have been provided with grants and loans from the public purse. It would be quite inconsistent of Parliament, which for 15 years under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has given lessees the right to buy freeholds of houses built on land provided wholly with charitable funds, now to deny charitable tenants the right to buy homes that have been created wholly—or virtually wholly—with public funds.
My third point is that in framing Clause 2 we have attached fundamental importance to the safeguarding of charitable funds. That is a cornerstone of our policy. It is for this reason that we decided to exclude from Clause 2 all dwellings provided with a charity's own money, and those given to a charity, and also to exclude dwellings built on land bought with charitable

13
funds or donated to a charity. I spell this out carefully because it has been much misunderstood. We have also excluded all dwellings provided under subsidy systems which preceded the introduction of housing association grant in 1974, because many of these dwellings may have significant amounts of charitable money invested in them. These exclusions will apply even where dwellings have been improved or repaired with housing association grant. There may have been a marginal input of charitable money into a small minority of the dwellings which would attract the right to buy under Clause 2, but we have given categoric undertakings that any such investment will be fully protected at its modern value.
This leads to my next point, which is that the exclusion of dwellings provided with charitable funds and under pre-1974 subsidy systems and of special accommodation for the elderly and disabled, as in the 1980 Act, will mean that almost three-quarters of the 300,000 or so dwellings owned by charitable registered housing associations will be excluded from the right to buy in Clause 2. Only about 80,000 of the tenants of charitable associations will be eligible for the right to buy under this Bill; and, as we know, there is an enormous difference between the numbers eligible for the right to buy, and the numbers actually able to exercise their right. The experience of the right to buy elsewhere suggests that only a small percentage of those 80,000 will in fact be able to buy anyway—probably much less than 10 per cent.
Some may ask: will not even this limited extension of the right to buy seriously damage the work of charitable housing associations, who aim to house the most disadvantaged in our society? The answer, based on hard factual evidence, is quite definitely, no. The experience of the two and a half years since the 1980 Act became law is conclusive proof of this. By December 1982 non-charitable associations had sold 2,550 dwellings under the right to buy. Against that, the increase in the stock of rented dwellings owned by registered housing associations since the Government came to office in April 1979 totalled 120,000. In this Parliament the Government have added almost 50 additional housing association rented dwellings for each one sold under the right to buy. Surely, that shows that it is entirely possible to combine giving the right to buy to existing tenants with a very substantial net increase in the availability of rented accommodation for the homeless and others in housing need.
It has been claimed that this clause is in conflict with charitable law. It is not. The Attorney-General, who is the guardian of charities, is fully satisfied on this point, and this has been made clear on his behalf in the letter of 9th March that the Solicitor-General wrote to the Chairman of the NFHA, a copy of which I have placed in the Library. I should like to stress yet again that we are concerned here solely with publicly funded dwellings and I do not see how it can be argued that the tenants of those dwellings should be denied the right to buy simply because of the charitable status of the landlord.
When Labour Ministers brought in the Leasehold Reform Bill in 1967, they specifically stated that there could be no question of denying the right to buy the freehold to lessees simply because their landlord was a charity, and indeed they estimated at the—
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but it might be convenient to ask him now about the legality of the letter and whether the view of the Solicitor-General is shared by the Charity Commissioners.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to complete my speech. I shall be glad to return to that point at a later stage.
I repeat, the Bill would confer the right to buy against 300,000 charitable houses, all provided not with public funds, as in this Bill, but with charitable funds. Indeed, the right to buy has gone on being applied against charitable dwellings under the Leasehold Reform Act for 15 years now under five successive Governments.
When we brought in the tenants' charter in the Housing Act 1980, conferring rights like full security of tenure on public sector tenants, again there was no question of denying those rights to the tenants of charitable housing associations simply because their landlord had charitable status. Equally, now that we have given the right to buy to tenants in housing association grant funded dwellings belonging to non-charitable associations, I see no case of either principle or equity for continuing to deny the same right to the tenants of housing association grant funded dwellings belonging to charitable associations.
Clause 2 has also been criticised on the grounds that it is retrospective. But the principle of allowing the right to buy to be exercised in respect of dwellings that have been publicly funded in the past has already been accepted by Parliament, when tenants of non-charitable associations, local authorities and new towns were given the right to buy, regardless of when their dwellings were built. The key point about "retrospection" is that no retrospective rights are being granted in respect of dwellings provided by the charity itself, as opposed to those provided by the taxpayer. If Parliament has been content for 15 years now to allow the right to buy to be applied retrospectively under the Leasehold Reform Act to charitably-owned dwellings funded by the charities themselves, it would be glaringly inconsistent to deny the right to buy now in respect of charitably-owned dwellings funded exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the taxpayer.
The Government's view is that this limited extension of the right to buy will not have the adverse effects on charitable housing associations that some people have claimed. The number of sales is certain to be vastly exceeded by the number of new and rehabilitated dwellings which charitable associations will be able to provide with the benefit of Government grants. Moreover, since the tenants of any dwellings which may be sold are secure, those tenants would in any event be likely to remain in their present house or flat for many years and it would, therefore, not become available for reletting for a very long time.
It has been suggested that Clause 2 will deter those voluntary workers on whom all housing associations depend so heavily. Perhaps we may look at the hard evidence, which certainly does not support that view. The giving of the right to buy to tenants of a non-charitable association has certainly not had the effect

15
of diminishing the enthusiasm or the amount of activity of non-charitable housing associations. Quite the contrary.
Since the 1980 Act, there has been no decline in the applications from non-charitable associations for Government grant—in fact, quite the reverse—and these associations are making as dynamic a contribution to meeting housing needs today as they have ever done. Indeed, as my honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Construction pointed out in another place, the non-charitable associations, whose tenants have had the right to buy for two and a half years now, are today so vigorous and enthusiastic that the entire funding of the Housing Corporation could be used up in meeting the requests for public funding from non-charitable associations. So the Government regard Clause 2 as a logical and entirely defensible extension of the right to buy provisions of the 1980 Act to a limited number of tenants living in publicly-funded housing.
Before I pass on to the remaining provisions of the Bill, I should just like to comment that I intend at a later stage of the Bill to say something about the Government's strategy for housing those in the greatest housing need, lest anyone should accuse us of being more concerned to help those who already have homes than those who have not. For the moment, I shall only say that we see housing associations as having a key role in helping the most vulnerable.
For this reason, we have given, and have been giving, a substantial boost to housing association investment. We announced in November an increase of £150 million, to £680 million, in the Housing Corporation's cash limit for 1982–83. This has enabled the corporation to increase expenditure on fair rent, hostel and low-cost home ownership schemes in the current year. We have also announced that the corporation's gross provision for 1983–84 will be £690 million. This is about a third higher in cash terms than the outturn for 1981–82, and maintains the increased level of investment this year, following the addition to the cash limit mentioned above.
The third major extension of the right to buy in this Bill provides that all tenants who have the right to buy but whose mortgage entitlement does not enable them to buy outright, can opt instead for purchase on shared ownership terms. That comes in Clause 14.
Shared ownership, as an alternative to outright purchase, is not new. For some eight years now, local authorities, new towns and housing associations have operated shared ownership schemes successfully on a voluntary basis. Over 6,000 dwellings have been sold in this way. But what is new, and, indeed, quite revolutionary, is that we are now giving every council tenant who can get even a modest mortgage the right to start up the home ownership ladder. Provided that a council tenant can afford to buy an initial share of 50 per cent. or more, in future he will not be denied the chance of owning his home. I know that this will be welcomed by many council tenants who in the past have been frustrated in their attempts to buy their homes because they could not afford to buy them outright.
16
The remaining provisions of Part I of the Bill fall roughly into two groups. First, there are provisions designed to strengthen the position of right-to-buy claimants by removing uncertainties and anomalies in the existing legislation and by dealing with obstacles which some landlords have used to try to frustrate tenants. Secondly, we are extending the rights of secure tenants embodied in the tenants' charter provisions in the 1980 Act. I shall not detain your Lordships by going through these provisions in detail, as we shall have ample opportunity to do so in Committee, but today I shall give only a brief outline of the changes that we are making to the tenants' charter.
We propose to extend the tenants' charter in two ways: these are a right to repair and rights relating to district and communal heating charges. First, let me deal with the right to repair. Repairs which remain undone, or which take a long time to be carried out, are persistent causes for complaints. Those of us who have experience of this, particularly in the local authority world, can bear witness to the regular streams of complaints made by tenants pressing to get work done. We now propose to give secure tenants the right to carry out, or to arrange to have carried out on their behalf, repairs for which their landlords are responsible, and to recover from their landlords the costs, or part of the costs, that would have been incurred had their landlords carried out the repairs.
The scheme will benefit secure tenants of local authorities, housing associations and new town development corporations. Our thinking has been much influenced by a very enterprising tenants' repair scheme operated by the London Borough of Havering. My right honourable friend will be empowered to introduce, by regulations, a right to repair scheme. Consultation with the local authority associations and other organisations representing public sector landlords has already begun, and it is our intention to issue a consultation paper on the details of the scheme in the near future before drafting regulations.
I now turn to the second of the new rights which will benefit those secure tenants who receive heat from district or communal heating systems operated by local authorities and new town development corporations. It is clear that a significant number of tenants on such systems are concerned about their heating charges. They lack information on how the charges have been calculated, and are not in a position to judge whether the basis of the apportionment of the cost of heating between individual tenants is reasonable. Consultation with the local authority associations and others on these proposals took place last summer.
What we now propose will give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment an enabling power to introduce certain requirements by regulation. The regulations would oblige local authorities and new town development corporations who supply heat to secure tenants to adopt such methods for determining charges payable by such tenants as will ensure that the proportion of the heating costs borne by each tenant is no greater than is reasonable. Housing associations which supply heat to their tenants are not included, as the tenants are already protected under the fair rent system and Schedule 19 of the 1980 Housing Act.

17
The regulations may also provide that tenants would be entitled to require their supplying authorities to furnish information about the costs incurred in supplying the heat and the charges payable to the supplying authorities. They would also be entitled to inspect the accounts and other supporting documentation, and to take copies of extracts from the documents. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these two new rights will be of substantial benefit to tenants, in giving them a greater control over their homes and the services supplied to them.
I turn briefly now to Parts II and III of the Bill, which deal with building control. The provisions in the Bill are based closely on the proposals contained in Command Paper 8179, The Future of Building Control in England and Wales, issued in February 1981 following extensive consultation. We are not suggesting that the present system of building control fails to produce safe buildings; indeed, its record is good. But there have been persistent criticisms that the system is unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic, and that the form of the building regulations themselves is inflexible, inhibits innovation and imposes unnecessary costs.
The provisions in the Bill therefore have two main objectives, which I will explain. The first is to enable the industry to achieve greater self-regulation through a system of independent private certification of compliance with the building regulations. This will be a new option available to builders and developers, as an alternative to the existing system of local authority control.
The Bill sets out a legal framework enabling approved inspectors to supervise building work and to give to the local authority and to the developer a certificate to the effect that, having carried out his statutory duties, he is satisfied within the limits of proper professional skill and care that the work is in conformity with the regulations. An inspector will have to show he is independent, and he will have to produce evidence of satisfactory insurance cover. Certifiers will be approved by the Secretary of State or by bodies designated by him, and it will be possible to restrict approval to particular types of building, depending on professional qualifications and experience.
The second objective of this part of the Bill is to make possible a comprehensive recasting of the building regulations. The Secretary of State, or a body designated by him with parliamentary approval, will be able to approve documents from any source which offer suitable practical guidance on how to comply with the regulations. These documents will replace the technical supporting material in the present statutory instrument, which is often complicated and difficult to understand, with a set of authoritative, technically written documents outside the statutory instrument. Updating will be much easier than now, and a closer relationship with British Standard codes of practice and similar documents will be possible. The regulations themselves will be expressed in simple, "functional" terms.
Our proposals for recasting the regulations have met with very wide approval. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced in
18
reply to a Parliamentary Question in another place the publication for comment of an initial draft of possible new regulations, with two specimens of the approved documents. We believe these documents will receive the same general welcome.
The Government have decided that once the regulations have been rewritten they should be applied to inner London, where a different system of building control currently operates. My honourable friend announced this today in answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place. This extension will achieve consistency of building regulations throughout England and Wales, with consequent benefits to the construction industry. A further benefit of this proposal will be that certification will become possible in inner London. Our building control provisions have already been the subject of extensive consultation, and we shall consult further on all the regulations to be made. We believe that in offering developers and building owners the option of private certification we are offering them flexibility, efficiency and convenience.
My Lords, I have explained in some detail what the Housing and Building Control Bill provides. I have no hesitation in commending it to the House, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first congratulate the Minister on introducing his twenty-first Bill to this House. Now that he has passed the milestone and reached what in the old days used to be his majority, perhaps we shall find him rather more willing to give way on this Bill than on the other 20 that he has brought before us. Having said that, this Bill, which the noble Lord has presented so cogently, I find profoundly disappointing, because it does not address itself to the fundamental housing problems.
Following so soon after the 1980 Housing Act, on which the noble Lord quite rightly drew greatly in his presentation, this second attempt at housing legislation should surely have provided some answers to the current housing and construction problems. With 366,000 unemployed construction workers, surplus building materials and a growing housing shortage in real terms, this Bill serves only to compound the irrelevance of many of the 1980 measures. Estimates taken from local authority returns indicate that there are now more than 1,500,000 people on housing waiting lists—a figure steadily growing in areas like London. Homelessness is also on the increase. Seventy thousand homeless families and individuals were rehoused in 1981; and several London authorities now have over 100 homeless families in often poor, but extremely costly, bed and breakfast accommodation waiting for a local authority house.
The recently published English House Conditions Survey shows that for many with a house to live in conditions are still intolerable. Indeed, 1,116,000 houses are considered completely unfit, and 1,312,000 are in need of major repairs. Further, estimates from bodies such as the House of Commons Environment

19
Committee and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities suggest that we are creating a housing shortage which in real terms approaches 500,000. Adding these unhappy figures together, there are nearly 3 million families and individuals unsatisfactorily housed or without a home of their own.
This Bill does nothing to tackle these basic problems. In fact, the Government's housing investment programme allocation to local authorities has been halved in real terms between 1979–80 and 1983–84. Subsidies for the building and repair of council housing have fallen from approximately £1,500 million in 1979–80 to an estimated £370 million for 1983–84. Housing starts have also fallen steadily until very recently, when there has been just a slight increase. All this serves to illustrate the inappropriateness of this Bill.
The 1980 Housing Act was brought in to provide council tenants with the right to buy. Despite the fact that there are well over 100,000 council house sales each year, the Government are coming back with a Bill designed to squeeze every last drop out of the right to buy. Instead of using valuable parliamentary time for marginal legislation like this, I ask the Government when they will come off their dogma and start tackling the real problems.
I should like now to turn to some (not all; there is no time with the long list of speakers) of the specific provisions in the Bill. Few proposals in recent legislation have aroused such a flood of protest as Clause 2, which is described in the Explanatory Memorandum as a clause which:
"amends the 1980 Act so as to confer the right to buy on certain secure tenants of charitable housing associations".
The Minister is very conscious of the disquiet and interest in this House over this matter, as he spent a considerable time, quite rightly, explaining it. If I could take up the three points that he made, he started by saying that the provision has been misunderstood and misrepresented. I do not know how he can say that. All of us, in this House and outside, can read, and you only have to read the clause in the Bill, you only have to read the reports of it, you only have to hear what the housing associations say, to realise that there is no question of the provision being misunderstood or misrepresented.
Then the noble Lord went on to say that the tenants of charitable associations deserve equality of treatment with tenants of non-charitable associations. I find that extraordinary, particularly coming from a Conservative Government. Surely the money put into charitable associations makes a tremendous difference. It is not solely Government subsidy or money provided by the Government alone; these are associations into which people have put not only voluntary effort but voluntary funds, so that the associations have developed in the way they have.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I was at pains to say that those dwellings which had the provision of voluntary charitable funds were excluded from the Bill.
Baroness Birk: Those which are not the recipients of Government support or have not received public
20
funds, yes, my Lords, and that was the point to which I was coming, because the Minister made a great point of excluding all dwellings built with charitable funds. This Government complain about the Labour Party's plans on nationalisation, yet they pat themselves on the back because they do not intend to take over—if you like, communise—all the charitable buildings that exist. To put it baldly, the Government are proposing that tenants of properties built by charities and run by voluntary management committees should be able to buy the property at a discount. Indeed, that is what the Bill says. That discount may be very substantial, as tenants can count their years as local authority tenants when the discount is calculated. It will mean that houses built by charities to help those in greatest housing need will be sold at an effective loss. Even worse, they will no longer be available to help those who still desperately need rented accommodation. How, I ask, can these associations afford to replace the stock when they are having to sell it at a loss and when prices are going up all the time?
Ministers have said that few will be sold as the tenants are usually poor. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said he thought the number would be less than 10 per cent. But the housing associations must have made it clear to Ministers that, with the substantial discounts likely to be available, the numbers liable to be sold will be significant, and that is the view of people working in the field now. Moreover, housing associations are being approached by people seeking to buy houses presently occupied by relatives as what is known as a family investment. In other words, the children of elderly couples want to help financially to buy the property which they, the young people, will eventually own. One can hardly blame them for trying to do that when the means to do so are there.
The anger and bitterness which these proposals have generated—including a particularly strong leader in The Times of 23rd March—have to be heard and read to be believed. Recently my colleagues and I met housing association representatives from South Wales. Both the paid officers and voluntary committee members who came particularly to see us are desperate to continue to tackle the dreadful lack of housing in that area. But, now, all that they have striven to create may be lost, and their chances of tackling their present pressing problems will be diminished because the houses they have built, often for groups with special needs, will very likely be sold.
I have received this morning a letter from Chiddingstone Parish Council referring to another aspect of the problem. They point out that in 1973–74 they were conscious of the great need for some housing accommodation for the young people of the parish, who were being compelled to move away when they married because of the high cost of housing; the district council were able to find housing only for families. They came together with the district council, and a housing association was developed. With the help of the Church, they have developed and built up the housing association, which operates under charitable rules. The letter says:
"In 1981–82, tenants moved in, all of whom are local young people and we hope that they will be able to move on, as their families increase, to the larger Council houses in the parish, so releasing the two-bedroom houses for further local young people in

21
need. If, however, this programe is interrupted by the tenants having the right to buy their rented houses, the whole concept and force of the local initiative will be destroyed and our community's efforts to keep itself alive—to keep the school, the shop, the Church and all the lively village organisations in being—will be sadly undermined".
I do not even know the political complexion of the area, but I imagine it is Tory, so there is no party point about it.
Housing associations are not against owner-occupation. Indeed, many do what the Salford Community Housing Association have done—namely, set up a non-charitable association to help make owner-occupation available to their tenants. Others have taken up the Government's shared ownership proposals to extend part-ownership for owner-occupation. Thus, the Brent People's Housing Association have set up the Shared Ownership Housing Association to promote owner-occupation. But what they are not doing is withdrawing from their continuing charitable work of providing rented accommodation.
They will find the provision of rented accommodation, and their new-owner occupation initiatives, undermined if the Bill continues in its present form. That will be the case not only because houses are lost to associations but because staff will be diverted into the time-consuming work of selling property. Census and housing condition surveys have shown the pressing need for reasonable rented accommodation. That need is so great that many housing associations have closed their waiting lists. Even with present resources, it will be many years before those waiting lists are cleared. What the future holds is tragic and very foggy.
The last time there was such deeply held and widespread opposition to a legislative housing proposal by this Government was when Government housing for the elderly was included in the 1980 right to buy provisions. As on that occasion, the opposition to this proposal is not based on party political differences. Social opposition unites people across the political spectrum, and outside it, including the Lords Spiritual. All housing associations, as well as their national federation, oppose the clause. In this, they are joined by the local authority associations, the National Housing and Town Planning Council, trade unions and many organisations far too numerous for me to list now. This unity has been created by the Government's determination to overturn the very basis of the charity laws despite the opposition in principle of the Charity Commissioners. I will not go into the legal side of the matter, as some eminent lawyers will be speaking in the debate and they will no doubt go into that point.
Widespread indignation is further fuelled by central Government using their powers to expropriate property—I repeat, that is what the Bill is doing—and to make it apply retrospectively. With respect, the Minister's answer to that was not convincing. I do not blame him because he can not be convincing; it is wrong and it is retrospective. We say that the Government can promote owner occupation by all means, but they must remember that there will always be many who will never be able to own their homes. Their needs are in danger of being totally lost sight of, and for that reason the Bill should be allowed to leave
22
the House only when Clause 2 has been deleted. That I hope noble Lords will endeavour to do.
I turn to the right of council tenants to carry out repairs on the council property they occupy, and I find much irony in the situation. The provisions in Clause 23, while appearing to add to the list of rights granted under the 1980 Tenants' Charter, can better be described as the right not to repair. We are concerned that, where the scheme operates, the landlord's repair obligations are suspended. We are concerned lest the provisions could allow a council to transfer its repair obligations on to tenants, thus treating these rights purely as a money-saving exercise. We are also concerned in that, if there are any advantages in the scheme, they may be available only to better-off tenants who can afford to have work done and then claim the money back from the council. Our concern is unfortunately strengthened when we learn that organisations representing both public sector landlords and tenants—the AMA on the one side and the London tenants' organisations on the other, for example—are strongly opposed to this part of the Bill.
We want to see changes so that tenants have the right to carry out their own repairs in cases where these have not been done in reasonable time. I agree with the Minister when he points out that there is often undue delay and that the tenants should not have to suffer. That is fair enough. However, in our view the landlords' general repairing obligations should not be suspended and any new rights applied only to relatively minor repairs.
This Bill goes in the opposite direction by potentially reducing tenants' rights. It introduces the danger that tenants may be induced to sign away their rights in the expectation of a saving on rent or even of getting a council property in the first place. The Bill also contains a series of detailed clauses on the right to buy. We do not think that these are necessary. All local authorities are now selling council houses. If they choose not to do so, the Government already have powers to intervene directly. However, we now have the very unusual precedent in Clause 12 that gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to give assistance to tenants hoping to buy their homes.
We are particularly concerned about the constitutional implications of the use of the Treasury Solicitor and the legal aid fund to help tenants to take county or High Court cases against local authorities at the instigation of the Secretary of State. This appears to us to be an interference from the top to an extraordinary degree and adds once again to the erosion that we have seen time after time in Bill after Bill of many of the 21 Bills that the noble Lord has brought forward. It is happening all the time.
The one area of the right-to-buy provisions which needs clarification is not covered in this Bill. Noble Lords will recall the passionate debates in 1980 on the exclusion of elderly persons' accommodation from the right to buy. It was given a thorough airing in this House and I moved an amendment to protect accommodation for the elderly, which was agreed to. This amendment had the support of a number of noble Lords opposite led by the late and greatly missed Lord Amory. Unfortunately, the amendment was modified in another place to give the Secretary of State

