Sitting of 17 February 1983

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 February.

  COMMONS REGISTRATION (GLAMORGAN) BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishing Co-operatives
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider making assistance available through the Sea Fish Industry Authority for the promotion and development of fishing co-operatives.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The Sea Fish Industry Authority already gives such assistance.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the White Fish Authority used to give fishing co-operatives 60 per cent. grants without an upper limit and that now the grants are only 50 per cent. with an upper limit of £5,000, with a total sum available of only £25,000? As that is a paltry sum compared with the millions of pounds that are available to farming co-operatives, will the Minister reconsider his reply and make more money available to fishing co-operatives, which are now catching over 40 per cent. of the fish in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the administration of the grants is at the
    452
    discretion of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. As has been explained to him in correspondence, there is a difference between agriculture and fishing in that respect. The hon. Gentleman was unfair in his comparison between the White Fish Authority and the SFIA. Between 1977 and 1981, the average grants of the White Fish Authority were £5,000 a year, whereas since October 1981 the SFIA has paid £46,000 to 14 co-operatives, including one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that he is grateful for it.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: As white fish money comes from an industrial levy, and as the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation is 100 per cent. funded by the Government, why should not the fishing industry have equality with the agriculture industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is a difference. In agriculture, the grants are paid to joint marketing co-operatives that operate on a collective basis, whereas in fishing, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from the fishing operation in his constituency, most of the co-operatives sell on behalf of individual members and do not operate on a collective basis. The situation is not comparable.
    Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no diminution of the valuable promotional work of the SFIA through the recent resignation of the chief executive?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The SFIA has another important role in marketing. I hope that before long it will submit to my right hon. Friend and to me its proposals in this important matter.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: There is an imbalance. Does the Minister accept that, after the successful launch of Food from Britain yesterday, and despite the undertakings that were given by the Minister in Committee and at other stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the sea fish industry is not being dealt with adequately in terns of the remuneration available for the development of co-operatives onshore and offshore?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Food from Britain. There is no doubt that in international and national terms its launch yesterday was an enormous success. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in co-operatives, but the basis today is no different from what it was at the time of the White Fish Authority. It is significant that we had only one debate on the matter, initiated by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). We have not changed the basis since then. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make fresh suggestions, I shall be happy to hear them.

    "Home Defence and the Farmer"
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when it is proposed to issue an updated reprint of "Home Defence and the Farmer"; and whether it will include advice on protection against the effects of chemical weapons.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): An updated version of this booklet advising farmers on the precautions they should take to protect themselves, their families and their livestock and crops against the effects

    453
    of nuclear attack is being prepared, but I cannot yet give a date for its publication. It is not proposed to include advice on the effects of chemical weapons.
    Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that there is some anxiety within the farming community about the lack of guidance on civil defence matters and that the National Farmers Union has some evidence that the CND is recruiting members of the farming community because of that?
    Mrs. Fenner: I know that there has been a steady flow of inquiries to the Department from organisations, including the NFU and the British Veterinary Association. I assure my hon. Friend that, although the last reprint was in 1962, it remained available and viable for some years. An updated version is now being prepared, but I cannot give a date for its completion.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister ensure that any advice that is given to the British people on the effects of fall-out from nuclear or chemical weapons on crops and livestock makes it perfectly clear that the few survivors of a nuclear or chemical attack will not be able to rely on the British farming industry for a continued supply of wholesome food?
    Mrs. Fenner: That is why the hon. Gentleman will no doubt share my view that we should all work extremely hard for verifiable multilateral disarmament.

    Cereals (Intervention Stores)
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a scheme to release feeding cereals from United Kingdom intervention stores to pig and poultry producers at prices that are comparable with world prices.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Any scheme to subsidise the price of grain to livestock producers would have to be non-discriminatory and cost-effective. I understand that the European Commission has found it difficult to devise a scheme that meets these criteria and has deferred a decision for the time being.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the pig and poultry industries are already discriminated against in that they do not benefit from the support mechanisms that are available for other parts of the livestock industry? Now that we have over 1 million tonnes of feed barley in intervention stores in Britain, which is likely to be exported to our competitors, will the Minister go back to the Commission and try to get a better deal for our pig and poultry industries and so do his bit to keep the British breakfast British?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand the problems that face the pig and poultry industries, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that they do not have supportive arrangements. The European Community has introduced a private storage scheme, which is to take effect on 1 February and which the industry is already showing evidence of taking up. There will also be an increase in export refunds. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would be happy to discuss with the Commission a nondiscriminatory and cost-effective scheme were we able to find one.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In considering such a scheme, will the Minister consult his colleague in Northern Ireland, where pig and poultry producers are literally being ruined in sight of the plenty that exists in storage?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As recent studies have shown, one of Northern Ireland's problems is that the price of grain is high, if only because of transport costs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware that Northern Ireland producers have had to bear that burden.
    Mr. Lyell: Is it not disappointing that no progress seems to have been made towards an effective pigmeat regime? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the stabilisation scheme that has been put forward by the NFU?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is a scheme which includes sluice gate prices and helps to protect the British pig industry from imports from Third countries. We have a private storage scheme and a scheme for export refunds. Pigmeat is different from other commodities. For several years it has been 100 per cent. self-sufficient, and that must be taken into account. The NFU has submitted a stabilisation scheme, which we shall consider. However, it is significant that even the industry has some doubts about that scheme.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the deficiency payments scheme for cattle and sheep has worked well in Britain to the benefit of the producer and the consumer alike. Is not a deficiency payments scheme for pig producers long overdue?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of agriculture, will acknowledge that the pig industry is different from others, such as the cattle and sheep industries, because the pig industry has been subject to fluctuations from time to time. In the light of our experience of other schemes, we believe that such a scheme for the pig industry would be very costly indeed.
    Mr. Deakins: Surely the cost of selling feed grain from intervention stores is roughly the same whether it is sold to the British or the East German producer. Why should not this discrimination against pig and poultry producers inside the Common Market as distinct from those outside be ended?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. If subsidised grain displaces unsubsidised grain used within the Community, more grain is put on to the export market. The budget then has to bear a double burden, both for feed subsidy and export refunds. For example, if there were a subsidy of £10 a tonne to users within the Community, that would raise cereal costs to the Community by about 30 per cent. I thought that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party were in favour of keeping costs down, not increasing them.

    British Aerospace Coastguarder
    Mr. McNallyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his review of the suitability of the British Aerospace Coastguarder for fishery protection duties; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Coastguarder is one of a number of aircraft currently being evaluated, and no conclusion has yet been reached.
    Mr. McNally: I have more than a crude constituency interest in this matter, although the workers at Woodford do an excellent job. Does the Minister accept that to purchase the Coastguarder would sow a seed that would reap a great harvest from many other maritime countries which are looking for just such a good aircraft?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate that the use of this aircraft could have an influence elsewhere. I am also conscious of the many representations that are properly being made by hon. Members who have an interest in the matter. Many issues arise from aerial surveillance, which we are presently considering. The Coastguarder is being evaluated, in relation both to RAF Nimrod and alternative aircraft. We shall conclude that evaluation as soon as possible.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister use his best efforts in this area, not only because of the many aerospace workers in Hull, but because of the need to enforce conservation measures, particularly, as was said in a debate last week, as the EC has 13 inspectors to monitor any dereliction of duty in our waters? It is important that this matter is dealt with.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On the one hand, cost-effectiveness is important, but, on the other, we must consider what will do the best job. I agree that it is important to ensure that there is effective control.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should give warm praise to the Nimrod squadrons for their fisheries surveillance in recent years? Will he bear in mind that when we move to twin-engined aircraft in future, perhaps operated by private companies, it will be important to have British aircraft, if possible, and will he look carefully at the Coastguarder?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I join my hon. Friend in his warm praise of the RAF, particularly the Nimrod crews. On one occasion I made a surveillance flight. The Nimrods do an important job beyond protecting our fisheries. We shall consider British aircraft and the alternatives. My hon. Friend will no doubt welcome the fact that for close inshore surveillance we have used an aircraft made in the Isle of Wight.

    Maedi Visna Disease
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests are made in British quarantine stations to detect maedi visna disease in imported sheep.
    Mrs. Fenner: Most livestock imports are required to undergo quarantine as a defence against foot and mouth disease. No tests for any disease are carried out in quarantine unless animals show symptoms of disease.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does not the fact that this disease is entering the country show that the complacency of Ministry officials has been misplaced? Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers are extremely worried about the need for proper control at the frontier and for proper compensation for these valuable sheep, some of which are worth over £1,000 each?
    Mrs. Fenner: The international trade in animals and animal products is conducted on the basis of health certification by exporting countries designed to meet the requirements of the importing countries. There has been only one recent consignment, to which I believe my hon. Friend is referring, where the proper precautions were not carried out, and the country involved is taking disciplinary action in that respect.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: I am afraid that I find the Minister's answer wholly insufficient. The fear is that maedi visna can be brought into this country by infected animals and remain dormant and not be clinically diagnosable for a long time. The present quarantine arrangements are wholly unsatisfactory. Will the hon. Lady look closely at this matter again?
    Mrs Fenner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we always look at this problem carefully. We must always maintain surveillance, but we must strike a balance between disease risks and the need to obtain new genetic material. Health certification is designed to minimise the risk, but we must accept that if animals are imported there is always some measure of risk.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents, Mr. Redman, has some of these sheep which are worth £4,000 to £5,000 each? Would it not be reasonable to allow him time to have them medically checked to see whether they have the disease rather than to slaughter them or send them back by tomorrow?
    Mrs Fenner: No, because the importation was illegal. The only safe course is to return the animals to the country of origin or to destroy them. I understand that the French authorities will probably be willing to take the sheep back.

    Bacon
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the home-produced share of the British market for bacon.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: United Kingdom curers produced about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom bacon requirements in 1981. The figure for 1982 is not yet available, but it is expected to be around the same level.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the historic Dunmow flitch bacon factory is to close? Does he accept that extra investment may be required in the processing sector if the industry is to carve a larger share of the domestic bacon market for itself? Can my right hon. Friend help?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the proposed closure of this factory. As my hon. Friend knows, the factory, which is owned by FMC Ltd., is being closed as part of a programme to try to make its operations more efficient. I understand that more than two thirds of the pigs which normally go there will go to another FMC factory. It is hoped that factories will be found in the neighbourhood for the remaining one third. I hope that the situation will be taken care of. If my hon. Friend has any particular difficulties, perhaps he will get in touch with me.
    Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many British people would like to buy British bacon, but

    457
    one problem is finding it in the shops? Will he take steps to persuade large multiple retailers to stock and sell British bacon in their shops?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not believe that high quality British bacon is as available as it should be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the British charter bacon scheme, which gives a mark of quality. However, I do not believe that the matter should rest there. We still have a long way to go to improve our standards in order to compete with products from other countries.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: What effect will the launching of Food from Britain, which I welcome, have on the bacon industry in this country?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that it will provide further means to promote higher quality British bacon as well as other foods in this country and overseas.
    Sir Peter Mills: Although I say it with sadness, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that much British bacon is not up to standard? The good is very good and the bad is rather poor. Will he make representations to the producers for a consistently better product? In recent tests in Devon, I found it difficult to obtain good English bacon.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As always, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the problem. If a high quality product can be obtained regularly, it will be the best assurance for the housewife and the producer, who will be certain of selling his product at a good price. I hope that the industry will try to help.

    Dairy Products (Promotion)
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps further to promote British dairy products, in view of the recent drop in butter consumption.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I take every suitable opportunity to support British dairy products, which are of high quality and excellent value.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the truly outstanding success of his Food from Britain presentation yesterday is that it has made an excellent platform for exports? Is it not now up to the industry to grasp the opportunity, always bearing in mind that quality must be its trade mark?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about yesterday's launch. Comparing the records of Denmark, Holland, France and Germany with our minor exports of cheese to those countries, there is enormous scope for improvement. I am glad to say it is beginning to happen, but a great deal of progress needs to be made.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not our attitude to our French friends about milk based on deception and deceit, and is that not unworthy of the British people?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir; it is based on hygiene.
    Mr. Watson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of Lymeswold cheese has been a significant marketing success? Is he aware that it is still not sufficiently available in some parts of the country? Could it be that his dog is eating too much?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that the producers are now substantially increasing production of Lymeswold cheese. They are investing substantially, putting in a new production line and creating new jobs. That is typical of this type of success.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State consider that the employers' ham-handed approach to industrial relations in the water dispute and Government interference have caused farmers many difficulties, particularly in relation to milk yield? What compensation will be available for farmers for the loss of milk?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I regret that industrial action was taken when arbitration was open to the water workers many months ago.

    Poultry Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Crowtherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the maximum benefit is gained from the implementation in 1979 of veterinary supervision of poultry slaughterhouses.
    Mrs. Fenner: I am satisfied that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 provide a satisfactory framework for veterinary supervision of poultry slaughterhouses in the interests of all concerned with the hygiene of poultrymeat, including consumers.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister feel that extra benefits would be gained if official veterinary surgeons supervising slaughterhouses were to be given statutory powers to support their professional and ethical responsibilities? Would not benefits be gained from a more formal and co-ordinated use of their experience and expertise, not only with regard to the welfare of birds, which is extremely important, but commercially, because at the moment there is a substantial loss from damage and injury to birds which could be avoided?
    Mrs Fenner: I recognise the importance of the role that veterinary surgeons can play in supervising poultry slaughterhouses. I propose to ask local authorities to implement the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations on that point. I am not convinced that legislation is either necessary or appropriate to achieve that.
    Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that in poultry slaughter houses birds go round on a belt and, before they are dead, are dropped into boiling water, which causes undue suffering? Will she either introduce legislation or do something to stop it?
    Mrs. Fenner: I should certainly require evidence of such practices, but I know that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is always concerned to ensure the proper supervision of slaughterhouses.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take to seek to reform the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Government have already made good progress in improving the operation of the common agricultural policy, and I shall continue to seek improvements designed to tackle the problem of surpluses, restrain the growth of expenditure and ensure fair competition within the Community.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the European Community has exported 250,000 tonnes of wheat to Cuba at an export subsidy of between £50 and £60 a tonne? Does my right hon. Friend agree, on reflection, that his policy for the reform of the common agricultural policy could be typified by the expression "aggressive complacency"?
    Mr. Walker: I have applied that term to my hon. Friend on many occasions. Since I have been responsible for the common agricultural policy, the proportion of the European budget going to the CAP has dropped from 80 to 65 per cent. The cost of the CAP, which increased by 210 per cent. under the previous Government, has increased by only 20 per cent. under this Government and the benefit to Britain from the CAP budget has doubled.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister consider that during the period for which he has had responsibility for British agriculture the resources spent on the support of agricultural incomes has been excessive compared with that given by other developed industrial countries?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that we gave the hon. Gentleman a free transfer.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: As the CAP has secured continuity of supply to the United Kingdom, and the increase in the food price index was only 1·9 per cent. during the past 12 months, is not the United Kingdom well served by the CAP?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I should have thought that at Question Time on this matter there would be some celebration of the fact that during the past year food prices have risen by a lower amount than at any time during the past 15 years.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not time that we stopped supporting the basic principles of the CAP and returned to a fair system for the consumer, the taxpayer and the farmer?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will know that, whereas food prices have risen during the past 12 months by 1·9 per cent., the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government confirmed that food prices doubled under that Administration and that that was not due to the common agricultural policy.

    Land Drainage Improvement Schemes
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will allow cost-benefit appraisals for land drainage improvement schemes to be made publicly available on request.
    Mrs. Fenner: Cost-benefit appraisals for land drainage improvement schemes are compiled from information obtained from individuals on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of confidence to make this information public.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that many land drainage schemes are highly controversial, especially when they affect wildlife sites? Would it not be sensible to make public the cost-benefit appraisals, or at least to make them available to the Nature Conservancy Council where the information is truly confidential, because it is important to seek much greater public support for these cost appraisal procedures?
    Mrs. Fenner: I assure my hon. Friend that the cost-benefit assessment is only one factor taken into account before a scheme can be approved. Matters not quantifiable in strict economic terms, such as the duty imposed on the Minister by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to further the interests of conservation, are taken into account. Water authorities and internal drainage boards have the same duty as the Minister to further the interests of conservation. When they submit schemes for grant, they are required to confirm that they have consulted the appropriate conservation interests and that those interests, to which my hon. Friend referred, are content.
    Mr. Hardy: In assessing proposals to change land use or landscape feature, will the Minister begin to give serious consideration to the fact that the conditions imposed by the inclosure legislation in the 18th and 19th centuries are still in force? Does she accept that in recent years considerable sums of public money have been spent to support illegality?
    Mrs. Fenner: I know about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He has already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Inclosure Acts are not maintained in perpetuity.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government give further attention to finding a solution to this real problem? Is the hon. Lady aware that the absence of transparency in cost-benefit in drainage is a serious handicap to the promotion of land drainage?
    Mrs. Fenner: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's view on this, but I can only emphasise that the cost-benefit assessment is only an immediate and first step and is but part of the whole consideration. To breach the confidentiality of the cost-benefit analysis would hardly add to the information.
    Mr. Body: Can my hon. Friend confirm the estimate, given in the press recently, that more than 250,000 acres were subject to those schemes last year?
    Mrs. Fenner: I cannot do that off the top of my head, but I shall arrange for the information to be given to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: What is the position of the 1926 judgment on common law and common land enclosures? Has that land now reverted to common if it has not been enclosed?
    Mrs. Fenner: I shall certainly have to take advice, as did the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), to ensure the correct ministerial responsibilities in relation to this matter.

    Aujeszky's Disease
    Mr. Torneyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the shortfall of manpower in the state veterinary service, if he is satisfied that resources are sufficient to implement the disease control programme for Aujeszky's disease.
    Mrs. Fenner: As my right hon. Friend made clear in his speech on Second Reading of the Pig Industry Levy Bill, the Government intend to support the eradication policy fully through the veterinary service. I am satisfied

    461
    that we can give this the priority that it deserves, subject always to unexpected demands made by an outbreak of another major disease.
    Mr. Torney: How will the Minister ensure that farm animal welfare in general—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—and the revised codes for cattle, and especially pigs, will be implemented without the establishment of separate veterinary services independent of the services already in existence for disease and investigation?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am aware of the view that this matter should be the subject of separate veterinary activity. I am satisfied that the state veterinary service has at all times the welfare of animals as part of its brief, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is currently studying whether any of the codes that have been presented in the House should be made mandatory.

    UHT Milk (Imports)
    Sir Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in the light of the European Court's ruling on the import of ultraheat treated milk.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am studying the detailed implications of the court's judgment and hope to have discussions with the Commission very shortly.
    Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the interim measures that he has taken. Will he bear in mind that the real danger is heavily subsidised imports from France and perhaps Holland? If anything will destroy the milk on the doorstep it is heavily subsidised imports of such milk. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to guard against that?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It would, of course, be illegal for subsidised milk to be sent to Britain. A recent survey in Paris showed that there was only about a penny difference between the price of milk there and the price of fresh milk delivered on the doorstep in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the control of UHT milk is welcome? Does he also accept that the principle that he stated earlier of applying safety standards is important, and that that principle should not stop at agriculture but should apply to imported industrial products? The Minister will be startled to learn that Britain does not apply any safety standards or inspection at the ports. Can he tell his colleagues to apply the same standards as he applies?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that my colleagues who are interested in this topic will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We shall see that, when legislation is introduced to comply with the court's ruling, the hygiene standards applying in this country will apply to those who send us this product from overseas.
    Mr. John Morris: What estimate has the Minister made of the amount of UHT milk that will come into this country, and in particular of skimmed milk? Will he take care to ensure that whatever legislation is drafted is comprehensive, adequate and ensures that there are no loopholes for anybody who improperly imports milk?
    Mr. Walker: This type of milk has been available for some time, and there is a similar British product, which
    462
    takes less than 1 per cent. of the market. Therefore, I do not think that the scope for exports is substantial. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the law that we shall introduce will apply the same law on hygiene to those products as is applied here and that there will be the appropriate inspection at ports.

    Anadromous Fish (Breeding)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research into the suitability of various environments for the breeding of anadromous fish is supported by his Department.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Currently my Department is commissioning research into factors affecting the upstream migration of salmon and migratory trout, the population dynamics of salmon and migratory trout, methods of enhancing salmon stocks and long-term fluctuations in production, including the effects of predation. From April this year my Department will be supporting work on the effects of flow regimes in rivers on the production and survival of the very young stages of salmon.
    Mr. Dalyell: How are the researchers getting on with the problem of adapting salmon that have been used to spawning in fast-flowing rivers such as the Spey and the Tweed to slow-moving, peaty, acidic waters, such as those in the Falklands? Which is the more economic—salmon ranching in the Falklands or growing grapes in Greenland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Fortunately, I am not required to pronounce either on that subject or on the application of research to those areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer". The United Kingdom research applies to the United Kingdom. If there is any way in which the research can be made more generally available, it will be made freely available to those who want it, and to the hon. Gentleman if he cares to ask me for it.

    Land Settlement Association (Tenants)
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements to provide additional assistance to those Land Settlement Association tenants, threatened by its dissolution, whose problems have not been resolved by his revision of the time table for the termination of the marketing services and arrangements for short-term credits.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The arrangements that I announced on 1 December and 19 January will, I believe, provide satisfactorily for the future needs of the effective and viable growers on the land settlement association estates.
    Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many tenants who took on holdings more recently are still faced with very heavy debt burdens, which threaten to put them out of business unless he takes some further action? What right have the Government to say that they defend the small business men when they take action that destroys the businesses of many hard working small business men?
    Mr. Walker: To put the hon. Gentleman's remarks into perspective it should be said that he originally criticised the Government's decision to take this step, but

    463
    I would point out that 95 per cent. of the tenants have decided to take advantage of what the Government offered.

    Hedgerows
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the preservation of hedgerows.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Government are sympathetic to the need to retain hedgerows wherever possible and are pleased that the rate of removal of hedgerows has declined substantially since the 1960s and early 1970s. We favour a positive approach of encouragement to the farming community, and this is reflected both in the advice given by my Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and in the provision of grant-aid for hedge planting and reconditioning.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that, in the large numbers of Inclosure Acts that went through the House over the past 300 years, one of the essential conditions for inclosure of common land was the provision in perpetuity of hedgerows? Will the Minister further confirm that over many years Government grants have been given to farmers to tear up those hedgerows, clearly in breach of the law? Will the Government enforce the law and introduce positive proposals to maintain hedgerows in this country?
    Mrs. Fenner: I understand from the Department of the Environment that the general Inclosure Acts do not specify that field boundaries must be maintained in perpetuity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already replied to various questions on the subject and I cannot accept responsibility for the period of time to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the best ways to preserve hedgerows is to support British field sports, all of whose supporters are the greatest conservationists?
    Mrs. Fenner: I can only add to that that we grant-aid for replacement and reconditioning of hedges.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Warrenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 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. After my duties in the House I shall be leaving for a visit to the north-west of England.
    Mr. Warren: During the course of her busy day will my right hon. Friend consider the need to look beyond the battle of words about military force levels and the bomb, and try to get to the Soviet Union an understanding, through that Iron Curtain that divides us from them, that it is seen as the threat to peace in the West?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Soviet leadership must understand that its remorseless military build-up, deployment of SS20s and the use of force beyond its borders constitute a threat to peace.
    Mr. Dobson: In view of the Prime Minister's announcement that she subscribes to many of the Victorian values, will she tell the House which she most fancies reintroducing—the absence of a National Health Service, the absence of old-age pensions, the workhouse, or a long series of colonial wars?
    The Prime Minister: What I favour is acceptance of personal responsibility, freedom of choice and a British Empire that took both freedom and the rule of law to countries that would never have known it otherwise.
    Mr. Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1970 I was effectively denied a seat in the House by the Labour Government's deliberate failure to implement the proposals of the Boundary Commission? Is it not clear from last night's disgraceful performance by the Opposition that, having received an unfavourable verdict in the courts, the Labour party is once again seeking to thwart democracy and avoid another unfavourable verdict in the ballot box?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the Boundary Commission's decisions are independent—
    Mr. Canavan: Tell us another one.
    The Prime Minister: The testing through the courts was independent and it is now up to parliamentary democracy to put through those decisions with all possible speed.
    Mrs. McElhoneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. McElhone: Will the Prime Minister take time to reflect on how she misled women at the last general election by her confidence trick—[HON. MEMBERS:"Reading."]—of portraying herself as an ordinary housewife and mother? Mothers are suffering because of her policies and through seeing their husbands and children unemployed. Youngsters in my constituency are reaching their 21st birthday without even having a first job. Will the Prime Minister give these long-suffering people some hope by calling a general election in June?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted the hon. Lady's recommendation and will consider it, but I must tell her that I have not yet made up my mind and there is plenty of time to do so.
    Unemployment is indeed a grievous problem in the hon. Lady's area. I am sure that she will be pleased to know that in her area, the west of Scotland special development area, the first of 1,400 defence jobs scheduled for Glasgow will come in the first week of March. The Government have placed an order worth £250 million for two type 22 frigates with the area's shipbuilders—
    Mr. Skinner: Reading.
    The Prime Minister: I am giving an accurate account of the jobs that are going to that area. Lilley Construction, a subsidiary of the Glasgow-based engineering and construction firm FJC Lilley, has won a £37·6 million contract for a water supply project in Nigeria. A £30 million project planned for Glasgow's dockland has been announced by the Clyde water authority, which will also bring a large number of jobs.

