Sitting of 10 February 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  COMMONS REGISTRATION (GLAMORGAN) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 February.

  GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Monday 14 February at Seven o'clock.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    United Kingdom Links
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce measures to strengthen the links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): As a constituent part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland's links with Great Britain are already strong and close.
    Mr. Marlow: In view of the massive effort that the United Kingdom made to secure the position of fewer than 2,000 British citizens some 8,000 miles away, is not anyone who still believes in a united Ireland living in a
    1128
    dream world, the only outcome of which can be tragedy and nightmare? Will my right hon. Friend advise such people that the best thing that they can dc in the circumstances is to make the best of the fact that Northern Ireland is and will remain part of the United Kingdom indefinitely?
    Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is helping the terrorists.
    Mr. Prior: I cannot stop anyone living in a dream world, but all the people of Northern Ireland would do best to take part in the constitutional government of Northern Ireland.

    Constitutional Developments
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about constitutional developments in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress to date towards the development of cross-community support in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of St ate for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the working of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of constitutional reform in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: The Northern Ireland Assembly resumed its work after the Christmas Recess on 25 January. As envisaged, a good deal of business is being handled by the six statutory committees corresponding to the Northern Ireland Departments. I welcome the fact that all the parties attending the Assembly are participating in the work of these committees. It remains a matter of regret that the SDLP has not taken its seats. I believe that Northern Ireland's interests would be best served if the elected representatives of all the constitutional parties were to seek agreement on devolution in the Assembly.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the internal procedures of the Assembly are not a matter for the British Government and that he will not intervene in disputes between Members of the Assembly and the Speaker?
    Mr. Prior: I can confirm both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It would be much in the interests of the Assembly if we allowed it to get on with its work.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Secretary of State admit that his Northern Ireland Assembly is an absolute farce because of its inbuilt Unionist majority, which resulted from the gerrymandered division of Ireland more than half a century ago? When will he admit that the only constitutional change that will bring lasting stability to the people of Ireland is the peaceful reunification of Ireland, which is now the official policy of the Labour party?
    Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman believes that that will happen tomorrow, he has a lot to learn about the state of opinion in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stanbrook: As, by any standards, Northern Ireland needs a period of constitutional peace and

    1129
    continuity, will my right hon. Friend refrain from encouraging the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to propose any fresh initiative that might carry the majority of people in Northern Ireland along a road that they do not wish to travel?
    Mr. Prior: It is not for me to restrain the Taoiseach from having views of his own. I am strongly concerned with the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I hope that all hon. Members will give me what assistance they can to help with that development.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland needs not just constitutional peace but peace, and that the present situation is not conducive to that? How is the Northern Ireland Assembly progressing, since the minority community is not represented because its representatives are not attending the Assembly? Will he make a statement about that, as it is the crux of the matter?
    Mr. Prior: The answer to that, with deep regret, is that one of the minority parties is not attending the Assembly. The Alliance party, however, which has a number of Catholics, is attending the Assembly and is playing a full part in it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to help the SDLP to play a full part, too.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that, far from being a farce, the Northern Ireland Assembly is already getting down to useful work? Does he appreciate that there is more time in the Assembly than in this House to concentrate on examining Government legislation and proposing changes to it, and that Assembly Members have already seen some fruit from their labours?
    Mr. Skinner: Another gravy train.
    Mr. Prior: There is much in what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) says. I believe that the Assembly, even in its present form, is performing a task which the people of Northern Ireland wish to see carried out. The more that it gets on with that task, the better.
    Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State agree that after nearly 14 years of murder and carnage the possibility of peaceful reunification suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) does not exist at the present time? Does he further agree that, irrespective of what may be said in Dublin, in this House, in Washington or in the European Community, the only people who can resolve the differences that now divide Northern Ireland are the Protestant and Catholic communities of the north, that that must be the starting point and that every effort should be geared to that?
    Mr. Prior: I endorse all that the hon. Gentleman said. I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to appreciate the difficulty of the problem and the necessity to seek a solution in the context of the two traditions of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Concannon: Will the Secretary of State take it from me, as one who has tried to be helpful on this and who has spoken to members of the SDLP, that, sadly, there is no possibility of the SDLP taking part in the Assembly, at any rate before the next general election? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he wishes to take
    1130
    the minority community with him he must take its views into account when considering what is said in the Assembly about cross-community support?
    Mr. Prior: I am aware that I must take the views of the SDLP into account, and that factor would always be before this House if any proposals for devolution were put before us. In the meantime, I shall try to give the SDLP as much access as possible to government and to what is happening.

    Belfast City Hospital
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the new Belfast city hospital block and the implications for future financing of the hospital services in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): Allowing time for its commission, the new Belfast city hospital will come into use in the summer of 1985 at a total estimated capital cost, including equipment and fees, of £62·5 million at December 1982 prices. It will provide greatly enhanced inpatient and outpatient facilities for the Greater Belfast area as well as some specialised regional services.
    The net additional running costs will be met by the Eastern board from a combination of additional moneys allocated specifically for the purpose and savings to be found by the board from greater efficiency in the use of present resources, including a further rationalisation of acute hospital services in the area.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that statement, but is the Minister aware of suggestions that it is more economical to delay completion of the project than to try to operate it as a viable economic unit?
    Mr. Patten: I am aware of those suggestions and I should be the first to admit that the saga of the Belfast city hospital has not been entirely happy. We believe, however, that it would be a great mistake to mothball such a splendid new building, which will provide first-class additional facilities for the whole Province and especially for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Dr. Mawhinney: How many extra staff will be employed as a consequence of opening the new block?
    Mr. Patten: There will be a level transfer of staff from the present Belfast city hospital to the new tower block, although there may be changes in numbers above and below establishment in certain nursing specialties.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister give an assurance that the escalating costs of the hospital will in no way reduce financial allocations to the Northern board which would prevent work proceeding on the new hospital in Antrim?
    Mr. Patten: We shall be making about £2 million extra available to the Eastern board to help run the Belfast hospital when it is completed and when it is open in 1985. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern that the proposed Antrim hospital should begin as soon as possible. We hope that it will begin as soon as possible after 1984–85. We have certainly learnt from some of the unfortunate experiences surrounding the building of the tower block in Belfast and we hope that the Antrim project will not suffer from the same problems.

    Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the powers and responsibilities of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
    Mr. John Patten: I believe that it is right that the commission's statutory remit should concentrate on political and religious discrimination, but my my right hon. Friend is aware of the commission's concern about its functions and he will be writing to the chairman shortly on that subject.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that it would be desirable to widen the remit and powers of the commission and, in particular, to allow it to investigate subjects of its own choosing, an example of considerable concern being the delay in coroners' reports coming forward on the deaths of children as a result of the use of plastic baton rounds?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the concern already expressed by the commission to have its remit extended beyond straightforward political and religious issues. From time to timeprevious Secretaries of State have referred certain issues to the commission for consultation and my right hon. Friend is certainly not disbarred from referring specific items to it at some future time. He is at present considering the general request and will shortly be writing to the commission and answering exactly the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept that it is important to increase the investigatory powers which the commission needs to carry out its job effectively, otherwise allegations about organisations and institutions in Northern Ireland will be made, fairly or unfairly, and will never be answered to the satisfaction of the minority community? Does the Minister agree that the investigatory powers of the standing commission are extremely important in that respect?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not only the problems of the minority community, but sometimes also those of the majority community, that need to be examined. That having been said, however, the commission is not the only organisation concerned with human rights in the Province. There is also the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Agency. We believe that between the three of them they do an excellent job.

    Kinsale Gas Link
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations on the Kinsale gas link.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Negotiations at ministerial level are proceeding between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments about the terms on which natural gas might be made available to Northern Ireland from the Kinsale field. Those negotiations are being pressed forward urgently with a view to reaching an early conclusion, one way or the other.
    Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that his reference to urgency will be welcomed by people on both sides of
    1132
    the border in Ireland? In view of the extreme importance of this project to the people of the six counties of the northeast, however, will he tell us more about the funding of the project and when he expects to announce a date for the gas to become available?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The uncertainty must be removed as soon as possible. That is why I am working towards a decision in the near future. The total capital cost is likely to be about £150 million. It is difficult to say when the gas will actually be available to consumers, as that depends on the timing of decisions, but it will probably be about two years after the decision date.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the Minister a recent estimate of the comparative cost of this project and the project of bringing North sea gas from Great Britain to the Province?
    Mr. Butler: I can certainly supply the figures to the right hon. Gentleman, but this was looked at carefully some little while ago. The capital cost of bringing gas, probably from Scotland, made the likelihood of the project's viability extremely doubtful. He must recognise that the costs which have to be compared are those of bringing gas from Dublin to the border and the relatively long under-sea crossing from the mainland.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Did the Government's consideration of this project have more to do with cross-border relationships than energy or economic advantage? Would it not be to the Province's energy and economic advantage if the Government gave greater consideration to the coal industry?
    Mr. Butler: Of course the project has cross-border implications, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that these are almost entirely commercial. It would be foolish to deny that there are any political overtones, but, equally, I confirm that the project will not go ahead unless it makes commercial sense.
    Mr. Concannon: I always believed and understood that there was spare energy capacity in Northern Ireland and would be for some considerable time. Is it not a fact that if a new source of energy is brought into Northern Ireland it can only be at the expense of the forms of energy that are already there, which are already subsidised by the Government?
    Mr. Butler: It is correct that there is today overcapacity in electricity generation, but we are talking about a project which would have a minimum 20-year life. The Government's point of view is that, all things being equal, it is right that the people of Northern Ireland should have the same choice of fuels as others have in the United Kingdom. At the moment they are denied natural gas at reasonable prices.

    Economic Prospects
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland economy.
    Mr. Prior: As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the effects of recession have continued to be felt in Northern Ireland during the past year.
    It is my particular concern to see that Northern Ireland can benefit from an upturn in economic activity. To this

    1133
    end, the new industrial development board and the local enterprise development unit are vigorously pursuing a policy of encouraging new investment and new employment opportunities, while giving all the help and advice necessary to preserve existing viable jobs. This is coupled with steps to ensure that the labour force is well trained. Prospects for new investment would be greatly enhanced by a return to more settled political conditions.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that gunmen in the Province are killing off jobs just as surely as they are killing people? Does he agree also that political intransigence in the Province will effectively discourage the private sector from seeking to move in to replace jobs that have been lost?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Nothing is more damaging to the Province than its reputation for violence. That is why it is vital that we do all we can to win the battle against the gunmen and restore political stability.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State in a position to make a progress report on the negotiations with the Michelin tyre company on continued production at Mallusk and Ballymena?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said at the meeting I had with the hon. Gentleman and some of his honourable colleagues a little while ago. I recognise the great anxiety in Northern Ireland about this project. I recognise also the considerable contribution that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have sought to make in helping with this difficult matter. The difficulty is basically one of surplus car and tyre production throughout the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that if some Northern Ireland politicians, including some in the House, spent more time discussing unemployment in the Northern Ireland economy and made fewer sectarian speeches, which frighten off foreign investors, the Northern Ireland economy might be in a better state?
    Mr. Prior: I share some of the feelings behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, I do not want to add fuel to the fire. To do so would not do any good.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some good signs in Northern Ireland, particularly at Short Brothers, which is taking on new men. Does the success of the 330, the 360 and even the Sherpa in world markets prove that a company such as Short Brothers can do well and work with high technology, which can be successful?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Short Brothers is the jewel in the crown at the moment. One must remember that, despite all the troubles in Northern Ireland, the quality of its labour force and the lack of industrial strife are important points in Northern Ireland's favour which are not generally recognised in the rest of the United Kingdom and beyond.
    Mr. Soley: Has the Secretary of State given careful consideration to the report issued last week by the Northern Ireland trade unions? Will he pay particular attention to their recommendations on employment grants and on support to the indigenous industries and the house building project?
    Mr. Prior: Of course I shall give careful consideration to this report, although I have only just received it. It
    1134
    involves a considerable increase in public expenditure over and above the increases that have already been allocated to Northern Ireland during the past two years and over and above the considerable extra public expenditure already available to the people of Northern Ireland compared with any other part of the United Kingdom. One must bear all those points in mind, but I welcome any help towards improving the economic position in Northern Ireland.

    Security
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 23 December eight people have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province.
    On 6 January two policemen were shot dead and another was seriously injured in Rostrevor, Co. Down, while on 18 January a part-time member of the RUC reserve was murdered in front of his wife in Londonderry. The House will be aware that on 16 January Judge William Doyle was shot dead as he left a church in South Belfast; an elderly lady was injured in the same attack. The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for all these brutal crimes.
    Of the four others who died, two were shot dead by the security forces following armed robberies in Belfast on 27 December and 19 January. Two accomplices were arrested after the latter incident. The body of a murdered man was found in Belfast on 8 January. Finally, on 2 February, a man was killed and another wounded during a struggle with a soldier in Londonderry. A pistol and an M1 carbine were later found in the vicinity.
    I can assure the House that the security forces remain vigilant and determined to carry out their duties on behalf of all the people of the Province.
    So far this year 68 persons have been charged with terrorist type offences, including four with murder and four with attempted murder. 31 weapons, 19,938 rounds of ammunition together with 146 lbs of explosives have been recovered.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the thanks of the House go out to those security forces who are doing such a splendid job in difficult circumstances? Can he assure the House that cross-border co-operation with the Republic is continuing? Can he comment on last night's stealing of Shergar and the fact that it is reported that the horse is in Northern Ireland and has been abducted by the Provisional IRA?
    Mr. Prior: It is still too early to say what lies behind the kidnapping of Shergar, but I understand that the Republic's police have not yet ruled out terrorist involvement. It has been discovered that the horse-box that was used was stolen from South Armagh, so it is possible that the horse is in Northern Ireland. Neither I nor anyone else knows at this stage. We are satisfied that cross-border security co-operation is continuing at a high level.
    I am of course grateful, and I join my hon. Friend, as I am sure the House does, in what he has said about the security forces.
    Mr. William Ross: We all rejoice in Northern Ireland at the increasing strength of the RUC. However, how

    1135
    many of the extra men who have been recruited over the past few years are now carrying out duties formerly performed by Army personnel?
    Mr. Prior: I cannot give the exact details of strength requested by the hon. Gentleman. I am not certain that it would be in the interests of the security operation to do so. It is part of the Government's policy that, as the strength of the police force increases, that of the Army should be reduced wherever possible. That is absolutely right both for Northern Ireland and for the Army.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: In view of the ghastly murder of Judge Doyle, should not those who administer justice in Northern Ireland be given protection if they so require? Is it not vital that, even if they request not to be given that protection, it should be given anyway?
    Mr. Prior: I urge all those who are offered protection and who are considered to be risks to accept that protection. They have a duty to society to put up with that protection, however onerous it may be from time to time. The RUC is available to give advice to anyone who believes that he requires it.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten the House on the personal background of the two who were involved in the clash with the Army in Londonderry on 2 February, one of whom was killed and the other of whom was wounded? Is there any sign of progress in getting extradition of wanted criminals from the Republic of Ireland to stand trial in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I again drew the latter point to the attention of the Government of the Republic when the Foreign Minister came to see me the other day. It was claimed that one of the two shot in Londonderry a little while ago was a member of the INLA on active service. I have no further information that I can give to the House, but a report is being prepared and will be considered in due course both by the RUC and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. Fitt: Has it been drawn to the Secretary of State's attention that in the week following the brutal murder of Judge William Doyle it was reported in the Republican newspaper The Republican News, that the IRA claimed responsibility and boasted how its men were dressed in the appropriate gear to go to that chapel in a middle class area and carry out that atrocious murder? Has it been drawn to the Secretary of State's attention that since then, on television, one of the IRA's spokesmen who was elected to Stormont in the recent Assembly elections said that Judge William Doyle was a legitimate target on the ground that he supported the police, the UDR, the Army and the judicial system? If we are to follow that line of reasoning, the majority community and a large section of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland will fear that they are legitimate targets.
    Mr. Prior: That illustrates the problem in Northern Ireland of dealing with a small number of terrorists who are out to murder. Reports reached me that after the murder of Judge Doyle there were celebration parties in parts of west Belfast that night. How can one have anything more barbaric and disgraceful than that?
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is still widespread dissatisfaction with his security policy for Northern Ireland? Is he aware that that widespread dissatisfaction has reached such a level that the
    1136
    Police Federation of Northern Ireland is examining whether to put a case before the European Court of Human Rights against the policy because it is endangering; the lives of its members?
    Mr. Prior: That has not been drawn to my attention. I hope that the Police Federation will consider its attitude carefully before it takes such action, because I do not believe that that would be consistent with loyalty to the police force, to the Government, or to the task that it is asked to perform. However, no one will be satisfied with security in Northern Ireland until all terrorism has ended. We shall continue every effort to reach that conclusion.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition deplore deaths in Northern Ireland, however they happen? They are a sheer waste of human life and are unnecessary. Will the Secretary of State give us the figures for the use of baton rounds in the past week or month? Is their use under political control? Is their lack of use due to political intervention or to the fact that, purely and simply, there have not been riots on the streets of Belfast or Londonderry—riots that have much more sinister connotations than riots in the rest of the United Kingdom? If there are no riots, the baton rounds do not have to be used.
    Mr. Prior: If there are no riots there is no need to use baton rounds. However, one must remember that in the Northern Ireland context rioting is often used as a means of protecting men who are armed and shooting at the security forces. Therefore, the problem in Northern Ireland is different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. So far we have not found a suitable alternative to the plastic baton round, but I repeat that if there are no riots, there is no need for baton rounds. In fact, since 1 September last year, in other words for over four and a half months, only 19 baton rounds have been fired. I think that I am right in saying that only one has been fired since the beginning of this year.

    Unmployment Statistics
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Adam Butler: At 13 January 1983 there were 116,200 persons unemployed in Northern Ireland. The rate of unemployment was 20·8 per cent. A breakdown of these figures demonstrates the particularly severe level of unemployment in certain areas of the Province. The Government are persevering with their industrial development drive in the face of a continuing worldwide recession and with their comprehensive range of special measures to provide training for young people and to alleviate unemployment in the shorter term.
    Mr. Parry: Are not those figures disgraceful, as are the figures for the rest of the United Kingdom? Recently the Home Secretary accepted in the House that there was a link between rising crime and high unemployment. Does not that also apply to the Province, particularly to young people? What positive steps do the Government intend to take to reduce unemployment, instead of making sympathetic statements and excuses?
    Mr. Butler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that level of unemployment is far too high. The Government

    1137
    are taking, and have been taking for some months, a number of steps to help. I have outlined those steps to the House in the past. The hon. Gentleman referred to the link between criminal activity and unemployment. We agree with him, in the context of the Province. Already this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has illustrated the important link between overcoming terrorism, political stability and the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister recall the letter sent to all Members of Parliament by the Secretary of State for Employment, the compliment slip attached to which said:
    "For information only. The scheme does not apply to Northern Ireland."
    Will the Minister ensure that parallel schemes exist in Northern Ireland? I refer to the community programme.
    Mr. Butler: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman told me what the scheme was at the end of his question. The community programme equivalent has been operating with the greatest success in Northern Ireland. It is called "Action for Community Employment". The terms are slightly different, but essentially the scheme is the same. Only recently the number of places on it has been expanded from 1,200 full-time places to 3,500 full-time and part-time places.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister tell us whether it is intended to increase employment in Northern Ireland by increasing the number of judges so that at least one might be released to look into the workings of the emergency provisons legislation? Or is it impossible for the Government to find a judicial person of sufficient seniority to look into the workings of that Act, either because they dislike the whole status of the Act, or because they might be persuaded to extend its provisions to the whole of the United Kingdom—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is on unemployemt in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Soley: Do not the figures show the wisdom of the proposals put to the Minister by the trade unions in Northern Ireland? To dismiss them as an increase in public expenditure, as the Secretary of State did, is totally unacceptable, when everyone knows that one reason why the Government cannot get public expenditure down is the consequence of mass unemployment?
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend has not turned down the report out of hand. He said that he had only just received it. He properly draws attention to the fact that the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish congress of trade unions is calling for additional public expenditure. That itself has its consequences on interest rates, probably on inflation, and therefore ultimately on unemployment. That runs contrary to the policy that the Government are pursuing.

    Overseas Companies
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of overseas companies that have set up in business in the Province during the past three years.
    Mr. Adam Butler: During the three years ending December 1982, 10 overseas companies have established plants in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has my hon. Friend been able to assess the cost of attracting those jobs to the Province? Is he satisfied that the financial benefits available to would-be investors in Northern Ireland are at least on a par with what is available south of the border?
    Mr. Butler: We believe that the package of Government incentives available in Northern Ireland, taken overall, is as good as what is on offer in the south. However, some features of the package from the Republic seem to be more attractive to would-be investors, and we are looking into that matter. I come back to one fundamental point: what is most off-putting to would-be investors in the Province is the image that they have of security and the political situation.
    Mr. Concannon: How many new jobs from overseas came to Northern Ireland last year?
    Mr. Butler: The figure for last year was very small indeed, reflecting the fact that in North America, as in Europe, the recession has virtually cut off all investment intentions. Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman that in 1982 the number of jobs promoted, at 5,600, was greater than, or at least equal to, the number of jobs promoted in 1975, 1976 and 1977.

    National Type Approval
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to lay a draft order extending the national type approval scheme to Ulster.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I plan to publish a proposal for public consultation later this year. The draft order would then be laid as quickly as possible after the six-week consultation period.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety with which this legislation is awaited by the motor trade in Northern Ireland, which believes that it would do much to relieve it from the threat of unfair importation? Will the Minister endeavour to cut down the causes of delay which are still preventing him from forecasting an early date for the presentation of the proposals?
    Mr. Mitchell: We shall proceed as quickly as possible with the preparation of the draft order. The purpose of this order is not in any way to be a restraint on trade. It is not designed to block out imports. It is designed merely to ensure that the imports that come into the country comply with the proper regulations.

    Gaelic Athletic Association
    Mr. Peter Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid to the Gaelic Athletic Association in each of the past three years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has made grants of £13,000, £9,000 and £6,000 to the Gaelic Athletic Association over the past three years.
    Mr. Robinson: In view of the fact that, overall, about £6,000 has been given to the GAA, a body that discriminates against the security forces, will the Minister say what legal or moral justification there can be for giving money to such a body?
    Mr. Scott: Grants to voluntary sporting bodies in Northern Ireland with an open membership run at 50 per cent. of approved costs. For those that restrict their membership in any way it is 33⅓ per cent., and that covers the GAA.
    Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister accept that the Gaelic Athletic Association is representative of the minority community in Northern Ireland? If the Government can see fit to give money—and a lot of money—to the Linfield football club for it to build a new stand, is it not just as well that they should give money to the other side?
    Mr. Scott: Perhaps I should make it clear in the first place that no money has gone to the Linfield football club to build a new stand. Secondly, I recognise, of course, the role of the GAA in supplying sport for the minority tradition. On the other hand, I still find repugnant rule 15 of that association.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a reception at Buckingham Palace for the Queen's Awards to Industry.
    Mr. Skinner: What does the Prime Minister say to people who have been made redundant, such as, for example, one of my constituents, who wrote to me yesterday saying that he had gone to the bank for a loan to set up a small business—he had been redundant for two and a half years—and he was shown the door by the bank manager? How is it that at the same time Argentina can apply for three loans from the British Government and British banks, complete with tax relief on the Prime Minister's approval—a medium-term loan, a bridging loan, and an International Monetary Fund loan? Does that not show the utter hypocrisy of this Government? Is it not an indictment of this Tory "Yosser-land" Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know the precise circumstances in which the hon. Gentlemans's constituent asked for a loan, and of course one would need to know those circumstances. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. There is a loans guarantee scheme for small manufacturing business. That scheme was brought in by this Government, and it aids many people who want to start up on their own. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter with my right hon. Friend.
    The loans for Argentina were arranged in conjunction with the agreement with the IMF, which enables Argentina to repay her previous debts and also to put her economy on a sound industrial basis. One does not need much imagination to realise that the alternative would be for Argentina to default. If Argentina did that, and her past debts were wiped out, having a present balance of payments, she would have far more liquid cash to buy armaments under those circumstances than if she paid her former debts.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the Prime Minister clear up a confusion? She said on Tuesday that the only route out of unemployment was to get our inflation down to, or below, the level of Germany, among other countries. She also said that German unemployment was now increasing faster than ours. How does she reconcile those two statements?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks a little further he will realise that if we are to have more jobs and compete in the wider world we musk be able to compete with efficient industries. There are efficient industries in Britain and in Germany and ours will be the more able to compete when our level of inflation is down to theirs and lower. There is no difficulty, except in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
    Sir William Clark: As, last year, we enjoyed a balance of payments surplus of £4,500 million, of which £2,000 million was in manufactured goods, does my right hon. Friend agree that in many parts of the economy we are extremely competitive and that British exporters should be congratulated on their achievements in a world recession? Is that not further proof that the Government's economic strategy is being rewarded?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The balance of payments surplus was excellent last year and was £1 billion higher than forecast. Quite apart from oil, the volume of manufactured exports held up well despite a declining world trade. The performance of manufactured exports was very good indeed.
    Mr. Foot: May I ask the right hon. Lady about her talks with Vice-President Bush? Labour Members are strongly opposed to the deployment of SS20s and to the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in western Europe. We would be eager, as we have mentioned before, to have a debate on the subject. Did the right hon. Lady discuss with the Vice-President any possibility other than the zero option as defined by him? Is she aware that there ate other proposals from the other side of the Atlantic which might have a better chance of bringing about successful negotiations? Did the right hon. Lady reopen the question of the dual key and seek to rectify the agreement that her Government apparently made on this subject in December 1979?
    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman is against the deployment of SS20s, but the fact is that they are deployed, have been deployed for six years, and that deployment has increased over that period. If they are taken down there will be no need to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles. Therefore, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's first objective is the zero option, which was approved by President Reagan, because that is the way to prevent the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles.
    The Vice-President made it perfectly clear in his speech, and in conversations and speeches elsewhere, that the zero option is not a take-it-or-leave-it option. It is, of course, our goal and we must keep to that goal, because undoubtedly it would be the best possible result for those who believe in safeguarding our way of life, but who, at the same time, want to reduce the amount spent on nuclear and other weapons. Therefore, there are other possibilities as well as the zero option.
    With regard to the dual key, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the present arrangement is for a joint decision, and that means exactly what it says.
    Mr. Foot: Did the right hon. Lady discuss with the Vice-President the proposals that have been made by Mr. Paul Warnke, the previous negotiator on behalf of the United States at the SALT 2 talks—proposals that many would think had a better chance of resulting in negotiations? Did she discuss that at all, because that would be a real alternative, a real flexible response?
    Will the right hon. Lady confirm the reply that the Foreign Secretary gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in December when he asked the Foreign Secretary to assure the House that if the missiles were ever placed in Great Britain they would be subject to the same dual control arrangements of earlier American nuclear weapons based in Great Britain? At that time the Foreign Secretary said that he could not give that assurance. Is that the same situation now, and, if so, does it mean that once again the right hon. Lady has not properly sought a new arrangement to deal with these missiles?
    The Prime Minister: Missiles must be stationed somewhere and the arrangements that we have are those that were approved in the days of Attlee, Truman and Churchill. They are the arrangements that have been agreed by all Governments, which have been honoured and which are identical to a joint decision.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady's reply mean that she is confirming the answer that the Foreign Secretary gave on this matter just before Christmas?
    The Prime Minister: No. My reply means what I said—that the present arrangements are for joint decision on the use of American bases, which were started in the days of Attlee, Truman and Churchill.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to re-visit the Falkland Islands.
    The Prime Minister: I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Bidwell: Has the right hon. Lady seen the recent Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph, which shows that two thirds of those questioned were extremely sceptical about the costly "Fortress Falklands" policy? Why did the Government turn down Lord Shackleton's proposal to distribute absentee owners' land to the islanders if they still believe in a property-owning democracy?
    The Prime Minister: The policy of putting large defence garrisons in the Falkland Islands has been forced upon us by Argentina. At present there is no alternative if we are properly to defend the rights of the Falkland Islanders to remain British under British sovereignty and administration. It has always been the view of the vast majority of hon. Members that the Falkland Islanders' wishes should be paramount.
    We, and I think most of the Falkland Islanders, do not think that it is right for Governments to purchase all of the land in the Falkland Islands. There are alternative ways in which it should be possible to achieve sales of land to some of the Falkland Islanders who wish to purchase it from some of the companies.

    Engagements
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are becoming gravely concerned about the level of violent crime, particularly that of murder? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that in a new Parliament, in which she is Prime Minister, Government time will be given for a debate on the reintroduction of capital punishment, and will she allow a free vote afterwards?
    The Prime Minister: We are all gravely concerned about increasing crime, which is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put at the top of his priorities the need to increase the number of police, because the greatest deterrent to crime is the certainty of detection. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 strengthened the powers of the courts and provided an opportunity—the second in this Parliament—for a debate on capital punishment. I have no doubt at all that there will be another such opportunity in another Parliament. Of course, there is plenty of time remaining in this Parliament for private Members to raise the subject. I have no doubt that it will be raised again in the next Parliament and it is customary on such occasions to have a free vote.
    Mr. Conlan: In view of the regrettable decision by the Home Office to place a contract for a communications antenna with America, will the Prime Minister consider today why that folly is about to be compounded by the Ministry of Defence in placing a further contract for antennae with the Americans for RAF Oakhanger, which is worth three times as much as that placed by the Home Office?
    The Prime Minister: I am not at all certain of the details of this, whether it comes under NATO arrangements or elsewhere. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has placed contracts with America, it will have been done after careful consideration and only on the basis that it can fulfil the precise requirements at a competitive price.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Prime Minister what is the latest available information on the rates of unemployment for single men, and married men with (a) no dependent children, (b) one child, (c) two children and (d) three children.
    The Prime Minister: The latest information comes from the 1981 labour force survey. About one in six single men was unemployed. The rate for married men with two or fewer dependent children was one in 16 compared with about one in nine for men with three or more dependent children.
    Mr. Bottomley: Recognising, perhaps, the different age groups of people without children, does my right hon. Friend accept that the relatively low level of child benefit now compared with 25 years ago may be a partial explanation of the higher unemployment figures for people with more children? Does she recognise that increasing child benefit is a more cost-effective way of helping families with children than raising the married man's tax allowance or giving pay increases at work? If my right hon. Friend has any hang-up about increasing child

    1143
    benefit, will she share it with the House so that people such as myself can help to convince her that an increase in child benefit is highly desirable?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, in November 1980 the Government gave an undertaking to
    1144
    maintain the November 1980 value of child benefit. That undertaking has been honoured. I know my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on this matter. He knows that these matters are dealt with in the Budget. I should also point out that increasing the thresholds is very important as well.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen: Yes, Sir.
The Business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, consideration of private Members' motions.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill.
TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Motion relating to the Statement of changes in Immigration Rules.
Motion relating to the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration of timetable motions on the Telecommunications Bill and the Housing Building Control Bill.
Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order.
Motion on European Community Document 10390/82 on imported skins of certain seal pups.
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill (Lords).
FRIDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the European Community budget.
[Additional relevant document for debate on seal pup skins: Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 34-v (1982–83) para 2.]
Mr. Foot: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman two or three matters arising from questions to the Prime Minister a few moments ago? First, we still have not had a clear statement from the Prime Minister on the Government's policy of lending money and supplying arms to Argentina, a matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). My hon. Friend has still not had a satisfactory reply. I am sure that the rest of the House and the country are still waiting for it. I hope that that will be arranged and that there will be a full statement on those two interlocking questions.
There is also the question of British Shipbuilders. The Prime Minister's campaign about buying British must have been the shortest campaign in history. Have there been any further discussions with British Shipbuilders on this matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government should make a further statement to the House on this subject? That is certainly our view. When are we to have the debate on the public expenditure White Paper, about which I asked last week?
There are also two major questions on international affairs. We have asked constantly for a debate on disarmament. I am sure that the discussions we have had with Vice-President Bush make that all the more necessary. I hope, therefore, that the Government will very soon announce when we will have that full debate on disarmament. In addition, the Brandt commission report "Common Crises" has been published in the past day or two—the new report of the Brandt commission, as it is described. We believe that there should be a full
1146
Government response to the report and a debate on the matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say when that is to occur. May I suggest to him that a very good day for starting the debate either on disarmament or on the Brandt commission report would be the one on which we are debating the unnecessary and scandalous proposals for timetable motions.
All the right hon. Gentleman has to do is accept my advice on this matter and we can have the debate on the Brandt report right away. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would also have the satisfaction of at least seeking to give some decent time for the discussion of those terrible measures.
Mr. Biffen: When it comes to guillotines, I always know that the Leader of the Opposition eyes me across the Dispatch Box as a very uncertain apprentice at a craft of which he is a true master.
With regard to the Brandt commission report, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it has been published only very recently. Perhaps the most appropriate course would be for both sides of the House to study it before considering what is the next appropriate step.
The right hon. Gentleman requested a debate on disarmament. I have in the past shared with the right hon. Gentleman the belief that this is a matter of the utmost topicality which could well secure the time of either Opposition or Government. I recognise that there is a great desire that there should be a debate on this subject. I hope that we can take that matter further.
With regard to a debate on public expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman may feel that perhaps it would be most appropriate, first, to allow the White Paper on public expenditure to be considered by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and for the House to have the benefit of its comments before arranging the debate. I believe that there should be a debate, but since I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to join me in confirming the importance of Select Committees, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service should have an opportunity to make its comments.
With regard to the problems about British Shipbuilders, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy made a statement on Monday. I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like thorough consideration of the matter, and I take account of that, but I can give no undertaking, as I am sure he will appreciate. Finally, the House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deal with the points of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about relations with Argentina and the terms of loans. I cannot go further that that today.
Mr. Foot: On one or two matters the right hon. Gentleman's replies are unsatisfactory. We believe and understand that there may be some new developments with regard to British Shipbuilders and the Korean ship. If there are, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will absolutely ensure that we have a statement on the subject. The matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover still needs to be cleared up.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should accept the doctrine that public expenditure reports or White Papers should go to Select Committees first before they come to the House, he knows perfectly well that that could be used as an excuse for postponing debates and for postponing them even beyond Budget day. I hope

1147
that the right hon. Gentleman will not fall into that trap. I advise him to avoid it immediately. The best way to avoid it is to ensure that we have an earlier date. We cannot allow proper debates to be held up by Select Committees doing their work.
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once the anxiety of the Leader of the Opposition to maintain the authority of the Chamber in relation to Select Committees in our approach to these debates. I must point out that the public expenditure White Paper has been published about six weeks earlier than usual. Part of the reason for that was to allow for consideration by the Select Committee so that it can be debated with that advantage. One of the obligations on the House is to arrange its business so as to try to make the best use of the Select Committees, in a constructive and partnership role. I take at once the importance that the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the Korean shipbuilding order. If there are developments that are appropriate to be put to the House, I shall do my best to ensure that they are.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Since the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order is with us next week, may we expect the Scottish order the following week?
Mr. Biffen:: I am not in a position to answer that, but I imagine that there is great enthusiasm throughout the House that all the orders—including the English order—should soon be authorised so that we can fight on equitable constituency boundaries.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the very near future to debate the problems of war widows, which has been highlighted recently by the widow of Flight Lieutenant Nicolson, VC? The widows of those who died in the Falkland Islands and in Northern Ireland are being treated properly and fairly, but the 15,000 widows left from the first world war and the 55,000 from the second world war are being treated disgracefully by this country. They receive pensions that are a quarter of those received by the widows of men who died in other conflicts. If the conscience of this House and country is to be stirred, is it not time to rouse people to ensure that money can be found to treat fairly and honourably those who made the sacrifices needed to preserve this country's honour?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has properly raised a matter that is of concern to both sides of the House. I think that the point was raised a fortnight ago and I can only repeat what I then said, which was that the Budget and the Finance Bill that flows from it would be appropriate occasions to ventilate this issue.
Mr. Neil Carmichael: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is about to leave the other place and receive its Second Reading in this House? Will he bear in mind the Bill's importance and give it the same Special Standing Committee treatment as was given to the English Bill?
Mr. Biffen: Obviously, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. He may know that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) also raised this issue with me some time ago and I corresponded with him, pointing out some of the difficulties which do not make the Bill particularly appropriate for such treatment.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on one of the subjects that is under discussion by the General Synod of the Church of England, which is meeting this week? I refer not to the nuclear debate but to the proposals to abolish lay patronage, which has existed for more than 1,000 years in this country and whose abolition would be strongly opposed by many hon. Members and would be an infringement of the rights of property.
Mr. Biffen: I entirely share my hon. Friend's sentiments, but there is no prospect of finding Government time for that debate next week.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when the Home Secretary introduces the new immigration rules next week, he explains the totally unsatisfactory and even disgraceful situation on the Indian subcontinent? The genuine brides of Scotsmen—as well as Englishmen no doubt—face inordinately lengthy delays just for the right to enter their husbands' country.
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in his place on the Front Bench and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that he will have taken account of them.
Mr. John Roper: Will the Leader of the House accept that there is support in many parts of the House for a debate on the second report of the Brandt commission, which has recently come out? Will he follow the precedent set by the first report and ensure that copies of the report are made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that, before next Monday's debate on the EC budget, the important green paper from the Commission, "The Future Financing of the Community", is made available to the House, as it is not yet available in this country?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly do what I can to see that copies of the latest emanation from the Brandt commission are made available. As to the debate, I have nothing to add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition. I shall look into the question of the green paper, and inasmuch as it is within the Government's ability, I shall see that such reports are made available.
Mr. David Atkinson: As There have recently been several debates on the regions, particularly those in the northern part of the kingdom, will my right hon. Friend promise the House an early debate on the problems in the south and south-west, particularly in view of the importance of tourism to those areas?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer any opportunity next week of a debate in Government time on the problems of the south-west, the south and the tourist industry, but they are all very suitable topics for Adjournment debates.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House note that we are all concerned about the Government's position prior to the Williamsburg summit? Will he undertake to make provision so that the Government's position, particularly on the international value of oil, is made clear? Might there be a statement or White Paper prior to the summit, which is the most important international deliberation to take place for some time?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the House is not disposed to underestimate the importance of the Williamsburg summit. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points, but I hope that he will excuse me if I make no specific commitment this afternoon.
Viscount Cranborne: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that there might be some argument for holding a debate on disarmament at an early date, if only to enable the Leader of the Opposition to reiterate his support for the zero option, which he has expressed on many occasions, notably on 19 November 1981, in exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time?
Has my right hon. Friend by any chance noticed early-day motion 224 which stands in my name and that of more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members?
[That, in view of the dire need of the people of Poland, and in recognition of the debt the United Kingdom owes the people of Poland for their service in the last World War, this House believes that Her Majesty's Government should provide a free post parcel service to Poland for an initial period of four months, particularly since the governments of Italy and West Germany have done the same with considerable success.]
Will he consider providing time for an early debate on that important subject?
Mr. Biffen: There is general enthusiasm, at least in some quarters, for a debate on disarmament. When that debate eventually takes place it may be better subscribed than the debate on cruise missiles last week. However, I do not see any prospect of providing time for a debate on the early-day motion, because the issue is much more appropriate for the Post Office than for this House.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing unease about the problems of concrete industrialised prefabricated housing in this country and of the growing feeling that a major public inquiry should be held to find out how widespread the problem is? Given this problem's inept handling by the Minister for Housing and Construction, will the right hon. Gentleman make early time available for the House to debate this very serious problem?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the strictures on my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. Concrete houses have been discussed recently—albeit late in the evening—in a debate on Airey houses. The Orlit houses are, in a sense, a dimension of that more general problem. I thought that my hon. Friend the Minister made an open and helpful statement to the House, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall draw my hon. Friend's attention to it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Would not my right hon. Friend be better advised to have the timetable motion on the Telecommunications Bill this week? In that way the House would have been spared a major abuse of its Committee procedures by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who spoke for an excruciating 11½ hours. Will my right hon. Friend look into the situation whereby Committee procedures are abused in such a way that there is no proper debate until the guillotine is passed?
Mr. Biffen: I think my hon. Friend is giving an intriguing trailer of the speech I know he will wish to make next Wednesday.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed that, after 12 months' reluctance, the Secretary of State for Social Services has at last placed in the Vote Office copies of the Greenfield report on effective prescribing? Is he aware that the Pharmaceutical Society says that on 11 drugs alone the National Health Service can save £29 million? Could he therefore arrange a debate on this report at the earliest possible opportunity so that public expenditure may be cut?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise both the importance of the Greenfield report and the satisfaction that it is now in the Vote Office. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, although I must confess that I cannot hold out much hope of Government time being made available in the near future.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Could we have a debate very soon on the arrangements under which regional health authorities distribute money to district health authorities? As a small number of authorities in Britain, including Southend, are deliberately and seriously under-funded to the extent of many millions of pounds, as there is no procedure for appeal and as there is no obligation on the health boards to allocate money according to any formula, would it not be right and proper to have this important issue of principle debated in the House soon?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend clearly raises a matter of signal importance. I hesitate to suggest that he might, with a little ingenuity and skill, get it into the debate on the Second Reading debate on Thursday, but I will bear in mind what he is recommending.
Mr. James Lamond: Is the Leader of the House aware that since he first began promising us a debate on disarmament confusion has been added to confusion, with the Prime Minister repudiating the answers even of her own Foreign Secretary, a considerable change in the Prime Minister's own stance on the zero option, the resignation of one Secretary of State for Defence and the trampling underfoot of his successor by demonstrators in favour of disarmament? For the sake of Ministers, if nothing else, is it not better to have an early debate?
Mr. Biffen: With such a record as I seemingly possess, I would expect from the hon. Gentleman encouragement to carry on with the good work.
Mr. Gerry Neale: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling that there should be a debate on the growing concern of many right hon. and hon. Members, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), about the comparative lack of debating rules in Standing Committee? Will he consider giving time in the near future for this to be debated on the Floor of the House, bearing in mind that the guillotine debate next week on the Telecommunications Bill will deal essentially with that Bill and whether it should be guillotined rather than with procedure in Standing Committees as a whole?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I quite appreciate that there are many who wish to

1151
challenge the findings of the Procedure Committee of 1977–78 which decisively rejected the concept of automatic timetabling, but I must tell my hon. Friend that one must take one's chances when one can. I should have thought that the general proposition he is making would be wholly appropriate for the debate we are to have on Wednesday.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. Members are rising and I cannot commit myself to call all of them. However, if questions are brief I shall try to call all those hon. Members before we have the statement on the water dispute.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Leader of the House aware that we had yet another unsatisfactory debate last night when the Minister took a large part of the hour and a half available for the House to consider assisted places? I think both sides of the House were complaining about it, as I complained about it when I sat on the Government Benches.
Does the Leader of the House accept that the Minister raised more questions than he answered? Will he also suggest to his colleagues, since we cannot expect any early reform in the structure of late-night debates, that Ministers, when contributing to such debates, should take rather less time than they are currently doing, particularly since they seem to say remarkably little at great length?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the strictures made against my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. In general terms, I accept entirely the proposition that speeches lose nothing by brevity.
Mr. Greville Janner: When can we expect a debate on the need for opening up the mines in the vale of Belvoir? As the existing mines are swiftly becoming exhausted and grave unemployment is looming, can we at least have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment that he will no longer prevent the opening up of the pit at Asfordby, a procedure begun by his predecessor and so disgracefully continued by him?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend is in his place and will have heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I will also draw his attention to the point made.
Mr. David Winnick: If the arm-twisting and pressure of the Government Whips and managers on the rebels over the immigration rules does not work next week, what is likely to be the next step in this long-running farcical saga?
Mr. Biffen: A resounding victory on Tuesday.
Mr. Tom Clarke: When the House approaches the debate on the Brandt report which has been promised by the Leader of the House, will there be some form of written statement of the Government's position before the debate or will it consist simply of an oral report and discussion?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has much charm and is seeking to entice me into giving a much more elaborate reply than the one I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, but it would be discourteous to the Leader of the Opposition if I went any further.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to making a statement
1152
next Thursday about when we will debate disarmament, in view of representations from all quarters of the House, in view of the fact that the United Nations has demanded that Parliament address itself to nuclear disarmament and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister does not seem to understand that she has committed herself to land-based nuclear missiles before the end of the year?
Mr. Biffen: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I note in many parts of the House a very real interest in and anxiety to have such a debate, but time is a precious commodity and I shall have to see how best one can encompass the request.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Can I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to last night's "Tonight" programme on BBC 2, which cast grave doubt on the efficiency of cruise and Pershing missiles, which have had more failures than successes? As that information is available to both congressmen and senators in the United States, before we have any defence debate in this House can it be made available to hon. Members here?
Mr. Biffen: The programme can be made available in the sense that a video film of it is readily available. I cannot go further than that.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I join other hon. Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, in supporting a request for a debate on disarmament and suggest that the Leader of the House might consider allocating two days to such a debate?
May I also urge him to consider a debate on health and safety at work? He will know as well as I do that more days are lost each year through industrial injuries and accidents than through strike action yet the Government have brought in Bill after Bill attacking trade union's agility to take industrial action. Should the Government not attack the real cause of lost time at work, industrial injury?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about a debate on disarmament and that he thinks two clays would be more appropriate than one.
I agree that we constantly overlook the importance of industrial injuries. I will certainly take note of the point the hon. Gentleman makes and draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister, but I must say candidly that there is no prospect of Government time being made available for a debate on that topic in the near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is to guarantee money that in some circumstances cannot otherwise be obtained? Does he accept that there is a very serious problem with the ECGD and that some would argue, as indeed some press speculation has suggested, that the whole apparatus is bust? [Interruption.] I do not need any advice from one of the Slater Walker blades. Taking into account the fact that the Crown Agents have been ordering materials and spares for certain countries, including Nigeria, and that firms in this country have not been able to get the money and the Crown Agents cannot get it for them, surely it is time someone came to the Dispatch Box and made a statement on this matter of ECGD and the Crown Agents and the financial circumstances surrounding both departments.
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade to the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I should also have thought that, as the hon. Gentleman has such a passionate feeling about the whole issue, he might have been doing his best to secure an Adjournment debate.