23
the final say in decisions to exclude elderly persons' accommodation from sale. It is extremely disturbing to learn that 90 per cent. of all applications—applications from authorities of all political persuasions—to exclude such accommodation from the right to buy are being rejected by the Secretary of State. Having seen details of some of the rejected cases, the clear implication is that the Secretary of State is not operating the spirit or intention of the legislation. We hope to find a way at Committee stage of trying to right this.
We should also wish to pursue in Committee the housing position of couples in public sector accommodation who find themselves in dispute over their housing circumstances once their relationship has broken down. The problem applies to cohabitees and married couples, but more pertinently to cohabitees. The first organisation that couples in a council house turn to when the relationship breaks down is very often the local authority. More and more people are cohabiting, which makes normal matrimonial legislation inapplicable. One of the most common requests is that the local authority should decide who is to have the flat or house. Most authorities attempt to make decisions on a voluntary basis and manage to get the agreement of all parties concerned. However, very often this is not possible and the local authority is powerless to bring about a solution of the problem. There is widespread concern about this, especially from the Women's Aid Federation, and the Government really must provide a satisfactory basis for the individuals and local authorities involved to resolve this emotional and distressing situation which may, in the end, need resort to the courts.
I now briefly turn to building control. Any Government should think carefully before seeking to change a system with as good a basic safety record as the building control system in England and Wales. The system has worked well in specific cases and, because it provides a comprehensive record of building work, it can be used to provide information about the use of materials or building methods which subsequently become suspect. The system proved its value when records were used to establish, for example, which buildings had been put up using high aluminia cement. The Government proposals will now mean that records of many developments will no longer be held by any public body required to retain and provide access to them.
This is one of the major shortcomings of a system which, again, I am afraid, is based on political dogma. Like any system, the building regulations system has become ever more complicated and we should very much welcome attempts to simplify it. But this very demanding job of simplification should be dealt with first and established in practice before attempting to impose the premature and misguided provisions which are before us today.
We on these Benches find it very difficult to come to terms with this section of the Bill. The problem is that, like so much recent legislation, it begs almost all the questions and leaves the essentials of the new system to regulations. The key decisions will, therefore, be brought to this House in the form of draft regulations which we can in no way amend. The value of parlia-
24
mentary scrutiny will be lost and Ministers, for the present, can refuse to answer questions about the workability of the system by referring to forthcoming debates on regulations. As the issues involved are also issues of public safety, this situation is even more unsatisfactory.
If this Bill is enacted and regulations made, it could well result in the decimation of local authority building control departments. The relatively straightforward, bread-and-butter housing jobs could well go to the National Housebuilders' Council, an organisation whose role as a new independent inspecting agency has already been questioned. Local authorities will be left with an uncertain work load and it is quite likely that many smaller district authorities will no longer be able to provide a proper, skilled service. The new system could produce very dangerous anomalies if local authorities are forced to take over jobs when independent inspectors withdraw. What happens when a local authority finds that the original plans or subsequent work approved by an independent inspector are wrong—perhaps dangerously so?
At present, it appears that local authorities will have no powers to require a change in the plans or to require unsafe work done under the independent inspector to be rectified. Would this mean that building work would have to continue, supervised by the local authority, on the basis of plans and work which are defective? I am sure that the Minister will argue that independent inspectors will be carefully approved and will not allow such things. However, there can be no guarantee that independent inspectors will always be right. How can they be? They are only human. Matters of public safety cannot be dealt with on this basis. There must be clear procedures to avoid these problems. As a consequence of what is proposed, local authorities could be left literally to pick up the pieces on the basis of inadequate documentation and inadequate power.
Before this Bill completes its passage through the House, we must have clear and detailed explanations of just how the system is intended to work. Basic principles must be agreed and safeguards must be established. A high professional standard must be set for those who are to be approved as independent inspectors. One national body with a strong professional majority should be the sole agency to confer the status of independent certifier, and it should have the power to withdraw that status. Approval as an independent inspector should be for renewable five-year periods.
Secondly, the status of independent inspector should be given only to individuals. It should not be given to companies who could then use unqualified and inexperienced staff. Similarly, statutory bodies and nationalised industries with powers to approve their own plans and work must use only properly qualified and approved inspectors on their staff. Thirdly, local authorities must have powers to require changes to plans or works, even if certified by an independent inspector, if the authority has to take over responsibility in the middle of a development and finds plans or works which do not conform with building regulations. Finally, the working of the system must be subject to regular review and reports

25
made to Parliament on these matters of basic public safety.
These are four main points which I picked out of a whole list of points which has been drawn up by the National Housing and Town Planning Council and supported and even extended by the Institute of Building Control Officers, the District Planning Officers Society, the AMA, NALGO and many other organisations. There are a great many speakers and I fear I have already kept your Lordships for too long, but this is a long and complicated Bill.
In conclusion, I hope that I have been able to show that this piece of legislation is unnecessary. The parts that need to be dealt with could have been amended in a much briefer way and the other parts are something that we find repellent. But if there is one issue which the Government must rethink before the Committee stage or be defeated in this House, it is the enforced sale of charitable housing association property, which I personally find shabby, wretched and immoral.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord the Minister for arriving a little late for this debate. The train from Liverpool was, as usual, very late, and I sometimes feel that British Rail do not want people to escape from that place!
May I declare my interest in the subject. I am a member of the Committee of Management of Merseyside Improved Houses (Special Projects) Housing Association, of Merseyside Improved Houses Urban Services Limited and of Merseyside Improved Houses Charitable Trust. This housing association is one of the largest in the country with approximately 11,000 units of accommodation, and it is the largest housing association in the country dealing with stress areas. Its chief executive, Mr. Barry Natton, is the present chairman of the National Federation of Housing Associations.
It has already been recognised in the two preceding speeches that clearly the main field of battle, as it were, in this Bill will be in Part I, Clause 2, dealing with the right to buy for certain tenants of charitable housing associations and housing trusts. I must say that I welcome the exclusion from Clause 2, as the noble Minister mentioned, of donations, and the protection from the right to buy of homes built on land or property given to the housing associations as charitable gifts. That is indeed a welcome change, but it still does not dispose of the very real concern felt by a large number of people in the housing association movement with regard to Clause 2. My honourable and right honourable friends in another place put down an Instruction during the discussion of the Bill there to exclude Clause 2 from the Bill. We shall be seeking—and probably it will be no surprise to your Lordships—to do the same in this House. We shall hope, if not to exclude the totality of the clause, at least to get rid of the more unpleasant retrospective features of it as it passes through your Lordships' House.
I and my party are in favour of the general principle of the right to buy and that is why we are in favour of Clause 1, extending the right to buy to leasehold properties. I will say parenthetically that the major
26
problem there is that the legal tenure of leasehold still exists. I have bored your Lordships on a number of occasions on this subject, and have even sought to introduce a Bill to abolish leaseholds. I believe the only remedy for the problems created by leasehold tenure is its abolition; but that is a different matter. In the meantime, one therefore welcomes the extension of the right to buy to leasehold property.
My objections to Clause 2 are based not on the principle of the right to buy but on very different grounds. First, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness—no doubt it will be mentioned many times again—is the fact that the legislation, willy-nilly, is retrospective. When HAGs were introduced in 1974, there was no suggestion of selling to tenants; so the Bill introduces a novel condition on grants received in good faith by housing associations, and for the future it creates uncertainty and insecurity among housing associations as to whether future grants will have retrospective conditions attached to them. That is my first objection.
My second objection is that it creates inequality between different tenants very often in the same property. For instance, there may be a house adapted for a disabled person in a wheelchair in the same block as other flats for people who are not disabled. The disabled will be excluded from the right to buy whereas those who are not disabled will have the right to buy. The Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation is very concerned about the effects this system may have on integrated housing. It will create an atmosphere of discrimination and "difference" which disabled people are already rather conscious of and concerned about.
My third objection is that it diminishes the housing available at low cost. Housing associations own only about 2 per cent. of all the rented stock in this country, and in my view a further diminution by sale of the tenanted property would be extremely harmful. In many parts of the country, such as Wirral, where I live, there is a situation of counter-polarisation growing up. I concede that there was a need to give people the right to buy so that more and more people would become owner-occupiers, but polarisation is going the other way now. In Wirral the proportion of available tenanted accommodation is decreasing at a very rapid rate indeed among very many families living in conditions of unemployment and suchlike, where they can never under any foreseeable circumstances afford to buy, even under the very generous provisions of this Bill and of previous legislation.
So we have to watch this counter-polarisation. There is always going to be a need for social disability and personal reasons for a fairly large stock of cheap rented accommodation available not only in the centre of our big cities but also in rural areas. Discounts will vary, I gather, between 33 per cent. and 50 per cent., depending on the length of time the tenant has been in occupation. One of the problems is that the money the housing associations will receive—the capital receipts that will come to them from sales—will just not be enough to replace the housing stock that has been lost to a purchaser who, by definition, will be in a more wealthy position than the kind of person for whom these charitable housing associations originally provided the property: namely,

27
for the less well-off to have accommodation for lengthy periods and perhaps the whole of their lives. This is a serious point, and I think that however much huffing and puffing the Government may do they cannot get round that particular point, that the cheap accommodation that the housing associations have been able to make available in various parts of the country will be considerably diminished.
Fourthly, and attached to that point, is the fact that the legislation, if it passes as at present drafted, may change the nature of an area. Housing associations are specially able to provide, as I have said, cheap rented accommodation to attract or keep people with modest incomes in a particular area. One thinks of the provision of small housing association projects in the centres of villages so that people in a rural community on low incomes can afford to remain in the centre of a village and not be totally squeezed out by the weekenders.
Also, one thinks very much of the kind of housing association which is not very far from your Lordships' House; that is, the Peabody Trust. Dwellings are provided there at a low rent in the centre of London for people with low-paid jobs which require them to be in or near the centre of the city. There are about 2,000 of these low-rent flats which will now be eligible for the right to buy and presumably they will be very attractive to people who can well afford to buy their own, and will squeeze out one by one the lower-paid workers who need to have their occupation in the centre of somewhere such as London.
Fifthly—and I think that this is the last point—this Government perpetually pay lip-service to the encouragement of the voluntary sector. Many hundreds, and probably thousands, of people have put a lifetime of voluntary effort into providing decent housing for the disadvantaged and are likely, in my opinion, and from what I have heard so far, to be totally disillusioned by this proposed legislation, and to feel that their work has been wasted. I know very many dedicated, enthusiastic and even Right-wing members of the Conservative Party who are extremely enthusiastic members of housing associations. They have worked all their lives and have done a considerable amount to keep cheap rented housing available.
I can tell your Lordships—and name names for the noble Lord the Minister, if he wishes—of very many of these people who support the Government in everything they do but who are absolutely outraged by the belief that this work, which they have done on a voluntary basis, will be totally wasted and of no value. They are seeing the work that they have done destroyed in favour of the better-off who can afford to buy. On this point I would underline that housing associations work very closely with other voluntary organisations in helping to settle and resettle people who are coming back into the community on leaving prisons, psychiatric hospitals and so on. It is important that there should be a considerable stock of rented accommodation so that this very important work can go on and be extended.
I thought I was on my last point but I am afraid there is one more. It is the sixth and is definitely the final point. The Bill is, in my opinion—and, I think, in
28
the opinion of those better qualified than I; the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will, I am sure, deal with this aspect much more fully and accurately than I can—against the fundamental principle of the charity law that assets should be sold only in the interests of the charity and at the best possible price. Clearly exercising the right to sell is not in the interests of the charity, and the discount of 33 to 50 per cent. is not obtaining the best possible price. I know that the noble Lord the Minister has put a letter from the Solicitor-General in the Library, but I think he will appreciate that the solicitors, or those advising the Charity Commissioners, take a totally different view.
Finally, I agree with those who say that in general the Bill is largely irrelevant to the major housing problems of this country; and, indeed, in the part of the world where I live they are still very major indeed. It helps not at all to encourage the building of new homes, or to encourage the replacement and rehabilitation of deteriorating housing stock. Nor does it help to provide choice among rented housing accommodation. But with the exception of the notorious Clause 2, it does some useful tidying-up work, as the noble Lord the Minister suggested, and I think we can say from these Benches that we give it our broad but lukewarm support.
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, there are many speakers and I will try to be as brief as I can. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bellwin on his 21st Bill. He has earned the respect of this House for the knowledge of a variety of subjects which he can, with such great ability, command. However, I notice in the Financial Memorandum that there will be increased staff at the Department of the Environment. Inevitably, that follows every Bill we pass. Somebody has to administer the Bill and I doubt whether the department really know how many more men or women they will have to employ.
This is a very complicated Bill, and I am talking particularly about Parts II and III. They sketch a very broad picture, with no details. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that there is a complete absence of any clear picture of what will happen. I notice—I think that I am right in this—that on 52 occasions the word "prescribed" has been used. What does it mean? Of course, we do not know. How will it be used?—because there is no explanation of what the word "prescribed" exactly means. For instance, at one point it is stated that it will be prescribed when local authorities have to reply to correspondents. Can we be told some of these secrets at the Department of the Environment, and what sort of period they have in mind?
I should like to say a word about approved inspectors. I think that the National House Building Council has done a very fine job of work. It was brought into operation in 1936 by the father of Sir Derek Walker-Smith in the other place, and in 1966—I think under the persuasion of Mr. Richard Crossman—the building societies agreed not to advance money on any new houses, unless they had a certificate from the National House Building Council.

29
I believe that this has been a very valuable provision. There is also an insurance scheme mentioned in this Bill, although, with the usual obscurity, the Bill gives no idea of how it is supposed to operate.
It is all very well to put in an organisation of great experience, which has already examined 2 million houses, according to what it says, but the Bill goes a lot further than that. The Secretary of State will appoint further people. In addition, he will appoint a body which will appoint further people still, and those people can then delegate their job to somebody else. It raises a startling picture as to what exactly the department have in mind. One thinks of the whole business of back-scratching, which seems almost inevitable, because these people must be in the trade in some way or other; otherwise they will not do their job. I do not know whether my noble friend can say anything in regard to this, but it will be helpful if he can.
I do not understand the difference between Clause 33 and Clause 38, which deal with non-profit making statutory bodies. They seem to me to cover much the same ground. These are exempt from the formalities of reporting, but they have to maintain the substantive requirements. I gather that they are independent and it is up to them, in honesty, to do so. Is nobody going to inspect what they are doing? It seems to me to be carrying it just a little far. These are matters on which local authorities are not clear, and I hope that the Government will try to make the position clear, either today or on another occasion.
I do not know whether it is the intention to rewrite the building regulations. My noble friend used the word "recast". Maybe that is right. But what are the building regulations? Will they come to us in any form, or in which way are they to be dealt with? I should like to know how they are formed, because there are some rather curious features. It is said that building regulations may provide for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of approved inspectors. I thought that the Secretary of State wrote the building regulations. Is he also under the control of the building regulations? If this can be explained a little I shall be very happy.
Clause 10 deals with covenants and conditions of sale. This is a fairly tricky subject, when there are various easements and other things which are quite properly granted to tenants. If a sale takes place, how far will these pass automatically to the owner-occupier or the freeholder? I think that local authorities would like a little clarity on this point. There are a number of things that you can do, such as easements of one sort, rights of passage and so on, which are quite proper for a tenant but are perhaps less proper for someone quite separate. I see that the Secretary of State is to decide this himself. Should this not be a matter which goes to the courts? On some occasions, it is quite tricky and it should be properly understood.
I have received many representations on Clause 2 from management, from staff, from the National Association of Local Government Employees. I am not connected with this organisation, so I have tried to understand what it is all about. Two things strike me straight away. First, is it wise for the Government to annoy the large number of people who are engaged in doing what the Government have asked them to do? Is this a sensible way to approach it? Or should the
30
Government take into consideration the kind of work which other people—voluntarily, in many cases—have done? Secondly, is this a deliberate attempt to sabotage the 1974 Act? Originally this Bill was introduced by Mr. Rippon for the Conservatives; then came an election; and, very wisely, Mr. Crosland took it up again. To some extent, therefore, this was an agreed Bill. Is this, therefore, an attempt to sabotage the 1974 Act?
What was its purpose? Its purpose was to try to stem the steady decline in private rented property. My noble friend knows very well that this is one of the most severe social problems which now exists in the housing world. I believe in owner occupation. I was president of the Building Societies Association for nearly 20 years. I have said before and will say it again that owner occupation is the most important and significant sociological development of this century. The Trevelyans of the future may write about it; I know not. This does not, however, alter the fact that the most acute social problem now existing in the housing world is the lack of private rented property. Owner occupation is going ahead splendidly; 2,000 people a day sign documents which entitle them to own their own home. During the last 20 years the percentage of houses in owner occupation has risen from a little over 40 per cent. to a little under 60 per cent. However, the amount of private property to rent is declining. Only one-third of the private property to rent which was available 20 years ago is now available. This is a major problem. This sector is being sabotaged by the Bill and it is a very dangerous development.
But it is rather worse than that. I do not like the method which the Government have adopted. They are going back on their word. The Government made verbal promises and incorporated those promises in an Act of Parliament. I will read to the Minister the relevant passage from the 1974 Act:
"In this subsection housing and residential accommodation means dwellings which are to be let or available for letting".
The Government are going back on that. They enlarged it by means of a splendid legal document which only a master of his craft could have written and could understand. It runs to three pages and provides for every known form of eventuality.
That is not even the worst feature of it. What I dislike in particular is the treatment of trusts. The Government have put money into these organisations either by way of grant or by way of mortgage. Now they say that they can take out that money. They also say that they can command policy. If they wanted to do that, they should have gone in for another organisation—a joint stock company. A joint stock company is the organisation which can do that sort of thing; you cannot do it with a trust. Once you have given money to a trust it is not for you to take it out or for you to command policy, even if you have put a great deal of money into it. This is an important matter because potentially it cuts into some very large trusts in this country which are doing a tremendous job of work. The National Health Service is a comprehensive service, but great trusts like St. John Ambulance and Guide Dogs for the Blind are an integral part of the National Health Service. According to the Bill, if the Government give money to them