    465
    I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in being very pleased about those new jobs.
    Mr. Rost: Has the Prime Minister noticed that Socialist-controlled Derbyshire county council proposes to increase the rates by three times the going rate of inflation? Is it not disgraceful that Socialist councils up and down the country are creating more unemployment by inflicting price increases on businesses struggling to remain competitive?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that placing heavy extra rate burdens on industry and commerce will mean that they cannot keep their prices competitive. That may mean that people who now have jobs will lose them because of high-rating Socialist authorities.
    Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady says that she is willing to accept personal responsibility in some of these matters—in the case of unemployment that is quite a novelty on her part—does she accept responsibility for reports in The Guardian today claiming that in many Government Departments measures are being prepared to attack various aspects of the welfare state? How far have those discussions gone and when will they be published?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, we do not intend to dismantle the welfare state. Our record with regard to the National Health Service is far better than that of the Labour Government. It should come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman or to the people of this country to know that, unlike the Labour party, the Government are determined to give individuals and their families more choice and more freedom to exercise responsibility and to seek better value for money and better management throughout the public sector. We are very proud of that.
    Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady accepts responsibility for that report, will she answer the questions apparently put by one of her Whitehall advisers on this matter? Have the people who drew up the report never been to Merseyside or Brixton? How can people become more self-reliant in the north-west when four out of five school leavers are unemployed? If the Government believes in free choice, why are they not ready to give mothers the choice of going to work or staying at home? Will the right hon. Lady accept responsibility for all those questions?
    The Prime Minister: The way to get more jobs is not by rhetoric from the right hon. Gentleman but by having well designed goods at competitive prices. That means keeping rates low and wages hand in hand with productivity, and keeping inflation down. Only that will achieve more jobs, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. If he can go out and create a business that achieves that, jolly good luck to him.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us what is the latest mass unemployment figure for which she is responsible?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the unemployment figure. He is also aware that unemployment is very much higher than it used to be in other countries, that it is a world problem—[Interruption.] —and that it will be solved not by shouting but only by people who create small businesses and expand them, which the Labour party is not outstanding at achieving.

    Supplementary Benefit Households (Children)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister how many children were in households living on supplementary benefit in May 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively; and if she will estimate the comparable figure for May 1983.
    The Prime Minister: The information that is available for the years in question is as follows:

    million

    November 1978

    1·08

    November 1979

    0·96

    December 1980

    1·12

    May 1981

    1·37

    May 1982

    1·67

    The estimated figure for May 1983 is 1·75 million.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister accept that those are extremely depressing figures and represent a considerable restriction of freedom for a large number of people? In view of her belief in freedom, will she ensure that in the next Budget any money that is available will go to families with children, to reduce the number of people living in poverty and to increase their freedom?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the number of children living on supplementary benefit also rose considerably during the lifetime of the Labour Government. Indeed, the figures for November 1979 and December 1980 were below the peak figures under the Labour Government. With regard to what we have done for children on supplementary benefit, the real value of that benefit has doubled since it started. Moreover, between November 1978 and November 1982, the period about which the hon. Gentleman asks, the Government increased the scale rates for children on supplementary benefit by 100 per cent. for the under-fives and the 11 to 12-year-olds and 65 per cent. for other children. In the same period, the RPI rose by only 56 per cent.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the Prime Minister agree that taking the figures in isolation, as the hon. Gentleman did, gives no indication of the situation of the family? Does she not welcome the creation of the family policy unit to assess the overall effect of Government policy on the family? Does not that make the position of the family under this Government infinitely clearer than do the hon. Gentleman's figures?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we have created a family policy unit to take into account all policies and their effects on the family. I gave the figures for increases in supplementary benefit to demonstrate the priority that we have tried to give to the needs of those children.

    Engagements
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a quarter of all comprehensive schools there is no religious or moral education beyond the third year and that the Religious Education Advisory Council says that in two

    467
    thirds of primary schools religious education on the curriculum is confused and the teachers in those schools are not qualified to improve the situation? Does she agree that the moral fibre of the nation will be greatly undermined unless something is done to rectify that?
    Mr. Dobson: It is the F-Plan again.
    The Prime Minister: I agree that religious education could be much better taught in schools. I remember from my days as Secretary of State for Education and Science that it is a legal requirement that there should be an act of collective worship and full religious education in schools. The local education authority, school governors and head teachers are responsible for seeing that the requirements of the law are carried out.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a great new wave of concern in Scotland [Interruption.]—over the Secretary of State's words about the future—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is thoroughly unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. The House knows that it is unfair. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a great new wave of concern in Scotland over the words of the Secretary of State about the future of the Ravenscale—[Interruption.]—Ravenscraig steelworks—
    Mr. Skinner: Someone help him.
    Mr. Jenkins: —with only a limited capability? Can the right Lady give a further assurance for the future?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot add to the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend made it clear that Ravenscraig, along with the other four main British Steel Corporation plants, is to be kept open until we can better see what is the required capacity for steel in
    468
    the future. It is important to keep those plants open so that when there is an expansion of the market we have good bargaining power with Europe to see that we get a full and proper share of steel making in this country.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked a question about Victorian standards. From her answer—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows, before he goes any further, that the content of answers is not a matter on which I rule in this House, and that he must hope to catch my eye at another Prime Minister's Question Time. That is his best remedy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a real point of order. If so I shall listen. The hon. Gentleman will know whether he has a real point of order.
    Mr. Faulds: Since the hon. Lady's answer revealed the fact that she knows nothing about the complexity, the richness and the order of pre-colonial cultures, can a series of lessons be arranged to enlighten her ignorance?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That intervention was as useful as I thought it would be.
    Mr. Faulds: Ignorant woman—as she is about most subjects.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Prime Minister's Question Time you were able to call the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I thought for a moment or two that there would be a response from someone on the Labour side to defend the labour-controlled Derbyshire county council. I hoped that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said more than enough for me to know that that is not a point of order.

Business of the House
3.31 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 21 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the European Community budget.
The relevant document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Resumed consideration of the motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order.
TUESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Opposition day [8th Allotted Day]. Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on the west midlands, and afterwards a debate on Yorkshire and Humberside. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the British Shipbuilders Bill.
THURSDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the National Heritage Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill [Lords] and of the Currency Bill.
FRIDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY—A debate on policing in the Metropolis on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Foot: I wish to question the right hon. Gentleman on a few matters that I have put to him previously. From the replies a few minutes ago relating to the report in The Guardian, the Prime Minister appeared to confirm the report or, at any rate, the broad outline of it. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore assure us that there will be an early debate upon all the kindred matters of the family and the Government's proposals in this area? I have previously asked the right hon. Gentleman about the public expenditure White Paper. I hope that he is now able to say when a debate will take place.
I asked last week for a debate on the common crisis revealed in the Brandt report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to assure the House that there will be a full debate in Government time on this matter.
I should also like to know when there is to be a debate on Anderson Strathclyde. Now that the Charter Consolidated and Anderson Strathclyde merger is no longer before the courts, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the House should debate the subject. It is not right that the unprecedented rejection by the Government of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report should go undebated in the House. I hope that Government time will soon be provided for a debate.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a major debate on disarmament? One is obviously desired on both sides of the House. We on this side have been urging for a long time that there should be a debate. We believe that it should take place at an early date. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give me that assurance.
Mr. Biffen: The family is clearly a major matter in any general debate on economic affairs. I cannot guarantee that
470
there will be a debate about the family in Government time. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that we shall shortly be entering into that period of parliamentary life when there will be considerable opportunities for economic debates relating to the Budget that will touch upon the matters that concern him.
I stated last week that it would be of great advantage if the debate on public expenditure could take place in the light of representations that might be received from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. That remains my view. I hope very much that we shall have a debate, but I would much prefer that the views of the Select Committee were known.
I cannot do much more than repeat what I said last week about the Brandt report. It is an important contribution to public discussion. It has only recently been published. We must study it and see what opportunities there are for its consideration by the House.
I cannot really hold out much hope of a debate on Anderson Strathclyde other than to observe that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a statement to the House about the proposed merger and the Government's reaction to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It was then argued from the Opposition Benches that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not been acting fairly within the terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It has since been confirmed by the courts that he had. That must influence my reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's request.
On the important issue of a disarmament debate—I said last week that I hoped that this matter could be taken forward—I agree that there should be debate. I accept that it will have to take place in Government time. The timing must take account of the other demands that are made at this time of the year. I realise that it is an important topic.
Mr. Foot: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about the proposed debate on disarmament. I hope it will be fairly soon. Hon. Members have been pressing for many weeks that a debate should take place.
The Anderson Strathclyde issue involves not only the propriety of Government Ministers—I agree that is an important aspect—but extremely serious questions of employment in Scotland. The Government stepped in to override a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission affecting employment in Scotland. When will the right hon. Gentleman provide time to discuss that matter?
Mr. Biffen: A statement was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade at the time of the decision. It was clouded by unnecessary comments about whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had acted within the law. The courts vindicated him. I believe that the Government have been completely candid with the House on this matter.
I note the urgency which the right hon. Gentleman invests in his wish for a debate on disarmament.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the Leader of the House ensure that additional time is made available when the House debates the Welsh and other boundary orders so that the Opposition may be given a full opportunity to show that of all the measures brought before the House the one to which they are most opposed is that of fighting the next election on up-to-date boundaries?
Mr. Biffen: The business announced for Monday will allow for a further one and a half hours debate on this topic. How the House conducts itself will doubtless be monitored by the nation.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 214, signed by 79 hon. Members of all parties?
[That this House welcomes the initiative by the bus and coach industry, both public and private sectors, in publishing "The Future of the Bus", a major report on its future; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to examine urgently further ways to provide the clear and stable financial and legal framework which the industry lacks and needs, so that the bus, as well as the coach, can continue to play an effective role in meeting the nation's transport needs.]
In view of the inordinate amount of parliamentary time taken by discussion of the railways, could he find a little time to discuss other forms of transport?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer any Government time for next week or in the near future. I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the hints and nudges by the Secretary of State for Employment about further trade union legislation, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when there will be time for a debate on the Green Paper on trade union immunities?
Secondly, can the Lord President tell the House when there will be time for a debate on the education voucher scheme so that the House may save the Government from their proposed follies?
Mr. Biffen: There is no provision next week for a debate on the trade unions. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the right hon. Lady's keen interest in the subject.
There are no plans for a debate upon education in Government time next week. Doubtless, when such a debate takes place, plenty of hon. Members will wish to point to the follies in education that are associated with the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Edward du Cann: In regard to the public expenditure debate, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is taking evidence and hopes to report to the House some weeks before the Budget?
In regard to Anderson Strathclyde, which was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, while agreeing with my right hon. Friend that there is little case for having a debate in the House on that subject, would there not be advantage in the House debating the policy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, about which there is substantial criticism in the country?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my right hon. Friend has said about the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report on the expenditure White Paper. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade concerning the possibility of a wider debate on the issue of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. John Morris: In view of the lack of sparkle in the reaction of the Minister of State, Home Office to the point of order I submitted last night on the
472
Welsh boundary proposals, will the Leader of the House say what steps he is taking to ensure that Monday's debate has a better response? Will he draw the attention of whichever Minister appears at the Dispatch Box to the fact that yet another statutory instrument concerning the borough of Neath recently came into my hands from the Home Secretary dated 2 February 1983? Are there any more statutory instruments relevant to the borough of Neath?
Mr. Biffen: I thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office developed his arguments with sparkle and conviction. I have no doubt that he will continue that performance on Monday. I will draw his attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I know that that matter has been exercising his mind and that of several of his hon. Friends.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion 224, which now carries 146 signatures from Members on both sides of the House on a free post for Poland?
[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.]
Is it not a fact that the Governments of West Germany, Italy and, I believe, Switzerland have all afforded this limited concession? Is it not a rather sorry reflection that this country, which owes so much to the Polish people, should not have done so? When may we expect to hear further from the Government on this subject?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may recollect that I had to consider that question last week when it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). I cannot give a more helpful answer than I gave on that occasion.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the Leader of the House consider tabling a motion next week to reactivate the Special Standing Committee procedure, which was used very effectively last Session and which was the Government's invention? If the right 'Ion. Gentleman is prepared to do that, will he consider having the Plant Varieties Bill considered under that procedure? That Bill has scientific and other implications which go far wider than the terms of the Bill?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has raised a fair and important point. He may recollect that the Special Standing Committee procedure was intended for Government Bills that raised substantial issues but not acute party controversy. I do not think that the Bill raises issues of such magnitude especially as it received its Second Reading in the House of Lords within half-an-hour.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the press is made aware of the imminence of a statement long before Members of this House are by the monitor or the notice board in the Members' Lobby? As a result, when hon. Members are telephoned and asked to comment, they have not the faintest idea what they are

473
being asked about. Is this not an undersirable state of affairs? Will he kindly, for the benefit of the House, do something about it?
Mr. Biffen: It is an undesirable state of affairs, but I do not believe it is novel. I will look into the matter.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: Does the Leader of the House think it right for the House, when considering draft orders arising out of Boundary Commission reports, to have limited opportunity to debate them, no opportunity to make amendments and little say in the arrangements arising out of the Boundary Commission reports? Will the Leader of the House consider the 1954 precedent when there were separate orders for different parts of the country, county by county?
Can there be a full day's "take note" debate on the orders? May hon. Members have a proper opportunity in the next few weeks for measured consideration of the reports?
Mr. Biffen: I shall consider the precedents that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that interest in social policy and the future of the welfare state is not confined to Labour Members? Therefore, would it not be a good idea to have a wide-ranging debate on these matters in Government time in the fairly near future, not least because this would give the House a chance to hear from Ministers how the next Conservative Government propose to tackle these matters?
Mr. Biffen: I have sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. Bearing in mind the issues that I think he wishes to raise within the ambit of Tory social policy, if he cannot raise them during the Budget debate I do not know on what occasion he will be able to do so.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman give thought next week to a growing malpractice in parliamentary affairs? Is he aware that last week, or the week before that, I was telephoned by the Fleet street office of The Times about a written reply given that day by the Prime Minister? I said that I had not received the reply. In fact, I received it the next day. However, the press had had it the previous day. This is happening continually among Ministers—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Under successive Governments.
Mr. Allaun: That may be, but the practice is utterly wrong. It is one that puts the questioner at a disadvantage as he cannot comment on the Minister's reply until it is too late.
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Hal Miller: In the light of the debates that we have had recently on unemployment in the regions, especially in the west midlands, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Opposition's choice of a debate on unemployment in the west midlands, again in preference to the subject of disarmament, for example, or the Brandt report, indicates that at long last they have some specific proposals for the
474
west midlands, or are we merely to have another rehearsal of the repercussions of the policies for which they were responsible?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend and I both come from the west midlands and we both realise that it is an important region. It was the subject of a debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and it is to be the subject of a debate on an Opposition motion. That clearly underlines the importance of the west midlands. Clearly there were other topics that the Opposition might have chosen, but they settled on the west midlands and we must leave it at that.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: After the fiasco last night when the Government tried to force through the Welsh constituency boundary changes, may we have an assurance that the Scottish order will not be laid at least until the Secretary of State meets a delegation from the villages of Fallin, Plean, Throsk and Cowie? These villages are to be shunted into another constituency on the other side of the river Forth as a result of a blatant attempt at gerrymandering by a public inquiry reporter who is a former Tory parliamentary candidate and a former chairman of the Central Scotland Conservative Association.
Mr. Biffen: As last night's debate has been described as a fiasco, the House might like to recollect that the debate proceeded on a motion which had been judged by the Chair to be entirely in order and to have been an order that had been properly laid. If there was a fiasco, it was because there are hon. Members who are more concerned to dispute the referee's judgment than to argue in other ways.
Mr. Peter BottomleyDoes my right hon. Friend recognise that the family policy debate should go far wider that purely economic issues? I refer him to the debate that I initiated towards the end of last year.
Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that we have a debate on the proposals for England of the Boundary Commission for England as soon as possible to correct the misconception that changed boundaries will give a bonus to the Tories? It will give us the opportunity to make it plain that the Labour party has an unfair advantage which it seems determined to try to keep for itself at whatever democratic cost.
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says about the debate on family policy. I remember the debate that he initiated some while back. Next week's business does not provide for a debate on the English boundaries, but I am certain that the debates will take account of what happened last night.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Prime Minister and her colleagues had plenty and a half to say about the "Panorama" programme on 10 May, may I ask whether they studied Monday night's "Panorama" on the horrendous costs of the Falklands? Are we to believe Mr. Fred Emery when he says that there is a Cabinet struggle taking place to decide whether to spend £350 million on an airstrip at Port Stanley—
Sir Frederick Burden: This has nothing to do with next week's business.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the help of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden). The question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not directed to next week's business.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not argue his grievances now. He must ask about the business for next week.
Mr. Dalyell: May I ask whether there will be a statement on the state of the Cabinet struggle?
Mr. Biffen: There is no plan for such a statement. If such a statement were made, it would not be in the context of a Cabinet struggle. It would be about the resolve and determination that unite Conservative Members in contrast to the position of our opponents. I shall draw to the attention of the relevant Ministers the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
Sir Hector Monro: I refer my right hon. Friend again to early-clay motion 47, which has been signed by over 118 Members on both sides of the House and which expresses concern about the future of gliding at Portmoak in Scotland.
[That this House, concerned that there is no independent appeals procedure against Civil Aviation Authority decisions on the introduction of new airways, calls upon the Government not to implement the proposal for an airway between Glasgow-Edinburgh and Aberdeen via Perth until the effect of the airway on gliding at Portmoak and all the other options have been fully explored and debated in public.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that regulations will come into force in the very near future? Bearing in mind the views of many hon. Members, will it be possible to have a debate on the issue before the regulations are introduced?
Mr. Biffen: I can go no further than the comment which I made previously to the effect that I shall draw my hon. Friend's representations to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade. I can offer no prospect of a debate on this subject in Government time next week.
Mr. Derek Foster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Railways Board has recently announced the closure of its engineering works at Temple Mills, Horwich and Shildon? Is he further aware that if the closures go ahead, certainly in Shildon in my constituency, the male unemployment rate in that area will rise to 50 per cent.? For how much longer are the Government prepared to stand idly by to witness the wholesale destruction of communities in the north of England? Are we to have a statement or a debate on these matters?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman fairly makes a point about a development that will have a grievous impact upon his constituency. I shall refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and there we must leave it.
Mr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to early-day motion 117 of the previous Session, which was signed by over 100 Members of all parties?
476
[That this House expresses its concern at the plight of the 13,500 widows of police officers, who retired prior to 1st April 1956, known as 'preserved rate widows', whose husbands were unable to contribute to a higher rate pension; and, in view of Her Majesty's Government's prompt action in respect of the widows of servicemen, invites the Government to follow the same principle for a police widow on a preserved rate of pension when the matter is considered in the immediate future by the Police Negotiating Board.]
The motion relates to a constituency problem that every Member faces—the plight of preserved rate widows' pensions. These are pre-1956 widows who are now 82 years of age. Should not this social injustice be put right?
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge that there is wide general interest in the subject that my hon. Friend mentions. I am sure that the imminent Budget and the subsequent Finance Bill will present useful opportunities to raise the issue.
Mr. Ioan Evans: At Question Tine today the Prime Minister appeared to confirm the authenticity of the report in The Guardian today on the welfare state. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on the future of the welfare state so that we may discuss the report that appeared today and earlier reports of the Think Tank so that the British people can be warned prior to the election of what to expect if we have another Tory Government?
Mr. Biffen: That issue has already been raised several times. I can offer no more in answer to the hon. Gentleman than I could offer to other hon. Members.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I press the Leader of the House for a debate on the Anderson Strathclyde issue? Is he aware that there is massive Scottish opinion among the trade unions, employers and others that there must be a debate? Surely this demand should have nothing other than a positive response from the House. Will he arrange also for a debate on the Government's decimation of the Scotch whisky industry?
Mr. Biffen: As there are two part-day debates devoted to those types of problems in different parts of the United Kingdom next week and the Opposition have not chosen to put Scotland ahead of Yorkshire and Humberside and the west midlands in their priorities, I do not feel that I should be the sole recipient of the hon. Gentleman's request. I should like to return to the request for a debate about Anderson Strathclyde. It is easy to make accusations in the Chamber about the propriety of Ministers and, when the courts make a ruling that vindicates Ministers, to suppose that that is the end of the matter and that one can return to other issues that were the subject of the original statement.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush the issue aside as he did in his reply. Right from the beginning we have been asking for a debate about the overruling of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is perfectly correct that some people still believe that the Minister did not deal with the issue properly, but that is not the major issue on which we are asking for a debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it again? Bearing in mind the fact that all opinion in Scotland that has applied its mind to the problem shares that view, why will he not give us time for a debate on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that point. When my hon. and learned Friend made his statement to the House, he dealt with why he made the judgment that he did.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two hon. Members on the Government Benches and four hon. Members from the Opposition Benches and then move on to the next business.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is great sympathy in the House and the country for the people and Government of Australia in the problems that they now face due to the disastrous fire in parts of Australia? Will he consult his colleagues to see whether we can, as a country, offer some practical support?
Mr. Biffen: This is a time of the week when the House shows itself in sharp and constructive discord. My hon. Friend has raised a point that I am sure will bring immediate unanimity from all quarters of the House when we think of the terrible disasters that have overtaken Australia in the past 48 hours. I shall consider my hon. Friend's other point.
Dr. M. S. Miller: May I revert to the lukewarm response that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with regard to his request for a debate on Anderson Strathclyde? Does he not understand that he cannot lightly dismiss the fact that this is the first time that a recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been overturned? That is the reason for the request for a debate, coupled with the fact that I visited an Anderson Strathclyde factory in my constituency where the workers are unanimously opposed to being taken over by Charter Consolidated. It has enormous implications for the west of Scotland which already has an extremely high rate of unemployment.
Mr. Biffen: I take that point. The hon. Gentleman speaks with the authority of a constituency interest. When my hon. and learned Friend made his statement, he told the House why he had made his judgment in the light of the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That was the important point to make, and it was the correct occasion to make it.
Mr. Bill Walker: I too draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 47 that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Is he aware that there is anxiety in the House because there is no independent appeals procedure against decisions made by National Air Traffic Services of the Civil Aviation Authority? That quango can proceed without appeals as appeals go only to it. That seems to be contrary to what democracy requires and it is why there is so much anxiety on both sides of the House. There is a need for a debate on the subject—not because gliding in Scotland is affected but because there is no independent appeals procedure.
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon Friend's point. He has made it as eloquently as he has done on previous occasions. I shall draw what he has said to the attention of the relevant Minister. Nevertheless, I must say that there is no opportunity for such a debate in Government time next week.
Mr. Roger Stott: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)? Is he aware that if British Rail Engineering Ltd. carries out the proposals that it announced this morning, 4,500 people will lose their jobs between now and the end of 1984? Is he further aware that in areas such as Shildon and Horwich, in my constituency, British Rail Engineering workshops are the only source of employment and that if the proposals go ahead those communities will be devastated? Will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier reply and provide time for a debate on the issue?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot guarantee a debate on that topic in Government time next week. I repeat my earlier commitment, that I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 316 that relates to staffing levels in the Department of Health and Social Security in the north-west region.
[That this House, gravely concerned at the low morale of the civil servants employed in the Department of Health and Social Security in the North West Region and on Merseyside, at the manning levels, and in view of the fact that the number of claimants is alleged to have increased on Merseyside by 35 per cent. in the past two years, and the number of long-term unemployed has increased by 92 per cent. over the same period, calls upon the Secretary of State to call for a freeze on planned staffing cuts during the Merseyside County Council's planned take-up campaign in April 1983]
It appears that staffing levels in DHSS offices are also a problem in other parts of the country and that the increase in the number of payments, especially the long-term unemployed, is in difficulties because of the reduction of staff. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services soon or, better still, have a debate on this extremely important subject?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the contract for the houses that are to be erected in the Falklands which has been allocated to James Brewster Associates, which is an exhibition, not a building, firm? It has got the contract for a firm in Sweden rather than the British Hallam Group that is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher).
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hallam Group believes that the matter should be re-examined as it put in a tender that was £400,000 lower than that of the exhibition firm? Is he further aware that the Hallam Group believes that the matter should be reconsidered because James Brewster Associates has not declared its company accounts since 31 December 1979 and that the Prime Minister has acknowledged in a letter to me that prosecution letters have been sent to that firm? Surely that problem necessitates an inquiry and the British firm getting the contract.
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the relevant Government Departments.

Business of the House

  DOCUMENTS FOR DEBATE ON MONDAY 2I FEBRUARY AND RELEVANT REPORTS OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
  10960/81—Mandate of 30 May 1980—Report on the Application of the Financial Mechanism.
  See HC 21–vii (1981–82) para. 2.
  5980/82—Commission's Second Report on the Implementation of Supplementary Measures in Favour of the United Kingdom.
  See HC 21—xxiii (1981–82) para. 3
  8874181—Commission' s Third Report on the Implementation of Supplementary Measures in Favour of the United Kingdom.
  See HC 34–iii (1982–83) para. 1
  4348/83—Amended Proposal for a Council Decision Empowering the Commission to Contract Loans under the New Community Instrument for the Purpose of Promoting Investment within the Community.
  See HC 34–vii (1982–83) para.4
  Com(83)23—Preliminary Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 to the General Budget of the European Communities for 1983.
  See HC 34–vii (1982–83) para. 2.
  4417/83—Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation No. 2744180 Establishing Supplementary Measures in Favour of the United Kingdom.
  See HC 34–vii (1982–83) para. 2.
  4418/83—Proposal for a Council Regulation Establishing Specific Measures of Community Interest Relating to Energy Strategy.
  See HC 34–vii (1982–83) para. 2.
  11125/82—Communication from the Commission on compensation for the United Kingdom: the subsequent solution.
  See HC 34–v (1982–83) para. 3.
  4826I83—Communication on the future financing of the Community.
  See HC 34–x (1982–83) para. 6.