Water Industry (Dispute)
4 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement to the House about the water industry dispute. Since my statement last Thursday there has been little change in the number of people advised as a precaution to boil water. This now stands at 7 million.
There has been a further increase of some 15,000 in the number of properties now without normal supplies which now stands at 38,000. Once again, arrangements have been, or are being made, for alternative supplies. There have been some further reconnections of properties to mains supply. The quality of effluent from many sewage treatment works continues to deteriorate and some streams are polluted, but there has been no serious effect on rivers.
In my statement last Thursday, I informed the House that the employers were ready to have immediate negotiations about higher earnings in relation to improved productivity under the terms recommended by the mediator in paragraph 8 of his report. These negotiations took place on Sunday at which time the employers tabled a series of proposals. These proposals covered improvements in productivity, pay by credit transfer and changes in working practices.
In spite of 12 hours of discussion at ACAS on Sunday, no agreement was possible. At this point, since there was still no agreement, the employers exercised their right to invoke the final stage of the agreed procedure, in accordance with the agreement signed by both parties and witnessed by Mr. Lowry of ACAS on 21 January. I now quote from Mr. Lowry's letter which accompanied the agreement:
"The third sentence of the clause deals specifically with possibility of arbitration—the final stage in the procedure. It emphasises that arbitration is the course of last resort which means that it will only be used when negotiations properly carried out (in this instance with the help of the mediator) have failed to produce an agreement. I consider that the sentence is absolutely clear. In the circumstances of such a disagreement either party would have the right to seek arbitration and the other would have the obligation to respond."
Last night ACAS was formally told by the trade union side that it was not willing to accept arbitration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".]
In my two previous statements to the House, I urged the earliest possible end to this damaging dispute which while only seriously affecting a small proportion of the population is none the less causing very real hardship and distress to many, not least the sick and the elderly.
I also stated my belief that the offer of an increase of an average of £10 a week, quite apart from any further benefits through increased productivity, is by any standards this year a very fair offer indeed.
I also made clear in both statements that there were two main options to achieve an end to the dispute and an immediate return to work. The first of these options involved negotiations on higher earnings for productivity as recommended by the mediator. These negotiations failed to produce agreement. There therefore remains the second option that the agreement reached through ACAS must be honoured and the terms of the national agreement requiring arbitration must be followed.
If normal service to the public is to be resumed at the earliest possible moment and if the water workers are to

1155
lose no more earnings, it is vital that those concerned reconsider their position and agree to accept binding arbitration as clearly stated in the agreement.
The whole House will appreciate the seriousness of the situation if a clear agreement, freely entered into, that provided a sensible procedure for resolving this dispute is not to be honoured.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country views with grave misgiving the prolongation of this potentially exceptionally grave dispute and that all hon. Members want an early and honourable end to it before major damage and hardship, beyond what is already being suffered, is brought about? It is useful that following his unhelpful radio interview last Friday the Secretary of State has said nothing today to exacerbate this situation further. However, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Employment whose false and malicious statement last Tuesday could have been a major setback to any prospect of a settlement?
Why, in his statement, does the Secretary of State not present the situation in the balanced manner of the ACAS report rather than in the partial way in which he has presented it to the House today? Why did he not quote the condemnation of the employers' approach in last night's statement by ACAS saying:
"Expectations raised by certain statements made to the media by the employers and subsequently dashed have not made the negotiations easier and have prejudiced the prospects of a settlement."
The Minister has referred to negotiations which he says took place last Sunday. There were no negotiations. What happened was that the employers stated their terms and did not budge from them throughout the day. Why are the employers so reluctant to accept a proposal by the unions of an inquiry whose terms of reference would deal with wider issues such as the restoration of a stable and long-term industrial relations framework in the water industry? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government are not involved in the refusal by the employers?
Why did not the Secretary of State tell the House that the unions stated last night that if an inquiry had been allowed to proceed the dispute could have been over by the weekend? Why did he not tell the House that the unions involved in the dispute have an honourable record of accepting the recommendations of inquiries—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Employment has no conception of what honourable means.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the heat of the moment, people say things that they would not otherwise say. The right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.
Mr. Kaufman: At your request, certainly, Mr. Speaker.
On the other hand, I hope that the Secretary of State will withdraw his untrue statement on Tuesday that in the water industry there is
"a long trail of agreements that have been voluntarily entered into and ruthlessly broken".—[Official Report, 8 February 1983; Vol. 36 c. 874.]
and if he will not withdraw it, he will document it, as the Department of Employment, questioned about it by the press, says that it knows nothing about it.
The Secretary of State should make clear his wish that the employers accept an inquiry on the terms of reference
1156
proposed. This dispute must be settled quickly and honourably. We on this side will do our utmost to bring that about.
Mr. King: I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. This is a grave and serious dispute.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the tight hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement?
Mr. King: It is causing intolerable hardship to many of our fellow citizens. I should like to see it ended at the earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He draws attention to the concern of ACAS over expectations being raised rather higher than was justified. We are aware that the original interview with Mr. Hill on "The World at One" by Robin Day did give rise to a misleading impression. The right hon. Gentleman then criticises me for an unhelpful intervention when I was seeking precisely to avoid the charge that expectations had been raised too high, and echoing what Mr. Hill had himself said on "Newsnight" that night when he sought to correct what he realised could have been a misleading impression. I will not take the House through the transactions, but hon. Members will be familiar with those broadcasts.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that there had been no negotiations during the 12 hours in which the two sides discussed possibilities of improved earnings for productivity. He will be aware—I have a list of proposals made—that there were a number of proposals, some involving earnings improvement for everybody on a modest scale, some involving significant increases for those who change their working practices and some involving a reduction in the working week next year for everybody in the industry. At the same time, the employers invited the unions to put forward any proposals that they had to improve earnings through improved productivity. I am sorry to say that they were unable to respond. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when referring to the breaking of agreements, spoke of the one-day strike, which I am sure that the House would not support, and which took place in November in breach of every agreement. At the moment, there is a procedure for the settlement of the dispute. We are trying to get people to revert to the procedures in the existing national agreement.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick and the Leader of the Opposition will know that it is fundamental to any system of industrial relations that if an agreement is signed—I was trained in this when I was in industry by some tough union leaders—union leaders should take pride in seeing that it is honoured. The seriousness of this problem is that there is a specific agreement, witnessed by the chairman of ACAS. The problem for ACAS now is that the unions, sadly, are refusing to honour it. I hope that they will reconsider their position.
Mr. Kaufman: After a hurried conversation with the Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Gentleman has dragged out what he claims is one example—or is it two? Will he now document what the Secretary of State for Employment called
"a long trail of agreements that have been voluntarily entered into and ruthlessly broken by the unions concerned."—[Official Report, 8 February 1983,; Vol. 36, c. 874.]?
If the right hon. Gentleman shares the Secretary of State for Employment's view, expressed in those disgraceful

1157
words, he could not rely on the good faith of the unions to honour an arbitration agreement if arbitration were proceeded with.
Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the unions involved have an honourable record in accepting the recommendations of inquiries? Is he impugning the integrity of the union negotiators? If he accepts the integrity of the union negotiators, will he encourage the employers to take part in an inquiry?
Mr. King: I am not impugning anybody's integrity, and it would be singularly unhelpful if I did. The decision so far taken by the union leaders is unwise, and unwise for the whole trade union movement. How can the employers in this dispute possibly go forward, as they have been invited to do, to enter into fresh agreements about some fresh form of negotiation if they have no confidence that this agreement, so seriously entered into and witnessed by the chairman of ACAS, will be honoured? Some agreements can be vague, but this has been very carefully drawn out. If it is not honoured, that is serious.
What I have said on this serious matter, about which everybody who cares about the proper conduct of industrial relations in this country must be concerned, should be reconsidered and the resolution of the matter as provided for in the agreement, should be pursued immediately.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while the failure to use the agreed arbitration procedure is deplorable, the public, listening to the various interviews given on radio and television over the past few days by both sides to the dispute, have received the clear impression that the negotiations have been conducted with an unparalleled degree of downright incompetence? Will the Secretary of State consider calling both sides together and offering to set up an independent inquiry into the pay and conditions of the water industry workers?
Mr. King: It was always known that the negotiations would be difficult this year. There is the issue of what is called the upper quartile. It was always recognised, and that is why the employers at the very start, faced as they were with the wide gulf between what they thought the industry could afford and what the unions expected—it is generally known, and the unions have just reconfirmed, that they expect something in excess of 15 per cent. this year—
Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with that?
Mr. King: —that with this wide gap it was necessary to have some arbitration to resolve the matter. This is why that is in their national agreement. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman, if I interpret correctly his opening remarks, would join me in calling for the strict observance of the national agreement and specifically the agreement so recently signed.
Mr. Eric Cockeram: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the announcement on the tape at lunchtime today that the main 75-mile pipeline to Birmingham has burst outside Ludlow, and that, further, if it is not repaired, the Birmingham supply will be endangered in three days' time? If that is so and my right hon. Friend cannot get that pipeline repaired by the water industry, will
1158
he accept that there are many worthy citizens in Ludlow and elsewhere who will repair the pipeline in the interests of the sick and the elderly in the city of Birmingham?
Mr. King: I was not aware that there had been a burst. I have heard a report that there may be a blockage, but in any case that there was some interference with the flow. Clearly, this is covered by the emergency cover arrangements that are part of an agreement between the unions and the water industry. I trust that in a matter of this importance, the emergency cover arrangements will operate. It is known to the House, and I pay tribute to it, that in many parts of the country, where it has been necessary, the water workers have been prepared to take emergency steps to meet emergency arrangements. While there have been one or two problems in certain areas, I hope that people will recognise the importance of strict observation of the emergency cover arrangements.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister confirm what he seemed to be saying in his statement, that the water workers were offered a certain £10 a week extra? How can he be sure of knowing what the employers are offering, when the employers do not seem to know what they are offering?
Mr. King: I make my case clear—the £10 is an average. I have carefully checked this against the average earnings. If the hon. Gentleman calculates the 7·3 per cent. against the figures of average earnings shown in the new earnings survey, he will see that that is one check. He can then tack it on the base rates and add it to the average earnings. He will find that the figures are correct.
The figures are difficult, and while certain people have sought to exploit the details, the figures depend on the years of service, on the amount of overtime worked, on whether the person is on a shift, and on a number of different factors that can affect earnings. The average of £10 is, on my best information, correct.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is perhaps a little complacent as it is now suggested that there may be raw sewage in the streets in north Wales and other parts of the country, particularly Gloucester? While my party would accept the Secretary of State's attempts to get binding arbitration on both sides, he will be aware that there is some mistrust in the arbitration procedure, not least because, in principle, a year ago Ministers decided to bring to an end the arbitration procedure in the water industry. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State consider the possibility of a committee of inquiry, but on the assumption that it would have to be binding on both sides as a possible way of making progress in what is now a tangled and increasingly difficult dispute?
Mr. King: There is no truth in the right hon. Lady's suggestion that we are getting rid of arbitration. The only question that has arisen, which is one of the features of the water industry's structural procedures, is the unilateral access to arbitration. That is a different matter, and it is not necessarily the arbitration procedure.
I have no reports on the right hon. Lady's comment about sewage. At the moment, I stand by the statement that I have made. However, I am grateful to her for what she says about agreements. Anybody who has the most elementary knowledge of industrial relations knows that if

1159
there cannot be some confidence that agreements will be honoured, we have no foundation on which a sensible industrial relations structure can be built.
The right hon. Lady queried whether I think that the Government's record on arbitration is good, and suggested that there may be concern about the Government's involvement. The agreement to go to arbitration was signed on 21 January. The Government were aware of the terms under which the agreement would operate. The unions have raised difficulties in going to arbitration.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust assertion on the radio the other morning that the employers do not have a penny of their own. Every penny laid on the table must be met by the ratepayers and the water ratepayers, many of whom in my constituency would regard £140 a week as a prince's ransom.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most serious aspects of the dispute is the physical occupation of several water installations by those who have no legal right to be there? Is there not a great danger that if this fact is not made clear, and if the occupiers believe that they can stop the water, other citizens who have an equal right to the installations' products may feel equally entitled to enter those installations to ensure that that does not happen? That way lies anarchy. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that those responsible in these matters comply with the law?
Mr. King: I know that the water authorities take a serious view of the occupation of plant. They are taking steps in each case to ensure that the position is corrected.
Mr. Skinner: Anarchy.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. —that if every hon. Member behaved as he behaves, the proceedings of the House would come to a stop. He has hardly stopped his running commentary while other people are talking. It really is intolerable. He must exercise some self-control.
Mr. Skinner: I was only—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman argues like that, I will ask him to leave the Chamber.
Mr. King: We view this matter with great seriousness and action is being taken in each case.
Although I would not use the phrase "a prince's ransom", the earnings of manual workers in the water industry, having regard to the offer being made, are not unfair. While they may seek to argue their case for further improvement—nobody denies their right to do that—a procedure must be followed. The offer that has already been made, on top of the present level of earnings, cannot justify the hardship and distress that are being caused up and down the country.
The cold weather that the country is facing at the moment is causing problems in different areas. There are the problems of frozen stand pipes and of elderly people having to carry water over icy or snowy tracks. It is intolerable that this dispute should continue. I hope that people will reconsider their position and accept binding arbitration.
Mr. Reg Race: On the question whether the ACAS agreement is to be honoured, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether there have been proper negotiations, since he interfered in the negotiations and told the employers to reduce their offer? Secondly, will he confirm that the employers told the workers that a £10 increase was on offer but that it turned out to be 50p? Thirdly, the employers did not even know what offer they were making because they calculated it wrongly. How in those circumstances can it be said that proper negotiations have taken place? Does the Secretary of State not recognise that for many of the workers on the lower rates of pay, who are not on productivity schemes, the current offer is inadequate?
Mr. King: As to negotiations, when the employers met they increased their offer three times. They have offered to enter into negotiations on further earnings through higher productivity. Part of the signed agreement to which I have referred was that negotiations should first lake place under an independent mediator. It was only when he decided that proper negotiations had taken place that he would seek, if agreement had not been reached, to become the mediator and to make a recommendation. He made an original recommendation when he was satisfied that proper negotiations had taken place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I will allow questions to run until half past four and then take the applications under Standing Order No. 9.
Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no entirely objective method for settling what a water worker or anyone else should be paid? Is he also aware that the normal commercial constraints that prevent many people from pushing their luck on pay do not apply in a statutory monopoly? In those circumstances, is it not in the national interest that, not only on this occasion but normally, water workers' pay should be settled through arbitration?
Mr. King: Settlements should be in accordance with agreements that are freely entered into by both sides. I understand why my hon. Friend has raised this point. It is extremely important that this agreement that provides for arbitration is honoured.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister aware that the dispute could have been settled by the weekend if ACAS had set up an inquiry under section 5 of the Employment Protection Act, 1975? Will he encourage ACAS to set up such an inquiry and the employers to agree to it?
Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that the unions would agree as a binding obligation to accept the findings of an inquiry? I understand that they have not been willing to do that, although it is provided for in the agreement. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of trade union procedure, would read the agreement and understand why I made the statements that I did from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. David Madel: Should not both sides follow Mr. Lowry's advice on arbitration?

1161
Should they not re-examine the mediator's recommendations on efficiency and bonus payments? There has been much misinterpretation by both sides. Should we not ask the mediator to come back quickly to look at them and to call off the strike while the mediator tries to sort things out?
Mr. King: I have sought to put both options before the House in the statements that I made. It is clear that it is not possible at this stage to get an agreement on the first option. In that case, the second option must be pursued. It is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of people for this dispute to linger on. The dispute is damaging the industry, the water workers are losing money, and arbitration is the way to resolve the dispute.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister accept that one of the most nauseating factors is Tory Members lining their pockets with a multiplicity of directorships and parliamentary advisorships, yet telling manual workers to keep their wage claims down? Does he also accept that the atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion in this dispute has been engineered by his intervention on the side of the employers? The lower-paid workers in the water industry have not had an adequate offer, and those affected by productivity agreements recognise that with 3·5 million people on the dole, productivity is another formula for putting more people on the dole.
Mr. King: That is a pretty cheap and unhelpful intervention. This is a serious dispute. It is nauseating to find an hon. Member who affects to support the trade union movement who does not realise the importance to the trade union movement as well as to the country of encouraging agreements to be honoured at all times.
Mr. Reg Prentice: If the unions continue to refuse arbitration, which is a clear breach of faith, and if the hardship to the public and the risk to health increase, will the Secretary of State bear in mind some further possibilities? First, he might issue guidance to the water authorities encouraging them to use private contractors for repairs to mains and other equipment and, secondly, he might use troops where that would be helpful.
Mr. King: I do not wish to speculate on future developments. I hope that there will be a reconsideration of the position. I hope that the Opposition will lend their good offices to achieve that. There is no question that the Government will stand idly by if there is a serious risk to health or to the life of the community. If that were the case, any Government should take steps to see that essential services were naintained.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Secretary of State, on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House and their constituents, express a word of appreciation to the water workers who have kept flowing the many gallons of water needed for kidney machines? Is he aware that in one hospital not far from the House a renal unit has 81 home dialysis machines in operation, all of which have been kept fully supplied with water? Will he express a public word of thanks to the water workers for honouring that commitment?
Mr. King: I do that unreservedly. The Government appreciate the efforts that have been made by many people to try to keep services going. Sadly, that is not the universal picture. My plea today is that it should be.
4.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the potentially grave damage to public health of a prolonged continuation of the dispute in the water industry and the need for an early and honourable settlement."
The matter is specific because the dispute has now reached its 18th day with no clear prospect of an early and honourable settlement. It is important because water is a basic necessity of life and the maintenance of an efficient and properly maintained water and sewerage system is indispensable to public health and well being. It is urgent because the latest discussions have broken down, accompanied by an unprecedented rebuke by ACAS to the employers.
The dispute can do great and serious damage to public health if it continues much longer. An early settlement is vital, and this House must play whatever part it can in bringing that about.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the potentially grave damage to public health of a prolonged continuation of the dispute in the water industry and the need for an early and honourable settlement."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business on Monday 14 February.
I should tell the House that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) made a similar application. The debate on this matter on Monday will last for three hours.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, my announcement a short time ago of the business for Monday must be wholly reconsidered. With your permission, and for the convenience of the House, I shall make a statement later this evening on the revised business for Monday.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that would be in the interests of the House.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Leader of the House has said that he will make a statement later this evening, can you ensure that the annunciators give advance notification of when that statement will be, as they would, for example, for a business statement on a Friday?
Mr. Speaker: It is reasonable to request that when an important statement concerning the arrangements of hon.

1163
Members is to be made there should be about one hour's notice on the indicator so that hon. Members can come into the Chamber and hear the statement.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
4.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): When the Welsh Office was first established, it was perhaps appropriate that the Secretary of State used the Welsh day to review the entire area of his responsibilities. I do not believe that that is any longer practicable or sensible if the speech is to be either coherent or of reasonable length. The responsibilities of the Department are now too extensive to cover them all in a single debate.
In any case, during the past year in the Grand Committee, we have looked in detail at the ports in Wales, education and training, tourism, regional policy and the National Health Service, while the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has spent many hours on the subject of water and its report is awaited. Other subjects nave been covered in debates on the Adjournment or on the Consolidated Fund, including the nationalised industries, which were discussed earlier this week. Furthermore, Welsh Members have had frequent opportunities to join in general economic debates, and in addition statements on local authority expenditure have provided scope for probing Government policy on local government issues.
Therefore, I shall not attempt today to refer to every topic that is of legitimate interest and concern to right hon. and hon. Members. They will have every oppertunity to raise them, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will endeavour to reply to as many as possible of the points raised in the debate. I intend to concentrate on some key developments in policy and to report on the progress of programmes that I consider to be of especial significance for the future. The programmes that I have in mind are of such central importance that in considering them we may find some common ground, whatever our political approach and however deeply seated the differences that exist between us on economic and social policy.
At a time when the whole world is beset by recession, when uncertainties in the oil markets are sending shock waves through the financial markets generally and when decisions taken in other countries profoundly affect our own, and especially after a period of major structural change that has sent unemployment to high and deeply distressing levels, it would be very surprising if there were not radically different solutions offered.
Perhaps in those circumstances I will be thought optimistic in hoping to find any common ground. Yet, whatever differences may exist on the macroeconomic approach, and on the diagnosis of the factors that have brought us to our present plight, there has been common ground for a very long time between the parries, and especially among the Welsh Members of this House, about certain fundamental objectives and in particular about the need to clear the dereliction of the past, to improve our industrial infrastructure and to transform those aspects of our economic position that have led to Wales being relatively disadvantaged in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom, while seeking at the same time to mitigate some of the especially adverse social consequences that are the outcome of our past industrial experience. The role of the Welsh Office in any given

1165
economic position and against the background of national measures, is to respond to the needs of Wales. Never is that more true than at a time of deep recession, of tragically high unemployment and of massive structural change.
An example of this common approach can be found in the trunk road programme that has been pursued consistently by successive Secretaries of State since the Welsh Office took over this responsibility. My predecessor inherited schemes that had been prepared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) during his time in office, and I have had the privilege of opening important new roads, such as the Pencoed-Stormy Down section of the M4, that were initiated by my predecessor. During this period in government we have seen the completion of about 55 miles of trunk road improvements costing more than £1 million each, including the Castleton-Coryton and Pencoed-Stormy Down sections of the M4, the Britannia bridge and its approaches, the Brecon southern and eastern bypass, the Dolgellau bypass, the Raglan-Abergavenny link, the first stage of the Holywell bypass, the New Inn bypass and the Pontyfenni diversion on the A40, to name just some of them. Despite the need to constrain public expenditure, we have pressed on with this programme and at present there are major schemes under way on the Llanfair PG bypass, on the Bangor bypass, on the Hawarden bypass and on the Llandulas-Glanconwy section of the A55. In the south, the Carmarthen southern bypass is well on the way to completion, the KilgettyStepaside bypass is making good progress. We have started on the Culverhouse Cross-Capel Llanilltern link and on the major road improvement on the A470 from Abercynon to Pentrebach, and we have just let the contract for major improvements to the Carmarthen-Bancyfelin section of the A40.
I will be giving full details of our road programme in the years ahead when I publish the White Paper "Roads in Wales" in a few weeks time. In the period 1983–85 we expect to make massive progress on the A55 including a start on the Conwy crossing. In the south detailed design work on the Baglan-Lonlas section of the M4 is proceeding and the statutory processes have been completed. Subject to completion of statutory procedures, I hope that we shall start work on the Crosshands-Llanddarog section of the A48 next spring. Schemes at present in progress and which we expect to complete in the next two-three years will produce another 40 miles of new trunk road at a cost of £264 million. It is significant that of the schemes at present in progress or planned to start before the end of 1985 at least 15 involve bypasses of important communities. In addition, through the transport supplementary grant, we are giving priority to a number of major schemes that complement the improvements to the strategic trunk road network.
The road programme provides one impressive example of policies consistently applied with determination by Governments of different political complexion. Another in the field of social responsibility can be found in the Health Service.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some up-to-date information about the Severn bridge, which is the vital artery for South
1166
Wales? As he knows, there has been considerable concern about it. In this Welsh day debate he should be able to provide some up-to-date information, especially upon the necessity of a second river crossing.
Mr. Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already told the House that he has received a detailed consultant's report that will take some little time to examine and to carry to the next stage. That work is being undertaken urgently. We shall give the House further information as soon as we are able to do so. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he intends to be extremely open about the bridge. At every stage, when further information is available, he will report to the House. We shall be making the Government's intentions plain. I am sure that that is the right way in which to proceed on such an extremely important road link. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about it.
There is another area in which we can find a consistency of approach—the hospitals and the Health Service. I inherited from my predecessor a substantial hospital building programme and despite the need for economy generally I have pressed on with that programme. I have not had to delay the start of any major hospital projects for financial reasons. Work has now been completed on all the major schemes that were in progress when I took office. Since May 1979 starts have been made on major schemes, with a total estimated cost of £81 million. These include the continuation of the programme providing a network of district general hospitals covering the Principality, with starts being made on those at Wrexham, Bridgend and Morriston. Advance works have begun at Llanelli with the main scheme programmed to commence in 1983–84. My officials are urgently considering proposals to redevelop Llandudno general hospital.
We have continued to provide real growth in the resources made available to the National Health Service in Wales and since our debate in the Welsh Grand Committee I have announced details of the way in which £13·5 million extra is to be provided for hospital, community and other health services next year, representing some 2·2 per cent. growth in real terms. This will provide for significant development in the health care provided to the people of Wales. It will enable us to go ahead with the first year of our three-year programme to end inequalities in health authority funding. This has been a very sore point for a considerable period and I believe that the allocation of £2·2 million of additional resources, which will go next year to the under-funded authorities, will be greatly welcomed. In addition, it has been possible to find the funds—£4·4 million—to meet in full the revenue consequences of major capital projects; to meet other centrally funded commitments and to provide no less than £2·3 million for health authorities' discretionary use on new developments.
I am particularly pleased that we have been able to meet from these extra funds the full cost of the first year of our strategy to transform community services for the mentally handicapped. This initiative that we have taken in Wales has been widely welcomed and is acknowledged as giving a lead in this important area of social concern to not only the United Kingdom but many other countries.
The all-Wales working party that I set up to prepare the strategy proposed the establishment of certain vanguard areas, including one in rural Wales and one in industrial

1167
south Wales, covering together a total population of between 200,000 and 250,000. Vanguard areas are intended to test the viability and self-sufficiency of the new patterns of community-based services. The authorities and voluntary interests in the selected areas must therefore be wholeheartedly committed to the spirit as well as to the letter of the strategy, and I take this to be the crucial factor.
The public consultation and the submissions that have been received have been of considerable help in making this very difficult decision. I considered carefully all the representations that we have received together with the evidence we have about the attitudes and capabilities of the authorities. I have decided, taking into account the views of the social services authorities involved, that the urban vanguard area should be in the Rhondda district of mid-Glamorgan and that the rural vanguard area should be the Arfon and Anglesey districts of Gwynedd.
The working party proposed that about one third of the total additional resources to be made available should go on developments in the vanguard areas and that the remaining two thirds should be deployed according to need throughout the rest of Wales. I endorse that conclusion. This means that even outside the vanguard areas significant developments will be possible involving no less than a threefold increase in the present level of spending on social services for the mentally handicapped.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement that he has just made, which represents a significant step forward. I welcome the fact that the Arfon and Anglesey districts are to be one of the two vanguard areas. What will be the financial position after the coming year? He has referred to the resources that are to be available for the first year of the project. Can he give an assurance that there will be adequate resources for subsequent years?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in the project. The Government indicated throughout that the project should be a priority for expenditure. We discussed the circumstances in great detail in our debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. In the first year we have more than adequately met our commitment. That is a sign of our future intentions. I cannot make a financial commitment for the years ahead.
Another area for concern is the condition of much of our housing stock. The Welsh house condition survey makes it clear that the rehabilitation of our older houses must continue to be a major priority. That is why I have told local authorities that in this financial year they may spend on rehabilitation without regard to their allocation ceilings and that in the coming financial year additional allocations will be available. The response to the grants measures, including the 90 per cent. level of grant now available, has been dramatic. The latest returns show that £26 million has been paid in grants in the first three quarters of this financial year, compared with only £16·5 million in the whole of 1981–82, and a total of £57 million in the whole of the preceeding five years. At the end of December, local authorities had on their books 41,000 applications awaiting approval, with a face value of £109 million. This demonstrates both the scale of the need, and the Government's determination in tackling it. I hope that the local authorities will show an equal determination in tackling and dealing with the applications as quickly as
1168
possible. Of particular relevance to our old industrial areas is the new concept of enveloping, in which, I am glad to note, a number of Welsh local authorities are showing a keen interest. Newport is already well advanced with preparing the first enveloping scheme in Wales and other authorities, including Cardiff, have already had discussions with my Department about potential enveloping schemes in their areas. I am glad to say that increasingly, local authorities in Wales are acting in partnership with private builders.
Mr. Alec Jones: What is an enveloping scheme?
Mr. Edwards: An enveloping scheme is the improvement, modernisation and making attractive of a group of houses. Private activity is therefore involved in improving the area. It has been found to be an effective way of modernising blocks of houses and improving the local environment. I am anxious for all the threads to be pulled together in an increased commitment to regenerate urban areas, with local authority and private builders in partnership schemes that provide new housing. These are integrated with enveloping schemes on existing housing, with recreational facilities being provided alongside new commercial and industrial development. The programme that we have undertaken to improve the industrial infrastructure is another example of where there is some common ground. There can be no difference of view as to the need. Faced by the decline of the old basic industries, especially by the massive cutback in employment in the steel industry, it was clearly necessary to undertake urgent measures to attract new industry and create a far more diversified economy.
Again I acknowledge the work that was undertaken by my predecessor. He was right to press ahead as he did with the programme of advance factory building, about which some of us expressed anxiety at the time. That is a programme that we have reinforced on a considerable scale. At Welsh Question Time on Monday, I reminded the House that since its inception the Welsh Development Agency has constructed some 8 million sq ft of factory space of which 6·3 million sq ft represents advance factories. Of that, no less than 5 million sq ft have been completed since this Government came into office.
Mr. Ray Powell: They are empty.
Mr. Edwards: That is a significant achievement. In addition, the DBRW and Cwmbran development corporation have completed more than 1 million sq ft in the same period. Those figures take no account of private sector factory building. However, I do not want to go over that ground again as I have presented the figures to the House several times. All I would say on this occasion, in response to the sedentary interruption of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), is that this is a sign of the growing attraction of Wales as an industrial location.
Despite the severity of recession, we have been remarkably successful in filling factories during this period. That offers encouragement to prospective developers, who might have expected the vacancy rate at the present time to be much larger than it is, bearing in mind the scale of our programme in the recent past. The fact is that in 1981, Government agencies allocated almost 300 units and 1·6 million sq ft of space. In 1982 we did better than that, with 388 units, representing nearly 2

1169
million sq ft of floor space. Those figures do not include bespoke projects such as those for Mitel, Inmos or the titanium plant in north-east Wales. Nor do they include expansion projects by companies such as Sony and 3M.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time in the next few days to visit Bridgend industrial estate? Will he examine some of the Welsh Development Agency factories that are now unoccupied, as industrialists have packed up and gone away because of the massive increase in rents that the agency is charging? Is he aware that Brush Power, which employs 300 people, is to close down, that factories on the Bridgend industrial estate have been empty for two or three years, and that there is no possibility of any useful tenants coming to occupy them?
Mr. Edwards: The figures for factory allocations in the past two years that I have quoted are an all-time record. The present vacancy rate of about 15 per cent. is remarkably low considering the scale of construction that has been taking place. Few areas have benefited as much from that programme as Bridgend
The problem of structural change is continuous and will continue. The need to improve competitiveness even more and the modernisation of existing plants often involves major redundancies. The British Alcan Aluminium announcement about Rogerstone is a painful reminder, although the consolidation of rolling operations at this, the company's most up-to-date plant, gives increased grounds for confidence about the future. The pace and scale of industrial change are well illustrated in the area. We have recently had an announcement of 350 job losses but also decisions on new projects by A. B. Electronics, Avana, Bensons Crisps, IG Lintels and Lucas Girling, that involve more than 800 new jobs for the area.
Before I deal with the problems of urban Wales, I want to pause to acknowledge the continuing work of the Development Board for Rural Wales which now calls itself Mid Wales Development. Board factories are already providing nearly 5,000 jobs in mid-Wales. I am now able to announce approval of the board's construction programme for 1983–84 for the area outside Newtown, details of which have been placed in the Library.
The board will include in that programme the construction of a further 32 new advance factories in nine different locations throughout its area. It also intends to acquire 32 acres of land at six locations that permit factory development in the future and to construct 35 houses for key workers at Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells. Among the board's projects is the building of units at Aberystwyth suitable for firms engaged in high technology or research activities. The site involved is adjacent to the campus of the University College of Wales and it is the board's hope that the development will form the basis for a science park on the American model in which academic and commercial expertise can be brought together. The land acquisition proposals contained in the programme are the largest ever approved for the board. The need for such proposals reflects the board's success in constructing and allocating its factories. Since its inception in 1977, it has built about 180 factory units and currently has about two million sq ft of factory space. Like the WDA it was successful in obtaining new tenants in 1982 and allocated 98 units during the year.
Dr. Roger Thomas: The Secretary of State mentioned Ystradgynlais. Is he aware that there are places in my constituency that are far closer to the centre of Wales but are not covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales and miss its guidance sorely?
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated the issue frequently. The same issues were debated with my predecessor who drew up the present boundaries for the area. He is aware that the WDA has responsibilities in the area and an extensive factory building programme. I shall refer to other relevant policies that are available to the Government later.
Mr. Tom Hooson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the development of more factories in mid-Wales is welcome and the concept of a science park in Aberystwyth sounds like an especially imaginative innovation? Can he give the same reply with regard to DBRW factory space as he has been able to give with regard to all available factory space? What percentage of existing space is not yet occupied?
Mr. Edwards: I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give the percentage. As I said, 98 units were allocated last year. That demonstrates the board's continuing success of getting those factories allocated.
It is, however, to the need for substantial investment to improve the urban environment in Wales that I wish to devote most attention. I do not have to emphasise to Welsh Members the important part played by the Welsh Development Agency in the clearance of dereliction and inland reclamation. Increasingly the tool by which we have sought to tackle the areas of dereliction, both in our valley towns and in our larger cities, has been through the urban programme. We are not just talking about capital expenditure. We are talking about programmes worked up by local authorities that know their areas, programmes which include important revenue support schemes for social purposes—schemes which encourage voluntary activity and a remarkable range of initiatives designed to improve the environment for living and working in urban areas generally.
I have already announced to the House that I have set aside some £21 million for the combined urban development grant programme for 1983–84. It is my present intention to allocate about £17·7 million to the normal urban programme. This allocation compares with £15·3 million for the initial programme for 1982–83, an allocation that we were able to supplement later using underspends elsewhere. Full details of the programme have been placed in the Library. Ongoing schemes absorb just over £6 million, new schemes take just over £11 million and there is a small allocation for holiday schemes and reserves. Just over £12·5 million is allocated to capital and just over £5 million to revenue projects, which is very similar to the allocation in previous years.
In selecting schemes for approval I have been concerned to give further encouragement to the creation of small businesses and to economic regeneration. Some £6 million has therefore been allocated for new nursery factory units, workshops and other job creating schemes. The programme also includes a wide variety of environmental, recreational and social schemes designed to enrich the quality of life in our urban areas. These

1171
schemes will be of great direct benefit to the communities concerned while at the same time enhancing the prospects of inward investment.
I have again given special attention to areas of high unemployment. The five designated districts—Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Rhondda and Blaenau Gwent—will together receive a quarter of the total resources. I have also made substantial allocations to individual authorities in north-east and south-west Wales which are experiencing particular economic difficulties.
For the first time, I have agreed to allow certain time-expired schemes to be phased out on a tapering basis for up to two years beyond the date on which assistance would normally cease. This is an exceptional arrangement, which I have agreed should be applied to a number of existing worthwhile Welsh Women's Aid schemes for which there is no substantial prospect of the sponsoring local authority subsuming the scheme within its own main programme and alternative sources of funding are not readily available. In these cases, however, the additional period of support will be the final one, after which the sponsoring local authority or other agency will be expected to take over full financial responsibility.
The programme recognises the special needs of new enterprise zones and therefore there is a provision of £400,000 in the allocation for Delyn borough council specifically to accelerate development of the new enterprise zone at Flint. When I have taken a decision on the designation of a third enterprise zone, I shall consider the need for consequent urban programme support.
I referred to the normal urban programme. The House will be aware that this year the Government have introduced a highly imaginative scheme to trigger private investment in rundown urban areas. Urban development grant is aimed at stimulating worthwhile schemes, which would not otherwise go ahead. Welsh local authorities and private developers were invited to put in competitive bids last autumn. In all, 50 bids were received, which have been carefully assessed. In this process I have taken advice from experts outside my Department, including private sector representatives. I am very grateful for their help. Our assessment has shown that 12 schemes might be suitable to start in 1983–84 if satisfactory conditions can be negotiated with the developers. Those schemes whould probably not have been viable at the present time without the favourable effect of UDG on their financing. Therefore, they represent real additions to development in needy urban areas and are likely to provide substantial long-term benefits. Furthermore, they will create much-needed employment in the construction industry—according to the applicants' estimate, about 1,200 jobs in the coming year and a similar number in the long term.
These schemes provide a major boost to the available resources by enouraging private sector investment. The total investment in the schemes that I am announcing today will be some £29 million. This would be triggered by a UDG input of up to £5·5 million. This represents a private to public ratio of 4:1. In other words, for every £1 of public money, there will be £4 from the private sector. The individual projects are extremely varied and imaginative. Details are available in the Library. They include town centre redevelopment in Rhyl, factory units in Connah's Quay, fiats in the Rhondda, market redevelopment in Aberdare, housing, hotel and office projects in Blaenau Gwent and housing schemes in Newport and Swansea. A
1172
substantial grant is being offered to a workshop project in Cardiff which, incidentally, involves the restoration of the Maltings, a very fine group of existing buildings in the old industrial area. The two biggest grants go to major international hotel developments in Swansea and Cardiff.
In Swansea, Ocean Property Ltd. of Florida, proposes to build and run a major five-star international hotel in the maritime quarter at a total cost of some £10 million. A UDG input of up to £2 million is required to trigger that investment, which will be a key component in Swansea city's plan to convert the redundant south dock into a thriving new maritime quarter between the city centre and the Swansea bay foreshore. There can be little doubt that the maritime quarter as a whole and this hotel development in particular will provide new business, social and environmental dimensions for the city. They will undoubtedly also boost Swansea's reputation as a leisure and tourism centre.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be an utterly unreserved welome in Swansea for this imaginative venture and for the response of the Welsh Office to that rundown maritime area?
Mr. Edwards: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that there will be equally enthusiastic support for what I have to say next.
The Cardiff project is equally important fm. South Wales. The grant that I have approved in principle of up to £2·5 million will, I hope, enable Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Ltd. to proceed with the construction of a 200-bedroom Holiday Inn at a total cost of about £9 million. I agree with the view of the local authority and of the Wales Tourist Board that this is a key development for encouraging the arrival of international business and tourism and for fully developing and making use of the magnificent facilities that now exist in Cardiff—including, of course, the shopping centre, the new St. David's hall, the Welsh National Opera, the museums and the other attractions of the area. 1 believe that the project will be of great value to industrial and commercial development generally in South Wales, because it will certainly make it much easier for us to offer the range of services that major international companies now expect when seeking new locations. Indeed, I believe that the significance may be even greater than that. Those who know Cardiff will surely have been concerned, as I have, at the sharp contrast between the condition of the city south of the railway and that of the commercial and civic centres to the north. One sees in Cardiff many aspects of the problems of inner city decay and decline. Clearly, there is both vast waste and immense potential in the huge open areas that now exist between the railway and the sea. Much, of course, has already been done. During a recent visit I was struck by the way in which earlier projects—roads, renovation and new building—had already begun the process of rebirth. In my view, t le time is now ripe to take that process forward and to initiate measures which could, I believe, lead to the rebirth and rapid growth of south Cardiff. The Holiday Inn development and the improvement of the Hayes district which it would bring about would provide an essential link, carrying the process of renovation south as far as the railway line itself.
With the Hayes district improved, the opportunities to the south become immense. There can be few cities

1173
anywhere, not initially planned to a pattern, that have such a natural cohesion between key parts. The core runs through Cathays Park and the civic centre, past the hub of commercial activity, the St. David's centre and concert hall through the Hayes and down Bute street to Bute town and the docks. The need is to re-establish the link between the present centre of activity and the old business centre around Mount Stuart square with its magnificent range of Victorian and Edwardian buildings, the Welsh maritime and industrial museum and the esplanades of south Bute town.
Because the need and the opportunities are so considerable and because I thought that the time was right, last autumn I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to open discussions with local authorities and others; to investigate the possibilities and to report back to me. My hon. Friend has had a number of important meetings, has visited docklands developments elsewhere and has had valuable discussions with Associated British Ports, the new company that is taking over the role of the British Transport Docks Board.
I think it is clear from this initial review that what is now needed is to develop first the area that lies between the Hayes and Bute Town. New and important east-west roads are now opening up the area and a great deal of factory building and renovation has already begun the process. I have been able to make a contribution to what is going on through the £150,000 grant that I recently gave to the Welsh National Opera, which has enabled it to build an impressive rehearsal room in John street just to the south of the railway, while the Maltings development a little to the south-east will expand further on the basis of the proposed UDG to which I have referred. However, the fundamental feature of the area and the key to our future success must surely lie in the Bute east dock. The land that matters is in the area around the head of the dock and the broad belt down its western flank. This is the land that should provide the link between the present city centre and the sea.
I know the interest that south Glamorgan is taking in this area—indeed, it has recently prepared illustrative schemes of development. I, too, believe that the area, which has hitherto been designated for industrial development, could with sensitive development bring a mix of housing, offices, space for small modern industry and cultural and sporting facilities to this waterside site. Development on those lines, alongside a Bute street made worthy by imaginative redevelopment and tree planting would surely draw people and property south to a restored Bute town; to the east the old steelworks land offers ample opportunity for attracting industry large and small: to the west along Collingdon road there is already much commercial and industrial activity, while the WDA's reclamation site on the foreshore reveals immense scope for attractive residential development along the coast.
A great part of the land in question is owned by Associated British Ports. The Act that established the company gives it wide powers to exploit the commercial opportunities inherent in this land. I recently discussed these possibilities with Mr. Keith Stuart, the company's chairman and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has carried the discussions forward with senior management. Associated British Ports has told my hon. Friend that it is willing to consider seriously any proposals for this area
1174
that will help realise the potential of the valuable property that it currently holds. While it certainly needs to retain adequate land for port-related activities, I understand that it shares our view that there is more than enough land available in the area for any future port operations and for the kind of mixed development that I have described.
The construction of the peripheral distributor road, together with the WDA's imaginative reclamation scheme, provides a superb site for development on the coast. Similar schemes in the United States have revealed what can be done by bringing housing and shops into a former industrial coastal site of this kind. I am glad to hear that a number of private developers are expressing interest in housing development in south Cardiff; and my belief is that high quality development could take place here which would be important in realising the potential of the area.
A good deal of preparatory work has been done. Local authorities, Associated British Ports and private developers are becoming involved in the discussions. Successful redevelopment on the scale and speed that I would like to see will require the fullest possible cooperation between all these bodies; it will particularly need the encouragement and enthusiastic support of the Cardiff city council and the South Glamorgan county council. The whole thing will require sensitive planning and, if the project is to succeed, will depend on a series of developments following one after the other, each one encouraging others to follow. As the local authorities have a central role, I am asking them to consider what I am now suggesting and to pursue discussions with ABP and potential developers. I very much hope that they will, as a matter of priority, bring forward some outline proposals so that we can consider them together before the summer.
While I can at this stage make no specific commitments, I have made it clear that I will consider sympathetically for inclusion in any future UDG programme any project which commands the support of the local and planning authorities, which attracts investment by the private sector, and which offers a good prospect of viability.
Mr. Alan Williams: I do not want the position to be misunderstood in any way. I welcome what UDG can achieve. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are about to introduce a special Bill, which will be passed through the House rapidly, to ensure that they have the proper legal basis upon which to dispense the public money that has been dispensed over the past few years?
Mr. Edwards: Some local authorities have raised the question of legal provisions. The Government have been considering those representations, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement about the matter in the near future.
Mr. James Callaghan: What the Minister has said this afternoon is of great significance and importance. As he knows, south Glamorgan and the Cardiff city council have already begun to consider seriously how they can implement the proposals. I am sure that all Cardiff hon. Members, and certainly myself, will do their best to ensure that there is maximum co-operation between all the areas involved.
The Minister will be aware, as we all are, that the British Transport Docks Board was extremely miserly in

1175
hoarding its land for far too long. Has he any assurance from the new body that it will behave reasonably and will let us have the land at a reasonable price?
Mr. Edwards: It was because I was anxious about this matter, and because I realised the crucial importance of resolving it, that I invited Mr. Stuart to meet me and, subsequently, asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to have detailed discussions with senior management. Everything that was said at the meetings encourages me to believe that we could go ahead in the way that I am sure both the right hon. Gentleman and I should like. I am grateful for what he has said.
Sir Raymond Gower: Does the statement by Associated British Ports constitute a definite change of policy? As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a great deal of former British Transport Docks Board land in Barry that the board has refused to release in previous years. Will it inure to the benefit of Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Barry and all the other ports?
Mr. Edwards: Associated British Ports has reasonably and rightly said that large dockland development involves the use of a great deal of land for storage and other purposes. It does not want to inhibit its future ability to attract industrial development. However, in the discussions that I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have held, Associated British Ports has shown that it appreciates fully that there are many ways in which the best use could be made of the land, and that it is in the company's interest that it has a thriving and prosperous city around the docks. I am sure that that must be true in Barry as elsewhere. The company will therefore look sympathetically at any development that will improve the area's general prosperity and is therefore likely to inure to the company's benefit.
I have laid particular emphasis on these major schemes in Swansea and south Cardiff. Already in Swansea, there are further projects being prepared and under consideration which will build on the announcements that I have made this afternoon. I believe that the empty land and dereliction in the middle of our two greatest cities remain a blot which we should not be prepared to accept. It must also be right that we press on with the use of this available land in preference to taking more land from agriculture. However, I would, in conclusion, emphasise that my interest in urban renovation and in the involvement of the private sector is not in any way confined to Swansea and Cardiff. I hope the projects that I have announced today will be the forerunners of many other worthwhile developments in urban areas throughout Wales, increasingly supported and funded by private capital, which will not just remove the scars of the past but lay the foundations for a new prosperity.
5.20 pm
Mr. Alec Jones: The Secretary of State made a remarkable speech. We shall now have to scurry to the Library to read the details of the schemes that he has announced. I do not want to disparage them. I should like to comment on his choice of Rhondda, Arfon and Anglesey as vanguard areas. I am sure that I am speaking for Arfon and Anglesey as well as for Rhondda in giving him my assurance that he will receive from those areas the co-operation on which the success of the schemes will depend.
1176
I was fascinated by the proposed developments al Swansea and Cardiff, using urban development grants, and by what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about flats in Rhondda being financed by a similar method. I was genuinely pleased that he had decided to continue support for women's aid organisations, althought it is on only a two-year tapering off period. Those organisations are well worthy of our support.
As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech I became more convinced that this Welsh day debate was likely to be the last one before the general election. His speech was like an election prospectus, with all the goodies at the front—
Mr. Hooson: An extremely good prospectus.
Mr. Jones: It is a good prospectus, but it is probably as false as the last one. However, none of the difficulties was in sight. All the difficulties and problems were kept away from view. If this is to be the last debate on Welsh affairs of this Parliament, the speech to which we have listened is an end-of-term report on the activities of the Secretary of State and his two parliamentary colleagues.
When I was a practising teacher I frequently had to write comments on end-of-term reports. I wondered what comments I would put on the report of the hon Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts). I carte to the conclusion that it would most suitably read, "Could have done better. Must pay more attention." In the report that I would draw up for the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), my comment would be, "Must try a little harder. Should concentrate on his weaker subjects." In all honesty, it is much more difficult to be as generous to the Secretary of State. His end-of-term report would have to be labelled, "A total failure. Has not even tried."
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: But he has just received the warm congratulations of a number of hon. Members for what he has announced.
Mr. Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman will announce similar programmes every day, he will only be scratching at the problems in Wales and many of the problems of his own creation.
At the last election, the right hon. Gentleman in his election address to his people in Pembrokeshire said that he felt that the moment was coming when
"I can do something effective for Wales and for Pembrokeshire."
The right hon. Gentleman has had an effect on Pembrokeshire—a devastating effect. Unemployment has risen from 2,558 in June 1979 to 7,577 in January 1983. The dole queue is three times longer than it was when the Conservative Government took office. No part of Wales has been spared from his efforts. He has beer equally effective, or ineffective, in all parts of Wales. Even according to the Government's fiddled figures, unemployment is high. The Secretary of State did not mention that there are 180,000 in the dole queue—one in six or our people.
Mr. John Morris: Not a word.
Mr. Jones: Indeed, not a word.
In eight of our travel-to-work areas unemployment is over 20 per cent. In 16 the unemployment figures are above the Welsh average. Despite what the Secretary of State announced today, many of those areas will be completely excluded from what he had to offer. However, I suppose that the unemployment figures are in accord with

1177
the election address published by the hon. Member for Conway. His election address stated in bold letters, "More jobs—lower taxes." I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman would want to be so bold today.
Mr. John Morris: Where is he?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman apologised to me for his absence. He has to attend a Cabinet Committee meeting. I am sure that he will be sorry that he has missed what I shall say about him.
With regard to lower taxes, I shall take an example of a married couple with two children. If the earnings are three quarters of the national average, the family's tax bill has risen by 17 per cent. since 1978–79. If the same family was on national average earnings, its tax bill has risen by 14½ per cent. On twice average earnings, the tax bill for the same family has increased by 9½ per cent. If the family happened to be on five times the national earnings, the tax bill will have been cut by 6½ per cent. Therefore, presumably that is what the hon. Gentleman meant. He meant tax cuts to be intended only for the wealthiest in Wales. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber. Croeso. I was referring to his election address, in which he promised more jobs and lower taxes. I was saying that unless one earned five times the national average, one was now paying more taxes. I was saying that what the hon. Gentleman had in mind in his election address was that tax concessions were intended only for the wealthiest in Wales.
I do not know how many people are on five times the national average in Conway or Wales. One thing is certain. I guarantee that there is not one person in Rhondda earning that much. With the general election coming up, which is obviously having the effect of concentrating the mind wonderfully, come 15 March the Chancellor of the Exchequer will proceed to oil the machine prior to issuing another false prospectus for the general election.
I do not want to be unnecessarily unkind to the hon. Member for Conway. For the sake of greater accuracy I obtained a copy of his election address, which reads:
"Every Conservative Government since the war has left office with more people at work than when it started."
The Secretary of State for Wales will have the rare distinction of being the man to break that record. We should put the record straight. When the Labour Government left office in 1979, 30,000 more people were at work than when we took office. Under this Secretary of State, at least 145,000 fewer people are in work than when he took office.
That is the remarkably effective contribution that the Secretary of State has sought to make today. It is no wonder that the feeling is growing that the Welsh Office under him is more concerned with foisting Government solutions on Wales than with fighting for Welsh interests. There have been massive increases in unemployment, which has risen by more than 100,000 in Wales and massive decreases in the numbers of work. We have lost more jobs than were created by regional policies in more than 20 years. That has been coupled with a fall in the level of the index of industrial production for Wales from 108·2 in the first quarter of 1979 to 93·7 in the third quarter of 1982. Despite all that, the Secretary of State has acquiesced throughout his period of office in policies that have compounded our problems in Wales.
1178
Last Monday we had some exchanges about the Welsh Development Agency, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will readily acknowledge that, from its uneasy birth, through its somewhat struggling adolescence, and even through to its more robust manhood, I have supported and still support the WDA. Nevertheless, as I said on Monday, I was more than marginally disturbed to see the HTV programme on the subject of the agency last week. The allegation was made on the programme that 40 per cent. of its factories were empty and that it created only about 5,000 jobs. In my view, the WDA made a grave error of judgment in refusing to be represented on the programme, because it could have set the facts right. The Secretary of State confirmed this afternoon that only 15 per cent. of its factories were empty, and I understand that the WDA claims that it has created 13,000 jobs. Unfortunately, the programme was seen by thousands of people in Wales. The considerable difference between the figures demonstrates the need for an explanation of the true, up-to-date picture of the agency.
I do not blame the agency for many of the problems that beset it. The agency is only an instrument of the Government. It can succeed or fail only in so far as the Government's general economic policies succeed or fail. Earlier the Secretary of State repeated what he said on Monday, that 1·6 million sq ft of factory space had been allocated and let in 1981, and nearly 2 million sq ft last year. I do not dispute those figures, but I should like to know whether they are net figures. Do they take into account the factories that were let in 1981—and possibly last year—which have since closed for a variety of reasons? From my knowledge of my constituency of Rhondda, a factory at Wattstown, Automotive Engineering, and a factory at Ferndale, Webb, Son and Company, were built and taken over in the past two years, but they are no longer occupied by those firms. So we need a clearer understanding of the use of the words lettings, take-ups, and so on.
Mr. Alan Williams: May I give a current example of the misleading nature of the statistics which the Secretary of State used in giving just the gross lettings and ignoring those that have lost their tenants? Dragon Computers, which no doubt will be quoted as a successful WDA letting, moved to Kenfig to take a 60,000 sq ft factory, but has left Swansea with inducements from the Welsh Office and the WDA, leaving behind a factory of 70,000 sq ft. The net effect of that successful letting is that the WDA will now have 10,000 sq ft more on its book of empty factories than previously.
Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. If we are to assess the effectiveness of the agency and the range of regional policies, we must know more of the facts. If one looks at the reports of the agency, one finds that it is far from easy to understand which factories have been let and are still let, occupied and in production today. That is the key issue.
The Secretary of State said on Monday that he is shortly to meet the new chairman of the WDA to discuss its long-term strategy. I was therefore surprised to read the Western Mail's account, suggesting that that would lead to a major shake-up of the agency. Is the Secretary of State envisaging this major shake-up? I understood from him that he was not contemplating any change in guidelines, apart from the change in guidelines for derelict land, which were recently published.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman will sometimes have been surprised at headlines in the Western Mail. The reporter on that paper had no more information to go on than the statements that I made in the House. His interpretation was his alone, or that of his headline producer.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I confess that when I listened to the Secretary of State, and read the questions afterwards, I could not read into them this demand or hope for a major shake-up. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman meets the new chairman he will tell him what my right hon. Friend and I have said about factory take-ups by the WDA and assure him that Labour Members want a flourishing, active and more interventionist agency, and one that will tackle the most urgent problems in Wales.
If we want to measure the size of the problem and match it to what is being done in Wales, we could use—although not with 100 per cent. accuracy—the unemployment figures for the Welsh counties and compare them with the number of manufacturing jobs in the pipeline over the next three or four years. I realise that the figures are only for manufacturing and that there may be others. Over the next three to four years, in the county of Gwynedd there are 250 jobs in the pipeline in manufacturing industry, but already there are 14,000 unemployed. In Clywd, there are 3,500 jobs in the pipeline, but 26,000 unemployed. In Powys, there are 750 jobs in the pipeline and 4,000 unemployed. In Dyfed there are 350 jobs in the pipeline and 20,000 unemployed. In mid-Glamorgan, my own county, there are 2,100 jobs in the pipeline, but 34,000 unemployed. In west Glamorgan there are 1,000 jobs in the pipeline, and 28,000 unemployed. In south Glamorgan there are 950 jobs in the pipeline, and 25,000 unemployed. In Gwent there are 6,100 jobs in the pipeline, but 31,000 unemployed.
I suggest that that picture of Wales today is very different from the picture that was painted by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks. I accept that those figures are for manufacturing jobs, but, as we all know, the development of service industries has a vital role to play, particularly in certain parts of Wales. The Secretary of State said that in his view the present guidelines give the Welsh Development Agency sufficient flexibility in aiding service industries. I genuinely hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will give us more details of how this flexibility is working and say to what extent aid can be given to service industries, both by the WDA and by the Development Board for Rural Wales.
We must also take into account the thousands of jobs in local authorities that have disappeared in the past year. The last Conservative election manifesto for Wales said:
"We shall seek to enlarge the responsibility of local authorities".
That enlargement of responsibility, in practice, has left local authorities with the responsibility only of spending less and less, cutting more and more, and avoiding the nightmares associated with close-ending and holdback.
Let us consider what the Secretary of State has done for local authorities in the past four years. In each successive year the Government share of rate support grant has been reduced and the burden on the ratepayers increased. The right hon. Gentleman has nearly halved domestic rate relief, and that has added to the burden on the domestic ratepayers. He has virtually removed local authority
1180
representation from the Welsh water authority, which was the only democratic component in that authori:y. He has forced cuts in local authority staff of about 8,030. So we come, fortunately and thankfully, to the end of his four years, although their effect will last for a long time.
As a consequence of what the Secretary of State has done to local government, fewer houses were completed in Wales last year than in any year since 1947, and that is a pretty miserable level. Instead of taking advantage of falling school rolls to improve educational standards and the opportunities for young people, the number of teachers and lecturers in posts has been reduced by about 2,000. County council social services departments are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain, let alone improve, the services for increasing numbers of old, handicapped and disabled persons, now thankfully living longer, and for the increasing numbers of children now kept out of long-stay hospitals and living in the community. When we compare the need there and the way that it has been handled with the over-generous handouts to the wealthiest members of our society — five times the national average — it confirms that the Government motto must surely be that greed not need is their concern.
If this is an end-of-term report—and it is a miserable one—where on earth do we go from here? What would another term of office for the Government mean to Wales? What of our basic industries? That subject was dented this week and I do not propose to deal with it in detail. B at one thing is certain, and that is that investment in the South Wales coal industry has declined, particularly when one compares that with other coalfields in the United Kingdom. We discussed the liquefacation plant at Point of Ayr. If that is to continue at all, it will be on a much reduced scale. Welsh miners and their families can have no assurance from the Government about their industry.
Steel imports are flooding in—67 per cent. from the EC. After suffering a 50 per cent. reduction in its work force, can BSC in Wales give any guarantee to its present work force? Last Monday the Secretary of State confirmed that unemployment in Newport—one of our major steel towns—was 18·8 per cent. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) that Newport in Gwent was an area for which he had many exciting projects in mind, and I hope that he has. But the following day British Alcan announced 350 redundancies at Rogerstone. That is the background for the future.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) gave certain assurances about the Serpell report even before the House debated it. Option A has been rejected, but that is not sufficient for Wales, where most of the other options are equally offensive. It is not good enough to say that we must wait until after the election before we know which of those other options will be implemented. I must tell the Secretary of State—fortunately he will not be here to worry about it—that when the Serpell and other reports say that railway lines can be withdrawn because they can always be replaced by bus services, our experience is that that just is not true. Bus services are seldom reliable and seldom last any length of time. People in south Wales were conned some years ago to accept closures by the promise of adequate bus services, but not one of those bus services is still in existence.
In many parts of Wales people are concerned about the future of telecommunications. After the general election the Government propose to sell off 51 per cent. of British Telecom. Last year British Telecom, in its service to