31
they can then command policy. It is an extremely dangerous line to take.
And not only that. The Government are now changing retrospectively the objects of the trust. Can my noble friend quote any instance where that has been done before? I have caused inquiries to be made. The only case where this may have happened was when the hospitals were nationalised 25 years ago. This was a big policy decision and it was understandable. But there is no policy behind this. The figures are quite insignificant, compared with what is to be done. Of course, one can say that there has been no breach of trust because an Act of Parliament can do anything. Are the Government quite sure that the warning given to us 400 years ago by Shakespeare in Measure for Measure does not apply:
"O! it is excellent
To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant".
I hope the Government will see sense. I noticed that during the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place nearly half of the speakers asked this House to amend Clause 2. I very much hope that we shall do so and that we shall throw it out lock, stock and barrel.
4.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I, too, wish to speak about Clause 2 of the Bill in respect of the charitable housing associations, since many of them are sponsored and supported by the churches. Charitable housing associations have very often been drawn from local churches acting together in a particularly strong and valuable form of ecumenical service. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time by needless repetition, particularly in view of the very clear and powerful speeches which we have already heard this afternoon and the literature which we have all received over the past few weeks and months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, pointed out, we are bound to work over this particular ground very closely because it is an issue of such vital importance. There are particular points to be made which we shall need to make from our own perspective. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will bear with me for a moment while I summarise briefly what appear to be the principal points at issue and then comment on these from the point of view of church housing associations in particular.
The first is the conflict between, on the one hand, the present policy of giving as many tenants as possible the right to buy their home where public money has been used to provide it and, on the other hand, the need to provide an adequate stock of rented housing accommodation for those people not only who are unable to buy but who need to live reasonably near their work and, indeed, near their family and the communities to which they belong. This point has already been made but needs to be particularly underlined. The second is the proposal to change retrospectively the conditions under which housing association grant has been given to these associations since 1974 and the indirect attack that is being made on a charity's legal duty to manage their assets in a way that ensures the best results for future generations as
32
well as the present. We in the churches know something about the kind of difficulties that that can create. The third is the discouraging effect that Clause 2, if implemented in its present form, will have on many of those who give time, commitment and sometimes money to the voluntary charitable housing associations, which are not exactly the same as those other associations which have been set up to provide not rented accommodation but houses for sale.
In the absence of any Green or White Paper setting out the arguments, it has of course been necessary to listen to and rely mainly on Ministers' statements and debates in the other place in order to learn the arguments for Clause 2 in its present form, though I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the very clear case he presented, with his customary passionate conviction. Because it is Government policy to use public money to encourage the spread of house ownership as widely as possible, parity therefore demands that certain tenants of our housing associations should have the same right in relation to properties built or acquired since 1974. The principle is clear enough, but, as so often in political life, the consequences of pursuing it almost to the exclusion of any others for what is admitted to be probably a very small number of people may be very serious for an equally large if not much larger number of people in the long term, who will find even less accommodation available in the places where it is often most needed.
The churches, and individual Christians, have been and are prominently involved in the housing association movement in its various forms. Pioneering work was done by people such as Octavia Hill, Charles Jenkinson of Leeds, and Basil Jellicoe of Somers Town. Again and again—and this is a point I want to underline—the reason for this involvement has been the challenge to provide rented accommodation of a good standard for those least able to help themselves and in places where people need it. This covers a very wide range, as we have already heard, from the single homeless in the city (which is probably the biggest single category) to young married couples in rural areas. If people can also be helped to buy their own homes, better still; we ought to be talking about "both … and" and not "either … or". But these particular associations which have worked hard to provide rented accommodation to meet this particular need, with very welcome Government help, let me say, do not want to see and never expected to see this help whittled away to meet a different need which is not the one for which they were working and for which they were originally set up; and which is, I dare say, in their judgment a less urgent need.
If some of these properties are now to be sold, those houses or flats will come on to the open market sooner or later and will command a market price, They will have ceased to meet the need for which they were provided. Does the Minister not see that it will be immensely discouraging for many people who have worked hard to try to meet that special need? If housing demand was equal all over the country, I suppose that it might not make so much difference. But that is not so, and therefore the pressure to buy such properties will be greatest in the South-East, the South-West, and in London; precisely where rented accommodation is in the shortest supply. So even

33
small numbers may make a significant diflerence in those places.
The Bristol Churches Housing Association, for instance, reports that because it was set up in 1973, and because it seeks to meet general housing need in the city rather than to provide sheltered or hostel accommodation, 95 per cent. of its stock is eligible for sale. It is little help to their members or to others, I fear, to be told that they may apply for further HA grants and start all over again, especially if some of the most suitable sites have gone.
Representatives of a number of housing associations have told me, as they must have told many of your Lordships, how dismayed they are at the prospect also of trying to explain to tenants why some houses will be for sale and some will not—sometimes houses in the same block, and even though the tenants of the latter may have lived there longer than the others. The complications of housing and finance are difficult enough even for the professionals, and one of the valuable characteristics of many housing associations is that they have a very high standard of personal, face-to-face management of their properties; something that is particularly needed today. We are in real danger of switching off or undermining the goodwill and commitment which at present exists in and sustains these movements, and which the Government have said repeatedly they wish to strengthen.
There is one further principle at stake. Retrospective legislation, as has already been said, cannot be defended unless it is to remedy an injustice. I know that this must be the argument here, although I am bound to say that I have yet to meet anyone who finds it a convincing argument, apart from a few people who stand to benefit financially. Some years ago the Church of England brought forward in General Synod a measure to make it compulsory for clergy to retire at 70. There were those who wished this to apply to everyone, including those in post and who held a "freehold". Members of Parliament of all parties were among those who were quick to point out that this would be retrospective legislation and a denial of natural justice. Wherein does the principle differ now, since we have been told that the Minister and the Act gave an explicit undertaking in 1974 that these grants did not have strings of this kind attached?
From all that I have read, it is clear that the various church housing associations, along with many others, would like above all to see one simple change in Clause 2 of this Bill: that the clause's retrospective character should be eliminated. If in future the receipt of housing assistance grant carries with it the right to buy for certain tenants, so be it; at least we shall all know that the rules have been changed and can try to adjust accordingly, although with a heavy heart. At least one director of a housing association has said that several good, viable schemes are likely to be aborted if this change takes place.
In a debate last year on rented accommodation the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said in his summing up, and I quote:
"The Church of England has repealed The Book of Common Prayer and adopted collectivism as the new theology".
This rather strange statement related, I believe,to the fact that I had tried to emphasise that there will always
34
be many people in our society who, for one reason or another, cannot buy their own home; and that therefore a caring society has to wrestle with the task of helping them as well. It is, as I suggested earlier, a case of "both … and" and not "either … or". Why cannot public money (my taxes and your taxes) be used to provide an adequate stock of rented accommodation as well? Surely it is needed for both.
Those who compiled The Book of Common Prayer knew all about almshouses, so there is here no incompatibility of the kind suggested. The voluntary charitable housing associations are carrying on that tradition in ways which are appropriate to our generation. It would be a very serious loss if their numbers were now to decline and their efforts to slacken through what are, I am sure, the unintended consequences of Clause 2.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I am saddened and dismayed by Clause 2 of this Bill for several reasons. First, it shows how a political idea can become a dogma and be grossly overdone. Secondly, it shows how very innocently parliamentary power can be abused. None of us has a right to go back on a contract made years ago and insist upon changes being made; changes that were never mentioned at the time when the contract was made. That is just what the Government are doing. And to enable them to do it, they are using the powers of Parliament.
I had always thought that one of the things that this House provided a longstop against was abuse of parliamentary power. If this House accepts the clause as it stands, I shall be thoroughly disillusioned as to the functions and ability of this House. This is retrospective legislation of the worst kind. There are occasions when clever people find a loophole in the law. They use it to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of the community, and the Government of the day find it necessary to intervene. But in this case we have nothing like that. The retrospective legislation is being directed at people who are trying to give some hope and help to the least advantaged in the community.
I am also saddened by the effect that this will have on the charitable housing societies. Many of those associated with those societies will say, "Well, we are in this association in order to help the community, especially the least advantaged in the community, by providing low-rent property, but if the property has to be sold there is no point whatever in our carrying on. We are not in the business of selling houses". Indeed, I know of several schemes which will not be pursued if the Bill is carried into law.
That is one effect. Another will be, if the Bill is carried into law and some of the charitable housing societies do carry on, that the societies will be in a disadvantaged position in the future. If they sell their assets at substantial discounts, they will find, even if they reinvest the proceeds they receive, that because of rising costs the rent at which they have to let property in the future will be greater than it would have been, so that they will either go out of business altogether as charitable organisations or, alternatively, they will be at a disadvantage in the work they are trying to do.

35
I give an example of the kind of association that is being affected by the Bill. An old friend of mine, a Mr. Wilson, was for many years headmaster of a school for maladjusted boys. It was a county council boarding school. As a result of his experience, he found that a major factor of our social problems was housing—either lack of it or poor housing. During his time as headmaster he tried, in his own time, to unite families who were in contact with him because they had a maladjusted boy in the school. At all times he found that the most difficult problem he had was to obtain satisfactory low-rent accommodation in order to get the family united.
After many years as headmaster of that school he retired and moved a few miles away to Petersfield, a small town in Hampshire. There he joined work with the Council of Churches and in 1973 its members did some research into social problems in that small town. As a result of that research, they came to the conclusion that one of the essentials was a charitable housing association. These church members, just over 100 of them, put their money into this housing association for the benefit of the least advantaged of the community. They gave their time, their energy and their expertise to build up a charitable housing association.
Up to last December they had acquired 26 properties in the past nine years, which is about three a year. They thought they were getting on quite well. The houses are let only to those who cannot afford to buy. They are let to people who are in that unfortunate position; usually newly married couples from poor families, one-parent families and older people who for one reason or another find themselves in great housing difficulty. In every case there is a clear understanding that, if the tenant at any time in the future is able to afford to buy, he will, with the help and guidance of the association, go on to the open market and buy, with the aid of a mortgage from a building society. This is no theory. Of the 26 tenancies, five of the tenants have already bought their own houses and moved out of the rented accommodation, which has then been made available to other people whose circumstances are unsatisfactory and difficult. Therefore, the scheme works in practice and is not pure theory.
Last year, this small housing association was able to acquire a site with an old house on it. It has a scheme by which the old house is being converted into four flats and it is building a further 10 new flats in the grounds of the house. This is the association's first new accommodation and consequently its members are cock-a-hoop that they are really getting somewhere. Now they are thoroughly frustrated and dismayed by the Bill because they know that the people who would leave the houses and go on to the open market to buy will be able to buy the charitable association's stock of housing because of the huge discounts which will be offered. They are so dismayed that there is obviously some question as to how far they are prepared to carry on in the future.
It is the better-off tenants who will be able to buy. It is the few who are better off than the other tenants who will make the capital profit. But they will make it at the expense of the charitable association because sales will undermine its ability to carry on its future work.
36
As has already been mentioned, there will be great anomalies. Long-standing tenants who have been in a house since long before 1974 will not be able to buy, but someone who is in a post-1974 house will be able to buy. The tenants will not understand that logic at all. Furthermore, if the house has been built on land which was donated, the tenant will not be able to buy, but if the land was passed to the housing association for a nominal sum the tenant will be able to buy. Heavens! the tenants will not understand that. They will think someone in an administrative office has gone crazy. They will think that the Houses of Parliament have gone crazy in passing such a law.
In many cases, after the discount, the repayment of the grant and the mortgage, there will be very little left. As the Minister has told us, the Government have undertaken that charitable moneys up to their full value, and allowing for inflation, will be protected. But the Government must know that a good deal of charitable work is not necessarily represented by money. The people who give their time, their energy and their expertise are giving charity. That is never valued, and the Government can never value it and guarantee its return.
The Bill is not required to safeguard the grants. The grants are already safeguarded under the 1980 Act. Every one of these housing associations has to provide a grant redemption fund and has to subscribe to the grant redemption fund in accordance with the formula laid down by the Secretary of State himself. There is no question of it being required to safeguard the grant.
I hope the Minister in his reply will not try to persuade us that in this context there is no difference between a local authority and a charitable housing association. There are differences both in law and in practice. In law the local authority is part of the whole complex of government. In law the private charitable association is an independent body, quite independent of government. And in practice there are big differences. The local authority is responsible to the community as a whole. It is inhibited by the housing waiting list. But a charitable housing association has none of those inhibitions. It can be set up for the purpose of helping the most disadvantaged and can carry on doing that without pressure from the rest of the community.
I hope also that the Minister will not tell us that they are not all real charities. It is true that some are registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts and that if they are registered with charitable rules they are, by the Charities Act 1960, excused from registration with the Charity Commissioners. But that is only for convenience—convenience of the administration and convenience of the bodies concerned. It is merely to avoid duplication. It is saying, "All right, if you are going to be supervised by the registrar, let him do the whole job and you should not also be supervised by the Charity Commissioners". It is merely a convenience, and it is a convenience which suits both sides. But the charitable association is nevertheless subject to exactly the same inhibitions as if it had been registered with the Charity Commissioners. There is no difference whatever.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that this was necessary because, after the 1980 Act, some of the

37
housing associations decided to register as charities so as to avoid having to sell their houses to the tenants. My information is that, of all the hundreds of societies involved, only seven did that. If those seven were prepared to accept the inhibitions placed upon charities and were prepared to have charitable rules, why should they not register as charities? They have the same right as any other organisation which is prepared to accept those conditions.
I conclude by reminding the House that the Charity Commissioners have been absolutely clear in what they have to say about this Bill. They have told the Government in writing, "We are totally opposed to this clause in principle". That is clear and above all doubt.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I have an interest to declare in that I have been for over half a century a trustee of the Guinness Trust, but I speak of course in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the Trust. I wish to confine my few remarks to criticising Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in opening seemed to lean on the exemptions and to wave away the grievances as though of small consequence; but I am told that out of the Guinness Trust's total of some 7,700 homes, over 5,000 would be affected by the right to buy—a very considerable proportion—which is of course a tribute to the efficacy of the grants but also, let it not be forgotten, to the zeal of the Guinness Trust staff, who, like the staffs of other trusts, have been of incalculable value in making the grants fructify. The state has invested money, but the trusts have provided something equally important in the expertise and devotion of their staff.
The grants themselves were in due course, as we know, turned into loans by the claw-back legislation—the first round of retrospection. Although naturally charitable trusts grumbled at this change of attitude, they had to accept that what the state had given, the state had taken away—and blessed at least is the name of the Housing Corporation. But under the Act of 1974, Section 30, it had been open all along for the Minister of the day, in sanctioning grants, to impose conditions. He could well have imposed a condition to sell, but did not choose to do so. If he had done so, the trustees might well have refused the grants. The injustice of the proposed retrospective legislation, introducing unacceptable terms into contracts years after their implementation, also makes future grants subject to compulsory sales. Would it not be better for the Minister and the housing charity concerned to remain free under the Act of 1974 to agree what was appropriate to particular circumstances?
The Government appear to be turning a deaf ear to the wider arguments regarding the importance of a pool of rented accommodation, for the benefit of the less well-off, and for the mobility of labour. They seem to have set themselves blindly upon a mistaken course towards universal private ownership. This seems to be a regrettable shibboleth, similar to that of the party opposite, when they believed that nationalisation was the panacea for all ills. Surely, my Lords, the objective of all parties should be the welfare of our people.
38
Surely we should cast shibboleths aside, avoid the injustice of retrospective legislation and, for the future, let the Minister be free to make terms appropriate to particular circumstances and acceptable to particular charities.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I begin to feel a certain sympathy with the Minister. The House must be yearning for someone to say a kind word about Clause 2. But although I think I am reasonably soft hearted, I must resist the temptation. He has, however, his own eminently sweet reasonableness of presentation which can momentarily conceal the rather specious nature of the arguments that he is presenting. I am sorry to have to use harsh words, but that was very much the effect which was left with me when I heard his speech. I do not think that he disposed of the arguments. Frankly, I do not think that he dealt with the arguments. I was not altogether surprised—and I hope that this will not be regarded as an unfair comment—to notice that he read his speech. There is nothing wrong with reading a speech, except that one suspects the authorship. If I smell a faint whiff of sulphur and believe that the bureaucrats (whom I suspect are really behind this legislation) had much more to do with it than the Minister himself, that may be an unfair suspicion but it is one that I shall continue to maintain.
I wonder whether I may be forgiven for a slightly egotistical insertion into the debate about my own credentials. I do so only because they have a relevance and will explain some of my comments. I was for some years the chairman of the Housing Corporation. I enlisted, I hasten to tell the Minister, as a volunteer. I enlisted—and again I claim no special credit for this—as an unpaid volunteer, as most of the people engaged in the housing movement are. They are unpaid volunteers. The remark has already been made in, if I may venture to say so, the very sincere and valid observations of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on this matter, and also by other speakers, that the Government have entirely overlooked everything except the monetary consideration. The immense effort, exertion, thought, dedication, hope and sacrifice that have gone into these voluntary movements is absolutely and totally discounted. They mean nothing. All that they have talked about is the origin of relatively small sums of money in relation to the achievements that have been effected by the voluntary housing movement.
May I refer to those achievements? When I went to the Housing Corporation—and I claim very little credit for this—there were, I think, about 5,000 new-build houses being built a year. When I left, due largely to my own incomparable skill in enlisting assistance and my ability to find three incredibly talented people, two of whom were reformed civil servants, the Housing Corporation was then building upwards of 50,000 new-build houses and reconstructed houses a year. That was a major achievement, and that a Government should seek to tamper with it in the very flagrant and, if I may say so, disrespectful way in which they are doing in Clause 2, is a matter of very considerable surprise and disappointment.
Words have been spoken about the function of this House. My opposition to Clause 2 has nothing to do

39
with politics. I was appointed to the Housing Corporation by one of the Minister's predecessors, Geoffrey Rippon, endorsed with a warm recommendation from the present Minister for the Arts, Paul Channon. I was confirmed in the office at the end of my first term of duty by Tony Crosland. I am a totally non-political animal, except in the sense that there are a number of political manifestations to which I have from time to time objected, and this, if I may say so, is one to which I take very strong objection.
During my period of service I came to recognise that in a certain section of bureaucracy there was a deep-seated hostility to voluntary organisations. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to read an extract from The Times which I think puts the point with great clarity and great emphasis, and in a very graceful fashion. It states:
"This government especially should feel a doctrinal inhibition against interference in the activities of autonomous organisations. High-handedly putting them to use and then making a negative of their efforts when policy changes, risks blighting much goodwill, enthusiasm and enterprise, and drying up the springs of charity".
I venture to think that that could not be better put.
I should also like to say that this attitude chimes with the drafting of the Bill, because one of the Bill's most abominable features is its drafting. I should like to draw the attention of the House to two clauses which are rather a burlesque of parliamentary drafting. I refer to page 4. Clause 4(1) states:
"In subsection (4) of section 8 of the 1980 Act (repayment of discount on early disposal) there shall be inserted at the beginning of paragraph (b) the words 'subject to subsection (4A) below"'.
It is difficult to imagine more slipshod, indolent drafting than that. But no one can accuse bureaucrats of being lazy or indolent. In fact, those qualities would be a virtue if bureaucrats did have them.
I could go on and reproduce the point a hundred times. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in the House earlier. His committee made very condign comments about legislation by cross-reference. It is not sheer laziness that has produced this kind of drafting. It is, if I may say so, a contempt for mankind; in particular, a contempt for those members of mankind who have to read the Bill and try to understand it. I would venture to suggest that it would take years for any ordinary human being to work out what the Bill means, even in its general terms, let alone in its particular terms. As I say, my deep suspicion is that it is not due to laziness; that it is not due even to untidiness of thought. It is due to the fact that the people who drafted the Bill are wholly satisfied that they are right, that other people are wrong, and that they need not enter into tedious and painful explanations. There is such a quantity of this kind of drafting in the Bill that it ought to be thrown out on that ground alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, reminded the House of its obligations. I am not, I am afraid, sufficiently versed in the constitutional aspects of the matter to reinforce those words, except to say that in the country at large there is a general view that if the House of Lords is to vindicate itself it is precisely for the reason that it can put right absurdities of this character; it is precisely because without any political intervention we
40
are able to say that this clause should be thrown out—and thrown out neck and crop.
I am apologetic for using slightly strong language, but there are certain situations that can be met only by using slightly strong language. In many ways the Bill chimes with my deep suspicion that it originates not only from concern about whether or not Government money should be restored to the Government, or placed under Government control, but also largely from a suspicion that amateurs and volunteers are exercising governmental functions.
I should like to read to your Lordships something that is in comparable terms very much related to the Bill. It is what a foreigner has written about the Arts Council—a very similar organisation. There are several similar organisations. The contribution of voluntary organisations to the governmental mechanism of this country has been a great achievement. There is the Arts Council and the University Grants Commission, and there are a few others. There are the Sports Council and the British Council—to a greater extent, perhaps, a governmental organisation, but nevertheless conducted by independent people. These organisations are so valuable that the Government should think four or five times before tampering with them.
I have here a report of a symposium about how the arts are subsidised in various countries. I shall read to your Lordships what a Scandinavian writer says about the method that we use. He says:
"Immediately after the cessation of hostilities, a new Arts Council was created by royal charter. It was to be a permanent government agency, but in a peculiarly British sense. The new agency was to be the principal vehicle for distribution of official support for the arts; at the same time, elaborate measures were taken to ensure its formal independence. The council is composed of private citizens who are appointed by the government but who have complete authority for setting policy and for distributing the funds it receives".
I shall not read on, because to do so would be tedious. But it is perfectly clear that voluntary organisations of this kind are really jewels in our constitutional crown, and they should not be tampered with, and they should not be upset.
Almost everything that I wanted to say has been said by previous speakers. I came here today not only because I was the chairman of the Housing Corporation for some time, but also because for three years I spent my time presiding over its committee on charity law. I should like to tell the Minister that it would require a lawyer of unique genius to be able to say whether or not the Bill corresponds with the law. I am very far from satisfied that the elaborate requirements that a charity needs to fulfil in order to sell its land are met by the provisions of the Bill. Normally there is the requirement that the property should be offered at large to the highest bidder. One requirement in relation to a property of significant value was that it should be advertised for sale. Certainly there was always a requirement that the charity should get the best price. The suggestion that the rather dim, dank and dismal wording of the particular clause of the Bill is sufficient to abrogate these provisions is, I think, over-confident.
However, it would be wrong for me to express a legal opinion in the face of a view apparently expressed by the Law Officers, but I can only say that it is not the