Boundary Commission Report
Mr. Speaker: I have considered carefully the point of order that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised with me concerning the Boundary Commission. Having looked with great care at the matters that he raised, I am satisfied that the rules of the House were properly observed.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the care and consideration that you have taken in this matter. I know that you have studied the procedures and the precedents with great care, and I accept without reservation that the decision to print the Boundary Commission report for England before it was available to the Home Secretary is a matter that must be pursued in ways other than those concerning the rules of the House.

Brandt Report (Availability)
4.7 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the supply of documents to hon. Members. At the time of the first Brandt report about three years ago, sufficient copies were made available through the Vote Office to enable hon. Members to study it. I believe that 700 or so copies were distributed in that way. The second Brandt report was published last Friday, but no copies have so far been placed in the Vote Office and I do not know whether the Government intend that they should be. All that has happened is that the Foreign Office has placed six copies in the Library, which, naturally, have been snapped up quickly. No copies of that important document are available to right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: Those responsible will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall leave it there.

National Health Service (Commercial Contractors)
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the use of commercial contractors for domestic, catering and laundry services in hospitals.
It is in the Government's view essential that the resources devoted to the National Health Service should be used as cost-effectively as possible. Only in that way will these resources, which have increased in real terms year by year under this Administration, benefit patient services to the maximum extent. Authorities already use outside contractors for a variety of services. In 1981–82, £159 million was spent in England on commercial contracts. Only a small part of this sum—£17 million—was, however, spent on domestic, catering and laundry services, which together cost the Health Service almost £800 million. There is a large potential here which is not being realised.
I therefore want to see health authorities go to competitive tender for these three services on the basis of a fair comparison between the private contractors and the authority's own staff. Authorities should therefore work out which would be the most economic way of delivering their services to the specified standard, and then either enter into contracts with private companies or continue to use their own staff, using their tenders as the budget for the service. I should stress that health authorities will be able to use all savings achieved in this way for extra patient services.
Up to now, one anomaly has been that the National Health Service, unlike local government, has had to bear VAT on most contracted-out services. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is today announcing that the Government will seek powers in this year's Finance Bill to refund VAT to health authorities where services are contracted out. This will permit a fair comparison with in-house services.
I held a discussion earlier this month with the representatives of private contractors. They are confident that they have the capacity to provide straight away in many places the level of services which health authorities will be wanting.
I am today issuing a draft circular, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office, to health authorities, and to the staff side of the general Whitley council, inviting comment by the end of March. In this circular I shall be asking district health authorities, special health authorities and boards of governors for the postgraduate hospitals, to test the cost-effectiveness of their domestic, catering and laundry services, by putting them out to tender. Regional health authorities will be asked, in relation to their own premises, to take similar action on their cleaning and catering sevices. In each case, the authorities' own staff will be invited to compete for contracts on equal terms. I intend to make regular checks on progress and to ask regional health authorities to do likewise.
The aim is that each authority should make the most cost-effective use of the resources allocated to it in the interests of the patients it serves. This is a further step to achieving that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is the fourth attempt by the Secretary of State to shove health authorities into putting out their work to private contractors, whether they require to do so or not. Will he tell us on what he bases the assumption that there will be a benefit to the health authorities, since his own figures show that a number of authorities which tried private contractors last year have given up the service?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman say on what basis catering services are to be provided, who will be responsible for the provision of staff such as dieticians, and what guarantee he has that special diets and the special interests of the patients will be preserved?
Thirdly, as there is a great risk of cross-infection in using laundry services, will he tell us who will police the health of any of the workers concerned and whether local authorities will be given guarantees that laundries in their area will not be a danger to public health?
Finally, as the present cleaning staff on wards are there to reduce the danger of sepsis, will he explain how patients will benefit from a system that will change the rule whereby at present the cleaning of wards and the cleaners themselves are organised by the ward sisters, whereas contract cleaners, if they are employed, will be responsible only to administrators? Will he accept that what he is trying to do will in no way contribute to the economics of the Health Service and that he is simply pandering to the wild men on the Government Back Benches?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady has delivered her normal nonsense in reply to my statement. If money is saved, it will go to patient care. It will provide more patient services. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides would support that.
The hon. Lady asked me, first, what evidence I had for believing that there would be savings. We have studied what took place at Ministry of Defence hospitals, which, as the hon. Lady may know, went over to using outside cleaners in 1981. Appreciable savings have resulted from that. On the basis of that experience, it is reasonable to believe that in some National Health Service hospitals savings of up to 20 per cent. could be made. If the service is adequate in other hsopitals, clearly those savings will not be available, but where savings of up to 20 per cent. are available I should have thought that the hon. Lady would want them to be ploughed back into patient care.
Catering and other services will have to be managed and overseen by the National Health Service administration. That will be made clear in the circular.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a fundamental difference between a service hospital dealing with young fit adults in a restricted age group, and a large general or geriatric hospital dealing with quite different problems? Will the Secretary of State make it very clear that if undertakings are to be given by the people who take out contracts, they must guarantee the safety of the patients and staff? If he can give that guarantee, will he also give a guarantee that we can monitor the results?
Mr. Fowler: I certainly give that guarantee. That of course will be part of the tendering process. There will be comparisons of like with like. Those considerations will be taken into account. The evidence that we have, certainly from the Ministry of Defence, shows that there are substantial savings to be made. We have taken account
484
of the differences between Ministry of Defence hospitals and NHS hospitals, and if there are savings to be had surely it is simple common sense for those savings to go to patient care.
Mr. Clement Freud: If the Secretary of State has been given leave to make a pre-Budget announcement, will he tell the House whether the Government are also seeking powers to refund VAT to health charities, and not just to health authorities?
Mr. Fowler: I have made clear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced about health authorities. Different issues are involved with charities, and that is a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has under review.
Mr. Peter Horden: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement wall be welcome to all those who have long hoped for greater efficiency in the National Health Service? As those who will be contracting for services in competition with the NHS will be relieved of VAT, will he accept that the principle might also be applied to voluntary charitable organisations which provide services to the social services department of the DHSS?
Mr. Fowler: That point was raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), and I shall pass on my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals would be more likely to be judged on their merits if he did not appear to be so fanatically determined to introduce privatisation, whether or not there is a benefit, in the same way as the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is determined to introduce nationalisation, whether or not there is a benefit? Would he not be taken more seriously if he were to make the savings that are available to be made from generic drug substitution—at the minimum, £30 million or £50 million, and probably substantially more—and which he could have made on the day that he took office?
Mr. Fowler: I find the Social Democratic party's policy as eccentric on this matter as it is on virtually everything else. The hon. Gentleman, normally using rather foolish and exaggerated figures, is asking about generic substitution. I have made it clear that if economies are to be made in the drugs bill, we shall make them. We have no intention of compelling authorities to do that. We are saying to authorities that there are or may be opportunities for savings in this connection. It is about time that the SDP decided what its policy is on this matter: does it agree with it or not?
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister recall that the reason why most hospitals began providing the services themselves rather than employing contractors was that for a long time there had been allegations about the financial interests of those responsible for the administration of the hospitals and the private contractors? Will he make sure that there is now a clear declaration of financial interest by anyone appointed to a hospital board, whether at district or regional level, and anyone who works in a hospital, to avoid allegations of financial irregularity in the placing of contracts by hospitals?
Mr. Fowler: We will take every precaution to prevent anything of that kind happening. The hon. Gentleman seems to be underrating, in all kinds of ways, the contribution that can be made by the private sector. His concept of the private sector is wrong.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations not only of Members but of many thousands outside on the determined way in which he is tackling the waste and misuse of money in the National Health Service? Will he please repeat, often, very slowly, very clearly and in words of one syllable so that Opposition Members who appear unable to grasp it may understand, that this is the best way to make more money available for patient services and to stop the waste that is inherent not only in the way in which the service has been run but in other things, such as the misuse of drugs?
Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly do my best to fulfil the wishes of my hon. Friend, but I cannot guarantee that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies will understand the message. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our first concern is the interests of the patients. If we can provide support services which are as good as existing services and which can be provided more cheaply by the private sector, and if that money goes to patient care, I should have thought both sides of the House could unite in agreeing that that is a good thing.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In making his statement, did the Minister consider the effect on morale of the encouragement of forward planning under the former area health authorities and the capital investment in laundry machinery and what is likely to happen, if that becomes redundant, as a long-term cost? Will he undertake to write to me on the specific case of the contract given to a Birmingham firm of outside contractors for the laundry at Northwick park hospital, Harrow, where the previous arrangement was that the Central Middlesex hospital was given £250,000 by the area health authority to cope with that task? Will he confirm that the tender submitted by the Birmingham company was higher than that submitted by the Central Middlesex hospital?
Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I shall check the facts and see whether what he said is correct.
Mrs. Sheila Faith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will be good news for all those who suffered in hospital last year and during the winter of discontent when industrial action took place, because if the catering, laundry and cleaning services are broken down into smaller units that must be good for industrial relations and will in no way harm the concept of the National Health Service?
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The comparison between the public sector and the private sector tenders will be like with like.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised if some of us are sceptical about what he says? Some of us have been involved for some time in the issue of the payment of VAT by charities supported by the people of this country, and know that services have had to be withdrawn. We fought this battle for three years. Does he not find it rather strange that he can get up now
486
and tell us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to there being no VAT on privatisation? Will he consider that very carefully?
Mr. Fowler: I understand that the hon. Gentleman will be sceptical. I hope that he will also be open-minded about the results of this particular policy, its potential and the fact that the National Health Service can benefit from it.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be welcomed by everyone who wants to improve the National Health Service, and that he particularly deserves congratulations on having persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove a grossly unfair anomaly with regard to VAT? Will he remind Opposition Members that, during the winter of discontent, when the Labour party was in office, all the trouble took place in those hospitals where there was direct labour and none where there were outside contractors? Will he remind them also that the Secretary of State for Social Services in the previous Administration paid public tribute to the high standards of contractors in hospitals?
Mr. Fowler: Yes. It is also fair for me to say that my hon. Friend has taken a leading part in seeking the kind of extension that the Government are announcing today. The general policy is that we would expect districts to compare the in-house costs with those of commercial contractors. If the same quality of service can be provided more cheaply and at least to the same standard there will be an overwhelming case for the authority to take that course. I believe that that is the right policy for the Health Service.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Minister say whether this policy statement also refers to Scotland? If so, why does the Secretary of State for Scotland not have the guts to come here and do his own dirty work and be cross-examined by Scottish Members? Does the Minister recognise that this is a further squalid example of introducing the profit motive into the National Health Service and will be resisted by the trade unions throughout the country? Does he know that at Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge the health authority is so appalled by the quality of the cleaning service provided by private enterprise that it is considering matters with a view to removing the contract from the firm?
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Absolute rot.
Mr. Fowler: There are a number of comments that I could make about the situation at Addenbrookes, but I will resist the temptation to do so.
The Secretary of State for Scotland will make his own announcement on policy in Scotland. I believe that he is making it today. We are seeking to achieve greater efficiency in the use of resources in the Health Service. The hon. Gentleman, who at Question Time after Question Time, makes complaints about resources, really cannot have it both ways. If he wants resources for the Health Service, he must support the most efficient use of those resources.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will warmly welcome the possibility that their district general hospital, the West Middlesex at Ilseworth, will make savings which could be used to save and keep going local community hospitals

487
such as Teddington Memorial and St. John's, Twickenham? Is it not astonishing that Opposition Members seem unable to accept that hospitals and health services which are intrinsically expert at providing medical care for people may not also be expert at providing catering, cleaning and laundering services?
Mr. Fowler: In some cases there is no question but that the in-house service is good and will continue. The Government's case is that the present balance is all one way and that the opportunity should be given to private contractors to compete on equal terms. The first point made by my hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and it is one which I do not think is even now grasped by all Opposition Members. It is that the savings thus made go back into local improvements in health services. That seems to me the most important aspect of all.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister accept that it is not the care of patients that comes first in his mind, but the greed of his supporters in the Tory party, who can line their pockets with what they see as lucrative contracts? If the principle of competitive tendering is so important and so endearing to the Minister, will he say why it was not used in the Serpell report, where two Conservative supporters obtained contracts when they had a direct financial interest, without any competitive tendering at all? If it is good in one case, why is it not good in another? Will he confirm that the draft circular that he proposes to send round will have no legal validity whatsoever?
Mr. Fowler: If, by his last point, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) means that I am not directing health authorities to carry out a particular policy, that is of course the case; but that is the position with any circulars from the Department of Health. The Government have now set up a system of regional and district reviews and the progress that is made locally on what is being proposed will be checked and will be taken up with the chairmen. If the hon. Gentleman believes that this is simply exhortation, I must tell him that that is not the case.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second major point, although I shall not go back to my old area of railways, the money saved will go back into patient care and to provide more services. I was under the impression that to provide more services was what the welfare state was about.
Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that his Department issued a similar circular in August 1981 urging health authorities to privatise services which proved to be utterly ineffectual? What assurance can he give the House that, without the force of law, his statement today will be more effective?
Mr. Fowler: There are two reasons. First, there is the obvious and important aspect that we have changed the position with regard to VAT, which is a substantial step forward for outside contractors, and should be recognised as such. My second reason for believing that it will be considerably more effective is that we have since introduced a system of accountability into the Health Service whereby the policies at local level are checked in a way that was hitherto not the case.
Mr. David Ennals: Will the Secretary of State accept that health authorities have
488
always had the right, if they so wished, to contract out certain work? Will he also accept that the Labour Secretary of State for Social Services never paid tribute to the private contractors because the system did not work—either because private contractors did not put in bids as they were not prepared to do the work, or because the work was unsatisfactorily done? Will he confirm that the number of contracts that have been put out to private tender have decreased rather than increased? Does this not prove that this is just an absurd waste of time except to promote the benefits of private enterprise?
Mr. Fowler: Not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) has got it wrong and slightly around his neck. The decision rests with health authorities. It is up to health authorities to decide where the benefit lies. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if, because an open tender has been allowed to go forward for the first time on equal terms and the health authority can then see for itself the savings that it can take, it should take them, because that is in the interests of the patient. The decision rests with the health authority; the money goes to patient care.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the deliberations of the northern regional health authority which is proposing to inject about £500,000 into the Roose hospital at Barrow-in-Furness to improve the laundry but has been unwilling to consider private contractors who wish to tender for the work? Will he consider, in sending the circular, a postscript to that authority because it should be persuaded at least to consider competitive private tenders before the capital payment is made, or no one will be able to judge whether the money could be better spent on improving patient services?
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said on the general principle because that is a major aspect which I hope, under the system we are introducing, will improve. When an authority is deciding whether, for example, to build a new laundry and to invest the amount of capital that is required, it should have information on how that service could be provided from outside. I hope that every authority will make such an inquiry.
Mr. Reg Race: Instead of pretending that contractors are cheaper than National Health Service direct labour, will the Secretary of State tell the House what has been the experience of Health Service administrators in the central Birmingham hospitals, Amersham hospital, Stoke Mandeville hospital, and in the City and East London health authority, where contractors, when asked to make proposals for taking over services, submitted tenders which were substantially in excess of the sums being spent by the National Health Service? Does that not prove that the only way he can make the equation work is by ripping off the taxpayer by abolishing VAT and handing the profit to his mates in private industry?
Mr. Fowler: It does not prove that at all. Clearly, if the in-house arrangement can work more effectively, more efficiently and more cheaply than outside contractors, the principle that I am putting forward would mean that the health authority concerned would choose the in-house arrangement. We are saying that when the opposite is the

489
case—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—and a saving can be demonstrated, the health authority should take it.
Mr. John Gorst: Has my right hon. Friend carried out a survey into the number of regional health authorities that are not at present using contractors but are willing to have a go at the scheme he has announced today? Also, has he had any conversations with the trade unions involved, and, if so, what has been their response to his proposals?
Mr. Fowler: One of the aims of the circular, and why indeed it is called a draft circular, is that it is being put out for consultation and for the comments of the trade unions. Clearly the trade unions will be putting forward their views. I believe that throughout the Health Service and throughout the authorities there will be a welcome for this move because many people inside the Health Service believe that there is a potential here for a more efficient use of resources which can go to patient care.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Why does not the Secretary of State be honest and admit that this is just a further step in the gradual dismantling of both the welfare state and the National Health Service to line the pockets of his political supporters, and that neither he nor they will be satisfied until they have reduced the National Health Service to a geriatric and psychiatric service?
Mr. Fowler: I have not put it in those terms because they are clearly so absurdly untrue that they are not worth serious consideration by the House.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is not the reaction of some Opposition Members entirely predictable? Is it not clear that their concern is a lot less for efficient and effective patient care than for the preservation of trade union monopolies in the Health Service?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I do not think that a serious argument has been put forward this afternoon against these proposals.
Mr. Thomas Cox: Is the Secretary of State aware that those hon. Members who have hospitals in their constituencies know from bitter experience the standard of work of many private contractors? Is he aware, for example, that at Springfield hospital, in my constituency, private contractors were brought in to pull down asbestos roofing but such was the deplorable standard of workmanship that it was left to hospital workers to clear up the mess? This matter has now been referred to the ombudsman. Such matters deeply concern us because we have experience of the shoddy workmanship of some of the cowboys who are being brought in to the hospital services.
Mr. Fowler: It is up to the health authorities to decide on the standard of the service which will be provided. That is why we are, rightly, leaving them with that discretion. To characterise the private sector in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just done is totally absurd.
Mr. Tim Eggar: I extend a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement. What assurance can he give the House that the internal
490
accounting methods dealing both with capital and current costs will allow a fair comparison between external contractors and internal costs?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to see the model contracts that we have drawn up to ensure that exactly that takes place.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will wages fall or jobs be lost? Where else can the savings come from? Is it not cheaper to keep Health Service workers at work than to pay them benefits?
Mr. Fowler: In regard to wages, some of the outside contractors already pay the general Whitley council rates, although it will depend upon the position locally. In regard to redundancy, the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that many contractors take on the staff who are already working in the hospital service.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the indignation aroused by his statement is unlikely to come from sick people but has come and will continue to come from trade union officials and their spokesmen in the Labour party who are frightened about the diminution not of the Health Service but of their power and influence in the trade union movement? Is he also aware that that comes from the same sources that were prepared to blackmail the sick in the recent past?
Mr. Fowler: I agree. Certainly the Opposition spokesman on these matters has no record in regard to industrial action in the last dispute. When she and the Opposition have had time to reflect upon the proposals, I hope that they will see the good sense of them.
Mr. Marcus Fox: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen the savings that can be and have been made by local authorities which have privatised, and in the area of defence. Does he accept that, if similar savings were made in the National Health Service, community hospitals such as Shipley hospital could remain open?
Mr. Fowler: The whole point of what we are doing is to enable health authorities to make savings. Then it would be for the health authorities themselves to decide how those savings were spent. Of course, they would be spent on patient care and the kind of projects that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State promise the House that, if district health authorities convince even him that the work is better, more efficiently and certainly more cheaply carried out within the NHS than by private contractors, he will not deduct a notional sum from their finances on the basis that they will be forced to go to private contracting?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I will give the hon. Lady that assurance. We are trying to achieve a like-for-like comparison and fair tendering. We are not forcing the authorities to go to private contractors. What we want is fair competition between the public and the private sector. If the hon. Lady is content with that position, I am glad that the Opposition and the Government agree on this policy.
Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I asked the Minister whether this policy applied to Scotland, he answered that it did. He has

491
produced a document of eight foolscap pages. Presumably the Secretary of State for Scotland did not seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement similar to the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. On today's Order Paper there is an inspired question, No. 167, in the name of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who is not even here. That presumes that the House will be given in written form the answer which should properly have been given on the Floor of the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would then have been subjected, quite properly, to questioning by Scottish Members.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, do anything to protect Scottish Members from such gross abuse of the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland, particularly on a matter which concerns every man and woman in Scotland who will be violently opposed to the propositions being put forward? Is there no way of preventing the Secretary of State for Scotland acting like a little Adolf Hitler?
Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order, which he will understand was not strictly a point of order. I realise that he wished to express that opinion.
Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that it was not a point of order.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.44 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill spans the whole field of health, personal social services and social security concerns. Its 27 clauses and eight schedules range across a large number of topics, hence its rather extraordinary title.
The Bill represents the Government's continued commitment to measures which will promote and protect health and welfare and make the best use of available resources. Its principles attracted a broad measure of support from both sides in another place, where it has already been considered. In the light of the general welcome that the Bill received in another place, I find it extraordinary that there are rumours that the Opposition parties intend to divide against it this evening, but no doubt we shall hear more about that in due course.
There are four main broad objectives in the Bill. The first is to provide more care for the elderly, the mentally ill and the handicapped at the place where the patients and their families would prefer to be, that is, at home or in small units near to home. Too many patients still have to live in large, impersonal institutions, occupying hospital beds for long periods simply because the community services are not there to support them at or near home.
The second objective is to improve children's services, ensuring adequate safeguards for those who are most vulnerable or at risk. Thirdly, the Bill aims to get the maximum amount of patient care out of the growing resources made available to us by reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency and effectiveness. The fourth aim is to improve the quality of decision-making and the independence of decisions and appeals in the difficult area of national insurance and social security benefit claims.
Obviously, I do not intend today to describe in detail all the Bill's provisions. If I were to do so there would be little opportunity for hon. Members to take part in the ensuing debate. Instead, I have selected those provisions which I believe to be of most interest to the House and which typify the underlying principles of the Bill. I shall then mention briefly the Bill's remaining provisions. If hon. Members wish to probe further on particular issues, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to answer specific queries.
I begin with the first of the broad aims that I have described—the proposals for improving community care. Last July we announced the details of a very important initiative, which we call the "Care in the Community" programme. The most important change is that for the first time ever district health authorities will be able to offer to local authorities and voluntary organisations guaranteed annual payments without limit of time to provide for people moving out of hospitals into community care. We want to see resources moving with the patient so that the funds go with him to provide him with the right sort of care in or near his home.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is concerned to improve community care. As the Bill says that it will not involve any increase in public expenditure, surely he

493
cannot realise that objective. All he is doing is transferring money from one quarter to another; he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. There will be no substantial increase in benefits to community care.
Mr. Clarke: I shall deal later with the substantial increases in public expenditure that flow from our whole policy in this area, as announced last July. The legislation is changing the rules, where necessary, to implement the policy. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall explain later the relationship between the two. I am describing the most important single initiative in our "Care in the Community" policy—the provision under which we are giving to health authorities the facility to transfer resources with patients where the patients would be better treated at or near home.
Going back to the July announcement, secondly, we have improved the rules governing joint finance from the National Health Service so that it will be available for extended periods for projects for moving people out of hospital. Thirdly, we are promoting a programme of pilot projects and we shall be spending £15 million of joint finance moneys over the next five years for that purpose. Since we announced the initiative last July, we have added another £6 million to the pool of joint finance moneys as part of the £80 million of increased spending on the National Health Service that we announced in the autumn.
We have kept increasing the funds available for joint finance, and over £300 million has now been spent in that way since the Government have been in office. With the extra £6 million announced for next year, we have increased joint finance funds by 51 per cent., compared with the funds being expended when we took over from the Labour Government.
We have been consulting local authorities about the policy, and I am glad to say that we are about to issue guidance on those parts of it that require administrative action. However, further improvements to the rules on joint finance require legislation. They are contained in the Bill. We wish to extend the use of joint finance to education for disabled people and to housing, including sheltered housing for elderly and disabled people. Those services are an integral part of the pattern of service that is needed to support in the community the people about whom we are concerned.
The principal aim of part I of the Bill is therefore to enable health authorities to support housing and education expenditure by local authorities, other statutory bodies and voluntary organisations. The rest of part I consolidates existing provisions for joint finance and makes them more flexible.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Recently we debated the implementation of the Education Act 1981. We were told that no more resources were available. Is the Minister suggesting that what he is talking about may provide extra resources for the education of disabled children?
Mr. Clarke: It could have that effect. As the law stands, the joint finance moneys that I have described and that we keep increasing cannot lawfully be expended for educational or housing purposes. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as any of us that often we make provision for disabled children in the community—[Interruption.]
494
When the Opposition ask questions, they might as well listen. If the reply is more favourable than they expected, they do not seem to want to hear it. We are now facilitating some educational expenditure where that is part of the service that is required—for instance, for disabled children when we are moving them out of long-stay hospital wards, which often are not the best provision, to smaller community units and so on. We hope that voluntary bodies, health authorities and local authorities will come together to provide—
Mr. Carter-Jones: Once again, briefly.
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman studies my reply, he will understand it. I thought that he was inviting me to repeat it again briefly. I am always happy to repeat the more attractive parts of our proposals.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Why does the Minister not talk to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, because two nights ago he said that there were no more resources?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend speaks of his education budget. I am talking about the budget of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the use to which the ever-growing pool of joint finance money can be put by health authorities. The hon. Gentleman should support the Bill on this ground alone. The Bill alters the law to enable joint finance funds to be used for educational purposes.
For Wales only, part I of the Bill provides parallel powers for the Secretary of State to make payments for the development of community care. These will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to act directly to promote community care where this would be the most effective and efficient measure in a situation where he controls the expenditure of the range of bodies involved. This power is essential to him if he is to pursue his widely welcomed strategy of developing care for the mentally handicapped over the next 10 years.
Clause 2 makes similar provisions for Scotland to the first part of clause 1 for England and Wales in that it will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend the scope of the existing support finance scheme to include payments in respect of education and housing as well as social work.
Before we leave this part of the Bill and care in the community, I draw hon. Members' attention to a provision later in the Bill that has some relevance here. I have referred several times to voluntary organisations. Of course, they make a vital contribution in providing care and support for thousands of people outside hospital. They are already involved to some extent in joint planning with the health and local authorities, but we intend to encourage further that involvement.
We have therefore included in schedule 4 an amendment to the law governing membership of joint consultative committees. Those committees are at present made up of representatives of health and local authorities. They advise the authorities on the planning and operation of services of common concern. The new provision will add members appointed by voluntary organisations. That will strengthen the present arrangements for involving voluntary organisations on the planning and operation of services of common concern. The new provision will add members appointed by voluntary organisations. That will