1181
telephone users in Wales and the Marches—which still strikes me as an odd phrase—lost £20 million. If 51 per cent. of British Telecom is sold off, does anyone believe that a private company, the raison d'etre of which is to make a profit, is likely to continue that loss-making service which is so essential, particularly in remoter rural areas? Can the Secretary of State or any member of the Government guarantee that the existing public telephone service will continue to provide the essential means of communication, particularly in parts of rural Wales?
Sir Raymond Gower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the state of Georgia, which is by no means a rich state in American terms, the telephone service is incomparably better than anything in the United Kingdom and is run by a private company? The same is true in Canada where some areas are sparsely populated. The telephone service there is far superior to anything that we have here.
Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman is so content with those services, it should be relatively easy for the Government to say that the new private company will give us the sort of services that we want. I have never been to Georgia and could not say whether that is the case.
Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Congressional Committee of the United States has been reviewing the effects of trends in United States telecommunications and that the cost for rural areas has escalated out of all proportion and it is a real worry whether services can be maintained?
Mr. Jones: That is the fear that has been expressed to me by people from rural Wales. If the sell-off takes place, either prices will rise and put the services out of people's reach, or the services will be cut off. I am not an expert on American affairs. I have enough trouble looking after Welsh affairs.
About 98 per cent. of the people in Wales use the NHS and no other health service. As far as they are concerned it is the only health service and that is why we are rightly anxious about its future. There were some flurries in the dovecote a few months ago and the Prime Minister gave the assurance that the NHS was safe in the Government's hands. I am not so sure now about in whose hands the NHS is or will be.
I have here the minutes of an inaugural meeting of the All-Wales management efficiency group, held at Preswylfa, Mold, on Thursday 7 October 1982 at 11 am. The chairman is the chairman of the Clwyd health authority, appointed by the Secretary of State. The group consists of three officers from the west Glamorgan health authority, one officer from the Clwyd health authority and three civil servants. Who appointed those people and to whom will they be responsible? Are their reports to be published so that we can all know what they are proposing to do? That group has already agreed that the current membership should remain for a period of two years—that is looking after themselves.
There then appears a very interesting phrase:
"Members favoured a radical approach to their tasks."
I am not sure what that means, but when one turns the page one sees that the sort of tasks that are considered are land disposal, privatisation of the Welsh health technical services organisation, privatisation of laundry services—
1182
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—privatisation of cleaning services—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the privatisation of catering services—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those are political matters and ought not to be discussed in some secret group in which civil servants are expected to play a role. Those are areas into which civil servants do not fit easily. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will draw aside the veil of secrecy surrounding that group so that we may all know the Government's plans for the NHS in Wales.
Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. Friend referred to an inaugural meeting. Who inaugurated the meeting? Why is it that some of the large health authorities which have chairmen of a different political persuasion may not have been invited to the meeting? It was not just a secret meeting. It seems to be a small political caucus.
Mr. Jones: As I was not responsible for calling the meeting, I suggest that my hon. Friend addresses his remarks to the Secretary of State for Wales, who I am sure will explain exactly why these peoiple were appointed and what he expects to get out of it.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I should like to put the right hon. Gentleman quickly out of his misery. This is one of a number of groups appointed by the chairmen to report back to the chairmen and then to submit their reports— [HON. MEMBERS: "Which chairmen?"] — the chairmen of the health authorities — for consideration by the health authorities. It will be, as it always is, for health authorities to take decisions about what they do in their individual areas.
Mr. Jones: I wish to press the Secretary of State further on this matter. Is he now saying that it was Mr. E. M. W. Griffith, the chairman of Clwyd health authority, who decided to gather these people together, who picked them himself and then set about a programme of activities without any reference to the Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for health matters in Wales? Does that mean that any area health authority chairman can set up his own private committee? We could have the chairman of the mid-Glamorgan area health authority setting up his own investigation into whether we should close all private hospitals in Wales and remove all pay beds. Would that be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Edwards: The chairmen of the health authorities in Wales appoint their own committees and appointed these committees. They were not appointed by me. They have a number of working parties which are reporting on a number of aspects of the Health Service. Their reports, when considered by the chairmen collectively, are then considered by individual health authorities. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing obscure or secret about it. They are not appointed or selected by me.
Mr. Anderson rose—
Mr. Jones: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I hope that the House will not blame me for taking up too much time, but I have had many interventions in my speech.
My hon. Friends are keen to have an answer on this matter, and presumably the Secretary of State is receiving an answer now. If everything is as innocent as the Secretary of State says, where did the three civil servants on the committee, out of the eight members, including the chairman, come from? Were they self-elected? Did the

1183
civil servants decide to join the committee? How did they get on to the committee? Will the Secretary of State allow his civil servants to sit on any such committee set up by any chairman to discuss any subject that they might think suitable?
Mr. Edwards: The meetings of the chairmen on this and a whole range of other issues concerning the management of the Health Service are attended by officials of my Department. I imagine that meetings of health authorities were attended by members of the Department under my predecessor. The arrangements under my predecessor were that there were carefully structured meetings every month, chaired by a Welsh Office Minister. Now the chairmen frequently meet to discuss their plans collectively. Officials sit in on these meetings. Minutes are circulated generally and there is nothing secret about them. The operating decisions on the ground are taken by the health authorities, which consider the reports and recommendations put to them.
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It is not a meeting of an area health authority. This is a hybrid or mongrel organisation consisting of members from various health authorities, with three Welsh Office civil servants who are not just sitting there taking notes. Welsh Office colleagues were asked to regard themselves as equal members, taking a full part in the development of projects and working groups. That is not an appropriate role for civil servants to play, especially when one takes into account the high political content of some of the subjects that we have discussed.
I wish now to move away from health, having stirred up that debate.
We referred to jobcentres in a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee some time ago. Some decisions have now been made and announced, but only some. The Government have decided to close four jobcentres in Wales, at Bethesda, Dolgellau, Glyn-neath and Llandovery, and to cut back the hours of opening at two others, at Beaumaris and Penygroes. The future of the two being cut back, as well as 11 others, is to be reviewed again later this year. That means that the threat of closure has not been lifted from those 13 offices.
In addition, a further 16 offices are to be reviewed. The total number of jobcentres threatened in Wales is not four, as has been announced, but 33. Once again Wales is disproportionately affected. Although overall, throughout the country, 125 jobcentres are being reviewed, 26 per cent. are in Wales. More than one third of the jobcentres in Wales are under threat. The majority of them are in mid-Wales and north Wales, so the effect on those areas is the greater.
When those four jobcentres are closed, the cheapest return fare to the nearest alternative centre will be 77p. For the others, the return fare is more than £1. The unemployed in Dolgellau will have to pay £1·70, return, to visit the jobcentre at Barmouth. The Government do not realise that for the unemployed, particularly for the long-term unemployed, these fares are a major deterrent to their visiting a jobcentre, which is the only place which gives them a chance of a job.
Further blessings—or curses as I prefer to call them—are likely to lie in store as a result of discussions taking place at present. The closure of tax offices at Carmarthen, Merthyr, Neath, Rhyl, Pontypridd and
1184
Pontypool will cost about 400 jobs. In addition there will be a far inferior service for those already bedevilled with income tax problems. There are threats to the Property Services Agency, with proposed closures of offices at Cardiff, Haverfordwest and Colwyn, with the loss of 160 jobs. If the Government proceed to scrap th.:, present regional set-up, with a headquarters at Cardiff, a further 200 jobs could go.
Many of those matters are now being discussed, but the Secretary of State was extremely coy about taking us into his confidence. If they are only fears which can be dispelled, I am sure that the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will guarantee that our fears are completely unreal.
The major problem facing us in Wales today is the level of unemployment, despite the fact that that issue was completely neglected by the Secretary of State. The problem is not only of unemployment, but of the length of time that many of our people have been unemployed. Many of them see no hope or prospect for the future. That is a dreadful indictment of any Government.
I sometimes feel that we talk in large numbers—180,000 unemployed, 17·4 per cent. unemployed, or one in six unemployed—and that sometimes we become hypnotised by the numbers into forgetting that behind them there are human beings and that underneath it all lies a deep human tragedy.
Last week I spoke to a young 18-year-old man from my constituency, Darryn Walker. Apart from being on one youth opportunities scheme, he has not worked since he left school. The Government have failed to channel their energies into dealing with that sort of problem. Because the Secretary of State has failed not only Darryn Walker, but many thousands like him, he has failed Wales and stands condemned as the most ineffective Secretary of State that Wales has ever had the misfortune to know.
6 pm
Sir Raymond Gower: The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) made a quite legitimate party speech and we should not complain about that.
Mr. Anderson: And a good one.
Sir Raymond Gower: I am not sure that it was all that good. He appeared to think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Welsh Office should work independently of world events and that they should be able to work quite efficiently with complete disregard for what is happening in Europe and in isolation even from the rest of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that, no matter how bad things are in the rest of the world or in the United Kingdom, an efficient Secretary of State can succeed in isolation and proceed just as effectively as when Europe, the United Kingdom and the whole world were prosperous. That is a remarkable point of view. Fortunately, the right hon. Gentleman has not been a Secretary of State. If he had been, he might not have spoken in those terms.
Mr. Hooson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that within the last week both Germany and Belgium have announced record unemployment figures, reaching, in the case of Germany, 2·5 million?
Sir Raymond Gower: Another thing that amazed me was that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seemed to think, although they regarded such issues with

1185
among the Conservative party and presumably among other parties. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all of us are profoundly concerned about unemployment. During Welsh Question Time last Monday I referred to it as the "evil" of unemployment. It certainly is an evil. We must check it and then eradicate it as soon as we can. That is no easy task, although the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that it could be done quite easily by a change of policy.
In all changing and progressive industrial societies some people will be unemployed. If new industries emerge and others disappear, that is concomitant with a progressive industrial society. However, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, Welsh unemployment now stands at over 180,000 and is higher than 17 per cent. It is infinitely worse than might be expected of such a society and it is, of course, serious. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that in all countries with such problems, opposition parties tend to put all the blame on the incumbent Government. That was probably the reason for the defeat of Giscard d'Estaing in France and probably one of the chief reasons for the fall of Helmut Schmidt's Government in Germany. In every such country, the incumbent Government take the blame. Irish history suggests that even if a Government have been in office for only a few weeks, they get the blame.
That excessive unemployment is not a purely Welsh phenomenon and not solely a Welsh or even British disease is shown by the OECD figures for standard unemployment at the beginning of 1983. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rhondda will take account of the fact that unemployment in the United Kingdom is 3,224,000 or 13·8 per cent. and in Wales, 180,664 or 17·5 per cent. In Holland, which is a small country, unemployment is 644,200—a percentage, admittedly lower than in the United Kingdom, of 12 per cent. However, it is only 1·7 per cent. lower than in the United Kingdom.
In the United States of America, which is a large federal country, unemployment stands at 11,400,000 or 10·4 per cent., which is again a very high figure. In Ireland, which is a very small country, unemployment stands at 179,900, or 14·7 per cent. In a centralised country such as France, unemployment stands at 2,131,400, which again is nearly 10 per cent. Even West Germany, which has been so successful since the last war, has 2,223,300 people unemployed or 8·4 per cent. That is a lower percentage, but it takes little account of the many thousands, or—I believe—millions of guest workers, many of whom have been repatriated.
The world recession affects the industrial West and the countries of the Third world, and has had serious repercussions on the Communist countries of eastern Europe. The paramount need is for urgent international co-operation and action at the earliest possible date. Can we hope for that after the economic summit to be held in Williamsburg, in the United States of America, in May this year? Previous summits have been very disappointing. Their results have not been what the world sought. However, the international community cannot long afford failure and certainly cannot afford it this time. I fear that protectionism, which has been advocated by some siren voices from the Opposition, cannot provide a cure for the problems of the industrial West, or of any other part of the
1186
world. The economic summit must surely find remedies for fluctuating exchange rates and must seek some liberalisation of trade.
I do not wish to overstate the case, but I thought that there was something brighter and more hopeful in the latest CBI survey. It gives some ground for cautious encouragement. It reports that Welsh firms expect increasing orders, some rise in exports and more expenditure on plant and machinery in the months ahead. It also reports that slightly fewer firms in Wales now appear to be working below capacity. I would not overstate that, but it shows that at least there is some silver lining.
Despite what has been said in criticism—I am not sure to what extent the right hon. Member for Rhondda was criticising the Welsh Development Agency—I praise, once again, the exertions of the WDA and of the industrial department of the Welsh office. I should also like to extoll what has been done for many years, under somewhat difficult conditions by the Development Corporation of Wales, which is to be replaced by a new body. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that that new body—announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—will take over successfully the task of bringing inward investment into the Principality. Generally, I approve of the priority that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives to improving the infrastructure. In that context, communications seem to demand a high ranking. Many of us were no doubt encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the M4 and the north Wales coastal expressway. As soon as those projects are nearing completion, I hope that further consideration will be given to speeding up the northward extension of the Cardiff to Abercynon road. My right hon. Friend announced some slight extension today—[Interruption.] Perhaps it was considerable, but I hope that we shall soon hear that it is to be extended into Merthyr and beyond. That is very important. Those hon. Members who represent valley communities will no doubt agree that the northward extension of that road is vital.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is indeed vital. Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that the work has actually started and that we are pressing on with this important project with all speed.
Sir Raymond Gower: I am very pleased to hear that.
My right hon. Friend referred to certain bypasses. This should be regarded as a vital matter in the months ahead as they are very necessary in some places which have not yet even been considered.
I should like to make a special plea to my right hon. Friend about the proposal of Welsh-Irish Ferries Ltd. to institute a new freight-only ferry service between Barry dock and Cork. The promoters have been reassured by a feasibility study and have applied to the Welsh Office and to the WDA for support and grants, since when I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend and with the WDA. I was informed this morning that a grant had been approved by the Secretary of State, though which Secretary of State was not specified. I assume it must be my right hon. Friend. This is encouraging. I hope that both the Welsh Office and the WDA will do all they can to support this venture
A new project of this kind will need all available help. It could not have been contemplated earlier. It was not

1187
pressed with any optimism until it became clear that the ferry service between Pembrokeshire and Ireland could not survive. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the docks at Barry and local industry have suffered in recent years. This new ferry service will be a useful addition to the
Mr. Anderson: Does the hon. Member not agree that one must be a little wary of this proposal since B and I first had public funds to locate at Swansea for the ferryport there for the Swansea-Cork ferry? It then moved to Pembroke for the same route, obtaining at that time at least £4 million of public money from European funds for the venture. Anyone who is concerned about the public purse, therefore, must be pretty wary about additional public funds for this new project.
Sir Raymond Gower: I understand that this has been the subject of a full feasibility study.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Perhaps I can tell my hon. Friend that the major B and I service at Pembroke to Rosslare continues. It is only one particular service to Cork which has been discontinued. Clearly, he has not received the letter I have written to him, confirming that a grant has been given to the new service. I wish it well but it will be operating over an extended sea route and it will obviously have to strive very hard to achieve the viability to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has referred.
Sir Raymond Gower: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that we need to exercise care in matters of this kind. Nevertheless, it is a fact that there was originally a service between Ireland and Barry which ran quite successfully for some years. it was only the difficulties at the beginning of the economic recession which helped to bring about its failure.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to anxiety in Wales about the railways. I quite understand the importance of that. I fully appreciate that the report merely posed certain alternatives and diagnosed the respective consequences. I put it to my right hon. Friend, however, that a lack of information about our reaction to this report could be the foundation for exaggerated fears and sometimes exaggerated suggestions. There is a need for a clearer statement about this in the near future—not, of course, from my right hon. Friend but, I hope, from a Minister. I would certainly wish one of the suggestions to be rejected out of hand, that which involved reductions in maintenance and safety, which I regard as completely unacceptable.
I acknowledge that the problems of meeting the industrial needs of Wales against a background of world difficulty are extremely hard. Nevertheless, there are hopeful signs. One of the most significant is that, although Wales has suffered badly, it has not suffered quite as badly as parts of the United Kingdom which were formerly much more prosperous than Wales. For example, even the very prosperous industrial west midlands now has unemployment figures comparable with those in the Principality. Thus, our recession, based on a much worse foundation, has not gone as far as that in some more prosperous parts of the country.
The second encouraging feature, already referred to by my right hon. Friend, is the readiness of numerous companies to come to Wales from many parts of the world and other parts of the United Kingdom, and the continued
1188
diversification of our industry. We cannot deny that we have suffered heavily from the decline of the old traditional industries but in the long term it is preferable that we diversify. I would not wish to see merely a rebuilding of the old industries without our industrial scope as a whole being considerably enlarged.
I do not, therefore, believe that the final words of the right hon. Member for Rhondda were at all justified, when he said that the present Administration had been completely unsuccessful in Welsh terms. Set against the background of what has been happening in the world at large, it is remarkable how well the problem in Wales has been contained, despite the very serious problems of one or two major industries.
There are still hopeful signs. I do not believe we should be completely despondent. There are difficulties ahead, but they should not be regarded as insurmountable.
6.17 pm
Mr. John Morris: We have heard a remarkable speech this afternoon from the Secretary of State. I have heard of people turning the other cheek before they are attacked but he has managed to do a juggling trick, turning both cheeks at one and the same time. To make a speech on Welsh day, which is traditionally regarded as a "state of the nation" speech for Wales, and to make not one mention of the tragedy and misery of unemployment is remarkable. There were, of course, passing references to it, but it should have been the cardinal part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. To ignore the reality of life in the Principality was remarkable.
It was also a conciliatory speech. The right hon. Gentleman praised all that had been done before him. I was blushing from the praise accorded to roads, hospitals, factory buildings, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the WDA and all the good work which had been carried out. Good for him, but much more is needed. Let me not be misinterpreted, however. I very much welcome what he announced for Swansea and Cardiff. I have lived and practised in Swansea and over the last 25 years have spent a great deal of time in Cardiff and I happen to know a little of the real needs of the urban areas of those two cities. What the right hon. Gentleman announced will be very welcome indeed but it will meet only a fractio of the needs of Wales. If that is all the Secretary of State has to offer, in what will go down as a two-hotel speech, A is not enough, not half enough, not a quarter enough, for the real problems in Wales today.
There is only one thing more painful than re-reacting one's own speeches, and that is reading those of one's opponents. I have gone to the trouble of reading again the first speech made by the Secretary of State after he took office. It makes miserable reading. It must make particularly miserable reading for the Secretary of State himself. What has the right hon. Gentleman to show for his four years of steering the ship of state in Wales? In what sphere can he claim that he has been successful? The right hon. Gentleman must be the most miserable man in Wales as he looks back upon those wasted years.
Soon, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be approaching the electors of Wales, and they will have to account for their stewardship. For a time after taking office, they were able to blame their predecessors. When that began to pall, all that remained was world conditions. According to the Government, they are never wrong They

1189
have carried out the tenets of their mistress that "there is no alternative". Like the words of the national anthem of west Wales, Dai bach y sowldiwr, their view is that they have always been in step. Everyone else has been out of step.
In every field of endeavour, except one, the Government have fallen flat on their faces. The Secretary of State pins to his chest the proud badge of increased lettings of factories built by the WDA despite the recession. That is good. It is a proud record, about which the right hon. Gentleman is right to feel pleased. He was right to commend the previous Labour Government who were set on a rising course of buildings in preparation, of land acquisition and of a land bank. During our period of office, lettings were breaking records year after year. That progress has been maintained and improved. I commend the Secretary of State. I am pleased that, in a period of adversity, the level of activity has been maintained.
I must return, however, to the question that I posed last year. How many new jobs have come to Wales from WDA factories since 1979? Indeed, how many new jobs have come from anywhere? We hear about jobs in the pipeline. How many actually materialise on the ground? It is jobs that count. In an outstanding speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) recounted the scale of unemployment in each area. My right hon. Friend accorded unemployment the wide priority that the Secretary of State did not. In the Port Talbot travel-to-work area, over 8,000 people have been unemployed for more than six months.
Over three years ago, £48 million was given to the steel areas and Cwmbran. I have tried over the months to discover how many jobs have resulted from this injection of money. According to a reply by the Under-Secretary of State on 22 November, 550 jobs had materialised in the Port Talbot travel-to-work area and 600 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes). I pressed the matter further. On 13 December, the Secretary of State said that the 550 consisted of 390 in Bridgend and 160 in Port Talbot. Those are the figures—a total of 550 jobs to meet the needs of over 8,000 people who are unemployed in the area.
That is the scale of the misery which the Secretary of State failed to appreciate or to accord priority to in his speech. From the fastness of his London office, he does not understand what is happening in Wales. Fortress Falklands may be the policy internationally for the Prime Minister. Fortress Gwydyr House, with the Secretary of State shutting his eyes to the reality of what is happening in Wales and almost totally ignoring the problem in his speech today, is an insult to every elector and citizen in Wales. I have tried to obtain in my area an increased build from the WDA above the mere nine factories at Baglan. The Secretary of State is right in saying that the provision over a wider area has to be taken into account. On that basis, however, one has to take account of unemployment in the Neath and Swansea travel-to-work areas. The miserable provisioning by the Govenment can never hope to meet the needs.
I am sorry to say that there is little hope for my area so long as present policies are continued. Can the Secretary of State, in his quieter moments, as he looks at each area,
1190
say honestly when he expects unemployment to come down? No one can make that prediction so long as the Government continue on their present course.
I wish to deal now with an area where there is hope. I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State for Industry on December 20 that the Government were discussing the importance of a new hot strip mill at Port Talbot. A few days previously, effusive congratulations had appeared in the Western Mail on the Secretary of State's great victory. Even the poor Secretary of State had to be congratulated on something. The right hon. Gentleman had obviously been trailing his coat to the media a few days before the announcement. Despite the words of the Secretary of State for Industry, we are still awaiting a firm decision.
The truth is that we cannot decide the matter for ourselves. It has to be discussed within the European Community. The project, I understand, needs the Community's approval. The deadline, I believe, runs out next week. Is it a good omen or a bad omen for Port Talbot that all this time is being taken to decide whether the project should go ahead?
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry made it clear that he would announce this decision with others on the corporate plan. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce those decisions on the corporate plan before the Easter recess.
Mr. Morris: That is not good enough.
Mr. Edwards: The announcement will include decisions on the Port Talbot investment.
Mr. Morris: I am glad to have that assurance. The right hon. Gentleman should know that a great deal of work has been done in Port Talbot to plan for the project. Months have been lost. The delay removes hope from people in my area. I hope that the delay is not an adverse omen of the EC's attitude.
In the Secretary of State's first speech after taking office he stated that there was too much interference by the Welsh Office in local government, and that he would reduce the number of circulars. He may have done so. I warned him at the time that it was resources, not circulars, that local authorities were concerned about. The right hon. Gentleman has throttled local government in Wales. He has taken the word "local" out of local government. This has been the most centralised Government of all time.
In his first speech, the Secretary of State said that when he opened his brief on the Sunday morning he saw that he had inherited massive problems. One of the problems was an unemployment figure of 83,000. That is, of course, far too high, but Wales would be happy indeed if the figure was still 83,000 and not 180,000. The figure of 83,000 was a reduction from a previous level of 101,000. More people then were actually employed in Wales than at any time in our history. Since the right hon. Gentleman has taken office, unemployment has doubled and the numbers in work have gone down substantially.
The Secretary of State went on to say that he recognised the importance of coal and that he was going to make an early visit to the coalfields. How many pits has he visited since he took office? What does he know of the problems of the industry? My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asked him how many factories, how many service industries and how many extracting industries he had visited. The Secretary of State was very coy in his

1191
reply, and said that he had been to a large number of industrial premises, industrial estates and service industries, but said no word about the extracting industries. Where is this visit to the coalfield? Has he been to see the fears and the needs of the coal industry?
The Secretary of State went on to say that the first priority of the Government was to revive the economy, to stimulate enterprise and job creation, and to encourage small firms. Where has the economy been stimulated? Where is the job creation? Where is the revival and stimulation of enterprise? How exactly have small firms, that have increasingly gone bankrupt all over Wales, been helped?
The Secretary of State said that housing was important to Wales. All I can say is that he qualifies for the booby prize for house building. As an arch-monetarist—we recall the speeches that the Secretary of State made in the early days of the Government from one end of Pembrokeshire to another—and a chief Government apologist in Wales, he must feel pretty sick at the desolation he now sees from one end of Wales to the other.
I quote a translation of one of our most eminent dramatists:
"My country of Wales is a vineyard
Given into my safe keeping
To be handed down to my children and my children's children As an inheritance for all time."
What an inheritance․ What animal-like devastation has taken place from Anglesey to Gwent. Can the Secretary of State or any of his colleagues be proud of what they have done to Wales, my country, in the past few years?
6.32 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: We are all well aware that there is an election pending within the next 12 or 18 months, but we know, too, that in Wales over 180,000 people are unemployed. Although the Secretary of State has made promises today—I must confess that his presentation was good—I fear that in 12 months' time over 200,000 will be out of work.
The old saying is that there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. All along, the Government have been deaf to the advice of those who have the best interests of Wales at heart. They have ignored valuable advice on how the problems could be alleviated. Instead, the same platitudes are heard repeatedly, while the recession deepens and the unemployment figures rise. Many of our constituents ask us, as their Members of Parliament, "Will my job be the next to go?" Thousands in Wales are afraid that their jobs will be next.
However, perhaps today the Government will come to terms with the problems and take the advice offered to them. We can only hope. Plenty of advice has and will be given today, and I shall make my contribution. I hope that the Secretary of State and others will heed my advice.
It is recognised that one of our greatest problems today, and what causes most fear among the electorate, is unemployment. It has been created by the disintegration of our basic industries, followed in turn by failure of businesses large and small. This has created a climate of fear that eats into the very fabric of our society.
I wish to concentrate largely on my constituency of Cardigan, which is in many ways typical of the rural constituencies and where, although there has never been any heavy industry, none the less the tourist trade and small businesses have suffered as a result of the depression that affects the rest of the country.
1192
The Secretary of State is well aware of the depressing state of affairs that prevails in places such as the vale of Teifi, where unemployment is extremely high, and there seems to be no relief in sight unless the Government take positive steps to tackle the problem.
My party and the alliance believe that one way to attack unemployment is to use the available work force to improve communications by road and rail and to improve facilities at all levels. By this means we can attract further industry into the area to take advantage of the advance factories set up under the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency.
The Secretary of State referred to the road improvement schemes to be carried out within the next five years. Perhaps he forgot, or perhaps the Under-Secretary will clarify, the position of the Cardigan bypass. When will the bypass be started and what improvements will be made to the bypass already at Aberystwyth? I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some information on this important issue later.
Instead of this kind of investment, however, we have been horrified to learn of the Serpell proposals, which I trust the Secretary of State will reject out of hand. The Government who accept these proposals will commit political suicide. Any further cuts in our rail service would add to the serious fears of people in our part of the world. They would threaten us with even greater isolation. I would much rather hear confirmation from the Secretary of State of a plan to extend the inter-city service from London to Shrewsbury through to Aberystwyth, with improved track and rolling stock provided. This would, I feel certain, bring great benefit to the area. Can the Under-Secretary tell us what are the latest developments on this scheme?
More money could well be spent on roads in, and leading to, west and mid-Wales. This again would help bring work to the area, while at the same time providing better facilities for industrial concerns. Wales as a whole would derive great benefit from a trunk road between Wrexham, Deeside and Cardiff, running through mid-Wales.
A great deal remains to be done in improving sewerage schemes in rural Wales. In my constituency alone, many communities are still without mains drainage. Another project that has hung fire in Ceredigion is the development of the second phase of the Bronglais hospital. This has been put back year after year to the detriment of the health service in this area. If my memory serves me right, Conservative Administrations in the 1960s and 1970s promised that the second phase of Bronglais hospital would be built within five years. That promise has not been kept. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State will have some good news to give the people of Aberystwyth tonight.
My constituents are worried about the policy that dictates the closure of small village schools. That policy is wrong. In many cases those schools provide the best possible education for the pupils and give them a start in life scarcely equalled elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) went to a small primary school in Aberffrwd. There were fewer than 10 pupils in those days. Since those days at Aberffrwd he has gone a long way. I am sure that he is indebted to that local school in Ceredigion.
Mr. John Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he has got the school wrong. I went to Capel Bangor.
Mr. Howells: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to Aberffrwd for a period. The small schools should be allowed to remain. In addition, we should be looking towards developing better nursery education in every community and finding sufficient facilities and small buildings for them to be held.
There are two university colleges in Ceredigion. Apart from providing first-class education for students from all parts of Wales and the United Kingdom, they bring substantial revenue to the area and provide employment for local people. The part that they play in the community is of the utmost importance, and I am alarmed that Government policy may well affect them adversely. We have seen savage cuts in their budgets, and now we learn with trepidation of a loan scheme for students.
The University College of Wales was established with the pennies of working people throughout Wales. It has always been proud of its record of educating the sons and daughters of people from all walks of life, regardless of their ability to pay. It is feared that the loan scheme will deter many students from poor homes from venturing into an academic career. That, surely, would be a great loss to the nation as a whole.
I am most interested in the DBRW's latest scheme to encourage harbour developments in New Quay and Aberystwyth. I should be glad if the Minister could furnish me with further details as to when the scheme will start. Will local labour be employed, and what long-term benefits does he see arising from those developments? I congratulate the Development Board for Rural Wales on its far-sighted policy, and urge the Government to give it more financial assistance, if at all possible, because of the excellent work that it has done during the past few years.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the hon. Member realise that if the boundary commission recommendations come into effect, part of his new constituency will lie outside the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales? How will he then be placed?
Mr. Howells: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) said that the new proposals will affect my constituency. If he is saying that the Liberals will win the new seat of Ceredigion and North Pembroke, he has conceded defeat already.
I was very disappointed that neither the Secretary of State nor even the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), mentioned agriculture. We must be fed whether we are employed or unemployed. Agriculture has done excellent work during the past two or three decades to feed the people of this country. It is one of the largest industries in my constituency.
I conclude by referring to this important aspect of rural life and economy. Agriculture, as we are all aware, has made great strides in recent years. Despite many faults in the system, it has prospered under the common agricultural policy. We are celebrating our tenth anniversary of membership this year. I hope that during canvassing for the next election hon. Members will urge the electorate that it is wiser for us to stay in Europe than to be outside. There is scope for improvement and revision
1194
in the common agricultural policy. I believe that it would be foolish to withdraw from the European Community at this stage.
My great disappointment with the Government's approach to Welsh agriculture has been their refusal to commit themselves to financial aid to marginal land, an injustice that has rankled with farmers for a long time. I hope that the Minister will come clean tonight and commit the Government to giving financial aid to hill farmers once the scheme and the proposals have returned from Brussels.
Pig producers are in dire trouble in Wales and in other parts of Britain. I should be pleased if the Minister could suggest to his counterparts in Europe, as he has the right to do, that deficiency payments schemes should be introduced for pig meat as we have them for beef and lamb.
The Government should give aid to new entrants to the industry. Extra financial aid should be given to local authorities and county councils to buy land to let to young farmers at a reasonable rent. I should like further capital grant schemes to be introduced, or farmers given the option to go for a capital grant scheme or cheap credit facilities. When the members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs went to Brussels some time ago, we were told by the commissioners that if the Government wished, they could operate a capital grants scheme or give them the option of free credit facilities.
My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party—I am delighted that he is present—and all of us, have pressed for years for a land bank. Now all the political parties are calling for the setting up of such a bank. Will the Minister, in his wisdom, say when the Government intend to set up a land bank to help our young farmers?
After the next election the people of Wales may be governed by an alliance Government. Then the interests of Wales will be looked after and justice will prevail in the Principality.
6.48 pm
Mr. Tom Hooson: I was disappointed, although not surprised, by the inadequacy of the remarks on unemployment by both the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the previous Secretary of State. I make no complaint about discussing this vital human problem. It is correct that that subject should take more of the time of the House than any other. I find quite startling the intellectual inadequacy of the Opposition's attack on the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said that there was not a hint anywhere in the remarks from the Opposition that unemployment was anything but a local phenomenon produced in Wales by my right hon. Friend, or at least in Great Britain. There was no hint that West Germany is now within 10,000 of 2·5 million unemployed. Every major Western industrial nation is fighting figures that are very comparable to British levels. That is the first element of inadequacy. The second is the lack of a positive and coherent plan in all the negative dirges that we hear constantly from the Labour and alliance Benches.
The degree to which solutions are presented by the Labour party shows that Opposition Members are wise to avoid referring to positive proposals, because they are talking essentially about solutions that have already been attempted by previous Governments of both parties and

1195
that have been discredited. Under the previous Government, those efforts led to a doubling of unemployment in Wales from the 38,000 that they inherited to the 82,000 that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) left when he fell from office in 1979. The Left of the Labour party—of course, there are two or three Labour parties, including those hon. Members who have abandoned ship—increasingly advocates protectionism, which will guarantee the production of poorer quality goods in an uncompetitive country whose problems were caused by the decline over decades in our ability to produce competitive goods. There is also the nostrum of withdrawal from the European Community. Amazingly, the Opposition Members who are most enthusiastic about withdrawal are those whose constituencies would be hit most catastrophically by the loss of access to the European market.
I remind the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) that the development of companies such at Mitel and those which produce microcomputers—the whole important area of electronic development—is wholly dependent upon access to the European Community market. My complaint is about the sheer inadequacy of the Labour party's attack, not the fact that the subject has been discussed.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a withdrawal from the Common Market would mean the loss of access to European countries? Does it mean that we need not import Volkswagens, Fiats, Renaults, butter and wine from those countries? Does he mean that they will no longer wish to sell those goods to us?
Mr. Hooson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there would certainly be a major diminution in trade between Britain and western Europe if Britain were outside the Common Market. I need give only one example to emphasise that point. Within the Community there are many mischievious tendencies towards non-tariff barriers. It is obvious that those barriers would go up very quickly if Britain were not entitled to a place at the table.
Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman say where the words Timex, Dundee, Besancon and Fred Olsen fit into his equation?
Mr. Hooson: Many companies are in trouble in every part of Europe. I am willing to recite the disastrous figures that the French can give us. The hon. Gentleman accompanied me on a visit of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when we discussed some of the French regional employment problems. At times, the pull of jobs is in one direction, but undoubtedly we have been net gainers from the European connection.
The fact that the world recession appears to be bottoming out has had a good effect[Interruption.] It would be helpful if hon. Members would wait until I have given my information. The OECD has taken an over-gloomy view of the world for some time, but it recently found new optimism. That optimism has been shown in newspaper reports during the past week and is based on several promising economic indicators. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry cited the fairly positive undertone to be found in the CBI survey published on 1 February. The director of the CBI in Wales, Mr. Kelsall, said:
"We can be cautiously optimistic as a result of this survey."
The report shows that the industrial climate in Wales is better than in Britain generally. The volume of new
1196
business expected by Welsh firms is higher than the national figure, and firms in Wales can feel that they have better prospects for exporting than the picture that emerged nationally. There are some crumbs of hope, and one wishes that there had been at least a slight acknowledgement of that reality in the rather sad speeches of hon. Members of both Labour and the Liberal parties
It has come as excellent news today that 32 factories will be established in nine locations in mid-Wales. I was delighted to hear that Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will house further factory development. A very useful innovation by the Government in recent weeks was the announcement of a 35 per cent. grant for the conversion of redundant buildings in rural areas for industrial use. I am convinced that a fair number of buildings can be converted into useful hives of activity, such as crafts and small factories. It is a very welcome development.
As the Member for a predominantly rural constituency, I shall make some brief comments about rural housing and about our main industry in mid-Wales, agriculture. Those who live in the rural areas are taking up the house improvement schemes enthusiastically. My right hon. Friend was right to extend the period for which funding is available for a further year until the end of 1983. It is remarkable that, according to the most recent house condition survey, the highest proportion of inadequate housing in Wales is to be found in Dyfed and Powys. Therefore, we must welcome anything that encourages the improvement of pre-1919 dwellings. The first benefit will be healthier housing, and such expenditure will revive the economy. I am especially glad that my right hon. Friend placed special emphasis on the large proportion of substandard homes occupied by pensioners. The Government clearly have a responsibility to improve those dwellings.
The second aspect of housing policy that shows the Government's positive record—the right hon. Member for Rhondda was anxious not to find a positive record anywhere—is the remarkable success of the right-to-buy legislation. The scheme has been equally successful with tenants in urban and in rural Wales. About 16 per cent. of council house tenants have applied to buy their houses, which compares with about 10 per cent. in England. It confirms what Welsh Conservatives have been saying for some time—that the Welsh people wish to own the homes in which they live. It is reflected in the fact that Wales has one of the highest proportions of home ownership in the country, at 60 per cent., and those who live on council estates have shown that they have the same taste for independence and for controlling their own environment as is found among the 60 per cent. who own their homes. The Labour party should join us in congratulating the Government on enfranchising those who live in council houses.
We are debating a Welsh economy that has been sick for a long time. It did not suddenly turn sick in May 1979. Its sickness has been a cumulative process that goes back for decades. The sickness is due largely to evasions by previous Governments in facing the problems that were clearly marching towards them.
One notably vigorous sector in Wales is the highly efficient private enterprise agricultural industry. Had manufacturing industry achieved a 4 or 5 per cent. annual improvement in productivity, which agriculture has managed to maintain since the second world war, we

1197
would have very different unemployment figures in Wales. Agriculture has shown that there are areas where a good partnership between enlightened Government policies and the drive that is achieved by private individuals working in their own small businesses can achieve high productive output.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite agriculture being extremely productive, farm labourers have not benefited from the advantages of increased productivity?
Mr. Hooson: The record of the past few years shows that the improvement in the remuneration of agricultural labourers has been considerably superior to the rise in farmers' incomes.
Mr. Wardell rose—
Mr. Hooson: No. I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman and he will have the chance to make his own speech if he catches the eye of the Chair.
The increased efficiency of agriculture over the past few years has not been matched by increased returns for farmers. Farmers' incomes showed an improvement in 1982, and it was high time that they did, for they had shown a decline in the previous three years. It is necessary to achieve a balance between the efficiency that is being achieved by agriculture and farmers' incomes. We must ensure that increased efficiency finds its way in reasonable measure to the bottom line of farm accounts.
The Government's achievement of a sheepmeat regime was a triumph for European diplomacy. As the right hon. Member for Rhondda is finding it so hard to find things with which to credit the Government, let him add that to the list of positive Government achievements which can be reflected in mid-Wales and throughout rural Wales. The result is that Welsh sheep flocks are very close to an all-time record level. There has been a great change in the sense of confidence of Welsh agriculture since the gloom to which it was reduced under the Labour Government.
The sheepmeat regime has done a great deal to bring confidence to the hills and it is important that the success of the regime is recognised on both sides of the House. The regime will continue only until 1984 under the present plans. It is important that we emphasise that we are satisfied with the regime's workings, so that there is no question about our desire to negotiate with our quite difficult Community partners an extension of the regime.
There is no less importance in the combined effect of the beef suckler cow premium, which the Government introduced in 1980, and the hill livestock compensatory allowance in less favoured areas. It should be remembered that Welsh hill farmers farm about 75 per cent. of the agricultural land in Wales. The premium and the compensatory allowance have increased by 80 per cent. since 1980 in the income that they produce for Welsh farmers. Let us not forget that the health of the uplands depends upon the combined effect of these schemes.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that he should give a great deal of credit to our counterparts in Europe for the fact that we have a thriving agriculture. The majority of the money spent on the hills and the sheepmeat regime comes from Europe.
Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman and I will not find ourselves differing on our commitment to the European connection, although I must say that faith wavers a great deal when Britain encounters the EC's bureaucracy and obscure language. However, the desirability of the European connection is demonstrated by the evidence that I have cited and by the impressive results of the polls which have recently been reported by the Farmers Weekly, which reflect the overwhelming support of farmers both for the European connection and for the Conservative party.
Mr. Alec Jones: Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Hooson: It is very important that there should be a push forward with the slowly evolving policy on disadvantaged land. The Government presented their proposals to the European Commission in December. The agricultural department of the Welsh Office verified the existence of about 660,000 acres in Wales that should qualify within the European definition of disadvantaged land. It is important that we secure recognition of the particular needs of Wales. The acreage of disadvantaged land is about 18 per cent. of the total agricultural land in Wales. Assuming that this land is accepted by the European Commission as qualifying within the rules, will the matching funds be available in due course from the domestic Government? This is frequently the snag with European schemes. I look forward to a definitive reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
7.7 pm
Mr. Leo Abse: We have had an extraordinary speech from the Secretary of State for Wales. We did not have the usual abrasive, aggressive and blustering attack. On the contrary, never have I heard the right hon. Gentleman more soothing and more placatory. It is not surprising, for it is a method of defence. It has been used, of course, to mask the appalling catalogue of woe that Wales has experienced. I have rarely known the right hon. Gentleman more insouciant. He made, as is usual on these occasions, a lengthy speech, which is what is due to Wales when these debates take place. I believe that it was, however, impertinence to make only a passing reference to the grave problem of unemployment.
I sometimes wonder whether it is possible to shame the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has endeavoured to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) followed my right hon. Friend's example. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is shameless. The Under-Secretary of State is a former schoolmaster. I wonder whether he is aware of the various streams in society as he always was aware of the streams in his school. Does the hon. Gentleman ponder on the composition of the unemployed of Wales as of elsewhere and the extent to which unemployment falls upon those within the community who need more aid, more help and more succour because they are socially disadvantaged? Men are not born equal, and we know that there are intractable problems. Does this not mean that if the pretentious and old policies of paternalism, which are always claimed by the Tory party, are applied, its hand will be stretched out first? I do not expect that from the Secretary of State. From the moment that he took office he has been a hard-line monetarist. As he is a satrap of the

1199
Prime Minister, we do not expect him to take a different stance. With extraordinary complacency, he is prepared to allow unemployment in his constituency to rise to 30 per cent. That being so, how can we expect him to pay attention to unemployment in the rest of Wales? The Under-Secretary of State knows the difficulties. We have high graduate unemployment and high unemployment among older men who cannot get new jobs. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to notice that the vast majority of the people who are unemployed are those who need a policy that is directed towards full employment if they are to be assimilated rather than left stranded.
The real gap between the two sides of the House is that we on the Labour Benches believe in the welfare state. We believe in it because we believe that there are people who need special help, just as there are children in every school who need special help.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. He mentions the gap between his side of the House and mine. When he supported the previous Labour Government, he could have said that the then Secretary of State for Employment allowed nearly 30 per cent. of the people in Ebbw Vale to become unemployed. The hon. Gentleman did not make that judgment then. I recommend that, when he advances a good case for people, he should be aware of the dangers and difficulties of the under-privileged and adopt a generosity of mind and appreciate that we care, too.
Mr. Abse: There should be a translation from theory into action. In terms of action, the Government have completely failed. I have touched the Under-Secretary on a sore point. He understands the intractable problem of a large population, some of whom do not have the skill or ability to be absorbed. We have submerged a section of the nation. To judge from speeches that have consistently been made by Conservative Members, those people have no hope. Only pessimism has come from Conservative Members. They use what the previous Government did or the recession as an alibi.
We are not prepared to concede that economic woe and travail is predestined or predetermined. Our nation has considerable wealth in coal, oil and skills. It is human will and leadership that determines whether one takes the bold and radical measures that are necessary. The Secretary of State failed for example, to mention that Wales is suffering from the bungled intervention of the Government in the water dispute. We must rebuild the infrastructure in Wales. The strike is revealing yet again how fundamental it is that we should tackle our obsolescent and ageing infrastructure. The Secretary of State is silent on the problem.
The Government say that we must choose. They have chosen to spend billions of pounds on Trident. They mock the women of Wales who gathered at Greenham common. The people who are concerned with the quality of life, not death, react differently. The bold and radical economic policies that are being spelt out by the Labour party are at least a positive response. Conservative Members may say that they are not proven. There is a great difference between doing nothing and launching a bold attack, being prepared to face up to the consequences of import controls and being prepared to gain the confidence of the unions in a policy that will improve productivity. Irrespective of
1200
whether those policies succeed in practice, they represent action. The Government and all their supporters are completely passive. They accept the problem as if it were inevitable and an act of God rather than recognising that it requires resilience, strength and the type of leadership that is singularly lacking in the present Government.
Mr. Ian Grist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Abse: No, I shall not give way, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Grist: Where are they?
Mr. Abse: Have no fear, the debate will continue until 10 o'clock. I know how many hon. Members are bursting to speak. That is not surprising given the problems that they are presented with.
Bearing in mind the clear mood of Wales, the feelings of depression and despair, I should have thought that anyone with a ha'porth of sense would not exacerbate the problem. No one with any sense would add to the anxieties of the Welsh people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda probed the Secretary of State determinedly. The Secretary of State may laugh, but tomorrow Wales will realise for the first time that a cabal has been established under a Tory chairman with civil servants who must carry out Government policy. A cabal has been formed to create a prototype for health authorities for privatisation. When they know that, the people of Wales will pay as little attention to the denials of a deliberate savaging of the Health Service as they pay to the equivocations of the Secretary of State. I gather from the fact that the Secretary of State wishes to intervene that there will now be more equivocation.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have just reminded myself that I announced the formation of that group during the debate on the Health Service in the Welsh Grand Committee. I announced who its chairman would be. There could hardly be a clearer example of open government, openly declared. Moreover, the drive towards efficiency was welcomed by the Opposition. In the same debate, I pointed out that for all the worthless rhetoric of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), this Government have increased resources for the Health Service more in real terms than did the previous Government.
Mr. Abse: The right hon. Gentleman seems incapable of mastering the fact that he has condoned, if not initiated, terms of reference that are concentrated not on the real needs of the Health Service, but on the desire to privatise and give out to private enterprise everything that it is possible to give.
We all know that there are grave problems in hospitals from Bangor to Newport to Cardiff. The Secretary of State does not talk about that. Nor does he talk about the structural dangers that we all know exist, although Wales is not talking loudly about it. He does not mention the dangers that involve enormous capital expenditure. In Cardiff, for example, if the hospital in the Heath area is to survive, millions of pounds will have to be spent on the roof.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are looking at each other. If they do not know about some of the problems that face the hospital in the Heath, I suggest

1201
that instead of examining the schemes that they talk about for getting rid of some of our technical services, they should bend a closer ear to the hazards that exist.
Further privatisation is proceeding all over Wales. Newspaper reports today describe yet another Government blunder. They are selling off the docks and handing over millions of pounds to the speculators. Either through lack of commercial skill or through a clear determination that others should enrich themselves through the disposal of public assets, they are bungling things in the same way as they did in relation to Britoil and other public asset stripping operations.
The Secretary of State now wants to get rid of Cwmbran new town. One would have thought that the Government would leave well alone when they are in so much trouble already. However, with yet another political appointment—a new Tory chairman—of the type that we have seen all over Wales, the plan is to dispose of the assets not just at a loss to the public purse but in a way that could exacerbate unemployment.
There has already been one abortive attempt to get rid of the industrial assets of Cwmbran. Like all the other new towns, it was the pride of Wales. Created by the 1945 Labour Government, the new towns attracted praise and pilgrimages from all over the world. Cwmbran is one of those monuments to public enterprise of which we are so proud, but it is now being hawked around for sale. The Government's first utterly inept attempt to sell off the assets involved hawking the industrial assets, the estates and the buildings, around London estate agents at a time of most severe recession. But for the intervention of the Treasury, those assets would already have been sold off at disgraceful prices, with predators wresting guarantees from the Government and from the new town corporation.
Only the intervention of the Treasury prevented even worse schemes from coming into effect. The Government therefore waited. Now they are starting again. Once again, they are plotting to get rid of those industrial assets.
I sometimes wonder whether the Government realise what that may mean. A great deal of work has been done to build up 320 small units of 10,000 or less sq ft, an enterprise that would not have interested private investors. As a result, many new small firms have been attracted to the new town, creating a structure of pioneers in small factory units. A comprehensive service can be given to those businesses and there is enormous expertise in building up and offering small units from 500 to 5,000 sq ft. Now it is suddenly suggested that all that should be taken over by private investors, and that type of comprehensive service cannot be genuinely provided under private ownership.
Worse in many respects than the attempted sale of the industrial assets is the way in which the whole town centre is to be hawked around the big estate companies. The
1202
reconstruction costs for Cwmbran town centre are at least £30 million and the historic costs, £10 million. Yet it is already well known in the City estate market that those assets are to be hawked with a view to obtaining £10 million to £15 million. That is the bargain basement offer to be made by a Government so ideological that, although this is a wonderful public investment that will be increasingly valuable as the years go by, they wish to engage in this ugly exercise of asset stripping which can bring only trouble for all the small shopkeepers in the area and sabotage and dislocation for all who use the services.
People come from far and wide to use the services available at Cwmbran. The corporation provides more than 3,000 free parking spaces. If they are sold, there will inevitably be high charges with consequent severe damage to the shopkeepers and to all the major attractions which benefit from facilities that are second to none.
The Government are plotting to dismantle an entire new town and to sell it off as cheaply as possible to the kind of people who finance the Tory party and keep it going. The Government are desperately offering the town and its assets to their friends even though that will sabotage the creation of jobs.
In exactly the same way, the Government want to privatise all the ordnance factories in Wales, spreading anxiety in their eagerness to hand over public assets to the private merchants of death and armaments. Thousands of workers in those factories already believe that they are in danger of being sold as chattels to new and unknown masters. The regular employees who have worked as civil servants for decades are now full of anxiety because they do not know where they stand in relation to redundancy payments, pensions and agreements, because the Government have made it clear that they want to introduce legislation to privatise those factories in such a way that many of the employees will have to leave. If the workers there are offered the chance to remain employed, it will certainly be on new terms and modified contracts.
I should have thought that this should be a time of diffidence, of concern on the part of the Government, given the widespread distress that their economic policies have already caused. I do not expect to change the attitude of the Secretary of State who I hope has now made his last speech as Secretary of State on a Welsh day in Parliament. I make it clear to the Under-Secretary, however, who affects to have some understanding and concern for people, that the paternalistic attitude that was once part of the impress and pretensions of the Tory party has gone. He and all the other wets in the Welsh Conservative party should realise that their day is done and power has passed to the political thugs, of whom the Secretary of State is a true representative. I am confident that, with that knowledge, the people of Wales will reject not only the thugs but the wets who have acquiesced in creating a Wales so far removed from the hopes and aspirations that its people had under Labour Governments.