41
view of the Charity Commissioners, and it is certainly not my view, that there is any certainty in the Bill.
I shall conclude simply by saying that if for once this House has a useful function to exercise—and in the past it has many times exercised a useful function—your Lordships will have no hesitation at all in seeing the end of this appalling Clause 2.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is a major challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but I shall do my best. My complaints against the Bill are threefold. First, it extends the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations—and the House has rightly been very preoccupied with Clause 2. Secondly, it extends the concept of shared ownership, which after no more than eight years is still an untried concept. Thirdly, it offers self-regulation in place of regulation by the local authorities.
To me it seems extraordinary that a Government should ask Parliament to vote for a Bill which will compel the charitable housing associations to deem that henceforth their main objects are to be wider than, if not quite different from, their objects as laid out in their constitutions. A mere few lines of a clause will make valid conduct that would otherwise be a breach of trust. The Government have been asked to produce a precedent. I doubt very much whether they can produce such a precedent. I agree that a property-owning democracy is a laudable objective, but the single-minded pursuit of this objective should not override every other objective of housing policy. There are many people on low incomes, without jobs, without homes and without shelter, who simply cannot afford to buy or to maintain their homes. The Church of England, in a recent report entitled Housing and Homelessness, concluded that there is a desperate need for providing low rent accommodation for single people and one-parent families. There is certainly a need for such housing in the part of the world I come from—in the valleys of South Wales and also in the rural areas of Wales, where pressure for holiday homes and second homes is great.
The charitable housing associations exist to meet the very conditions which the Church of England has indicated. For the foreseeable future, there will be an essential role for the rented housing sector. I accept that a house sold by a housing association to a sitting tenant is not lost in the sense that it has been destroyed. But the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the sale of a single house to a sitting tenant means that one house is no longer available to the growing waiting list for rented accommodation. It seems to me that those on the waiting list pay the highest price for a house sold to a sitting tenant—a price paid in terms of worry, frustration, unhappiness and often sickness.
If Clause 2 of the Bill remains, many members of management committees and trustees, all of whom give voluntary service which should not be devalued, will find themselves in a difficult conflict. I will not say that it is necessarily a hopeless conflict. It is nevertheless a difficult conflict. They will feel that, in all conscience, they owe a duty not to deviate from the original main objects of the trust. Yet, at the same time, they will be under a statutory duty placed upon
42
them by Parliament to widen those objects without any regard to the general circumstances prevailing in their district and without any regard for the fact that they may be prejudicing their own future. I am not sure how they will resolve that conflict. The concern that they have voiced, on coming face to face with the Bill, is fully justified.
It has already been mentioned many times that the trustees of a charitable housing association will now be compelled, regardless of rules which, as I understand the law, have applied at least since the reign of Elizabeth I, to dispose of trust assets below market value. The Government, as I follow the Minister, attempt to justify this departure because we are dealing with an association that has received Government funds. That is surely a misconception. When the charity accepts the grant, subject to redemption, the fund becomes part of the assets of the charity. Therefore, the rules that have hitherto applied to the funds of a charity should prevail.
What are those rules? It is as well to remind ourselves that a trustee of a charity has no unfettered right to sell the assets of a charity. If a house is entrusted for the benefit of a third party, the trustee does not discharge his functions by proceeding to sell the house and converting it into cash. The job of the trustee is to preserve the assets for the benefit of beneficiaries, present and future. In particular, the trustees have no right to hold out any hope of preference, even to a sitting tenant to whom they may feel some sort of moral obligation. Indeed, the reverse applies. If a charity must sell assets that have been entrusted to it, it must do so on the best possible terms and must show that the sale is advantageous to it. If this Bill becomes the law of the land, the charity must, at the call of a secure tenant, sell its houses at a discount.
The Minister may produce precedent. I doubt very much whether there has been an occasion when the trustees of a charity have in the past received such an order or instruction. I go along with those noble Lords who have made the point that, in general, it is wrong for a Government, in a well ordered and civilised society, to impose terms or conditions that are retrospective. Again, the Government seek to justify retrospective legislation because the housing association has receive a grant. But retrospective legislation is exceptional. Of course, a donor may, when he offers a gift, offer it subject to conditions, provided that those conditions are known to the donee and accepted by the donee at the time of acceptance. If the offer is free of conditions when it is accepted, it would be wrong for a donor subsequently to seek to impose terms upon the recipient. No strings having been attached to the grants made under the Housing Act 1974 to charities at the time when such grants were made or disbursed, it is unjust for the Government in 1983 to impose a condition that a charity, if called upon by a secure tenant, shall sell its assets and do so at a discount. The principle should be, "once an unconditional gift, always an unconditional gift".
If we support this clause, where are we to draw the line? On the precedent to be established by this piece of legislation, will another Government some time in the future seek to impose retrospective conditions on other charities that have received or may receive

43
grants? That is why we address ourselves to the situation beyond that affecting housing associations. We say that Clause 2 is an ominous development for all charitable foundations which have been, or may be, in receipt of grants from central or local government.
Before moving on to my next point—I shall not be long—I would be grateful if the Minister will assure the House, in due course if not today, that the Bill will not make charitable housing associations ineligible to receive loans from the European Coal and Steel Commission programme for the building and improving of housing accommodation for workers connected with the coal, iron and steel industries.
I turn now to shared ownership. I listened carefully to the Minister when he introduced the concept of shared ownership. This is a relatively new concept of about eight years' standing. The tenant will part buy and part rent his house. He will never be able to point to any particular part of the house and say, "This part I own, but this part I rent". Shared ownership is still an untested concept, and I think that it will raise many issues which will be considered worthy of pursuit in the courts over the next few years. The concept has been described in another place as "a revoluntary advance" It is certainly revolutionary, but only years will reveal whether or not it is an advance.
One could pose a number of questions if one had the time, but I will proceed to mention one point relating to the predecessor Act, the Housing Act 1980. There is evidence that the law has not as yet caught up with the rights and the powers created by the 1980 Act. Is this, therefore, the time to extend a new bundle of housing rights and powers which are almost certainly not fully understood? It is unwise to push the concept of shared ownership widely among people who cannot contemplate and afford slow moving litigation from county court to the Court of Appeal and possibly to your Lordships' House.
Thirdly, I consider that the substitution of private certification of compliance with building regulations for local authority certification to be a retrograde step. Given the relentless growth of regulations, we fully accept the case for the recasting or the review or revision of regulations. But at a time when local authorities have built up a bank of knowledge and experience—knowing what has gone wrong in the past and foreseeing what might go wrong in the future—we deeply regret their replacement by the so-called approved inspector who will not have the experience, who will not have the independence of mind and probably the astuteness of the local authorities. He will be on the pay roll of the developer and not of the local council.
To the extent that the proposed substitution will mean less independence from the developer and less expertise, the greater is the risk of the regulations being overlooked or of being less effectively applied, or of standards being lowered; and greater, of course, is the risk of shoddy work. When we are dealing with the quality and design of buildings which will be in position for 30, 50 or more years, Parliament should not be taking steps which might reduce standards and quality of material, design and workmanship. For a building which is intended to be a permanent structure
44
we consider that the continued need for the statutory consent of the local authority—which is mindful of its duty of care to the community—is vital in the public interest. To conclude, it seems to me that the Government are in great difficulty with a number of innovations in the Bill and I trust that your Lordships' House will reject them.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I also shall be talking about Clause 2 of the Bill. I wish that I could say to my noble friend, "Be of good cheer; relief is at hand". Although I come in to bat at No. 10 I also have a few reservations about Clause 2 and my noble friend will have to wait for succour from another quarter. I have no connection of any type with any housing association, charitable or otherwise. I merely see in the haphazard spreading of the right to buy to 80,000 more tenants yet another instance of state interference in the affairs of what is the private housing sector.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend's explanation of the Bill, but I am afraid that I am very far from convinced by the argument based on consistency with the provisions of the 1980 Act. Looking back, the nexus, by way of receipt of grant, strikes me as a remarkably obscure one. I know myself that if this clause were not in the Bill I, for one, would be well able to sleep at night with the thought that the taxpayer was not providing a tax-free capital bonanza to some tenant of a charitable housing organisation. I am well aware that there are tenants—and in fact not all of them would be assisted by the passage of the Bill—who have, since 1980, suffered resentment as if it were a disease because their homes had benefited from public funding, and yet they seem to have been overlooked in the big 1980 share-out of private sector housing. I can live with that thought too, perhaps because I do not have constituents looking over my shoulder.
Looking ahead, I can see that there are many other tenants, not to mention flat leaseholders, who will clamour for similar treatment, many of them having had bad landlords or otherwise much better claims to acquire their freeholds or long leases than the tenants of the charitable organisations.
I view with considerable concern any legislation tending to diminish in the private sector the status of the rented house market or the supply of houses and flats to rent. Although I accept that for the Government to have presided over an increase of 120,000 in the renting stock of the housing associations is marvellous, I do not accept that the fact that only a few thousand tenants of charitable organisations are likely to take advantage of Clause 2 can be said to be any real justification for the clause, given that such few thousand seem likely to include many hard cases which one would not wish to see included.
What is the case, in my view, is that the recent flourishing of housing associations and the growth of their rented house stock largely results from the response of a market place, which has been artificially manipulated by statutory rent controls, to an overwhelming need for homes to rent in many urban and rural areas. It is something of an artificial situation because it is only by the injection of massive subsidies

45
that the housing stock to rent at "fair rents" in the private sector can be maintained, let alone increased. Naturally enough, such subsidies come to be directed primarily to benevolent and charitable organisations.
It is here that some charitable organisations seem to have been subjected to the temptation to let their stock of housing not exclusively to the poor, but also to those whose homelessness arises not from poverty but—and I say it again—as a result of the Rent Acts. In doing so they have, I believe, on occasions stepped outside the preamble to the ancient statute of Elizabeth I, by providing homes for the nearly homeless, which I understand not to be a charitable object.
I turn here to what are tendentiously called the "amnesty provisions" of Clause 2—that is to say, subsection (2). I find this subsection somewhat unsatisfactory, independently of subsection (1). I am very conscious that the law of charities is an esoteric minefield into which I stray at my own risk. But I see no lawyers down to speak after me, although whether I should be strengthened in my resolve to go forward by that or held back, I do not know. Anyway, I am plunging ahead.
If it is the case that the charitable organisations have mostly to act within the heading "relief of poverty"—one of the four heads into which the preamble to the statute is usually for convenience divided—then I really fail to see how they can hope lawfully to provide housing otherwise than on a purely and very strictly temporary basis for families in actual continuing poverty or necessitous circumstance. If this is the case, then the law of charities should, in my opinion, be amended substantively in this Bill and should not merely be subjected to amnesties in respect of undefined and doubted offences. The provision of housing ought to be made, by statute, a charitable object of benefit to the community, so that the housing charities should not always have to be looking over their shoulder in trying to decide whether their prospective or existing tenants are homeless, or potentially homeless, as a result of poverty, or whether they are so for some other at present non-charitable cause.
When one considers the provisions of the 1980 Act which regulate the terminating of secure tenancies—in particular Section 34 dealing with "grounds and orders for possession" and Schedule 4—one sees how very difficult it is now for a charity to obtain possession of a dwellinghouse on the ground that a tenant has become someone whose continued occupation would conflict with the objects of the charity; that is to say, in the case I am describing, someone who now has some money.
The charity must not only satisfy the court that the tenant can afford to live elsewhere, but that suitable accommodation will be available for the tenant when the order takes effect. This seems to me to make it nearly impossible for these charities to put themselves on the right side of the law once they have apparently transgressed. It is also clear in relation to the amnesty clause that the Government consider that, under the present law, a charity whose tenant's financial circumstances have changed for the better is no longer a proper object of the benevolence of the charity, and the view of the Government, as expressed by the
46
Minister in Committee in another place, is that the charity must ultimately get rid of that tenant or else, I presume, run the risk of falling foul of the Inland Revenue and losing its charitable status, with all that that entails. I have my own doubts as to whether that is the law, if only because possession orders against tenants whose financial circumstances have changed are bound to be difficult to obtain, if not impossible, following the introduction of secure tenancies.
But if that is the law, then in my opinion if the amnesty clause is to go ahead it should be amended so that the amnesty fully protects not only those charities which were granted tenancies before 5th November 1982, but also charities which were granted tenancies after 5th November 1982; otherwise, the charities will find themselves in grave difficulties if the clause goes ahead as drafted.
5.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I speak with a special consciousness of the housing associations with church affiliations in my own diocese. For example, the Stoneham Housing Association in Southampton has, among many other tenants, seven ex-offenders very carefully scattered among people who have not been inside in order that, by mixing with a natural, integrated community, they can be better reinstated; or the Hyde and South Bank Housing Association, which has been in Southampton for many years on the initiative of the Southampton churches.
Its Southampton committee has several members drawn from congregations who work largely in the city centre. It has a significant programme of renovation in the very bad Derby Road area of the city, in its housing action area, and also elsewhere. It is working on special projects for the homeless in co-operation with what is called St. James Shelter for single unemployed men and the Rainbow project, which is basically an interracial project. Both are closely connected with the clergy of the city centre. It works to provide rented accommodation for a very mixed bag of single homeless, one-parent families, ex-offenders, people with a history of mental illness and, for one reason or another, the very poor. But its whole object is to avoid placing these people in any kind of developing ghetto of inadequates—an address that will put off any would-be employer or headmaster; it aims to scatter them over a mixed, integrated community in different parts of the city. I believe that that makes for social health.
If this Bill goes through with the whole of Part I, Clause 2, and tenants are able to buy—some of those tenants, especially in the Polygon area, which is an upmarket area, will almost certainly buy; tenants in the Derby Road area are very unlikely to buy—we shall immediately be re-creating the very barriers that we have been trying to pull down. It will be counterproductive in every sense of the objective of that particular housing association.
There are eight properties on one corner site. Two have been made over for handicapped people. They immediately felt that it would be wrong for all eight to go to the handicapped. That is not the kind of enclave that we are seeking to build. But if this Bill goes

47
through in its present form, is it possible that those two handicapped people will alone be unable to purchase?
In these associations we are planning to create a "move-on" accommodation. We are aware of the blessed mobility of our society that does not condemn people to stay on the lower rungs of the ladder. This project and, indeed, all housing associations are not intended for one generation of individuals, but for successive generations that are on the bottom two or three rungs. Often we are dealing with people who ought not yet to own property. They are capable of living independently, which is to be encouraged, but they still need the very unobtrusive support of the volunteer workers who gather around a housing association and give a great deal of their time to help the slightly inadequate to become less so. But they are not yet ready to be totally self-reliant. Yet those are the very people whose volatility is most likely to make them plunge into purchase if the opportunity is there.
I have heard very little today in this House about the large and growing number of people who have attempted to purchase their rented accommodation and who have been unable to keep up the mortgages. In council housing very often the council itself is able to make the advance and, on failure to pay the mortgage, the house naturally reverts to the council. A housing association is not in a position to make that kind of advance grant. Therefore, if somebody ventures into purchase and fails to keep up the mortgage, the house will revert to a finance house, bank or whoever has advanced the money. It will neither serve the purpose of the council nor that of the housing association.
Ex-offenders are not exempt under this clause, yet while they are there they need the support of the volunteer workers. By passing Clause 2, do not let us remove the basic motivation of such a very large number of people of goodwill who brought the housing associations into being in order to have a much larger motive and objective than merely the provision of houses. It seems to me that this Bill treats housing associations merely as another agency for the provision of more properties. In fact, they are a third force—neither private developers nor statutory authority, but complementary to both. Basically, they are not interested in merely being another house-building agency, for they have different objectives, at which I have already hinted; they aim to provide a catchment and a springboard for those who cannot afford to buy and to create an integrated community in which those people can grow to greater maturity and responsibility.
Remember, the right to buy also means the right to fail to buy, and we must bear that in mind. Similarly, the right to buy also means the right to re-sell. This is the point that most affects the housing authorities in the rural areas. I am very interested in several developments in the New Forest and also in other rural areas throughout Hampshire, where one of the major problems of the church is the development of the village in these days. As we have already heard, in those areas we need houses for the young marrieds, so that whole villages are not taken over by executive commuters and week-enders at highly inflated prices, excluding the possibility of the young marrieds obtain-
48
ing property in the village. In one place after another in Hampshire the result is that the child population drops, the local village school has to be closed, and a great deal goes with it. People are playing at villages, but village life has died around them because only those at a certain level of income are able to go on living there.
It is because people such as parish councillors and others in all these areas have become so concerned at the disappearance of a real life of the village that they have been more than generous in a great many ways in helping housing associations to come in and play their part. Land is obtained not by direct gift but by a special approach, very often taking a great deal of time. A special approach resulting, after understanding the situation, in very generous terms for the provision of land. Charitable impulse of a local builder is often present.
The local council is quick to give planning permission. There is that sort of enthusiasm because there is a common concern. My fear is that all of that will dissipate if those who are engaged in that kind of operation feel that in a short time their primary objective will be frustrated. They are planning just two, three or perhaps six homes in each village. Not a very large estate, but enough to enable each village to have a more mixed aged group in its population.
However, as I said, the right to buy entails the right to buy and re-sell. Suppose there is that young married couple who have moved into one of those houses under the association and have rented their property. They now are able to buy it. Will they be able to resist the pressure of the enormously inflated price that some better placed person will offer them, and move back to join the crowds in Southampton?
Again, the whole project is in danger of being frustrated if this clause goes through, and all that motivation will have disappeared. Groups that I know in the New Forest are simply not prepared to go ahead with present schemes until they see whether or not this Bill goes through. I should like briefly to put in a word also on behalf of the National Agricultural Housing Association that was launched by Peter Buckler, for many years chaplain at Stoneleigh and well known to many of your Lordships. He has said that that association is totally opposed to the implications of this Bill.
I should like to end by retiterating the point that many have made and to put it even more strongly, having worked for a great many years in a different sort of voluntary association, a charitable body, one of the great missionary societies. I have always understood that a grant from public money cannot alter the charitable status in toto of the trust to which it is given, but rather the charitable nature of the association changes the nature of the grant into that of a contribution to the funds of the trust.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise to the Minister for what I am going to say, because he was kind enough to come down and see my housing association, and we are grateful to him for spending the time in doing so. I want to put a few points forward. The project I wish to speak about is the