495
strengthen the present arrangements for involving voluntary organisations in the planning and provision of services, including those provided as part of our care in the community programme.
Part IV of the Bill contains provision for improvements in the registration arrangments in England and Wales for voluntary and privately run residential and nursing homes. Our intention is to contribute to our wider policies of better community care for dependent people. We are talking about the standards and the law that govern privately provided residential and nursing homes. The Opposition, in their attacks on private sector provision of care and health care, which they feel obliged to make regularly, often reveal how little they know about the reality of private provision. The bulk of private beds are not in private hospitals, but in small nursing homes. In total, they look after well over 20,000 elderly people and are run by a mixture of voluntary, charitable and commercial enterprises. They are an essential component in the country's provision for the elderly and disabled.
However, anxieties have been expressed over a number of years about the possible vulnerability of dependent people who need residential care, particularly the vulnerability of residents in establishments that fall outside the existing arrangements for registration and inspection by local authorities. Last year we had consultations on proposals to improve those arrangements when we produced the consultative document that we entitled "A Good Home". The consultation confirmed the need for some changes in the legislation governing the registration of the homes. In future, all persons, including corporate bodies, running a residential establishment with four or more persons in need of personal care because of old age, disablement or mental disorder, will be required to register the premises as a residential care home. That is not so at present. The change will ensure that boarding houses and similar concerns are registered if dependent people, who were, for example, patients in mental hospitals, are cared for. It is made clear in the Bill that it is not our intention that group homes for persons who are learning how to overcome a handicap or disability and make themselves less dependent should be required to register.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I welcome the Minister's point about the 20,000 people who are looked after in private nursing homes, which is useful to the community. However, will the Minister compare that figure with the 470,000 beds in the geriatric service in the NHS and the large number of places in warden-assisted homes run by local authorities?
Mr. Clarke: The number of beds provided by the NHS vastly exceeds those provided by the private sector. The contribution that is made by the private sector, particularly in residential and nursing homes for those who do not require full hospital residence but wish to live in such an establishment, is substantial. The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates what is too often wrong with our health debates. The moment I make a favourable reference to residential homes run by voluntary or charitable bodies up and down the country he leaps up to defend the NHS. The two are not incompatible. We are talking about private provision, which is essential, and which adds to and supplements the NHS.
Mr. Clement Freud: Does the Minister accept that while my right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill and will not vote against it—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What is the hon. Gentleman up to?
Mr. Freud: Will the registration be a local or a national one? One has great fear that, if it is to be a local registration, the very people we want to get rid of will move from place to place.
Mr. Clarke: The present proposals are for local authority registration and inspection, which happens now. No one has complained about the quality of the registration and inspection. We are merely extending the scope of the present arrangements. I shall explain the other ways in which we are strengthening them. We shall consider in Committee the problem of what happens if undesirable characters are moving about. One suggestion is that there should be a national register. However, such proposals are often difficult to administer in practice. We shall consider the point and no doubt return to it in Committee.
Residential care homes will no longer be excluded from registering as nursing homes. The possibility of this dual registration will permit greater flexibility of care within a single establishment.
We propose to make substantial changes to the system. Regulations will specify the minimum frequency of inspection of residential care homes. It is intended that they should occur at least once a year. The maximum fine for operating an unregistered home will be increased from £500 to £1,000. In place of appeals to the courts, there will be a unified system of appeals to tribunals similar to those previously constituted under the Child Care Act 1980. To cover the cost to local authorities arising from their registration and inspection responsibilities, the registration fee will be increased from the present £1 and there will be an annual fee.
In addition to those legislative provisions, we believe that a non-statutory code of good practice could promote greater consistency of standards in many homes. Therefore, we have accepted an offer from the Centre for Policy on Aging to form a working party of people experienced in the care of the elderly and other dependent people to draw up such a code. The working party is now sitting. The National Association of Health Authorities has already set up a working party to draw up similar guidelines for nursing homes. Those changes will bring authorities into closer relationship with the private and voluntary sector and should, in many cases, result in an improved standard of care. This should in turn encourage authorities to make better use of the resources available to them in the private and voluntary sectors.
Social security adjudication is an abrupt change of subject, but the proposals represent an important reform that will be welcome to many hon. Members.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to talk about the Bill's proposals for dealing with children in care?
Mr. Clarke: I shall deal with that point briefly, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State proposes to deal with that at more length when he replies to the debate because he is particularly concerned with that aspect. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can hardly complain. I should have thought that it was better for a Minister to deal with the subject having heard hon. Members' views first. I propose to deal now with social security adjudication.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister can confirm that he will retain the House of Lords' proposals on mandatory training, we can save much time. However, if he insists on taking them out, many hon. Members will want to take time to argue the case.
Mr. Clarke: The Government are still considering their reaction to the House of Lords' proposals. We are consulting our colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself until we reach that stage of the Bill in Committee.
Benefit claims, appeals and adjudication greatly concern hon. Members in many constituency cases which come to them. There has been much criticism of the existing adjudication system over the years. Clause 18 and schedule 7 deal with that subject. The provisions are intended to improve the quality of adjudication and decisions and to demonstrate more clearly the independence of the arrangements for deciding benefit claims from the Department. We hope that the Bill will also speed up the process—another welcome improvement.
We are making four main changes. First, we are merging national insurance local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals into a new single network of social security appeal tribunals. The new legal structure of the supplementary benefit scheme that was introduced in 1980 has made that possible. The Bill will require all chairmen of the new tribunals to be legally qualified. I assure the House that the intention is not to make the hearings more legalistic or formal in any way. However, lawyers will be better able to cope with the detailed supplementary benefit regulations. Hon. Members will know that "detailed" is something of an understatement. In conducting the hearings they will also be able to ensure a better overall standard of hearing for claimants.
The change will not be made immediately. There will be a transitional period during which existing lay chairmen may be appointed as chairmen of the new tribunals. Members of the new tribunals will be drawn from panels of people with local knowledge and experience. Trade unions will continue to be invited to nominate members. Another important change will be to invite nominees from other groups which represent claimants, such as those representing elderly and disabled people and single parents.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that many chairmen with practical experience, who may not be legally qualified, could well take the advice of legally qualified men and could carry out the responsibilities of chairmen better even than those legally qualified but without such experience?
Mr. Clarke: As I have said, for those who have been chairmen the transitional arrangements will allow them to continue and to be appointed as chairmen of the new tribunals. There will only be legally qualified chairmen for future appointments. The other appointments will be laymen from trade unions and other organisations representing single parents and so on. Judgment, knowledge of the world and common sense will be a collective matter for the tribunals. The reason for having a lawyer as chairman is because of his familiarity with conducting hearings and his ability to cope with the maze of regulations which form the background to the claims
498
and to make a decision which is subject to proper judicial consideration thereafter in those few cases where things go wrong as a matter of law.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Why cannot men and women with knowledge of the world chair the committees and be legally advised? Why must we have a lawyer as chairman?
Mr. Clarke: We shall have a tribunal comprising a cross-section of experience. We shall have only a legally qualified chairman. There is no question of lawyers alone deciding what often can be very difficult matters of judgment.
In addition to setting up the new social security appeal tribunals, we shall appoint a president, regional chairmen and some other full-time chairmen to exercise oversight of the new tribunals. These appointments will help both to improve the quality of tribunal adjudication and to strengthen their independence of the Department of Health and Social Security. This part of the new tribunal system can best be explained to the House as being modelled closely on the arrangements for industrial tribunals, the procedures of which most hon. Members will agree have given rise to little or no complaint over the years since they were established. The move in that direction is a welcome improvement on the much criticised present arrangements.
In the first place, claims will be decided by independent officers simply called adjudicating officers. They will replace the existing adjudicating authorities—insurance officers, benefit officers and supplementary benefit officers. In addition, a new statutory post of chief adjudication officer is being created to provide guidance to adjudication officers and to keep the adjudication system under review. We intend that those changes will emphasise the unity and independence of the people who make the first decisions in every case.
The fourth change is to the arrangements for medical adjudication under the industrial injuries scheme. We are removing the present restriction on a claimant's right of appeal to a medical appeals tribunal contained in the proviso to section 108(2) of the Social Security Act 1975. At the moment that prevents a claimant appealing against a provisional assessment of the extent of disablement within the first two years following the reference of his claim to a medical panel. With the removal of the restrictions, the claimant's rights will be virtually unfettered.
We are also providing for disablement questions to be determined in the first instance by one doctor in most cases. A recent survey carried out by the Department showed that most disablement benefit claims involve relatively straightforward medical issues and do not justify the involvement of two doctors as is normally the case in medical examinations at present. Therefore, in future it is intended to use one doctor only, more extensively in the adjudication of more straightforward cases. However, I emphasise that two doctors will continue to be used in those cases where a second medical opinion is desirable. In due course, regulations will set out the circumstances in which two doctors will adjudicate.
Mr. Brynmor John: Who will decide whether two opinions are desirable—the doctor or the appellant?
Mr. Clarke: The regulations, which will be drawn up in due course, will describe the circumstances in which

499
two doctors will adjudicate. One makes a comparison with the kind of consultations and treatments that take place outside. It is plainly not the case that each and every claim for industrial injury benefit calls for a second opinion. We shall draw up regulations which attempt to define carefully and fairly those cases requiring two doctors.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it not a serious contempt of the House to say that in due course regulations will be drawn up? Any Government bringing forward a Bill should have the regulations in outline, at least, so that it can be seen how they fit into the Bill. Surely the Minister can tell us what is in the regulations.
Mr. Clarke: It is not an abuse of the House. When one seeks a regulation-making power, hon. Members in Committee legitimately ask either for the draft regulations, if they are ready, or for some explanation of what they will contain. We shall give that in Committee. All that I am describing for the purpose of this debate is that, because one will have to define with care the circumstances in which a second doctor is required, we shall take a regulation-making power to determine those circumstances.
Mr. John: It is not just the regulations. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not have a clue about the principle. What will the principle be? Will a second doctor undertake the examination jointly—not a second opinion—at the instance of the appellant, or merely at that of the other doctor or the tribunal?
Mr. Clarke: I shall say what we intend broadly; we shall go into the matter in greater depth in Committee. The regulations will include and stipulate all cases involving diagnosis or recrudescence of prescribed diseases or where the claimant has applied for review on the grounds of fresh evidence or unforeseen aggravation. In Committee we shall consider the precise range of the regulations and what else might be included. Taken together, subject to the detailed points which must be considered, I suggest that the provisions that we propose for social security adjudication will considerably simplify and streamline medical and other adjudication processes. They will strengthen the position of claimants and lead to a substantial saving in administrative costs.
Children's services have been referred to by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and others. As I said, those important parts of the Bill that deal with children's services will be dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security when he winds up the debate. The Bill makes a number of changes in children's legislation, which will provide increased protection for vulnerable groups of children. For example, paragraph 8 of schedule 1 gives greater protection to children whose parents have a record of child abuse, so that the child can be placed under a supervision order. The Bill provides that in cases where the parent refuses to allow the supervisor to visit the child, or to have the child medically examined, a warrant can be sought from the magistrates court. The warrant will enable a constable to search for and, in some cases, to remove the child to a place of safety.
Other changes introduced by the schedule will enable local authority services to be extended to wider numbers of children in care. We have also taken the opportunity to make technical corrections to earlier legislation to clarify its intention.
500
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will also give our present views on the difficult subject of parental rights and access to children in care, which we have been considering with considerable care.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I apologise for intervening a second time, but this is important. The Minister will recall that in another place the Under-Secretary made a commitment to engage in consultations on changes in social work practice and procedure for children taken into care. To what extent have those consultations taken place, with whom and with what result?
Mr. Clarke: Consultations are taking place with local authorities about guidance, but we are also considering the legal position. It is a matter that will have to be gone into if the Bill goes through. I suggest that in the interests of time my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should be allowed to deal with that matter as he intends.
Part VII deals with local authority charges, in particular charging policy for local authority services. The provisions are based on the recommendations of a working group of central and local government representatives, which reported in 1980. This is the Government's first opportunity to seek the necessary legislative powers. From looking at this part of the Bill, hon. Members will see that it is a detailed subject and we shall have to leave a great deal to be dealt with in Committee.
In general terms, the provisions have two main objectives. First, they seek to introduce consistency between the various powers under which local authorities may charge for the services they provide and the basis upon which charges are made by different authorities. Secondly, they are intended to secure a fair deal for those who have to pay the charges and, specifically, to ensure that no one who needs a service is charged more than he can afford.
Clause 11 deals with charges for day and domiciliary services such as home help, meals on wheels and aids and adaptations. For Scotland only, it embraces all the services provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, including charges for residential services and contributions towards the maintenance of children in care. If they make charges for these services, local authorities are required to set them at a reasonable level. Following discussions in another place, we are considering with local authority associations what should be taken into account in determining what is reasonable, the need to issue guidance to local authorities on this issue and the possibility and practicability of exempting from charges those on low incomes and with small capital resources. I hope that the discussions will be completed in time to report the outcome in Committee.
Family practitioner services and family practitioner committees are affected by part V. The Government are committed fully to the development of primary health care, which for most people is their main and, in many cases, their only contact with the NHS. We have shown our commitment in a variety of ways to the importance of improving primary care in inner cities. We have announced recently that we have earmarked £3 million to be spent on improvements in inner city primary care during the next financial year.
In our view, the proposals in part V will better equip family practitioner committees to make a full and valuable contribution to the provision of primary health care. The

501
Bill requires the Secretaries of State to establish, for England and Wales, family practitioner committees to replace those established by district health authorities. The purpose is to simplify the present complex administrative arrangements whereby the committees are accountable direct to the Secretaries of State for arrangements for the provision of family practitioner services but must look to the DHAs for their staff, accommodation and equipment.
The administrative dependence of FPCs on DHAs has caused problems of delegation and accountability and has led to the creation of an unnecessarily complex bureaucracy. Therefore, in future, if the House approves the Bill, the Secretaries of State will establish the committees and appoint their chairmen, vice-chairmen and other members. We intend to consult fully on nominations and preserve the traditional balance between contractors and non-contractors within the committees.
Mr. Mike Thomas: When it is generally accepted that the principal problem for family practitioner committees is not the bureaucracy of which the Minister speaks—although we are in favour of getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy—but their relationships with other parts of the health and social service departments and other bodies, how will moving them further from the ambit of the DHAs, rather than further in, help to integrate primary care?
Mr. Clarke: I agree that the hon. Gentleman has identified the main problem. That is why I am trying to point out that the Bill is concerned only with administrative arrangements and management responsibilities. It is important, of course, that we ensure that, whatever arrangement we have for the administration and employment of staff, we encourage close collaboration between the new FPCs and DHAs in the planning of provision of primary health care. We shall do that by ensuring cross-membership with DHAs. There will be members in common on both the FPCs and the DHAs. The DHAs will continue to be responsible for producing comprehensive local health plans.
We do not intend to extend the functions of family practitioner committees beyond those which they are at present required to undertake. At least one member of the FPC will be a nurse with community experience. We propose that there should be both formal and informal local arrangements to ensure satisfactory communications between FPCs and DHAs.
For the first time, family practitioner committees will also be represented on the existing joint consultative committees which involve local authorities in the planning of health and personal social services. Given that we shall be directly responsible for the FPCs in all the policies that we shall follow, we intend to try to bring about the closest possible collaboration between health authorities, FPCs and local authorities to produce the right service.
Mr. Mike Thomas: I agree with those worthy objectives, but can the Minister explain why the arrangements that he is now proposing will be more beneficial in integrating primary care into our health system than the arrangement that was recommended by the Royal Commission of the FPCs becoming primary care committees of the district health authorities? That is the logical thing to do. Is this not just a pay-off to a vested interest?
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt he will describe the vested interests which he believes we are paying-off. This legislation is designed simply to sort out an administrative tangle. At the moment the responsibility is direct to the Secretary of State. That is necessary because the Secretary of State is answerable for the overall standards of family practitioner services. However, those services look to the district health authorities for their staff. I shall return to this point, because I believe that it lies behind the fact that some hon. Members intend to vote against the Bill tonight. They are becoming excited about a change that concerns only management—who employs whom. The big issue is the policy. It is absurd for people to be excited about matters that concern bureaucrats more than patients. I believe that we are aiming in the right direction.
Mr. David Ennals: Surely this measure will add to, rather than decrease, the bureaucracy, which was the recommendation of the Royal Commission. Cannot the Minister see that point, and also that it will be much more difficult for joint planning if one has such a separately constituted body? Will there not be more centralisation and more decisions taken by the Secretary of State? Surely we wish to get away from that in the Health Service. It is staggering that the Minister should put forward such a proposal.
Mr. Clarke: At the moment there is a clear line of responsibility for these arrangements up to the Secretary of State. We are ensuring that management responsibilities and accountability lie in the same direction. All the other provisions that I have described—the cross-membership with district health authorities, the membership of the FPCs and the fact that we shall put the FPCs on the joint consultative committees—should mean that their policy objectives are brought closer together.
We also intend that the provisions governing public admission to meetings will be extended to FPCs and that their relationship with community health councils should be similar to that with the district health authority.
The only way in which we may be centralising to a modest extent is that the administrative expenditure of family practitioner committees will continue to be cash limited and subject to the same checks that apply at present to health authorities. They will appoint their own staff and be responsible for their administrative arrangements and management costs. Under the new arrangements FPCs will be both accountable to Ministers and called to account for their administrative expenditure.
Mr. David Crouch: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press the point about separation of the FPCs too strongly on the House and in Committee. He talks disparagingly about bureaucrats, but I have worked for 12 years in the administration of the Health Service and I am worried about whether this legislation will mean better or worse management. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will listen to the debate. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to explain my point of view as one who has worked closely with the Health Service for a long time.
Mr. Clarke: Most people who have been connected with health authorities have decided that such matters should be the responsibility of health authorities. Most

503
people who have served on family practitioner committees have told us that their duties should not be given to the local authorities, but should be separate. I respect my hon. Friend's long experience on a regional health authority, but the question of who appoints whom is not the biggest issue facing those services. All that we shall ensure—
Mr. Ennals: Why change it?
Mr. Clarke: We shall change it because, as I explained a moment ago, the arrangements left to us by the right hon. Gentleman are a dog's breakfast. No one suggests that we should carry on as we are at present. We have chosen to go this way because it gives a clear line of accountability to the Secretary of State and it enables us to cash limit the administrative expenditure and to make the committees accountable for efficiency. [Interruption.] Obviously Opposition Members, as they have shown throughout the afternoon, are worried about anything that reduces the costs of the Health Service. I do not know which union is briefing them on this matter, but no doubt a union is upset that the people concerned might be in the wrong branch if they are transferred.
There is a division of opinion in the Health Service, but we are trying to get clear lines of responsibility for administrative expenditure. At present the Secretary of State is responsible for the services provided. Every other policy and initiative that we are taking will encourage closer collaboration between local government, health authorities and FPCs. The management changes are unimportant compared with that.
Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman has condemned himself with his own mouth. If he wishes to cash limit those operations, which I do not dispute, why does he not include them in the district health authorities, which are cash limited?
Mr. Clarke: If we cash limit the administrative expenditure of FPCs, one can hold them clearly accountable for the part of the expenditure that they incur. If we muddle them all up with the district health authorities, that will become more difficult. The judgment is finely balanced. I assume that the hon. Gentleman does not object to our cash limiting the administrative expenditure of the FPCs. We are describing a clear way of making them accountable.
I shall not describe the other provisions in the Bill in detail. I hope that I have mentioned the major areas. However, several other proposals will improve legislative arrangements generally, although they do not introduce major changes. Part II introduces more flexibility to the planning of children's services. Part III provides for a reduction in membership of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and permits more flexible working arrangements for the council. Part VI enables doctors who have been suspended from the medical register on the ground of ill health to be paid during suspension. Part VIII removes an isolated statutory requirement to set the fees for notification of infectious diseases by statutory instrument and abolishes several bodies which, in our opinion, have outlived their usefulness.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister went over part III very quickly. I appreciate that the details of education can be considered later. Part III refers to
504
persons resident in Great Britain, but it is the only part of the Bill that also deals with Northern Ireland. Should it not talk about persons resident in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Clarke: If that part of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, we may need a drafting amendment. However, we shall let the hon. Gentleman know our opinion on that before we go to Committee and we can discuss it and correct it, if necessary, in Committee.
The Bill received a broad welcome in the other place and it contains many enlightened social reforms and changes in the administration of the social security system. I hope that we shall not hear from the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) or from anyone else that the Bill is controversial. I was told at one stage that the Opposition would vote against the Bill on Second Reading as a matter of principle. The Liberal party has already pledged its support and the Social Democrats appear to be quite happy. The hon. Lady's reaction to most of our policy proposals is so predictable that I fear that, if she is not careful, she will bounce up to vote against this measure before she has thoroughly reflected upon the worthwhile changes that we have made. I wait to hear what lies behind any anger that Opposition Members may feel, and I hope that it is not simply their objection to the new arrangements for the family practitioner committees. That is an argument about management and how best to reduce bureaucracy and is not the main point of the Bill.
A vote against the Bill would put in jeopardy the "Care in the Community" proposals, the improved protection of vulnerable children, better standards for nursing homes, better decisions on appeals in benefit matters—[Interruption.]—The hon. Member for Crewe does some extraordinary things and I should not be surprised if she invites her hon. Friends to vote against all those matters simply because once we get on to a part of the Bill that deals with simplifying administration and sorting out a managerial tangle the Opposition will have listened to other people. One can always rely on the Opposition parties to oppose anything—
Mr. Mike Thomas: The Labour party.
Mr. Clarke: The Labour party has its priorities, as we have ours. The Bill makes it clear that our priorities are the better care of patients and the improvement of the system, and it will be widely welcomed for that fact.
5.30 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a good thing that we are debating this Bill on a day when it has become clear that the Conservative party has an interesting view of the welfare state.
We were told by the Prime Minister earlier that she believed in the setting up of the family policy group because that would enable everyone to have greater choice. It seems that there is a new virility test in the Conservative Government for their brothers—certainly not for their sisters because they do not seem to have any sisters in the Government. The brothers have to give evidence that they are a bigger vandal than anyone else by bashing the welfare state. Apparently, Ministers have been asked to put up ideas about policies for which they have no departmental responsibility. That is one way to get carefully researched and thought-out policies.
What is intended after the next general election, if the electorate are conned into allowing the return of the