Business of the House
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It might be for the convenience of the House if the Leader of the House were to make his business statement now.
7.29 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
In the light of Mr. Speaker's decision this afternoon to grant the application under Standing Order No. 9 on Monday 14 February, it will be proposed that the private Members' motions set down for consideration until 7 o'clock will be proceeded with on a future occasion.
The business for Monday will now therefore be as follows:
Debate on the Adjournment motion under Standing Order No. 9 on the water dispute.
Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill.
At 7 o'clock, consideration of opposed private business which has been named by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. John Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is not his intention that the private Members' motions, which will be deferred because of the successful Standing Order No. 9 application, will take place on a day other than a Monday? It is of importance to the House. I do not believe that it is an order of the House, but it is a long-standing convention, that such motions are debated on a Monday.
Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certainly it is a tradition and custom that private Members' motions are debated on a Monday. I shall certainly bear in mind the point made by the right hon. Gentleman when I consider the alternative date.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill be taken after 10 o'clock? There will be little room for that Bill before 7 o'clock if the Standing Order No. 9 debate lasts for three hours and starts at approximately 4 o'clock.
Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yes, that is so, but it is conceivable, although I am not saying it is likely, that the opposed private business might be concluded in less than the three hours which will be allowed.

Welsh Affairs
7.31 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: Before that brief interruption, the House had listened to a characteristic, and characteristically over-long, speech by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). He is to the Welsh parliamentary Labour party what the The Sun newspaper is the the rest of Fleet street—without the saving grace of page 3.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) did well to remind us of the international dimension of our Welsh problems. Few Welsh problems can be solved or even alleviated by specifically Welsh measures, and few of Great Britain's problems can be helped much by specifically British measures, The best that Government policies can achieve is to enable Wales and Great Britain to take advantage of the next upturn in the world economy and—much more important, although perhaps less vote-catching —to contribute to that upturn. However, we should never lose sight of that ever-important national dimension.
It is precisely because the policies now being advocated by the Labour party, however open to debate they may be on purely domestic grounds, cannot but contribute towards making the world economic position worse that they cause so much anxiety to many of the more thoughtful Opposition Members and are rejected out of hand by all my right hon. and hon. Friends. None of us on the Conservative Benches are happy—how could we be?—with the present position in Wales, but we are immensely grateful to the Secretary of State for the battles which he has fought and won for Wales in the Cabinet. am particularly grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) for accepting the new clause that I moved to the Conwy Tunnel Bill 1983 to provide for preference to be given to local labour. On that occasion I harvested the seed sown so diligently and nurtured so carefully over many years by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). He has toiled ceaselessly for his constituents in that matter and is now perforce reduced to ministerial silence.
We look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do all he can in his Budget to ease the plight of those worst hit by the recession: those on low incomes and families with small children. Their needs must come before concessions to those people fortunate enough to have jobs. Although I want to see the Chancellor help industry in his Budget by cutting the national insurance surcharge, I have some considerable doubts, as will become apparent, about how far an industrial revival will cure our unemployment problems.
There is not one hon. Member who is not deeply worried by the level of unemployment in the Principality today. How could we be otherwise? It is appalling that so many children leave school with no certainly of a proper job. A man or a woman made redundant at 45 is likely never to work again. It is difficult not to become emotional in the face of such frustrated hopes and ambitions. I sometimes wish that the unemployed themselves would show more anger and less apathy. However, emotion and anger will not help solve the problem. We should do better to face the facts.
The first fact is that much of British manufacturing industry, however hard it may strive to make itself

1205
competitive with industry in the newly developing countries, is bound to succumb in the end unless we are prepared to accept the same living standards and ant-like patterns of work that exist in the countries of East Asia. We can protect ourselves against this competition for somewhat longer as a member of the EC. Unless we cease to be a trading nation—we cannot do that unless we ship half our population to Australia— a policy of protection is more likely to accelerate than postpone the catastrophe.
The second fact is that Wales is more dependent on manufacturing industry than most other parts of Great Britain. It depends particularly upon the heavy industries which are furthest down the slope of irreversible decline. Of course some firms are holding their own. It is possible, with superb management and intelligent, flexible work practices, to hold our own for a long time.
When I visit firms such as Hotpoint Ltd., Pilkington Bros., and Egatube Ltd. in my constituency, or the new firms such as Metro Optics or Chapman Metallurgical, I come away reassured about the vitality of Welsh industry. However, I also come away reflecting that they are employing fewer people now than they did for a smaller output a few years ago. There is still scope in even these most efficient firms for further cuts in manpower. It is still more sobering to know that they could increase output immensely to meet a rise in world demand without taking on an extra man or woman.
It is time to face squarely the fact that, whatever may happen to industrial production, the decline in industrial employment is irreversible. It may even be speeded up if there is a recovery in the world economy. We have not merely to face this inevitable process but to welcome and speed it up. We must stop looking to industry as a provider of jobs. Industry's function is to create wealth with the smallest possible work force. We must find other satisfying things for our people to do. I have believed for a long time that we need a vast expansion and improvement of all our social services, which are now among the most inadequate in Europe. We can do that only if people pay for the social services that they use. However, I shall not develop that theme now.
There is one industry that can provide hundreds of thousands of jobs which does not, and never will, lend itself to automation and robotisation, and which is of far greater value to this country now than it ever has been. I mean, of course, the tourist industry, in which there has been a welcome growth in recent years. I pay tribute to the work of the Wales tourist board, particularly in mid-Wales. Tomorrow the board is holding its meeting in Rhyl—for the first time, I am rather horrified to say. I shall be taking part in that meeting. The feeling in Rhyl is that the board has been hoity-toity towards Rhyl's frankly popular type of tourist trade. I hope that things will mend in that respect after this weekend and that the board will be prepared to concede some recognition and give some encouragement to those who are attempting to raise standards at the bottom end of the holiday price range.
However, all that is tinkering. The time has come to think big. I was absolutely delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the two big projects for the tourist industry that are now to go ahead with Government help and encouragement, but both, alas, in south Wales. In north Wales, the major success story has been the Rhyl suncentre, a project that owes so much
1206
to the courage and foresight of a handful of local councillors and which owes nothing at all to Opposition Members who were Ministers in the Welsh Office in the Labour Government, who not only did nothing at all to help in that project, but did their damnedest to frighten off the merchant bankers who were backing the scheme.
Now, surely, is the time to start thinking in terms of other projects on that scale. I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend said about help under the urban development grants for the Rhyl town centre scheme. Rhyl now desperately needs a proper theatre to be built alongside the suncentre as phase two of the project. Further along the front is room for a properly equipped yacht marina and extensive harbour works. We have been scratching around doing odd jobs with Manpower Services Commission schemes, but the time has come to start thinking big. Such projects could provide employment for thousands during their construction and for hundreds during their operation. They would provide facilities perhaps for millions.
With its all-weather suncentre, its theatre, and its marina, Rhyl could become an all-year-round resort with facilities that few continental resorts could match. The same could be done at traditional resorts all round Wales. If there is to be a major expansion in tourism in Wales, most of it will have to be in the traditional resorts and some of it perhaps even in hitherto industrial areas, which could be developed as tourist attractions. There are strict limits to the extent to which we can further develop the tourist potential of rural Wales without spoiling its character and thus destroying the tourist attractions that take people there at present. We are a long way from reaching those limits. For example, why do we not get on with restoring the entire network of Welsh canals? At this point someone will say to me, "Yes, but where will the money come from?"
Mr. Roy Hughes: What about our Welsh castles?
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not aware that the castles are losing any of their tourist attraction. I was pleased at the campaign that was launched by the Wales tourist board to make this the year of the Welsh castle.
Someone will say to me, "Where will the money come from?" All that I can say is that we seem to manage to find hundreds of millions of pounds each year to prop up a steel industry that is still, even after all the cuts, larger than can hope to survive world competition. By deciding to keep steel making at Ravenscraig, we have almost certainly ensured that there will be a further cut in due course in steel production in Wales. We manage to find hundreds of millions of pounds to keep men working in coal mines where the seams are too thin or too deep to be mined profitably and further hundreds of millions to keep in business our nationalised car firm making Japanese models under licence and a new British model with a German gear box. What is more, as has been said by hon. Members, the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been poured in provide little in the way of new jobs.
If we gave Lord Parry and his board one tenth of what we are giving the admirable Mr. Ian McGregor or Mr. Siddall, I have no doubt that they could create many more jobs and do a lot more for human happiness than can the coal, steel or even the motor industries.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Surely the examples that I have given my hon. Friend today of major hotel

1207
development stimulated by urban development grants give him and the inhabitants of Rhyl the lead they need. They must find proper commercial ventures that will be viable in future and bring them forward with the support of local authorities. Then we can consider whether the same stimulus can be given to such projects. It is a job not just for the tourist board and the Government but for the private sector, which should be attracted and which can do the work that my hon. Friend wants done.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend has lit the fuse. I hope that he realises the potential for expansion of the tourist industry in Rhyl and the readiness to go ahead with schemes once there is a green light. His speech and intervention will be read avidly in Rhyl. They will have an enormous effect in bolstering people's confidence. I agree that it is no good sitting back and waiting for the tourist board and the Government to do the job for one. Local enterprise and private firms must get on with it. However, they must do so in a climate of encouragement from the Government, to which my right hon. Friend has contributed in his speech.
I emerge from the debate more hopeful than when I went in. The Government are turning in a direction that will bring new hope to Wales. Their imaginative schemes are completely radical. I wish my right hon. Friend, if it be his wish, many more years in his present office in the next, the next, and the next Conservative Government.
7.46 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I do not know for how much longer the Secretary of State for Wales can bear the turmoils and burdens of his present office. If there is no drastic change in the course that Wales is taking, I think that he will be glad of any excuse to move on to greener pasture. I do not mean that in any harsh personal sense.
I appreciate the work of the Welsh Office with regard to the announcement of the vanguard areas. I am glad that Wales is ahead of England in the thinking on provision for the mentally handicapped and in moving towards their integration into the community. I hope that these schemes will be successful.
It is not because I underrate the other issues that have been mentioned by various speakers, but because of the overwhelming importance of unemployment to all our communities in Wales, that I wish to concentrate almost exclusively on this subject. I listened to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) with interest, when he said that young people should raise their voices more. Given the desperate plight that faces them in Wales and elsewhere, it is surprising that they are not doing so. It is worrying that an element of hopelessness is creeping in. One thinks of the words of Dylan Thomas:
"Do not go gentle into that good night."
There is a danger that people are accepting an inevitability that will break their souls and make it difficult for them to come out of this period with a base on which to build their lives and communities. More than 37,000 young people under 20 in Wales are now unemployed. That puts the matter into perspective. About 700 in the Dwyfor and Arfon area in my constituency are unemployed in this age range. From experience in my surgery I know the hopelessness with which many young people face the future.
I do not believe that unemployment is inevitable. But if there is any inevitability about the depression, we must
1208
find a better way of spreading the burden throughout the community, rather than loading it on to the 20 per cent. at the bottom of the job market, and on to young people who have had no experience of life and no basis on which to withstand the pressures of today.
I do not accept that unemployment is inevitable. There is a worldwide depression, but other small countries, some the same size as Wales, have succeeded in riding out the storm better than we have. The unemployment rate is 2·3 per cent. in Norway, 3 per cent. in Sweden, 0·5 per cent. in Switzerland, 4·4 per cent. in Austria and 2 per cent. in Greece. It is not a coincidence that the figures are low. Those countries have special policies. I was in Sweden before Christmas. When unemployment rose to over 4 per cent. there, the Government regarded that as unacceptable and introduced specific schemes to bring down unemployment. They were not willing to tolerate the social consequences that would arise from it.
In Wales there is 17 per cent. Unemployment—180,000 people are registered unemployed and 50,000 oil top of that are hidden unemployed because of the reduction in the activity rate. Thousands are on artificial jobs, which are not rewarding or enriching and which do not give much in terms of training. That is the contrast—our 17 per cent. against the 3 and 4 per cent. of some small countries which have set about tackling the problem.
The hon. Member for Flint, West said that we should not look to manufacturing industry for future employment. Perhaps it is inevitable that there will be fewer jobs for a given level of output from manufacturing industry, but I refuse to accept that unemployment is inevitable. All around us we see work to be done. I have said this before, and I shall say it again. Perhaps we should raise our voices even louder on this subject. We see houses that need to be repaired and built. We see the unfit housing conditions in which 10 per cent. and more of our people are living. We have heard about the old people in Dyfed and Powys, and it is true in my area. There is certainly a need for better housing stock.
There are certainly roads in Wales that need to be improved. All constituencies have road schemes that could go forward. There is a need for day clinics for the handicapped and the elderly. We know that there is a need for home helps, so that people can continue to live in their own homes, instead of being put into permanent homes at local authority expense—or even into hospitals.
We know that more nurses are needed in hospitals. I have seen in recent months the burden that many hospital nurses are carrying. We know that environmental schemes are necessary in Cardiff, Swansea and Newport, and in rural areas. Work needs to be done to tidy up the environment. All around us we see work that needs to be done, and all around us there are people who are capable of doing that work, but we do not have a Government who are capable of bringing the two together.
Various figures have been quoted in recent years of the cost of unemployment. A few years ago the Manpower Services Commission gave the figure of £6,000 a year for a man, with two children, on the average industrial wage, that being the difference to the Treasury in terms of what had to be paid out in supplementary and unemployment benefits, on the one hand, and the loss of taxation on the other. Subsequently, lower figures have been given, but the cost of unemployment has been admitted to be about

1209
£15,000 million, and that is to pay people for doing nothing, when we could be paying perhaps a little more for people to do the work that needs to be done.
Mr. Michael Roberts: When the hon. Gentleman says that he looks around Wales and sees things that need to be done and people there to do them, does he accept that the community programme helps to meet that need?
Mr. Wigley: The community programme is starting to dabble around the edges of the problem, but it is not a coherent long-term programme. People are often taken on for a few months' work and put back on the scrapheap. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and so do I, from the young people who come to our surgeries. Often there is not adequate training, and as a result the people involved are unsuitable for long-term work afterwards. That, together with the reduction in apprenticeships, causes problems for the future in terms of skills within the community.
Instead of putting the burden of unemployment on the 20 per cent. who are out of work, is it not more morally acceptable to share the burden throughout the community? Instead of spending £5,000, on average, to keep people out of work, we should pay £6,000 or £7,000 for people to do this work, and if this means higher taxation, so be it. We should accept higher taxation to ensure that the people who are out of work get work. The burden of the depression should be shouldered by all the people in the community and not put on the shoulders of those who are least capable of bearing it, particularly the young. Here is a challenge for both this and future Governments. It is not good enough to say that unemployment is inevitable, that there is a worldwide recession, that we have to live with it and allow a whole generation to be blighted.
I therefore make a plea for a change in policy, even at the price of higher taxation, if we are to obtain a more acceptable solution to the problem. Although jobs are being lost in manufacturing industry, wealth is still being created. We must ask how that wealth is to be recycled throughout the community. Jobs will be available in building robots, microprocessors and all the capital equipment that is needed for the technological revolution that is taking place. That, too, is a challenge, and we must ensure that we in Wales have our share of the investment that is taking place and the jobs that will result.
When the industrial revolution took place a couple of hundred years ago and there was a move from agriculture to industry, there were, of course, people who suffered in the interim, but in the end it did not mean that everyone was out of work. The same is true now. Certainly there may be arguments for a lower retiring age, and there may be arguments in some industries, for example, mining, for bringing it down to 55, but there is no argument for saying that young people between the ages of 16 and 20 should carry the burden that we, as a community, should face.
There are specific matters to which we in Wales should apply ourselves to overcome the unemployment problems. First—and this is something that I mentioned on Monday at Question Time—the Welsh Development Agency needs a sharp shake-up. I do not say that as a critic of the concept of the Welsh Development Agency. I have pressed for it over the past 10 to 15 years. Nevertheless, its performance has not been adequate. The report from which I quoted
1210
briefly on Monday is fairly devastating. It is the Larsen Sweeney report—a consultants' report—and it was quoted in the magazine Atlantic of November 1982. It said:
"Of the various development organisations in the United Kingdom the Scottish Development Agency was regarded as being the most capable, followed by the Northern Ireland agency. The English agencies were generally regarded as being incompetent and the Welsh Development Agency was the subject of the most anecdotal amusement".
That is not good enough. The Secretary of State denied the reports in the Western Mail, but whatever he denies in this Chamber, I hope that a shake-up is taking place so that the agency will have a more interventionist and positive role.
The WDA has three functions. Two of them any fool can get on with. Given an adequate budget, any fool can build empty factories. Equally, it is straightforward to clear up environmental mess and improve the landscape. Those are simple functions as long as one has the money. If one bungles that, one really should get the sack. The vital function of creating economic and employment regeneration is where the challenge lies, and that is where so far the WDA has failed. We need to look at the guidelines of the WDA, and its plan and strategy, and build on them. I do not say that as a criticism, but when words such as the ones that I quoted appear in magazines around the world it is time to put our house in order and start building the economy in Wales.
I want to refer to a couple of specific matters. The first involves the Government's attitude to European grants. I have mentioned before additionality, the fact that grants from the European regional development fund are being subsumed in London into a total pool and are not specifically additional to be earmarked for specific projects in Wales and elsewhere. In fact, only for housing projects in Northern Ireland have these funds been used in an additional way. This is fundamental if we are to get any benefit from the EC structures that we have. The money is meant to go to the areas that most need it, and it is meant to go in addition to whatever central Governments contribute.
Secondly, there is room for concern in Wales at the reports that came out just before Christmas that the inner city areas of England will take money from the RDF. I do not decry the needs of inner city areas in London, Birmingham or elsewhere in England, but if the limited pool of money that is available is to be spread through the inner city areas as well, to meet the problems of the inner city areas, there will be a drastic reduction of the money that is available for the development areas of Wales and elsewhere. That will be a cause of considerable concern.
A few weeks ago we had the Serpell report. That worries us in Gwynedd. I am sure that the hon. Member for Conway is anxious that the implications of the report should not come to pass. It is not just a matter of cutting out option A, which the Government have announced they are willing to do. Option B and two parts of option C are equally unacceptable. Indeed, five of the six maps are unacceptable to me. They close down the only railway in my constituency—the Cambrian coast line. Three of the six maps close down the line from Crewe to Holyhead which would be an economic devastation for Gwynedd. If the Government do not intend to do that, let them announce now that all the options that have such unacceptable elements in them are out of court so that this uncertainty can be ended, because uncertainty is one of the devastating factors that holds back economic regeneration in my area. The percentage of the GDP going towards the

1211
railways in the United Kingdom compared with other countries shows that we are putting less money than we should into this vital function.
We have seen a reduction in the areas that receive regional development aid and within those areas a reduction of the percentage of aid available. I do not want to make too much of that. There are elements more important than the percentage investment grant. Nevertheless, the Government trend has been away from regional policy and they have not replaced that with any other policy.
The result of Government policy in my area over the past three years has been the almost complete elimination of the manufacturing base. We have lost the SCM typewriter factory at Porthmaogd; the Alphacast aluminium factory at Penygroes; the Bernard Wardle factory in Caernarfon; the ARO engineering factory; Caernarfon: the ADG Fibres factory; and the Compact factory in Caernarfon. This week has seen a question mark hanging over Ferodo which has been the bright jewel in the crown of regional development for the last 20 years. If Ferodo were to go I should have virtually no manufacturing industry left in my constituency.
It is no use the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that the Government have built so many factories under the WDA programme. The reality is that male unemployment in my area stands at 24 per cent. Factories are closing and they are not being replaced to absorb the youth unemployment to which I have referred.
We have known that 2,000 jobs in the CEGB scheme at Dinorwig have been running down, yet we have not had the wit to ensure that the equivalent number of jobs will be provided, when that was within the Government's planning capability. The Conwy tunnel is going ahead and I accept that there is a clause that will lead to the maximisation of local jobs. I welcome that. I would only say, perhaps teasingly, to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), that when we discussed such a contract in relation to the Bangor bypass the Welsh Office was not quite so keen on having such conditions then. I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) that it is no use having such clauses in Bills unless they are carried through in practice. At Dinorwig the scheme manager Iorwerth Ellis was determined to make this work in practice. It lies in the Government's hands when putting contracts out for road schemes to make sure that that works in practice.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I gave full support to his predecessor, the late Lord Goronwy Roberts, to put the clause into the Dinorwig Bill which provided that the CEGB would use its best endeavours to employ local labour on the scheme. It is our experience, as my hon. Friend will, I am sure, confirm when he replies to the debate, that most road works employ between 75 and 80 per cent. of local labour and we have no reason to think that that is not the case for the Bangor bypass.
Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman might have reason to think that but the Transport and General Workers Union has reason to think otherwise and that argument is better understood by the TGWU than by the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Bangor bypass.
1212
The one growth sector in Gwynedd over the past year or so has been related to the advent of the S4C television channel, where we have seen about 200 jobs, either directly or indirectly arising from as many as 30 companies which produce programmes for the Welsh television channel. That has been a great success, not only as a channel, but in creating work. It is a limited success but it shows that in an area such as Gwynedd—and this is true for other parts of Wales as well—we need not necessarily look to manufacturing or tourist industries to solve our problems. One has only to imagine how many television channels there are operating at this moment all around the world to see that programmes need to be generated at an equal pace. Wales has the scenery, the mountains, the climate and the sea. Moreover Wales has a tradition in the verbal arts which goes well with radio and television broadcasting. Not only could we produce television programmes for S4C but we could build on that basis to produce television programmes and films for channels all around the world. That would ideally suit an area such as mine.
We are putting millions of pounds into petrol refineries and so on and a fraction of that money would be a pump-priming exercise of tremendous benefit to areas such as mine. There is a challenge here which the Government have not met. They are willing to live with the excuse that unemployment is inevitable. We in Plaid Cymru are not. We are determined that something should be done about it.
8.5 pm
Mr. Tom Ellis: I listened with close attention and much interest to the Secretary of State presenting his list of activities, projects and works of various kinds which seem to be springing up across the whole length and breadth of Wales. While I would not be quite so frank as the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) in accusing the Secretary of State of simply dressing the shop window preparatory to a general election, I must say that I found the list distinctly odd. As I listened to him spell out the list a conundrum began to form in my mind which I am afraid to say I have been unable to resolve, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to do so. That conundrum concerns an apparent paradox in the Government's policy. I want to spend two or three minutes trying to explain that paradox.
I start by quoting from a statement issued last week by the chairman of the Clwyd county council finance committee drawing attention to unemployment in Clwyd. I should say that county councillors in Clwyd are for the most part sensible, reasonable and moderate men. I would go far as to say that they are wise men. They are not like Ken Livingstone. We do not have such councillors in my county, I am happy to say. I know the chairman of the finance committee and I have a considerable regard for him. He is a sensible fellow. When he makes such statements it causes one to wonder a little about the position we are getting into. He talks about the unemployment figures and says that they are shocking and have reached an all-time record for the county. Then he goes on to say:
"Taking into account the number of people on temporary unemployment relief schemes, we can now say that one in four of the County's workforce are without permanent jobs."

1213
If the rest of Wales is like Clwyd we are more or less approaching the position of the great depression in the late-1920s and early-1930s. That is a serious position. In trying to explain that grave position some hon. Members have referred to the international situation, saying that it is an international economic problem. I am the first to accept that the rest of the world must have an important bearing on a country such as Britain, which has for long been a trading nation.
Given any set of international circumstances, Governments can try either to alleviate the position or to compound it. This Government are compounding the already grave international position. Not only are there no signs from the Government that they are trying to do anything about that international state of affairs, but there is evidence that they are pouring cold water on any attempt to do anything.
To discuss this compounding by the Government of an already grave position, I shall quote the last sentence in the leading article of The Times of Tuesday about economic policy. I do not wish to misrepresent the article but, in a sense, it juxtaposes decreasing inflation on the one hand with decreasing unemployment on the other. Perhaps I have over simplified it. I shall give the flavour of the article by quoting the last sentence. Before I read the quotation I must tell the House that I have been an avid reader of The Times for many years. I have always regarded it as a good newspaper but in recent year—certainly under the new proprietorship and the new editorship —it seems as if it is adopting the role it had in the 1930s as an unofficial voice of the Conservative Government of the day. With that as a preface, I shall read the sentence:
"In the long run, emphasis on full employment as the Government's major economic objective is misplaced; in the short run, it would undermine the climate of responsible collective bargaining on which simultaneous progress towards higher employment and lower inflation can be based."
That is a remarkable sentence. It gives rise to many matters, not only economic, but social and political.
The article refers to a "natural" level of employment. It quotes Professor Friedman referring to this "natural" level which is necessary in order adequately and efficiently to regulate wage and incomes demands. One must ask "What is the 'natural' level?" Is it 3 million; 3 s½ million; or 4 million? It appears that we have not yet reached the "natural" level, but perhaps we can take a stab in the dark and say that 4 million will be the "natural" level for this country.
This is where the paradox to which I referred comes in. The Government, open advocates of monetarism and Professor Friedman's policies, are aiming for a "natural" level of 4 million or whatever, while at the same time we have the Secretary of State for Wales trotting out a list of things that he will do in Wales to secure exactly the opposite. That is the paradox that I cannot resolve and which I hope the Under-Secretary, when he replies to the debate, will try to explain.
If that is the policy — there is overwhelming evidence that it is the policy—the economic defeatism is breathtaking. The problems that follow and arise from it in the late 20th century are enormous. In a speech last week, the leader of the Liberal party referred to the unemployment rates in the constituencies. Apparently, the Library has worked out the unemployment rate for each
1214
constituency in the country. It is a remarkable fact that of the 100 worst hit constituencies, only four have Conservative Members. Of the 100 best constituencies, only one has a Labour Member.
We are becoming two nations geographically and territorially in a way Disraeli would never have dreamt of. There are all manner of problems if that is the policy. My clear inference from what the Secretary of State said is that it is a matter of cosmetics. I know that we have had cosmetics on regional policy for a long time but never as blatantly as today. That is not to say that I do not welcome these schemes. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to the importance of the scheme in south Cardiff and Swansea. The schemes are important, but in comparison with the position in Wales, they are a nonsense. I like a bit of scent and a bit of rouge but I would not rely on scent and rouge for the rest of my life.
I shall make one further philosophic point before I get down to brass tacks—sometimes I am accused of trotting out a homespun philosophy. That policy will not work and nor, for that matter, will the ramshackle contrivance of the Labour party which, even if it starts, will end up with a command economy as in the Eastern bloc. Neither will work because in Britain today we no longer have a self-confident ruling class certain of its own mores and able to impose its authority on a docile proletariat. Nor do we have a popular leadership basing its authority on a consensus and mass following that it has inspired. That is the basic reason why both policies will not work. I shall not go further in spelling out the policy that I think would work because that is another theme.
I shall now come down to earth having given, as I see it, a broad vision of the Government's position. I shall quote from my county two specific examples to try to illustrate what is happening at the receiving end, as a consequence of the Government's policy compounding even greater problems beyond our shores. One is a well-known example about bus fares which has had a great deal of publicity. The second example has not yet had the publicity it deserves and concerns the proportion of children who leave school at the age of 16.
Because essentially of Government policy, responsible councillors in Clwyd were obliged to withdraw subsidies to bus fares. Parents were having to pay for their children to travel distances of two and a half miles along main roads without pavements. We had a debate in the House on the matter. The amount involved is about £5 a week—98p a day return fare from one village. One single-parent family with three children going to school has a total income of £74 a week and was obliged to spend £15 to send its children to school. No parent with children at Eton college spends a greater proportion of his or her income than that single-parent family spends to send the children to school in Wrexham.
Since then we have had minor concessions from the county council. Another bus arrangement has come along and fares are lower, but the county council is intending to prosecute 18 parents who, because they feel so deeply aggrieved, refuse to send their children to school. We have had universal free education since 1870. The county council is now in an impossible position. I do not blame the county council; it is at its wits' end. While I welcome the fact that we are to have marinas and hotels, they are not much use right across the whole of Wales.

1215
My second example concerns children leaving school. Some concern is felt among councillors in Clwyd that children at the age of 16 ordinarily would have gone on to further education to take A-levels and then to go on to college. For financial reasons, just as we experienced in the 1920s and 1930s, they are obliged to leave school and claim supplementary benefit. Unfortunately, there are no official statistics and perhaps it would be difficult to obtain statistics, but the county's considered assessment is about eight to 12 pupils per secondary school. There are 34 secondary schools in the county. Therefore, we are talking about 300 to 400 children per annum who leave school simply because of the financial situation facing their families. As far as I know, the same is true elsewhere, and if the figure is multiplied for the whole of Wales, it shows that the Government have led us to yet another disaster.
However, I welcome what I take to be an increasing emphasis on the part of the development agency towards developing a greater entrepreneurial role. Last Monday, the Secretary of State answered one of my questions. I was dismayed to find that the proportion of the agency's total investment in purchasing holdings was on average, over the past three years, 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. in manufacturing industry and about 0·3 per cent. or 0·5 per cent. in the service industries. Now that the Secretary of State has started a new policy, or is reconsidering the policy, I take it that there will be a substantial improvement. For historical reasons there is no, or very little, indigenous capital in Wales. That is one of the big differences between England and Wales. Because of that lack of indigenous capital, it is vital that the agency should undertake a role that would not be quite so crucial if it were the agency for England.
I hope I am wrong to say that the Secretary of State is merely dressing the shop window. I hope that he has the position in Wales much closer to his heart than that. However, with the two examples that I have given—and there are many more that I could give—I have demonstrated to the House the seriousness of the situation that Wales finds itself in in 1983.
8.22 pm
Mr. Ian Grist: No doubt other hon. Members know, but I wonder why we are holding a debate on Wales today and not nearer St. David's day. I am probably the only hon. Member not to have spotted the reason. However, as Welsh debates often are, the debate has been interesting, if a little repetitive, as we have learnt each other's styles. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) gave us a typical turn out this evening. Parts of his speech sounded like the first draft for the European Federalist, or some other such publication.
Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful speech, which is much more than can be said for the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). It was arrogant, ignorant, shallow and unpleasant. It was shallow, in particular, because it made that very dangerous claim that any action was better than the present action, and whether it succeeded or failed seemed to be immaterial. He will remember the radical proposals and policies put into force by President Mitterrand in France—a man of considerable intellect—which he had to reverse fairly sharply when he found that the laws of mathematics worked in France just as anywhere else.
The hon. Gentleman made a dangerous sort of speech and claimed—as do other Opposition Members—that only
1216
he cared about the disadvantaged, the unemployed and the disabled, and that only he was concerned about the cause of peace and the maintenance of world peace. That is an objectionable attitude, which we utterly reject. For that reason his speech was a disservice to the people of Wales. It painted pictures and smeared smears that do nothing for the people of Wales other than to raise their expectations, only to dash them.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) was clearly a little winded by the Secretary of State's opening speech, but he recovered in good style and showed himself to be grudging of the service industries. He showed that he still gave a knee-jerk approval to the manufacturing as opposed to the service industries. He made a snide comment about the growth of imports from other EC countries without, of course, spelling out his party's policy that Britain should leave the Community. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), he implied that he did not understand that modern technology could provide people with telephones in slightly out-of-the-way places, just as they have been provided in the United States of America, Canada and other large countries.
The right hon. Gentleman is obviously worried, like other Opposition Members, about plans for privatising the non-medical aspects of the National Health Service. That plan is supported almost universally by Conservative Members because it would give a better service to patients, break the power of certain trade unions and provide a better return for the taxpayer. That is a considerable benefit all round. One need only consider the strikes that the right hon. Gentleman had to put up with when he was in office, when laundry workers and others did not service the hospitals, to realise the damage that can be done.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an absolutely smashing speech. As a Member of Parliament for part of Cardiff, how could I say other than that? The granting of the urban development grant for the hotel is a shot in the arm, along with the work that will be carried on towards the south of the city and in Bute town. Although the hotel will be in my constituency, there will obviously be a major effect towards the port side of the city. The hotel will have about 200 beds and will provide work for about 175 full-time staff and many more part-time staff. It will take 18 months to two years to build. It is reckoned that there will be a spin-off of about £1·5 million over and above the direct value of the hotel and the business that it will bring in. It begins to make the St. David's centre a realistic conference venue.
At present we have only about 1,000 hotel beds in Cardiff. We have a 2,000-seat convention centre. We need that hotel to make Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, a true international centre. We are now on course for that. With the recent hotels that have been built and this hotel—as well as the new hotels that we hope for—with our communications, fine roads, railways and the airport, we are now on track. In addition, new industries have been brought in. Further, the Secretary of State mentioned our facilities such as our fine theatres, our opera company, the art galleries and all the other amenities. Cardiff is a fine place to go to and to work in, as well as to attend for conferences.
The spin-off from this development will have a major effect in south Wales. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) will know that, as it is only about 15 minutes

1217
away from Cardiff, the spin-off for Newport will be substantial and its satellite position in relation to Cardiff will begin to work to its benefit.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our two university colleges, university hospital and polytechnic of Wales, as well as the major institute of higher education and its various colleges in Cardiff, provide a cultural, scientific and technical basis of which we ought to take considerable advantage.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend in summing up the debate could say something about the ship simulator run by UWIST and the South Glamorgan institute of higher education—a putative bid to become the focus of what one might call a United Nations university of the sea. He may or may not be aware of this particular matter. If he is, I should be interested to hear of it this evening.
We have a third enterprise zone under consideration. I know that the Cardiff council is not particularly keen on this enterprise zone, for reasons which I can only too easily guess. I myself believe that an enterprise zone centred between Cardiff and Newport or in that area would again have an effect in attracting industry and encouraging along that M4 corridor the sort of new firms which we so badly need and which my right hon. Friend has been bringing into Wales with such success.
All this means that we ought to have confidence in what is being done, that at least in Cardiff, in south Wales, along the coastal belt, we ought to be able to say we have a winner, we have growth points, we have the brains, we have the capacity and the facilities. This is an area which we can go out and sell. That is the message we ought to be sending from Wales again and again.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned that the S4C and its technical spin-offs were beginning to bring work into his constituency. That is precisely what modern technology can do. That is what freeing British Telecom and all the rest of it is, in the long term, about: it is about providing modern industry in this country rather than buying it in from other countries. We have not just a Welsh gift, but a native British creative impulse in writing, in films, in television and in the creative arts and we ought to be taking advantage of all that. If we could make the electronic goods and then write them, film them and sell them round the world, we would have an integrated unit of which in Wales we would certainly be well placed to take advantage.
Some aspects of publicity we could well do without. I refer to this ridiculous nuclear-free zone programme which the county councils are putting about. My own in south Glamorgan, I regret to say, is spending several thousands of pounds promoting the concept and, in particular, distributing a simply dreadful little leaflet on "South Glamorgan and Nuclear Weapons", a combination I had not readily considered. It says
"Why I should read this leaflet",
and tells me that
"I will learn what is at stake."
That is one thing that I will not learn if I read it because it makes no mention of the reasons why we must have a defence policy in this country, a policy which has been followed since the war by all parties.
The leaflet refers to the effect of a nuclear weapon being exploded over Cardiff. It does not indicate whose weapon it might be or what the threat is. It gives the
1218
impression that the greatest danger comes from American nuclear weapons, but we all know that that is not really so. Nevertheless, that is the tone of this pamphlet. It asks what its readers can do. It says they can take part in demonstrations. I am sure that the police and the ratepayers who pay for the police will be pleased to hear that the county council is encouraging us to take part in demonstrations and marches.
Nuclear weapons, the pamphlet says, must be dismantled. Is it the business of a county council to interfere in matters which are more properly taken care of by Parliament at national level rather than at local, county level? What business is it of a county council to tell me to contact the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Medical Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, Scientists Against Nuclear Arms, Women for Life On Earth, whoever they are, and similar bodies? County councils have no business to meddle in matters such as these which they clearly either do not understand or wilfully choose to misrepresent to the public. Their role is to sell the very real advantages of their areas of Wales to the outside world. If they assist in doing that, we will bring in work, we will make our universities places that people want to attend and we will begin to acquire for south Wales the reputation of being a cultural, scientific and technical growth area.
South Wales has factories and ports—ports, incidentally, with shareholder workers enjoying the benefits of denationalisation. I should like to know whether the Labour party intends to take those shares away from the workers. This is where the jobs will be provided. Once we are able to convince people—I suggest that we start with our colleagues in the House—that Wales is not a whingeing country that is always wanting and demanding, but one with something to sell, people will look back at the end of the century and regard these as the last of the bad days in Wales.
8.36 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: Even longer than 10 years ago, but more particularly in the 1975 Common Market referendum campaign the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and others were painting a vision of the Common Market in which hundreds of thousands of new jobs would be created—a bonanza in which Wales would be joining. Instead, we have suffered an avalanche of manufactured imported goods. The floodgates have been opened. We are paying for many of those goods with North sea oil revenues. In the process, our own people are being put on the dole. The Common Market itself, as a trading entity, now has an unemployment level of 12 million.
All that the House heard today from the hon. Member for Flint, West was gloom and doom. His remarks show how the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues misled the British people. Wales is suffering from unemployment worse than that of the 1930s. At that time its people could move to places like Birmingham. To paraphrase the Secretary of State for Employment, who is well known for his literacy, people could get on their bikes. Now, however, the midlands is becoming an industrial wasteland. Unemployment is engulfing most of the country. Even the south-east of England has an unemployment level of about 10 per cent.
The Government have the levers of power in their hands but prefer to do nothing. The United Kingdom is a wealthy country. It has enormous North sea revenues that no

1219
previous Government in our history have enjoyed. However, to listen to the Prime Minister one would think that the situation was everyone's fault but hers. One day, it is the world crisis. The next, it is the American economy. It can be the trade unions. It can be OPEC. It is never the Iron Lady. After all, she is only the Prime Minister.
The Government fiddle around when the whole economy has almost gone up in flames. They make Nero look like a second-rate performer. As usual, poor little Wales is suffering more than most. We have a dreadful January 1983 unemployment figure of 180,664, an increase of 103,487 since May 1979 and the fateful general election when the Government took over. All the predictions and all the commentators are saying that this figure will go higher, certainly over the 200,000 mark.
If we were to face the tragedy of this Government being re-elected, what would happen to the Welsh coal industry, the steel industry, and, with the Serpell report on the national rail structure, what would happen to the Welsh railways? As I said earlier from a sedentary position, we would be left with our castles—at least they will be a good tourist attraction.
On Monday, during Welsh questions, much of the time was, quite rightly, devoted to the terrible problem of unemployment. I asked about male unemployment in the Newport travel-to-work area and I was told that it was 18·8 per cent., a terrible figure for Newport. I know too, that more job losses are in the pipeline as the steel redundancies, for instance, announced a few months ago, start to take effect. This is happening in Newport, which is virtually the industrial capital of Wales, with such a favourable geographical location on the eastern seaboard, motorway links to the midlands and the south of England, railway networks, an efficient port and a major centre for the steel industry and for a host of leading multinational companies. Yet the Government have brought us to the point where 18·8 per cent. of the male population are unemployed, with more unemployment to come.
I was particularly concerned about my question on the 18·8 per cent. unemployment in the Newport travel-to-work area because the following morning, as I was escorting a party around the House, I was handed a note that told me that the Rogerstone aluminium works was to make a further 350 men redundant. This works employs men only on the shop floor. Surely the Secretary of State must have known beforehand about this development, when answering questions on the previous afternoon.
If the Secretary of State did know about those job losses, why was he not frank with the House? He would have been better thought of if he had been so. In my infancy, I was taught, as many hon. Members must have been, that it is better to speak the truth and shame the devil. What is more, this is not the first time that this has happened. Some months ago we had a similar incident over the redundancies in the steel industry.
If the Secretary of State is claiming that no one had told him beforehand about the redundancies at Alcan, that is incompetence on a fairly monumental scale. He is, after all, the Minister in the Cabinet responsible for Welsh affairs. Surely he is told well in advance about such developments, particularly when 350 jobs are to go in such a vital industry as aluminium. One can conclude that the Secretary of State is displaying either a lack of integrity in failing to be frank with the House, or incompetence in failing to keep himself abreast of what is happening to the
1220
industries of Wales. Either way, the indictment is formidable. On Monday, I called for the resignation of the Secretary of State for Wales. I repeat that request this evening.
The Secretary of State is misleading the people about job creation. The information I give the House was given to me by the leader and chief officers of Newport council. They are all people of the highest possible integrity. They point out that, following the slimline operation at Llanwern, £48 million was allocated by the Welsh Office for the creation of 4,000 new jobs. Currently 210 jobs have been created. I understand that we shall be lucky if 1,000 jobs are created by the end of the year. What a puny contribution that is bearing in mind the fact that Newport has lost about 10,000 jobs. Large sums of money are needed from the Welsh Development Agency and from the Government if our people are to have any chance of working. Massive expansion is needed, commencing in the public sector.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that much needs to be done, be it in housing, hospitals or roads. Llanwern is crying out for investment in Concast. Why not revive the idea of an oil terminal for Llanwern? Now is the time to carry out such projects in a Period of depression when labour is available. Some Conservative Members will say, "How are we going to pay for all this?" When a Labour Government are elected, they will borrow, as does every sensible private enterprise.
According to the Government, the country can afford approximately £10 billion for Trident, a worthless investment if ever there was one. Under Labour's plan, as the economy expands and unemployment falls, spending on benefits will fall and our tax revenues will rise. This in turn will cut borrowing. What has been borrowed will be paid back by the extra wealth produced. That surely must be a better way than paying out £15 billion annually on dole payments. Our principal objective should be that it is better to pay people to do something than to pay them to do nothing.
8.48 pm
Dr. Roger Thomas: Although he AS not in the Chamber, I shall follow some of the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis). We have heard many disquieting reports about the ability and performance of Welsh 16-year-olds during the past few years. Most countries with which we are and will be in competition when the recession ends are putting far greater effort into planned training and education for that group, and continental countries are far more industry-conscious and industry-based than we are in Wales. The skills and competences learnt at school are not all that easily translated into the work context. Initial work experience must be far better planned and structured in Wales. Demand for engineers and scientific technologists will increase as the demand for semi-skilled and unskilled workers will fall. One asks oneself: is Wales prepared for such changes? Even during a deep depression, jobs are being created, but they are increasingly specialised jobs and the broader the base of the skills and adaptability of young people, so they will be better equipped to keep afloat in a world of immense change.
Thereby hangs a great question over the style and success of present methods. However, we cannot dissociate the education of children aged between 1l and 16 from the education of those aged between 16 and 19.

1221
The Manpower Services Commission has helped to impress upon the powers that be the long-term traumatic effects of youth unemployment, and we have had figures today of the number of people aged below 19 who are unemployed in Wales.
To leave formal education at 16 and to drift aimlessly, as many people in Wales do, is depressing because there is no alternative. It is a cynical, cruel and, for many people, a calamitous age. They must be encouraged to stay on in education and must be offered a blend and combination of skills and interests for a wide range of employment. We have not concentrated enough upon those aspects in Wales, because far too many parents believe that preparation for employment is no education at all. Our traditions die hard, but in that slow death our whole economic outlook is suffering. The present recession has shown a lack of vocational guidance in its stark reality. It is now obvious that increasing youth employment is a major promoter of educational innovation.
In a recently published review of education in Wales, the secretary of the Welsh joint education council commented both widely and wisely. He emphasised the dire needs not so much of the children who need remedial education as of those not considered worthy to sit CSE examinations. That group is disenchanted with school and practically everything related to education and learning. For those children schools have failed to design a relevant curriculum, and they are being unloaded on to the hard and competitive world of work, or, as is more usual these days, the world of no work. They have nothing to show for having gone through the motions of attending school between the ages of 5 and 16. We have heard many times in the House, in another context, of the 13 wasted years. Thousands of boys and girls throughout Wales have experienced 11 wasted years.
The supply of detailed information about schools to parents will not solve the problem for those forgotten regions on whom the minimum of money is spent and who have suffered from the cuts most severely of all. With declining resources in schools, we are in a catch-22 position. We are still suffering from the merger of the grammar schools with the secondary moderns to form comprehensives. Oil and water when shaken forcibly appear to mix, only to separate again when allowed to settle. We know which section floats to the top in all cases, and we know which section the Government encourage to float to the top, possibly with many of them waving their education vouchers.
Despite the Secretary of State's effort to divert our attention to unemployment in West Germany, that country had a long way to go to catch up with Britain, because we had two years' start on the unemployment ladder. Our unemployment rate, whichever figures are used—sets of figures appear to be concocted every other month—has grown at twice the pace of that of the OECD as a whole. Manufacturing output is now fully 20 per cent. below that of 1979 and the slump has left much viable capacity destroyed beyond recovery. Obstructing our rate and capacity of recovery will be skill shortages. Apprenticeships in our industries are fully 40 per cent. below their level at the beginning of the slump. No economic prediction can be found that heralds other than
1222
continuing escalation of those out of work. The predictions only emphasise the persistent obstinacy that refuses to help British industry break loose from the monetarist shackles.
When the recovery comes, our lack of preparation will see us flounder. The West Germans, for example, have had a shorter and less penetrating recession than ours and they will have a platform from which they can again leave us at the starting gate. Our participation in recovery, signs of which are visible in such places as Detroit, will be so slight and ineffective that there will be no cut in those out of work. They are the ones who have suffered above all in the diminution of living standards.
The Government will not accept that those in poverty must be given priority. It is that for which they are crying out. In a Welsh Grand Committee debate exactly two years before the 1979 general election the present Secretary of State stated that small businesses formed a dominant part of the Welsh economy.
That discussion took place against a background of continuing high unemployment, which the right hon. Gentleman said could get worse. One never thought that his powers of foresight and prognostication had reached such a height of accuracy and perception, for matters have most certainly become worse. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the number of small firms in Wales that have gone to the wall. He described the then Labour Government's economic record over three years as "sombre". Finding an adjective to describe how much blacker and more dejected the present Government's three and a half years' handling of the economy is well nigh impossible.
The right hon. Gentleman described the unemployment figures in his constituency in 1977 as "horrific". They are even more horrific now. For nearly two thirds of the time since 1977 he has been in charge of the Welsh economy. He concentrated upon the construction industry in Wales, which at that time had one sixth of the total work force of 80,000 out of work. In that industry upwards of half the labour force has now been out of work for very lengthy periods. In the 1977 debate the right hon. Gentleman said:
"there are still too many advance factories standing empty around Wales of the wrong size, built in the wrong place. They are monuments to the failures of the Government's economic policies."
So the right hon. Gentleman summed up his criticism of the Labour Government's handling of the economy in the spring of 1977. He prophesied his Government's inept attitudes towards Wales with remarkable accuracy. Today Wales suffers in a way that has not been experienced since the 1930s.
I complete my speech by reminding the right hon. Gentleman again of what he said in the 1977 debate. It is relevant that six years later we should be going through a more critical period. He said:
"We hold this debate against a background of continuing high unemployment … Our debates on economic affairs during the Government's period in office have provided a sombre story. The picture that we are considering is one of a great sector of the Welsh economy labouring under huge difficulties … Many of those difficulties are due to recession and the general mismanagement of the economy".— [Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee; 25 May 1977, c. 12–19.]
The right hon. Gentleman had that to say about the Labour Government in 1977. That could hardly be improved as an epitaph on the Secretary of State's own stewardship of Wales between May 1979 and February this year.
8.59 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: A large and increasing number of my constituents in Gower are experiencing a dramatic fall in living standards as a result of involuntary unemployment. A satisfactory measure of that decline was given to me on 25 January by the Minister for Social Security. He said that the unemployment benefit for a single person at the standard rate introduced in November 1982 represented only 17·6 per cent. of the average earnings in Wales. In the same reply, he said that the unemployment benefit for a married couple was only 28·5 per cent. of average earnings in Wales. That is its lowest level since 1951.
During the Government's term of office, unemployment has not simply risen at an unhealthy rate, it has become a chronic disease that has debilitated the morale of working men and women. It has brought a feeling of despair to those people who, through no fault of their own, face the endless misery of life on the dole.
The Secretary of State for Wales has provided me with the most up-to-date figures of long-term unemployment in the Principality. In Wales, 68,364 people have been unemployed for more than one year. That represents a staggering rise of 200 per cent. since October 1979. The number of people in Wales who have not had jobs for more than two years has increased at a rate of 165 per cent. to 30,325.
My constituency lies in the county of west Glamorgan. That county has suffered a faster rise in long-term unemployment than any other county in Wales. Of the age groups for which the Secretary of State provided me with figures, that of people between 25 and 45 is the worst affected. While 1,709 of that age group were classified as long-term unemployed in October 1979, the latest figure stands at 6,364. After two years on the dole, harsh discriminatory treatment awaits them, as only to the long-term unemployed is accorded the unenviable stigma of ineligibility for the higher long-term rate of supplementary benefit.
I shall resist the temptation to analyse the theoretical aridity of pursuing national economic policies that depend on the unstable relationship between the quantity theory of money that has been resurrected since the days of Irving Fisher in the early 1920s, the abolition of exchange control and unfair foreign competition. Instead, I shall use two practical examples from my own constituency to highlight where the Secretary of State for Wales must defend his corner and that of Welsh interests in the Cabinet.
The first example is that of Teddington Bellows of Pontarddulais. Eighteen months ago, that company was vying with Paul Wurth of Luxembourg for a replacement order for tuyere stocks for the blast furnaces at the British Steel Corporation plant at Scunthorpe. Paul Wurth won the order because it was cheaper, but whereas Teddington Bellows would have used British steel, Paul Wurth used French steel. As a result, potential and hoped-for expansion was stifled at Teddington Bellows, followed by redundancies and a four-day week.
My second example is even more immediate. On Friday last week, redundancies were announced at IMI Titanium, including its Waunarlwydd plant. Although the plant is just inside the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), many of my constituents work in it. The CEGB has inflicted a terrible blow on the morale of my constituency. It has placed a
1224
very significant order for 120 tons of titanium condenser welded tube for the Dungeness nuclear power station with an American competitor. IMI Titanium was given no opportunity to requote.
That is a classic example of a high technology British industry, a leader in its field and able to compete with any titanium producer in the world, being forced into a desperate struggle for survival due to unfair competition. Our American friends impose a 17 per cent. ad valorem tariff on British titanium products entering the United States and an absolute ban on the use of British titanium for United States defence contracts. If the United States operates such blatantly unfair trading practices, why should a British company he dealt such a hammer blow by a publicly owned British industry? Why do the Government stand idly by? Is the price saving to the CEGB greater than the cost of keeping 400 men and their families on the dole?
I hope that the Secretary of State has learnt from the experience of Teddington Bellows. The people of Gower now expect action from him to avoid unnecessary loss of employment opportunities at IMI Titanium.
9.8 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is making a very favourable impression in the House and is working extremely hard on behalf of his constituents.
The Secretary of State for Wales is considered in the Cabinet as the Cinderella, the Prime Minister's lackey, the Shonny Bo Ochr at the Welsh Office. What is his excuse for the massive unemployment in Wales? What Jo all his fine words about caring and sharing and concern for the workless really mean? Does he propose any cure for this cancer? Has he any immediate suggestions, if not to cure, at least to curtail, the rising number of closures, redundancies and bankruptcies, of which there are so many in my constituency and throughout Wales? Nowadays we are told not weekly but daily of further redundancies and closures.
During an intervention I referred to the closure of a factory known as Brush Power at Bridgend, where 300 people will be made redundant. It is part of the Hawker Siddeley group. What efforts has the Secretary of State made to save that factory?
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was insulting, to say the least, to the people of Wales and to those who have been thrown out of work by this heartless, helpless and hopeless bunch of hypocrites. High unemployment has been deliberately contrived by the most provocative performer of personal pomposity in history—the grocer's daughter herself. That woman is determined to crush the trade union movement and workers of this country; to subject them to such degradation and defeat that they will be for ever subservient to her and the state.
On Monday, during Welsh Questions, the Secretary of State was accused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) of misleading the House. In his customary curt way the Secretary of State told my right hon. Friend to read the Official Report, where he would see that he had not misled the House. I read and re-read the Official Report and the Secretary of State did mislead the House. He used the words

1225
"just as employment deteriorated during the period of office of the Labour Government."—[Official Report, 7 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 618.]
The matter must be put straight and the Secretary of State must apologise. The number of people employed increased under the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. How can he say that employment deteriorated? Will he retract that and apologise for misleading the House?
For far too long we have had this indifference from this Shonny. For far too long he has treated the House with contempt. It worries me a little that the Secretary of State was once a Lloyd's man, with all the wealth that that implies behind him. He is contemptuously indifferent to those for whom he is primarily responsible. He has deliberately thrown thousands of our people out of work. He talks hypocritically about his concern for them. The only concern he feels is that there are not enough of them. His task is to please the headmistress and put more people on the dole, whether in his constituency or in mine.
We have reached breaking point. Workers in the water industry, with a strike-free record for 50 years, have felt compelled to take action to protect themselves from this bunch of hooligans, these muggers, these contemptible, hypocritical, class-conscious louts. The gas and electricity workers are raising their heads in indignation. We shall see whether they will be given the same treatment as was forcibly thrust down the throats of the Health Service workers. The pollsters should canvass them for a better and more factual picture.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Powell: I do not have much time, but I shall do so.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: We shall not be replying to the hon. Gentleman's points in detail because they are totally worthless and not worth replying to.
Mr. Powell: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He does not listen to reason.
It is time that the pollsters asked the 4 million people who are out of work where their crosses will go when the Prime Minister runs to the country before time. They should ask the trade union movement, the Health Service workers, the thousands of ASLEF and other railway workers, the thousands of ambulance men, the fire brigade workers, the workers in the shipyards, the steel industry workers, the miners, the hundreds and thousands of people in local government whom the Prime Minister has put out of work, the civil servants and the Inland Revenue staffs where their crosses will go.
Ask the old-age pensioners about their clawback in November. How will they vote at the next election? Ask the sick, the disabled and the socially deprived. Ask the 6½ million people who are living below the poverty line. Ask the hundreds of thousands of homeless and those who have lost their businesses or jobs because of the Government. Do this lot really believe that the polls are true? Of course they do not. However, they like to see them in the press.
At 3.19 am on Tuesday morning I initiated a debate on the effects of Government policy on the nationalised industries in Wales. I referred to the consequences of the demanning in the steel industry and the inevitable rundown
1226
of coal and other supporting industries, which resulted in the tremendous problem of unemployment. However, it was not only the Government's action that was the cause. It resulted also from the doubling of VAT, the increased bank rate and the slaughter of local government services with the consequential repercussions of higher mortgages, taxes, interest rates, rents and rates and fewer services for the old, sick and disabled. We know the extent of the monetarist policies. We know the unemployment figures. However, do we understand the suffering, indignity, frustration and impoverishment that unemployment creates? We bandy the figures about week after week and month after month. Why is it not possible to help those people? Why cannot we give them hope today? What had the Secretary of State to offer them in his speech?
I say to the House and the nation that whether it be in the Principality of Wales, the highlands or lowlands of Scotland, or in the rest of the United Kingdom, my party, ably led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), assisted by men of proven ability, will take us out of this abyss and give back the hopes and aspirations of the people. The degradation, demoralisation and total despair, coupled with human misery and suffering, will soon be abolished when a Labour Government are elected after the next election. We are pledged to bring back jobs, stop the decay and poverty creeping back into our towns and cities, and give back hope to the young who are sickened with life on the dole. We shall win because the nation is waning under this merciless mob and crying out for a change to a caring, sharing society. That is what we shall give the people.
9.18 pm
Mr. Donald Coleman: The Secretary of State began the debate with a remarkable speech, in unusual form for him. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) in his professional capacity would have diagnosed for us the presence in the Chamber of the bacillus which is the cause of election fever. We had a remarkable catalogue from the Secretary of State. Of course, we can join him in saying that there is a need to clear away the dereliction of the past and to create the means of increasing economic activity in Wales.
We are glad that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman paid compliments to others who have held his high office. We are glad that he did not try this afternoon to claim all the credit for himself for the various programmes—roads, health, housing and factory building. We are glad that he acknowledged the activities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in the building of advance factories. We were glad to hear this catalogue from him. We were pleased, too, to hear his announcement about hotel developments in Swansea and Cardiff. I agree with him and others who have spoken about the importance of the development of tourism in Wales as a means of providing employment. Listening to what he said about those two cities, I thought that we were hearing a modern version of "A Tale of Two Cities".
This debate has followed the usual pattern of Welsh debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, in that we have ranged widely. That is not a bad thing, because it has given us the opportunity to raise a variety of matters, some local and some national, which are the concern of the people of Wales.