49
North Peckham project, which has outstanding features. I understand that it will be upset by this Bill.
This association has built 53 houses and flats with most complex social purposes. The buildings cost £1,400,000. The association is backed also by the Ministry of the Environment, the Housing Corporation of Southwark, ILEA Youth Service, and many other charitable bodies, including a charity from Holland which has invested in this trust. The monies were given because they appreciated our ideals and what we wished to do in regard to this trust. The object of the Hummingbirds, as it is called, is to provide a multi-racial society on the estate, and so provide accommodation for employees from social workers to hospital porters.
The need was for good, rented accommodation for manual workers, for young professionals with modest salaries, for widows with children, and unmarried mothers. In this area Peckham's needs were great, as a lot of the wards in the hospitals had to be closed because they could not get enough workers. So we began with a majority of people being employed under the National Health Service. A third of them were unmarried mothers. They had children, but they were able to go out to work. It was also for widows, widows with children, old age pensioners, and one or two family flats.
Now 50 per cent. of these persons were nominated by the local authority. The idea was that the whole of the estate should follow the ethnic composition of the area. It has worked out very well. The majority of tenants turned out to be women, because unfortunately there were many single parent families. We have no rent debts at all because, as I mentioned once before in this House, all the rent is paid through the banks through banker's order. What is so essential to keeping these families together is the nursery centre; and 40 children up to the age of three have all-day care there throughout the year. There is also a holiday scheme in co-operation with ILEA.
I think you will agree that this is not a housing association which just provides bricks and mortar, but also it helps to give a village life, in a way, in a town and co-operates with all the people in the neighbourhood. The tenants' asociation is elected every two years, and elected tenants also go to the Hummingbird Committee itself, so they have a two-way flow of ideas. Interestingly, the parents' committee, at their own suggestion, doubled the fees for the holiday playgroup. There are many schemes for building and helping more families with difficulties, including the mentally handicapped.
The London Borough of Southwark has been very helpful. We had one hiccup, and that was when they said that there were to be no pets. We felt that pets were part of family life, and they kindly gave way in the end, and so they are able to have pets. The project is really designed to help inner areas of the cities. All the tenants work in jobs locally for the benefit of the local community. Once the property is therefore for sale, it is going to be extremely difficult to keep this notion of the community together. Suppose, say, that a widowed mother has a son who has done fairly well, and he says to the mother, "I will give you money to buy your flat." She will obviously buy her flat.
50
Therefore, he can either go and live in it himself later, or he can sell it to somebody else. This is breaking up the whole idea of this estate. People with special needs, I gather, like the British Legion, may qualify and will not be allowed to sell their flats, but I should like that confirmed.
I should like to know who can decide who are the special people in need, except those who are running the housing associations. There are 12 charitable trusts which have helped with this association and also have given grants. I should like to suggest that this type of association is worth carrying on. Their donations should be used for giving this type of family life to people, the 53 families that we have with these amenities, and the special objects we want to carry on with. The families at the moment are very happy. Their rents are fairly reasonable, and it would be a great pity if this was disturbed.
There is also a toy library for the 100 children in the neighbourhood, and they also have play sessions. There is a latch-key service for the 30 children who live there, and this all ties up with the fact that these people are people living there because they wish to be in a caring community. I should like, therefore, to suggest to the Minister that perhaps there might be a register for types of housing associations like these which will not be permitted to sell in the future. We must have some safeguard for associations which have proved that they can help this type of person who is so much in need.
Clause 7, deals with national parks and other areas of outstanding beauty. How are we to discriminate between places of outstanding beauty, when we all have different ideas on the subject, as we have seen in our debates on recent Bills? Perhaps my noble friend, in his reply, will comment on that. I thank him for the help and interest he has taken in the past and I hope that tonight we shall receive from him a happy answer.
5.51 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I wish to deal with two aspects of the Bill. The first is the statutory provision in Clause 2, and I am afraid that very little of what I shall say will be new on the subject, though I may express it in a somewhat different way. At first sight the clause may not appear unreasonable, but there are two matters of principle involved and, even more importantly, side effects which give cause for concern. Whatever the Minister argued in another place to the contrary, the measure is, in some respects at least, retrospective because charitable bodies and housing associations have for about eight years accepted public grants at their face value and have planned accordingly. Had they known what is proposed in the Bill, they would often have made quite different decisions.
There is also the question of legality in regard to charitable status, and some people who are well respected in the legal field do not agree with what the Minister said on that matter. It seems to be a matter of opinion; and, after all, whatever his advisers may say, what the courts finally decide is what will matter. In any case, there is an undesirable inroad into the provisions covering charitable status. This Government have emphasised the importance of voluntary

51
community work and the help provided by independent organisations. The Bill as drafted is a gross interference with autonomous bodies. It will blight the goodwill, enthusiasm and fund-raising of much voluntary work.
Most charities and housing associations are in business to fulfil some particular community need not otherwise available. Usually it is designed to be on a temporary basis. For example, some housing associations work with other voluntary bodies to help those leaving hospitals and prisons, and to aid newly separated or divorced mothers and others desperately needing a roof over their heads or a period of rehabilitation in sheltered surroundings. Other housing organisations try to provide equally desperately needed rented accommodation at reasonable cost.
It is idle to suppose that after the sale of a property to the tenant it can quickly or easily be replaced. Replacement may not even be possible. The charity would have to repay the grant and use all or most of the balance to fund the discount to the buying tenant. The whole ambience and administrative control of a housing project could thus be destroyed. Moreover, it may be highly undesirable to have the confusion of those coming in, in need of help and guidance, alongside those whose need has passed but who have elected to take advantage of the Bill to buy the property.
It is worth looking at some of the anomalies which will arise in the situation where the Government's argument of the clause is allegedly based on fairness to council tenants. In the first place, because the right to buy depends on having accepted a public grant, some tenants in possibly identical accommodation will have a right to buy while others will not. For new tenants it will be a lottery as to whether or not they move into accommodation which carries a right to buy. Even weirder anomalies will arise in thousands of converted properties, because discount for the buying tenant must not bring prices below the original cost. If the house was vacant when first bought by the charity, it will have been far more expensive than a house bought with a sitting tenant. The tenant of the former may therefore get no discount, while in the other case a full discount may be payable; yet for practical purposes the houses could be identical. Tenants would be quite unable to understand or accept such glaring anomalies.
Another side effect of the legislation will be a reluctance of tenants to leave their rented accommodation, when they otherwise would do so, on the grounds that they may in the future be able to buy if they sit tight. If the property is a commercially attractive asset with its generous buying grant, wholly undesirable sources may find it a good thing to make loans to the would-be purchaser. That is a very important point indeed. It may be all right for relatives to find the money and hope to get the house at a later date, but it is a different matter if some smart operator knocks at the door and makes suitable proposals where the property looks a good commercial proposition.
In all this there is the major consideration of the shortage of cheap rented accommodation which is
52
vitally necessasry for many, including young newly-marrieds, and for helping the mobility of labour. Conservative and Labour Governments have, no doubt with good intentions, eroded this vital asset. That point has been made several times today. There is now a fear that future Governments may try to apply similar provisions to the generous grants made to landlords for the improvement of their rented properties.
I should also emphasise the disastrous effect this legislation will have on small charities—those which are often closest in touch with local needs. They are dependent almost entirely on a band of voluntary workers. In many cases these will be greatly disheartened, and some of those charities will simply go out of business. I sincerely hope the Government will reconsider their position on pragmatic grounds and, at the least, accept an amendment to make Clause 2 not retrospective, but effective only for the future. That would allow charities, when taking a grant, to see clearly what is involved, and to make their plans accordingly. The enormous legislative effort and ensuing administrative cost in implementing these provisions seem a negation of the Government's efforts to reduce administrative staff in government as a whole.
The other matter I want to raise concerns Clause 40, which deals with documents giving practical guidance on the provisions of the building regulations on a "deemed to satisfy" basis. Apparently the Minister intends to designate such bodies as the British Standards Institution and the Agrément Board for helping prepare these documents. So far so good. But, most surprisingly, the power to approve such documents can also be delegated. That is not acceptable from a practical point of view or on principle, as such approval bodies would not be answerable to Parliament.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I must apologise in opening both to my noble friend Lord Bellwin and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for having missed their opening speeches owing to another commitment elsewhere in the House at the same time. I trust that I shall not offend them by what I have to say, having missed their obviously splendid words. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Bellwin for the exchange of correspondence that we had and to which I shall later refer. As he will be aware, I am concerned only about Clause 2, as indeed are most other noble Lords, and its effects on charitable housing associations and trusts in the Isle of Wight—which narrows it even more. However, although practically everybody else who has spoken has been against Clause 2 as a whole and would like to have it struck out, I am persuaded that there will be cases where the right to buy would be justified for charitable tenancies.
Your Lordships may be aware that in another place on 18th January, when addressing Standing Committee F, my honourable friend Mr. John Stanley pointed out at some length at columns 305 and 307 where this would be a reasonable thing to do. He mentioned in particular the fact that there are some associations which have charitable status which have let homes to persons who are not necessitous. Of course, it is quite

53
right that that sort of situation should be able to be put right. Most noble Lords who have spoken already have been in touch with very worthy bodies which would never do any such thing; but there may be other bodies with which they are unfamiliar, and it would seem right that under certain circumstances people should be enabled to buy their houses, particularly if it is really a bit bogus that they had them let to them on a charitable basis in the first place. Therefore, I, personally, would not suggest to my noble friend that he sweeps away the whole of Clause 2 but I hope to show him that perhaps it ought to be amended, and I will give some indication of how that might be done.
The particular problems in the Isle of Wight—which are very similar to those presented to us by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester—are the need to preserve a reasonable number of houses for locals of all ages and for any older people who wish to return to the island after a working life elsewhere. There was already evidence 50 years ago that local people were being displaced by a superfluity of newcomers to the island of various sorts—for example, retired Northerners or weekenders—such as the right reverend Prelate mentioned. In this connection, I would say to the right reverend Prelate that, in the Isle of Wight, Northerners begin the other side of the Solent.
I emphasise that some fresh blood is always welcome in every village but not if it means that young people are forced out of their community because they cannot find somewhere to live among the people they know or near their job, or if it means that old people are unable to return to the community of their earlier life. This, surely, is an important proviso in the background against which we consider this particular clause.
However, all this became obvious in the 1930s and it led to the formation in that decade of the particular housing association about which I wrote to my noble friend the Minister. Since then, that housing association has been granted charitable status, and more recently established charitable housing associations in the island have the same purpose. I suspect—and the right reverend Prelate made it clear to us in relation to his part of the country—that rural areas in all parts have very much the same problems; and very reasonable ones they are.
In his letter to me of 17th March, my noble friend the Minister clarified much of Clause 2, but there are two points about which I am still concerned. First, he said that two-thirds of charitable dwellings will fall outside the right to buy. I suspect that this proportion might be an average for the country as a whole but that the proportion of those which fall outside for the Isle of Wight, and possibly for other rural areas, could well be less than two-thirds. Therefore, that needs to be considered in the general argument. Secondly, my noble friend made the point that the charitable associations let only to necessitous persons. That is not disputed. I gave an example to your Lordships of there being some charitable associations which are somewhat bogus, but I am not talking about them. The reasonable ones—about which we all know—would not dispute that the purpose of their housing is to be let to the necessitous. My noble friend
54
went on to say that, as they are necessitous, they therefore are unlikely to be in a position to exercise the right to buy. What we in the Isle of Wight fear is that this may well be so but such a necessitous person who, let us say, may be an invalid at 60, may have children of, say, 40 who may not have been doing well but then maybe they are lucky and win the pools or perhaps become very industrious and make lots of money. They may then suggest to their parents: "Dad, I know you and Mum are getting on a bit. Wouldn't it be a good plan if you exercised your right to buy and we'll put up the cash for you?"
That may be all right; but the fact is that, the parents having exercised this right using money put up by their children, we may find that the children, after the house passes into their possession, may be terribly tempted, as, I think, the right reverend Prelate mentioned by very high prices being offered for houses in a nice part of the country, and may sell the house. Whatever happens, directly that house passes out of the hands of the necessitous person—hopefully, not until they are dead though nasty things can happen—whatever was the purpose for which the house was provided in the first place by the charity, it is nullified. That surely is what we must try to avoid.
Therefore, since I communicated with my noble friend and have talked to my friends in the Isle of Wight, I have been seeking to see if we could not have some sort of amendment to Clause 2 which would give the charitable housing trust the right to appeal against an application for a right to buy if they can show that the purposes of their charitable trust may be, or are being, nullified by the exercise of that right. I hope that something on those lines might be acceptable.
It could well be argued that this would drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the right to buy. It would not do so, I submit, if the charitable trust or society is genuine and if it sticks to the idea of necessitous tenants, and can get rid of the tenants when they cease to be necessitous. Of course, that is another problem, but if this had the effect of imposing a greater discipline on the charities, I should not think that a bad thing. At the same time, it would avoid the gradual erosion of the purposes for which these housing associations were set up in the first place. I throw the idea to my noble friend and I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, he will give very favourable consideration to anything along those lines that I may put down.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I, too, hope that the Government will reconsider Clause 2. I do not like it for three reasons. It is retrospective, but enough has been said about that already. It seems to be discriminatory, too, in that you are taking the total number of tenants of charitable housing associations and giving the right to buy to a fairly small proportion of them. You are not giving the right to buy to tenants of private landlords who may be in similar houses and who also may have received substantial Government grants. You are not giving the right to buy to tenants of pre-1974 houses or to disabled tenants. There may well be good reasons for doing that; but let us say, for example, that you have three houses side by side on the same estate: one pre-1974, one post-1974 and one

55
occupied by a disabled person. Does the Minister think he could convince the other two tenants of the reasons why only one of the three should be entitled to buy his house at a substantial discount?
My other reason for doubting Clause 2 is that there are many charitable housing estates where able-bodied tenants undertake, as part of their tenancy, to look after or provide some service for disabled people. If the former are allowed to sell their houses in the course of time, then this care may cease to exist. There is also the point that although I am sure we all welcome housing for the disabled being integrated with ordinary housing, I wonder whether, if Clause 2 goes through as it is now, there might not be a tendency for housing associations to build what might be called disabled ghettos and concentrate all their housing for disabled people in one particular place.
The Minister mentioned in his speech that there had been an increase of 120,000 dwellings in the rented stock since this Government came in, or some 40,000 a year. Perhaps when replying he could say whether that is a net figure, allowing for houses which have been condemned or have gone out of use for some reason. How does that compare with the previous three years? I shall be most interested if he can give me that information.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I speak out of turn by arrangement. We have already heard so much about the evils of Clause 2 that I shall not attempt to rehearse them again since it has been done much more eloquently by other people. However, I should like to consider one aspect of it—the one which the noble Viscount has just been discussing—and that is the particular danger to the provision made for disabled people. Your Lordships may not be aware that many housing associations have formed integrated communities of disabled persons and able-bodied persons who are in some cases relatives of the disabled persons. It is very important that these units should remain in the way in which they are so that the disabled persons can have support. It follows that if only those houses which are adapted for wheelchair use cannot be sold, sooner or later the others will go, and little by little that community will be destroyed. I find it very difficult to believe that the Government intend this to happen. I think it is probably another example of the effects of the Bill not being properly thought through.
There is also the special case of the mentally disabled, who also live in supportive communities run by housing associations. Their houses are normal houses, not adapted in any way; yet in their communities they are dependent on having the support of relatives or at least of caring people who have expressed a desire to live in these communities and to help people. There again I think these communities must be protected.
Perhaps I should have declared an interest at the beginning because I am chairman of an almshouse housing association. I suppose at the moment that we are protected—or are we? We are protected under this present legislation, but in two years' time who knows
56
what is to happen? If we are to accept the principle of retrospective legislation then the almshouse cover may go as well. We are in a very, very dangerous position and the only other remark I will make about Clause 2 is that we should do away with the retrospective part. Then when we set out to do something in the future we shall at least know what we have taken on.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? On that point of the almshouses I will say to her categorically that no Conservative Government would do that. If she is equally satisfied as to what a Labour Government or a Government of any other complexion would do, then she should be able to relax.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reassurance, but I should feel a lot happier if Clause 2 did not exist. Can we turn now to Clause 11, where I have one brief question to put to the Minister? This refers to the Secretary of State's power to obtain information. I may be misreading this, but when the Minister replies will he please tell me whether the Secretary of State will have the right to interfere between an employee and his employer and to get information? It says in subsection (1), in the last paragraph of Section 24C,
"shall, without instructions from the landlord, take all reasonable steps to ensure that the notice is complied with."
It seems to me that the Minister can ask for information from an employee of the landlord and get it. So please can we have that cleared up and then we shall know what to do later on?
Now may I turn to the part of the Bill which has almost been the Cinderella, because everyone has concentrated on the evils of Clause 2 and, although there have been some notable contributions, there has been very little said on the whole about building control. It has been agreed by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that the present system works very well. The building regulations do need revision: I think that is generally agreed and we welcome the fact that they are to be revised. But the present system which is operated by experienced professionals in district councils and in outer London boroughs has worked well, has given high standards of safety and high standards of thermal efficiency. No one would deny that. In addition, there is a high standard of public protection in that even at a very late stage many years later anyone who is aggrieved by what has happened under building regulations can come to the local authority to seek redress. I do not know the exact number of years but I know it is very many. The local authority is always there: everyone knows where it is, and the complainant is safe. If he fails to get satisfaction from the local authority at the moment he can go to the ombudsman. Is he to lose this right when we have private inspectors? This has not been mentioned in the Bill: perhaps it has not been noticed. Again, will the Minister please answer that question?
In addition, although the building regulations now in use have needed revision, we have at least had the advantage of national interpretation because there have been regular meetings between all the authorities who implement them to make sure that the interpretation is uniform throughout the country. That is a very important aspect which will be lost

57
under the new arrangements. The opening to independent inspectors where qualifications are not carefully defined is a very dangerous aspect. Legislation does not prevent an inspector from working solely for one client or regularly for a small group, and it must be said that its independence would be in grave doubt if he were to work simply for one client or for a small group. It will be necessary to amend that part of the legislation.
If an inspector, or his successor, fails to complete the job for any reason, the local authorities have to pick up the pieces, as an earlier speaker said. They will have to step in and take responsibility, without having had an opportunity of earlier examination. In the progress of a large development, inspection has to be done stage by stage because as the work progresses the earlier stages are hidden from view and it is quite impossible for anyone coming in at a later stage to know whether or not the earlier work has been properly completed. So we must demand that, if this legislation goes through, the departing inspector must provide a final certificate at that point.
Furthermore, stop certificates must be issued to stop work until the local authority has the opportunity of coming in to see what has happened. Even if the departing inspector has been competent and correct—and let us hope that this will happen in most cases—a great deal could go wrong in the work between his departure and the local authority taking over, so the issue of stop notices at that point is very important. To change a well-tried system where persons with complaints can go to the ombudsman or to the local authority, which is always there, for a system where an aggrieved person can only pursue an inspector or a developer who may no longer exist, is to take public safety out of the hands of highly trained, experienced officers and to give it to an as yet undefined group.
There is a further effect which is one to which we tend not to give enough attention in this House; that is, the cumulative effect of this and other legislation on the direct labour organisations of local authorities. This is a point which I have raised before and will no doubt raise again. The authorities will have to keep a fail-safe work force of highly specialised people to pick up where private inspectors have gone out. Are they to be penalised financially because they have to do this? It will be very difficult, if they cannot work out their future planning, to decide what their workforce should be in any given year. Are the Government going to apply the same measures of financial control on the building control staff as they do on others, or are they making exceptions in these cases? It seems to me that there are a great many questions that have to be answered before we can pass this Bill.
As a first option, we really should leave building control where it is, because it has been done well and there are no complaints. It is very difficult to avoid the impression that this is just a dogmatic titbit that is being thrown out to please certain sections of the electorate at a time when an election is close by. If we were to take a realistic approach we would leave it where it is. If we must bring in independent inspectors, then there must be a very high level of safeguards.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will also allow me to mention some aspects of Clause 2 as I see them, viewed from the angle of disabled residents. The opinions that I hold differ from those put by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and by a number of concerned organisations. The basic difference is that I am a very firm believer that, wherever possible, it is best for people to own their own dwellings. Obviously, the number of residences available to rent should not be reduced overall because we do not want to complicate further the homeless situation. Here I believe that we can take heart from what has happened to the non-charitable housing associations through the 1980 Act. We have heard that at the end of 1982 the number of non-charitable housing association tenants who would purchase their homes was 2,550, yet during the life of this Parliament the increase in the rented stock of the housing associations has been 120,000 in houses and flats. That means that for one sale there has been almost a five-fold increase in dwellings to rent.
But to pursue the point which I am inclined to think has not been appreciated by the worried charitable housing associations, there could be a healthy spin-off for all who are accommodated in their associations. Like many noble Lords, I received a number of letters from worried associations and their advisers. I am hoping that the admirably clear and robust speech of my noble friend Lord Bellwin this afternoon will have at least explained some points on which they appear to be almost unremittingly concerned. This attitude of mind easily obscures the success side of the story, the advantages gained by prosperous housing associations and the much higher grants that will be available under the new scheme.
I cannot be alone in knowing persons housed by housing associations who are highly satisfied, if not surprised, by the progress made since 1980. But it is hardly surprising for the associations to take an anxious view, for neither they nor private landlords could exactly relish their house children having plans arranged for them and changed. My hope is that, when they know all the facets and the full facts, the various charitable housing associations may see that there is something in this for them, and that it will release some money which they so sorely need for development. Those of us who are connected with disbursing charitable trusts know too well the appealing letters stressing the dire need for funds to develop so that proceeds from sales should, at least, help to begin to plug that gap helped of course by much increased grants.
To return to my original theme, there is no need for me to explain to your Lordships how enormous are the housing problems for disabled people, because in this House these problems are very well understood and appreciated. Certainly difficult housing is the best way to exclude any disabled person from becoming integrated into living, working and leisure activities. To occupy a house adapted for a wheelchair provides the opportunity to integrate as prescribed, after much wonderful and expensive treatment received from the NHS. Probably the reason why specially adapted housing for disabled and elderly people is excluded