505
Conservative Government, is the reduction of the welfare state to the point where it is simply a minimum safety net for welfare needs. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the family policy group has been set up not just to advise. She has apparently asked for specific decisions, and the decisions that she is looking for are only too clear.
The right hon. Lady regards any kind of welfare provision as being the responsibility of the family. She defines the family in an extremely narrow way. For her, the woman of the household is the one who should be encouraged to stay at home and the one who should have responsibility for the disabled and the elderly. The Prime Minister also apparently suggests that in future the woman of the household should have responsibility for the unemployed 16-year-olds because she intends to remove any benefit from those who make the grave mistake of not finding a job or of getting themselves on to one of her unworkable work schemes.
It is not only those sectors of the community that will be affected. The single parent families will be affected. The family policy group demands whether the present policies strike the right balance between adequate child support to prevent child poverty and encouraging responsible, self-reliant behaviour by adults. What utter hypocrisy. We heard today from the Minister how many children are living in families where the income is below that which should be acceptable in any civilised country. We know that there are increasing numbers of single parents in the community. Yet the Government are seriously considering whether they can change the support given to those in need.
We desperately need a change in primary care. If the Minister had presented a Bill that was not just a ragbag of odds and ends of improvements and tiny adjustments here and there, but a positive way of moving money into the community and of shifting resources from the NHS to where they are most needed, he would have had the warmest welcome ever. It is not acceptable simply to say that community care is wanted if one is not prepared to talk about the finance for providing precisely the services that make the difference in the community.
The Bill could have provided us with a heaven-sent opportunity for a new beginning, but instead of seizing the chance to relaunch the National Health Service and the social services the Government have run away from major problems. Care in the community should represent a commitment to improving the quality of life for those who are most deprived. One cannot dump the old or the mentally handicapped or mentally ill back on to already over-burdened local authority services and say that one is caring for them where they are happiest.
One improves community services by making sure that not only the local authorities but the social services departments and all the relevant NHS services have sufficient money to back up staffs that provide that high level of care that should be endemic in any such idea.
I welcome in the Bill acceptance of the fact that joint financing is the way that both the NHS and the social services can begin to promote that level of care in the community. Unfortunately, the Minister, who has been congratulating himself on the widening of the terms of joint financing, has omitted to say that the amounts of money involved are very small.
506
Unfortunately too, in the overall financing of the NHS, the amounts allowed for joint financing are minimal. We should also take account of one very worrying factor. It is nonsensical to suggest that joint financing will be able to replace existing funding in social service budgets. Without confidence in real growth, local authorities will not take on new commitments or new schemes. They have made it clear that they are exceedingly reluctant even to consider extending the amount of joint financing.
In 1981, 22·2 per cent. of the area health authorities reported that they would not take on any new joint financing, and, although the Minister has told us that £96 million is to be allocated for this purpose in 1983–84, it will now have to stretch very much further than before. Local authorities have been subjected over the past three years to direct attacks on their social service budgets. The effect of that has been to cut back on the amount of sheltered housing, on the provision of personal social services and on the community services that would make the difference that the Bill envisages.
We realise, then, that the extension of the categories, about which we have heard so much today, is an empty gesture. There is no point in providing improved rules or access if there is no money on the table to provide the services when it comes to the point of committing the budget. The Government, almost inevitably, give the impression that they desire to unload responsibility for certain categories of the ill and underprivileged on the community, but not to pay for the services.
Pilot projects of £15 million over five years sound very impressive until account is taken of the existing cuts in local authority finance that have already restricted the provision of their services. The Select Committee on Social Services has already said that, although many local authorities have gone out of their way to protect their social service budgets, they are now having to accept that even those vital services are suffering from the effect of Conservative policies.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: If the local authorities are as short of cash as the hon. Lady is suggesting, how are they able to waste many millions of pounds on campaigning for such things as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and on such wasteful and irrelevant things as declaring an area to be a nuclear-free zone? Would it not be much better if that money were spent on the joint financing scheme?
Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is involved in a firm from which somebody has been appointed to look at the management of the NHS and should be extremely careful before intervening, not least because one suspects that the reason the managing director of one of the grocery firms has been appointed to carry out this survey is that there are already many low-paid people in the distributive trades, and presumably he has a great deal of experience in making sure that not too many staff are taken on on proper rates.
Mr. Sainsbury: That is a gratuitous attack on an able manager, instead of an answer to the question, and it is characteristic of the hon. Lady. I take it that she wants the NHS to continue to be as badly managed as possible so that the worst possible service is given to the patients.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I want the National Health Service to be managed by people who understand that patient care is not the same as dealing with tins of baked beans. Some Conservative Members seem unable to understand that.
Most aspects of the Bill are concerned in some way with primary care. The Minister has dealt with a number of them. Like him, I apologise if I seem to leap from one subject to another. One of the problems is that the proposed legislation is so unstructured. I shall take the various matters in the order in which I believe that they should be considered.
With regard to the family practitioner committees, the Minister said that he hoped for far closer integration of planning and services in the National Health Service in the future. Anyone who knows anything about community care knows that only with close integration of the primary care services, the NHS and the local authorities can the health of our people be improved. Unfortunately, far from being more closely integrated into the work of the NHS and the local authorities, the FPCs are actually being moved in the opposite direction. Serious planning cannot proceed when one arm of the primary care services is in some ways divorced from the district health authority.
Our objection to the Bill's proposals is that there is already a difficulty in relation to the independent status of the general practitioner. To exacerbate that by creating an independent structure for the family practitioner services is not, therefore, a very constructive decision.
There is also considerable criticism of the Minister's decisions about the appointment of FPCs. In the past, there was some local input through the local authority representatives. Now, however, the Secretary of State apparently intends to remove that local involvement. He intends, for example, to appoint the chairmen and vice-chairmen himself. In the past few years, we have had a great deal of experience of what happens when the Secretary of State appoints representatives. The chairmen appointed in the reorganisation of the district health authorities seem far more noted for their commitment to the interests of the Conservative party than for their knowledge of the Health Service. If the Secretary of State intends to follow that example in this case, one must be very worried about the chairmanship of family practitioner committees.
The Secretary of State has also made it clear that he intends to act as a kind of filter for local nominations. Instead of those nominations being accepted, he apparently now intends to decide which of the people nominated are acceptable to him. We already know of the instance in which the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), wrote to various family practitioner committees asking for information about the political affiliations of some of their members. It was explained in the House that this was not because he really wanted to know their political affiliations but because he wanted to know how to address a letter. Some people—I am one of them—find that rather difficult to swallow. If there is to be direct political control over the membership of health authorities, the Minister should say so openly rather than making out that he is simply proposing a small change in the administration for management reasons. The proposal is that the Secretary of State will not only appoint the chairmen and vice-chairmen but will filter the other nominations from local organisations.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady has now passed her first and only example of our alleged political bias in making appointments. She does not do the reputation of the service or anyone else any good by scraping the barrel in an attempt to make out that all the appointments are party political. The biggest change made since I have been in office was the appointment and reappointment of the 14 chairmen of regional health authorities. The hon. Lady has several times alleged that they were all political appointments. Of the 14 appointed, three have been—one certainly still is—active members of the Labour party engaged in politics. The idea that we showed party political bias in those appointments is plainly nonsense. What we did and shall continue to do is to choose the right people for the job.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I can only say that it is extremely interesting that the Minister knows the political affiliations of the chairmen appointed. That gives strong support to my point. He has still not made it clear that the local authorities or the locally nominated members will effectively be chosen by the people concerned and riot by the Secretary of State.
The Minister made a great deal of the question of cash limiting family practitioner committees. It is helpful at this point to consider the whole subject of the financing of those committees. In 1950, the general medical services co-ordinated by the FPCs took up 30 per cent. of the NHS budget. By 1982–83, the proportion had fallen to 22·8 per cent. Over the past five years, spending on FPCs has increased by 127·2 per cent. and on the NHS in general by 113·6 per cent. Those are gross figures, however, and include the extra revenue from charges. These rose from £98 million to £303 million in the same period. Under this Government, the gross increase in FPC spending has been 93·1 per cent. compared with 88·2 per cent. for the NHS generally, but charges have increased from £105 million to £303 million or 188·6 per cent.
Therefore, talking about cash limiting the FPCs gives a very different picture from the amount that ought to be considered. The Select Committee on Social Services reported that FPC growth after pay and price increases was 4·6 per cent. If one subtracts from that the amount needed for demographic change and the high-tech factor it becomes a 0·9 per cent. cut. If the Secretary of State intends to control the FPCs, he will have to explain on what basis that calculations is made.
There is a good case for examining the entire role of the general practitioner in relation to the NHS. Ministers have the Acheson report and they must now take urgent action rather than simply saying that they intend to do something in the long run to improve primary care services. In considering the provision for general practitioners, they should examine the way in which the GP's role is integrated into the planning of the National Health Service.
The entire Bill directly affects primary health care in a number of ways. The Government are very free with their advice to patients and families to consider how many more of the elderly should seek accommodation in the private sector. In that context, I welcome the proposal for registration of old people's homes in an attempt to create a proper code of practice. When we reach that point in Committee, however, I shall be asking the Minister why

509
many provisions that I regard as elementary and important are not written into the Bill but left, presumably, to a voluntary code of practice.
Why, for example are no standards for homes in the private sector, in terms of staffing or general qualifications, written into the Bill? Why is there no written commitment to fire standards and safety standards?
I find very worrying the suggestion that the problem of increasing geriatric illness in our society can be contained by hiding people away in ghettos that consist of old boarding houses with minimal conditions. This development should be closely monitored. Why is it suggested that there should be only one annual visit to inspect such premises? There should be a minimum of one visit every six months. One visit should be made without warning. I hope that the Government will state clearly their intention to extend the inspectorate. I should like to see a national register of all the homes, of the qualifications of the owners and the managers and of people who, for one reason or another, have been removed from the list because of unsuitable behaviour. That information should be readily available not only to local authorities but to the families of patients. I should like to see a new clause accepted by the Government to extend those powers.
I wish to deal now with the worrying question of the divesting of assets of elderly people going into homes. There is no point in hon. Members discussing the use of geriatric units as a means of rehabilitating the old or improving the access to physiotherapy and psychogeriatric care if we introduce restrictions on the taking over of assets that would affect directly the chances of old people being able to go back into society and back into their own homes. I should have expected the Government to accept that the disregard in this instance should be the same as that for supplementary benefit. It should be £2,500 and not £1,200. Nowadays, such a sum could easily be available to an elderly person. It could make all the difference if they hoped to go back to their own home.
The elderly at home are extremely important. Cuts in social services budgets affect them immediately. I was told only this week of the case of an elderly patient who, as a result of cuts in the social services budget of a local authority, is now being put to bed by nurses at six o'clock in the evening. The woman occupies sheltered housing where the warden goes off duty at night. Because she is left for a considerable number of hours, she frequently gets up in the middle of the night. If she falls over, the emergency services have to be called to put her back to bed. If one calculates the cost of using the police and ambulance services as a means of replacing social services provision in terms of community nurses, one comes far closer to an accurate assessment of the cost of present Conservative policies upon people in their own homes.
In talking of the elderly, one also has to take account of other services such as home helps, meals and day care. Spending on day care has increased from £30·6 million in 1979–80 to only £31·8 million in 1980–81, expressed in 1980 prices. On home helps, spending fell from £196·8 million to £193·3 million. On meals, spending fell from £28·8 million to £26 million. Even these figures are overoptimistic. Once the increasing number of elderly is accounted for, the service levels per thousand aged over 65 fell by 8 per cent. for home helps, by 5·3 per cent. for meals, and by 2·6 per cent. for day care. There is a
510
consistent drop in the provision of support services for the elderly who are most in need. Nothing in the Bill even accepts the extent of the problem, let alone seeks to do anything to provide new funds.
I shall deal now with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. It is difficult to understand why the changes made by the Bill are not more widely based. I was convinced that the Department would have consulted the social workers on the whole issue of training. It is known that the CCETSW is giving urgent attention to the training of social workers for approval under the provisions of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 which the Minister himself piloted through the House. It is therefore important that the standards of training in social work must be highly professional and acceptable to a wide number of people in the health professions. The Minister appears to be suggesting that there will be a drop in numbers in the council and that he will not be required to balance the interests of the bodies that are represented on it.
Why is the Minister not prepared to accept that he will not be able to produce high standards of training unless the council's work is carried out with the advice and help of everyone concerned? Why is the whole question of a mandatory grant not written into the Bill? The Minister has stated today that he is having talks with the Department of Education and Science. It seems that, if the level of professional social work is to be improved, money will have to be made available for training.
As many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall conclude by referring to the major issue of child care. I have been very disturbed by the attitude of the Government towards the maintenance of a national council to consider the effect of legislation on children. One of the most depressing and frightening features of the rising level of unemployment that the Government have engineered is that those who suffer most when there is great social stress are the children in the family. There is a rising tide of child abuse. The social services are being called upon to provide support in many more cases where there is not open abuse. It is therefore essential that all legislation should be examined for its effect on children. The Government did away with the council that would have reflected precisely that commitment. Although it was a statutory obligation, they have done little to remedy the fault. There should be an advisory council on child care. It should have a statutory responsibility to examine the effect of the work of this House on every family.
This is an unsatisfactory Bill, not least because it does not contain any of the changes that would have made a difference in primary care. The Government are free with their congratulations to themselves about their commitment to the National Health Service. In fact, they have no interest in, and no desire to improve, either primary health care services or the National Health Service as a whole. The Prime Minister has made clear that she believes that choice is a matter of depriving most of the underprivileged of the services that they require even to lead a civilised life. She has made it clear that it is her intention to move rapidly towards a system where the NHS is only a minimum safety net providing minimal facilities for those most in need.
The Opposition will divide the House because we regard the FPC decisions as unacceptable. We are concerned with the section on child care. The Labour party believes that the Bill is indicative of the view of the

511
Government. It might have had a direct effect in improving patient care but in the event it does nothing to provide improved services.
6 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I shall not be as intemperate as the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her closing remarks. That is not how I feel about the Bill. Some parts of the Bill disliked by the hon. Lady are disliked by me, especially clause 8, which relates to the rearrangement of the family practitioner committees.
The hon. Lady introduced a strong political criticism. I am not making a political criticism of the Bill. I have seen the National Health Service at work for more than 12 years, and not only as a politician. As a member of a regional authority, I have served under five different Secretaries of State.
There have been Health Service debates on reorganisation over many years, and the House knows that I have frequently expressed concern at the separation of the provision of health care by the FPCs from the general central management—the NHS. How have they got away with it? They have done so under successive Ministers in successive Governments. They have flown in the face of strong recommendations made by the Royal Commission. The House is further separating the unique and distinct body of men and women who constitute the general practitioner service under the umbrella of the family practitioner committees.
I see clause 8 as the FPCs final break with the centre of management in the Health Service. From now on they will be dealing direct with the Secretary of State and the Department. I do not wish to say anything divisive or contentious this evening, but I wonder whether this is really right.
Schedule 4 provides that there will be essential links between the family practitioner committees and the district health authorities. When the second reorganisation of the National Health Service set up the district health authorities, it was said that they were the key to the management and delivery of health care. I am glad that there will be a link with this key to good management. It is not for managers alone to consider whether this or that system is good. Management must produce the right service for the patients—those who need the service. That is an important element of management.
The FPCs are to have the essential links that are spelt out clearly in the Bill. There is a need for co-operation. That is what these links are about. The schedule implies that there is a need for co-operation between the FPCs and the DHAs, especially as they are to be separated. It refers to securing and advancing
"the health and welfare of the people."
We all agree with that. There is nothing managerial about that. That is the aim of all of us in spending thousands of millions of pounds on the Health Service. We want to be sure that we are delivering that service and advancing
"the health and welfare of the people."
I am not convinced that the separation of the FPCs will produce better co-operation and advance the health and welfare of the people. There was considerable debate in the other place on this point. I have read the lengthy debates. The other place brings to these matters much expertise and knowledge of health provisions. I do not
512
think there are many there like myself—there are one or two—who can be categorised as managers, but there are many distinguished physicians and surgeons who can speak with great authority from many years' experience of the problems that they have seen.
I do not think any of the noble Lords spoke in a party political sense. The essence of Lord Rea's speech—I am not allowed to quote exactly what he said—was that even today, under the existing arrangements, it is not easy to communicate with the FPCs. Everyone who works at the sharp end knows that that is so.
As a layman in the Health Service, I recognise that it is difficult to deal with the FPCs. Why are doctors difficult, touchy and edgy? Why do they want to draw back so often? Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. They sometimes regard the things they do as secret—nobody must interfere with them or give them directions because there is a great secret involved. Perhaps it is only psychological, in the background and in the subconscious. I admire enormously the men and women in medicine at all tiers. However, I suspect that they sometimes find themselves wanting to withdraw into their shells because there is a secret involved.
It is essential that there should be co-operation between the GPs and the FPCs in the planning and delivery of primary health care. This is the most important element among those other specialties. If we can ensure better health at the beginning of one's life on this earth, we may be able to stop those other specialties from being required later in life.
Family practitioner committees are being given a clear signal that they are to be regarded as something special, distinct and different. They will deal directly with the Secretary of State. They are to be removed from the responsibility of improving services in the localities that they serve. I do not think it is intended, but they will be separated from the district health authorities.
I have taken part in two major reorganisations of the National Health Service. They were quite traumatic as we worked them through our system. We keep looking to see whether we should still further perfect them. General practitioners have never been fully integrated into the Health Service or in its planning for health care. They have always somehow eluded us. Neither the National Health Service nor patients have benefited as a result.
The National Health Service has always been criticised. Indeed, I have been a leading critic. I do not hesitate to say that. When one works in the Health Service, one tends not to visit general practitioners to see them at work but to visit hospitals to see what they are doing. This is the big element. I have often criticised the use of hospitals which were built more than 100 years ago and which are struggling to give a good and adequate service.
I have not often been able to get near GPs to criticise them. Why should I? We cannot enter GPs' consulting rooms, have a look round and say, "We are members of the regional health authority. We have come to have a look at you." Even the members of the community health councils cannot do that. I do not think that it would be healthy for the Health Service to have people looking over the shoulders of GPs all the time. However, when GPs form group health centres and group surgeries, they are proud to show them to us. These centres and surgeries are institutions, like small hospitals, and the GPs are proud to show us that they have a variety of services at their beck and call. We visit them because they are small institutions.

513
There are often pleasant reception-waiting rooms, and sometimes there is even a pharmacist at the end of the corridor. The doctors are proud to show the miniature hospital service that they can provide through their group surgery or group health centre.
Such a service costs a great deal of money and must be contrasted with the service that one of my constituents found recently when she attended the doctor in her village. The doctor, who was not a young man, had no partner. She told me that his office looked like—I hope that those in another profession will forgive me—a provincial solicitor's office. Apparently all the records were piled high on the doctor's desk and on other tables.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman's constituent should see my room in this place.
Mr. Crouch: The doctor was smoking a cigarette, and his first remark to the patient was "Would you like a fag?"
Mrs. Renée Short: How disgusting!
Mr. Crouch: This may seem an exaggerated description, but it is true as recounted to me. However, my constituent told me that he was a good doctor. His records could be found after a little searching among the documents on his desk. That is an example of the old type of management in the Health Service that is not easily spotted.
We criticise the Health Service but it is making advances. The service is improving. There are new specialties and new advances in medicine all the time and they are being made available to the patient. Above all, the NHS is for ever becoming more integrated with our general social needs. It marches alongside the social service departments. There may be criticism about how effectively the integration is taking place, but successive Governments have sought to bring the two services together to produce a general social as well as a health provision. The Bill goes a long way towards helping to bring about this unity.
The FPCs have chosen to work on their own; they are distinct and separate. I believe that they are out of step and out of time. I have described the atmosphere in an old surgery, but I have heard the FPCs described as quill-pen organisations. The GPs continue to work in the important area of primary health care. That is where the patient starts. Information about the patient begins to be obtained in the GP's surgery. That information is of interest not only to the GP and his patient. One of the advances of the NHS has been in information technology and computerisation. There is a need for computerisation to be population-based as well as patient-based. We need information for health observation generally. We need to develop at-risk registers. We need to improve screening techniques and immunisation records to expose dangerous gaps that are developing and signal essential needs so that we may try to eradicate them.
I am concerned that the separated FPCs may slow the process of population health statistics and studies which I believe to be important. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that the FPCs will co-operate less in the arrangements that the Bill will introduce. I may be thinking too much along the lines of a manager and bureaucrat, which, of course, I am not.
514
My concern is for the patient. I have been trying to perfect and streamline management in the NHS for years to help the patient. I work closely with other members of health authorities, including GPs, consultants, nurses, administrators and others. The GPs have always been on the sidelines watching the game, unlike the consultants, who, from the very day that the NHS was set up, have been in the centre of things—in the middle of the scrum.
I am prepared to accept my hon. and learned Friend's assurances that he can achieve a better line of communication and better co-operation with the FPCs as the Government propose to set them up than if they remain in the present somewhat confused situation, in which they are neither one thing nor the other. I have always said that I would prefer to bring the FPCs into the DHAs and to involve doctors in all aspects of health provision, care and management. However, I shall be generous towards the Government. I have enormous regard for my hon. and learned Friend. In the short time that he has been the Minister for Health he has achieved a firm grasp of these complex issues. He has an understanding of the patient as well as of management. However, I am concerned that there might be separation in Health Service management instead of the complete involvement that could have been achieved by a different allocation of resources. This could have been achieved within the DHAs.
The provision of primary health care through the GP is something more than visiting or receiving a visit from him, the family doctor. The doctor has—or should have—a team behind him and a great variety of services at his command. He has much to offer his patients in the provision of primary care—for example, health visitors, midwives, district nurses and chiropodists. Can my hon. and learned Friend assure me that the FPCs and the GPs will work in full co-operation with the DHAs in the employment of their medical staff and nurses? There is some concern in the Health Service that they may go on their own and not integrate with the DHAs.
My hon. and learned Friend has implied that I have been thinking as a bureaucrat. I have merely sought to comment on the observations that I have made on the spot. I feel that there could be disadvantages in what the Government propose, but I hope that I am wrong. I hope that my concern that there might be disadvantages will be taken on board by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must ensure an effective integration of the FPCs and GPs if we are to make real progress in the delivery of primary health care.
6.19 pm
Mr. David Ennals: I hope that no one will accuse me of political prejudice in having confirmed the appointment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) as a member of a regional health authority. I did so because I thought that he would be an extremely good member of it. His speech today has shown his deep understanding of the National Health Service. One of the troubles about so many of his colleagues is that they do not understand it. They are not present today, and that suggests that they do not want to understand it.
I welcome several parts of this polyglot Bill. It contains good things and bad things. I welcome the extension of joint financing, which was introduced when I was the Secretary of State for Social Services. It was clear that the next step had to be housing and education. The system was

515
established and the decision to extend has now been taken. I warmly welcome the registration and inspection of residential care homes.
My third welcome is for the provision of mandatory grants for training social workers. I hope that the Minister will say whether that will include approved social workers under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982. There is much anxiety about where the resources for training approved social workers under the new Act will come from. It was a little strange for the Minister to present a Bill, parts of which he was not sure whether he supports. As the Bill was presented in the other place by Baroness Faithfull and supported by others there, I should have thought that he would know whether he approves of it. I hope that the Minister will answer that point when he replies.
There are also parts of the Bill which I deplore. I do not need to go into the points which the hon. Member for Canterbury made about what I call the hiving off into limbo of the family practitioner committees. That is contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I shall take the issue no further than that. I hope that the Minister will read carefully what his hon. Friend said. It sets out clearly the great mistake that the Government have made in that part of the Bill.
I also oppose those parts of the Bill that relate to charging for social services. The Bill was being discussed a few years ago, before the present Secretary of State took over from his predecessor. There was then a different team of Ministers. It was a miscellaneous provisions Bill, which we knew would appear. Many of us hoped and expected that if it did not take the action that we wanted it to take, the matter would be dealt with through the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).
There could have been a restriction on advertising. We could have done something to tackle the massive problem of the 50,000 people who die prematurely each year as a result of smoking—induced diseases. The Minister knows that that represents a massive cost—about £150 million a year—to the National Health Service. If he wants to save money, why does he not provide for that problem? I know that it is difficult to do so in a Bill that has a title as long as this one, but why did the Minister not introduce generic substitution? That is another way of saving a massive amount of money. Someone has suggested £30 million. I think that it is more likely to be £100 million or £170 million. That is a large sum of money, which the Health Service needs desperately. I hope that the Minister will say that he will be prepared in Committee to examine this problem and measures to combat smoking, so that we can save a substantial sum of money that could be used in other parts of the Health Service that desperately need it.
Mr. Pavitt: Perhaps I might give my right hon. Friend another figure. The Pharmaceutical Association has said that there would be a saving of £29 million on 11 drugs alone.
Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is just a small number of drugs. In general, the figure is much higher.
Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ennals: No, I should like to get on. Many hon. Members deeply resent the fact that, as a Privy Councillor, I have been called at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members obviously like me more than I thought.
There is no attempt in the Bill to relieve the acute financial pressure on the NHS. Whatever twist the Secretary of State makes on the NHS's public expenditure circumstances, he knows that the service is not growing. Indeed, in many areas, there has been a decline in its services. This is the first time that that has ever been the case.
I shall quote from the Nursing Standard, which is the paper of the Royal College of Nursing. I thought it best to choose a body for which I know the Secretary of State has a great respect. It said that
"a substantial part of the extra £100 million has to be found from savings health authorities themselves will be forced to make through 'efficiency saving'—the now well-known euphemism for cuts.
Indeed, the minister said that £40 million will come this way.
And much of the £60 million that is left will be automatically absorbed by simply keeping pace with the growing demands on health services."
The growing demand comes especially from elderly people. If one subtracts the £40 million that health authorities must save from the non-existent 1·2 per cent. which the Secretary has claimed is additional money, the true growth rate comes to 0·7 per cent. As the Minister knows, 0·7 per cent. is precisely the figure that we must provide every year to meet the growing needs of elderly people. Right across the nation there is a nil growth rate, and in many parts there are cutbacks.
The article in the Nursing Standard, quoting the Secretary of State, continues:
"In 1984–85 and 1985–86 health authorities are again expected to release further resources towards development of services of half per cent. in each year through continuing improvements in efficiency."
The picture that we have now is that which the Secretary of State promises we shall see for the next few years if he continues as Secretary of State. I hope that he will not have the opportunity to be responsible for the Health Service.
The Bill makes it clear that there will be no allocation of funds to the things that the Opposition welcome. Paragraph 13 of the explanatory and financial memorandum says:
"There will be no additional public expenditure."
Paragraph 14 talks of
"small savings in administration costs."
Paragraph 15 says that the flat-rate charge "may reduce receipts", and paragraph 16 talks of a
"net saving of approximately £2 million."
Paragraph 18 says:
"The financial consequences of the remaining provisions of the Bill will be negligible."
There are many things to be done but no money with which to do them. The Royal College of Nursing is not alone in holding those views. We must ensure that the money is made available.
We must also examine the Bill in the light of other things that are happening. The Think Tank's proposals to carve up the welfare state and to demolish the Health Service as we know it will now be temporarily shelved. If the Conservative party is re-elected, the proposals will come out, be dusted down and be ready. As was revealed in The Guardian today, a series of Ministers, chaired by the Prime Minister, are making plans that will crucify the welfare state that was designed by Lord Beveridge 40 years ago and implemented by successive Governments.