1227
However, the topic that has undoubtedly dominated the debate has been the massive unemployment that is being experienced in Wales. It has featured in almost all the speeches that have been made, particularly from these Benches. Last month, with a figure of 180,664 people unemployed—a percentage of 17·5 per cent. —in Wales, according to last Friday's report in The Daily Telegraph —a paper not unknown for its support for the Tory party—was the 38th successive month in which there was an increase in the number of people becoming unemployed in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) at Question Time on Monday, which showed that when he assumed his responsibilities in May 1979, the number of unemployed claimants—a new Tory parlance to describe people thrown out of work—was 77,177 people, or 7 per cent. of the working population of Wales. The latest figures are a tragic underlining of the failure of the Conservative party and the policies that it pursues. Until that party is removed from power and its policies thrown out, this tragic upward trend will continue.
The report in Monday's Western Mail, under the headline
"Bleak Outlook Forecast On Welsh Jobless",
supports this contention, when it says that unemployment in Wales could hit the 200,000 mark by the end of this year—a situation that several experts have predicted. One of the predictions, that of Data Resources International, says that there could be 3,500,000 adults in the United Kingdom unemployed by the end of 1983. Taking the Welsh experience, that could mean about 215,000 unemployed in Wales. The best prediction of the experts, Simon and Coates Stockbrokers, is that there will be 187,000 people unemployed in Wales by the end of the year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) referred to the election address of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) in which he said:
"Every Conservative Government since the war has left office with more people at work than when it started."
When the Government depart from office at the next election that situation will not obtain.
However one looks at the unemployment figures, either as an optimist or as a pessimist, they mean hardship in Wales, at a level for which in the fulness of time the Minister and his party will be answerable to the Welsh electorate. The inescapable fact of unemployment in Wales is that 36 unemployed people are chasing every job. For our young people the prospect of a proper job grows dimmer as each succeeding month's unemployment figures are published.
The Secretary of State seeks comfort in the programme of special measures but they do not provide proper jobs and he should not try to represent them as such when he is called to account for unemployment in Wales.
I want to dwell for a moment on one of the special measures which impressed me greatly when I had the opportunity to see the scheme in operation for myself. It is a scheme which is being run jointly by the Ford Motor Company and the Manpower Services Commission at the Ford works in my constituency. I commend those hon. Members who wish to see the worthwhile functioning of one of those schemes to pay a visit to that scheme in the Ford works.
1228
I was greatly impressed with the quality of the training being given and the response of the young people to the opportunity. It is a credit to the Ford Motor Company and to the MSC. It is not just a scheme which pays lip service to the training of young people—as, I regret, some have done in the past. Neither is it a means whereby a company such as Fords can get work done on the cheap. Any work done is done at proper commercial rates which are properly costed as part of the training which is being given.
The young people are responding well to the scheme but I could not help feeling the regret of all those involved in the scheme that it could provide work for only 12 months in their lives. After that they were back to the uncertainty of life in the shadows of Britain's massive dole queue.
During questions on Welsh affairs on Monday my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda drew attention, as he did again today, to the discrepancies between the figures for job creation given by the Welsh Development Agency and those given on the recent HTV programme. He also drew attention to the regrettable refusal of the Welsh Development Agency to take part in that programme.
On Monday my right hon. Friend called for the publication of a leaflet giving the facts so that we can judge the matter. I noted the reply of the Secretary of State on Monday and the exchanges today, but I raise it again in this debate because I believe that, on both sides of the House, we would wish to ensure that confusion does not arise which is not in the best interests of those who suffer unemployment or who are to embark upon what we hope will be their working lives.
One of the brighter aspects of job creation in Wales has been the success of Japanese investment. During our recent visit to Japan my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and I lost no opportunity to emphasise the success of these ventures both to Wales and the Japanese investors. We pointed to the excellent industrial relations obtaining in these factories, using this as evidence to counter the belief in Japan that most of our workers are out on strike most of the time.
We would welcome greater Japanese investment in Britain, especially in Wales, and from our experience in Wales we can express confidence that it will prosper and succeed. Bearing in mind what I have said about the sensitivity of the Japanese about industrial relations, I urge the Secretary of State and Conservative Members to curb the union bashing of the Secretary of State for Industry, whose uncouth utterances on this subject seriously put at risk possible inward investment from Japan which others are striving to achieve. I hope that they will take this on board because it is being said over and over again. When the Secretary of State for Industry gives credence to it, it is all the more difficult to destroy.
I now turn to a matter which, if implemented in any form, would have serious consequences for Wales—the Serpell report, to which reference has been made during the debate. In the debate on the report last week, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the extreme option was a non-runner. But it is not only option A, which would remove a railway system entirely from Wales, that is objectionable to us. Other options put forward in the report would leave Wales in a disadvantaged position and that makes us suspicious about the Government's mind on the future of the railways in Wales.

1229
I have seen the Serpell report described as a Government-inspired hatchet job, which must be taken seriously, as it provides the basis for a post-election attack on public transport, should the British people make such a grievous mistake as inflicting upon themselves a further dose of Thatcherism after the next election. The Government are killing the railways slowly but surely, by starving them of the investment which is so badly needed for track renewal, new rolling stock and electrification. That is seen no more clearly than in Wales. Unless this trend is halted, the Government will be well on the way to implementing the Serpell report.
The Serpell report at best calls for £220 million of cuts. Wales is bound to come badly out of such a programme, for not only would there be cuts in passenger traffic, but freight services would be cut in a way which would make Wales unattractive to new industrial development and would seriously hamper existing industrial activity—for instance, the movement of coal and steel and the removal of dangerous substances whose transfer by road would place the public in danger and cause unacceptable environmental pollution.
Labour party policy would be one of expansion of the railway service because we would mainly implement, "Rail Policy", which calls for an annual investment of £567 million. We would press ahead with main line electrification, with the provision of new rolling stock, and with providing light-weight trains for rural services. Under our plans, there would be an expansion of freight services, track renewal and new signalling. Those plans would include Wales and create in Wales the opposite of the transport desert that would result from the implementation of any part of the Serpell report, which would be the worst disaster for the railways in this country since Beeching, which was also commissioned by a Conservative Government.
The coal industry will always be vital to Wales. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made sure that the industry has not been neglected in our considerations today. No one in the industry—neither the National Coal Board nor the National Union of Mineworkers—denies that the industry has problems. There is a resolve among those involved to ensure that the problems are overcome to the benefit of the industry, those who gain their livelihood from it and the communities that are dependent upon it. They could do with a bit more help from the Government in their efforts to overcome the problems.
Over the years, co-operation between the NCB and the union has re-shaped the industry and that co-operation will bring about the future prosperity of the industry and the successful operation of the coalfields. It is that which will bring prosperity and not the threat of bringing in people to play the role of hatchet men, who will apply closures and cuts to achieve financial viability. Coal plays, and will continue to play, a vital role in our energy sources. The south Wales coalfield, with its fine quality coals, has an important part to play.
In a short time the supplies of natural gas upon which we now rely will run out. We shall have to resort, once again, to coal as a source of gas. The Margam project must be considered at this point. The location is adjacent to the gas council's site at Jersey Marine, where a gasification plant is most likely to be established, as it is already connected to the gas grid. If the Government are serious
1230
about the provision of Britain's future energy resources, they should now be entering into consultations with the NCB to bring the Margam development onstream when the gas industry will require its products. They have no right to leave that to those who will come after them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) about the importance of agriculture in Wales. We in the Labour party, with our record on agriculture, accept—as we have proved in the past—that a prosperous agriculture is vital for Britain and for Wales. While farmers will concede that 1982 was a better year for them than 1981, they remain plagued by the heavy bank borrowings that they have incurred in the past three years. They are anxious to know when the problems of marginal land will be recognised and when the hill livestock sector is to obtain its fair reward. They are concerned that the co-responsibility payments will discriminate against them, to the benefit of the small continental producers. I support the welcome that they give to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food taking steps against the import of UHT milk, and in any further steps he takes to preserve our door-to-door milk deliveries.
What I cannot understand, however, is how it is perfectly proper to introduce import controls on milk while opposing them on other agricultural products such as steel.
It gives Opposition Members no pleasure to record that Wales has been particularly hard hit by the policies pursued by the Conservative Government since 1979. The Wales we see today is not the one forecast for us in the blue booklet containing the Tory manifesto for Wales in 1979. Unemployment has not been halted in line with the impression given in that document. It was 7 per cent. then; it is now 17·5 per cent. The steel industry in Wales is a shadow of what it was in that year. Not only do small businesses, which featured so much in that manifesto, not prosper as a forecast: many no longer exist. When the next edition of that glossy blue publication appears, it will make more promises, as we have heard today, to the Welsh people but, like the current set of policies, they will not be met.
Wales has never been the home of Toryism. In 1979 some people thought that their programme showed a movement away from their old habits but experience is more valuable than thought when coming to a judgment. The experience of Wales since 1979 will bring about a judgment which will reject the Tory Party, not only at the next election but for a very long time to come.
9.41 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) both referred to the television programme which suggested that 40 per cent. of WDA factory space was vacant. I hope that I can shed some light on this matter if they will bear with me while I explain the correct figures.
The WDA now has about 3 million sq ft of factory space available for letting. This does not, of course, include factories which are empty but which have already been leased or which have been reserved for new tenants.
The figure represents the space which the WDA is now able to offer for occupation by prospective new tenants. Hon. Members will agree that this is reasonable; the 3 million sq ft of space has to be measured against the total WDA factory stock of about 20 million sq ft, or 15 per cent. —the percentage which my right hon. Friend

1231
mentioned in the House on Monday. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the amount of factory space built by the WDA since it came into being—the very commendable figure of 8 million sq ft.
The hon. Member for Neath referred to his desire to see Japanese industry coining into Wales in particular. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) will explain how much of that industry he expects to see coming into Wales with all the inducements that he and some of his hon. Friends might offer if Britain, including Wales, is outside the Common Market. If he does not wish to give that explanation, perhaps the hon. Gentleman—
9.44 pm
Sitting suspended.
9.57 pm
On resuming—

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. David Hunt.]
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o' clock.

WALES
  Road Construction Projects
  Road Construction Projects
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Rape
  Rape
  Police Manpower (Statistics)
  Police Manpower (Statistics)
  Fire Deaths (Statistics)
  Fire Deaths (Statistics)
  Fines
  Fines
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  South African Citzens (Admission)
  South African Citzens (Admission)
  Ghana and Nigeria
  Ghana and Nigeria
  Brixton Police Division
  Brixton Police Division
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Civil Defence Regulations
  Civil Defence Regulations
  Social Security Fraud (Police Raid)
  Social Security Fraud (Police Raid)
  Magistrates' Courts (Domestic Proceedings)
  Magistrates' Courts (Domestic Proceedings)
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Charities
  Charities
  Mental Health Legislation
  Mental Health Legislation
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
EMPLOYMENT
  Graduates
  Graduates
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Education (Employment Protection)
  Education (Employment Protection)
  Average Weekly Wage
  Average Weekly Wage
  Unemployed Persons (Voluntary Work)
  Unemployed Persons (Voluntary Work)
  Equal Pay Act
  Equal Pay Act
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference
  Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Pakistan (President)
  Pakistan (President)
  Atomic Tests (Release of Information)
  Atomic Tests (Release of Information)
  Argentina (Loans)
  Argentina (Loans)
  Argentina (Arms Purchases)
  Argentina (Arms Purchases)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Growers
  Potato Growers
  Foul Brood Order
  Foul Brood Order
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Wheat (Yields)
  Wheat (Yields)
  Milk
  Milk
  Prepared Meals (Nutrient Content)
  Prepared Meals (Nutrient Content)
  Inclosure Acts (Boundary Provisions)
  Inclosure Acts (Boundary Provisions)
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Processes (Financial Assistance)
  Industrial Processes (Financial Assistance)
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Research (Exploitation)
  Research (Exploitation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Tax Exemption Certificate Scheme
  Tax Exemption Certificate Scheme
  Non-certified Subcontractors
  Non-certified Subcontractors
  New Businesses
  New Businesses
  Revenue Receipts (Hastings)
  Revenue Receipts (Hastings)
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Collection Service
  Tax Collection Service
  Public Service Manpower
  Public Service Manpower
  Multinational Firms (Plant Closures)
  Multinational Firms (Plant Closures)
  Stamping Offices
  Stamping Offices
  European Community Finance Council
  European Community Finance Council
  Public Companies (Creditors)
  Public Companies (Creditors)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Continuing Education
  Continuing Education
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Church-aided Schools
  Church-aided Schools
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Illness (Expenditure)
  Mental Illness (Expenditure)
  Occupational Deafness
  Occupational Deafness
  Speech Impairment (Children)
  Speech Impairment (Children)
  Pertussis Vaccination
  Pertussis Vaccination
  Nursing Research
  Nursing Research
  NHS Spending (Wessex)
  NHS Spending (Wessex)
  Hospitals (Lead Pipes)
  Hospitals (Lead Pipes)
  NHS (Griffiths Committee)
  NHS (Griffiths Committee)
  Students (Medical Care)
  Students (Medical Care)
  Disabled People (Restrictions)
  Disabled People (Restrictions)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Household Duties Test
  Household Duties Test
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria (Ghanaian Refugees)
  Nigeria (Ghanaian Refugees)
TRADE
  Anti-dumping Duties
  Anti-dumping Duties
  Cork Report
  Cork Report
  Aircraft Flights (Regulation)
  Aircraft Flights (Regulation)
  Estate Agents (Charges)
  Estate Agents (Charges)
  Concorde (Sonic Boom)
  Concorde (Sonic Boom)
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Company Directors
  Company Directors
  Coastal Shipping Trade
  Coastal Shipping Trade
  Shipping (Statistics)
  Shipping (Statistics)
  UNCTAD Liner Code
  UNCTAD Liner Code
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents (Deaths)
  Road Accidents (Deaths)
  British Rail (Surplus Land)
  British Rail (Surplus Land)
DEFENCE
  RAF Northolt
  RAF Northolt
  Broughton Moor
  Broughton Moor
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Free School Milk
  Free School Milk
  Emergency Provisions Legislation
  Emergency Provisions Legislation
  Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (Poll)
  Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (Poll)
  Judges (Protection)
  Judges (Protection)
  Lear Fan
  Lear Fan
  Manufacturing Statistics
  Manufacturing Statistics
  Housing Executive (Sales)
  Housing Executive (Sales)
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Assembly
  Assembly
  Temporary Employment
  Temporary Employment
  Owner-occupied Dwellings
  Owner-occupied Dwellings
  Catholic Schoolchildren
  Catholic Schoolchildren
  Economic Plan
  Economic Plan
  Terrorists (Refuge)
  Terrorists (Refuge)
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Non-domestic Rates
  Non-domestic Rates
  Rent Rebates (Suffolk)
  Rent Rebates (Suffolk)
  Toxic Effluents
  Toxic Effluents
SCOTLAND
  Rents
  Rents
  Young Offenders (Remission of Sentence)
  Young Offenders (Remission of Sentence)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Health Authorities (Financing)
  Health Authorities (Financing)
  Support Funding Scheme
  Support Funding Scheme
  Edinburgh (Unemployment Statistics)
  Edinburgh (Unemployment Statistics)
  Education (Resources)
  Education (Resources)
  Dundee College of Education
  Dundee College of Education
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Patients
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Patients
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Housing (Renovation Grants)
  Housing (Renovation Grants)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Local Government (Ward Boundaries)
  Local Government (Ward Boundaries)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Employment of Children of School Age
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken concerning the alleged illegal employment of children of school age in London as shown in the latest survey carried out by the Low Pay Unit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the report Child Labour in London, which was published by the Low Pay Unit late last year, suggests that in the six London schools included in the survey very many of the children who were employed were working illegally. This was generally because they were working excessive or unsuitable hours, or in prohibited occupations. The primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of child employment legislation rests with the local education authorities. I understand that the Inner London Education Authority are very concerned about the findings of the Low Pay Unit report and will be considering what action needs to be taken.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. May I ask my noble friend when the Employment of Children Act, which was passed in 1975, is to be implemented and when regulations are to be printed? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he could consult the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack concerning the rationalisation of the law in regard to the illegal employment of children?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that the Act to which she referred was passed in 1973, not 1975. The Act provides for the codification of the range of by-laws which may be made under the original 1933 Act. I have to tell my noble friend that in recent years very many of the by-laws have been brought into line to comply with the suggestion which our predecessors made in the circular which they issued on 1976, so I am not sure that bringing that Act into force is as urgent as my noble friend suggests. As for the regularisation, codification or even consolidation of the legislation, that is, as my noble friend said, a matter for others rather than for myself, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of those concerned. There are at least four statutes concerned with this matter.

Smoking: Young Persons
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage young offender penal establishments to promote publicity to illustrate smoking as a health hazard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very short but good Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 it is an offence to sell tobacco to children under the age of 16, while in borstals children of 15 are allowed to buy tobacco?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness was kind enough to warn me that she would make this allegation. As a result, the department has already reminded establishments that those detained under the age of 16 must not be sold tobacco and cigarettes.

Gatwick Airport: Capacity
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are still of the opinion that 25 million passengers per annum is the maximum number that Gatwick Airport could carry with a single runway; and what action would be open to them should this number be exceeded.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the figure of 25 million remains the estimate of capacity when the second terminal is completed. The number of passengers using the airport at present is about 11 million. It will not be until the 1990s that the capacity will be fully utilised.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am glad to have that figure confirmed although, as he knows, I feel that there should be a second runway at Gatwick? However, would the Minister agree that the letter which I sent him was rather at variance with that information? May I ask the Minister whether he could answer the last part of my Question as to what action would be open to the Government if there were only one runway, should the capacity be exceeded?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I realise that the noble Baroness has always advocated a second runway at Gatwick, but as the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Sir John Nott, announced on 17th

1323
December 1979, the Government had decided not to pursue that possibility. That still remains the position. So far as the letter sent to the noble Baroness by my noble friend is concerned, I feel that his letter was perfectly clear, although I can well understand that there may have been a difference of approach between the noble Baroness and my noble friend which may have made the meaning of that letter a little less clear than she herself would have wished. So far as the third question which the noble Baroness asked is concerned, I gave the figures about the present user in relation to the capacity to illustrate the fact that it will be a very long time before that capacity is likely to be exceeded. It is a problem which perhaps ought better to be faced somewhat nearer the time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell your Lordships on the basis of what independent technical advice the Government believe that any airport in the world with only one runway could handle 25 million passengers a year?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is raising the very wide question that was considered in 1979. The best advice available to the Government is that with the second terminal it will be possible to handle 25 million passengers, but that of course depends on an extended use of wide-bodied aircraft.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, although the Minister and I are both in good health at the moment, I may not be asking him this Question in the mid-1990s, so may I ask him whether he could say how he thinks the matter could be dealt with if the number of 25 million passengers were to be exceeded? Should we then reach the stage where it was necessary to have a second runway?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships look forward to hearing the noble Baroness pursuing this matter well into the 1990s, but I think today that that is a question of hope rather than expectation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember the dictum of Bernard Shaw: "In the long run we'll all be dead"?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for calling attention to that precedent. He will remember that the late Mr. George Bernard Shaw was well into his nineties before that unfortunate event overtook him.

Attendance at Debates
3.8 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether she can suggest any method of stopping the growing practice of Lords making speeches in which they apologise
1324
for not being present to hear opening or closing speeches in a debate in the light of the fact that the Companion to the Standing Orders describes such behaviour as discourteous.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I welcome this opportunity of drawing noble Lords' attention to the importance of the principle involved on this point. I would, however, be misleading the House if I suggested that it could be enforced by some form of sanction. The relevant guidance is set out on page 87 of the Companion, where it is stated that:
"A Lord who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of that debate. It is considered discourteous for him not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the winding-up speeches".
The Companion concluded that:
"The failure of speakers to attend throughout the debate has the undesirable consequence of encouraging the debate to degenerate into a series of set speeches".
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her support of my Question. Could we not try to enforce the old custom—this applies particularly to Ministers—that when a Minister was making a winding-up speech and a previous speaker was not present for the winding-up the Minister, or whoever was winding-up, never referred to anything which that previous speaker had said?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have noted the point my noble friend has made and will confirm that it is discouraging to Ministers winding up debates to find that, although they have prepared an answer to a point which has been raised in the course of the debate, the noble Lord who raised the point is not present in the Chamber. I am sure that noble Lords will have noted what my noble friend has said on this point. But at the end of the day, one must remember that this is a self-regulatory Chamber.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, with regard to that part of the Question dealing with closing speeches, is not the noble Baroness asking too much of Members of the House in saying that they should wait several hours for the closing speeches, only to discover at 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock that only three or four Members of your Lordships' House are present? If there are 25 or 30 speakers and the debate is regarded as being important from a national or international standpoint, would it not be far better to split the debate over two days?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is precisely because my noble friend Lord Derwent is aware of the fact that sometimes at the end of a debate very few Members are in the House, and this is discourteous to both the noble Lord who introduced the debate as well as the Minister who is responding, that he put down this Question. To have debates regularly spilling over into two days would be a very time-consuming business, and I do not believe that any Government of any complexion would wish to encourage that habit. There are occasions when this is necessary, but not I think as a general practice.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House willing to comment on the

1325
First Report of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House, which was published on 28th January 1981, when it considered congratulation of a maiden speaker? It drew attention to the fact that there was a growing practice for every subsequent speaker to congratulate the maiden speaker. It went on to point out that in Standing Orders it was clearly set out that this was the responsibility of the Member of your Lordships' House who immediately followed the maiden speaker, and it was then considered that that noble Lord was speaking for the whole House. If that practice was adhered to in long debates it would save us something like 30 minutes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving me notice of that question. It is, of course, another Question and he will be glad to know that the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, has made precisely that point in a Question put down for 16th February.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would it not be better if some Members of your Lordships' House were not present for their own speeches?
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend Lady Young not agree that it is an insult to our Standing Orders when so many Peers or Peeresses preface their remarks to the House by saying, "Owing to a long-standing engagement …"? Is it not slightly insulting that, despite knowing that they were not going to be able to be present for the whole debate, they still insist on putting their names down and speaking?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that it is discourteous if, knowing that they have an engagement, Peers still put their name down to speak. But one must accept that there will always be exceptional cases. Noble Lords are busy people who have many commitments outside the House; many entered into a long time prior to the notice of the debate being given. So although I agree that there can always be exceptions, I hope very much that the fact that this point has been raised will draw the attention of noble Lords to this matter and that they will consider it on future occasions.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend also underline the need for all of us on the Back-Benches to keep our speeches a little shorter? In an effort to finish our debates normally at some time between 7 and 8 o'clock, and not later, would it not be wise when 12 minutes, or 15 minutes exceptionally have gone by, for a red light to come on over the indicator and start flashing? This will draw the attention of the rest of the House away from the speech being made and quickly bring the speech to a halt.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for that question. I am sure that he regularly reads the Companion but, if he has not done so recently, perhaps I may remind him that on page 88 it states:
"The House has resolved 'That speeches in this House should be shorter'. Long speeches engender tedium and tend to kill debate".
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Leader of the House can help those of us who live in the backwoods and who have other commitments? Is my noble friend saying that she would rather such Members did not take any part in your Lordships' House for fear of not being able to be present at the end of a debate? As my noble friend has said, your Lordships do sometimes speak for rather a long time.
Baroness Young: No, my Lords; I hope that I made it absolutely clear that there will always be occasions and exceptions to the rule on noble Lords being able to stay until the end of a debate because there are some particular circumstances. The important thing is that noble Lords should not make a habit of leaving before the end of a debate.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House not agree that there is scope for shortening questions on Statements in the House? Some of the so-called questions which follow Statements from the Front Bench are inordinately long and amount to speeches rather than questions.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will have noted the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Once again, we have to remember that ours is a self-regulatory Chamber, and that does imply a responsibility on each and every Member of your Lordships' House to consider the length of a speech and whether or not the remarks he wishes to make can be made in some shorter form, rather than making a very long speech.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Baroness and your Lordships give special consideration to those of my noble and learned friends who are still active Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and who often cannot attend the beginning of a debate without disrupting the judicial business of the House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that is one of the exceptions to which I have already referred.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the industrial situation in the water industry.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Data Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment, the Third Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1983 will be taken.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Definition of "data" and related expressions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("means") insert ("items of').
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will seek to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: That may be the only time that I get acclaim in the course of my remarks to your Lordships. The Committee will be interested in the definitions contained in this Bill, for three reasons. I want, if I may, to differentiate the other two reasons from the reason why I am moving these amendments. Some members of the Committee will be feeling, as they did on Second Reading, that the definitions in the Bill, be they of data information or personal data—all terribly important in a technical Bill—do not go too far; some other members of the Committee will be anxious to see that they go even further than they do. That is not the matter upon which I wish to address your Lordships on these amendments.
There is a second reason for being very careful about the wording that is used in the Bill in regard to these terms, but that reason has proved abortive, as I understand it, at this Committee stage. It is that on Second Reading many Members expressed views as to whether or not the definitions should include manual records. Because of the objects of the Bill as set out, the amendments put down in regard to that have been ruled out of order, but I have no doubt your Lordships will be hearing more about that matter, possibly in discussion on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?
It is for the third reason that my present amendments are being moved. It is that in regard to a Bill of this kind it is terribly important that the words we use, the phraseology we employ, are clearly understood, both by users and by subjects of data or information, and, of course, that we make the interpretation of our legislation as clear as possible to the courts which may have to deal with this Bill when it is enacted and, indeed, with offences under it. Therefore, I plead with your Lordships not to regard me as pedantic when I raise these questions of language.
If one looks up in the dictionary the word "datum" and the plural of it, "data", one finds, if one selects The Concise Oxford Dictionary for that purpose, that "datum" means:
"Thing known or granted, assumption or premise from which inferences may be drawn";
1328
and the plural means:
"facts of any kind, notes".
If you look up the word "information", you find it means:
"Informing, telling; thing told, knowledge, items of knowledge, news".
They are in fact importantly different concepts—data and information.
To give an example, if I were to set down in a computer, or indeed in any records, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was 52 years of age, six feet tall and a most eloquent speaker, I would be stating facts. If I were to say, or to put down in a record or in a computer, the Lord Mishcon was a Member of your Lordships' House, was only 40 years of age and had committed six criminal offences and had been convicted, that undoubtedly, by a collation of the data, would be information. Exactly the same thing would apply, in regard to information as against data, if I were to put down in that record or through the computer machine that Lord Mishcon was now six months overdue with his debt of £25. Your Lordships will note that with the usual courtesy extended from these Benches to the Benches opposite I have put all the pernicious matters against myself and all the complimentary ones against the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
By themselves, data are quite neutral. It is only when they are combined together into information that they can become useful or dangerous. To give a further example, an employer will hold the names of some of his employees among his data. It is only when he adds one of those names to a group headed "shirkers" or "trouble makers" that it will have any effect on the employee. In the same way there can be the neutral datum among the records of the local police force that there is an address, but what will matter very much to the person concerned is whether that address is combined with a category headed "suspected thieves' kitchens" or "premises to be kept under surveillance".
So I make the point that it may be that these amendments are not amendments the noble Lord the Minister finds acceptable, for one good reason or another; it may be that other words ought to be used than those contained in these amendments. But the purpose of them—and it is an important purpose—is that the Minister realises that the draftsman here sometimes uses "data" and "information" as though they were synonyms and sometimes uses them in a way which is not consistent. The purpose of the amendments is to see that at least this matter is looked at with a degree of care, because what needs to be protected by this Bill is not the data as such but the use which is made of them by manipulating them in various ways, and especially by combining them into information (I use that word again) bearing in mind that the same data can be combined into very different kinds of information with very different consequences to the data subject. It is in that spirit and for those reasons that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elton: From this side I should like to open the proceedings this afternoon by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for tabling their copious and

1329
searching amendments to this Bill in such very good time. Therefore, any ineptitudes which I shall produce—and I fear there may be many—will not be the result of pressure to get knowledge absorbed in time for this debate. I wish I could say that for some other amendments, but I cannot.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has grouped a large number of his amendments together and has addressed himself to a principle which underlies them all. I hope that in addressing myself to the first of these amendments, perhaps with a gloss, I shall reveal also our response to the principle. Clause 1(2), to which the first amendments refer, defines what is meant by "data" for the purposes of the Bill. "Data" means information recorded in a form in which it can be processed automatically. The noble Lord wishes the Bill to speak in terms of "items of information". The Bill treats information and data as different concepts. Information is familiar to all of us. It is an intangible thing capable of taking a variety of forms. Data, the Bill says, means information when it has taken a particular one of those forms, a form capable of being processed automatically; that is to say, when it has been translated, for example, into magnetic fields on tape or disc, or into holes punched on a card—when, in a word, it has become what is called machine-readable.
Data as such, therefore, are probably unintelligble to mere mortals but are intelligible to the computer. Information is the reverse. It can be understood by people but not by machines. It has to be translated or converted into data before it can be processed by the machine.
The definitions are both complex and, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, important. That is necessary if the Bill is to catch what we want to catch, but not to catch other things. It is possible therefore to refer to the data and to the information of which the data is composed and information which has been disclosed from the data.
I should now turn to the particular amendment. We are there faced with the notion of items of information. Information in the normal usage of the word—and the noble Lord referred to the dictionary interpretation—is not a commodity that can be divided into convenient, standard, identifiable particles or packages. It cannot be collected and grouped in the way that one brings together two pounds of potatoes or three pints of ale. There is no basic unit for such information which enables us to add it or subtract it numerically. The word "information", therefore, defines this homogeneous commodity, however much of it there may be.
Therefore, the amendment appears to us to be in that respect unnecessary. I do not think I will pursue its weaknesses as a specific amendment because what the noble Lord wanted me to put my finger on is the reason for the division, within the definitions clause, between information and data. The answer is that information becomes data when it becomes machine-readable and it ceases to be data and becomes information when it is legible to the mortal eye. The clauses which follow, to which we shall address close attention, will frequently be built upon that difference because different provisions are needed to apply to the different commodities that we are talking of.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In general I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has been presenting to the House and I also agree with the Minister that there is no basic unit of information—he referred to potatoes and apples—and it is very difficult to assess it under units of that kind. However, unless I have misunderstood the Minister, I wonder whether he has directed his mind to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whom I clearly understood. Throughout the Bill it would appear there is a danger of the words "data" and "information" being used as synonyms, whereas they are not. I may have misunderstood the Minister but he did not appear to have dealt with that one point. That is my only reason for intervening at this stage.
Lord Elton: As I addressed my whole speech to trying to dispel that illusion, I must apologise for not doing it better. They are in the definitions clause in order that each shall be given a separate and distinct meaning for the purposes of this Bill. Throughout the Bill they mean what they are said to mean in the definitions clause.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and, indeed, to the Minister for the way in which they have dealt with these amendments, which, I have tried to assure the Committee, are not the result of pedantry. I do believe, with great respect to the Minister, that he did not get the gravamen of my charge. If my charge is incorrect, that is another matter, but the very gravamen of it was that in the Bill the draftsman has sometimes used the words "data" and "information" as though they were synonyms and sometimes not. That is the whole purpose of the amendments.
I believe it to be quite an improper use of the Committee's time for this sort of argument to continue. The Minister has got the point; at least he is seized of it. I am perfectly sure that with his usual care he will see whether there is substance in what I ventured to say, and what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also ventured to say, and will possibly come back at a later stage, on Report, and, if we are bold enough to put down amendments on the same basis, that he will deal with it. It could very well be that, in the meantime, the Minister will deal with the matter by correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and myself.
Lord Renton: It may well be the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to withdraw the amendment. Before he does so may I speak to Amendment No. 9, which is the last amendment on the first page of the Marshalled List? The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has hit upon a very important point which should particularly engage the attention of the Government.
Lord Mishcon: I interrupt the noble Lord and I am sure he will forgive me. I did not speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. They are not my amendments.
Lord Renton: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: In the spirit that I mentioned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.36 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 3.
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("can") and insert ("is processed or is intended to").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to bring Clause 1(2) into line with a similar statement of fact in Clause 1(5)(a). I should say here that I am advised by the CBI on this point. It seems it is right to say, as it does in Clause 1(5)(a), that one is talking about data that are processed or intended to be processed and that one should logically do that when one is using the word as part of the definition of a data user, and to use the same phrase when defining data in Clause 1(2).
This not only seems logical but I am advised also that, because of the broad ability of modern technology and, indeed, what may come in the future, it is important to encompass within "data", the data which are intended to be processed as well as those which can be processed. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I do so on the basis that it offers at least some slight tightening up of the definition of data which is set out in Clause 1(2). The present position with that definition is that I think it will lead to considerable doubt in industry as to what exactly is included and what is not included. To say that it is information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically is almost meaningless when one considers the pace of technological change. Information that can be processed by equipment operating automatically tomorrow may well be information that cannot be processed by such a means today. It seems to me to be highly preferable in those circumstances not to leave a situation where no industry can possibly judge whether or not it is dealing with data within the terms of this Bill, but to say instead that the test is whether it is processed rather than whether it can conceivably be processed.
Perhaps I may use the opportunity to raise one or two queries. I am still not happy, even with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as to whether the definition provided here will be precise enough for people to be able to work accurately. For example, I query whether the definition as it stands includes the operation of word processors; whether they provide information which is recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically. Does it cover automatic typewriters? Does it cover the automatic recording of telex or telephone messages? Does it cover the use of microfilm equipment in which, by the operation of searcher instructions through buttons or keys, information can be retrieved? Indeed, to take an extreme case, does it cover a letter from a doctor which sets out the history, treatment, diagnosis, prognosis and his opinion on the medical condition of a patient? One knows now that there is an internationally accepted classification of
1332
diagnoses, and it might well be said that such a letter is in a form, therefore, that can be processed by equipment operating automatically. Considerations of this sort are of crucial importance to the medical profession, for example, who must know from Clause 2 1(1)(b) of the Bill whether the documents they are compiling will be subject to disclosure by the data subject or not.
The definition as it stands I regard as highly inadequate and giving very little guidance to industry as to what is covered and what is not covered. The altered definition proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is a distinct improvement, though even then, I suspect, it is capable of still further improvement in order to assist people to understand precisely what is covered and what is not.
May I add this in general terms? There are a number of observations which I think many noble Lords will want to make in the course of the passage of this Bill which are perhaps in some way or another of a rather technical nature. I suspect that very few of them will turn out to be of a party political nature. If the noble Lord feels at any stage that he would prefer to reflect on what has been said, rather than give a hasty answer from the Front Bench, and then deal with it at leisure in the course of correspondence before the next stage of this Bill, that would be very much understood and widely appreciated.
Lord Avebury: If I may, I would add one word to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my noble friend, arising out of the remarks made by the Minister on the last amendment when he sought to draw a distinction between information which is comprehensible to human beings and information which is only understood by computers. It seems to me that it follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my noble friend have said that the line between these two definitions is being increasingly blurred. I give two examples. One is the growth of optical character recognition, which enables a computer to read ordinary typescript and, perhaps, ultimately, manuscript, so that the question arises about whether ordinary typescript or manuscripts held in filing cabinets would be covered by the definition now under consideration. The second example I want to draw to the noble Lord's attention is the growing ability of computers to recognise human speech.
The British Computer Society in making its annual awards last year made an award to a system which recognises human speech on a fairly sophisticated scale. There are still problems here because human speech contains ambiguity, but no one can doubt that ultimately the degree of comprehension by machine of human speech will equal that of most people who speak the language with some facility. Therefore, we should ensure that the definitions in the Bill not only take into account technological developments which have already occurred but also carry forward into the future, so that with the very rapid pace of development that we see now occurring they will not be out of date within a few years of the passing of the Bill.
Lord Elton: I entirely accept that the definition of "data" as framed in the Bill embraces information recorded in a vast range of circumstances. Before I

1333
come to deal with it I should like to take up the point courteously put by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, reminding me that most of the points in the Bill were not political and that I should feel free to reflect on them, particularly when they are too technical to respond to immediately from the Front Bench. I am very happy to do that and indeed to correspond when appropriate. My only hesitation is due to the fact that practically every Bill I have taken in this House so far has been preceded by the statement that it was not political and that has made everybody feel absolutely free to attack me from all sides of the House. I hope that my friends behind me will not be tempted into disloyalty in that event.
The villain of the piece, I suppose, that I had identified before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with his close personal expertise in this matter intervened, was the optical character recognition range or family of machines. He added to those the possibility that machines that could understand and respond to speech might subsequently emerge. Perhaps at that stage your Lordships could all go home and programme some small machine to carry out the debate for them. But in the meantime, we recognise the difficulty.
Noble Lords feel that much too wide a range of material is available to be caught by the Bill. If the Bill did in fact have such very wide-ranging implications the Government would also be anxious about this. But we believe that that pitfall, of which we were certainly conscious during the drafting of the Bill, has been avoided by the way in which the definitions, taken together, have been cast. We are certainly aware that the state of modern technology is such that a great deal of printed matter would fall within the definition of "data" as contained in subsection (2), for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given. But that does not matter as long as no obligations or duties flow from the mere fact of possessing such data. We have to go further into the Bill, in other words, to discover the safeguards.
We recognise that it is only in certain circumstances that it is right that the use of data should carry with it any obligations and we sought to identify these in the definition of "data user" contained in subsection (5) of the clause. There one sees that a quite complex test is required to be met before anyone qualifies as a data user. To do so one must hold data which is part of a collection of data which is processed, or intended to be processed, and one must control the contents and the use of the data comprised in the collection. In other words, the very concept of processing or intending to process, which the noble Lord has sought to introduce into the data definition, is already there in regard to data users.
Unless one is processing or intending to process then one is not a "data user" and not placed under any of the obligations which the Bill provides. I should add, for the sake of completeness, that the Bill's requirements apply only to data users holding personal data, so that there is a further effective constraint on the circumstances in which the provisions of the Bill will apply.
I hope I have made myself clear. The definition of "data" may seem wide but only becomes applicable and activates the other provisions of the Bill if handled
1334
and used by particular people, in a particular way and for particular purposes. I therefore suggest that, although my noble friend's motives are absolutely sound and indeed admirable, his intentions are already met by the provisions of the Bill as drafted.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I ask my noble friend one question-whether the definition in subsection (2) excludes manual as well as automatically recorded data?
Lord Elton: Yes.
Lord Swinfen: Will not my noble friend's amendment help to bring this definition into line with the wording of Clause 1(5)?
Lord Elton: I think we are not so much concerned with elegance and symmetry as with the effect of the Bill. The effect of this subsection is as I have described it, given that it has to be taken with the definitions of "data user" and of "personal data".
Lord Mottistone: I am happy with what my noble friend has said. It seems to me to be logical that the two are interrelated and build up from one to the other. I think that is what he is saying. I hope that my advisers agree with me, but if not I shall perhaps be returning to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The next amendment is Amendment No. 4. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 10.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("means") to end of line 16 and insert ("any data which relate or can be related to an identified or identifiable living individual not being a body corporate including the data whereby he can be identified.").
The noble Lord said: This is one of two amendments of which one, as we were told earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was not allowed as it was without the precepts of the Bill. Therefore, I was proposing not to move this amendment but, if this were agreeable to the other noble Lords whose names are associated with this amendment, to discuss the subject upon the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, when we come to that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: We are quite agreeable to that course.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 not moved.]
3.51 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("including") and insert ("excluding")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This amendment raises a proposition which is not in any sense a technical matter. It is an issue upon which there are two perfectly clear, distinct and

1335
arguable views, and upon which I myself come down slightly in favour of the proposition put forward in the amendment.
As the Bill stands, any person upon whom a reference has been given, however confidential, from one employer to another, will be entitled—provided, of course, it is computerised and provided it comprises data within the terms of the Bill—to access to see the contents of that reference. It seems to me that there are two conflicting arguments here upon which your Lordships' opinions would no doubt be very helpful.
On the one hand—and in my view the stronger hand—there is the view that industry can only operate on the basis of total frankness where references are requested and it is known that complete confidentiality is going to be preserved. Therefore, documents can pass in the secure knowledge that no acute embarrassment will be caused by their disclosure to the person involved. On the other hand, there is the argument, which I fully accept and understand, that the individual citizen is so affected, or may be so affected, in his livelihood by a particular reference that he ought to have the opportunity of access to it in order to see if there is anything wrong, anything in error and anything that ought to be amended or put right.
I venture to think that the number of occasions upon which there is anything factually so erroneous in a reference that it requires the access of the individual concerned in order to put it right, is very small. I venture to think also that the harm that will be done to commerce and industry if in fact expressions of opinion about individuals are going to be subject to access by those individuals, will be very substantial indeed. There is, therefore, a strong case for omitting those particular words from the Bill. Indeed, one of the consequences of this Bill as it stands and of this clause as it stands is that if the situation is to be such that the individual is entitled to have access to confidential documents of that sort, then confidential documents of that sort will simply cease to exist and a great deal will be done over the telephone or by verbal meeting which is really much better done in writing and in circumstances where proper consideration can be given to what is expressed.
Perhaps I might add that I hope that I am not exaggerating when I say that I am happy to know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will almost inevitably approve the argument which I am at the moment putting forward on the Bill. I say that because Clause 30 of the Bill to which we shall no doubt come in several weeks' time, quite specifically states:
"Personal data held by a government department are exempt from the subject access provisions if the data consist of information which has been received from a third party and is held as information relevant to the making of judicial appointments".
I entirely agree with that. I would entirely accept that it would be impossibly embarrassing to invite judges, for example, to comment on the performance of potential judges, or their reputation, if those members of the Bar were entitled to go along to the Lord Chancellor's office and say, "I want to see the reference that a particular judge has given upon me".
I agree with that; but I cannot see the argument for saying that judges or judical appointments are in a class by themselves. If (which is very unlikely to happen) I were ever asked to give a reference for a member of the Bar applying for a judicial appointment, I would expect that to be treated in precisely the same confidential circumstances as if (which is equally unlikely to happen) I were ever asked to give a reference for someone who was anxious that his name might be considered for the Order of Merit or for a life peerage. I can see no argument in principle for distinguishing between the two. I venture to suggest that, on balance, the argument here is very much in favour of exempting confidential references from the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be radically to restrict the scope of the Bill. Since the whole Bill is concerned with the control and regulation of "personal data", the definition in Clause 1(3) is central to the effect that the Bill will have. As cast, this provision recognises the existence of three categories of personal data. First, there are "factual" data. They may cover a multitude of matters, such as names, addresses, ages, marital status, number of children, level of income—I could go on indefinitely. There can be no question that such data must be caught by the Bill, and I think that that is something with which the noble Lord would agree.
The next category of data is sometimes called "judgmental data"; that is, as the Bill puts it, data which express an opinion about an individual. The noble Lord has concentrated his observations on the way in which such opinions are included in references. He inadvertently, perhaps, referred to a document in that context, but, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already elicited, a document, being a manually held piece of information, would not be caught by the Bill. We are none the less in a very crucial area, for judgmental data arouse just as much public concern when stored on computers as do factual data, and in some cases a good deal more.
Let us consider what the expression of opinion in judgmental data may be about, other than references which need not be kept on a computer. It may be about a person's honesty; it may be about his creditworthiness; it may be about the actions which someone else may expect that individual to take in certain foreseen circumstances; it may be about his employability. These are personal data of the first order, and if they are placed on a computer—and are therefore subject to all those special capabilities that a computer has for collation, transfer, retrieval and the rest—they should surely be protected. To take such potentially sensitive data outside the scope of the Bill would, I believe, cause the Bill to fall at the first hurdle: it would utterly fail in its task of reassuring data subjects at large that personal data held about them will be properly controlled, although the question about re-assuring the judiciary is a matter to which we shall return in many days' time.
Not only that, but another main objective of the Bill would also be jeopardised. As my noble and learned friend made clear at Second Reading, by means of this Bill we seek to put ourselves in a position to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Data Protection.