59
from this scheme is partly that most disabled people are too hard-pressed financially to be able to buy, and also that the inclusion of such specialist-provided accommodation involves extra expense. To some extent, it requires to be tailor-made to the needs of, for instance, wheelchair users, iron lung people, et cetera, so a wise association is naturally keen to retain it as a reserve against any request to meet an emergency requirement, whether post-hospital through a local authority, or from some other source.
Certainly many of us regret that this understanding provision did not exist in the days when families wore themselves, and their finances, out in overcoming the problems of steps and stairs, narrow doors, and awkward "loos" and baths when saddled with a disabled relative. Housing associations which are equipped to meet such eventualities must be warmly congratulated on their far-sightedness, because medical science is improving apace and a thrifty community is well advised to beware of the consequent requirements.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister for his advice on three aspects of Clause 2. First, if a couple live in adapted accommodation, excluded from the right to buy on account of the disablement of one, when both of them depend greatly on help from one or two sets of neighbours for lifting, for dressing, for shopping or probably just for companionship, are we assured that if those neighbours have the right to buy then the couple can rely on some security of tenure? Secondly, where a couple or a family includes a disabled person yet they do not need adapted housing, if they cannot afford to take up a right to buy their house can they, through an amendment to this Bill, be excluded?
Thirdly—and, I regret to say, perhaps even more abstruse—where somebody has lived in adapted housing in a charitable housing scheme, yet for special reasons requires extra privacy on account, perhaps, of physical condition or appearance, if they have scraped together enough funds to buy could they be given the right to transfer to another house, with the right to purchase and adapt it as they want? This last point is made for an actual case, but under present conditions this is very distressing for many people, although it need not be so. Its pattern must occur elsewhere. It will be of great help to me and to others if my noble friend the Minister can help us on these points. Indeed, with these points dealt with and these fears allayed, the Minister may find that some of the opposition to Clause 2 will diminish—certainly when these points are added, for instance, to the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Basically I approve of the Bill. It is inequitable for certain tenants of charitable trusts to be denied the right to buy when others in accommodation which is similarly funded are granted that right. The Bill redresses such an imbalance. The more occupiers can press on to become home owners—as I did with my tiny flat—the more life becomes straightforward in an independent, rational situation.
In conclusion, may I add the plea that the charitable associations may find in this Bill qualities to help them to extend their invaluable work? My wish is especially
60
for disabled people, for whom the need to live in accessible surroundings transcends most considerations, even those which are monetary. For them, it is the difference between imprisonment and freedom. I hope that both the associations and my noble friend the Minister will never lose sight of this vitally important fact. With the provision of the points I have mentioned concerning Clause 2, I support the Bill.
6.32 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, like many noble Lords and Baronesses, I view parts of the Bill with a jaundiced eye, in particular Clause 2. Celebrating his 21st Bill birthday, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has done his brilliant best to persuade this House that it is all right, really. He deserved to succeed; but, with great respect, I am not satisfied.
Retrospective legislation has always been abhorrent to decent people. I know it is nothing new, but that does not make it any better and I am sorry that this Government should sink to it. The grants, however big, which were paid to charitable housing associations had no strings attached when the associations accepted them. Had they had strings attached, the associations would, in almost all cases, probably not have accepted them. To invent strings nine years later can scarcely be described as acting in good faith. In fact—I am sorry, but it is just downright dishonest. There is no other word for it. Similar conduct by a commercial firm would earn them such a reputation that no one in their senses would have any dealings with them again. And the first people to hold up their hands in pious horror would probably be the Government. Unfortunately, one frequently has no option whether or not to have dealings with governments.
If this Bill becomes law, private landlords are going to be very chary in future of applying for or accepting grants, for fear the same thing will happen to them. This will do nothing to improve or increase the stock of housing available for rental to those who, for one reason or another, need or prefer to rent accommodation. Apart from those who cannot afford to buy, there will always be people who prefer to rent. They may have a job which involves frequent moves, or they may not want to be tied down, or they may prefer to know that if the roof leaks it is someone else's financial headache. I think this Government have done quite enough to promote home ownership without touching charitable housing and should call it a day.
I hope the Government will come to their senses and amend or delete this pernicious clause. If they do not, I fear that when the provisions of this Bill become more widely known they will find that they have lost a lot of support in the country—and deservedly so.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I must declare an interest, or perhaps it should be a non-interest, in that I am the master of a very small almshouse charitable association which is, of course, exempt from the provisions of the Bill. However, I can perfectly well see the enormous damage that would have been done to this tiny charitable association, which happens to be the most ancient of the housing associations in this country, since it goes right back to the days before

61
history was recorded, let alone deeds of ownership. When I thought that this Bill would apply carte blanche to all charitable housing associations I believed it was time that something should be done, in particular to prevent the damage which appeared to be going to be caused to the charity law about which your Lordships have heard this evening.
I do not know whether I shall be able to encourage my noble friend on the Front Bench, but he and his right honourable friend in another place very quickly made clear the exemptions to the Bill. They are very considerable exemptions which I certainly did not appreciate. A very large number of most distinguished speakers on both sides of your Lordships' House may not have fully appreciated those exemptions. Although my noble friend spelled out those exemptions very clearly, perhaps I should repeat them, since a number of noble Lords may not have heard them—or may have come into the Chamber later.
I believe that much of the property of many of the charitable housing associations which have been mentioned by the experts in this field is exempt. It is clearly stated in my noble friend's brief that all dwellings built on land donated to charity or purchased with charitable funds are exempt. This must include many charitably owned houses, or dwellings which were donated to the charity, or which were purchased in some way with charitable funds. This includes all houses which have received very generous departmental housing grants for either their building or repair. Furthermore, it includes houses which have been exclusively built for the elderly or for the disabled, hostels and any set of houses which provides as part of the service a caretaker or warden. I wrote to my noble friend and said I thought that he had satisfied both me and many of my colleagues, whose names appeared on a letter which went round a little while ago to Members of your Lordships' House, that the charity law and charitable property were not greatly endangered by this very modest Bill.
I am the 20th speaker in this debate and I am fairly certain that I know what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is to speak after me, will say. The fact is that, if I am correct, 21 speakers will then have spoken against Clause 2 of the Bill. This has not been a political debate. The Bill has been debated by experts in charitable housing. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, who, alas! is not in his seat at the moment, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said at the beginning of our debate that there was a conundrum. There is the right to buy houses when the expenditure on their construction has been almost entirely of public money. The noble Earl said—and I go along with him—that he is one of the great exponents of the property-owning democracy. On the other hand, there is the other side to the conundrum: the tremendous need for rented accommodation—and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has made that absolutely clear. How are these completely opposite poles to be brought together?
I would agree with my noble friend that this provision marginally helps some people in the tenancy of charitable associations who wish to buy their properties. But it will far more seriously damage the interests of those people who can never buy a property,
62
who do not want to buy a property, and who, if they did buy a property, would not know what to do with it. It is of very marginal assistance to the property-owning democracy. I should like to see extra help given, if that should be necessary—but I rather doubt that it is necessary in view of all the assistance that is given today—to tenants of charitable housing associations to get out of charitable property and to go elsewhere to buy a property with a mortgage, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate and by many other noble Lords in all parts of the House.
Not one speaker has been in favour of this Bill—which is a very modest Bill—due to Clause 2. I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider with his right honourable friend the damage that can be done and will be done by this Bill all over the country. Funnily enough, it will very largely affect people who are conservative-minded—I do not say people who are Conservatives—who are involved with housing associations, against which not one single Member of your Lordships' House has said anything today.
As the owner of a modest amount of smaller housing property, I can only add that one of the great sadnesses of being an owner of rented property is not being able to rehouse the terribly depressing cases—applications that one receives almost every week. If only one could, how much happier one would be! Very often one can recommend such applicants to a housing association, whether it be a charitable association or a commercial one, depending on the applicant's circumstances.
It is quite obvious that it is the retrospective element of Clause 2 which your Lordships do not like. We never like any form of retrospection, and the reasons for that have been given. I must admit that it had not occurred to me that public money given over to a charitable association to provide houses becomes that association's property; but, as I understand it, particularly from noble Lords opposite, that is so. I understand that if an association has been given a grant, then under the law of the land that grant becomes part of the charity, and it should not therefore be able to be given away for other people's benefit: to wit, the tenant who, by chance, is lucky enough to buy the house. That is indeed a breach of charity law, and I do not like it. Twenty other noble Lords so far have not liked it, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to consider this point very seriously before he comes back to us at Committee stage.
My noble friend thinks that the advantage of being able to buy their houses will affect only 8,000 people. That will be very good for them, but I believe they could have bought houses elsewhere, with a little extra assistance, possibly, although I doubt that. So 8,000 people may own their own houses: but think of the damage to the 8,000 people who are not able to have their houses. I believe that the need of people who require rented accommodation is very much greater than that of the people who have the resources to buy their houses.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested an amendment. I do not know whether that is attractive to my noble friend the Minister, but obviously it would be attractive to all noble Lords who have

63
spoken and, I suspect, to all members of your Lordships' House. I have thought of an amendment which will probably be even less attractive to my noble friend Lord Bellwin; namely, that, possibly, bona fide charitable housing associations need not sell their houses unless the trustees of the association agree that the sale will benefit that charitable association. But I suppose that would be driving a motor bus through the Bill rather than just a coach and horses. It seems to me that some amendment must be made, not only to deal with the retrospective element but also to deal with what I understand to be a very serious breach of the charity tax laws—a breach that I did not understand when I wrote to my noble friend.
Supposing there was a proposal to force a Division later this evening, I do not believe that the Second Reading of this Bill would go through. But that is not the custom of your Lordships' House, although I am quite certain that there should be a warning to my noble friend that unless he takes this Bill away and makes an amendment which deals with retrospection or which protects charitable funds where they have been completely grant-aided, he may not get his Bill.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down, concerning his points on retrospection and the law on charities. If I may, I shall return to those points later. However, as so little has been said today about the case of London, I should like to give some figures from Greater London which I believe illustrate that the timing of this Bill is quite inappropriate. New local authority starts in Greater London have decreased for every single year since 1975. By 1981, they were running at one-tenth of the rate achieved in 1975 and 1976. If that was not bad enough news, local authority lettings were 60,000 in 1976 but fell to 44,000 in 1979–80. It is estimated that for the current year 1983–84, lettings will reach a figure of only 18,500. This last figure may be only just sufficient to cater for the number of households which are totally homeless, of which there were no fewer than 18,000 in 1981. So the total availability of local authority lettings is likely to be taken up solely with the demands of homeless families and households.
I should add that in 1980–81, 93,000 new names were added to local authority waiting lists in Greater London. It is quite clear that nobody puts down his name on a local authority waiting list if he has any reasonable chance of buying his own property. He knows that he will have to wait at least four or five years before he receives an offer from a local authority. This is where the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, were so relevant, in what he had to say about a pool of rented property being available.
I should like to say now how very much I admired the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk; the noble Lord, Lord Goodman; the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester; and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. Theirs were speeches of such weight and force that any Government, including the present Government, would have to give them serious consideration. I should like to add a further little piece of evidence
64
about the 80,000 or so charitable housing association properties that will, if the Bill passes in its present form, become liable to compulsory sale. Many of these are situated in places where it is vitally important to maintain a pool of rented accommodation.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord mentions compulsory sale. That is not the term to be used in connection with this Bill. The right to buy is not the same, by any means, as compulsory sale.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am willing to accept the correction of the noble Lord the Minister; but I put it to him that these two things could be the opposite sides of the same coin.
As to the place where the pool exists, this may be one in which there are no council houses at all. It may be a place where no new houses can be built; for instance, where there are green belt regulations or restrictions or because there are no building sites or sewers available. All these things can rule out the possibility of replacing a sold house.
Many speakers have mentioned other special situations: the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Nicol, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my noble friend Lord Ingleby. I merely ask whether these special situations were taken into account in any way in the preparation of this legislation? What consultation went on beforehand?
The House will know that for many years I have been concerned with the housing needs of villages. Your Lordships may recall the debate on rural housing that I initiated on Ash Wednesday in 1982. I have also been concerned about inner cities. In Birmingham I was involved in the formation of the Family Housing Association. It catered then, as now, for homeless families, and families in urgent housing need. The chairman recently wrote to me about his great concern that this Bill is likely to diminish his pool of property available for rent in areas where it is particularly needed.
At the other extreme, I know of a small housing association in a Kent village which in 1976 provided six houses for young married couples by converting one old pub. That is the only stock owned by this association, but it is those small associations which are highly effective. In the past six years these six houses have provided homes for 12 couples. There is, therefore, a turnover. On average, one house became vacant each year and was relet. Some of those who moved out purchased accommodation elsewhere or were rehoused by other organisations. I submit that all pools of housing have a turnover, however slow, and what we are discussing today is the question of future relets and whether it will be possible to use these for charitable, social and community purposes.
In London I want to see relets of the old established housing trusts, some of which have been mentioned today, being still available for young families rooted in those particular neighbourhoods, and also for lower paid service workers who often have to work late at night or early in the morning and, therefore, cannot commute very easily by public transport.

65
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not think that I am in any way hostile to house purchase. On the contrary, in many cases it is an excellent thing. The Minister may like to know that as long ago as 1964 I was advising London bus drivers to buy houses when houses could still be had for £3,000 each. What I want to see is the tenants of charitable housing associations who wish and are able to buy doing so on the open market, or buying from housing associations specially set up to improve houses for sale or for combined rental and purchase.
I touched on the harm that this Bill can do to the public interest in terms of housing. I should like to agree most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Evans and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about the problems the Bill could create for community care, voluntary service and charity law. I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to what the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has had to say, particularly in the case of people who are in special need of social care and who can be accommodated in perfectly ordinary and not specially adapted flats or houses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, seemed to indicate that some proceeds could be recycled to provide new housing. I am sorry to disappoint her in her absence, but I think that after one has allowed for discount and for repayment of loans and grants to the Government, very little, if anything, will be left over for new work.
I return to the question of charity law. I do not think that the reply sent by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government to the National Federation of Housing Associations is adequate. I do not think he has met the point raised by the Charity Commissioners who declared themselves totally opposed in principle to Clause 2. I am not even sure that he has quite taken the points raised by the National Federation. It is, therefore, perhaps all the more important that your Lordships should cause the Government to think again.
While we are trying to urge the Government to think again, I mention very briefly a couple of other points. Once a house is sold it may well take anything up to 10 years to replace it. I say that from the experience of bringing forward quite a number of schemes. The 10 years may be taken up by negotiation about sites, planning, finance, and sewers. The chain can be very long. That period of 10 years may perhaps be the outside, but two or three years is nothing. As regards charitable associations, my last point is that it is likely to be the smallest associations who employ no paid staff who will suffer most.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, while also congratulating the Minister on his 21st housing Bill, I seek his sympathy for being the 21st speaker, which I am, so that most of the points have been admirably made and I fear that possibly he may have to hear me stressing one or two of them again.
I know that it is late and I certainly do not want to keep your Lordships, but I should like to comment generally, first, on how some of the proposals in this
66
Bill will affect the social conditions which exist in Britain today and, secondly and briefly, on one or two aspects of the Bill.
Therefore, having first willingly conceded, as other noble Lords have done, that there can be no argument as to the desirability of home ownership, would it not be right to suggest that housing policy should have a wider responsibility than merely to promote that ambition? My noble friend Lady Birk made that point and it is one which underlies much of this Bill; namely, that housing policy has a responsibility to make a proper examination of the need and demand of every section of the community and, having evaluated that need, it should try to respond to it. A housing policy surely has something to do with finding the right balance which is made up of a proportion of housing for those lucky enough to be in a position to buy and maintain their own houses and provision for those less fortunate who are forced, through financial necessity, to rent low-rent accommodation. There can be no doubt that the proposals contained in the Bill will upset the balance. That is the concern of many people involved in finding low-rent accommodation for those who need it.
What are the social conditions existing in Britain today which should, after all, have so much to do with governing and identifying that balance? It is clear from research studies—and there have been many which have been inspired by the Government—that the poverty trap is springing up among various groups within the community. One particular investigation into deprivation which came out very recently identified that there was extreme poverty mainly among the elderly, the families of the unemployed and one-parent families. Another recent report brought out by the Department of the Environment, called Single and Homeless, showed that for the vast majority of single homeless the overriding need was for ordinary, reasonably priced rented houses. It is evident from this research that home ownership for these people is a complete impossibility. It is a dream which for them could never possibly come true.
Furthermore, there is very little hope that the circumstances of these groupings will change in the foreseeable future. At any rate, the rate of unemployment shows very little sign of abatement, the divorce rate is spiralling, thereby increasing the number of one-parent families, and the proportion of elderly people within the community continues to rise. This all points to the incontestable fact that within Britain's present social climate there is urgent need for increasing the provision of low-rent accommodation. It is surely equally incontestable that some of the proposals contained in this Bill will bring about the very reverse effect, thereby adding to the burden of those already disadvantaged families which I was identifying.
I should like very briefly to comment on two specific aspects. First, it would be impossible to speak in this debate without mentioning Clause 2. As we have seen today, and as was known beforehand, it has brought a positive welter of criticisms and objections, not only from across the whole political spectrum but also from all those organisations involved with housing those needing low-rent accommodation, In fact, anxiety and concern have been expressed by all those involved in

67
this area. Surely it becomes clear that these anxieties are well founded when one looks at the consequences of some of these sales. I think that the Minister has described the right to buy but he has not really described the consequences of these sales.
First, from the point of view of tenants, the reduction in the amount of low-rent housing available will inevitably lengthen the waiting lists. It is not a very complicated equation to work out that you cannot reduce availabililty of a certain type of accommodation without at the same time creating the economic conditions necessary to reduce the number of potential candidates needing that accommodation. My contention is that the number of people needing low-rent housing accommodation, far from decreasing, is on the increase.
Secondly, how do these proposals affect charitable housing associations and trusts? A great deal has been said about that today, and rightly so. First, having had to sell at discounted prices, and having had to repay the original housing grant and mortgage without receiving, as I understand it, any compensation, their assets will be seriously eroded. Secondly, it will mean that charities will lose valuable homes which will no longer be available to meet the needs they were set up to meet. Indeed, it seems possible that some small charities, as has been said today, may lose the whole of their housing stock in this way.
But there is another consequence of this legislation which in my view is of paramount importance—it has been mentioned mainly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—and that is the effect that it will have on the work of the voluntary service and more specifically how it will affect the motivation of all those volunteers involved with that work. Surely there can be no doubt that the wish to help the less fortunate and needy is the inspiration which drives all those who selflessly give endless hours of their time to help with housing needs. But will that inspiration survive when charitable housing associations are forced more or less to take on the work of unofficial estate agents? Furthermore, are not the Government now becoming more and more dependent on the work of the voluntary service? Is it not true that with the present cuts in Government expenditure the work of volunteers generally is needed to complement the much diminished role of the welfare state generally? I had very much hoped to quote from what I thought was an extremely good leader in The Times talking about the dangers of the Government drying up the springs of charity, but, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, quoted it before me. I thought that it put this particular problem and danger in a very good perspective.
The final consequence of the measures proposed in this clause is that affecting charity law, which again has been expressed very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and there is nothing else to say, except that I know that it is often suggested that charity law needs reforming but I am quite sure that nobody would think that this would be the way to do it. It is very difficult to think of any proposal designed to bring a longer list of disadvantages in its wake. First, Britain's poorest families are disadvantaged; secondly, the work of the voluntary sector and of volunteers generally is deeply affected. This, in consequence, affects the Govern-
68
ment, who can no longer rely so much on their trust and co-operation. Finally, there is this fundamental principle of charity law which is uprooted.
I should now like very briefly to comment on the clause which is proposing shared ownership. I foresee that the concept of shared ownership must, in principle anyway, be a very popular one. It sounds perfectly logical to allow a prospective buyer to purchase a share in a house if his means do not allow him to purchase the whole. But, on the other hand, I do wonder how such a transaction works in practice. I feel that the Minister has not exactly answered this and described it. As I understand it, shared ownership has existed voluntarily in the public sector in a few places but sales under the schemes are really numbered more in hundreds than in thousands. This would seem to beg the question as to the wisdom of forcing shared ownership on the public sector as a right, when so many problems that have not yet been resolved still loom.
One problem from the point of view of the local authority would be dealing with the considerable administrative burden that such schemes must bring with them, and this will coincide with a time when local authorities are being forced to undergo cuts in their staff. From the tenant's point of view, there is a major disadvantage in bearing 100 per cent. responsibility for the repairs of a house in which he has only a 50 per cent. stake. The right of repair is one thing, but the ability to afford to do it is another. The whole question of the state of repair of owner-occupied dwellings of all kinds is, I understand, becoming a matter of very great concern nationally. It is thought that at present in the country there are 4 million owner-occupied houses in a state of serious disrepair. It is both a natural and sad coincidence that, as houses get older and more decrepit, so do their owners—both older and poorer and less and less financially equipped to meet the repair bills which are by that time accumulating.
Finally, what happens if a tenant buyer gets into arrears with his rent or mortgage, or both? Again it has already been shown that many people who are buying their council houses are finding it difficult to meet their mortgage payments. Surely it must be agreed that, in spite of the sound logic behind the concept of shared ownership, there are still many implications which need to be cleared up.
I end by supporting what my noble friend Lady Birk said—namely, that there is much in this Bill which is entirely irrelevant to the real housing needs in our cities and throughout the country. It is almost impossible to believe that at the end of the First World War about 90 per cent. of all dwellings in this country were rented and that the proportion today is less than 16 per cent. Do we really need a Bill which will diminish that proportion even further? One feels that perhaps the time has come when the Government should relax their drive towards home ownership; they should curb their appetite in this direction and get down to the fundamental job of meeting the real housing needs of people in this country and at the same time encouraging local authorities and housing associations to do the same, instead of forcing them to upset that balance in their very precious housing stock.
7.10 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, first I must apologise to the Minister for joining the chorus against Clause 2 of the Bill, but I do so firmly wearing my non-political British Legion hat. This generation has seen advances in the provision of houses, but the advances have not been in the sphere of rented accommodation —accommodation, which as many noble Lords have said, is badly needed by poorer people, in particular in the inner city areas. Charitable housing associations have done much good work to provide for this need, and their work of funding rented accommodation deserves every encouragement.
As I understand it, Clause 2 of the Bill would enable those people who are able to afford it to buy homes which have been created for them under a charitable umbrella, rather than to pass on their tenancies to others who needed them and move on into the owner-occupier sector. The charitable housing associations themselves would be forced to sell assets at less than their current value, which must make trustees question their duties as trustees of charitable property. Should the new owner then decide to sell, that would again put the principles of charity at risk, since the new owner would be cashing in on a lucky situation. All this luck would be to the detriment of those wanting rented accommodation. Once this rented accommodation had been taken over by eligible new owners, it would be lost for ever and never again be available for its original purpose.
Like others among your Lordships I have received a number of letters from charitable bodies about the clause. Among them was a letter from Mr. Dennis Cadman, chairman of the Royal British Legion Housing Association. The association provides rented housing for the ex-service element in our society, and speaking as the president of the Royal British Legion in Scotland I would say we believe that because Clause 2 of the Bill would have a repercussion on our work it should be opposed.
The tenants of our numerous sheltered housing schemes throughout the country would not be affected, but there are a number of general purpose houses attached to our sheltered housing complexes which have been grant-aided and which would be affected. For example, there are general purpose houses attached to Stewart Court, in Edinburgh, where younger families are housed alongside flats rented to older people. The tenants of the general purpose houses are ex-service people, but if they were to buy their houses, and if in due course the houses were to be resold, the ex-service element would be lost and with it the main purpose for which the buildings were intended. If these houses became owner-occupied, questions about maintenance would arise, since they form part of a housing complex with shared essentials, such as roofs, which would have to be maintained. In making these observations I am referring not only to the Legion in Scotland, which in the short term would be only marginally affected, but also to ex-service establishments outwith Scotland, where our commitment is large.
Once the houses or flats were lost to the rented sector, the number of available houses for renting would be diminished. Charities which have embarked
70
on housing schemes have trusted in the permanency of the Government policy. Looking at all possibilities, and at the improbable event of a change of policy, they must have felt certain that there would be no retrospective legislation involving the repayment of original grants, to the detriment of their funds.
This legislation would not immediately apply to Scotland, where I represent the interests of ex-service people. The Secretary of State has advised the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that he does not yet intend to seek similar powers of amendment, preferring for the time being to assess the effects of a voluntary code of conduct. Nevertheless, it would seem likely that if the clause goes through unamended it will eventually apply also to Scotland, since it would be difficult to withhold the right to purchase in Scotland once it had been given to English and Welsh tenants.
Mr. Cadman's letter ends with the statement that the authority, and more particularly the motivation, of committees of management of charitable housing associations could be seriously affected by this forced sale of assets. This view is shared by all the associations which have been in touch with me. If this part of the Bill were enacted, they would not only feel cheated; they would also feel that the whole philosophy upon which their efforts were founded had been taken away, and they would be less anxious to continue their efforts in the future. A number of your Lordships have shown your concern in this matter because you know that these buildings were created by men of vision, and that it would be wrong to inhibit the continuation of their splendid work.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, almost every speaker this evening has concentrated on Clause 2 of the Bill, and that I think is totally right because it is a very difficult and bad clause as it stands at present. I have been keeping the scoresheet, which shows that out of the 24 speakers, there has been one in favour, besides of course the mover of the second reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. There has been one who may be neutral—the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, having shown a certain neutrality, said, "Perhaps I am neutral so long as it does not apply to the Isle of Wight". For the rest, the Churches (that is to say, those on the Bishops' Bench) six Conservatives, Labour, Liberals, and the Cross-Benchers, have all spoken strongly and compellingly against the clause as it at present stands.
It would be invidious for me to pick out certain of those noble Lords who have spoken, to praise their speeches, because they have all been good speeches and all of great importance and significance. But I should like, at least to some extent, to take up the opening speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and see whether the arguments that he used really hold water. But before I do so, let me say that I understand the general policy of the Government. That policy is to increase housing, if possible, under the terms of the manifesto—with which they went to the country long ago—namely, that there should be a right to buy wherever possible, and that there should be property owning on the largest possible scale.