517
When we examine the Government's commitment, which the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, to their advertising campaign on behalf of recession-hit private bodies such as BUPA by inviting civil servants to pay their way into private insurance schemes, we can see the Conservative party's commitment, or lack of it, to the NHS.
Although there are many issues on which we shall agree in Committee, the next election will be fought not simply on issues such as the restoration of our shattered economy and the arms race, but on the future of the welfare state, to which the Opposition are deeply committed. I am all for self-reliance—the Government repeat that again in the Bill—for those who can be self-reliant, but it leaves in the cold, quite literally, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the disabled and families who survive only on unemployment and supplementary benefit.
I want to make two or three brief comments, and the rest I shall leave for Committee. I said that I welcomed proposals to extend joint financing. I agree with the reaction of the Association of Directors of Social Services, which said:
"While we welcome the increased flexibility in these arrangements, our overall reaction to the Government decisions 'Care-in-the-Community' has been one of deep disappointment. Our evidence maintained that these measures would be seriously undermined if they were not backed up a substantial increase in funding".
Even with joint financing, unless much more money is pumped in, what is done for housing and education will come out of what is being done for the social services. I believe that there should be guarantees. Many patients remain in hospital who could be better cared for and at no cost to the community if resources were made available to local authority social services departments. We have to look at the funding of both the NHS and social service departments.
Part IV deals with residential and nursing homes. With the growth in the number of elderly people, and the fact that local authority services have not kept pace with their needs, there has been a substantial increase in residential homes for the elderly and handicapped. Some of these private homes are good and I pay tribute to them. I have visited many of them in my constituency and elsewhere. I have no objection whatsoever to the involvement of the private sector, in co-operation with the local authority, in helping to meet the needs of these people.
Some homes are, however, very bad, and many homes that have high standards welcome the fact that there is to be registration, because they believe that all care homes should have the same high standards. Unfortunately, some homes are in the business of making money. That should not be their purpose. Age Concern said:
"At its best the private sector home is very good but at its worst it represents a scandalous exploitation of elderly people, who may be dumped by uncaring relatives with no questions asked for as long as the money lasts".
Of course all these homes should be licensed—whether by local authorities or by a national registration agency, I am open to persuasion. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) that inspections must be frequent and effective—at least twice a year. Moreover, I believe that they should be without warning. These homes should not have the opportunity to scrub everything, get people happy and give them good
518
meals for two or three days before, so that all the recollections are of good things. A proper inspection, in my view, is one that is carried out without warning. That is extremely important. Certainly there should be a list of homes that have been refused registration, or homes that have had their registration cancelled, so that they do not turn up, as has happened, in other parts of the country.
My final point concerns charges for local authority services in part VII. I am fundamentally opposed to the concept of charges for home helps. In Norfolk, even people on supplementary benefit are now charged for their home helps. It has meant that many people either do without them altogether or reduce the time for which they receive help. There is no doubt that charges deter. The home help service, which in the late 1970s was steadily expanding, is now contracting. This is appalling, at a time when we know that demand is growing and will continue to grow. Home help service is crucial to the health and the well-being of an increasing number of elderly people. It should be provided on the basis of necessity, and without charge to the client.
There are many other points that I could put and which I hope will be put in Committee. There are a number of items in the Bill that we welcome, but there are a number that we deeply deplore.
6.34 pm
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Despite what the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said about the voluntary sector and the role played by home helps, for example, I am sorry that he will not support the Bill, because it deserves to be welcomed. Its simple aim is to help the elderly and handicapped. I welcome it particularly, because it helps the voluntary sector which needs help. That sector provides excellent services for the community, and the community and the Government should help it. Let us take a simple view of the Bill and recognise that it does its best to support those people who wish to serve the community.
I shall concentrate on part I, which follows the consultative document "Care in the Community", published in 1981. Part I seeks to put some of the document's facts and recommendations into effect. I support part I and the voluntary sector for three reasons. First, it is quite wrong to believe that central Government can cope with all the health and care needs in any community. I have been in Parliament now for just over three and half years, and one of the main lessons that I have learnt is the incapacity of central Government to care for a community. However much money is poured in, great gaps are left in the care provided by central Government. That care can be provided only by people who know the community and the individuals, and have a passion to help. They fill in the gaps out of a sense of compassion and humanity.
Second, the voluntary sector uses many of the good features of any community. It gives people who want to help the community an opportunity to serve their fellow men, and it helps those who receive help from individuals. An example of that in Lincoln has been the establishment recently of a volunteer bureau. I visited the bureau last week, and it does a good job. People who want to help voluntary organisations, and who are perhaps out of work, go to the bureau and are directed to whatever voluntary activity suits them. This is an excellent service, and it shows the need in any community for voluntary effort.

519
The third reason why I support the Bill is that it makes sense to look after people within a community. That is what the people who need help want. They do not want to go into an institution or hospital. They would much rather stay in the community of which they are part, and where they are within reach of their friends and of the activities that interest them. Moreover, in times of economic difficulties, it is often much cheaper to look after people in the community. Once a person is in an institution, costs mount. That seems to be an irreversible law. If one wants economy of achievement and value for money, the aim must be to look after people in the community.
Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, except in the most unusual circumstances, if one provides proper support services in a community, it is usually more expensive for people who have anything seriously wrong with them to stay in the community than to go into institutional care. It is in the quality of life that the benefit lies, not in cost savings.
Mr. Carlisle: I would not agree with the hon. Member on all counts. There is no doubt that in Lincoln studies show that to look after old people in the community costs very much less than looking after them in a home. It may be right in some circumstances, but it is certainly not right in the majority of cases.
I should like to mention two examples in Lincoln where voluntary effort can be of tremendous help to the community. First, we have a very active and vigorous Lincoln Association for the Care of the Elderly. I have visited their two day centres and they are building up their facilities to include rooms where people may live as well as visiting on a day basis. I am tremendously impressed by the voluntary effort that goes into them. Several hundred people help with care in the centres in a variety of ways. One of the chief benefits is to organise a system where volunteers look after elderly people in a district to see that they are all right. They visit them once a day or every other day according to need. That is all organised on a local basis. The help and boost to morale that they give to local people is most impressive.
The other organisation in Lincoln which should be mentioned is Mencap, which looks after mentally handicapped people. It was set up entirely by voluntary effort and not only provides a day centre for these people but keeps them within the community and provides a helpful back-up service to parents who love their mentally handicapped children but find it a great burden to look after them throughout the day. They are enabled to go on holiday or have a day off. I am most impressed by the time that these dedicated people give voluntarily to that organisation.
There are many such institutions. I have already mentioned the elderly. We have two other small homes set up by people who like the elderly and wish to look after those who have left their families or who no longer have families to look after them. Thus they are kept in the community rather than going into local homes.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What about the hon. Gentleman's predecessor?
Mr. Carlisle: She has another seat, thank goodness.
Those homes could not do that without help from the local authority. This Bill will provide more help.
520
It is interesting to note that the aspect of joint financing has been warmly welcomed by Age Concern. I am sure that many Labour Members will also welcome it.
It is right to encourage voluntary effort, as this Bill sets out to do. It is both foolish and arrogant for any group of people to believe that Government can provide everything. They cannot. As I have pointed out, there are gaps in the provision of care and it is up to voluntary groups to fill those gaps. In the last year of the Labour Government only £33 million was provided for joint financing. That figure has risen, last year and in this year, to over £800 million. This shows that the Government have been prepared to put money into the voluntary sector.
I know that the efforts of the Government to support the voluntary sector have encouraged those who give their time and effort to it. Because of the trouble the Bill takes to look after people in need, I hope that Opposition Members will consider supporting such a worthwhile measure.
6.44 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I follow the hon. Member for—I forget the name of the constituency and in any event it would be wrong to mention it yet again—who has given the House a completely new concept of the words "community care". This is such a ragbag of a Bill that it is very difficult to make a Second Reading speech. However, I welcome the Bill in general, and, seeing each other as we shall do in Committee, we shall know, as soon as the sittings motion is moved, how the wind will blow. I hope very much that it will blow favourably.
The most important aim of the Bill is to support community care by bringing people out of hospital and into the community. Helped by new provisions for joint financing, it extends joint arrangements to include housing and education in addition to local authority and voluntary social services. However, no extra money is available and, as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said, community care is not a cheap option. In order for it to work effectively and to prevent people being left to suffer in their homes, more money should be made available. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman is that joint funding is not the creation of wealth; it is the confusion of finance.
In part VII, clause 11 sets out what will be subsection (5) of section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948:
"Where a person avails himself of any service provided under this section, the local authority providing the service may recover from him such charges (if any) for it as they consider reasonable."
We shall without much doubt amend that in Committee. It is generally accepted that when charges are made take-up falls dramatically. Like all Members on the Opposition Benches, I am fundamentally opposed to the concept of making a charge for what should be a statutory duty.
A study of the home help service in Warwickshire in 1977 found that clients paying full charges averaged 1·5 hours fewer per week than the average client and that part-payers received 0·7 fewer hours; that is, half. A study in Huntingdonshire in 1970 found that most home help organisers considered charges to be a deterrent. It is easy for the Government to publish figures and to ignore the fact that we now have more old people in need of more home helps. They publish not per capita but only global figures, and that is cooking the books in the way in which at 195 Melrose Avenue they apparently cooked people in

521
depth. Age Concern believes that the home help service is so crucial to the well-being and independence of elderly people that it should be provided on the basis of necessity and without charge to the client. I have always had a great admiration for Age Concern and agree with it fully on this.
At present local authorities can assume parental rights over children in an authority's care without telling parents, and they can do this on the advice of a social worker. This derives from the Poor Law Act 1889, passed in response to evidence that parents were placing children in the workhouse and allowing them to remain there when they were 10 years old and able to work. The Conservative party has often been accused of trying to send children up chimneys. If this is its concept of the meaning of "market forces", it must be reconsidered.
It is wrong that a child placed voluntarily into care can have parental rights transferred to the local authority without the knowledge of the parents and, in practice, on the advice of only one social worker who must, in theory, satisfy himself and the social services committee that one of several grounds is proved. It is only after the local authority has assumed parental rights that parents have to be told. They can then appeal to a juvenile court. An amendment must be introduced to give the power to assume parental rights of children voluntarily in care to juvenile courts in the first instance and to allow parents to be heard and represented.
On the registration of licensed residential and nursing homes, the Bill at present obliges local authorities to keep a register of residential and nursing homes. I mention local authorities because this is critical. I asked the Minister whether he agreed that this should be national, and he said "No". It is a worrying concept that if one has licensed premises, such as a public house, one has to go before the magistrates and information in respect of the licensee's suitability may come from all over the country. Anyone may object, and the police give evidence. The same applies to a casino. It ill becomes this or any Government to be seen to care more deeply for the drunks and the gamblers than for the old, the frail, the halt, the lame and those who most need help. The vast majority of homes are well run by caring people, but we all know that there are abuses. It seems to me wrong that it should be local authorities, counties, and not a national licensing system that is the deciding factor.
The British Association of Social Workers goes further than I do. It believes that local authorities should have the ability to establish from the police whether or not a person has committed an offence. In view of the seriousness of the offences which are committed against old and helpless people, I would not oppose that.
We are fortunate in the House in having a Minister for Health with legal qualifications, for I believe that parts of the Bill which deal with tribunals are those which can be understood and argued only by professional lawyers. The new tribunals are required to have legally qualified chairmen. My argument here is that there is no provision for at least one member to be representative of work people. Schedule 7, in paragraph 2, gives a wide discretion:
"The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in that area."
522
My argument is that there should be employee representatives, and I think that the Secretary of State's discretion should be cut back.
I shall mention the advice from the Child Poverty Action Group because it is sound and because the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was so signal in its achievements. It suggested that, rather than having a lawyer as a chairman, what was needed was a proper system of independent clerks not employed by the DHSS so that, just as magistrates do, tribunal members would have expert advice if they needed it. The Child Poverty Action Group lawyers argue that the more legally qualified people there are on tribunals, the more legalistic the tribunals will become. In any event, they will often be second-rate lawyers, because that is the only appeal of that sort of tribunal.
This is not a bad Bill. It should not be opposed by anyone who cares for people. Let us give it a Second Reading, let us get it into Committee, and let us try to make it into a better Bill.
6.52 pm
Mr. Timothy Smith: The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred in her speech to the inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently set up to examine the management of the National Health Service. She was extremely dismissive of it and seemed to think that it was of no consequence. There can be no doubt but that there are real problems of management within the National Health Service and I, for one, very much welcome the inquiry.
I found interesting the exchanges on the Secretary of State's statement about trying to encourage health authorities to put certain services out to tender. There seems to be a complete failure on the part of the Opposition to understand that, if resources in the Health Service are limited, we must examine ways in which we can secure more economy, efficiency and effectiveness and greater value for money. If we can reduce the cost of some services without at the same time reducing the quality, there will be additional resources available for patient care.
The division of cost is about 30 per cent. on services which have nothing to do with medical or patient care and about 70 per cent. on the balance. If we could change that balance within a given amount of resources, it would be a welcome shift. Of course we should all like to see additional resources made available to the Health Service but it just will not happen at present. Therefore, I believe that the Government are right to take initiatives to see how we can ensure better value for money in the Health Service.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said that there had been no real growth; but over the past four years there has been considerable real growth in the provision of resources to the Health Service—more than 5 per cent. including, out of this year's provision, 0·7 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said that all of that was consumed by the increase in the number of old people who make demands on the service. That is undoubtedly the case, but there have been real increases in resources over the past four years.
The right hon. Gentleman referred yet again to the Think Tank report. I wish to make my position on this absolutely clear. I wish to see the National Health Service remain largely in its present form. I want it to be a

523
universal service, but I want it to be made a more efficient service so that we get better value for money. The right hon. Gentleman extended this point by saying that the welfare state as a whole was under attack from the Conservatives. Again, I wish to make my position clear. I believe it is not under attack from this Government. The Government's record on pensions is good in a difficult period—I am referring not only to the recession but to the fact that the number of pensioners has risen substantially, by more than 500,000 since the last election. The Government have been able to preserve the real value of the pension.
The Bill has been described as a ragbag of measures, but it is none the worse for that. It may be difficult to make a Second Reading speech, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who has just left the Chamber, said, but that is hardly an objection to a Bill if it includes a number of important provisions, as the Bill does. In particular, I welcome part I of the Bill, dealing with community care. I welcome its emphasis on encouragement for the transfer of patients and resources from the hospital service to community services. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, in introducing the Bill, mentioned that resources had been increased by 51 per cent. I think he was speaking in real terms. In fact, total expenditure in this area has risen from £33 million four years ago to £85 million in the current year, which is a substantial increase. I welcome that, too.
I welcome in clause 1 the extension of the law so that payments can be made for housing and educational purposes as well as for social services purposes. All the changes in part I of the Bill will be highly beneficial.
I have only one caveat about part I of the Bill with regard to the financial control and accountability for jointly financed projects, about which a report was recently made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely referred to this point when he spoke of the confusion over finance. There is some danger of confusion because if the objective is to transfer resources from hospital to community services we must ensure that this happens. In the report published in January, the Comptroller and Auditor General examined this area and said that in his view health authorities were not giving this the consideration that they should. He said that
"health authorities did not hold documentation showing that full consideration had been given to NHS as well as local authority priorities in a choice of schemes; or that there had been an evaluation of the objectives, likely costs and expected benefits to the NHS of schemes. Few of them had objectives set in terms of transferring patients from hospitals to the community. Further, health authorities did not obtain comprehensive information from local authorities enabling them to monitor the implementation of schemes and the benefits accruing to the NHS."
There is clearly room for improvement in monitoring the schemes. If we are to commit additional resources, as we are doing, it needs to be considered by the Department.
Part II of the Bill deals with children and young persons. I very much support clause 3, which gives local authorities more autonomy over children's community homes. I have only one concern which arises from the inquiry by the Select Committee into children in care. There are three types of community homes—local authority homes, and two types of voluntary homes, controlled and assisted. The ideal provision in any local authority area is a partnership between local authority homes and voluntary homes.
524
We were therefore concerned to hear from witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee evidence that some local authorities are hostile to the voluntary sector. If there is hostility, in mail cases it is probably based on ignorance and on misunderstanding about what the voluntary sector can provide. Sometimes it may be based on ideological and political objections. If that is the case, it is much to be regretted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) said, the voluntary sector has a major contribution to make.
Part III of the Bill deals with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Following an amendment in another place, there is included in the Bill clause 6(8) which provides:
"Grants for the training of social workers shall be mandatory and funded either by local education authorities or from central funds."
I support the objective behind the subsection. We need a higher standard of social worker. The Select Committee will probably reach this conclusion as its inquiry into children in care develops. The quality of the provision of social workers is patchy. To some extent, their training involves too much theory and not enough practical work. I hope that clause 6(8) will be retained. I understand that the Government's only reservations about it are in regard to cost. Their estimate of the cost is widely at variance with that of the Association of Directors of Social Service, whose estimate is £2·8 million while the Government's estimate is apparently £13 or £14 million. The Government will have to consider that.
On part IV, which deals with residential homes, nursing homes and so on, the latest figures, which are for 1980, for residential homes covered by this part of the Bill show that there are 3,700 homes and 70,000 residents. These numbers are likely to increase substantially in the next few years. The existing legislation is in large part more than 30 years old and there is now considerable emphasis on physical standards as opposed to standards of personal care.
In answer to a question which I put down last October, the Government announced their conclusions in the light of the comments received on the consultative document, "A Good Home". I welcome the changes which appear in the Bill, and particularly the fact that standards of care will be set out in a code of good practice rather than in the measure itself. I disagree entirely with the right hon. Member for Norwich, North, who wanted these matters to be set out in the Bill. If they were, that would create a rigidity which would make it difficult in future to update the standards as the quality of provision changed. The matter should be dealt with in a code of good practice.
Part V, covering the organisation of the National Health Service, is the one part of the Bill where I am not as confident as the Government about the merit of their proposals. I listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister had to say about this part of the Bill. I understand and share the Government's objectives. I agree that we should try as far as possible in the Health Service to simplify bureaucracy, that we should try to improve efficiency and accountability and that we should help collaboration within the Health Service for the benefit of patient care.
I support the Government's objects, but I must put a question to them. The Royal Commission recommended that family practitioner committees should be abolished

525
and integrated with the health authorities. Would not abolition of family practitioner committees simplify bureaucracy? Surely that would reduce bureaucracy.
I cannot see how separation would improve efficiency and accountability. It might in certain circumstances, but we could apply the same argument to any other part of the Health Service and put that forward as a reason for separating that part. I am not aware, however, of any proposal to separate any other part of the Health Service, so that is a weak argument. I do not see how separation will assist collaboration. Again, special arrangements are proposed to improve collaboration, but abolition would inevitably improve collaboration.
Going back to efficiency and accountability, if the only way those aims can be achieved is by hiving off part of the Health Service, that is an indictment of the whole structure of the Health Service. What needs to be done is to make arrangements to improve efficiency generally throughout the Health Service.
I have that one reservation about the Bill. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says later. With that reservation, I very much welcome the Bill.
7.6 pm
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The most remarkable aspect of the Bill is not so much what it contains but what is missing. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to make important and fundamental changes in the law, many of which would have been welcomed by Members of all parties. For example, the Bill does not contain any provisions or proposals to reform the law, practice or procedure as it relates to children in care.
There is growing dissatisfaction with the law, with the procedures and with social work practice as they relate to children in care. There is an increasing number of injustices and scandals. The Select Committee on Social Services is examining the matter. From the evidence produced before the Committee, there seems to be a complete mess, with conflicting interests. The inquiry might perhaps be best undertaken by a Royal Commission. Certainly there must be a fresh examination of the practices, procedures and the law.
Problems arise because far too much power is vested in the hands of individual social workers and social work committees. I understand why that power was given to them. At the time it no doubt seemed sensible and reasonable to give enormous discretionary power to professionally qualified, trained social workers who would look after the best interests of the child and whose prime concern would be the welfare of the individual child.
I have endorsed, in principle, the welfare orientation, but, given its application in practice, and given the increasing number of anomalies, injustices and scandals, it is necessary to shift the balance away from the welfare model and from social workers to a judicial model and to the courts.
Parents and children want rights and they want to know what their rights are in relation to social workers and local authorities. They do not have rights. Social workers have far too much power and often act arbitrarily, making decisions for which they are not accountable. They are allowed to exercise almost unfettered authority over the lives of children and parents.
526
In the Bill we must move in two important directions. We must take away from local authority social service departments the power which they currently possess to impose parental rights orders and to take away from parents their rights over their children. That power must be vested instead in the juvenile courts. We must ensure that the parent and the child have the right to appear in court to be heard and to be legally represented. That is the only way in which we can redress the balance, which has gone too far in favour of local authorities.
At the moment, the social worker reporting to the social services department makes the decision, often in the complete ignorance of the natural parents. The local authority in effect assembles, collates, and provides the evidence. It cross-examines its officials in private. It acts as judge, jury and executioner. The parents' interests, if they are taken account of, are not properly represented where they count, which is where the decision is made.
It is indefensible for issues of human rights of that magnitude to be dealt with through administrative procedures. I cannot accept that, fashionable though it may have been a decade or more ago, and well-intentioned though the present legislation was, it is right and proper to take away the rights of parents and destroy the life of the child and its family by an administrative measure decided in secret behind closed doors. It cannot be defended. We now have the opportunity, which we must take, to change it.
The same applies to the present system of denying parents access to children in care. Local authority social workers who are responsible for children in care, voluntarily or compulsorily, have the right, which they exercise, as my postbag has demonstrated overwhelmingly, often arbitrarily, to cut off a parent's or relative's access to the child in care. The parent has no proper course of appeal to the local authority or any other organisation.
I have been overwhelmed by the horrifying accounts of the way in which children have been denied proper access to their parents. We must take that power away from unaccountable and irresponsible social workers and social work departments and bring it back to the full light of day in the courts. Those who suggest that that will in some way interfere with good social work practice are wrong. The social workers who are making the right decisions for the right reasons will have nothing to fear when their decisions are challenged, analysed, discussed and, presumably, approved in open court. Those who are making the wrong and inappropriate decisions will have a great deal to fear, and so they should in such a sensitive and important area as this.
We have the opportunity with which the Bill presents us to make a major fundamental reform in care practice by giving the courts the power, when a child is being taken into care, to determine what access that child will have to its parents and relatives and what access they will have to the child. They should have the power to impose a mandatory obligation upon the local authority to spell out to the court its proposals for renewing the access provisions for the family of the child. It should give the right to the child as well as the parents and relatives to go back to the courts at any time to vary the terms of the access order.
Mr. Timothy Smith: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not disagree with any of it. Is he suggesting that, while the Select Committee on

527
Social Services is considering the issues to which he has been addressing himself, we should legislate on those matters in the Bill?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The House does not wait for five or six members of a Select Committee to report, as the hon. Gentleman should know. I am a member of the Select Committee. I have never known the Government wait for its report. I have known them wait for the report but still ignore it. The Bill is before us. The House should grab the opportunity presented by the Bill with both hands and run with it. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Opposition and, I think, some Conservative Members will take that opportunity in Committee.
Two other important issues have not been raised, which demonstrate the failings of the Bill. It could have been an opportunity for the Government to take legislative power to earmark Government funding for specific projects, which at the moment are regarded as national priorities but which do not get resources at local authority or health authority level. I am talking about intermediate treatment and services for drug abusers or misusers.
It is generally acknowledged that intermediate treatment should be central to any policy for dealing with juvenile delinquency. The system has been encouraged increasingly by the Government. In intermediate treatment, there is counselling for and constructive work by young people in the community, who acquire skills and become positive contributing members of the community instead of juvenile delinquents. The system works. We know it works on the grounds of cost, because it costs about £100 per child per year up to, in the more sophisticated schemes, £2,000 to £4,000 per year. That is a lot of money, but it is only a little compared to the alternative of £10,000 per child per year in a local authority community home, £9,000 in a borstal or £8,000 in a detention centre. The system works on that basis.
The system also works on the girls and boys who would otherwise have been given a custodial sentence and gone to borstal or a detention centre. The intermediate treatment schemes catering for that clientele are producing recidivist rates of about 35 per cent., which is considerably less than the 83 per cent. in detention centres or the 76 per cent. in borstals. However, only slightly less than £12 million in the current financial year is being allocated to intermediate treatment as opposed to the £197 million that is being spent on local authority community homes with education, observation and assessment centres.
The other schemes are variable in their sophistication and the constructive approaches that they provide. They are also patchy in their distribution, with, for example, 10 per cent. of local authorities taking well over 36 per cent. of the total budget that has been allocated.
I know that the Government are giving active support and encouragement to the establishment of further intermediate treatment schemes. I acknowledge that the Government gave an extra £2 million under the Criminal Justice Act for intermediate treatment schemes to be set up. However, they must acknowledge that there is no certainty that local authorities in receipt of the money will use it for the purpose for which it is intended unless the Government take powers, for which the Bill provides the opportunity, to earmark the money specifically so that local authorities cannot use it for other purposes.
The Minister must acknowledge that in the absence of those powers local authorities receive the money and use
528
it for other purposes. There are no votes for the setting up of intermediate treatment schemes. When they are in competition with higher priority services provided by local authorities, they inevitably lose. As a result more young people get into trouble and are shovelled off into the social dustbins of local authority community homes or penal establishments. Precisely the same arguments apply to the services for drug misusers.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am hesitant to intervene, but I am not clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he has registered the fact that on about 22 January—certainly quite recently—the Secretary of State announced a £15 million programme over the next few years specifically earmarking money for new schemes by voluntary bodies, sponsored by local authorities, for intermediate treatment.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I have not overlooked that. I omitted to mention it because I am trying to rush through my speech. If the hon. Gentleman is to quote what his Department is doing, he must get it right. The £15 million that his right hon. Friend announced for intermediate treatment is not for one year, but for five years, so it is a small amount of money and is still insignificant in relation to the £197 million that goes on community homes with education, observation and assessment centres.
The £15 million is not earmarked for a specific purpose. The Secretary of State would like it to be spent on intermediate treatment, but he has no powers at the moment to insist that that is the way in which local authorities will use it. That money is going not to local authorities but to voluntary organisations. No doubt we shall argue about that in Committee. The principle is the same. If the Minister's point is valid, why is there such an enormous variation in the provision of intermediate treatment? Why do some areas have it and some not? Why do some areas have extensive comprehensive schemes and others patchy and superficial schemes? The answer is that there is no central financial control.
Precisely the same problems arise over the facilities and services for drug misusers. The Minister will know that the advisory council on the misuse of drugs, in its report on treatment and rehabilitation, published in December, pointed to the dearth of facilities for drug abusers, to the inadequacy of services in many areas, to the fact that those services were overburdened and that an increasing number of drug abusers were imposing strains on the already overstretched services.
The report also said that the voluntary organisations, which are so important in this field and which have been so much lauded by hon. Members this afternoon, are doing a magnificent and important job under considerable pressure, while spending most of their time fund-raising rather than meeting the needs of drug abusers at the sharp end.
Again, the problem is lack of resources. Services for drug abusers are being provided by local health authorities, but because there is no obligation on them to do so, and no central funding, the services that they provide differ markedly from one area to another. There is no standard of provision. There is no uniformity. Therefore, we end up again with a patchy network of services and in areas such as Cumbria, the home counties and the north midlands there are no clinics at all for drug abusers.