1337
There must be at least the most severe doubt as to whether we could ratify it if we had covered only factual personal data in the Bill and had excluded from it expressions of opinion about the data subject. Certainly we would be wholly out of line with those of our European partners who already have data protection legislation in force, and who do not appear to suffer harm from it. None of their laws, as far as I am aware, takes the same restrictive line as that proposed by the noble Lord.
Therefore, although I listened with interest to the noble Lord's dissertation on the particular case of personal references, I am not persuaded by what he said that the Bill should be altered entirely to meet that concern. That would be a dangerous approach to follow. The Bill would be damaged, and I hope that the noble Lord will think further about the matter.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister's answer on this point is a very forceful one, and in spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, with his usual clarity and eloquence, moved this amendment most ably—as we would expect of him—I think that the noble Lord the Minister has answered him. What worries many of us is that it means that if you put through a computer that an employee has been absent from work due to illness for 10 days in a period of six months, and then put after it "malingerer", it having been put through the computer the employee is entitled to a copy. If you have in your computer "employee absent 10 days through illness" and you put in your file, which you keep of that employee, "absent 10 days through illness, malingerer", then the employee is not entitled to a copy.
If I may say so with great respect, that shows—and I make the point only for this reason—how inept it is to have a Bill before this House which complies strictly with the convention in dealing with the computer but which leaves the whole question of manual records absolutely outside the legislation. It is because of this contradiction and, if I may say so without exaggeration, absurdity, that, although one agrees with the Minister's reply, the situation is left in a most unsatisfactory state.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether I could just reassure the noble Lord. The Bill is about controlling data. We now all know what data are, and I still want to say "is". They are fugitive, uninterpretable to the human eye. transferable at the speed of light to distances, possibly via a satellite to another continent; they can be collated instantaneously with other unknown masses of information. They ought to be under public control. The piece of paper which the boss keeps in his drawer or the filing clerk keeps in the registry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that certain information of a judgmental type might be consigned, cannot be so transferred and is not so dangerous to the individual. As soon as the boss or the filing clerk decides that it ought to be collated, transmitted or in other ways handled so that it becomes data, it falls within the Bill.
Therefore, the Bill protects the private individual from the operation of modern technology upon his private interests. It does not seek to go further. It does not seek to control what might have gone on in Dickens's day or in Pepys's day. Save the photocopier
1338
and the typewriter, things have changed very little. It is concertrating as a response to technological advance. If the noble Lord wants to legislate outside that for something else, that is perfectly fair, but not to do so in this Bill is not absurd.
Lord Wigoder: I am grateful for the consideration that the noble Lord has given to this matter. He will forgive me if I say that I find it difficult to be convinced. Indeed, the very test that he chose—the one of employability—perhaps rather highlights the situation. If an employee of mine who is doing, say, a grade 9 job applies for, say, a grade 10 job elsewhere and I wish to give an honest reference that he is a perfectly adequate grade 9 worker but that in my view he does not have the judgment, the supervisory powers or the financial control ever to get any further, is it not in the interests of industry as a whole that I should give that honest and frank reference?—assuming, of course, I know that it will be computerised data at the other end, as it is in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Lord Chancellor's Department is not unique in this matter.
In those circumstances, can it really be said that it is in the interests of anybody that the employee should discover that I take the view that his prospects of promotion are absolutely negligible? I think that there is a matter here to be very seriously considered in terms of business efficiency. Having said that, I should like to look again at the European Convention to ensure that what I am proposing is, in fact, in line with that. I propose to do that between now and the next stage, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: This might be a convenient time for us to hear the Statement. I beg to move that this House be now resumed for that purpose.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Water Industry Dispute
4.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further Statement to the House about the water industry dispute.
"Since my Statement last Thursday there has been little change in the number of people advised as a precaution to boil water. This now stands at 7 million. There has been a further increase of some 15,000 in the number of properties now without normal supplies, which now stands at 38,000. Once again arrangements have been or are being made for alternative supplies. There have been some further

1339
reconnections of properties to mains supply. The quality of effluent from many sewage treatment works continues to deteriorate and some streams are polluted, but there has been no serious effect on rivers.
"In my Statement last Thursday I informed the House that the employers were ready to have immediate negotiations about higher earnings in relation to improved productivity under the terms recommended by the mediator in paragraph 8 of his report. These negotiations took place on Sunday, at which time the employers tabled a series of proposals. These proposals covered improvements in productivity, pay by credit transfer and changes in working practices. In spite of 12 hours of discussion at ACAS on Sunday no agreement was possible.
"At this point, since there was still no agreement, the employers exercised their right to invoke the final stage of the agreed procedure, in accordance with the agreement signed by both parties and witnessed by Mr. Lowry of ACAS on 21st January. I now quote from Mr. Lowry's letter which accompanied the agreement:
The third sentence of the clause deals specifically with possibility of arbitration—the final stage in the procedure. It emphasises that arbitration is the course of last resort which means that it will only be used when negotiations properly carried out (in this instance with the help of the mediator) have failed to produce an agreement. I consider that the sentence is absolutely clear. In the circumstances of such a disagreement either party would have the right to seek arbitration and the other would have the obligation to respond.'
Last night ACAS were formally told by the trade union side that they were not willing to accept arbitration.
"Mr. Speaker, in my two previous Statements to the House I urged the earliest possible end to this damaging dispute which, while only affecting a small proportion of the population, is none the less causing very real hardship and distress to many, not least the sick and the elderly. I also stated my belief that the offer of an increase of an average of £10 a week, quite apart from any further benefits through increased productivity, is by any standards this year a very fair offer indeed. I also made clear in both Statements that there were two main options to achieve an end to the dispute and an immediate return to work. The first of these options involved negotiations on higher earnings for productivity as recommended by the mediator. These negotiations failed to produce agreement. There therefore remains the second option: that the agreement reached through ACAS must be honoured and the terms of the national agreement requiring arbitration must be followed.
"If normal service to the public is to be resumed, and if the water workers are to lose no more earnings, it is vital that those concerned reconsider their position and agree to accept binding arbitration as clearly stated in the agreement. The
1340
whole House will appreciate the seriousness of the situation if a clear agreement, freely entered into, that provided the sensible procedure for resolving this dispute is not to be honoured."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We are all aware that the country views with great misgivings the prolongation of this potentially exceptionally grave dispute. What we all fervently want to see is an early and honourable end to the dispute, before any major damage and personal and industrial hardship have taken place. The Secretary of State in his Statement said that it was still on a small scale, but for those people involved it is absolutely catastrophic at this time, and for our industries.
Unfortunately, because of the inflammatory interventions by the Government and also the bungling by the employers, the unions' attitude has, alas! hardened. The trouble is that today the unions do not trust the Government not to interfere with arbitration. There is not today, as I understand it, and there has never been, any question of the unions not wanting an inquiry. The Secretary of State quoted from the letter from Mr. Lowry of ACAS. I wonder why he did not also quote the condemnation of the employers' approach in last night's ACAS statement, which said:
"Expectations raised by certain statements made to the media by the employers and subsequently dashed have not made the negotiations easier and have prejudiced the prospects of a settlement."
When one gets into this type of situation, it is difficult to try to keep a balance, but this is important. The Statement referred to negotiations, but no real negotiations have in fact yet taken place. What has happened is that the employers have stated their terms and have refused to budge from them. It is hard to understand why the employers are so reluctant to accept an inquiry, which could be set up very easily now—and ACAS will be quite prepared to do it, as I understand—whose terms of reference would deal with the wider issues, such as the restoration of a stable and long-term industrial relations framework for the industry. Can we be assured by the Minister that the Government are not involved in that refusal? I am sure he will agree with me that it is essential that people should be got round the table as quickly as possible and at least start talking again.
Is the noble Lord aware that the unions have said that if an inquiry is accepted the whole dispute could be over by the weekend? The unions involved have an honourable record of accepting the recommendations of inquiries. We on this side of the House feel that the Minister or his right honourable friend should make clear their wish that employers accept the inquiry with its wider terms of reference. This dispute must be settled quickly and fairly, and we on this side of the House will do our utmost to bring this about.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would also wish to thank the noble Minister for repeating the Statement. We must, of course, as everybody in this House must, deplore the continuation of this

1341
dispute affecting, as it does, not only domestic consumers of water, which is serious enough in all conscience, but increasingly affecting industry dependent on water, and therefore risking jobs already too much at risk throughout this country. We must also say that it is a quite unbelievable degree of muddle which seems to have developed in these so-called negotiations. It is easy to make mistakes, but the confusions which have arisen in this particular instance really are exceptional.
I would also say that the only negotiation so-called that seems to be taking place is negotiation on the media. I suppose it is much too late to hope that we could have rather less negotiation via the media. It is very good for the vanity of people on the media but it does extremely little to improve industrial relations. lf, with a little less publicity, we could get them off the "box" and round the table, that would be of the greatest help to everybody.
I agree when the Minister points out that the agreement, repeating the report from Mr. Lowry of ACAS, undoubtedly includes a commitment to arbitration. The employers have offered arbitration, and that offer has been refused. We on these Benches would always consider that it is extremely important that agreements freely entered into should be honoured and that arbitration should be undertaken. We do not in any way condone the refusal to go to arbitration. On the other hand, we are reaching a point where, because, frankly, of mishandling on both sides, some further step has to be taken. It seems to us that the case for an independent inquiry—a genuinely independent inquiry—should now be urgently considered; an inquiry which looks into the whole issue of pay structures in the water industry. But if this is to be offered it should be in exchange for an agreement by the unions to go back to work now on the offer which has been put forward from the employers' side. That offer, of course, to be reviewed at the end of the pay review.
May I also add that if we are considering a review of the pay structure of the industry, it should look into the conditions in the industry and should take up a number of the complaints which have been made by people in the industry; but that, while it should look at comparable pay elsewhere, it should set its face against accepting the arguments based on the league table. Let us get it clear now that if, in dealing with pay discussions in this country, the argument returns that you should have a pay increase because you have lost your position in the league table, then we are right back to a degree of pay rigidity which has been extremely damaging over the last two decades.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who have responded to the Statement. Perhaps I may reply to them fairly briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to the effect on those who are involved and those who are, if I may put it that way, on the receiving end of the worst parts of it. I think there can be no disagreement between us as to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to "inflammatory interventions by the Government". I think frankly that adds nothing at all to the debate.
1342
The noble Baroness said that the unions do not trust the Government not to interfere with arbitration. That might well be said, but I feel that that, too, is not constructive. The fact is that arbitration means what it says. It is arbitration by people independently appointed and agreed by the parties. I would have thought that that was very much the sensible way to proceed. Indeed, apparently both sides in this dispute—the trade unions and the employers—felt that way when they agreed and signed the agreement to which I referred.
I must differ with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she said that no real negotiations have taken place. Four separate offers have been made. A mediator agreed by both sides was appointed, and he made his recommendations; the employers were willing to accept although it meant an increased offer, and the trade union side would not. I would have thought that that was very much part of negotiations.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether I could intervene?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I finish first, and then the noble Baroness will have another chance. The noble Baroness asked: are the Government involved in the inquiry refusal? These are negotiations taking place between both sides in a sensitive area, and I am not today, any more than I was before, about to get into trying to place blame or apportion responsibility at all. I am concerned, as is everyone in the House, to see that we allow both parties to get on with it, and we should encourage them to do so and stress the importance of their doing so. I should have thought that was the most constructive thing we could do.
I must agree when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, refers to the role of the media in this; but that is a way of life we must come to accept. The media are there and, let us face it, this is news; and if it is not always presented in the way in which many of us would like, that is the way of it. While I agree with the effect of that, as she rightly puts it, it too is something with which we must live, and I think we shall have to go on doing so.
The noble Baroness was also supportive of there being an inquiry. I should have thought the first prerequisite of any inquiry was that its conclusions, just as with arbitration, should be binding, and that is something, so far as I am aware, we do not as yet have.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the point I wished to emphasise was that, when I said the negotiations had not been real, I was repeating a point that had been underlined in the quotation I gave from the ACAS report, and the point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; namely, that when there is such a complete muddle that people do not know what to expect—they were told there might be rises of between £5 and £10 a week; then they were told that the sum would be 85p; and because of the structure of the industry it is difficult to know what it will be across the board—then (it is a great pity and I am not happy about it) that negates the effect of the negotiations.
The Minister did not answer the specific point made by both of us; namely, whether the Government will look with an appreciative eye on the setting up of an

1343
independent inquiry which would take in the wider issues to which we referred. At least we could then get on with matters and the dispute could come to an end.
Lord Orr-Ewing: Before my noble friend replies, my Lords, may I ask whether one matter could be made clear? The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I think quoting the trade union's estimate, said the offer was equivalent to about 85p; I heard that sum mentioned in a broadcast. In repeating the Statement, however, my noble friend said it was between £5 and £10 a week extra. Are we right to take it, therefore, that the £136.90 a week, which are the average earnings now of water workers, would become £146.90 a week under the offer which is on the table at this stage?
Lord Bellwin: There is a slight confusion here, my Lords. I certainly endorse, to the best of my knowledge, the figures my noble friend mentions; that the offer would take the average earnings of, I think, £136.90 up by about £10 a week. But I think the 85p to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was referring was the additional amount of productivity earnings that it was stated by the union side would be the effect of them taking the additional amount that was being suggested by the employers' side.
Lord Orr-Ewing: That would be on top of the £10?
Lord Bellwin: Yes.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and excluding opinion about the business operation of a self-employed person or owner of a small business.").
The noble Lord said: This seeks to make a small distinction which we feel might be of importance. Subsection (3), in defining personal data, at present includes an expression of opinion about the individual, and that we would not disagree with. However, there are operations—perhaps the Committee can imagine a manufacturing business supplying a range of corner shops—in which the distinction between the business operations of the shop owner, which would include the staff, would be different from an expression of opinion about him as an individual.
It seemed that it might be a good plan to make this distinction so that when referring to personal data in other parts of the Bill, we are not including opinions about the business operations of such a person, thus putting that information more on a par with the business operations there might be with a small company, perhaps a subsidiary, because the business operations there would never be considered as personal information, though a small company of retailers might be in direct competition, from a business point of view, with corner shops. Therefore,
1344
the information about their respective business operations would need to hang together, and we need to provide so that a muddle, so to speak, between the individual as an individual and the individual as a shopkeeper does not occur.
The same sort of argument applies to self-employed persons, who might be a plumber employed by a business or—and there are some employed in this way—a team of salesmen who are self-employed because that happens to be the way in which they and the company find it best to operate. Again, their business operation, in performing their function, is different from themselves as individuals as described in subsection (3). I hope my noble friend, acknowledging the difficulty, as with all the amendments with which we are now dealing, of trying to make these distinctions, will feel able to give favourable consideration to an amendment along these lines.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation of the amendment. I am bound to acknowledge that the Bill as drafted could, in certain circumstances, be used by, for example, self-employed persons to discover what was thought about them in a business context in a way that would not be open to a larger organisation, and I acknowledge the difficulty in this field. However, I am not as confident as is my noble friend that it is possible to distinguish, as he attempts to do, between opinions about the business activities of a self-employed person and opinions about the person himself.
When one is at the level of the one-man business, the man and his business cannot easily be separated for our purposes. Would the opinion, for example, that a particular person's work was shoddy, or that he was likely to engage in financial malpractice, be a comment on his business life or on him as an individual? The answer, surely, is that it is both, and that he could be harmed by such comments in his private capacity just as much as in the business context from which they derived. It would surely be wrong to deny that person, as an individual, the protection which the Bill otherwise affords.
Indeed, the amendment could, if accepted, lead to the curious result that, say, a statement of opinion by a commercial organisation as to the honesty of a self-employed person would not be governed by the provisions of the Bill—and not carry an entitlement to access to the information—whereas a similar statement made by the same organisation in regard to the same person, if he became one of their employees, would be so protected.
Far from removing the possibility of the Bill discriminating in favour of the self-employed, I fear that the amendment could have the effect of discriminating against such people, by depriving them of the general protection of the Bill; and I have to add that it is not altogether clear to me why opinions about the business operations of the owner of a small business should be excluded from the definition of personal data while a similar expression of opinion in regard to the single owner of a large enterprise would still be covered by the Bill and enjoy the benefit of its provisions. I am sorry that I do not find so much merit in my noble friend's amendment as he does, but I hope that I have made the reasons for that clear.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer. It was indeed difficult to arrive at a way of conveying the information that might attract my noble friend's happier appreciation of what I was trying to do; but I think that he understands the problem. I should like to take away the proposal and see whether I can improve upon it, but if it does not appear at a later stage my noble friend will know that I cannot improve upon it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 19, after ("augmenting, ") insert ("transferring, ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to insert the word "transferring" after the word "augmenting", and I can explain it to your Lordships' Committee very simply. When one has a system that manipulates data and one transfers them from one category to another, one is doing a fairly important thing, and often by transferring them that way one produces an effect that is greater than any other effect. I should like to give an example to your Lordships' Committee. If my name is transferred from its previous place, which was quite a respectable, honourable place, to a list of bad credit ratings, or a list of suspicious characters, the word "rearranging" may not cover the point, but "transferring" obviously would. In order that there is no subtle legal argument that such a transfer, as I have called it, is not in fact a rearrangement, I would ask the Committee to agree that this is a sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his lucid and brief explanation of what he is about. As we have already found in debates on the earlier amendments, the definitions in Clause 1 cover a very complex area, and they have been drawn up with great care. It is therefore of the first importance that the Bill applies to those persons and those kinds of information that it needs to apply to for the proper protection of data subjects, but to no others. I understand the temptation to add "transferring" to the operations referred to in Clause 1(7) as constituting "processing". I note that the Lindop Committee included "transfer" under what it called "handling", which is the equivalent of what we call "processing". I note, too, that the Council of Europe Convention includes "dissemination" in its definition of "processing". But in both those cases a rather different approach was taken to the definition. We have looked again at those in the Bill, and we are confident that the addition of "transferring" is not necessary. I shall try to explain why, as lucidly and briefly as the noble Lord has explained why it is necessary.
The definitions have to be taken as a composite whole. What the Bill is concerned with is data users who process personal data, and, as the final part of Clause 1(7) makes clear, personal data are "processed" only where an operation is performed,
"by reference to a particular data subject".
In other words, there has to be an amending, augmenting, deleting or rearranging of particular individuals' data, or the extracting of information constituting
1346
particular individuals' data. Now, what happens if we add the word "transferring" to that list? I think that it immediately becomes clear that in order to transfer particular individuals' data the information constituting the data must be extracted. How else are the particular data isolated and transferred? The person who controls the contents and use of the data in respect of which the extraction process has been performed will be a "data user" as that term is currently defined in the Bill, and therefore we do not actually gain anything if we add "transferring" to the list.
In compiling the list of operations that on their own, or together, make up "processing", we thought long and we thought hard. I have already referred to the Lindop Committee's definition of "handling", under which were included 13 different operations. The Council of Europe Convention included six operations in its definition of "automatic processing", and we have contented ourselves with five. I remain confident that they will be sufficient for our purposes, given the way that processing interlinks with the rest of the definitions.
We believe that with that list we have ensured that anybody who performs operations that need to be caught will be caught. We do not believe that the addition of the word "transferring" would improve the effectiveness of our design, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would agree that it is always dangerous to allow to be placed on the statute book words or phrases that are unnecessary. They have a nasty habit of later turning out to have some quite unforeseen and unintended effect. I see that the noble and learned Lord has taken the point; I hope that I have persuaded his noble friend.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to add to what the noble Lord the Minister has said. My advice is that there might be a danger that by including the word "transferring" there would be brought into the scope of the Bill the whole question of electronic mail, which is otherwise excluded. This is perhaps an additional reason for not including the word at this stage.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether in his reply the noble Lord the Minister has considered the question of one computer talking to another computer, transferring information from computer A to computer B. Would the question of transferring not arise in that situation?
Lord Elton: I think that I need to take a moment's thought about that. I had relaxed a second too early. I had put the whole idea out of my mind in anticipation of Amendment No. 12, or No. 1 1A, as it happens. A transfer between machines is certainly the handling of data, is it not? I think that this is one of the occasions when I gratefully recall what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said. I want to think about this point, but the advice is that such an occurence involves an extraction before there is a transfer. But I think my noble friend is thinking there might be some kind of electronic key which would enable information data to be transferred between one computer and another on, as it were, a delayed command without even the knowledge of the user. I believe that later in the Bill we shall come to an

1347
illustration which shows how this is protected. If we do not encounter such an illustration, I shall write to my noble friend; if we do, I shall merely talk to him in the bar.
Lord Mishcon: I found myself almost trembling at the consequences of the single word "transferring" being inserted into the Bill, whereas I had thought that it was a helpful amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Lord who added to the suggestion that one might have to look carefully at the word "transferring". It is right that as a general principle one does not insert otiose words in a Bill, and it is dangerous to do so. Of course, it is equally dangerous to use a word that is capable of argument by lawyers as to whether it includes something that one meant to include, or excludes it. That is why I wanted to make doubly sure by inserting the word "transferring".
The noble Lord the Minister said that he would consider the point that was so helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on the automatic transfer from one computer to another. Possibly at the same time the Minister will look at the remarks that I ventured to make, and if he will be good enough to communicate with me, either verbally, which is always a pleasure, or in writing, I shall be very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 2, line 19, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a collection of").
The noble Lord said: First, I must apologise to my noble friend and, indeed, to your Lordships' Committee for the late tabling of these amendments, for which I am indeed sorry. It so happens that they have come from people who simply did not have an opportunity to give them to me in time for them to be tabled any earlier. I did not want to miss this early stage of the Bill and inflict these proposals on your Lordships at the Report stage, when they might not have been entirely suitable. I hope that my noble friend will feel that he can handle them, notwithstanding the short time he has had to consider them.
The first one, Amendment 11A, with which I should like to couple No. 14A, is relatively simple and is almost a re-run of one of my earlier amendments seeking to put the definition in line with subsection (5)(a). My adviser, who understands about computers and is deeply involved in industry, feels that the right way of so describing data in line 19 is to call them a collection. I cannot go any further than that. This would seem to be a matter of the opinion of the expert about which I can go no further.
As to Amendment No. 14A, this also takes from another part of the Bill, but the important point here is that it is felt that "identifiable" is more appropriate as an adjective to describe the data subject in this particular place, I hope that my noble friend will find it possible to agree with me on both those points.
Lord Elton: It was good of the noble Lord to apologise for the late tabling of his amendment. A number of amendments were tabled late and although
1348
both officials and Ministers laboured far into the night and through most of the lunch break, it is not always possible to keep abreast of things that arrive at that stage; and that does not really assist the Committee or noble Lords who seek information. But enough said; the noble Lord has apologised.
I am bound to record my concern that the amendment might undermine the protection which we have sought, by the way the Bill's definitions have been cast, to provide. The concept of a "collection of data" is one which occurs in the context of "data users" (in Clause 1(5)) where to qualify as a data user one must hold data which form part of a collection of data, processed or intended to be processed and so on. There it is right to talk of a collection of data because that is how, in common sense, we conceive of a data user. But processing is what he then does with his data collection; that is to say, in the case of personal data, that he deletes, rearranges, extracts and so on the data that go to make up the collection of data. It is not the collection of data that the user is likely to be wanting to rearrange, but parts of that total data collection. This, I suggest, is the essential element in the automatic processing of personal data which has given rise to concern—the ability to take a collection of data, and to perform at high speed certain functions in regard to the constituent parts of that total collection.
To take an example, an organisation handling its payroll by computer might need to augment the information contained in that total collection of data when it came to the paying of bonuses to certain members of its staff. I think we would all agree that that is precisely the sort of activity which we should wish to be covered by the term "processing", but what is happening there is that data are being augmented rather than that augmentation is being done to a collection of data. The noble Lord's advice was obviously as rapidly supplied as mine. I hope that what I have said will satisfy whoever he wishes to satisfy.
Lord Mottistone: Is my noble friend prepared to take Amendment No. 14A at the same time?
Lord Elton: I did not wish to make a meal of this. However, this amendment proposes a further modification to the definition of "processing" in Clause 1(7) of the Bill. What it would do would be to provide, in the case of personal data, that to qualify as "processing" the listed operations would have to be performed by reference to an identifiable data subject, rather than simply by reference to a particular data subject. I do not, I confess, even after having listened to the noble Lord, appreciate the need for this amendment. The concept of an individual being identifiable is already present in the Bill by virtue of subsection (3): if the data do not relate to a living individual who can be identified from the information they are not "personal" data in our terms. And since, to carry the argument one stage further, one can only be a "data subject" if one is the subject of personal data, the subsection (7) definition must carry with it the idea of being identifiable. If the noble Lord wants further precision, I am happy to write to him.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that very full reply to both of these tricky amendments. I

1349
shall take it away and discuss it with their proposer, and I may come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 11A.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
4.46 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 21, leve out ("means") and insert ("includes").
The noble Lord said: The Committee were looking a moment ago at the definition of "processing" in relation to data, and the noble Lord the Minister felt that he had covered quite adequately the situation in regard to the definition of what processing meant when he used the words, "amending, augmenting, deleting, rearranging or extracting". In the second part of that clause there is a reference to personal data and the word after "personal data" is the word, "means". Therefore, it is a limiting word, and means performing any of those operations—that is the amending, augmenting and so on—by reference to a particular data subject.
My information is that you can manipulate data by reference to a particular data subject in many ways; and that this is the way in which a profile of a particular subject may be constructed by extracting every datum about him which the system holds. But there are many other forms of important manipulation by reference to other criteria. That is why I wanted the word, "includes", and not the limiting word, "means". For example, one might wish to construct a list of bad credit ratings simply by reference to the single criterion of customers whose accounts were not cleared two months after invoice.
That would not be a manipulation by reference to a particular data subject, but it would still need to be included in the definition of "processing" when it relates to personal data. Therefore, only out of abundant caution do I try to use the word, "includes" and not, as I have said, the completely limiting word, "means". I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to reflect upon whether including the word, "includes", rather than the word, "means", is to substitute the rather imprecise for the very much more precise; and whether that is not a temptation that we ought to seek to resist in the course of the passage of this Bill?
Lord Avebury: I hesitate to intervene in an argument between lawyers, but perhaps I may make a suggestion on this point. If one wants to ensure that the definition of "processing" when applied to personal data is the same as the definition when applied to any other kind of data, the simplest way of doing that would be to leave out all the words from "and" in line 20 onwards so that no reference occurs to personal data in the subsection. Therefore, the processing of personal data would have to be exactly the same in definition as the processing of any other data.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was endeavouring to help me and I am grateful to him; but it was precisely the point that he
1350
raised in order to assist me that I was trying to deal with. Of course, the word "means" is very precise and, therefore, when it comes before a court, the court will be limited in interpretation to the words that occur in the Bill. I was trying to say that as there were, on my advice, many methods of manipulating personal data which went outside the narrow definition here, it would be safer to leave it to the court to decide whether this was, in fact, meant to be caught by the section because of the spirit of the section, and to use the word "includes" rather than the limiting word, "means".
I am either right in saying that there ought to be a wider umbrella here or I am wrong. If I am right to allow the larger umbrella, my amendment is a good one. If the Minister convinces the Committee that it is wrong to allow the umbrella to be larger, then my amendment is a bad one and I shall withdraw it.
Lord Elton: The trouble with wide umbrellas is that they poke other people's eyes out. It is the case in this Bill that an apparently innocuous, minor modification in one place turns out to be a change that fundamentally affects the carefully constructed edifice that the definitions together represent somewhere else.
The apparent intent of the amendment—and this is borne out by what the noble Lord has said—is to make illustrative what was exhaustive. In the Bill at present "processing", in the case of personal data, is exhaustively defined. It means amending, augmenting, deleting or rearranging personal data—or extracting the information constituting the data—by reference to a particular data subject. It does not mean anything else. And the effect of this definition is, we submit, to catch uses of personal data where a real potential of misuse exists, but not to catch harmless uses.
I might best explain by way of example. Many computers are used predominantly to process non-personal data. They amend, delete, rearrange the data; they are perhaps instructed to extract data by reference to particular goods or customer companies or impersonal characteristics. But amid all the non-personal data may be certain random personal data. The user may not know they are there: he did not place them on his computer to build a file about the subject concerned, but because they were an incidental accompaniment to non-personal data.
For instance, a lift maintenance company may be called out to deal with a lift that has stuck. If, for purposes of management, a company then put on to its computer an extract from the report which goes into a major analysis every year: the fact that the man who mended the lift has put in paragraph 3 a note to the effect that the old lady in Flat 7A said,"This is the third time it has happened this week" and gives her name, although that is personal data, it is not something which is known to the user of the personal data. It is not addressable of its own sort. It has not been taken for use as personal data, and I think that the distinction therefore to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention is the right one.
Particularly in a case such as this, the user would have no intention of instructing the computer to bring together and tell him about all the personal data about so-and-so—Mrs. Smith in this case. Indeed, he has no capacity to do so since he has no software designed for that purpose. In these circumstances, even though the

1351
personal data may happen to be amended or rearranged on occasions, because of rejigging the information for the annual report on the deployment of lift maintenance engineers on call-out, the deletion or rearrangement is incidental to other processes, and the subject involved need not be concerned about that. Indeed, how could the user concerned be expected to know whether or not he unwittingly holds personal data in that form? It would be an immensely expensive task to check through all the data in order to see. So we have deliberately excluded what I have described from the definition of processing of personal data—and thereby from the Bill's substantive provisions. The amendment loses us all that.
If the noble Lord is not content with my explanation so far, I am prepared to go on with other observations. However, I suspect that I have already illuminated our position on the point with which he is concerned.
Lord Mishcon: The Committee will have noted that the Minister has a most interesting psychological reaction. I introduced the umbrella for its normal purpose of protecting and helping, and the noble Lord the Minister immediately regarded the offensive operation of an umbrella as one of poking somebody's eyes out. In exactly the same way, my amendment was supposed to be a most helpful covering amendment as a normal umbrella would be. I hope that the noble Lord does not interpret it as being an aggressive one.
I am perfectly content to take the noble Lord's advice. I believe there is still some substance in this amendment; but again, because we are all trying to help each other to make this a better Bill, if the noble Lord the Minister will kindly do me the courtesy of considering what I have said about the danger of limitation here, and possibly the wisdom of a wider expression, I too will consider with the utmost care what he has said and we shall see whether we have reached a conclusion either that the amendment is worthy of further consideration or it is not. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14A not moved.]
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: May I briefly make a general comment and then a detailed one? Clause 1 is the first of two interpretation clauses in the Bill. The fact that it has been placed where it is has already proved its value through the discussion we have so far had. It is rather a strange situation that the ultimate user of the statute should have to look to two clauses so widely separated in order to find out the meaning of the clauses of the Bill, nearly all of which come between Clause 1 and Clause 37.
I should mention in passing that there are parts of Clause 37 which have a bearing upon the meaning of Clause 1. If we look at the top of page 26 of the Bill, for example, we find a definition of "data equipment" and "data material", which relates also to data
1352
equipment. On page 2 in subsection (6)(b) there is reference to the word "equipment".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do not wish to appear to be pedantic on this point. I acknowledge that sometimes Bills have to be arranged in order to get them reasonably easily through both Houses of Parliament. When statutory instruments are laid before Parliament, as they so frequently have to be, the whole of the definitions which need to be included are nearly always put at the beginning and not either at the end or split up between the beginning and the end. Therefore, my suggestion to my noble friends is that, between now and Report stage, it might well be worth considering placing the whole of Clause 37 in a way which merges it with Clause 1, but in particular the definitions of "data equipment" and "data material" should be included in Clause 1. That is my general comment.
My detailed comment follows from a mistaken intervention which I prematurely made fairly early in our proceedings. It so happens that Amendment No. 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, covers the point that I wish to make, but not in the manner which he intended that it should do. If I may invite your Lordships' attention quickly to Clause 1(3), we find the words:- Personal data' means …" and then it sets that out, and it continues as follows:
"including any expression of opinion about the individual but not"—
and that means not including—
"any indication of the intentions of the data user in respect of that individual."
Generally speaking, one would not expect the intentions of the data user to be included; but I think that if they are included—and I speak for all my fellow data subjects in this matter—then it would be helpful for any indication of the intention of the data user to be made available to the individual data subject concerned. It so happens that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, Amendment No. 9, would achieve exactly that object. Therefore, I ask my noble friends to consider that more detailed point as well.
Lord Wigoder: Your Lordships will no doubt be relieved that in the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we have at last discovered the data subject on the Clapham omnibus. I do not want to follow what he said about the previous amendment, which I dealt with then. I want to make two separate comments on clause stand part. First, the great British public, who must be watching this debate with bated breath, will be anxious to know why it is that the whole subject of this Bill is limited to computerised data and not to manual data. It is right that one should, therefore, make it plain that a number of us were deeply concerned about this and sought to table amendments which would remove this distinction. But we were advised that, in view of the terms of the Long Title of the Bill, that would not be in order and not appropriate, and, therefore, the amendments that were tabled were, with some reluctance, withdrawn. Perhaps I may say that, certainly for my part, I still find the distinction which the Bill makes a little artificial.
For example, my own organisation has hundreds of thousands of files relating to individuals' histories. Those histories are, in each case, put on a computer

1353
and the files are kept, usually for audit purposes. Why the information on the files should not be subject in any way to this Bill, and the information on the computer, which is exactly the same, should be subject to this Bill, is perhaps a distinction whose logic it would not be easy for people to appreciate.
Of course, I accept that if one is going to extend the scope of the Bill to manual data, it will involve a very substantial machinery and a very difficult and complicated administrative procedure. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will at least recognise that, if it were possible, the whole question of the protection of individual privacy would be very much better safeguarded if the Bill were able to cover not only computerised data but also manual data.
I add this one comment—that to some extent this Bill and its existence will be an incentive to inefficiency, in terms of business and industry, because many organisations that are contemplating becoming fully computerised, as they should be in order to become entirely efficient, are going to hesitate when they find that their operations will then become subject to the rather complicated provisions of this Bill, whereas they will continue to be free from these restrictions if they remain on a manual basis.
The other matter on clause stand part is of a very different nature and it refers to Clause 1(4). That subsection, which defines a data subject as,
"an individual who is the subject of personal data",
will be of very considerable importance later in the Bill, because it is the data subject who will have access in certain circumstances to his own personal data. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister; do the words "an individual" in Clause 1(4) include a child? Is a child to have access to its own personal data? Is a parent to have access to the data concerning his children? Is a spouse to have access to the data concerning his or her spouse? In particular, what will be the position where, in an organisation like mine, a family is insured as a family unit—husband, wife and so many children—all on one document? Is each member of the unit—husband, wife and children—to have access to the whole of the contents of the document or, if not, what?
Lord Mottistone: I have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has just said, except that I, too, had to withdraw my amendment for the same reasons that he gave. I am still left with the concern that the distinction between automated data and manual data is not only narrow but growing narrower, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave us some examples earlier which I would thoroughly endorse. I fully appreciate the difficulty which the Government have probably had about putting this Bill together, with its limitation to automation, and they have had to do so, at any rate in part, in order to meet the requirements of the European Convention.
I wonder whether, on reflection, my noble friend might be able to give some thought to the fact that, as things will develop, the efficiency of the data systems will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, set back, because people will be tempted to keep information manually which would go more efficiently on the computer. Because that is likely to happen, and it could cost lots of money to individual firms and to the
1354
country, it might be that it would be advisable for the Government now to give thought to how they might—when they have got this Bill through Parliament and it is an Act—work on another Bill which sought to complement this one and to do what it could for manual records. I do not think it is fair to ask more than that at this stage, but it is important enough to justify quite a lot of time being spent on preparing a follow-up Bill which could match this one and deal with the manual problem.
Lord Mishcon: I tried to say earlier, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said it rather better, that it was a total nonsense to have a Bill which protected the individual in regard to records that might be compiled about him on a computer, but not in regard to manual records. In saying that, I in no way intended to say that precisely the same regulations would apply. One realises that manual records, if one attempted to define them, could encompass a great many things which we should not want to legislate about. I understand that very well. But it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the legislator and the draftsman to think in terms of regulations which would bring such records under some sort of surveillance, in regard to the principles which are laid down in the first schedule to this Bill.
I put it somewhat seriously upon this basis, quite apart from questions of logic and the protection of privacy. I emphasise the point—it is no subtle one; it is an obvious one—that there will be a great number of firms which, instead of becoming computerised, will be warned by their legal advisers of the onuses that they will take on in regard to this Bill, if it becomes an Act, and that they would not have to take on, by way of liability or otherwise, if they kept themselves to manual records.
That is a serious matter, for two reasons which have been touched upon in previous speeches. The first is that it is not very healthy for the computer industry, which is a very important one in this country, and the second is that, quite obviously, computers are there in order to make it possible for firms in this country to make themselves more economical. Therefore, to add to the costs of products is hardly doing something to increase our commercial and industrial well-being.
Thirdly, I shall remember throughout the passage of this Bill the very vivid part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when, having disclosed his interest on behalf of BUPA, as its very much respected chairman, he talked of medical records that are fed into the computer in that organisation, and said that some of the records were kept manually. If they are kept in their manual state, they are not subject to the Bill. If they are computerised, they are immediately subject to the Bill. I was very much influenced by that very vivid example
It is impossible to carry the matter any further in this Bill, and we have been so advised. This I understand. But I echo the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the whole matter, together with all of the law relating to the privacy to which the subject is entitled and the reputation to which he is entitled, quite outside the law of libel and slander, should be looked at in the light of a report which appeared many, many years ago and which has still not seen the light of day, in the sense of it being

1355
followed by any enactment. It was the report of a committee which sat upon the very subject of privacy so far as the individual citizen is concerned. When the Minister answers this debate I hope that he will be able to say something to reassure us.
Lord Swinfen: I support what my noble friend Lord Renton said about having just one definition clause instead of two. My noble friend is a very eminent lawyer. If my noble friend has difficulty with two definition clauses, in a Bill which in due course will become an Act, what about the rest of us who are mere laymen but who are still expected to know the law? Therefore I support what my noble friend Lord Renton said, and would ask my noble friend Lord Elton to look at this point very seriously before bringing the Bill back on Report.
Lord Elton: In matters of procedure and the drafting of Bills I regard myself in some respects as a pupil of my noble friend Lord Renton. I always secretly flatter myself upon having been the first person to make use of a Keeling schedule after he brought in his report. I do not know whether there was a mad rush of other people to do so, but I hope that my noble friend took that as a gesture of my respect.
I am aware that the definition clause is usually to be found in the position where Clause 37 finds itself, or thereabouts. He has acknowledged that because of the particular importance, which we have made quite plain in our recent debates on Clause 1, of the definitions contained in Clause 1, it is right that they should go to the beginning. Whether there would be advantage as well as elegance in having the two closer together I would not venture to judge, but I shall look at what the noble Lord has said and take advice.
The noble Lord then went on to refer to Amendment No. 9, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is to move. I shall look again at the question of intention, but I have in mind the example of a firm and its payroll, since we have used that illustration so often, marked up, in one column, with the fact that the management is thinking of promoting or transferring a particular person from salesman to sales manager, for instance, in five or 10 years' time, and because many things can change between now and then it is not always in the interests of the management or the workforce that their intentions should be displayed before they become concrete.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was followed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who went into the matter of manually held data. I do not want to say again what I said in an earlier debate because I think I said it fairly succinctly and left nothing out. However, the personal information on paper files only presents the sort of threat which my noble friends on the upper and lower decks of the Clapham omnibus perceive them to represent if they go on to a computer. As soon as they do, they become data and subject to the provisions of the Bill. It was with that in mind that the Bill was drafted and that its Long Title was drawn. It would indeed need a separate piece of legislation to take it further, and enormously wide would the implications thereof be.
Lord Avebury: I am wondering whether the noble Lord is, strictly speaking, correct in saying that it is only when they go on to the machine that they become data. The definition in Clause 1(2) says that,
"'Data' means information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment".
If, therefore, it is potentially material which can be fed into a computer it is already data. It does not have to have been put into the computer to become data.
Lord Elton: To save time, I would refer the noble Lord to our debate on the first amendment in which I believe I covered this point. It is a question of interlocking definitions and of the effect of one definition not being complete until the occasion is caught by the effect of another.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked whether we would be holding back British industry by the need for confidentiality. I honestly think that the answer is, no. I do not believe that, in order to progress, large firms, or small, need to record material on their computers which will be caught by the Bill in a way which will prevent them from managing their businesses efficiently. If they do want to have it on the machine, then it does cause anxiety and it ought to be subject to the Bill.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on Clause 1 and I shall look at them again at leisure. In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will allow Clause 1 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wigoder: May I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the questions about what is meant by the word "individual" in Clause 1(4)?
Lord Elton: I apologise to the noble Lord. I was endeavouring to go fast and I went too fast. As to a child, access will be dependent on a court's decision as to whether the child is competent to exercise his rights. That will depend on his age. If the child does not have access, then the parents will. That, I understand, is the state of the law generally. As to husbands and wives and families, nobody can have somebody else's data without their consent. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 21(4)(b), he will find the provision which makes that so.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The data protection principles]:
5.9 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Registrar").
The noble and learned Lord said: As your Lordships will know, Clause 2 of the Bill relates to the data protection principles which are set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill. They are to be welcomed, but they are, as they are stated to be, no more than principles and will not be of much assistance in the interpretation of details. That is why we believe there is a need for codes of practice which will be of practical value to users and subjects of personal data. Amendments Nos. 53 and 67, relating to codes of practice, have been put down and we shall come to them in due course.
Subsection (3) of Clause 2, which we are concerned with in this amendment, provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by order modify or supplement those principles for the purpose of providing additional safeguards in relation to personal data consisting of information as to",
four sensitive categories which follow:
"(a) the racial origin of the data subject; (b) his political opinions or religious or other beliefs; (c) his physical or mental health or his sexual life; or (d) his criminal convictions".
Those categories of particularly sensitive data are derived from Article 6 of the Council of Europe Convention, which is conveniently set out in the Government's White Paper. This subsection is intended to deal with that category of sensitive information.
That there should be power, as the clause provides, to,
"modify or supplement those principles for the purpose of providing additional safeguards in relation to personal data",
is obviously right. Experience and further consultation may show the need for the creation of such safeguards. The question is, who should provide them? Who should make the order providing for them? In our submission, the independent registrar should be the person to deal with those responsibilities.
The Home Office, after all, is one of the principal users, if not the principal user, of computerised information. As a department, it has many problems of actual or potential conflict with the data subjects—the ordinary citizen, in other words—in various spheres such as national security, the police, the prison system, TV licences, and immigration. All those are areas of potential conflict. We feel that the proper authority for dealing with these supplemental safeguards should be not the department most actively concerned and potentially most involved with the citizen but the wholly independent creature of the Bill; namely, the registrar, who will have the kind of status the ombudsman has in regard to his independence.
We submit that it should be the registrar and not the Secretary of State who prepares and produces the regulations providing for these additional safeguards. On the face of it, I agree it is a little surprising that an independent body should have the power to lay regulations before Parliament. Only one precedent. immediately occurs to me and I confess it is not an overwhelmingly significant one—namely, the Genera] Dental Council, which is no doubt a very worthy body. But there is a precedent, and anyway there is no need for me to rely on precedents. Parliament can say who should lay the regulations, and if the Act of Parliament, in this case, says that it should be the registrar, then that would stand. We regard this as an important matter in the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about Amendment No. 15 and deal at the same time, as he has to some extent, with Amendment No. 18, because the two are linked. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is to the highest degree desirable that it should be the registrar rather than the Secretary of State who should have these powers.
I also believe, as Amendment No. 18 provides—and this is crucial to the argument—that there should be
1358
the widest possible range of advice available to the registrar when he comes to deal with the very sensitive areas set out in Clause 2(3) concerning racial origin, political opinions, and so forth. A whole variety of issues arise from those very sensitive areas, which are not immediately apparent and which might not be immediately apparent to the Secretary of State, but which would become apparent if the registrar were empowered to deal with them, and empowered to deal with them after taking widespread advice.
I shall give two simple examples. It might well be said at first glance that questions of racial origin are, for example, totally irrelevant in terms of medical research. In fact, a great deal of medical research goes into the issue of the relationship between various illnesses and diseases and racial groups. This is entirely beneficial to the community as a whole and ought, therefore, to be the sort of matter that might arise as the result of the work of an advisory committee, instead of being left to the Secretary of State alone.
To take another example, at first glance religious beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with, for example, the world of medical insurance. In fact, if one reflects for a moment on the fact that there are religious groups who have certain conscientious objections to blood transfusions, this leads to a whole new area in which, perfectly properly and without there being any element of discrimination, new issues arise. I therefore venture to agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is highly desirable that these sensitive issues should be dealt with after wide consultation and that Amendment No. 15 and, in due course, Amendment No. 18, are the way to provide it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I should like to add a few words in support of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The issue I wish to stress most strongly is the effect which this clause could have. Not being a lawyer, I cannot define precisely what the phrase,
"modify or supplement those principles",
could indicate in a court of law, but it seems to me that this is giving to the Secretary of State power over issues to which he may be a party. This would particularly be the case in any question dealing with immigration.
By the normal processes of our legal system, anybody who is party to an issue of this kind should be automatically replaced by a neutral reference—in this instance, the registrar. I believe this to be of very considerable importance if this clause is to be applied to the issue of the control of immigration, which comes later in the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he does not consider that it is a normal precedent of British law and legal practice that, where it can be pointed out that the Secretary of State and the department may be a party to an issue that has to be determined, it would be preferable to have a registrar, who could act in a neutral capacity?
5.29 p.m.
Lord Elton: The amendment would, as the noble and learned Lord has said, remove from the Secretary of State and place in the hands of the registrar the power to modify or supplement the data protection

1359
principles in regard to the sensitive areas referred to in Clause 2(3). I appreciate the motive behind this amendment, of giving the registrar a say in the formulation of any additional provisions in these sensitive areas, but I would suggest that the Bill already caters for this by requiring the Secretary of State, in Clause 36(3), to consult the registrar before the order is made. It is, of course, open to the registrar, at any time—by virtue of Clause 33(1)—to report to each House of Parliament on this as on any other matter relevant to the performance of its functions. That is the first level of parliamentary control. There is no need to go further and construct what I can only term a constitutional enormity, by giving the registrar an order-making power. I do not wish to imply that the General Dental Council is in any way suffering from enormity, but the noble and learned Lord quoted the council as a precedent—and I knew he would quote it as the only precedent he was able to find; because we combed the statute book for such. That was all we found, and it is not, unfortunately, a true precedent, both because of the requirement there for regulations to receive prior approval by the Privy Council, and because there is a very obvious difference between a professional body prescribing standards within its profession and the sort of wide-ranging powers which the registrar would enjoy if this amendment were accepted.
Modifying or supplementing principles in the manner for which Clause 2 provides is to affect directly the range of the registrar's powers and the guidance he is to be given in the interpretation of those powers. What is being suggested, therefore, is that he should himself be able to determine what the extent of his powers should be and then be able to require Parliament to debate his proposal. It cannot be right, even with the consultative safeguards which the noble and learned Lord has indicated that he wishes to introduce, to give an individual the power to come to Parliament with proposals that directly affect his own position and functions. If the Government of the day decided for any reason that it felt unable to support the order, the registrar would be dependent upon sympathetic Members of your Lordships' House or of another place to argue for the order in question. The outcome might well prove to be less effective, so far as providing a voice for the registrar is concerned, than the consultative approach for which the Bill already provides.
The amendment is, I therefore think, unnecessary; and it introduces a dubious new constitutional practice which I regard with the gravest of suspicion. The proper guardian of the individual for whom the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and others have expressed proper concern is Parliament, and it is to Parliament that the Secretary of State will have to submit the orders and regulations which he proposes to frame for this purpose. I think that it is right to trust the Secretary of State within the confines of Parliamentary supervision which the Bill provides.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I regret to say that I do not think this will dispose of the unease to which this provision in the clause has given rise. This is a very important
1360
matter. Article 6 of the convention refers expressly to the special categories of sensitive data. Personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life, may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards. And indeed it says that the same shall apply to personal data relating to criminal convictions.
So we are dealing with a highly sensitive area, an area in which the Secretary of State for the Home Office is departmentally deeply involved as a potential party in dispute or difference. In these circumstances we feel that the limited duty of the Secretary of State to consult the registrar, who is comparatively inferior, in status at any rate, does not meet the needs of the situation. The registrar is an important person. We want to raise his status. I regret to say that I propose to invite the Committee to divide on this issue.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kennet, L.

Balogh, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bishopston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mayhew, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Molloy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Denington, B.

Peart, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dowding, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gardiner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abington, B.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Avon, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Beloff, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Daventry, V.

Caccia, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

1361

Digby, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Faithfull, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Garner, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hailsham of Saint

St. Aldwyn, E.

Marylebone, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hemphill, L.

St. Just, L.

Henley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Shuttleworth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Lawrence, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Lucas, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Terrington, L.

Macleod of Brove, B.