71
Having said that, what do we get here? One of the first justifications that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, used was that the Government had had some letters from tenants, who said, "We don't understand why housing corporations are in one position but we, who are under charitable housing associations, are in a different position". So the noble Lord has been endeavouring to remove an anomaly. But in trying to remove it he is creating very many more anomalies, and having possibly to explain all of them would be far more difficult, and would create a bureaucracy which is really very worrying. Surely, it is very much easier to say to those who have written, "I am very sorry. This is a charitable issue. This is for charity". They would understand. They might not like it, but that is the fact.
The noble Lord then said, "Ah, but, after all, it is only a very small baby, only a few thousand houses out of 300,000 that are owned by the charitable housing associations". That may be true—"may", I say—but I fear that it is also opening the door to the spivs. Can your Lordships see what might happen? Let us consider, for example, a very desirable house which is priced way below its proper value. Someone can come along and say "You are in this house. I will give you some money to get another house. You let me buy it. We will share the profits between us". Do the Government want to encourage that sort of activity? We are told by the Minister that the Solicitor-General has stated that the Bill does not offend against the law on charities. All the speeches made today—that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others—have raised grave doubts about this claim. What is certain is that charities are being obliged to sell what is indisputably theirs at below market value and that bargains made between charitable housing associations and the Government since 1974 are being unilaterally changed. I do not know what else that means except being against general accepted practice.
I should like to mention one point that has not so far been made. Naturally, following the 1974 Housing Act, charitable housing associations took advantage of the grants that were made available. If they had not done so, they would have displayed a dereliction of duty. They were able to use some of their funds for other purposes. However, having done what they were bound to do under the Act, they suddenly find themselves trapped. The Government now say "Ha, ha! You will have to pay up" The housing associations will have to give back houses to people who, in some cases, may be deserving but who, often, will not fall into that category. Is that fair? Is that just?
I come now to the issue of retrospection. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, as I understand it, is that the principle has already been breached without protest. I can only say "More's the pity". Two wrongs do not make a right. The noble Lord argued that we are dealing with publicly created assets. I have already shown that the charities had to take advantage of what was offered under the 1974 Act. Is this really the way to behave when those concerned are distressed and up against it? I put it another way. What the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin was I think saying is that what the taxpayer gives, he can take away. If that is true, it is a dangerous precedent. Many of your Lordships have developed this point.
72
Most supporters of the Government will regret that the Conservatives are today introducing a measure that can be quoted against them in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is to be congratulated on introducing his twenty-first Bill. I hope that his twenty-first Bill will be a success. I can guarantee that it will be a success if he agrees to change Clause 2. It would be preferable to get rid of the clause completely. If the noble Lord is unable to agree to that, I hope he will say that it will not be made retrospective. I hope that the Government will agree that charities should be able to take advantage of funds knowing the basis on which the Bill has become law but not on the basis of going back to 1974. If the noble Lord will accept an amendment on those grounds, I hope that he may have a very successful and good twenty-first birthday.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I work for a charity which is the main supporter of a charitable housing association. The points that I wish to make about Clause 2 have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. They relate to housing associations which supply accommodation for the physically disabled, the mentally disabled and the elderly infirm, where they are mixed with able-bodied people who are sympathetic to their position and who are prepared to look after them. The able-bodied are not employed by the housing associations themselves. If they occupy accommodation owned by the housing association, they do not have the protection of those in tied accommodation. They are employed by those who are elderly, infirm or physically disabled, who need to employ them to enjoy their independence. As the Bill stands, the people most likely to buy their accommodation from housing associations are the able-bodied. They can proceed to sell the property to someone else who may not be sympathetic to the needs of those occupying the rest of the accommodation. Some of the helpers are therefore lost, and those with disabilities find that life becomes increasingly difficult.
There are circumstances in which life can become even more difficult. I take as an example a group of houses that are used to house people with physical disabilities. One or, indeed, a number of the able-bodied, who are employed by the disabled, may sell to an elderly person who, due to age or accident. becomes disabled and also needs assistance. This reduces yet again the number of people who are available to help the original, disabled tenants. I propose to move an amendment to the Bill to protect housing associations against the sale of flats or dwellings occupied by the able-bodied who are looking after those in some form of need. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically upon such an amendment.
My purpose can perhaps best be achieved by some form of certification, so that when a development is started and plans are submitted to the relevant Minister covering the number of flats or dwellings to be used by the able-bodied and the number to be occupied by those in need of help, a request can be made that they should be exempt under the provisions of the Bill. It is essential to maintain a large degree of

73
flexibility. One disabled person may need the help of four people for a number of hours a week; another person may be more severely disabled and need the help of six, seven or even more people. I know of one person who is quadriplegic and totally incapable of movement below the neck, but who lives completely independently supported by eight of his employees. When it was suggested to him that he would be better off in hospital, his immediate reply was, "I am not going back to jail".
Most speakers have been concentrating on Clause 2 in Part I of the Bill. However, there are two other Parts of the Bill. At this point I must again declare an interest as a chartered surveyor. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the approved building inspector must be a named individual and not a firm. I can remember as a student surveyor being asked to do things that should have been done by a qualified surveyor. It was lucky that my employer trusted me, but I might have come across something that my knowledge and experience did not qualify me to cope with. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the inspector be a named individual. In addition, he must be completely independent and, apart from his fee, he must have no financial interest in the building that he is to inspect and certify. In this respect it is interesting to note that in the last century architects and district surveyors in London were forbidden to supervise their own jobs. I hope that we are not going to go back to that situation.
In Clause 31(3) there is the power for a developer to get rid of the inspector if he feels that he is not capable of carrying out the work. This would, in effect, give the developer the power to sack a conscientious or incompatible approved inspector, because as the Bill is now drafted it has only to appear to the developer that,
"the approved inspector is no longer willing or able",
to act. This could well discourage inspectors from carrying out their duties with proper zeal. Quite obviously, if you are a young man trying to get on in the world you cannot afford to lose work. If you have very heavy financial commitments you might well feel that it would be wiser to overlook points and to keep the money flowing into your family, rather than to risk being financially out-of-pocket.
Turning to Part III of the Bill, under Clauses 38 and 39 the Secretary of State would be able to approve any description of organisation as a public body, which would thereby become exempt from the building regulations. At present this applies almost solely to Crown buildings, such as defence establishments, and to the operational buildings of statutory undertakers, such as gasworks and coal mines. In Command Paper 8179 the list of bodies begins with the local authorities. But paragraph 12 of the paper stated that certain bodies (which included, rather surprisingly, bus companies, British Leyland and the National Coal Board) should not be exempt but should merely be able to self-certify. The Bill does not now make any distinction—all would be exempt.
This may, on the face of it, appear acceptable for the operational buildings of such organisations, although they may contain large numbers of people. But some serious consequences follow if all work done by such bodies is exempted. The National Coal Board, for
74
instance, operates as a building contractor, and is carrying out wide-scale modernisation work not only on many houses of its own but also on council estates. The Coal Board would be in an advantageous position in tendering for such work against non-exempt firms, not only because it does not have the local authority supervising it but also because it can (under, I think, Clause 39 of the Bill) dispense with or relax any of the building regulations. That is something that needs looking at in Committee. I would suggest that the rights of public bodies should be limited to premises owned and occupied by them purely for operational use.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, we have had a long debate concentrating mainly on the housing associations. However, I should like to begin my comments by dealing with the building regulations. We on this side of the House agree that there is evidence to show that quite clearly there is a need for re-casting the building regulations. There may be an argument for saying that they need to be brought up to date. As the noble Minister has said, there is a need for them to be made more understandable. However, as regards making them more understandable, I point out that the group of people who drew up the regulations that we now find so difficult to understand will be the same group as will be drawing up the new regulations. So all I would say to the noble Lord is: make them much clearer than you did last time!
We must also give serious consideration as to why the regulations were laid in the first place. Obviously when Governments bring forward legislation and regulations they do so for a particular reason. Normally they think that they are doing so for the public good. While we agree that the regulations require reform we would ask: why destroy the support that is given to the building regulations by the general public because of the impartiality of the local authorities when they are looking after building control? As the noble Lord says, building control regulations are for public safety. In many instances many people think that the local authorities act as agents for the Government, and they think that there is a safety element when a public body is watching over a building and ensuring that it is satisfactory. Therefore, if we are concerned with safety it is a little worrying that we are going to discuss in Committee the independence of the building control officers. It most likely will be challenged in Committee that the local authorities can still continue to do it, but in doing so they will have to be able to have a steady flow of work or they will be in difficulty in maintaining their workforce and perhaps they will, in the long run, lose their competent people to private enterprise or the private developer if work is not steadily forthcoming throughout the year.
What concerns me is that the Minister has not convinced me that there has been sufficient thought as to who will be the independent inspectors. Will they be surveyors or architects or will they be safety regulation officers? There is nothing definite in the Bill that tells us who these people will be. We know that the local authorities have built up over the years an expertise—and impartial expertise—which they exert

75
on behalf of the public. Therefore, we feel that the new control and building regulations will do nothing, other than what is at present contained in legislation, to prevent building failures. It is of paramount importance that constant attention as regards control is maintained to make quite sure that disasters like those in the building construction industry during the past 25 or 30 years, are minimised. This is of paramount importance. Therefore, we must ask ourselves: from where does the criticism come about the building regulations? If it is from architects or from builders with regard to the local authorities, I do not think they can be blamed for incomprehensable legislation which is difficult to interpret. Therefore, it is wrong of the Government to criticise the local authorities and to think that they should be replaced by other persons, when the fault of the interpretation is not only that of this Government but of Governments of the past.
We must also consider the building contractors themselves. Last week I, among others in both Houses, was privileged to go to a seminar of building contractors. I say "building contractors", but is there a group called the Group of Eight? So they were not the local jobbing builders. Not one of those builders agreed with the new building control regulations. In fact, it was just the opposite. They felt that in local authorities they had people on whom they could rely and people who would tell them where they were going wrong. Therefore, if we are to talk about health and safety, we must make quite sure that the standard is not lowered by a hotch potch of private individuals and the possibility that they could be in the pocket of the contractors.
There is another point about which I want to ask the Minister: what about the liability of the independent inspector? he made no mention of it in his opening remarks. We have heard nothing about that. This law of liability will be a major change in the law of the land. What assurances has the Minister had from the insurance industry which quite obviously will have to bear the liability? No doubt local authorities will have to pick up the pieces. Will adequate insurance be forthcoming from insurance companies? That will be a basic element of liability, and liability will be most important if we are enforcing safety regulations.
I turn now to perhaps what has been the major concern of Members today. I was the chairman of the Birmingham Housing Committee for a period of time. At one time that committee had a waiting list of 30,000 people. There is still a formidable list of people waiting to be re-housed. I can remember the 1974 Act because I was a Member of another place then and we sat night after night going through that Housing Bill. However, as regards the Housing Corporation—and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made some of these points—my recollection is that resources from the Housing Corporation should be available to build new houses and to improve old houses, mainly in inner cities, on a much larger scale than was previously known. As the chairman of the housing committee, I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, giving what was called the "Goodman lecture", when he first became the chairman of the Housing Corporation. He
76
spoke at great length of the visits that he had made to various parts of London where he was absolutely amazed at the hopeless housing conditions in which thousands of people were living. He said that this was one of the major tasks which the Housing Corporation should undertake.
Therefore, I think that it is true to say that in the intention of the Housing Corporation of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, there was a real need and effort to deal with the very serious shortage of rented accommodation. The idea was that the housing associations should be able to complement the work of the local authorities and perhaps in many cases bring innovations into housing. That was what was expected of them. Those innovations have quite clearly been shown by noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this afternoon—that is, the innovations and the special needs that housing associations felt were necessary.
We have heard from people on all sides of the House who are fully conversant with housing associations about the many varied needs being catered for. We listened with great interest to the observations which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, gave of the help they were trying to give to particular groupings of people in the ethnic minorities. We also heard from the Bishops' Benches of the need for rural communities to be considered: for the handicapped to be with the more able-bodied, so that there is a mixture of communities and not segregation. It was clearly shown that these innovations were made by local people who saw a particular need, who formed a housing association and who did something about satisfying that particular local need.
This afternoon many noble Lords have spoken about the goodwill of the people who work and give of their services to housing associations. That goodwill must be fostered, because not only does it supply bricks and mortar for people who are in urgent need of rented accommodation, but it also helps to relieve the social services in the various areas. The people who are involved locally have seen a need and they have put a roof over the heads of those in need; they then pursue the particular needs of those people and act as a social agency with the aim of moving them on to better accommodation or more lasting accommodation in the long run. That was clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Jacques when he gave the example of the help that is being given and then moving the people on into the house purchase area.
I should have said that the opportunity to climb the ownership ladder, which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, mentioned, was correctly described by my noble friend, Lord Jacques. The housing association can quite clearly help in the first place; it then rehabilitates and moves the people in the direction, which we can all support, of owner-occupation. But we cannot keep that movement up the ladder unless we keep the houses to rent in the first place. Once you start selling them off, you take away the rungs of the ladder for many people, and eventually there will be no ladder and no rungs left. Therefore, when the noble Lord replies to the debate I ask him to take into consideration the great experience of Members of this House who have spoken today, and the great need that they have shown for housing for rent. This cannot be shown

77
at the present time by dangling owner-occupation carrots to them.
I listened with the greatest interest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Perhaps because he is a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, he was able to use stronger language than I could tonight. I shall perhaps have to be much more charitable in one way, but I admired the attack that came from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I am normally challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, with being excitable. I am trying not to be at the present moment. But what I want to say about retrospection—and I think this was explained clearly —is that when the charitable housing associations accepted the Government system of grants from 1974, I am firmly convinced—and this was emphasised by some noble Lords—that the housing associations accepted in good faith the grants and the loans that were being given to them, knowing that they would have to be repaid at a later date. They accepted them in good faith. They did not feel at any stage that their assets would be taken from them. They accepted that they might have to repay.
Therefore, if today the Government say in 1983 that that policy is not in conformity with the Conservative election manifesto, then I have to say to the noble Lord the Minister that he should not apply retrospective legislation to 1974. If the policy is not in conformity with the election manifesto of the Conservative Party, he should then say, "We will operate it from 1984 after the passing of this Bill". Instead of having 1974 put into the Bill he should insert 1984, and then from then onwards housing associations would know clearly that it was a waste of time to ask the Government for any further grants. They would then be clear upon the issue, and they would either cease building or cease building so many, or else they would accept the fact that they would have to have owner occupation.
In my concluding remarks I would sincerely ask the Minister to take note that the House would no doubt wish the Minister to consider seriously the opposition that has been raised on all sides. It is not Labour opposition. In fact there may perhaps have been fewer Labour Members who have spoken than from the rest of the House. It may well be that the Government take great pride in offering the opportunity to buy. But, as my noble friend Lady Birk said, there still remains—and she gave the figures—a large number of people whose only hope of finding accommodation is in the rented pool, through housing associations or local authorities. They have no other opportunity of finding it.
Many noble Lords spoke about rented accommodation this afternoon. Normally it is this side of the House that talks about rented accommodation. I know they were not talking about council accommodation, but everybody emphasised that there is still a great need for rented accommodation. My noble friend Lady Birk brought out the figures. I have the Birmingham authority accounts—that is the whole of the authority, not just the housing authority—and practically 45 per cent. of people renting Birmingham council houses are receiving rent rebates. Not only are they in the rented pool, but they are having to be subsidised even to live there because the rents are so astronomically high, obviously because they have to
78
be put up every year because of the Govenment's policies and telling authorities what they have to do.
Therefore, what I would say in final conclusion is that we on this side of the House find little to support in the Bill. We should be discussing not a Bill of this description but a Housing Bill which would deal with the gravity of the situation of those people on waiting lists of local authorities and housing associations; a Housing Bill which would tackle more seriously the findings of the inner cities report of 1982; a Bill which would make positive recommendations to replace unfit dwellings contained in the housing survey of 1982. These are the housing problems of the country, and not the question of trying to sell off a few thousand houses from charitable housing associations.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, what I am going to try to do, if you will bear with me, is to comment on what each and every speaker has said and the points he or she has made. It is a somewhat marathon task—yes, indeed, 26 of them—but I shall try to do it quickly if I can. If I feel I am faltering at a later stage, then you will understand why. To begin with, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, at the end, made observations about housing generally. I hope that one thing they would concede from the start—and they both referred, and I think someone else did too, to waiting lists—is that waiting lists are a poor indicator of housing need. They are at best an indication.
If the noble Baronesses persist in shaking their heads I shall go into details of why I justify what I said. I shall not do it in depth other than to say that of course there are people who put their names down on waiting lists not because they have no housing but perhaps because they want something more appropriate to their needs as they have now become. Perhaps they want something nearer to children who have moved. Perhaps they are on lists for entirely different kinds of accommodation. There are many reasons. But, as a measure of housing need, this is not a good indicator. I think everyone in housing would concede that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was getting closer to the mark of difference between us on one aspect of the Bill when she said that local authorities—this is in terms of the building regulations—will be left with uncertain workloads, and so on. There we see possibly the beginnings of a difference which is perhaps on political lines. So far as the Government are concerned, we can see—I certainly know this from my own experience—that the need for local authorities to provide a service of this and indeed of many other kinds is essential. But then nothing in the Bill is saying that what is proposed will be instead of what the local authorities are doing.
The concern that the noble Baroness—and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, too—expressed was that in the course of time it might so be that the private sector would become so dominant that the local authority side would be diminished. That was their concern. Well, time will tell. We shall have to wait and see as to that. I am not going to go into a lot of detail on what the noble Baroness said, because, as she would surely concede, it was very much taken up in the main