529
There are 20,000 opiate and barbiturate addicts in Britain and only 229 places in rehabilitation hospitals and only seven off-the-street agencies in five cities. Massive areas of Britain are completely bereft of any services for drug abusers and misusers. Whole areas of Britain have only the services of the general practitioner. If we are to meet the needs of an increasing number of deprived, disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals, it can be properly done only if the Government are prepared to take powers to provide resources which are specifically earmarked for the provision of that service at a local level.
Drug abusers, like juvenile delinquents, do not generally have a great deal of political clout or leverage. They do not get resources because they do not have votes and they cannot compete with the more attractive facilities of maternity or kidney units. Therefore, their needs are neglected and left behind. Unless we are to have more drug abusers in greater difficulty taking up crime and ending up in the penal system, the Government must ensure that funds are available and specifically tied to those facilities.
I hope that we shall be able to improve the Bill in Committee, to change fundamentally and radically the law as it affects children in care and to provide, in at least two areas, and perhaps in many others, proper finance and services for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable of our fellow citizens. It will then be a Bill of which we can be proud.
7.23 pm
Mr. Mike Thomas: The discernment of principle in the Bill is rather difficult. As Second Reading debates are supposed to be about whether hon. Members support the principle of a Bill, I share the difficulties of those who have said that it is extremely difficult to avoid degenerating into Committee points. As I do not want to do that, I shall make a brief and, I hope, constructive speech.
First, I should like to clear up any misapprehension on the Conservative Benches as to the Social Democratic party's attitude to the Bill. We shall support the Bill and not seek in any way gratuitously to obstruct its passage through the House. We welcome it in the main, although without great enthusiasm, and we share the concerns of those hon. Members who have already pointed to omissions and deficiencies. However, it is fair to say that those are not such as would prompt one to embark on a criticism of the Bill in principle. Indeed, part I will enable health authorities to support housing and education expenditure, and we welcome the fact that it will make joint financing more flexible. We do not want to make a great fuss about that.
One omission I refer to is more because those who have gone before me have done so than because it relates directly to the Bill. It is certainly the case that a move to implement the Greenfield report and extend the practice of generic substitution of drugs, common in most NHS hospitals, to community pharmacies would make substantial resources available to implement the objectives that the Government claim are behind the Bill. I find it a little hard to be lectured on the topic by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), because when he was Secretary of State I and other hon. Members lobbied him and his Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), and we had no
530
response at all and no movement in the direction towards the position that the Labour party has now somewhat belatedly come to occupy. Any legislative change that is needed to implement that provision certainly could and should be contained in the Bill and would make a welcome financial contribution.
My second point concerns primary care systems and, in particular, the family practitioner committees. When the Minister opened the debate, he was kind enough to allow me to intervene several times on this topic. I am grateful to him for that, because it means that I do not need to labour the point now. However, let us be quite clear. We know, because the noble Lord Trefgarne was kind enough to write to the noble Lord Kilmarnock to tell him so, that the claimed support of great battalions for the change that the Government propose in the status of family practitioner committees is based on the supposition that 56 per cent. of those who made representations about the proposal were in favour while 44 per cent. were against. In that letter the noble Lod Trefgarne, no doubt inadvertently, did not make clear which representations were made in which direction.
I referred earlier to vested interest. It seems to me that it is natural and not all that sinister that those who are involved in the functioning of the family practitioner committees at the moment should want to sustain an independent status and not want to be integrated into the district health authorities.
There may be general practitioners who feel, in my view erroneously, that their independent contractor status might be threatened by the incorporation of the family practitioner committee into the district health authorities which have influenced some professional bodies in that direction. Who knows? It is hard to tell. All I can say is that the move does not seem likely to save money or to allow primary care to be better organised than under the alternative proposal, which is to integrate the family practitioner committees into the DHSS to turn them into primary care committees of the district health authorities. If the only case that can be advanced for the Government's proposal is that 56 per cent. were in favour, that is a weak case indeed. I hope that we shall be able to return to that in Committee and that Conservative Members who have taken the same view on this matter will serve on the Committee and perhaps help to change the Government's mind about it. That would be the most important improvement that we could make to the Bill, and I hope that it will be made.
However, I agree with the Minister that that is not a matter of such moment that we should want—as I gather the Labour party does—to vote against the Bill. That would clearly be nonsensical—but it must pursue its nonsensicalities. I hope that the Government will not seek to reverse clause 6(8) which deals with mandatory grants for certain kinds of social workers' training. It seems a useful contribution to the Bill by the other place.
We shall not obstruct the Bill. We believe that it can be improved. Our specific difference is with the proposal for family practitioner committees. No doubt there will be other Committee points that we can take up subsequently. We wish the Bill well.
7.29 pm
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) will forgive me for not taking up his points about generic

531
drugs and family practitioner committees. However, I am glad to support the Bill and his comments about the Labour party's attitude to the Bill, which were borne out clearly by the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who spoke about what would happen in Committee, but started with a rather grudging statement that he was opposing the Bill, not because of anything it contained but because of what it did not contain. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that that is a nonsensical attitude.
I support the view of the hon. Member for Ormskirk that there are genuine grounds for anxiety about parental access to children in care. Like him, I have constituency cases where it is difficult to make a judgment, but one is left sometimes with the suspicion that, with the best of intentions, county council social services have leaned away from providing parental access. They have not even encouraged the child to respond to letters or keep in communication with parents. Occasionally they have taken the child into care a little too readily.
We are aware of the distressing cases that have occurred in my part of the country, but it is necessary to strike a balance. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Ormskirk was right when he suggested so much access to courts, but it is a matter to which the Government could well direct their attention and there will perhaps be more detailed discussion about it during the Bill's passage.
I want to direct my remarks to part IV, which is perhaps not altogether surprising as I represent Hove where we have no fewer than 72 private homes for the elderly providing 800 beds and a further seven local authority homes providing 322 beds. I do not know whether we are at the top of the league, but we must be near the top, for the residential care premises with which part IV deals. In my constituency there are many elderly senior citizens, the vast majority of whom live in the community and not in residential premises.
East Sussex county council has some imaginative schemes which are proving extremely effective in providing help to the elderly in the community, in particular, the intensive domiciliary care scheme which I hope we shall see extended throughout the country. It appears to be a more cost-effective way of providing greater help to those who are frail and at risk in the community than the traditional home help scheme. There are several parts of the Bill which will help those who are not living in residential care premises.
I welcome what is set out in part IV about residential homes. I was somewhat amazed and rather disappointed at the attitude of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs Dunwoody), who spoke for the Opposition, to this and every other part of the Bill. It seemed to reflect what has become, unhappily, the traditional Labour party attitude to the NHS and the personal social services. They seem to approach the NHS with the feeling that the system should be run for the benefit of the staff rather than the patients. If anyone suggests anything which might be a way of providing a more efficient and cost-effective service, or of improving the service, which might be seen in any way as infringeing what the unions would like, the Labour party is wholly against it. The patients' view—the value-for-money approach—does not seem to figure at all. I hope that the Government will continue their search for ways to improve the quality of the service to the patients and to provide better value for money.
532
I welcome today's announcement about the contracting out of certain non-medical services. I know of no better way not just of improving the quality of services—we must all know of NHS premises where the food is not perhaps all that it might be—but of providing some measure against which one can test the performance of particular hospitals: whether the in-house or the contracted-out service provides a better performance, standard and value, which is what we should be seeking.
I welcome also the management study that is being conducted. I thought that the attitude of the hon. Member for Crewe to it was nothing short of disgraceful. She seemed to assume that management was a speciality and that unless one was born, bred, brought up and spent one's life in the National Health Service, one could not possibly be qualified to express a view on the NHS management structure. It shows an astonishing ignorance of management. The Health Service management, which is being looked at, is the management of administrative functions which are common to businesses in the public and private sectors.
I should have thought that anyone who had any experience of the Health Service would have been prepared to agree that there was considerable scope for improving the management expertise which is brought to bear upon the non-medical functions in the Health Service. By improving that management, we shall improve the quality of the service to patients and produce savings which might then be used to provide better services for those most in need. Surely that is what we should concentrate upon. In that context, I believe that the approach of the hon. Member for Crewe to the Bill and the management survey was extremely disappointing.
Mr. John: As the hon. Lady's surrogate—
Mr. Mike Thomas: That is terrible.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman should be so lucky, is my only comment. I shall put to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) the fundamental misconception which many of his kind bring to this subject: running a business is not the same as running an industry which cares for people, because the end result is different. The firm of the hon. Member for Hove wishes to maximise profit; we want to maximise public good. Often the best and most efficient way of managing the Health Service is to ensure that the managers take the time and trouble to explain to often bewildered patients their rights and what is being done for them. That does not happen in the private sector.
Mr. Sainsbury: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. One has to deal carefully with bewildered, ill, elderly and frail patients, but it does not mean that one cannot see whether the laundry, the catering, the cleaning and the administrative paperwork is being done as efficiently as it could be done. The qualities required to ensure that are exactly the same in the public and private sectors.
One will succeed in the private sector, in whatever form of business, only by providing good value for money and what the customer wants. That is never more trae than in retailing. It can be done only by being efficient and by bringing to bear the analysis of the service that the customer wants in the most efficient way. Surely that is what we are seeking with regard to the NHS.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe

533
(Mrs. Dunwoody) on the ground that the qualities which managers bring to private business are exactly the same as those needed in the NHS. He is now saying that they are not, but that the laying out of the biscuits might be roughly similar.
Mr. Sainsbury: We run the risk of operating a parallel debate which would be wrong. The management of people and administrative services is common to all types of business. I do not believe that it is being well done in the NHS. It should be done better, and when it is not only will there be better service for the patients, but we shall obtain better value for money and release resources to where they can be used more effectively.
I welcome the convenience and clarity of having all the relevant provisions for registration and inspection of residential care premises set out in part IV. It is convenient both to those responsible for inspection and registration and to the owners of those premises. I am especially glad that it will become mandatory to have at least one inspection a year. Some hon. Members have said that that is not enough, but all of us recognise that in many homes even one inspection would be superfluous. I do not say that there should be no inspection, but the local authority will know the quality of the management and the service provided and will expect to find a thoroughly satisfactory position. It will not need to worry about revisiting the premises in three or six months. However, authorities can make more inspections in premises where they have reasonable cause for doubt, and I hope that that will take place.
I welcome the increase in penalties for operating unregistered premises. That will be an assurance to many people who have parents, grandparents and other relatives in homes, because sometimes there is suspicion that registration does not mean much, that the premises are not registered or that the premises have declined in standards since registration, and that inspection is not taking place. The provisions will be a worthwhile safeguard and will help to bring up the standards of the poorer homes to those of the better.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Crewe—who is not present but who is ably represented by her self-confessed surrogate—that we should try to write into the Bill detailed standards covering the staff numbers required in residential care premises. That is unrealistic, because there is a widely differing range of circumstances in homes. Some provide nursing care while others provide only residential care, and the incapacities from which residents suffer and the care that they require often differ. To try to cover those matters in detailed provisions is impractical and would lead not only to inflexibility but to an incredibly long Bill.
The hon. Lady also suggested that the Bill should include standards for fire precautions. I welcome the belated publication of the code of guidance on fire precautions in residential premises which was published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is comprehensive and I am sure that it will be of great assistance to local authorities in carrying out the inspection and registration of premises.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State two questions. When will the code of good practice be available, because that will be very important? I hope that
534
it will not be too long before it is available to help both the operators of premises or those responsible for inspection. Will members of the community health council also have the right of access to and inspection of premises? If not, in what circumstances will it be open to members of the community health council to inspect premises?
I regret the fact that the Labour party will vote against the Bill tonight. Labour Members seem to be more interested in scoring political points than in care in the community. However, I welcome the opportunity that they provide to show my support for this worthwhile Bill by voting for it this evening.
7.44 pm
Mr. Frank Field: It is easy to follow the contributions that we have heard tonight because I, with them, find it difficult to make a speech on Second Reading of the Bill. The Minister understood our difficulties earlier when he described this measure as a dog's breakfast. He said that he hoped that we would not vote against the measure because it is uncontroversial. If it is so uncontroversial, I hope that he will come to the Committee with an open, but not an empty, mind and consider carefully the suggestions for improvement that we put forward. He would be well advised to do so, because the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) seemed to map out the ideal way for a Government supporter to deal with his Front Bench when he disagrees with a measure. With considerable generosity of spirit, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Minister's abilities and then tossed him an argument which, despite those abilities, the Minister was unable to answer. I hope that the Minister can answer those arguments and others that may be put forward tonight and in Committee.
The Bill has a long title—"Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill"—but one way in which we shall judge the effectiveness of the measure is to see how it matches the needs of our constituents. Although we may criticise the absence of some proposals from the measure, it is important to say that many of its provisions will affect not just hundreds but thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—of the people we represent. It is therefore a crucial measure, and I shall address my remarks to three areas of the Bill—the reform of the tribunal system, the clause that deals with some charges and the schedule that provides for co-operation between different authorities.
The Minister rightly drew attention to the importance of what he called the tribunals of the social services. It would be more apt to call them the courts of the welfare state, because for most of my constituents—unless they have caught something off the back of a lorry and been caught themselves, or if they have a matrimonial dispute, or if they have thumped someone on the head—disputes are settled not in the magistrates court or the county court, but in the courts of the welfare state. This is where the big decisions that affect their well-being and livelihood are made.
The Government are addressing themselves to that area of adjudication. They say, with some justification, that if one considers the different tribunals that already exist, the tribunal that comes off least well is the one in the supplementary benefit system. The solution has been to examine national insurance and industrial injury tribunals and to ask, "What can we learn from these tribunals to improve the other tribunals of the welfare state?" The

535
ingredient that they have come up with is the lawyer. But are the Government asking the right question? Will the qualities of lawyers make a difference to the adjudications of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals, which will be merged into more general tribunals, or do we need lawyers because we do not have an effective system of clerks to advise chairmen and members of tribunals on the law and the regulations?
One weakness of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunal is that the clerks, although good people, are on loan from the Department of Health and Social Services. They know that they will return to the DHSS and that that is where most of their career opportunities lie. It therefore takes someone of considerable ability and courage to stand out and rough up his employer, especially when his employer will make the big decisions about how fast, if at all, his promotion takes place.
Therefore, the first thing that I should like to put to the Government is this. By all means let us have more lawyers and more legal skills in the new tribunals—the Minister has a touching faith in lawyers; perhaps understandably so with his training—but we would make much more important advances in the courts of the welfare state if we had a career structure for the clerks of the tribunals. They could be interchangeable one with the other, and not be dependent upon going back to the DHSS to make a career. They could achieve all of their job satisfaction in, for example, the appeal tribunal system.
It is a matter not only of the quality of the decisions and of the adjudication in the tribunal, but of how quickly one gets to a tribunal hearing. It does not matter too much if one is on a driving offence and one waits five weeks, five months or five years before the case is heard. However, if one is dependent on benefit and has no other money, it is crucial that one's case is heard quickly.
I have been corresponding with the Minister and, in one of his replies to the House, he said that he was concerned that the waiting time to appear before a court has doubled. For many of our poor constituents that means waiting many weeks for benefits that are crucial to them. I can give some examples of what that has meant to my constituents, and these show what no doubt happens to many other constituents. My first example concerns a single claimant who acquired his own home and was waiting for a single payment to furnish his home. However, it was eight weeks before his case was heard and he had little furniture and no cooking equipment. As a result, he lost 2½ stone while waiting for his case to be heard in one of the courts in the welfare state.
Another example concerns a family in my constituency who waited a similar time for a single payment for beds. Until they got that payment, the husband, wife and two children had to sleep in one bed. That is what waiting means. It is much more important in the courts of the welfare state than elsewhere. Introducing lawyers will not speed up the process. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about streamlining the hearing of cases.
There is also the issue of pooling abilities and knowledge or, in the words of the Bill:
"The co-operation between local authorities, Family Practitioner Committees and local authorities".
I make a plea on behalf of some of my poorer constituents that these consultations should include someone with knowledge of welfare rights. For many of our constituents, this is where the shoe pinches. I am lucky, as is my local council, that in Birkenhead, thanks to the funds given by
536
the Joseph Rountree charitable trust and the Gulbenkian foundation, a lawyer works with the Member of Parliament and the councillors. The lawyer has made a submission to the district health authority, and it is from that submission that I draw a suggestion for the Minister. We are lucky in Birkenhead in having perhaps the most talented welfare rights lawyer in the country working on our behalf—Nicholas Warren.
Mr. Warren has pointed to areas of crucial concern to an ever growing number of our constituents. One is the problem of getting to a hospital. A previous Government issued a circular about travelling expenses to hospital which said how important it was that there should be notices all over the hospitals about people's rights to financial help in getting to the hospital, and one place in a hospital where money is paid out to cover fares.
The effect of not having fares is illustrated by two cases. One concerns a woman who was six months pregnant. As she was having difficulty with her pregnancy, the doctors wanted her to attend the clinic more often. She did so, although it cost her a great deal of money in fares to get there. Her husband was unemployed. Because she had to pay all that money on fares, she cut down on her diet. We all know the importance of adequate diet to a pregnant woman. Without information about fares being put over, many of cur poorer constituents will lose out.
Another example concerns a widow in my constituency. The doctor thought it essential that she should attend the hospital. When he learnt from the hospital that she had not turned up for her appointment, he inquired why. Her explanation showed the choice that many of our constituents have to face. The day of her appointment at the hospital was the day before her benefit was due, and, like so many of our constituents living on benefit who are not fiddling, there was no money left. Therefore, she could not afford the fare to go to the hospital. When talking about co-ordination between different bodies with an interest in health, it is clearly important to link in the welfare rights advisory expert or officer in the locality.
Clause 12 deals with contributions for children in care. I am pleased that the Government have accepted an amendment in the other place, although, from what we have learnt today, we do not know whether the Government will stand by amendments agreed in the other place. I hope that they will on this one. The Government laid down which groups of our constituents will be exempt from making contributions for their children in care. Some may say that that is not terribly important, but it is important if one's children are in care and one is on benefit.
By laying down that those in receipt of family income supplement or benefit should not have to make contributions towards the cost of their children in care, the Government have made a useful advance. However, I ask them to go a stage further and, in Committee, to amend the amendment. We know, for example, from the reply of the Minister's predecessor that only half those eligible for benefit are claiming. There will be large numbers of people whose income is around the FIS level who could be eligible for, but are not claiming, benefit.
We also know that 100,000 claimants on invalidity benefit can never get on to the long-term supplementary benefit rate and sometimes cannot even claim the short-term supplementary benefit. Under clause 12 as it stands, both those groups, whose income is at or below the level

537
in the amendment, would have to pay contributions. I ask the Minister, in my rather detailed Second Reading contribution, to extend the amendment further to cover those on incomes around the level of those on supplementary benefit and those eligible for FIS.
The Bill, as it stands, is useful for many of our constituents and it will become more useful when, I hope, the Government allow it to be amended in Committee. However, one has to compare it with what is needed from a measure like this, given the needs in the community as a whole. Let us look at the numbers of poor people in our society and take as a starting point the general election. If we take that as a cut-off point and measure how the numbers of poor have grown under the Thatcher Government, we find that the numbers claiming supplementary benefit have risen by 67 per cent.
The numbers of children in poor families have increased by 91 per cent. Well over 7 million people now depend on supplementary benefit. Probably 2 million more are eligible for, but are not claiming, it. A huge tidal wave of poverty is sweeping through many constituencies. Against that background, this is an inadequate measure. One almost thinks of those who tried to deal with the crisis on the Titanic by baling out the water with tea cups. It was no doubt a useful occupation to avoid facing the awful truth, but in the end it was not much help to those who went down with that great liner. Equally, for those of our constituents sinking in the tidal wave of poverty, this Bill will do very little.
8 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: Having been here since the beginning of the debate, I am concerned at the amount of undiluted criticism—a stronger word might be more appropriate—by almost every Conservative Member who has spoken of those who I believe serve the Health Service and social services extremely well. The administrators, in particular, seem to be everybody's butt. From the Secretary of State to the grocer, everyone had a go at them. That is a thoroughly unproductive form of argument. Those of us who know the National Health Service and are in touch with the hospitals, the adminstrators and all who care for the patients know that they serve their hospitals and their patients very well indeed. The Government's attempt to shift the burden of responsibility for their own shortcomings in that way does not go down very well with Opposition Members.
As the House probably knows, the Select Committee is at present examining certain areas of child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, the Minister referred to the Bill as a "dog's breakfast". It is certainly a mixture and it is difficult to pick out the areas of interest with which one wishes to deal. I shall concentrate on those aspects at present being examined by the Select Committee. We rapidly learnt that this was a complicated area of legislation, with a large number of omnibus Acts already in operation. All that legislation requires examination and streamlining—a task which the Bill does not claim to tackle at all. I do not know how long it can be postponed, but some day some Government will have to undertake that colossal task.
The Select Committee has had the opportunity of hearing a number of witnesses, both individuals and
538
organisations, and we have already visited two regions. It is always interesting to talk to the people actually doing the job. One gets a very different picture from that so often depicted by the Government. We visited two regions to see how children were being cared for by social service departments and social workers and the provision that is made when home is no longer an option.
Clause 3 proposes the abolition of regional planning committees, and I agree with that, as I do not think that it is necessary now to have such large committees. The clause will not prevent local authorities from co-operating with one another and working together if they so wish. It is always good to see obsolete layers of administration removed, although it does not often happen.
London is rather different, as in many areas there is a need to share services and facilities provided by one authority or another. For example, the 32 London boroughs may well wish to share regional specialist facilities. The trend is, however, for some resources and activities formerly organised on a regional basis to be provided by the boroughs themselves. Observation and assessment come to mind as examples. There are community homes where education is provided by the local authorities. Those remain a valuable facility and are not to be closed without the approval of the Secretary of State.
Clause 6 provides for the reduction of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work from the present 64 members to 25. Personally, I do not object to that. It was a very large, cumbersome committee and the chairman must have had considerable difficulty at times in controlling his flock. I also think that large committees tend to be rather useless and unwieldy and to talk too much without reaching decisions. I may be misjudging them, but I always feel that a small committee is more efficient. Decisions can be made far more quickly and sensible proposals can be put forward and implemented. I therefore support that proposal.
The Secretary of State will need to ensure that the streamlined council is truly representative of all those concerned with the need to ensure effective training for social workers, including those who employ social workers and who at present feel that their views are not adequately taken into account by those who run some of the courses.
We are aware that there have been problems for social workers. Clause 6(8) concerns mandatory grants for the training of social workers. Several Opposition Members have referred to what I suppose will go down in history as Baroness Faithfull's amendment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, I hope that the Government are disposed to keep that in the Bill. It seems invidious that social work should not be included in the list of mandatory awards by local education authorities. The Association of Directors of Social Services has been pressing for that for some years. It is therefore very important that that proposal should remain in the Bill. Other three-year university courses providing a certificate or diploma are included, a whole list of courses having been approved by the Secretary of State. Some international courses also qualify for mandatory grant. It is therefore only sensible that training for social work should qualify as well.
I am very concerned that at present local authorities are free to appoint persons without qualifications and even without much experience in social work to posts requiring a great deal of contact with claimants and with people with