Teviot, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

Tryon, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vickers, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved,]
5.42 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
("(6) Before preparing any order under subsection (3) above the Registrar shall consult the Advisory Committee and may consult such other persons as he considers to be representative of the principal interests likely to be affected by the order.")
The noble and learned Lord said: In view of the unhappy failure to succeed in Amendment No. 15. I feel I must honourably concede that I should not move Amendment No. 18. However, I undertake that we shall come back to it again in another way.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: This is a small point. Are we not being a little sexist in subsection (3), or do we take it that "his" includes "her" in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) In subsection (3) we are dealing with sensitive matters and say "the racial origin", but "his political opinions", "his physical or mental health" and "his criminal convictions". At no stage do we include women.
Lord Elton: The male, as always, embraces the female.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The data protection principles.]
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon move Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) to obtain, at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense, confirmation of whether personal data of which he is the subject are held;").
The noble Lord said: I can put this amendment to the Committee very briefly indeed. This is a provision which we seek to insert which is required by Article 8(b) of the European Convention, and in our submission should be in the Bill. Article 8b states:
"to obtain at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense confirmation of whether personal data relating to him are stored in the automated data file as well as communication to him of such data in an intelligible form".
The amendment is a summary, and I hope an accurate one, of that provision which is in the convention which we have signed. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The right of subject access is a key element in the scheme that this Bill establishes. It is both an end in itself—the means by which individuals may reassure themselves about the data held on them—and a stepping-stone to further action, if access reveals evidence of a breach of the other data protection principles. I have therefore listened with particular attention to the noble Lord in moving this amendment, for it is vital that we establish full subject rights in this area.
I have to say that I am not altogether convinced that an amendment of the kind proposed is necessary. The entitlement established in the seventh principle to confirmation of whether data are held or not seems to me to be contained already in the entitlement to access to data that are held. Certainly, as the noble Lord pointed out, the European Convention covers both entitlements in Article 8b. We have seen the entitlement to confirmation as being covered by the entitlement to access. Thus, we have brought both entitlements together in Clause 21(1) so that confirmation of whether data are held is obtained through a request for access. If an individual exercises his right to access under Clause 21, he must either be told that no data to which he is entitled to have access are held, or he must receive a copy of the data. Either way he can get his confirmation. Similarly, in supervising observance of the seventh principle, the registrar can be sure that a user who gives access will also give confirmation. We did not think it necessary to specify the two separate entitlements in the seventh principle, particularly since few people will want to know whether data are held, without wanting actually to see the information contained in any data that are held. The public register will of course be a guide as to who is likely to hold them.
This is an important area and because of its importance I will be happy to reflect on what the noble Lord said to make absolutely sure that the Bill is as comprehensive as it should be on this matter. If we should discover a failing, and frankly I do not expect to, I shall come back to the House. With that undertaking I hope the noble Lord will be content.
Lord Wigoder: May I in one sentence support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has urged upon the Minister? It seems a little odd to refer to a right of access to something, unless one first of all has as a prerequisite the right to determine whether or not the data exist to which you are, in fact, claiming access. I should have thought that logically there was a great deal to be said for strengthening the Bill as suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: The point I was making is merely that if one says, "I want to see my data please", and the answer is, "I haven't got any data on you", then one has confirmation. If there are data and I have data on the noble Lord, I have to give them to him. However, I shall certainly look at it.
Viscount Bledisloe: May I respectfully suggest that neither the amendment nor the Minister's answer solves the problem. What it says is that a data subject shall be entitled to these things. If one is not on the file at all one is not a data subject. Therefore, if I suspect I am on the computer and I say, "Please tell me whether you hold anything about me, and if so, what?" and you do not answer because I am not on the computer, I may go on for years being convinced I am on your computer, never being able to find out that I am not and you committing no offence or offending no principle by not answering me. It is only if I am on the computer that I fall within the definition of a data subject.
Lord Mishcon: Listening to this debate in the sense of the Minister's contribution and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I am wondering really why we ever signed the convention in this form and why the lawyers advising us did not say that this was a clause to which we ought not to agree because it was covered by something else. The noble Lord the Minister has given an undertaking and, provided that undertaking—I say this with a smile—is to read as well the very cogent contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as well as my own humble remarks, and to consider the matter further, I am perfectly content to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 28, line 23, after ("data") insert ("as to matters of fact").
The noble Lord said: I speak to this amendment, No. 21A, which is mine and couple with it No. 109A. Amendment No. 21A seeks to amend Schedule 1 in relation to the entitlements under principle 7, to what the data subject is entitled. He is entitled to access to personal data. I would add to that, personal data "as to matters of fact". Amendment No. 109 relates to Clause 21 at the beginning of Part III, which puts into effect the data subject's entitlement under principle 7.
This is not dissimilar from other amendments and I shall not waste much of your Lordships' time. I am advised on the amendment by the Retail Consortium, who look at it from their particular point of view. They seek to limit the definition of personal data to factual information and so to remove from the scope of the Bill data which consist of expressions of opinion. I appreciate that, if this were accepted, we might have to
1364
go back to amending Clause 1, but let that be for the time being.
While it seems fair that factual data should be the subject matter of control under the Bill, there do not seem to be compelling reasons for controlling data which consist of expressions of opinion. In particular retailers would not be in favour of legislation which compelled them to disclose expressions of opinion about customers arrived at by reasoned judgment based on commercial assessment. To some extent this, at a further stage in the distributive chain, is reminiscent of my Amendment No. 10 which I withdrew earlier. It still has a point.
It should be noted that in Clause 22 a data subject is entitled to compensation for damage by reason of the inaccuracy of personal data. Clause 22(3) defines inaccuracy in a way which relates only to matters of fact so that the principle of limiting the scope of the Bill to factual data is, to some degree, already accepted. This is really by way of a probing amendment at this stage, but I should be most grateful if my noble friend could give me the Government's thinking on it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Government's thinking is not, as my noble friend will realise, as profound as I should like because it has been conducted at some speed. As I understand it, my noble friend is now not so certain that he is content with the definition of "personal data" in Clause 1 of the Bill as I earlier took him to be. Now he has said that I am a little less puzzled by what he proposes. But these two amendments seek to restrict the entitlement which the Bill establishes to subject access, which, of course, is at the core of what we are doing.
What my noble friend proposes is that subject access should be given only to factual data. Data containing expressions of opinion about the subject would not have to be revealed. I accept that the requirement to give subject access to opinions held on computers about subjects will cause some users to have to review their information-holding practices and it may cause some of them inconvenience. But the whole point of the Bill is to offer protection to data subjects. As I think became clear during our detailed considerations of Clause 1, we believe that personal data must cover opinions as well as facts about subjects to be effective. There is just as much concern about opinions as there is about facts, if not more. Once that is accepted, it would be wholly inconsistent to restrict subject access, which is a key element in the protection offered to only one category of those personal data. To accept this amendment would put us seriously out of step with the rest of Europe, place in question the ability of our data protection scheme to match up to the requirements of the European Convention, and result in our failing to meet fully the public concern this Bill is designed to meet. I am afraid that we could not accept these amendments tabled by my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: I fully appreciate what my noble friend has had to say. I accept his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 28, line 38, after ("misled") insert (", or unnecessarily left in ignorance,").
The noble lord said: We have reached the stage now where we are endeavouring in the schedules to define certain principles. The first principle, if I may refer your Lordships to page 28 of the Bill, is that the information to be contained in personal data shall be obtained and personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully. Your Lordships will see that in Part II there is an interpretation of that first principle. In paragraph 1(1)(b) in Part II of the schedule the interpretation is that in determining whether information was obtained fairly regard shall be had,
"to the method by which it was obtained, including in particular whether any person from whom it was obtained was deceived or misled"—
and then the amendment seeks to put in the words "or unnecessarily left in ignorance"—
"as to that purpose or those purposes".
Those words are included because it may not be misleading simply to fail to tell someone that there is some other purpose for which the data were being obtained. From the point of view of completeness of the interpretation we suggest that these words should be included.
Lord Elton: At Second Reading I spoke of the need for this Bill to strike a proper balance between data subject and data user. We shall hear more of this in this Committee. To err in one direction will mean that we will provide inadequate safeguards for the subject and to err in the other will mean that we will place unacceptable burdens on the data users. I accept that it will often be a nice judgment as to whether the Bill has got that balance right. But I should like to try to set out why, in this instance, we think the balance in the Bill is right, and why we think that the noble lord's amendment would tilt the balance unacceptably against data users. The interpretation of the first principle in paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 1 is not exhaustive. The requirement to consider whether the person providing information has been deceived or misled deliberately singles out two positive actions that can be presumed to be tantamount to "unfair" collection of data. That does not, of course, preclude other considerations being weighted in the balance when the particular circumstances of the case so demand. And on some occasions leaving somebody in ignorance will amount to deceit.
But it is a different matter to add the idea of being "unnecessarily left in ignorance" to the interpretation. For, just as misleading or deceiving people may be presumed in consequence of the interpretation to be unfair, so adding to the interpretation the idea of "leaving people in ignorance" might equally create a presumption that that is an unfair practice. And to add the notion of "unnecessarily", as is proposed in the amendment, would inject a substantial element of uncertainty since nobody would be clear when it was and was not "necessary" to leave the person in ignorance. Necessary for what?
I feel that we owe it to data users to consider just how onerous it could be for them if, in consequence of
1366
the additional interpretation proposed, they were to be expected not to leave people in ignorance of the purpose for which data obtained from them are to be used. Let me offer just two examples. First, many users obtain data from published sources—the electoral register, the telephone directory, works of reference. Should they be expected to inform the people from whom such data are obtained of the purpose for which the data are to be used? And what is the point of doing so? And then, what about the innumerable cases in which data are collected from data subjects? Are data users going to have to consider in every case whether it is necessary not to leave the subject in ignorance? What that could mean, in practical terms, is that users might have to imform subjects, every time they obtained data from them, of the purpose for which the data would be used; and of course if this were so, logically it would follow that they would have to inform them again if the original purpose changed or a new purpose—however legitimate—arose. That could mean thousands upon thousands of subjects having to be informed in order for the user to avoid a breach of the first principle—for example, a letter to everybody in the London telephone directory.
I stress that I do not quarrel with the intention of this amendment. The reason I find difficulty with it is that I fear that it would place intolerable demands on perfectly legitimate—indeed 'fair"—data users. That is something that throughout this Bill we have sought to avoid. The safeguards for data subjects that are offered by the Bill lie in the requirement on data users to register the kind of data that they hold and the purposes for which they hold them. That is how they will avoid being left in ignorance. We believe that that is an adequate safeguard and a reasonable one in terms of the balance to be struck between the interests of data subjects and those of data users. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I little thought that my short speech would have earned the rather lengthy reply which the noble Lord the Minister was courteous enough to give to this amendment. I should like to have the opportunity of studying the many reasons as to why these innocent looking words cannot go in for the sake of clarity, and possibly revert to the matter again at a later stage. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 29, line 13, after ("is") insert ("sufficiently").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23. If one looks at page 29, line 13, of the Bill, which appears in Schedule 1, one finds an interpretation of the second principle. The interpretation is that:
"Personal data shall not be treated as held for a specified purpose unless that purpose is"—
and here we seek merely to insert the word, "sufficiently" so that it will then continue:
"sufficiently described in particulars registered under this Act in relation to the data".
Let us suppose that somebody merely registers as a data user for the purposes of my business. It is held for a specified purpose which is "described", but quite

1367
obviously it would not be "sufficiently described". One does not want an argument between the user and the registrar, with the user referring to the schedule and saying, "Well, all I have got to do is to describe. There is nothing there about my having sufficiently to describe".
I hope that at long last we shall find that the draftsman, or those who are advising the noble Lord the Minister, will have found something with which they can agree in order to better this Bill. So far, it appears that they are wearing sheets of white which make it completely impossible for them to darken them by conceding even one single word for the purpose of giving some more clarity to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Long was the search and earnest the consideration which we devoted to trying to find amendments which we could honestly say would improve the Bill, which had been suggested to us by the noble Lord and his noble and learned friend. I regret to say that we have not yet reached the point at which we have been rewarded with a modicum of success. It is right that entries in the register should give a proper picture of the purposes for which data are being held. That is not at issue. But I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment will add to what the Bill already provides in this respect, and there is a danger that it could actually confuse this aspect of the provisions.
The interpretation of the second principle, which paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 1 provides, states quite simply that the specified purpose for which data are held must be described in the register if there is not to be a breach of the second principle. Specifying the purpose in some other way will not do unless there is a register entry. At the same time, the Bill provides the registrar with guidance as to the form in which particulars shall be entered on the register. He is empowered, by virtue of Clause 7(2)(a), to refuse registration if he considers that the proposed particulars would not give sufficient information as to the matters to which they relate. That, I think, is the danger to which the noble Lord most directly addressed himself.
At the same time, he is advised by Clause 7(3) that particulars may nevertheless be accepted in general terms where this is appropriate, and that may have caused the noble Lord some anxiety. He is required to accept an entry in generalised terms when to do otherwise would be likely to prejudice the purpose for which the data are held. We believe, that these provisions strike the right balance between unnecessarily detailed entries and entries which were so vague as to be meaningless, and that they give the registrar the necessary discretion to decide where, between those two extremes, any particular case should fall. I hope that the noble Lord finds that sufficient assurance as to why, with the greatest of regret, we are not able to concede that this small amendment would improve the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, yesterday, put down his papers on the Front Bench and said, "I propose to speak from my heart and not from my brief". I wonder whether the
1368
noble Lord the Minister at some stage of our deliberations on the Bill would be good enough to deal with some of these amendments from his own very considerable intellect and not necessarily from his brief. Having heard what the Minister has said, and hoping that he will at least consider what was contributed in this debate as regards this very small matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
("The fourth principle
.Personal data shall not be treated as adequate, relevant and not excessive if, taken together, they are capable of causing unjustified harm to the data subject.").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may well have occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the light of what happened last night that perhaps he would have been better advised to stick to his brief and not speak from his heart!
This amendment ought to be irresistible. I ask your Lordships to look at Schedule 1 where the principles are set out. Eight of them are listed and as regards seven of the eight there is also an interpretation. But, the little ewe lamb, the fourth principle, is left unadorned. Is there another which is also unadorned?—I do not think so, but it matters not.
Lord Renton: There is no statement of a sixth principle.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps that ought to have been done too. However, let me deal with the fourth principle. As your Lordships will see, it is an important principle. It says:
"Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose or those purposes".
It is proposed in the amendment to provide a clear rationale for the fourth principle and we suggest that the interpretation should be:
"Personal data shall not be treated as adequate, relevant and not excessive if, taken together, they are capable of causing unjustified harm to the data subject".
It is an important statement of principle. I think that it is consistent with the principle itself as is set out. and is an additional and valuable reinforcement of it by way of the statement of that interpretation of it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I, too, have sat on the Bench opposite; I, too, have laboured long and hard to find amendments acceptable to Government, and then to persuade Government to allow me to move them and not to take them over and table them at the next stage. The noble and learned Lord has all my sympathy. I suffer as much sorrow as he does that, yet again, I am unable to meet him on this. The fact is that, though my heart and the brief may divide, my head and the brief do not.
Before I address the fundamental purpose of this amendment, I should like to comment briefly on two aspects of its construction. It seems to me that the words "taken together" are not clear. Clearly they

1369
refer to data, but just to which data they refer is less clear. But I am not sure that this concerns your Lordships. I would rather go on to the main matter, which is the dressing of the ewe lamb, as the noble and learned Lord said. Coming from those sheep-garnished hills of Wales, he will know that the Lord tempers the wind to the shorn Iamb and perhaps I may reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.
The central thrust of his argument is to ensure that when harm can be caused by the inadequacy, irrelevance or excessiveness of data, then a breach of the principles ensues. I sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment. But I think that the Bill as cast achieves the same broad result more thoroughly arid more consistently. Under the Bill as drafted, harm is not a necessary precondition of a breach of the fourth principle. If there is any inadequacy, irrelevance or excessiveness of data, then the principle is already breached. To that extent the amendment is restrictive of the scope of the principle. Where we have injected the concept of harm is in the exercise of the registrar's powers once a breach has occurred. In deciding whether to issue either an enforcement or a deregistration notice under Clause 10 or Clause 11, the registrar first has to satisfy himself that a contravention of a principle has occurred, and then to consider whether the contravention has caused—or is likely to cause—damage or distress to any person. Therefore the concept of harm is relevant after a breach of a principle has occurred but before the registrar exercises his notice powers.
I think that that suffices to demonstrate that what we have in the Bill as it stands is actually slightly more effective than what the noble and learned Lord so persuasively asks us to include in it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I must concede that there was a certain amount of sense in what has just been spoken from the Government Front Bench, and, with great reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule I shall be the first schedule to the Bill?
Lord Swinfen: I should like to make one comment on the seventh principle before the schedule is agreed to. At one point the data subject is given the right of access at reasonable times to the data that is on the computer, but I understand that quite often the data is put into some code or into some form that is understood by the users of the computer for their own purposes. Can my noble friend assure me that the form in which the data is presented to the subject will be such that the subject will understand it—in other words, in good plain English or, if necessary, in Wales, in Welsh?
Lord Elton: Whether it will be good or plain, I very much doubt. That is a matter of sad disappointment on so many occasions when dealing with large organisations. But it will certainly be in English, Welsh or some other intelligible language.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The Registrar and the Tribunal]:
6.16 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 22, after ("by") insert ("the Lord Chancellor after consultation with").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26, and Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 inclusive. If I may respectfully say so, this is a very important amendment. It deals with the appointment of the members of the tribunal and, as members of the Committee will remember, this tribunal is to be an effective court of appeal. At the moment it is an effective court of appeal for the data user, and at this stage I do not intend to deal with an amendment which may come later as to whether the tribunal should not also be a court of appeal in some respects for the data subject.
However, the whole idea, as expressed to us on Second Reading with great eloquence by the Minister, was that independence ought to be seen shining forth from this Bill. There were good reasons for it, because, of course, there are Ministers who are responsible for departments which make substantial use of computers. Indeed, it was suggested that they are the most substantial users of computers throughout the nation. If ever it was important to show everyone that it was an independent personnel that was dealing with the important provisions of this Bill and certainly in regard to the tribunal, it is in connection with this Clause 3.
At present the provision relates to the Lord Chancellor, who always has a reputation—and certainly this applies to the present Lord Chancellor—of forgetting all about political considerations when he has to exercise an independent and judicial function. We have always been fortunate in finding this to be so with our Lord Chancellors. Very importantly, therefore, there is the provision that the chairman and the deputy chairman of the tribunal—this appellate body—are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately, when we turn to the other appointments who would normally—and I concede this at once—not be lawyers, they are left to the Secretary of State. I make no suggestion about the present Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State. I am only after the point of it being apparent to everybody that there is complete independence in regard to this tribunal and in regard to the appointment of the registrar, which, of course, was secured as an independent appointment.
I ask myself: why should not the Lord Chancellor, if necessary in consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint all the members of the tribunal?—so that nobody can suggest that it has been the object of the Secretary of State to put people on the tribunal who could, indeed, outvote the chairman and the deputy chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That is a very important consideration.
Therefore, I put this before the Committee. If ever there was not a political point it is this one, because I am talking about the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State of any Administration, and we are dealing with the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor of any Administration. I hope that the

1371
Committee will feel that this is a sufficiently non-party point for all of us to join together in asking the Minister to accept this amendment so that the complete independence of the registrar and the tribunal are here for everyone to see. I beg to move.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: I am reluctant to support this amendment because every time anybody moves an amendment at the moment it causes such grief to the noble Lord the Minister in having to resist it, and I am anxious not to add to his sorrow and suffering. Nevertheless, this is a crucial amendment to the success of this Bill. I would ask your Lordships to test it simply in this way. Let us assume that the people to be appointed would be precisely the same people, whether it was the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State who appointed them. Is it not a fact that, if they have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor, there would be a wide degree of acceptability across all classes—data users, data subjects and the general public as a whole, who ought not to be entirely overlooked in this matter?
That observation is not meant in any way as a criticism of the Secretary of State. It is not meant to imply for one moment that there would perhaps be a temptation upon him to make appointments that might be slightly more politically influenced than if they were made by the Lord Chancellor. It is simply an observation made out of a genuine anxiety that the appointments thus made should appear to the greatest possible number of people to be made by the most impartial and independent body possible. I hope that on this occasion at least the noble Lord the Minister may find it possible to accept this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): I rise with the oil of sanctity dripping from my departmental shoulders, but I am bound to say that I find it difficult to accede in this instance to the eloquence and persuasiveness of the noble Lords opposite. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said. Of course the point is not a party one, nor, I think, does any Lord Chancellor quite assume the mantle of partisanship that he would if he were an ordinary departmental Minister.
I must tell the Committee what is the current practice of successive Governments and why the current practice is, at any rate in my judgment, right. The practice has always been that legal appointments, for the reasons which have been explained and which to me are totally convincing, are in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I cannot pretend that if you went back over the entire statute book—which, as both noble and learned Lords opposite know only too well, is something perpetually in a muddle—you could not probably, if you probed deeply enough, find exceptions to what I am about to say.
Of course I do appoint—except in the Duchy of Lancaster, where the highly political character of the Chancellor of the Duchy makes the appointments—all the lay magistrates in the Kingdom. But I have there, as both noble and learned Lords immediately opposite me will be aware, a most elaborate and intricate network of advisory committees extending over the
1372
whole Kingdom, and headed by Lords Lieutenant and other suitable persons, to advise me in the matter. A great deal of care and expertise is therefore available to me when I appoint lay magistrates.
The current practice is that those who, in practice, select the non-legal appointees are the departmental Ministers who have to stand up in Parliament and defend what they have done. There is from time to time a tendency, which has not always been resisted, to invest the Lord Chancellor of the day with responsibilities which he is not equipped to discharge conscientiously. I am bound to tell both speakers in this debate that I think this is one of them.
I can perfectly well, as both noble and learned Lords know, find out almost everything about everybody who is legally qualified. As the Gilbert and Sullivan opera says, I know everybody's income and what everybody earns, and I carefully compare it with their income tax returns. Therefore, I have a great network of information. When I am about to select—and I do not think I often do except in relation to certain rather less valuable Crown livings—
people who are not legally qualified, I have to rely almost entirely upon the departmental Minister concerned, who dredges the great and the good, as I believe they are technically called in the Civil Service, from out of the knowledge and expertise of the department.
I am afraid that if I accepted this amendment I should simply be a fifth wheel to the coach. I should have to dredge the departments for information about suitable persons, whether they were the professional types referred to in this part of the Bill or, as it were, the completely lay members, and try to find them by some process which I am not equipped to judge. I should in fact in this respect be a whited sepulchre. I should be taking political advice from political departments, and I should then be pretending that they were respectable because I had put my signature on their appointment. This is something which would undermine the respect with which Lord Chancellors are customarily regarded rather than advance it.
I was grateful to both noble Lords for saying that there was not the slightest imputation against the integrity of the Secretary of State, which I entirely accept. I would add that there is not the slightest reason for doubting the integrity of any Secretary of State who may hereafter hold office. If there were, I hope that the investigative powers of Parliament would soon find him out. I feel myself, if I may adapt the well-known tag, that the function of the Lord Chancellor is to see that justice is done and to see that it is seen to be done. I am afraid that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is in effect suggesting is that, to ensure that justice is done not only in the case of my legal appointments for the tribunal, which it is not disputed should be mine, but also in relation to the lay appointments, justice will only appear to be done because they are made by the Lord Chancellor.
In fact the Government machine would be used to select these appointments, and the responsible Minister should be the person who would be responsible for picking them out of the hat. There is no means that I have, and there is no means that any Lord Chancellor would have, of checking whether the advice he got from the Civil Service was right or wrong. The person who is actually responsible is the

1373
person who ought to be constitutionally responsible. It is for that reason that, although the point is a short one, though, I agree, an important one, I do not happen to fall on the same side of the fence as the two previous speakers. I hope I have spoken not merely from my brief but also from my mind and heart.
Lord Mishcon: Whenever the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor addresses the House or a Committee he is listened to with respect and, if I may say so, with affection. The affection is there and so is the respect, but the point that I tried to emphasise was that this should not necessarily be—indeed would not be under this amendment—an appointment in regard to the lay members by the Lord Chancellor himself. It would be in consultation with the Secretary of State. If, therefore, one trusts the Secretary of State, as we all do, and the Secretary of State makes nominations which are acceptable to the Lord Chancellor, in that he does not see any very good reason as to why he should comment on them adversely, the appointments will go through. We cannot have it both ways; either we trust the Secretary of State or we do not.
What I was trying to emphasise in the amendment—and I was assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—was that it would be absolutely transparently seen by members of the public (by the computer users and computer subjects) that, in regard to this tribunal, the Lord Chancellor was there joining in the appointments, if only through consultation, and that they could therefore be assured, as they would be in this case, that there had been some judicial hand also in the appointments of the lay members, who, as I say, would constitute a majority. It would not be a question of relying on the recommendation of the civil servants. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would be doing that, and, if he is prepared to take the responsibility for the nomination, one merely asks, in order that justice may be seen to be done, that the Lord Chancellor makes the appointment, after consultation with the Secretary of State.
I regard this as being so important, as do my noble friends, by virtue of the fact that this is an appellate tribunal and the lay members could outvote the chairman and deputy chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor, that I must ask the Committee to express its view on the matter, and I have tried to emphasise that I believe that in the judgment of the Committee this will not be seen to be a political point at all.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Collison, L.

Aylestone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Balogh, L.

David. B. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Denington, B.

Bishopston, L.

Diamond, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

1374

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

George-Brown, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

Hampton, L.

L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Somers, L.

Kaldor, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

White, B.

Mayhew, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Molloy, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Benson, L.

Mansfield, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caccia, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Redesdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E

Ferrier, L.

St. Davids, V.

Feversham, L.

St. John of Blesto, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Just, L.

Gainford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandford, L.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathspey, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hemphill, L.

Swinton, E. (Teller.]

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Tryon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.40 p.m.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 28, after ("include") insert ("equal numbers of—l(a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27 I should like, with the leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 91 and 92. I am advised on these amendments by the National Consumer Council. Gazing at the Bill, it seems that the weight of expertise of the lay members of the

1375
tribunal tends towards computer specialists, and, what with them and the lawyers, there is not much room for ordinary people. One might think that the data subjects should have an interest which was represented.
I appreciate that the main purpose of the tribunal is to look after the data users, and of course not for one minute would one question the importance of having experts on it. But I should have thought that, as a measure of what one might call common sense, a tribunal that was seen to include people who could be said to represent the data subjects might be beneficial, both in regard to the way in which it conducted its deliberations and the way that it was seen by the outside world in this rather difficult subject where, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, impressions are very important. So I think that the kind of balance which my amendments would provide would be desirable. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this subject and for the way in which he has done so. I do not think that the amendment will do in itself. To begin with, I do not see how one can represent data subjects when data subjects are in fact every one of us, whatever our peculiar qualifications may or may not be. There is not a person in this Committee, there is not a person in another place, and there is not a person in the whole country who is not potentially a data subject, and therefore the question of representation, except through Parliament, can hardly arise.
However I think that there is here an important point concealed behind the words of the amendment. The tribunal itself will consist of three classes, not two. The first class is that of those who are legally qualified, who will be in the appointment of the Lord Chancellor. The second class is that of those who are not legally qualified, but this itself is composed of two separate sub-classes; namely, those with computer knowledge or expertise—I forget the exact words of the Bill, but it does not matter for this purpose—and those who do not have that knowledge or expertise; that is to say, the general public, and they are the people who would be representative (to use my noble friend's language) of the data subjects.
I quite concede—and this is where I think that my noble friend has uncovered an important point—that in the Bill as drafted it would be possible to conceive of a tribunal which consisted of a legal chairman or deputy chairman, plus a data expert, plus another data expert. In other words, the third class to which I have referred would not be represented at all at a particular hearing, and I think that that is a defect. I should like my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, and I shall undertake on behalf of the Government to look again and consider whether we cannot give effect to what I believe to be the real point underlying this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am indeed grateful to my noble and learned friend, and I am very willing to leave it to him to tidy it up and get across in the Bill the point that
1376
I have sought to make. With great gratitude I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Data Protection Advisory Committee.
.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Data Protection Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Advisory Committee").
(2) The Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than five and not more than nine members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar.
(3) The members of the Advisory Committee shall include persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have professional knowledge or experience of health care, scientific research, statistics, the prevention and detection of crime, employment, public administration, the law, and the use, design or manufacture of data equipment.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an important amendment, and it relates to the proposal to set up a Data Protection Advisory Committee which is to consist of not fewer than five, and not more than nine, members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the registrar, so that he is actively involved in the matter; and the qualification of the membership is set out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The subsection refers to:
"persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have professional knowledge or experience"
of the various aspects of responsibility that will fall for consideration by the registrar in the administration and supervision of the scheme proposed in the Bill. The subsection refers to:
"professional knowledge or experience of health care, scientific research, statistics, the prevention and detection of crime, employment, public administration, the law, and the use, design or manufacture of data equipment".
A mere listing of those subjects, which are criticially important in the most sensitive areas of data protection, indicates the importance of the registrar having available to him expert advice on those matters, some of which are technical, some of which require the kind of professional knowledge or experience that the amendment lays down.
In paragraph 27 the White Paper dealt, if I may say so, in a totally ineffective way, with the question of the appointment of an advisory committee. For a reason that is not very clear the White Paper stated that,
"Once the legislation is in force it might be appropriate to appoint an advisory committee to advise the Government on the preparation of regulations relating to particular categories of data and, if the need arose, on possible changes to the legislation itself".
I should have thought that it is apparent that the registrar is bound to need at his elbow some expert advice from such a committee, and to postpone the matter until sheer necessity called for it seems to us to be a wholly wrong-headed approach. As I have said, the advisory committee could be available to the registrar, and our submission is that it is far better to set it up by means of the Bill itself and make it available to the registrar from the time that his office is created. Accordingly, we think that this is a very important provision, which I hope will have the full support of your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: It may be for the convenience of the Committee and of my noble friend if I were to combine this with Amendment No. 29A for two purposes: one, to show how it is a different advisory committee and, two, to show that I personally have misgivings about the advisory committee in Amendment No. 29. The purpose of the advisory committee that I suggest in Amendment No. 29A is almost entirely to deal with the setting up of the system by the registrar. Technical people have advised me that, for the registrar to do his job properly, it is going to be very difficult for him to get going, to establish his register and to establish the machinery for that register and for being able to determine the situation when experts in this field come to him and say: "I cannot do this or I can do that". He needs somebody to turn to to ask whether the expert is talking sense or,"Is he trying to bamboozle me?" or even, "Does he know what he is talking about?" When it starts off he will need all such information.
My expert colleague is not sure that he will need to go on having that sort of advice once he has got going because he feels that it is possible, once the system is running and experience has been gained in doing it, that there will not need to be this reference to experts on the pure technicalities. I have put in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 29A because we believe that, if it were to be continuous—and here I come to a slight difference of opinion with the noble and learned Lord and with Amendment No. 29—there is quite possibly going to be a clash between the experts advising the registrar and the experts on the tribunal, if the experts advising the registrar get into the operational field, as opposed to the purely technical one of the nuts and bolts of setting up the system.
Therefore, my advisory committee is possibly only temporary or, if not temporary, one that will be referred to relatively little once the thing has got going. I should have thought that there is a risk, with a more permanent body, of a clash of opinion between the tribunal and the advisers; and this could be very detrimental to the standing of the registrar. Who is going to sort it out? Will it be the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State? It could be very difficult. Perhaps I may leave it at that point and suggest to my noble friend that my advisory committee deserves consideration but perhaps the other one does not.
Lord Swinfen: May I ask my noble friend whether there will not be a need for the registrar to be kept continually up to date with improved computer technology so that he will know what computers can do?
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I think so. That is why I am being cautious about the winding up and have left in subsection (2) the word "may" and not "should". It is possible that my noble friend is right, but I do not think that it will be anything other than technical information. It must not be operational.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I support the amendment put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I would have supported a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said until he raised what he
1378
thought were the difficulties about a clash between the advisory committee and the registrar. I would feel that that could be avoided.
Lord Mottistone: For the purpose of the record, I referred to a possible clash between the advisory committee and the experts on the tribunal.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I have had considerable experience of the working of a registrar in very difficult work; that is, the Registrar of Trade Marks, who does a great deal of good work in giving help to industry in his many activities. It was found that, in view of the new law arising because of the EEC, an advisory committee was helpful in that regard in helping the registrar and the Patent Office, the Registry of Trade Marks, in some of these matters. It is clear that for the purpose of this Bill the registrar will have, at least initially, a very difficult job indeed. I think that that is agreed by all. It seems to me that the concept of having an advisory committee set up in the way suggested in Amendment No. 29 would be of very great use for the workings of this registrar.
Lord Elton: I have listened with interest to this debate, particularly as when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, did not move Amendment No. 18 (which I thought was a paving one for this) I feared that we were going to miss this opportunity. May I first briefly talk on what my noble friend suggests, since we are talking to both of the amendments, and then go on to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposes.
I am a little surprised not just by the possibly ephemeral nature of my noble friend's committee but also by the concentration of expertise. It is not a committee drawn from various walks of life to give advice on data protection matters and the way the law might most satisfactorily be applied to particular sectors. It is a committee made up solely of computer experts with the limited task of advising the registrar on the setting up and maintenance of the register. Therefore, it differs sharply from what Lord Mishcon proposes.
Now, we accept that the registrar will almost certainly himself use a computer on which to hold the particulars contained in the register. But we cannot believe that he will need an advisory committee to assist him in setting it up. He will himself have a staff of people well versed in computer use and technology. Without them he could scarcely exercise his supervisory functions. So he will be well served. And if he needs extra assistance there is a vigorous open market to which he can go. I do not think an advisory committee on those lines is something that the registrar would need or that he would regret the failure of my noble friend's amendment. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord opposite was rather different in nature and the Government's White Paper on data protection published last year, as he rightly said, acknowledged the possibility that an advisory committee might prove appropriate to advise the Secretary of State on the making of regulations under the legislation, and, if appropriate, on possible future changes in the legislation itself. It remains the Government's view that it might well be helpful to have a

1379
body of expert advice made available in that way. I may say that in the process of preparation of this legislation we got together an informal group of those with expertise in this general area, and benefited very substantially from the help and advise they were able to give us. We do not need to be persuaded how valuable such an on-going group could be.
But the Government do not believe (with the greatest respect to the arguments put forward) that such a body need be placed on a statutory basis. It seems to us that to create such a body by statute would actually be to reduce its potential benefit. Its membership would be as defined by the statute, and its functions would be limited to such as seemed useful or necessary at the time the legislation was framed. However widely such terms of reference were cast, there would always be the fear that it would find itself precluded from tackling the very issues on which, five years on, it was most desirable to have its advice. The converse, of course, is that one could find oneself shackled with a body which had outlived its usefulness. My noble friend has devised a means of cutting that shackle loose, and if one did not have that device one might at the same time possibly have the advisory body shackled to one and possibly be unable to give it the very tasks which are needed to be done.
Although I am well aware of good precedents for seting up statutory advisory bodies as suggested here—and of an equally wide range of precedents, I may add, for bodies which are not statutory—I believe that to put the creation of such a body into the Bill would not do anything for either its independence or its standing or for the quality of assistance and advice available, both to the Secretary of State and the registrar. Indeed, as I have said, I think that it might find itself restricted by its statutory antecedents.
In view of what I have said about the Government's continued commitment to looking seriously at the case for appointing an advisory committee, and the arguments in favour of preserving flexibility, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel a need to pursue his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I do not intend to detain the Committee long upon this matter. There are a few essential points that ought to be made in the hope that the noble Lord the Minister will consider them, not tonight but in the interval between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The case is conceded for the wisdom of setting up an advisory committee, and an advisory committee which would not be limited to assisting in setting up, as it were, the registrar's department, as would be the case if the amendment yet to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, were accepted. The need for the advisory committee is therefore conceded and the only two points that the Minister makes for not entertaining this amendment is that one would possibly be putting chains upon the advisory committee and its future purposes and membership if it were incorporated into the Bill itself.
There is an immediate answer to that—and nobody knows it better than the noble Lord the Minister—in that quite obviously, if the principle were accepted, the
1380
amendment could be so altered that the question of the additional membership or subtracted membership of the advisory committee and its purposes could be dealt with hereafter by regulation or by order.
The additional point that I want to make supplements the point that was made by the noble Lord opposite. There will be the need, obviously, to keep up to date with all the technological improvements; but, much more important than that is the point made in the White Paper. I know that the Minister was paraphrasing and certainly was not deliberately leaving out any words. I want to quote what the White paper says because it is important. In paragraph 27, the White Paper says:
"It might be appropriate to appoint an advisory committee to advise the Government".
The noble Lord then went on to paraphrase in words such as "on the regulations set out in the Bill". But the words are:
"on the preparation of regulations relating to particular categories of data".
I think that what the White Paper had in mind were the codes of practice which we are going to be dealing with later and which various kinds of computer users will want to submit to the registrar or the registrar himself will want to be drawing up. It is precisely that which will be the continuing duty of the advisory committee.
Therefore one would have thought that the sensible course in order to see that the proper machinery is set up from the start is not to make the task of the registrar impossible but to arrange that anybody reading this Bill can see that we have provided for a committee which will obviously be necessary and obviously have to be of a continuing nature. If, as I say, its objects have to be added to or its membership has to be added to or subtracted from, this can be provided for by regulation. I hope therefore that the Minister will concede that a case has been made out which certainly deserves his investigation.
Lord Wigoder: If there is not a statutory basis for the advisory committee, first of all is there any way in which one can avoid its being abolished at the whim of the Minister without reference to Parliament? Secondly, if there is not a statutory basis for the advisory committee, is there any way in which the registrar can be required to consult it at all?
Lord Mottistone: If I may comment briefly on what my noble friend the Minister had to say about my amendment, I accept his point about the expertise of the staff of the registrar. I think that that is going to be difficult to keep up to scratch all the time; one hires a lot of people. The noble Lord told us at Second Reading that we are only going to have 20. I have always been a little suspicious about that being enough because there will have to be administrative staff as well as experts. So I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that it may be necessary for purely technical reasons and not operational ones to fall back on some technicians.
He mentioned something about drawing in from the outside world. I think he will have to be a little careful about that because people get suspicious of commercial activities of this sort and so it may be better to

1381
have some form of committee to perform the function that I have suggested. I shall not press this point at this stage and I hope that something good will come out of it.
Lord Elton: Something good usually comes out of our deliberations. In this case exactly how good I do not know because all I can say is that I shall consider very carefully what noble Lords have said in this debate, as is always my practice. I remind the Committee that the registrar will be perfectly free to consult and take advice without a statutory mechanism to do so. The types of advice that he is going to want are almost totally unpredictable because one does not know in what direction the new technology is going to be pointed. For instance, seven or 10 years ago it was unthinkable that there would be databanks used for introducing people for the purposes of marriage. Maybe there will be some new departure like that; there probably will be almost annually. The composition of the advisory body therefore is something which will almost certainly have to fluctuate if it is going to be appropriate. As I wrote my original remarks, I was going to say that the noble and learned Lord had suggested that we needed a fir tree and he has presented us with a flagpole. In other words, there are many functions and refinements in his mind which do not appear in the amendment. I shall be able to look at what he said and consider further what the position is without, I hope, unduly encouraging him. My heart has been hungry for many an amendment, and I want to say something agreeable before we have our dinner.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the light of those encouraging observations, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29A not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur: I think this may be a convenient moment to move that the House be now resumed and to say that the Committee will resume at a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
7.9 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should just like to say a few words on this Bill, which is a very necessary piece of legislation. The Government are to be commended upon their speed of action. The Department of Trade have taken an extremely detailed look at the problems involved in amending the well-tried 1894 Merchant Shipping Act, with a view to providing a simple and
1382
quick form of registration for yachts. It would certainly not be amiss if, at this stage, I were to offer a few words of congratulation to the officials on their diligence.
Be that as it may, I still harbour one or two misgivings about the running of the proposed small yachts register. We are still faced with the question of who is to operate this scheme. I believe that it is the Government's intention to farm out the running of the register to a private organisation. This, in itself, is very laudable. After all, none of us wants to see a sort of yachtsmen's Swansea. However, I am slightly uneasy that some of the parties involved might be more interested in running the scheme from a commercial angle than in looking after the interests of yachtsmen.
As I said at an earlier stage, I feel that the register ought to be run by yachtsmen for yachtsmen, in the same way that other bodies, such as lawyers, doctors or estate agents, regulate their own affairs in a statutory, recognised way. The yachtsmen's national authority is the Royal Yachting Association, which already have experience in running a form of registration. They issue the international certificates for pleasure yachting. With their vast knowledge of yachting matters, they are admirably equipped to deal with any queries that might arise.
I would recommend to the Government—and here I think I speak for all yachtsmen—that they look very carefully at any proposals that are brought forward by the Royal Yachting Association, for it seems to me to be eminent good sense that the new register should be run by this organisation. With those few words, may I say that I think the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House has been admirably speedy. I wish it well and I hope that its passage through another place is equally speedy.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in welcoming the passage of this Bill. As the noble Lord said, on Second Reading we had certain misgivings about the operation of the Bill. We have discussed them, assurances have been given and I think that those misgivings have been satisfied. The Bill will provide for simplified registration and that, in a sense, is necessary, because of the passage of time and because of the new kinds of boats which need to be registered. One hopes that the operation of the register at the particular ports in this country, which will be fewer in number than in the past, will be acceptable. But all that I really wanted to do was to wish this Bill well on its passage.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for their kind words. I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is our resident Viking Peer—the master of the seas. We were most grateful for all his technical support and help at every stage of the Bill, since he and his various friends, both inside and outside your Lordships' House, have a great deal of knowledge of what is required and what is practical in the Government's aim of simplifying the process of registration for all these small ships of under 24 metres.

1383
I mentioned on Second Reading that there are between a quarter of a million and a half a million pleasure craft in the United Kingdom and, as I said, we wish to simplify the process of registration. In so doing, we hope that length rather than tonnage will be the parameter. Your Lordships will have noticed that 13.7 metres is the lower limit for registration, and we hope that this will prove effective under the new régime.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the problem of registering, and we all hope that a new central registry will evolve and that there will not he 112 ports of registration. At an earlier stage, we went through all the interesting types of craft, including the marvellous French engins de plage. As I think was originally said, mêine munis d'un moteur. So your Lordships may have wondered what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would be getting up to within 300 metres of the shoreline. But I understand that these details have been taken care of by my department.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his words of praise for the officials and I will certainly see that his comments are passed on. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, agrees that this Bill aims to simplify the process of registration, and I wish it an equally speedy passage through another place.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1983
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th January be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these draft regulations amend certain provisions in the regulations governing the detailed operation of the assisted places scheme. That scheme was placed on the statute book by this Government in order to widen the educational opportunities available to able children from less well-off families. The draft regulations contain two principal amendments and three technical ones.
The first substantive amendment is in draft Regulation 3. This will remove local authorities' power of veto on transfers to assisted sixth form places. That veto power was included in the original regulations because, when the scheme was being planned, local education authorities were worried that there might be wholesale transfers to assisted sixth form places and that some of their maintained sixth forms would be rendered unviable as a result. The scheme has now been operating for two years and we are, therefore, now in a position to judge whether those authorities' worries were justified.
The department undertook a survey of the decisions which local authorities made in 1982 on applications from maintained school pupils for approval to transfer to assisted sixth form places at independent schools in the scheme. Eighty-nine of the 96 local education authorities in England responded to that survey; six
1384
authorities reported that they had given blanket approval for any of their pupils wishing to transfer to assisted sixth form places at certain local independent schools, but did not know how many pupils had taken up such places. Fifty authorities reported that they had not received any transfer applications in 1982. The remaining 33 authorities reported receiving a total of 73 applications, of which they had approved 43 and rejected 30. Only one of the eight Welsh local education authorities received any transfer applications; both those transfers were approved.
Against that background. the Secretaries of State have concluded that the local authorities' fears about wholesale transfers were entirely unfounded. Some 80 or so transfers per year spread across the country would clearly not threaten the viability of maintained school sixth forms. The requirement that local authorities approve transfers from maintained schools to assisted sixth form places is thus unnecessary and draft Regulation 3 will revoke it.
The second main amendment is in draft Regulations 4(1) and 6. These provide for the uprating of the income scale used for assessing the amount of parents' contributions towards tuition fees. In particular, the income disregard in respect of dependent relatives is increased to £850; and the relevant income threshold below which parents pay nothing towards fees is increased to £5,616. These increases take account of the increase in average earnings over the last year. Noble Lords will notice that the increases are in fact relatively small. They reflect the Government's success in controlling inflation! Under the proposed scale, families with average incomes will pay about £450 towards fees in 1983–84: the families of 70 per cent. of assisted pupils will pay less.
I turn now to the technical amendments proposed. First, draft Regulation 4(2) seeks to simplify the assessment of fee remission in cases where, because of death, separation, divorce or remarriage, there is a change in the individuals who are an assisted pupil's statutorily defined parents. This is done in a way which enables account to be taken of significant financial hardship which may arise from that change of parents. Draft Regulation 5 is a consequential change in the existing provision concerning a parent's death.
Draft Regulation 7 takes account of amending provisions in the Finance Act 1982 concerning the arrangements for tax relief on mortgage interest payments and the removal from taxable income of mobility allowances. The final amendment is in draft Regulation 8. Under this provision, teachers barred from employment in maintained schools on grounds of misconduct will automatically also be barred from teaching at schools in the assisted places scheme. This will streamline administrative procedures which at present require the Secretary of State to issue two separate prohibitions.
I have described briefly the purpose of each of the amending regulations. If noble Lords wish further elucidation on any point or wish to raise queries about any of the principal regulations I will endeavour to answer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th January be approved.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
7.22 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords to hear that we on these Benches have no affection for the assisted places scheme. A number of noble Lords who were here during the long Committee stage of the 1980 Bill will remember our efforts to delete Clause 17 from the Bill. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. Clause 17 did not have unquestioning support even from the Tory Benches, as the Minister, who was there during most of the Committee stage, will probably remember. I remember some queries and comments from Lord Butler of Saffron Walden at Second Reading:
"It was greatly to my surprise that in a Bill involving economies there should be an inclusion of £50 million for the assisted places scheme".
The economies to which he was referring were on school meals and milk and on transport. This is what the noble Lord said:
"I now come to the assisted places … I am not very taken with this clause … I therefore believe that this Bill is based upon the idea that a few assisted places may help; but now, when we find that the scheme has been halved—it is not going to cost £50 million in five or six years, it is going to cost only a few million in the next year or two; and in my view it cannot affect more than 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 pupils—I really wonder whether the money might not be saved on this and given over to rural transport. I would not regret that at all, partly because I am, as was indicated in an article in the Sunday Times, especially keen to see the sixth-form classes at comprehensive schools improved. They are slowly improving. I have now retired from a great college, but my college is beginning to take sixth-form scholars of comprehensive schools, and I am encouraging them to take more. That means an improvement in the classes. I think that what is really wanted in education is an improvement in the State system".—[Official Report, 25/2/80, cols. 1048 and 1049]
The noble Lord was, I know, very anxious that the sixth forms, the 16-plus education in the maintained sector, should not suffer through the poaching of the brighter pupils by the private schools so that the quality of their own education was reduced. "Quality" and "standards" are words we often hear from Tory education Ministers as things to be aspired to in our state system. Why do they not now, then, consider more carefully the quality of our sixth forms?
I have no doubt that Regulation 6.3 was put in originally as an important safeguard for local education authorities. The local education authorities
themselves were very anxious to have it. Why remove that important safeguard? I want to know whether the local authority associations have been consulted and, if so, what attitutde they take. Sir Keith Joseph, in responding to a Question for Written Answer from Mr. Peter Rost, said that the veto power for local education authorities had proved unnecessary. Sir Keith said:
"The veto requirement was included in the regulations because of worries expressed by local authorities, when the scheme was being planned, that wholesale transfers by assisted sixth form places could seriously weaken the sixth forms of some maintained schools. However, a survey of local education authorities' decisions about transfers to assisted sixth form places in 1982 showed that there were nationally fewer than 80 applications for such transfers. It is clear that local authorities' original worries have proved to be unfounded".
If they have proved to be unfounded, why meddle? Why not leave it? The regulation could perfectly well remain there as a safeguard in case of a change Of circumstance.
1386
I understand that only 30 young people have been refused transfers over the whole country. That is not a very great number. Only once in the three years has Sir Keith not supported a local education authority over a transfer to an independent school. Surely the Government, who are so anxious to save money and public expenditure, do not want to encourage the take-up of places. And surely, when the HMI report makes very clear the deficiencies in the state system because of lack of resources for books, equipment and so on, the Government, if they had money to spare, could put it into more generous treatment of the local education authorities and the state schools, which are their prime responsibility.
What I think is interesting is that the traffic in many areas is in the opposite direction. What I mean is that at 16-plus pupils are transferring in very considerable numbers from the independent schools into sixth-form colleges. I inquired last week of my own authority in Cambridgeshire what the position was there. No person there, incidentally, has been refused a transfer to an independent school, but 10 per cent. of the applications going to the collegiate board in the Cambridge area (the collegiate board allocates pupils to the various 16-plus establishments) have been from the independent schools. What is more, it has been 10 per cent. over each of the last three years. There has in fact been an increase in the numbers applying. The total number of applications has increased by 37 per cent. since 1980. The increased private applications have come from schools with a fairly marked bias towards the higher ability groups. In many cases, the movement is for social-academic rather than economic reasons—though, of course, not having to pay fees obviously motivates some parents.
It is not only the applications but also the enrolments that have remained steady at 10 per cent. Again this means a numerical increase. In fact, in 1982, at the two sixth-form colleges in Cambridge the percentage of the intake from private schools was 13 per cent. and 12 per cent. I understand that the movement is an embarrassment to the private schools who are losing significant numbers of high quality pupils. And Cambridgeshire is not unique. I am told that at a recent conference of principals of sixth-form colleges it was said that this figure of 10 per cent. enrolments from the private sector was a feature all over the country, particularly in the South-East.
Therefore, I hope that the Government's revocation of Regulation 6.3 is not going to be seen by the independent schools as a heaven-sent opportunity for them to start advertising for assisted place pupils and thus to swell their declining numbers and finances. If the Government are going to preach that the assisted places scheme provides opportunities for the gifted, I should like to say that at a meeting I attended only two weeks ago three people from the National Association of Gifted Children who spoke to us said that they did not look on the assisted places scheme as the right answer for gifted children. They thought that some extra provision in a well organised comprehensive school—perhaps out-of-school-hours provision—was perfectly satisfactory.
As for the other changes in the regulations, the financial ones, I have nothing to say, except that the increase appears in this case to be bigger than the rate

1387
of inflation. Therefore the Government are not being particularly careful here. May I ask the Minister: what is the Government's estimate of expenditure on the assisted places scheme in 1983–84?
We are still completely opposed to the scheme. The revocation of Regulation 6.3 is, in our view, a completely unnecessary and misguided step, and it is yet again taking away a power from the local authority.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I should like to stress my full and cordial agreement with what has just been said by my noble friend Lady David. We made it clear from the start how much we oppose this assisted places scheme, because it seems to stem from the general approach of the Conservative Party towards education. They do not see it being their duty so much to provide as good an education as they can to everybody, as they do to set to work to make sure that greater educational opportunities are offered to some children than to others. In many instances they show this predilection, and the assisted places scheme is one of them.
The only regulation on which I wish to comment is Regulation 3. It becomes apparent as one reads it that it takes power from the local authorities and gives it to the Secretary of State; exactly the kind of thing to which the Conservative Party have generally expressed themselves as being strongly opposed. How has this come about? It comes about because, having started with one bad principle—the principle of favouritism, which underlies the whole assisted places scheme—they have been led on, in order to make it work, to a further bad principle of interfering with local autonomy.
We were told that there have been 30 refusals by local authorities as contrasted, from the same group of authorities, with 43 consents. It looks therefore as though most of the local authorities which have dealt with this matter at all have behaved in a discriminatory manner, and presumably they have reasons in every case. Sometimes they said "Yes" and sometimes "No". In future they are not to have the power to say "No". Could we not have been told why those cases which said "No" did so? It is presumed that they did so for some reason, and that they are responsible authorities. The main effect of this regulation is that, in future, they will not have the power to say "No". Can that be justified?
I know that the argument is advanced, "The whole thing is not so big that the local authority schools will be ruined by a great flood of children going into assisted places". Well, no—and it is an interesting fact that that is so. Still more interesting, as my noble friend Lady David has told us, is the move away from fee-paying schools to sixth-form colleges, which is really a rather gratifying and a significant piece of news. It still remains true that the local authorities, where they had the power, used it discriminatingly and, for what seemed to them to be good reasons, did not permit the transfer of some 30 children. They must have reasons for doing that but they are simply being told, "The Government are not interested in this
1388
any longer—in you having any power of choice—and we are going to take this power away". That is not good enough. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us a little more explanation as to why those 30 refusals occurred, and why the Government consider it necessary to take away the power of refusal from local authorities in future.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in fully supporting what has been said by my two noble friends. I should like to mention one further factor in asking the noble Earl who is to reply for a specific answer. I wonder whether he has read the paper Privatisation in Education written by Professor Richard Pring, who is a professor of education at Exeter University? According to Professor Pring in his paper, the public subsidy to fee-paying schools—that is, the cost to the taxpayer—is in the order of £200 million a year. Can the noble Earl either confirm this figure or give a corrected figure?
This money could have been used in the state system to improve, as my noble friend Lady David has said, the sixth forms in comprehensive schools in particular and the work of sixth-form colleges. It is money which is eroding the quality of the education available to the vast majority of our children and restricting parental choice. Now we hear that the Secretary of State and his officials are discussing a voucher scheme; a scheme whereby vouchers will be given to parents to use as they please. Do the Government believe that education is a commodity to be sold in the market-place? I would have thought that after the long battles of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, and at least since the Second World War, it had become universally recognised right across party lines that education is a universal right and not a commodity for sale.
This use of public money to finance privately-owned establishments is a misuse of public money. Is not opposing totally the whole concept of privatisation of education and the inducements and bribes which are being made to get children from the state system into the private system, and the subsidies which are going into private educational establishments, a contradication of Conservative Party philosophy? I understood that this Government and the party which supports them had rejected the concept of Government support for lame ducks. Are the private education institutions of this country not lame ducks now being supported by public money, irrespective of the wishes of the taxpayer?
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us, when he winds up this debate, what it is costing the taxpayer in subsidies to the fee-paying schools; and what is the extent of the public money being spent through this assisted places scheme and through the relief which parents are being given in the payment of fees to the schools to which they choose to send their children, which are now being subsidised by the taxpayer.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, it is worth saying to the noble Earl, and asking him to note, that after the breakdown and then closing of direct-grant schools, which seemed to some of us to be

1389
a very socially divisive action, this very modest and individual opportunity for helping needy children of various social classes, needs and outlooks is proving of particular help and is, I believe, a very compassionate way of dealing with individual cases where there is real need. I make this brief intervention in order to state my own support for these draft regulations and to say that, from my own experience, in special cases I know that this particular method has been of real educational and compassionate help.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think I would have been completely flabbergasted if noble Lords on the opposite side had not launched the attack that they did. It certainly did not come as any surprise to me because of the attitude they made quite clear when the Act was going through Parliament. If I may answer some of the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady David, made a lot of points about what was happening in Cambridgeshire as regards the sixth forms. I really cannot answer as to what is happening in Cambridgeshire at the moment. but I would stress again that there are only some eighty or so children involved in the whole country and I cannot believe that these very small figures are going to make an enormous difference to the viability of sixth forms throughout the country.
The noble Baroness asked what consultations there had been, if any, with local authorities. There was a meeting between officials of the Department of Education and Science and the local authority associations before the September 1982 intake to assisted places to discuss the use of the sixth form veto. Subsequently the Secretary of State notified the associations of his decision to remove the veto a month before he announced that decision and published these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, asked about the cost of the scheme, and I think so did the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. The cost in the current year of the assisted places scheme will be about £9.4 million: in 1983–84 it will cost about £16 million, and the increase will arise from a further intake of pupils. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that I am afraid I have not read Professor Pring's book and I really cannot comment on the estimates that the noble Lord quoted. What I can tell him is that if all the pupils at independent schools transferred to maintained schools the extra cost to taxpayers and ratepayers would be in the region of about £500 million each year. So far as I am aware, I do not think the independent schools at the moment are lame ducks. The ones I know about seem to be fairly bulging at the seams. The idea of this scheme is certainly not to prop up the crumbling independent schools, but to help children with special needs.
I would like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for what he said about the scheme. After all, this scheme did come about as a direct result of the closing down of the direct grant schools. I would like to say a few words in support of this scheme. When the noble Baroness looked across and referred to the late Lord Butler she was also looking at me, because at the time I was, I think it fair to say, less than enthusiastic about this scheme myself. I must say the
1390
more I learn about the scheme, the more in favour of it I am. I do feel that it is encouraging the right sort of children. I was very worried that it would be people who were already using the independent sector who would jump on the bandwagon in order to get their children in on it. I am glad to say this is not what is happening. In the first year of the scheme two-thirds of the new intake of assisted pupils have spent at least the two previous years in maintained schools. Among the remainder are those who were abroad for some or all of that two-year period, and others who attended independent schools in this country but whose family circumstances have changed. The assisted places scheme does not benefit pupils whose parents could well afford to pay tuition fees from their own resources.
That fact is well supported by the statistics the department collects about the relevent incomes of assisted pupils. In the 1982 intake about four out of 10 new assisted pupils had parents whose income was low enough for them to be awarded completely free places. Just over half of the remainder were from families who also had incomes below the national average. In all, 72 per cent. of the new intake were from families with below average incomes. Without any doubt the scheme is achieving exactly what the Government intended of it: enabling able boys and girls from less well-off families to attend good independent schools by helping with the cost of tuition fees where parents could not afford the full cost.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.43 until 7.45 p.m.]