79
by what others said later, and I do not want to draw out what has to be a long speech anyhow.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Evans, say that the Liberals were in favour of the right to buy, and therefore of Clause 1. This always encourages me. I wish that in what he went on to say he had been more enthusiastic. Maybe that was hoping for a little too much. He and others were concerned that this would all lead to a diminution of tenanted property. All I can do is quote the record so far. I quote the record of the non-charitable associations and say that in their case against two and a half thousand dwellings sold there have been added in the time of this Government another 120,000. That is a very odd kind of diminution so far as I am concerned. I suggest it shows that the people who tend to be in this type of accommodation are indeed those who are very much in need.
The number of people able to buy is restricted—and so we come to the principle of what we are talking about and the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he said that the number was so small. Some have asked, "If the number is so small, why bother?" It can hardly be said from the remarks that have been made in this debate that, at least in your Lordships' House, it is very popular; so the Government cannot be accused of introducing it for that reason. What is very important and, I submit with respect, should be important to your Lordships—important as well as the other points that have been made in the debate—is the principle of being concerned for these individuals, however few they may be in number.
It is easy to say there are few of them. It is equally easy to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, that one may be creating other anomalies. He may be right, and hopefully during the passage of the Bill we shall look into such matters. But the fact remains that if there are in this country people who can claim to be concerned with the rights of a number of people, however small that number, it is surely your Lordships' House that should be concerned. Therefore, there is a principle and another side to the argument, and I now come to some of the specific points that have been made because I regard them as important.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, referring to the retrospective aspect, said the Bill did not attempt to change the law. I say that the Bill does not attempt to change the law from a date earlier than Royal Assent. Some of the points I am making are designed to answer questions asked by noble Lords, but also to get them on the record because noble Lords may wish to follow them up at a later stage. There are many examples of legislation giving people rights which necessarily take precedence over the terms of an existing contract. The Leasehold Reform Act is one example which I gave, but there are many others which abound in the sphere of, say, employment legislation; for example, the right to claim unfair dismissal when applied to existing contracts of employment entered into when that right itself did not exist.
I shall not tonight go into greater detail on the question of retrospection, although I shall be returning
80
to the subject because I suspect—I say suspect" when in fact I know that this is a subject to which we shall return before long—we shall be dealing with this and similar matters at length. But if I were to deal with the question of retrospection at great length tonight, it would mean my missing out other comments I wish to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, spoke of the need for the work of housing associations to continue. I hope he remembers the figures I quoted in my opening remarks: £690 million for the coming year is the extent to which the Government agree with what he said. I have always believed that so long as we had the two categories of private ownerships and council tenancies, we were in danger of the kind of polarisation the noble Lord mentioned. It is dangerous, and that is why this Government, along with the previous Government—I like to think, in our case, more vigorously—have supported and are continuing to support the housing association movement in the way that matters most, and that is with funds, resources and encouragement.
My next remarks cover many of the points made by your Lordships—namely, that we cannot get away from the fact that the non-charitable housing associtions have not had their spirit destroyed because their tenants have had the right to buy. The volunteers there are no less vigorous and dynamic today than they were before—quite the contrary. Their enthusiasm has to be seen to be appreciated, and one reason for that is because they see that the Government are willing to back them, to go with them all the way. I submit that that is a much more telling point because it is putting the assistance where it counts. It is much more telling than to be concerned with what might be the effect of a situation where some 2,500 people, with another 120,000 coming along, are affected, when we are talking of a 300,000 tenancy norm with the likelihood of the right to buy going to some 80,000, with the even greater likelihood of the number who will be in a position to buy being between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. Frankly, I believe it will be even less than that. Be that as it may, those figures put the whole sitution into context.
Having listened to the sincere and telling speeches that have been made, I assure your Lordships that we take heed of what is said in your Lordships' House. Indeed, one could hardly listen to several hours of debate of this kind without doing so. I shall read carefully what your Lordships have said, and I hope that in turn noble Lords will read carefully what I am saying.
I am always in the greatest of difficulty with my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The noble Baroness referred to him as my friend, and that he certainly is so far as I am concerned. But, then, she, too, I would hope, is also, but perhaps not with quite the same title. Lord Selkirk was indeed very critical, and he pulled no punches. I feel that I should give him a specific answer to his question about what would happen to easements and rights of passage if sales took place. Sales which take place under the extension of the right to buy in the Bill will be subject to certain common provisions laid down in Schedule 2 to the 1980 Act. They provide that the conveyance or lease must give the purchaser,
"such easements and rights over other property"

81
as are necessary to enable the purchaser to enjoy the same rights as were available to him as a tenant. Conversely, the purchaser is to be subject to such rights in respect of other property as obtained before the purchase.
My noble friend asked if it was wise to annoy so many people who were doing—he was right about this—what the Government wanted them to do, and in that sense he was referring to those working within the charity association movement. One does not lightly embark on something of this kind. It is only that we say—I say it as sincerely as anything your Lordships have said—that we so deeply believe that there is a real principle here that we say to those working in the charity association movement, "Be not so concerned as you seem to be".
My noble friend Lord Bathurst said that there was misunderstanding. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, did not seem to think there was any misunderstanding. I reply that there clearly is and has been misunderstanding, not least about the extent of those to whom it will apply and the extent of the exemptions. I regard that as the greatest misunderstanding of all—the list of exemptions, the situations where the Bill does not apply—and that fact has to come out still further than has been the case so far.
When my noble friend Lord Selkirk talked about the decline of the private rented sector being a major problem, he was pushing at an open door. It is a matter of great concern, certainly to all noble Lords on this side of this House. I will not say anything about noble Lords opposite because if they were to say anything to me, I should have to use the word "shorthold", and then we might find ourselves going into yet another debate. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said and I regret that he feels unable to support us on this. However, I am an eternal optimist. There is another stage to come. There may be more discussion and clarification, and I live in hope.
The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Southwark spoke about the conflict between the need to provide accommodation for rent and the right to buy. Who could quarrel with that? That is what it is all about. Indeed, it is what housing is always about. However, the answers are not easy to find and I would claim that no adverse effects are being caused by what we are proposing. I suppose on that we shall have to differ. As I have said, this Bill is about a small number of people; but it is also about the rights of that small number of people; and I hope your Lordships will bear that in mind throughout these discussions.
The right reverend Prelate said that the challenge was to provide rentable accommodation for those who need it. Yes, indeed. I hope that he will agree with me that the 120,000 such units of accommodation which have been provided in the last four years is a very good example of providing accommodation for those who need it. He said that the proposals in Clause 2 would be discouraging for those who have worked hard to provide. If I were to repeat what I said a few moments ago, it would have to be my answer to that. The right reverend Prelate said that these proposals for retrospection could not be defended—and this surely is the key—unless (and he used the words) "to remedy an
82
injustice". I would say to the right reverend prelate, "Precisely". That is exactly what this is: it is exactly to remedy an injustice. If that makes it right, then the right reverend prelate answers the point for me. He says, "Use public money to provide rented accommodation". On that, I simply repeat to him the magic figure of £690 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques spoke, as always, very sincerely. I am always interested to hear what he says. He speaks as a very practical person. He was concerned about cases where tenants will not be able to buy and so prevent anyone from buying. We have had this many times today. I felt like interrupting to say, "If you feel that there are those who are not getting the right to buy, then move an amendment to give more people the right to buy and I will talk to my honourable friends in another place to see what they can do"—because the fact that not everyone can do it is not a reason for saying that no one should do it. It is not a reason for saying that therefore you must be careful who does it. We are being careful. We agonize over the whole thing. I hope that no one thinks that we simply come in here and put down proposals and stand doggedly by them. It does not work like that. We are concerned about them. As to the other points that Lord Jacques made, he said that local authorities are not the same as housing associations. I would have to remind him that housing associations take many of their tenants from local authority lists. It is a good thing that they do. There is a coming together at times. There has to be.
My noble friend Lord Moyne referred to the number of Guinness properties—5,000 possibly out of 7,700—eligible. I would say that there is a whole world of difference between eligibility and take-up. Eligibility, I have talked of in general as 80,000; take-up, I have talked of as between 8,000 and 10,000 at the most. I do not know what the figure would be in the case of Guinness. My noble friend knows it better than I. I know his concern and I respect that concern. The record that they have in the housing movement is a very proud one. I am confident that nothing in the Bill that we are proposing will have an adverse effect upon that.
My noble friend said that the Government and universal private ownership go together. He is right. The Government feel that private ownership is a priority. It is something that the country needs, perhaps, as much as anything it needs. If we are not to just talk about equalisation but to do something to make it a reality, then, yes, the Government are guilty of being desperate for a greater degree of private ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I am sorry is not here to hear me making my speech. He kindly dropped me a note; and that is absolutely understood. One has to have the greatest of respect for whatever Lord Goodman says, not least on housing associations, because with his background in the Housing Corporation, then, if not him, who? I listened to him with interest. I had intended to quote to him why I think his observations on the Charity Commissioners and the law were perhaps not quite accurate. But, in the interest of the hour, I think I will write to him on that. If any of your Lordships would like to know, I

83
will gladly do the same. He was critical of the drafting of the Bill. Who am I to comment on that—least of all in such distinguished company? I am quite sure the noble Lord will be back again, certainly so far as Clause 2 is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred to the waiting list. I will not repeat what I said. We shall probably differ as to the significance of waiting lists as an assessment of housing need. He said that shared ownership was still untested. In some ways, I suppose that is right. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, talked about a few hundreds. I should tell her—and I said it in my opening remarks—that there are 6,000 which have now taken place. I forecast to her that this is one aspect of housing which really is going to take off. It fulfils many needs and fulfils the aspirations of many people. For that reason I am sure she will be as interested as I am to see what happens. It is early days. If you speak to any of the house builders, they will tell you what interest there is in shared ownership today. That must be an important development for the future. There were many other points made by the Lord Prys-Davies. I will write to him rather than try to answer them all tonight. Some need longer explanations than the time permits, although I have notes here for him.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine made some interesting observations, I thought. He was concerned about state interference in the private housing sector. I should like to take up some of the points that he made; but I think that is for written communication. Then, if he wishes, I am sure he will take it further.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as the noble Lord is going to write to a number of noble Lords—and I think that most of us who spoke are now here and will not see those replies, which I understand in the interest of brevity—could he circulate, for instance, what he is going to write to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Goodman, and others? We are all concerned about charities and the law. This would help the noble Lord and enable us to study this aspect at greater leisure and clear it up.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall be delighted to do that. I shall make sure that any communication to Lord Goodman is copied, at least, to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I shall go through it most carefully. The noble Baroness knows that I am always as assiduous as I can be on the point of communication. I have always figured that if I tell you everything, you cannot say that you did not know. I will continue to do that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester—and may I apologise to him for missing his first observations; I was called out of the Chamber—was concerned about the role of housing associations. As to that, I agree. But I would have to ask him how he explains the "explosion", (which is the word I used) of the non-charitable housing association movement in the way it is going at the present time, if all the people who are working in that area are being discouraged? I think that the facts do not bear out the concern which I recognise is seriously expressed. To my noble friend Lady Vickers, I would say that I went
84
to see the housing association that she supports—and a splendid and somewhat unusual one it is! I will write to her, too, because I have answers here but do not want to spend time now. If she will allow this, I can take up any matters that she wants. To the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, all I can do—and this is not the first time we have crossed swords on housing legislation; this is the fourth, I think—is to quote the experience of the non-charity associations and hope that he, too, will feel that perhaps it "ain't quite as bad" as he thinks it might be. He said that small charities will be disheartened. I would ask: why are not the small non-charitable associations disheartened? As to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I thank him. His was the first measure of support that I had throughout the evening, although it did go slightly into neutral, I must confess. Nevertheless, he is always there when needed—but when he gets on to the Isle of Wight, I know I am on tricky ground. Even so, his points are always worth looking at, and I shall want to read carefully what he said.
My noble friend Lord Ingleby suggested that other categories of tenants should also have the right to buy. I make the same point to him, too: indeed, yes. If he will move an amendment we will consider the point, but I think that might take us into the kind of problem mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. That I have sympathy with that point goes without saying, I think. I have a number of statistics here in reply, but I think I had better write to him; and I will mark the record to ensure that the noble Baroness receives a copy of that, too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, talked about the necessity for local authorities to keep large permanent workforces. That is a topic that has been touched on before. She asked that building control should be left where it is. What we are saying about this is not that it is one or the other, but that there should be both. Why not have the additional facility? That point is really covered very well, in my opinion, but I have no doubt she will come back to that one, too.
I am indeed grateful to my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox because she absolutely supported the Bill, and I am very grateful for her splendid speech. The three points that she raised must be answered, and I have answers here, but, if she will allow me, I will write to her giving the information, and I will also see that the information is sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I can do no less, my Lords. My noble friend made a further point on housing associations and about their being able to extend their work, and so on. I think that is interesting and constructive, and we shall want to look at it very carefully.
I am sorry that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—again not for the first time—felt herself unable to support me. I would have to say to her that the point about private landlords in future having to be chary of applying for grants really takes it out of perspective. The level of grant that we are talking about here is so high—75, 85 or more per cent.—for the provision of accommodation that it is way beyond anything that private landlords get in matters of this kind. I truly do not think that will be the problem that she fears. She said the Government have done enough to promote ownership. All I will say to that is, "Never". We

85
passionately believe that this is the answer to so many things for the country, and so we will never have done enough so far as I am concerned. I was grateful—
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting him, I said enough to promote private ownership without touching the charitable association housing.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, without question I accept what the noble Lady has said. I think that my hand must have got tired when I was taking my note and I stopped at that key point.
As to my noble friend Lord Bathurst, I thought at first that I had someone else on my side. He properly raised the fact of the misunderstanding. I still believe there is misunderstanding about the exemptions, but we shall come back to it again. I am sorry that he did not feel able to say anything other than that the proposals would damage the interests of those who cannot ever buy. That is just not so. There can never have been a Government which, in the matter of housing, have brought in so many schemes to help "those who can never buy". One has only to look at the homesteading, the shared ownership, the low-cost starter home, the land measures and a whole list of things. I have some films which I will gladly make available to my noble friend if he would like to see them—or to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way—I have been very restrained—is he really saying that everybody who spoke against the Government on Clause 2 today was misunderstanding or misrepresenting the Bill and the clause?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows perfectly well that I am really not saying that at all. I listen very carefully to everything that she says: she knows that I always do, and I hope that, in turn, she will do the same when I speak. What I have said is that there has been misunderstanding generally and as to the exemptions in particular, and I still think that there are misunderstandings—although not on everyone's part; of course not. But I still think there are misunderstandings, and to make the point I would have to go yet again into details of exactly what the exemptions are. But we will come back to this, have no fear. May I say finally to my noble friend Lord Bathurst that when he said "only 8,000 people" I make to him the same point that I made earlier. Yes, it seems a lot for what it is; but the fact is that the principle is a very deep one.
I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with some statistics in order to answer his queries. I do that regularly anyhow, so he will not mind that. He said that the Government will have to give serious consideration to the speeches made today. Of course we do—that goes without saying—and he knows that we will do so. When he talked about "pools of housing" he touched a chord. I should love to talk for half an hour possibly all about pooling housing and what it means, but I fear that will have to be for another occasion. When he said that houses sold take 10 years to replace—although he modified that later—I reply that it depends on the circumstances.
86
Again, I will not go into that, tempted though I am. I know the point he is making and we have to talk and debate about housing pools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that home ownership is a dream which will never come true for very many and therefore houses are needed for low-rented accommodation. Of course: but this Government are concerned to try to make that dream come true for as many people as possible. Indeed we are; and the record will show it and is showing it. But I do not quarrel with the fact that there is a need for homes to be rented. It is a question of how to go about getting this situation. That subject is also not one for tonight. She touched upon the consequences of sales, such as reduction in home availability, and so on. If I have said it once I have said it 20 times in your Lordships' House: when a sitting secure tenant buys his home, he is neither making it more nor less available to the pool of rented accommodation than when he sat there as a tenant and not as an owner. That is a fact, and the record certainly shows that to be so. Now we are on to the whole of the ground that we went into when we were discussing the right-to-buy legislation in the first place. I am sorry to be drawing this out, but if so many points are made, I have to answer them. In fact, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, I should have to speak for a long time because almost all the points she made were philosophical points about housing. I think she would probably agree with that. I should dearly love to discuss them with her, but not tonight: I will avoid the temptation.
My noble friend Lord Haig was concerned about rented accommodation in the private sector only. He said that once lost to the rented sector it has gone for ever. I have touched on this and I will not repeat what I have said before. It is just something on which we shall have to differ.
I listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He pulled no punches, if I may put it that way, and I respect what he said. He was afraid that the small number, as he said, would open the door. But it has not opened the door to anything that he would feel was wrong in the case of the non-charitable housing associtions. No door that he fears has been opened there and I do not see why it should be any more likely with these. He said that charities would find themselves trapped. I would ask: trapped in what way? He mentioned the words "fair" and "just". I take that point absolutely. I would build the whole of the Government's case on those two words "fair" and "just". Those words are exactly what Clause 2 is all about. Your Lordships will see how you can differ, if you go at it from different angles. I should like to discuss many of his other points, but I think he will forgive me if I do not go into his speech at length tonight. If the noble Earl wishes, we can meet or have correspondence. I noted carefully the points which my noble friend Lord Swinfen made. He speaks with qualification and experience, and I shall want, together with my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, to give careful thought to what he said.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, really tempted me when she asked who brought in the building regulations. The Box was at its very best and quickest in passing me the answer. It is as follows. The

87
building regulations were made under the Public Health Act 1961, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. They were amended by the Health and Safety at Work Act in Harold Wilson's Government. The current regulations were made in 1976, under the Wilson-Callaghan Government, and they have since been amended three times—in 1978, 1981 and 1983. So I think that everyone must share out that lot.
The noble Baroness, in what I recognised was a very restrained speech, referred to the Group of Eight and said that they wanted to go to the local authorities. There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent them from using the local authorities. That will be their choice and time will tell. That is all I am going to say. I have lots of notes and lots of speeches. I have not used them at all—
Lord Hylton: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to give way so that he can perhaps have a chance to get his breath back for his own peroration? May I just ask him whether he will be very kind and write to me about turnover, particularly in housing stress areas, especially in villages, and also about my point on the non-replaceability of certain houses which may be sold?
Lord Bellwin: Indeed I will, my Lords. I certainly will write on that, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, wants a copy she shall have one. I have nothing more to say. Clearly, there is great concern about Clause 2. I think that most of the rest of the Bill, although there is some anxiety, will not in the end present too much difficulty. Clause 2 really is a matter of much concern. We respect that concern and do not lightly turn it down. How can we, if we want to get it through your Lordships' House?—and we do. I believe, as fervently as anyone who has spoken to the contrary, that in trying to do what the right reverend Prelate said, and give justice to those who need it, we have run into the kind of difficulties that have been expressed. Where we will go from here I do not know, but we will take note of all that has been said. In the meanwhile, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the debate has been a good one and that you will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE 'C' DEPARTMENT: COMPUTER DATA
  METROPOLITAN POLICE 'C' DEPARTMENT: COMPUTER DATA
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS: TRANSFERS
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS: TRANSFERS
  OFFICIALS SERVING ABROAD: ASSISTANCE TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL COSTS
  OFFICIALS SERVING ABROAD: ASSISTANCE TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL COSTS
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: YIELD OF OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: YIELD OF OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: COMPARABLE RANGES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: COMPARABLE RANGES
  NICARAGUA: DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  NICARAGUA: DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION: BREACHES AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION: BREACHES AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  BASES IN UNITED KINGDOM: UNITED STATES USE
  BASES IN UNITED KINGDOM: UNITED STATES USE
  ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR TESTS: PUBLICATION OF CASUALTY STATISTICS
  ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR TESTS: PUBLICATION OF CASUALTY STATISTICS