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Committee stage resumed.
Schedule 2 [The Data Protection Registrar and the Data Protection Tribunal]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 30, line 23, leave out ("first").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to the tenure of office of the registrar. The amendment, on page 30, line 23, is to amend the paragraph, which reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the first person to be appointed as Registrar shall hold office for five years".
Then, in the next line:
"and any person subsequently appointed shall hold office for a period of not less than three nor more than five years".
The view that we take of this matter is that the independence of the registrar will be best preserved if his period of tenure of office is always at least as long as the life of a Parliament, that is to say, potentially five years. Therefore, it is not merely the first person to by appointed registrar who we think should hold office for five years but all subsequent appointees should

1391
have a similar tenure of office. That is why we do not like the alternative of not less than three nor more than five years. It is really to establish a period of tenure so substantial that the registrar's independence will be preserved for as long as reasonably practicable. I beg to move.
Viscount Craigavon: May I speak in support of this amendment, as I have a following amendment which would allow an even longer tenure of office—five to eight years. I am speaking with the support of the British Computer Society, which is the leading professional organisation in computers. It is concerned to reinforce the independence of the registrar. It regards such political independence as most important, and this is one area where it can be reinforced. The BCS looks on this Bill as a chance to reduce public suspicion and scepticism about computers in certain areas. It does not require a person to be very politically aware to have suspicions about the independence of an appointee in these circumstances of three years.
I hope that it does not seem small-minded of me to refer to a small mistake in the Notes on Clauses, which I otherwise found very useful. I quote from the notes on Clause 3, at the end of paragraph 3. It describes the procedure for appointment and then states:
"By these means the Registrar is distanced from the Government of the day and he cannot be removed from office by the decision of a departmental Minister. He is thus assured of the same degree of independence as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration."
As I am sure your Lordships know, the Ombudsman, together with the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman, are effectively appointed for life; that is, until retirement at 65. There is a considerable difference between a three-year leasehold and a lifetime tenure. I believe that at least a five-year leasehold, or even longer, is required to provide an adequate degree of independence.
In your Lordships' House on Tuesday, at Question Time, some of your Lordships may have heard some of the rather robust exchanges about what was called the non-reappointment of Sir Ralph Verney as chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council after a three-year tenure. Suspicions were voiced from all sides about the motives for the non-reappointment, apparently also reflecting feelings reported outside the House. Those suspicions may have been groundless, but nevertheless they were there. The noble Lord who was answering for the Government said they were looking for someone,
"young enough to serve at least a second term".—[Official Report, 8/2/83, col. 1108.]
The present Government cannot guarantee that it will fall to them to offer him a second term.
If this sort of controversy and suspicion can arise on the subject of nature conservancy, how much more should it be avoided with the registrar of data protection? One of the main requirements is that, in the eyes of the public, he should clearly be seen to be independent of political pressures. I should like to hear what the Government have to say before withdrawing my amendment in favour of the present amendment, which I strongly support.
Lord Elton: I listened with interest to the noble and learned Lord's introduction to this amendment and to the reflections on it by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. The Bill, as drafted, provides that the initial office holder shall serve for a full five-year period, in order both to oversee the setting up of the register and to establish the direction which the registrar's office shall take during the first few years in which the provisions are fully operational. Thereafter it was the Government's view that there might be grounds for an element of flexibility in the lengths of appointment made, so that, for example, if a good man were found for the job who for some reason could only serve for a more limited period, one would not be inhibited from appointing him for that shorter time.
However, in view of the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, and in order to prolong the bonhomie introduced by dinner and underline what I said in the earlier part of our debates about my good-heartedness, I am prepared to consider this.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I shall not say "for this relief much thanks" because the relief is not complete enough yet. But for this post-dinner gesture we are grateful and we look forward with enthusiasm to the acceptance of my amendment in due course, possibly on Report. However, in view of the Minister's assurances, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is No. 32 but I should say that, if this is agreed to, it will not be possible to call Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Lord Elton: I think that the noble Lord inadvertently failed to speak to this amendment with his Amendment No. 30. It is consequential on Amendment No. 30, is it not?
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 30, leave out lines 25 and 26.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential amendment and comes under the same formula as the previous amendment on which the Minister gave an undertaking. Not moved.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 31, line 26, leave out ("the approval of the Secretary of State given with").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient to discuss together Amendments Nos. 34 to 39 inclusive because they all turn on the very important point of the independence of the registrar. This matter was referred to by myself and other noble Lords in the debate on Second Reading. The view then expressed was that it is vital that independence should be maintained, bearing in mind the involvement of Government departments, particularly the Home Office with its vast computerised information system.
It is crucially important that his independence should be secured and that he should not be subject to any control by Government departments, in particular the Home Office. I say that without malice to the Home Office, but it is the principal user, or one of the principal users, of computerised information which certainly is capable of doing harm to data subjects if they are not independently supervised, which will be a function of the registrar to accomplish.
As a user of public funds it is right, of course, that the registrar should, in regard to that, be subject to Treasury control, but we see no reason why, in the interests of public expenditure, the Secretary of State should have an independent veto over the size of his establishment, as is the effect of paragraph 4 of Part I of the Schedule. It is for the registrar to determine, I submit, the independence of his own establishment and of his staff and the quality of the people whom he will be able to recruit. The less control, direct or governessy, that he suffers in this context from the Secretary of State the greater will be the confidence in the office and the greater the effectiveness of this very important, new, independent office of the state; namely, the registrar. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: These amendments refer to the parts of Schedule 2 which give the Secretary of State a role in controlling the registrar's manpower, expenditure and accounting procedures. The noble and learned Lord has argued that the Secretary of State should be relieved of that role and that the full burden should ultimately rest on the Treasury. He suggested that this is necessary to avoid the Secretary of State (who in this case would be the Home Secretary) being faced with a dangerous conflict of interests: on the one hand, he is responsible for approving the registrar's resources: on the other, he might be suspected of wanting to avoid the registrar looking too closely at data held by the Home Office.
First, as regards independence, the Bill provides ample evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that the registrar's independence is real and effective. He will be appointed by Her Majesty by Letters Patent and can only be removed following an address both from this House and from another place. It will not be possible to remove him at the political whim of a future Secretary of State. Secondly. the Government are not his personal paymaster. The salary and pension of the registrar will be determined! by another place and issued from the Consolidated! Fund. Then, of course, his staff will not be civil servants, so they will have no affiliations to a central department. And, last but not least, the registrar will have the power to use his reports direct to Parliament to draw attention to any particular concerns he may have.
That is not an unimpressive battery of guarantees, but though the functional independence of the registrar can be guaranteed, we must still make sure that he is accountable for his use of public funds. He cannot become a law unto himself in that respect and the noble and learned Lord recognises that in leaving approval of staffing levels and payment of expenses to rest with the Government. But he wishes these functions to be discharged by the Treasury alone. The first thing I would say is that it must make sense for
1394
both resource control and policy responsibility to lie with the same department. It would be a certain recipe for confusion if one department dealt with general policy on data protection and a quite different one dealt with resource approval. The two go inextricably hand in hand. I have a deep admiration for the department of the Treasury and a profound respect for my right honourable friend who leads it, but he would be the first to agree that the Treasury is not the most appropriate department to take charge of data protection policy. Yet, for reasons that I have just mentioned, the adoption of this amendment would, I believe, lead us down that road.
It is possible, or rather tempting, to draw a parallel with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. In the Act setting up the PCA, the Treasury was given sole responsibility for approving resources, but the parallel is not exact. Both the PCA and the registrar must be wholly independent, and in providing for the registrar's appointment, security of office and payment of salary and pension, we have followed the PCA model. But when the office of Parliamentary Corn missioner for Administration was established, the overall policy lay with the Treasury, so it was right that the Treasury approved resource allocation and the commissioner's staff, the civil servants. provided by the Treasury. But the registrar's office will he a non-governmental body, not staffed by civil servants at all. I could go on, but I think I have deployed enough of what I have before me to show the basis of our not being happy with this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: May I just briefly support my noble friend and say that in my experience the Treasury is not suitable as a department of state to undertake administrative functions of this nature. Executive responsibility is not its forte and, though I well see what the noble and learned Lord is working at—to try to take this out of some sort of central control—there must be somebody there. If we were to try to select the department of state most unsuitable to be landed in the position in which these amendments would land it, I would select the Treasury as most unsuitable.
Lord Wigoder: May I add that I do not think I have ever seen such a Bill in which such vast powers have been given to the Secretary of State. Almost every clause finishes up with the words that the Secretary of State can cancel it, alter it, amend it, improve it, extend it or do whatever he may wish to do. What we are seeking to do in Committee stage in your Lordships' House is to go through each of these clauses seriatim and on each particular power it is perfectly possible for the noble Lord the Minister to make out a case for that particular power being given to the Secretary of State. What we are not able to do in this Committee stage is to take an overall look at the totality of the situation, as to whether the Secretary of State is not being given overall a far wider extent of his powers and his discretion than is really desirable. If that is the correct view, and if this is a Bill in which there are considerable extensions of the Secretary of State's powers, far more than might reasonably be anticipated, then I would suggest it is up to your Lordships' Committee to take individual instances where that power can be whittled away without doing

1395
any harm to the Bill. I would have thought that this was one of those instances where this was desirable and quite practicable.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not entirely surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was not endeared with the idea of the Treasury being involved. I seem to have heard him in great eloquence on that theme on previous occasions, so he may be not entirely without a modicum of prejudice in that regard. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his support of the amendment. What is crucial in this matter is that the Secretary of State for the Home Office has an enormous involvement through the involvement of his department in the whole of the procedures we are concerned with; and his constant involvement, and indeed intervention, which runs through this Bill from clause to clause is something which is causing concern and will be the subject of further concern. I see that I can make no progress on this matter tonight, but maybe we shall return to it on another occasion. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 34 to 39 inclusive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 39 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 32, line 6, at end insert ("or on or before such earlier date after the end of that year as the Treasury may direct.")
The noble Lord said: The provisions set out in paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 2 reflect normal public sector accounting practice and are well-precedented. Paragraph 7(1)(b) requires the registrar to prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year, and paragraph 7(1)(c) requires copies to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Your Lordships may be aware that there has been mounting criticism of the time which it takes to prepare these accounts. The Public Accounts Committee, in particular, has expressed clearly the need to publish them as quickly as possible. This amendment is being put forward by the Government in an attempt to facilitate the earliest possible publication of the registrar's accounts. It does this by giving the Treasury power to set a date earlier than 31st August for delivery of the accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and this will in turn enable his staff to proceed as rapidly as they can. Your Lordships will sympathise with this rare opportunity to accelerate the processes of Government accounting, and I hope your Lordships will support the amendment.
Lord Wigoder: I think we all knew that the time would come when the noble Lord would find an amendment acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Registration of data users and computer bureaux]:
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, line 8, after ("a") insert ("full").
The noble Viscount said: I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 47. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would require the particulars entered on the register in subsection (3)(b) to be as follows:
"a full description of the personal data to be held by him and of the detailed purpose or purposes for which the data are to be held".
These amendments, and those which I have following, aim to enlarge slightly the detail required from data users on registration. I am speaking here with the advice and support of the British Computer Society. It might be wondered why the BCS would want to make registration slightly more onerous to its members. It is concerned, as a leading organisation of computer professionals, with a membership of over 24,000, that the Bill when enacted should be effective and should command public confidence. Where possible it wants clear and workable definitions contained in a clear framework.
I realise that Clause 4(3) is a framework that can be, and probably will be, varied by order under subsection (7) by the Secretary of State.
This amendment is emphasising in statute that we require usefully detailed, but not burdensome, information about purposes for which data are being held and also a full description of that data. A full description would not mean requiring any actual personal data on the register, but simply a listing of the categories into which personal data would be broken down. Thus, to give an example, we might fill in a form to join a club or a society. On that form there might be boxes to fill in—for example, name and address; date of birth; date of joining; type of membership, et cetera. In the Bill as it stands a description of that personal data might simply be "records of membership". and the purpose for which the data are held might be put as a tautology to maintain a record of members. Something more revealing than that is required.
Under the amendment, and taking the example that I have given, the categories that are required on the membership form would be recorded under the full description of personal data—that is, name and address, date of joining, et cetera. The detailed purposes would, if amended, require such subheadings as "annual membership payments"; "monthly magazine mailing"; "membership type analysis" et cetera. A much clearer indication of what is going on would thus be given.
From the point of view of the data user, if the use of the computer is properly thought out, such information should be available from the planning stage of a computing system and virtually no extra work would be involved. If such thought and planning had not been given, this is a way of encouraging it. It would also be a way of discouraging abuses at source. If someone was planning something of doubtful acceptability and felt that he might just go ahead with it until challenged, he would, under the amendment, have to consider at an early stage if the registrar would accept it.
From the point of view of the data subject an entry in the register would be very much more usefully informative. It would seem to me to be easier under these amendments for the registrar to be able to point to the full and detailed requirements in the Act from the start, rather than have to require a slow build-up of

1397
the amount of information and detail. In case the requirement for such detail might seem logistically forbidding, I should say that the Swedish Data Board, which has been operating successfully for just under 10 years, requires very much more detail on just about all the headings in paragraphs (a) to (f) in this subsection. They have, in fact, 14 headings to our six. Point 4 of their list requires "a complete list of the data to be included in the automatic data processing". Point 5 asks "what operations are to be performed by automatic data processing, and the procedure for this processing". Therefore, this amendment is a realistic requirement. Any extra thinking or small additional burden on applicants for registration should serve to remind them of the seriousness and responsibility involved in computerising personal data. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support the noble Viscount. This is a sensible amendment which will obviate the excuse from an operator that he did not realise that he had to give all the information that was required.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Viscount has explained, in introducing these amendments, his desire to ensure that the register is as full and informative a document as possible. The Government certainly share his wish that the particulars entered on the register should give a proper indication of the matters to which they relate, and that is why Clause 7(2)(a) of the Bill expressly empowers the registrar to refuse registration if he considers that the particulars proposed for registration would not give sufficient information. But the Government have also recognised that it would be unnecessary—and in some cases inappropriate—to insist upon very detailed entries every time. The noble Viscount gave some examples, but there will be many straight forward cases of data processing—company payroll records are perhaps a case in point—where the nature of the data and the purposes to which they are put, will be well known to all those involved, and where it would be quite unnecessary to insist upon a laboriously detailed description of what was going on. Or there might be cases where to give very specific details about the activity in question would be to prejudice the very purpose for which the data were being held—commercial secrets might be revealed for example, or the effect might be to reveal to those who had been responsible for some major crime that the police were on their track. Thus, Clause 7(3) provides for registered particulars to be in general terms where appropriate, and actually requires the registrar to accept particulars in such terms where the purposes for which the data are to be held would otherwise be likely to be prejudiced. I believe that this strikes a very careful balance between the two interests which are involved here, and that together these provisions give the registrar appropriate discretion to decide upon the right degree of detail in each case.
I think that perhaps the noble Viscount's amendments would upset that careful balance—
indeed, I doubt whether they could sit alongside the provisions of Clause 7(3) without seriously confusing the situation—and I suggest that
1398
they are unnecessary given the discretion which the registrar already enjoys. To shift the balance any further in the direction of detailed register entries is neither necessary for the sake of an informative register, nor would it be fair on those users who might thereby find themselves obliged to supply far more information than it was in anyone's interests to have available. I hope, in the light of what I have said about the provisions already present in the Bill, that the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Craigavon: I am grateful for that answer. I am not sure whether the powers of discretion in Clause 7 cannot still he exercised even if my amendment were put into Clause 4. However, I would like to read in Hansard what the noble Lord has said and possibly maintain the option of bringing this amendment back at a later stage, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 4, line 19. leave out ("and").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48 and I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 51. This is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 51 which proposes an additional requirement on registration; that is, it requires:
"a brief description of the processing facilities including system software and software products to be used and their main locations".
This amendment requires the addition of some mildly technical information which could be of considerable use to the registrar and his staff as well as to computer literate data subjects. The occasion of submission of a data user's particulars could also allow some useful information to be recorded about the nature of the hardware and types of software systems and packages that can be employed. I am advised by the British Computer Society that to a data subject reasonably knowledgeable about computers, and certainly to the registrar's staff, there would be a useful cross-check that the purposes for which the computer was claimed to be being used corresponded roughly to the machinery involved. The mention of "locations" in the amendment might give some idea of the scope of the operations.
I understand that in many fields there are a limited number of standard software packages in use. The point of the amendment is that just these few extra words could provide significantly useful information to certain people. Perhaps I may give rather a simple analogy as regards motorcars. Some people may not be at all interested in what goes on out of sight under the bonnet; they just want to get travelling. To other people, details of the engine and technical information about the engine are of the essence, and recording that it has, for instance, electronic ignition, six cylinders, and an overhead camshaft is very meaningful and significant. To the right person, the machinery of a system can be roughly checked against its claimed performance and purpose.
Again, as in the last amendment, under Swedish data protection law there is a requirement in Point 7 for:
"a description of the technical equipment to be chiefly used and a statement showing where it is installed."
It is presumably desirable that the register is not intimidating or mysterious to the average data subject. The words suggested in the amendment will add a small number of technical words that may not be of use to everyone. However, they will be meaningful to increasing numbers of the computer literate, and will be of considerable use to the registrar's small staff in enabling them to focus their attention more quickly on possible problem areas. If any data subject thinks of the machinery of computers as consisting of a mysterious black box, it may do no harm to record that that box sometimes has an intelligible name.
I would, therefore, ask the Government to benefit the registrar in this small way by adding this additional subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Viscount urges us to extend the list of a user's details which are to be placed on the register so that they will include a brief description of the processing facilities, including system software and software products, and their main locations. Although I understand the reasons for the amendment, I do not believe that its adoption will help. What it would in fact achieve would be to involve data users in extensive work and be of limited help to the registrar. I say this because in many respects the data protection principles can be policed without reference to the processing facilities which hold the personal data. The main exception to that is where security measures are concerned—the eighth principle. But even there, although knowledge of a user's facilities may, on occasion, be of interest to the registrar in considering matters such as security and reliability, the value of such knowledge will vary according to the nature of a data user's operations.
The relevance and worth of such knowledge will depend above all on how the equipment on which the personal data in question are processed is being used. The more complex and demanding the processing operation, the more reliable the security of the equipment may be. The more sensitive the purpose for which personal data are held, the more stringent the security measures which it may be appropriate to take in respect of the data.
This amendment will not assist the registrar to take a view on issues such as those involving non-personal data processing. Nor would he know from the additional information he would receive in consequence of this amendment what other workloads the equipment in question might have to cope with, and he would not know whether special features had been added to a software system by a user which might have a bearing on the issue of security.
I have expressed doubts about the value of the amendment, but I have also a positive objection to it; it is because of the burden it will place on users. As we shall discuss at greater length in due course, we have been at pains to make the registration process as simple as possible in order to minimise the burden and
1400
costs for users. This amendment would add a significant element to the information that users would have to provide and one that might need frequent updating as equipment and software change, which they do with considerable rapidity. I do not think that the advantages it would bring would outweigh the costs and efforts that it would demand from users.
There is one other point. The amendment makes no allowance for users who process data on facilities provided by computer bureaux and who might be wholly unable to provide the imformation demanded by the amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Craigavon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that very full answer. I think the answer might be that the professional has a slightly different perspective on the whole process or registration. However, until I am able to see that full answer in Hansard tomorrow, I should like to withdraw the amendment, possibly with a view to bringing it back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4. line 20, at end insert ("or individuals").
The noble Lord said: We now turn to paragraph (f) of Clause 4(3) regarding the:
"description and address of an individual who would be responsible for receiving and dealing with requests from data subjects for access to the data.".
My amendment seeks to widen this to allow for not just one individual but for more than one. If one stops to think, there are many data users or many large companies which, for all sorts of classes of data, have more than one person responsible for it. It would be calling upon them to restrict and, indeed, to centralise the handling or supervision of their data sources and equipment to stick strictly to what subsection (3)(f) says.
I should have thought that in this day and age, when there is quite a lot of evidence to show that in companies it is better to decentralise rather than to centralise, it is against the trend to force people hack into the centre. So I suggest to your Lordships that this rather simple amendment, which the CBI have given me, is a sensible one, is practical, and does not go against the principles of the Bill in any respect, and is one that is worthy of the Government's consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment. I just wonder whether my other noble friend on the Front Bench has thought of the position if the single relevant individual happens to be a young woman away on maternity leave. She would be away for six months and one would get no answer. Therefore, I would urge him to accept this particular amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: The purpose of Clause 4(3)(f), to which this amendment relates, is to provide in the register entry of each data user certain information of assistance to data subjects wanting to seek access to data. That information is the name or description and

1401
address of an individual in the user's organisation responsible for dealing with requests for access. The register will, therefore, enable subjects to dispatch requests direct to the person responsible for dealing with them, and avoid the danger of a letter getting lost in the maze of a big corporate system. The effect of the amendment is to allow the name or description of more than one person to appear in the register as responsible for dealing with requests.
I have to say that that would seem to lose much of the benefit of the register entry on this point. Instead of the subject having a clear target at which he should aim his request, he will have more than one—possibly a multiplicity of alternatives. The benefits to the subject (and incidentally for the registrar) in having a single central inquiry point are thereby much diminished.
Perhaps I can put my noble friend Lord Swinfen at ease over the point he raised. Any data user who may not wish to nominate a particular individual by name as responsible for access requests, can instead nominate a post—and I think that this covers his point—in his company as responsible for those requests. That is the purport of the term "description" in Clause 4(3)(f). Thus, if Mr. X may be expected to do the job for only a short time, the user may specify the post filled by Mr. X—for example, "data controller"—allowing Mr. Y to succeed him in due course without any need to change the register entry.
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend will give way for a moment, the wording in the Bill says:
"the name or description … of an individual —".
The words are "of an individual". I realise that the description could be of a job position in a firm, but from my reading of the Bill a named individual is required.
Lord Glenarthur: A data controller is, in fact, an individual, and so I hope that that puts my noble friend's mind at rest. I think I have indicated the reasons why we have doubts about this amendment and why we see merit in confining the register entry in this respect to a single person or post. I would suggest that most data users will in fact wish that to be the case so that as many requests as possible come to a central point from which access requests can be co-ordinated and monitored. I hope for that reason that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will not press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: That is a disappointing reply, with great respect to my noble friend. I am extremely sorry that I have to address my remarks to him because I am sure he was trying very hard, but he did not take up my point about the need for decentralisation. I am not at all happy that he replied properly to my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am sure there is another word that would be more suitable than "individual" when talking about a post. I should like to he reassured on that in time.
I should like also to say to my noble friend, if he is able to listen, that he needs to think again. It could well be in Scotland, for example, that somebody who wanted to make an inquiry, because it is requests from data subjects, might not want to write to some
1402
Sassenach in London. He would like to write to somebody in the local company which employs him in Glasgow or Edinburgh. This really deserves another think. You want to make quite sure that the definition of "individual" covers a post. The Whitehall view, shall we say, of centralisation being a good thing, which rather came out of the argument, and that you always have one chap sitting somewhere to whom everything is addressed, is not as real as might be indicated. I hope my noble friend can give me a little more reassurance.
Lord Glenarthur: I understand the points that my noble friend is making. In the light of what he has said, I shall be happy to consider the point further. If, on reflection, the clear disadvantages of allowing more than one individual to be specified seem to be outweighed by the advantages, then we shall come forward with an appropriate amendment in due course. With that undertaking, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: That is extremely generous of my noble friend, and I am most grateful to him. May I make a suggestion to him about the problem of having several recordings. One of the frightening things about computers these days is that they have lots of recordings and it is easy to pick out information from them, because that is one of the things that they can do much better than we used to be able to do by hand. They have lots of paper and addresses, and it is quite normal. That particular point is perhaps not as pressing when one assumes, for the sake of argument. that the register is going to be kept on a computer. With that, I beg leave withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 21, after ("responsible") insert ("for ensuring compliance with the data protection principles and")
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the same paragraph (f) in subsection (3). In passing, I am grateful for the explanation as to what is meant by the words "description of the individual". If it is "position held", it would be better to say "position held"; and to invite data users to submit a description of the individual who is responsible for dealing with these matters is to invite some rather eccentric entries.
I personally would have preferred the Government to adhere to their previous position on this paragraph in relation to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and have "an" in so that there is an individual in the organisation who has the titular responsibility at any rate of receiving and dealing with requests from data subjects for access to the data. What this amendment goes on to say is that that person should also be responsible "for ensuring compliance with the data protection principles". The effect of this would therefore be that in any organisation there was one nominated individual entered on the registry who had the responsibility of ensuring compliance with this Act in general.
This would be in accordance with paragraph 623 of the Younger Report which suggested that there would be advantages in having a named person who had this responsibility to deal with all the functions, duties and obligations of a data user. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find this acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: With no connection to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, disagreed with my amendment because it would not have fitted his, may I say, while accepting his point that there is a lot to be said for having somebody who is responsible for compliance with the data protection principle, that it is most unsuitable to combine it with the person, or persons, who will be responsible for receiving and dealing with requests for data. You need somebody else, and somebody with quite different qualifications.
The person who is suitable to oversee the compliance with the data protection principles is going to have to be rather a special chap. Not only has he to understand what you might call the human side of the data protection principles, but must also understand the complications of the data equipment. He is going to be rather different from somebody who might be a sort of manager chap who does this accepting of requests. I should have thought that he needs to be a different person. I do not deny that we might need to have somebody of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke about. From that point of view, I still want my amendment, and I do not want his in its present form.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with interest to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has made for this amendment. I understand why he thinks it would be helpful for the individual nominated by a data user for the purposes of Clause 4(3)(f) to be responsible not only for dealing with requests for subject access but also for ensuring that the user complies with the principles. But, having listened, I am afraid I am not convinced by the case which has been made out by the noble Lord. I harbour serious doubt as to whether any real benefits would be conferred in consequence of it, and whether the proposition it advances is capable of practical implementation.
First, as regards the suggested benefits. Where a data user is an individual, then the person responsible for compliance with the principles is obviously that individual. Where there is an organisation of some kind little value is derived from singling out a particular individual and placing responsibility for compliance of the principles on him or on her. It will not help anyone to have such a person identified when in fact the responsibility will rest elsewhere, or be shared with others, and thus in reality be corporate.
Secondly, even if it were of some value it would not be practical. No single individual in any sizeable organisation will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all the principles by that organisation. Let us not forget the matters to which they apply: the collection of information to be contained in data, for example. Many different individuals may be responsible for ensuring that it is fair. A quite different set of people might have responsibility for seeing that the data are accurate, or adequate, or kept up to date.
1404
Someone else will be in charge of ensuring that subject access is granted in the requisite way, and yet another person will look after security.
Of course, at some point in the structural pyramid all these responsibilities will come together, but in many cases that will be at such a high level, given the variety of tasks, and so far removed from day-to-day functional responsibility that to nominate that person would be meaningless. Certainly there would be a strong possibility that he would not be the same person to whom subjects would naturally go with such access requests. Therefore, on the grounds both of the value of the amendment and its practicability, the Government have strong reservations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Wigoder: I am grateful for those observations. One must not confuse the distinction between responsibility and day-to-day control. I should have thought that it was not difficult to nominate somebody in an organisation who had the responsibility for compliance with the data principles, even though the day-to-day control was under the immediate supervision of his subordinates. Perhaps the company secretary would in most cases be the obvious person in those circumstances.
I am grateful particularly for the observations of the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, and in view of what he said about the position, he and I might have a word together to see whether there is a way by which we might jointly present representations on this matter at a later stage of the Bill, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
8.41 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("(8) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe any class of data user or any class of data in respect of which the provisions of this section shall not apply.").
The noble Lord said: With the approval of the Committee, I suggest we discuss also Amendments Nos. 54 and 69 and one yet to come—I missed it out by mistake—which would be consequential and would relate to Clause 36. This is an important series of amendments which I hope to persuade the Government is worthy of special consideration. The object is to empower the Secretary of State, in consultation with the registrar, as provided in Clause 36(3), to exempt common classes of data from the requirement to be registered.
The CBI, which has recommended the amendment to me, has consistently argued that universal registration is both unworkable and unnecessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, talked about Sweden, Being rather suspicious of Sweden, perhaps I may quote Germany, which has no registration for private sector companies at all, or Norway, which, having started with universal registration, found it to be unworkable and unnecessary and has gone to a system somewhat similar to this.
I would add that it is unnecessary to have a comprehensive system because exempted systems would still be subject to the data protection principles under Clause 10, and the registrar would still have power to issue enforcement notices in respect of those systems where necessary. The rights of the data subject in Part III of the Bill would still apply. So this might be something worthy of consideration on two grounds; first because it would enable the system to get going more simply, without having a whole wealth of unnecessary information from respectable companies, and, secondly, because we would start by not overburdening it. We could see how that went and if it was not a roaring success, then, at a later stage, the order which in my Amendment No. 52 prescribes the class of data user and class of data could be modified in the way that orders readily can. That would give just that flexibility to the Secretary of State which I suggest he needs to get this off the ground. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: Perhaps I may get my own back on the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, by saying that I entirely agree with every word he said as to the desirability of an amendment on these lines. However, perhaps there is a more effective way of doing it than this group of amendments in his name. I query whether it is desirable to leave a matter of this great importance entirely within the Secretary of State's discretion. I cannot help but think that it might be desirable to prescribe precisely in the Bill the exemptions for which Lord Mottistone is contending.
I suggest that he looks in due course at Amendment No. 155, which is an attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and myself to deal with precisely this problem, but to include it in statutory form rather than leave it to the Secretary of State's discretion. The noble Lord will see there that it proposes to exclude information which has,
"been obtained only from the data subject or from published reference material and … not disclosed to any third party".
I agree with the noble Lord that exemptions along these general lines are desirable if the registrar is not to be overburdened, right from the beginning, with a vast mass of material in which no data subject could, I think, have any real interest. I hope that along one or other of those lines the Government will agree that some progress should be made.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, support my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I am sure there are a number of instances where it is not necessary to have the data registered—for instance, lists of applicants and their requirements on the computer of a chain of house agents. They supply the agents with precisely the information they want them to know as to the kind of houses they want, and it can do no harm to anyone to have that on a computer.
Lord Mishcon: I wish briefly to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the short reason that if we are anxious not to overburden the registrar or the Secretary of State, especially at the commencement of operations under the Bill, can one imagine for a moment the volume of applications there would be for exemption if there were a general provision in the Bill which provided that the Secretary of State could,
1406
if he wanted to, exempt? One can imagine, therefore, the number of people who would decide that there was nothing to be lost and everything to be gained if they put in an application for exemption. I support the idea of looking at the obvious exemptions that should be here, but putting them in the Bill and making sure we know what we are doing.
Lord Glenarthur: A fundamental feature of the Bill is the requirement on all data users who hold personal data—subject to the most limited exemptions—to register particulars relevant inter alia to their use of such data. This concept of near universal registration is, in our view, essential to enable the registrar to regulate effectively the uses to which data may be put in the United Kingdom.
We have proposed this method of control for a number of reasons. First, the Government believe that only in the most limited of circumstances (covered by Clause 31) should data escape the requirement to be registered. Secondly, there is no such thing as a class of personal data that, in all circumstances, can be guaranteed to be harmless; all such data can be put to uses which can prove sensitive. And it is vital for the reassurance of public concern that there are not significant areas that are not registered and so brought directly and immediately within the ambit of the full complement of the registrar's supervisory powers. We believe that data subjects will want to be confident that the register is comprehensive and will not give a false impression of the scope of the processing of personal data by omitting significant numbers of users. We also believe that the very act of registration will exert a valuable discipline over users that will, in itself, encourage an attitude to data protection that makes abuse and misuse of personal data even less frequent than it is now.
As for the claim that registration is not general practice in Europe, I could not agree with that. A register of some kind is general practice in Europe, that being one of the most obvious ways of meeting the requirement in the Council of Europe convention that anyone must be able to establish the existence of an automated personal data file, its main purposes and the identity and address of those who control it. The notable exception is West Germany, where a wholly different approach is taken to secure data protection. But if we look at France or Austria, or the new laws being prepared in Holland, Portugal and Italy, or even Sweden, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, referred, where the law is undergoing change, we find that in all those countries notification to a central register is virtually a universal requirement.
Having said that, I should not wish to suggest that we are unmindful of the burdens on data users. That is why we have been at pains to make the registration procedure as simple as possible, and, for small-scale users with simple uses, such as my noble friend suggested might qualify for exemption from registration, the process of registering will be straight-forward. There will be a simple form to fill in, and a handful of questions to answer. After that, assuming that there is no question of a breach of the principles, there is no reason to expect that the user will become further involved with the registrar. But, if there is any

1407
problem (however unlikely that may seem), the data subjects have the reassurance that the user will, by virtue of the fact of registration, be directly and immediately subject to the complete battery of the registrar's supervisory powers.
I have listened sympathetically to those many users who pleaded with us not to place undue burdens on them. The Government's approach to the registration process reflects that. But we cannot go further and allow whole new classes of user or data to be excluded from registration; nor, I have to say, could we entertain the idea that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State could, with no restrictions placed on him and no criteria to guide him, exclude users and data at will. To allow the primary legislation to be potentially emasculated by the exercise of an order-making power is wholly contrary to our parliamentary tradition. Even if the affirmative resolution procedure were provided for in the case of such orders—and no such provision exists in the amendment—such a wide-ranging power would scarcely be acceptable.
Lastly, I ought to point out that the amendments are further defective because the principal amendment would attach not to Clause 4 (which places a requirement on the registrar to maintain a register) but to Clause 5 (which requires data users to register). I hope that in the light of those comments my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I take the force of my noble friend's remarks, and I would make only one point in reply to him at this stage. He said something to the effect that the full rigour of the registrar's capabilities would fall upon people who did not do certain things.
I pointed out that under Clause 10 that would be so in any case, whether or not my amendment was accepted. So that argument itself does not cut all that amount of ice. I noticed that among the European countries that my noble friend mentioned he did not include Norway, which I referred to as a country that had had to go towards this solution, having previously had universal registration. I shall myself certainly look to Norway, and hope that perhaps my noble friend may do so, too. I shall also look to see whether we can give to the Secretary of State some guidance on how he might construct his order, and perhaps that could be presented to your Lordships in an amendment at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Subsections (3) and (4) each begins with the words,
"Subject to the provisions of this section …"
Those words add nothing to the meaning or effect of the clause or either of the two subsections. Whenever those words occur they are nearly always unnecessary. They are especially inappropriate and unnecessary in this particular place, and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will consider having them omitted at the Report stage.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to raise a rather different point. Under Clause 4(3)(d) a data user has the obligation to enter on the register a description of any persons to whom he may wish to disclose the data. I should like to refer to the question of a data user who wishes to report to the police a suspected fraud upon his organisation, and consequently wishes to disclose to the police certain information that he has compiled mechanically. I raise the point because I should have thought that it was obviously undesirable that when registering every data user should state "the police" as a description of the people to whom he might wish to disclose data in due course.
I think that my query really turns on the meaning of Clause 28(2), where personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in certain circumstances; and the words "non-disclosure provisions" are defined in Clause 26(3). From that I find it very difficult to follow whether the data user is absolved from the non-disclosure provisions if he wishes to report a matter to the police. I do not ask for an immediate answer; an answer in writing will do admirably.
Lord Glenarthur: With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton about the words:
"Subject to the provisions of this section",
I shall certainly seek advice, and if we can remove the words, no doubt we shall do so. I think that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, really relate to Clause 28 in principle, and so I think that it might be best to leave them until we discuss Clause 28.
Clause 4 agreed to.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Codes of Practice
(" .—(1) The Registrar shall draw up Codes of Practice covering such types or classes of personal data as he thinks fit.
(2) Before deciding what types or classes of personal data should be subject to Codes of Practice the Registrar shall consult such persons as he thinks fit, including persons who represent the interests of data users and persons who represent the interests of data subjects.
(3) In deciding the wording of a Code of Practice covering a type or class of personal data the Registrar shall consult persons who represent the interests of subjects and persons who represent the interests of users of that type or class of personal data and any other person he thinks fit.
(4) When the wording of a Code of Practice has been agreed to his satisfaction the Registrar shall circulate it to all data users concerned with that type or class of personal data together with the date on which it will become enforceable.").
The noble Lord said: I put my name down first to this amendment, and so if the noble and learned Lord is agreeable I shall move it in the first instance. So far I have managed to escape having my name bracketed with the names of the two noble and learned Lords and the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, but this time I cannot escape. In moving the amendment I should at the same time like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which go together. as well as to Amendments Nos. 72 and 76.
I have to admit that I like codes of practice, and that is why I support the amendment, which was suggested to me by the National Consumer Council. But as your Lordships know, I speak in the main on behalf of the CBI. The CBI does not like this amendment, and

1409
perhaps one of my noble friends will make that clear at a later stage. Before describing what I like about codes of practice, I should like to point out that the CBI's dislike of the amendment arises from the fact that some of the other amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 57, 72 and 76, all seem to imply that one cannot get oneself registered unless there is a code of practice. That part of the amendments I do not like, and so I personally hope not to press Amendments Nos. 57, 72 and 76, unless we further amend them with the phrase,
"When the codes of practice are in force",
or words to that effect.
Having complicated the matter quite considerably, I now wish to turn to the main amendment. The most important thing to say is that there is a need for codes of practice which will be of practical value to users and subjects of personal data. They should cover the classes of data in subsections (2) and (3) and any other classes that the registrar believes should be so covered. They should be acceptable to all concerned, and it should therefore be the registrar's duty to consult widely on their wording, such consultations to include subjects of the data, as well as the users. Following the acceptance of a code it should become enforceable, and any exemptions from its provisions should be granted by the registrar only after careful examination of each and every request. The main basis on which the code of practice would be devised is as is stated in Amendment No. 53.
Once again I would reiterate that I think that it will take time for the codes of practice to be developed. That should not mean that we cannot go ahead and start the register, and get people registered. The codes of practice can be developed over a period of time, and as they come into force so the subsidiary provisions that are contained in Amendments Nos. 57, 72 and 76 will come into effect. I apologise for not having had time to modify them in the rush to get ready for today. With that background, I hope that the Government will give very careful attention to this and give some sort of sympathetic reply. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I know how reluctant is the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to have our support; nevertheless, we think it right, despite his discouragement, to do so on this occasion. The need for a code of practice is, we think, clear. I made some comments about this in considering an earlier amendment on Schedule 1 and we think that a code of practice of the kind which could reasonably be devised would be of practical value both to users and subjects of personal data. We accordingly support Amendment No. 53.
There is a further amendment dealing with this matter, Amendment No. 67, which, frankly, we think is preferable, but this amendment, No. 53, also fills a certain gap which would be left if it were not there. We shall support it for what it is worth.
Lord Swinfen: I am briefed on this amendment by the CBI, as my noble friend so rightly indicated. They believe that a requirement for a code of practice to be drawn up before a data user can operate would be disastrous in terms of getting legislation on to the Statute Book within any reasonable time-scale and enabling this country to ratify the Council of Europe
1410
convention. They also feel that it is extremely unlikely that this process will be completed within a time-scale acceptable to other signatories to the convention and it is, in any event, highly questionable whether it is practical or desirable in the current climate of changing technologies and practices to seek to reach agreement against the clock on standard codes of practice for different sectors.
Speaking purely for myself, we have a number of professional institutions in this country which operate, within their professions, their own codes of practice—the Bar Council, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to name but two. As a nation, we have operated for a very long time on codes of practice being produced by the institutions that have to operate them because they know the pitfalls and the trouble. They know what should be required; and they very quickly learn the tricks of the trade that enable people to get round and through the rules, regulations and codes that are drawn up for them by other people. What I should like the Government to do is to encourage the data-using industry and the computer manufacturers to get together to draw up a code of practice that they can submit to the Government for the Government's consideration.
Lord Mishcon: There is a voice in this Chamber which sometimes sounds and we hear it whether it be from the Woolsack or from the Front Bench opposite—and I believe that that voice was heard to say that there might be inconsistency between Amendments No. 53 and No. 67. I only wanted to follow what the noble Lord has just said by explaining briefly, because I think it may be of use, that there are two ways in which codes of practice may come into existence. One, under this amendment, if the registrar sees fit, he can draw them up himself having sought the advice he finds necessary. Secondly, there is the opportunity for computer users themselves who happen to be in a certain category to draw up their own codes of practice if they want to, submit them to the registrar and ask for his blessing upon them. In those circumstances, they are alternative ways of dealing with codes of practice and they are complementary. I thought it might be useful if I gave that indication now in view of that voice that we love to hear even when it is not intended that we should.
Lord Elton: I have been deeply interested by these exchanges as they unravel mystery after mystery. My attention was caught by the fact that, unlike my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have put their names down to these amendments as well as to those beginning with No. 67 on the Marshalled List. The fact that they may be inconsistent or alternative I do not think suffices to prevent me from teasing noble Lords opposite a bit: either they are so confident that the first amendment will fall that they have put their names on the second—and the second one would be superfluous—or, maybe, it is merely the enormously persuasive presence of my noble friend's name on the Marshalled List which has served to give—
Lord Mishcon: I must, even at this hour, interrupt the noble Lord the Minister. I had hoped that my intervention would stop him from saying what he has just said. The intervention was that there are two ways that codes of practice may come into existence. First, the registrar, if this amendment is passed; and also from the various bodies of computer users, if Amendment No. 67 is passed. They are not inconsistent and, while joining with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on one amendment, however reluctant we may be to do so, nevertheless we reserve our rights to elicit his support on No. 67.
Lord Elton: I will not delay longer speculating about what happens if both are accepted. I think we should all find it confusing. I fear that we have, nonetheless, if I may now concentrate on the amendment before the Committee—which is what I should have done before had I not been in a very naughty mood—a number of very substantial objections to the present group of amendments. If I can summary them briefly, first, we can scarcely agree to the registrar drawing up codes of practice without any statutory guidance to him as to what they should contain. He would not know where to begin. And, since they are to have such a far-reaching effect—the force, indeed, of the criminal law—Parliament could not pass its responsibilities to him. There would have to be some parliamentary scrutiny if the criminal law was to be invoked, and that would involve a Minister having to be responsible for putting them before Parliament. Furthermore, while my noble friend shows admirable concern for data users in certain other amendments he has tabled, he is now contemplating placing such swingeing additional requirements on users as are represented by these amendments. I find this surprising. To face prosecution for breach of a code of practice is a formidable—we would say unreasonable—extension of the Bill's requirements.
Finally, let us consider the implications for the registrar. He would be under pressure to see fit to draw up codes of practice for all kinds of bodies. Yet he would know that any code he produced would have to take account of all circumstances that users legitimately going about their business could face; for, if an unforeseen circumstance occurred, and a user breached the code, a criminal offence would be committed. Can we reasonably expect him to be so expert in crystal ball-gazing as to draw up such codes, particularly if they are to be directly enforceable in the courts? The Lindop Committee pointed out that the field to be covered was a very wide one, but thought that with luck it could be covered by a small number of codes. I am not sure that I share their optimism; but even their small number turned out to be 50. The registrar would either be forced into anodyne blandness or he would, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen has said, spend months and months on working out each detailed code; and even then he could be confidently expected not to cover every point that might arise. I have to say that the codes of practice, in our view—by whichever route we arrive at them—pose more problems than they solve, especially in the form presented in these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree with what I have to say. It is up to them to say something else, of course. I find my noble friend's remarks positively like using a 15-inch gun to attack a small rowing boat. I unashamedly like codes of practice. I do not think they are used nearly enough for purposes of this kind. We ought to gain more experience. If we have a new venture of this kind, it is the right approach. I am sorry therefore that codes of practice are thought of as being quite so unsuitable for the occasion. I fully admit that the actual draft of Amendment No. 53 is no doubt suffering from all kinds of shortcomings. I am sure there are other things which could be tidied up. I shall take the amendment away and see whether we can do something about that. If I cannot get it in this Bill, I shall try another one. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—and again with a promise about brevity—I wonder whether the Minister would answer a short question. I may be wrong about what I am going to say, and, if so, I apologise. If this Bill has no reference to codes of practice because the noble Lord does not like the idea, can he tell me which provision in the Bill, in the absence of codes of practice or any reference to them, makes it a crime if you breach the code of practice?
Lord Elton: As I understand it, we are speaking of the implication in the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister is completely wrong, if I may say so. There is nothing in this amendment which says that it is a criminal offence to breach a code of practice. The whole basis of the Minister's reply rests upon a platform which has collapsed beneath him. Despite the fact that he still sits on his seat with the platform having collapsed, I must say that it is a completely wrong reply to the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, my noble and learned friend, and myself.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord looks at the amendment which strikes within this group on Clause 5 then he will find:
"Page 5, line 11, at end insert"—
and so on. I think he will find that this ties it in to the criminal law. I think that that is the intention.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord the Minister may think that it is the intention. I have looked at the clause and I do not see any criminal offence created at all. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, thought that it was going to be a criminal offence to breach the code of practice. I certainly did not. Therefore, as I said, the answer is a bad one.
Lord Mottistone: I did not think it was going to do that, but I embraced that in saying that we have to consider it again and make sure that that situation does not apply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Prohibition of unregistered holding etc. of personal data]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
9.13 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 5, line 3, at beginning insert ("seek to").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment. Clause 5(2) says:
"A person in respect of whom such an entry is contained in the register shall not"—
do certain things. One of them is,
"shall not—
(c) obtain such data, or information … from any source which is not described",
et cetera. It seems to us—and, here again, I am advised by the CBI—that that is not sufficiently positive. The object of the amendment is to make it clear that some positive action is require by the data user. It is designed, also, to cover the possibility that a data user might have obtained additional information involuntarily from an undeclared source. It is a somewhat complicated, small amendment and I would not go to the stake for it. On the other hand, I think it is worthy of consideration and, if my noble friends feel so inclined, I should be delighted if they could have a look at it and see whether they agree that there is a very good point behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Clause 5 of the Bill, in effect, enforces the requirement to register by making it an offence to hold personal data, or to provide services in respect of personal data as a person carrying on a computer bureau, while unregistered. In relation to data users, it is also to be an offence for a person to operate beyond the particulars included in his entry in the register. One aspect of this is the prohibition in Clause 5(2)(c) on obtaining personal data from a source not covered by the description in a user's register entry. It would be an offence under Clause 5(5) knowingly or recklessly to contravene this prohibition.
The amendment moved and explained by my noble friend Lord Mottistone would alter Clause 5(2)(c) so as to prohibit a registered data user from seeking to obtain personal data from a source not included within his register entry. The insertion of the words "seek to" would, at first sight, appear to serve two purposes. First, it might be seen as catching the person who only tries to obtain personal data improperly but fails. Here I can assure the Committee that the general law governing criminal attempts will catch the data user in appropriate circumstances. There would seem to be no need or justification for special provision here, especially if the various other prohibitions in this clause are not to be afforded the same treatment. Secondly, it can be argued that the words "seek to" involve an active pursuit on the part of a data user, thus excluding the unintentional contravention. Again, there is no need to amend the Bill. It is only an offence under Clause 5(5) knowingly or recklessly to contravene subsection (2)(c) of this clause. I hope that with that explanation of a strictly legal matter, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: It is a small amendment. I shall read with great care what my noble friend has said and reserve the right to come back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Redesdale: I rise with great trepidation as it is rather late in the day, in every sense of the word, to raise a new amendment—
Several noble Lords: You cannot!
Lord Redesdale: Therefore, I crave—
The Lord Chancellor: On a point of order, my noble friend must remember that the Question before the House is, That the clause stand part of the Bill? This is no moment for moving a manuscript amendment.
Lord Redesdale: As always, I am most grateful. Therefore, I stand corrected in more ways than one. If I may just raise this point for consideration, which I hope meets the bill, I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few brief moments. I have to declare an interest in that I am the president of the British Direct Marketing Association, which covers all forms of direct marketing, including direct mail. The industry is shortly to launch a scheme, the mailing preference scheme, which allows members of the public to have their names withdrawn from mailing lists by writing to a central organisation. I think that this will be of great benefit to the public.
I should like to raise the point that this scheme could be put into jeopardy, due to a certain problem which, unfortunately, arises in the industry at the moment. I refer to the unauthorised use of mailing lists, and the problem is that an unauthorised user of a mailing list may not remove a name which is put into the central register. I appreciate that, at this stage, even if I suggest words they would not he totally right. But we feel that in subsection (1) on page 4, after the word "unless", the words "that person has legal title thereto" should be added. I have changed the words marginally from what I informed my noble friend Lord Elton, because I feel that they should not refer to gender. Therefore the subsection would read as follows:
"A person shall not hold personal data unless that person has legal title thereto and an entry in respect of that person, as a data user…".
I appreciate that this is perhaps not the stage at which to raise this point and I do not even expect my noble friend to reply, but I thought that I ought to bring it to his attention now.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend for giving me notice of what he was about to say. He raises the question of the application of the Bill to those who trade in lists of names and addresses. I ought first to point out that such list brokers will be caught under the Bill only if they constitute data users or computer bureaux in terms of Clause 1. When they do not, their regulation is no part of the Bill.

1415
My noble friend proposes that Clause 5(1) of the Bill should be amended so as to make it an offence for a person to hold personal data to which he has no legal title. The intention behind what he proposes is to prevent list brokers from holding lists of names and addresses to which they have no legal right. I suggest that it would be very odd to put it in this part of the Bill, which is simply designed to enforce the requirement to register. The proper test to apply to persons who hold data under a Bill concerned with data protection is whether they comply with the data protection principles, and the registrar has adequate powers to take action where a contravention occurs.
Having said that, it will no doubt please my noble friend Lord Redesdale and our mutual noble friend Lord Mottistone if I point out that under the first data protection principle it is necessary that personal data be obtained lawfully. Where a list broker was a data user in terms of Clause 1 and held lists of names and addresses which he had obtained unlawfully, under the Bill the registrar would already have powers quite adequate to take action.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Denham: We have now reached the stage in the Bill where it has been generally agreed that we should adjourn. Therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

County of Lancashire Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.

  REGIONAL POLICE COMMANDERS: ROPOSED DUTIES
  REGIONAL POLICE COMMANDERS: ROPOSED DUTIES
  CYPRUS: FUTURE
  CYPRUS: FUTURE
  UK AND USSR RESEARCH PROGRAMME PARTICIPATION
  UK AND USSR RESEARCH PROGRAMME PARTICIPATION
  USSR STATE BORDER
  USSR STATE BORDER
  UNLOSC CONVENTION: EC SIGNATORIES
  UNLOSC CONVENTION: EC SIGNATORIES
  HMSO PUBLICATIONS: SIZE OF PRINT
  HMSO PUBLICATIONS: SIZE OF PRINT
  HANDICAPPED CHILDREN: INTEGRATION INTO SCHOOLS
  HANDICAPPED CHILDREN: INTEGRATION INTO SCHOOLS