539
severe difficulties of the kind we all meet at our constituency surgeries. Strong words have been used recently about this. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the Department's own report, "Child Abuse—A Study of Inquiry Reports 1973–1981".
In the report, attention is given to the level of training of staff who were the subject of the various inquiries that took place in the 1970s. The report quotes from the Maria Mehmedagi inquiry published in 1981 as follows:
"We were surprised to find how little training the people most closely involved in this case had received".
A more recent report into the Gates family, published only about seven or eight months ago, makes the point:
"It is surprising therefore that it is not a requirement of professional workers entrusted with the care of children that they should have had specialist training in child care and the recognition of child abuse".
This is a serious condemnation of the present system. I understand that the London borough of Bexley, which commissioned the report on the Gates family, in an advertisement appearing in Social Work Today on 26 October sought for its children and adults division a
"social worker qualified or with relevant experience".
The advertisement stated that the person appointed would be
"working primarily with families and children; some mental health duties involved".
That is scandalous. It seems that some of these authorities never learn. I think that all local authorities should now insist that trained social workers are appointed. I understand from the council responsible for the training of social workers that there is no shortage of trained social workers. Large numbers are being trained. This is a serious aspect, which the Secretary of State should investigate.
If hon. Members have any doubts, I ask them to reflect on the large resources, in terms of man and woman power and capital and revenue, that social workers are engaged in administering and recommending to claimants. This is apart from the work that they perform for so many people of all ages in need of care and help. Clause 12 makes amendments to local authority charges for boarding and gives certain exemptions. I question whether the Bill should be bothering about this nit-picking over charges. Parents of children in care should not be charged. Many of them are families in poor circumstances. I hope that the Standing Committee will decide to eliminate the charges. The time, cost and effort spent in collecting the money are not worth the trouble. The whole exercise is counterproductive.
Some improvements appear in paragraph 8 of schedule 1. It is acceptable that refusal to allow visiting or a medical examination can lead to place of safety procedures. Paragraph 7 gives protection to a child likely to be a member of a household where a person has been convicted of certain offences. The paragraph is intended, I understand, to protect the child against certain abuse from a member of the household. That provision will, I believe, be acceptable to all hon. Members. Paragraph 11 provides that children over five need not be brought to court in person on application for an interim order if legally represented. If a parent is accused of injuring the child, there will be no confrontation in court. On the other hand, the views of the child must be considered. Even small children, perhaps including those under five, must somehow be consulted and should be able to express views that would be made available to the court.
540
The Select Committee is embarked upon an examination of parental rights and access. These are matters of considerable importance in child care. We shall be making our recommendations in due course. The whole issue of child care is complex and unstructured. The recommendations that we shall make will benefit from the fact that we have been able to meet directors of social services and social workers. We have been able to talk to social workers in some depth to find out their reasons for embarking upon a career in social services. We have also had interesting sessions with some of their clients both here and in Bradford. We have met young people aged between 16 and 18 who have spent a considerable time in local authority care. We have been amazed at their resilience in the face of the experiences that they have had to go through. Their maturity has surprised many hon. Members.
We have been greatly encouraged by the experience of these young people in community care. The opportunity to talk to those on the receiving end who endured such appalling experiences when they were tiny is a considerable recommendation for the care that they receive from social workers and the local authorities which run the accommodation where they have spent such a large part of their lives.
I hope that we shall be able to proceed with our report. I do not suppose that the Standing Committee will still be sitting by the time that we finish.
Mr. Newton: I hope not.
Mrs. Short: I hope not, for the sake of hon. Members serving on the Committee. I hope, nevertheless, that the report that we produce will help the Government or their successors in the reorganisation of the administration and of legislation in this area, which is obviously necessary.
8.16 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), I regret the fact that the Government and most of their supporters have spent much of today knocking the Health Service. The Government should start to think how they can get the best results out of the Health Service. If the Minister had spent time consistently and regularly praising the exceptionally good work done in the Health Service—not only that of the doctors and nurses but of all those who work within it—the Government would obtain far better results from the service. Every time I visit a hospital, especially some of the older buildings, I admire the remarkable job performed by those who work in the laundry. That is a job that most people would not wash to do. We should praise them for work of a high standard.
It is the same story when one considers the catering services in hospitals. Many people believe that it is simple to provide meals in a hospital. To a certain extent, it is a matter of producing a large number of meals. However, in good hospitals, increasingly catering forms part of the patient's treatment. A great deal of skill goes into planning a diet that will improve the patient's health. There is a wish to encourage the patient to eat the food. In many hospitals, that function is carried out extremely well.
I should also like the Minister to take account of the cleaning and portering services in hospitals. Those who carry out the cleaning tasks can contribute a great deal towards making the hospital a friendly place with a

541
pleasant atmosphere that can do more to improve the health of patients than the efficiency with which they clean the floor. Even those running large supermarkets are concerned about the atmosphere as well as the amount of floor space to be cleaned.
The Bill is inadequate measured against the basic needs of the country. If hon. Members visit any constituency in the country—not only the deprived areas—and witness the lack of facilities for good health and good social services and the obvious poverty, they will realise that this is a disappointing measure.
When we turn to the financial provisions at the beginning of the Bill, we see that there will be no additional public expenditure. Indeed, small savings in administration costs will result in a net saving of about £2 million. We get the feel of the financial provisions. The only expensive area is that to which the other place directed its attention. There is an argument about how much money is involved. The directors of social services suggest that we should be talking about £2·8 million, which is slightly less than the financial provision that it is suggested the Government are trying to save.
This is very much a hotch-potch measure. Tribunals and adjudication are major areas of concern. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the process needs to be speeded up. My hon. Friend said that one of his constituents had to wait eight weeks for an essential needs payment for furniture. I have a constituent who applied for that grant before Christmas 1981. His application was refused. The appeal was not heard until March of last year. An appeal on a point of law is now outstanding. The commissioners have agreed to hear it in March of this year. The procedure has taken over 15 months and my constituent is still without a bed and other furniture to put into his accommodation. That is unacceptable. The whole system needs speeding up. If I were convinced that the process would be speeded by these changes, I would be much happier with them. I have pressed the Minister on this issue on many occasions. Many cases that go through the adjudication process do not need to go through it.
It is argued that when a claim for a benefit is made out of time there is a necessity to ascertain whether the applicant has been ill. Many claims are disallowed because they are out of time where there can be no argument about the facts. I hope that the Government will resolve the difficulty of out-of-time claims so that there will not be many appeals. I am assured from Stockport that many people appeal because they have been turned down for being out of time and then do not bother to attend the tribunal.
Many people do not attend the tribunals because they are put off by the process—they find that they cannot get anybody to represent them or are unable to get adequate information. If the tribunals are to be reformed, we must make sure that people have help with representation. It is regrettable that the Government's almost paranoid attack on the trade unions is carried to the level of dispensing with the panel that was drawn basically from the trade unions. The Government should look at that again. The majority of people believed that they would get fair play because there was someone on the tribunal who they thought would look after their interests.
542
I am concerned about the Government's enthusiasm for having lawyers as chairmen. The basic essential of a chairman is that he should be someone who will get a claimant to put forward his case and will not be put off by legal jargon or legal processes. My experience is that lawyers are not always the best persons to put an individual at ease or to ensure that his case is fairly heard.
The Department of Health and Social Security is one of the few Government Departments whose officials can represent it in the courts. It claims that the issues are so complex and technical that lawyers are not to be trusted with its cases. It is one of the few areas in which non-lawyers can appear in the courts. To suggest that a lawyer is the best person to chair a tribunal is doubtful. Many people other than lawyers possess the skills and qualities to be chairmen. There is a need to move in that direction. There is a danger that the panel will increasingly be drawn from people who will be seen to be middle class in attitude, and that will not please many of the claimants.
I am concerned about the question of the family practitioner committees. I do not believe the independent role will improve matters. I find that the disputes about the Health Service in my constituency tend to be between a doctor who believes someone ought to be admitted to hospital and a hospital consultant who says that he has not a bed for him or that admission is not necessary. Having two independent bodies responsible for the two areas will not help to solve that problem.
As for mandatory awards, the Government are wasting their money if they do not accept the submissions of those in another place. Courses were established to meet the training needs of the profession. Sufficient places were created to meet the need to get over a fairly long period, a fully trained profession. The places were set up on that basis, and resources were allocated on that basis.
For several years local authorities paid for sufficient people to fill almost all of those courses. As a result of the cuts in local government expenditure, the number of people sent has fallen in recent years. It is stupid for the Government to establish a number of places and then not pay the grants for sufficient people to attend. It is important that that provision should stay in the legislation and not be taken out.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to consider the question of child care. We are halfway through a report that will be the subject of many recommendations which could be incorporated in the Bill. I hope that we can put forward either interim proposals or an interim report to improve child care practices.
I welcome the registration of homes for the elderly. I accept the argument of Age Concern that this ought to be carried out on a national basis. Someone who has been turned down or criticised by one local authority must not be allowed to move to another area and set up another home which the local authority must ensure is brought up to standard. Not only is the question of accommodation for old people important, but there is a great need for better support facilities. Home helps and community support systems have been reduced in many areas.
The Minister is aware that I have been asking a series of questions about the problems of senile dementia, and the problem for the caring relative looking after elderly people with senile dementia. There was a television programme last week on that subject. Mention was made

543
in that programme of the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Relatives. It has received large demands from people for advice on how to go about caring for their elderly relatives and what support and services they can get. As a result of the sudden upsurge of interest, they have financial problems. I am not sure whether a specific approach has been made to the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that finance can be produced to help that organisation to carry out its extemely worthwhile role.
The Government must put far more resources into child care to prevent children from going into care. There is a danger of spending £100 on a child in a children's home or over £30 for a child to be fostered when we cannot find £10 to give to the natural parent to ensure that he or she can cope with the problem and, consequently, make it unnecessary for the child to go into care. It is important that we put emphasis on prevention.
The Government would be given a salutary lesson if they were defeated tonight. If that happened, they would be told clearly that we want more resources to make a caring society. If the Government manage to secure the Bill's Second Reading, there will be a major task to undertake in Committee to ensure that the Bill is improved. We must seek in Committee to harry the Government into producing far more resources so that some of the Bill's good provisions will work.
8.29 pm
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has a deep understanding of the integral nature of all Health Service workers, without whom our hospitals would be very much worse. Bearing in mind the statement made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Social Services, my hon. Friend's comments on the tremendous work that is done by laundry hospitals are to be commended. The laundries deal with the consequences of blood, vomit and incontinence. It is imperative that there is impeccable coverage to avoid infection. My hon. Friend cannot be too highly praised for the way in which he showed his awareness of that fact. The House should be aware of it too.
One of the arguments of the Conservative party has been shown throughout the day to be a myth. The background to the Bill seems to lie in the Government's recognition that somehow the management of the Health Service is inadequate, bureaucratic and in need of reform. That has been suggested in nearly every contribution from Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, for her comments. He said that because we have an understanding and knowledge of the Health Service we feel that only those in the Health Service are likely to be able to provide good advice when changes are considered. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we speak from bitter experience. I note that he is no longer in his place.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, spent nearly £250,000 of taxpayers' money to pay an American consultancy firm to explain how we should have business efficiency and managerial changes if we were to achieve greater benefits for the patients and the Health Service generally. That was a disaster. When
544
the hon. Member for Hove tells us once again that we must look to the "experts" from big business to tell as how to run our Health Service, do not wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe looks slightly askance at such a proposition.
The myth is being perpetuated that the Health Service and its 1 million employees are inefficient. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and I have served on regional health authorities. We know that the myth about inefficiency is as far from the truth as it is possible to get.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) was chided on his contribution to the debate. The Minister for Health said that he had left behind him all the odds and ends that needed to be cleared up and they now appeared in the Bill. My right hon. Friend had to leave behind some odds and ends because the Labour Government, when they assumed office on 1 April 1974, were saddled with a completely changed Health Service structure. Even the Conservative party has had to introduce a mark 2 change.
It is against that background that we must consider the Bill. One of the most important factors to understand is the way in which domiciliary and primary care can be linked to form an integral part of the Health Service. We judge the Minister for Health on not only his words but his actions. We have never been allowed to discuss the Acheson report on primary care and the Government have never given their opinion on the report's recommendations. They have told us again today that they are concerned about primary care, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let them introduce a debate on the Acheson report so that we may test the extent of their concern. We shall be able to gauge their concern when we know whether they will accept or reject the report's excellent recommendations.
The important part of the Bill deals with the expenditure that will be transferred from the National Health Service budget to the social services budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe made the pertinent point that unless there are more resources the Government wll be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rate support grant, which has affected social services in every hon. Member's constituency, has been cut drastically in the past three years. That cut has affected the very social services that have been helping to keep elderly people out of geriatric wards. The social services cannot be buttressed simply by taking from the NHS budget unless one is prepared to put more money into social services. My hon. Friends have produced statistics that support that point of view.
Moreover, we must consider in Committee the long-term planning of homes and warden assistance and other means of keeping people out of old folks' homes, as the Black report urged. There must be at least a five to 10-year projection of the capital programme. It is not simply a case of the angle at which one examines the resources. We must project for the long term. It is not possible to build houses or anything else in five minutes. That must be clarified.
Many of our hospitals still have the benefit of being surrounded by acres of land. The Government are now selling off that land. Do they intend to sell that land to private firms which will make a profit out of it, or will it be available for joint arrangement between the social services and the health provision? Liaisons and joint

545
committees are always clumsy. There could be a better way of dealing with that problem. I shall deal with that later.
The Minister made great play of the need to harness the maximum involvement of the voluntary sector. Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We were told today that, to enable private companies which are contracting out of the Health Service to make a profit, the Chancellor proposes to exempt them from VAT. As the House knows—I have raised the matter only recently—the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the Spastics Society provide residential and educational accommodation that runs parallel with that provided by the social services, yet they have no exemption from VAT. Such bodies are not being encouraged to provide that type of supplement to the welfare state.
The hon. Member for Canterbury made one of the best speeches of the debate. He always approaches the subject with experience, understanding and a good deal of common sense. I hope that he will not think it unkind if I say that he has more knowledge of the NHS than any 50 of his colleagues, and I do not exclude the Government Front Bench from that 50. I hope that the Secretary of State will not simply consult his officials, though they do an excellent job of work for him and dig him out of his problems. I hope that he will read his hon. Friend's speech.
The core of the problem with the Bill is the way in which the family practitioner committees are being changed. It has already been said that the service provided by GPs should be and, under this Bill, will be incorporated into forms of arrangements with social services. That was first said by Kenneth Robinson, then the Minister of Health, in 1964. We are still waiting for that to happen. At last, it seems the Bill is reaching that point.
It is forgotten that medicine is a comprehensive provision. To divide general practitioners from hospital doctors and community physicians means putting into watertight compartments people who are dealing with the same patients. If the patient moves, the general practitioner is in an isolated compartment. One Conservative Member asked how general practitioners had managed to retain their independence over so many years, under Governments of both parties. The local medical committee has always been strong enough to have direct access, outside the structure of the Health Service, to the Minister. That is retained in the Bill.
The family practitioner committee needs to be part of the district health authority. It needs to be part of a medical advisory committee that advises hospitals and the housing department of the social services department of the local authority. The general practitioner should find his place there, not out on a limb.
All Governments seem to have little regard for the cinderellas of the Health Service—the professions that are supplementary to medicine. There has been a great increase in the number of senior citizens, and by the end of the decade there will be 1 million people over the age of 80. Why is there no chiropodist on the family practitioner committee? There are dentists, opticians and pharmacists. Feet are as important as the rest of our bodies. Elderly people can be crippled by corns, and as a result they can be housebound. More resources should be spent on that aspect of medicine. Chiropodists should be
546
on family practitioner committees, to ensure that chiropody is not the last in the list to receive capital resources.
I am worried about the way in which the Secretary of State seems to be acquiring power unto himself. Previously, local bodies had a say, but now it is only the Secretary of State who, in his wisdom, will appoint the family practitioner committee. He will be the only person to appoint the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Some months ago I raised an issue that arose in my area, when the Under-Secretary of State wrote to ask about the political affiliations of the Brent borough councillors serving on the local family practitioner committee. In spite of the words of the Minister for Health this afternoon, we are worried that there will be an increasing number of political appointments of people who have no real understanding of the Health Service and who themselves use private medicine and go to Harley Street.
When I was chairman of my party's health group many years ago, we had a Labour Health Minister for the first time for 13 years. I led a deputation to have more members of my party on health committees. Our request was turned down flat. We were told that it would be wrong for a Labour Minister to appoint Labour Members to health committees. I wish that the present Secretary of State were as conscientious as Kenneth Robinson.
8.45 pm
Mr. William Hamilton: It is not unusual that, although this is a United Kingdom Bill, approximately 15 minutes have been allowed for Scottish Members on the Opposition side to take part. There is not a Scottish Member on the Government side, and the Scottish Minister is certainly not going to reply to the debate; he is going to sit while an English Minister replies to a debate which greatly concerns Scotland.
Mr. Mike Thomas: There are two now.
Mr. Hamilton: That is 100 per cent. more than the Social Democratic party that the hon. Gentleman represents.
The Minister expressed surprise that we were opposing the Bill. The reasons for our opposition are simple. Some of the provisions are bad to the point of being indefensible. The Bill has been oversold and the benefits that the Government claim will derive from it will not accrue. They can express the finest sentiments they like; but, if there is no cash to back them up, they cannot deliver the goods. That is the basis of the protest that we have had from Scottish authorities.
Nowhere does the Bill specify the type of case or service for which payment can be made. Both long-term and short-term cases, in-patients and those receiving domiciliary care, can be involved. In other words, the Bill will allow a health authority to contract out of providing a service for people in need of care if it feels that such a service can be provided by a local authority department or a voluntary body, however hard pressed that authority or body may be.
The Bill does not therefore have as its primary aim the removal of patients from hospital, but opens the way for the increased provision of services currently provided by the National Health Service by non-National Health Service and non-statutory bodies—an expansion of the caring role about which the Prime Minister and Members of her Government always talk.

547
We should not deride the activities of the voluntary organisations. However, we look with the greatest suspicion at the declared policy of the Government to resort increasingly to the begging bowl rather than to the taxpayer or to rely on a flag day rather than to regard this as a national responsibility.
It is regrettable that this is a United Kingdom Bill, because the difficulties for Scottish Members are not unknown to the Minister, and he will face the same problems. The only separate Scottish legislation that we have to come now is the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]. I want to be on that Committee. I would also like to be on this one. This is the difficulty of mixing Scotland with England in these measures. We have our own legal system, our own education system and our own separate Health Service. There are no family practitioner committees in Scotland. Yet the mugs—I had better rephrase that—the Scottish Members who will be dragooned on to this Committee will have to sit idle while the English and Welsh Members drone on about England and Wales. We shall have to sit mute until we come to clause 2—and then we shall go to town. Scottish Members will make hay of it.
The Scottish Council for Single Homeless has written to all Scottish Members on behalf of 10 other organisations—from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to Age Concern. It points out, as was pointed out to the Public Accounts Committee earlier in this Session, that the existing support financing scheme in Scotland in 1982–83 had about one fifth of the resources available to England. This could be put another way. For every £1·82 per head in England, the figure was 39p per head in Scotland or, to achieve parity on a per capita basis, the Scottish provision of £2 million in 1982–83 would have to be increased to more than £9·5 million in 1983–84. The letter also points out that, because strict limits are imposed on the proportion of financial assistance that can be given and the duration of such assistance, local authorities are reluctant to participate in schemes knowing, ultimately, that the whole cost will fall on them. If this scheme is to have any success at all, particularly in Scotland, the resources available must be substantially improved.
No one with a spark of humanity will fail to concede the proposition that the more people we can keep out of hospitals or institutions and in the community, the better. That is highly desirable, not necessarily because of expense—it is not necessarily cheaper—but because it is better for everyone concerned. I have watched television programmes on this subject recently. Too often today community care means granny being cared for by an aging daughter or son or whatever.
In Cowdenbeath, a few weeks ago, I met a middle-aged woman—very nearly an old age pensioner herself—who was looking after her 85-year-old mother. She could not get away for a holiday. She asked me to try to get that old lady into hospital for a fortnight, but the hospital could not provide facilities for her. When I visited the house, that lady had to lock her mother away because, I was told, she might be violent to us if she thought that I was there to take her away from her daughter. We have seen such problems many times on television over past weeks.
"Care in the Community" is a meaningless doctrine unless it it backed by resources. It is no use the Government saying that the Opposition wish only to hurl money at problems. The Government hurled money at the police and at the Falkland Islands. They are spending £2
548
million a head for a population smaller than that of a small village in my constituency, but they cannot afford the money to look after the old, the maimed, the crippled and the mentally handicapped. That is an outrage.
The Government are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in the way they allocate resources. That is why we are deeply suspicious of the Government's aims in the Bill. It is tantamount to putting a dummy steak in a Dutcher's shop.
8.53 pm
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I shall not try to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but I shall supplement one or two of his comments.
I apologise for having been absent for a fair amount of the proceedings, but other meetings take place in this building on a Thursday evening, as everyone knows, and I happened to be involved elsewhere. Nevertheless, I am genuinely delighted to be able to criticise the Scottish Office Minister in his presence rather than do so in his absence. He will have discovered by now that the worst thing of all about being a Minister in the Scottish Office is to have to deal with a piece of legislation which is really only an insert into an English and Welsh Bill. The Minister has my sympathy, because I do not know how he will deal with the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill and presumably cover this Bill as well.
I wish to raise one or two Scottish points and one point on the adjudication procedure. On a day when The Guardian has leaked the document about the family, 'NF" is quoted as saying:
"Give more emphasis and encouragement to community-based services like day or short-term care."
Lest the Minister does not know, "NF' is the Secretary of State for Social Services.
It would be remiss of me not to support my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central on the Scottish aspect. No doubt we will not get a reply this evening. Presumably that will be done in Committee or on Report. It would be better if the matter could be cleared up when the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities next week. What is the difference between the proposals for England and Wales and those for Scotland? Is it right that the contribution by health boards will be allowed to last for only five years in Scotland, against 10 years or longer in England? Whatever thoughts the hon. Member for Argyll has, he is a political animal, and he will appreciate that that should be cleared up as soon as possible.
I had the misfortune to watch the hon. Gentleman on television on Sunday. I hope that I am not being too patronising when I say that he must do better and genuinely consider the problem rather than attempt to score political points. Local government is not popular anywhere, and certainly not in Scotland. It does not matter whether authorities are Labour-controlled or Conservative-controlled. Unfortunately, like the trade unions, they are not popular.
The hon. Gentleman must act like a Minister. He should ask himself why local authorities are not taking more advantage of the resources that are available to get people out of hospital. When he meets COSLA next week, he should remember that in Scotland circumstances are not as favourable to local authorities as they are in England. He had better think about his future, because "NF" has

549
committed him to this. He must realise that there is a problem. He will find that there is good will all round even though there is almost a state of confrontation between local authorities and the Government in Scotland for other reasons. If he could extricate the problem and have it discussed rationally, there would be some response.
It is appalling that in Scotland there are in hospitals 2,000 people who could be living in the community. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and I agree that some people will never come out of hospital, so this is not an issue on party lines.
I do not understand the additional powers being given in schedule 6 to the Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to the disposal of land. I know that the Government want to flog off everything these days, but I am not aware that health boards have any difficulty in selling surplus land. This may be a parochial point, but it was done in the case of Robroyston hospital. I do not know why new powers are necessary. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on that.
In regard to the appeals procedure and the proposed merger, the press notice issued by the Department says:
"This is strengthening the quality and independence of the social security appeal arrangements".
If the quality needs to be strengthened, that must mean that there is something wrong with the existing set-up. I do not think that has been proved. As an ex-civil servant, I can see the tidy Civil Service mind at work. Because there is new social security legislation, civil servants think that the three categories of adjudication officer should be given the same title, although they will not be doing the same job. I listened to the Minister, but I did not hear why there is a need to change the procedure.
What anxieties and worries do the Government have that makes them think we need to strengthen the quality and independence of the social security appeal procedure. I am not against change. I do not think that lawyers are God's gift to common sense, which is sometimes more important than an understanding of the law. If there were a proper injection of laymen, trade union representatives and people from the community, I should not quarrel too much with the proposed procedure. In Committee the Government will need to make a case for the change, because there is much concern over this issue especially among the TUC and the trade unions, which have played a part in making the machinery as successful as it has been.
I do not expect the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to any of my comments other than my point about adjudication. I do not know whether the Minister will be in Committee. The Scottish Office is not only not good, but there are not enough Ministers around. I should not say that when I have been trying to appeal to the Minister's better nature, but I do not know whether there will be a Scottish Office Minister in Committee. I hope that the Whips will ignore the fact that I have made a contribution to the debate, because I do not want to be on the Committee. I urge the Minister to take on board the Scottish content of the Bill and deal with it generously and, I hope, sympathetically when he meets COSLA next week.
9.1 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: For one thing only do I envy the Conservative party—its ability to have
550
amnesia. The moment Conservative Members become the Government all is responsibility and propriety and they expect other parties to match their image of themselves. However, once they become the Opposition, they become totally irresponsible, doing whatever they like and whatever they can, but they rarely remember that afterwards.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is absent. No doubt he is an heir to the amnesia that afflicts the Conservative party, and he has forgotten to return. He talked about there being factious opposition. I shall justify our division of the House. Any party that perpetrated a filibuster such as the one that took place on the Race Relations Act 1976 for the whole of a Thursday night to lunchtime on a Friday in the most disgraceful fashion had better not lecture anyone about factious opposition.
Part of Eli Jenkins' prayer about the residents in Milk Wood applies to the Bill:
"We are not wholly bad or good".
However, there are sufficient bad points about the Bill to justify a vote, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said, some things are excluded from it, such as generic substitution. Therefore, a vote against the Bill, which is a ragbag with no central theme, is justified.
A vote is even more justified when, as several of my hon. Friends said, the Bill is measured against the present need and the climate surrounding the Health Service and the welfare state. The Government will regret that The Guardian got hold of the confidential Cabinet documents. Like many other hon. Members, we are not interested so much in debating the minutiae of the Bill when there is a threat to the Health Service and the welfare state of such magnitude, as was stated in that newspaper. The documents' existence was not denied by the Prime Minister at Question Time. They threaten us with a social engineering that is chilling and promise us the transfer of whole sections of the population to either private provision or private charity.
Those of us close enough to the 1930s to remember the degradation and destitution which such a philosophy spawned in Britain know what this means only too well. If the document is right about the Government's intentions for the NHS, that is what we ought to be debating, not a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Therefore, as we demanded at business questions this afternoon, the Government should put before us the Tory vision of the family as contained within that document so that it can be debated in full and so that we can have their intentions out in the open. What we are debating tonight may be bad, but we fear that there is much worse to come and only an early debate in Government time will satisfy the country on that matter.
The Minister for Health, who kindly said that he would not be here for the start of my speech, mentioned voluntary provision, and that was taken up by many Conservative Members. I now know the town of Lincoln very much better since the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) than I did at the beginning because he went round Lincoln voluntary institution by voluntary institution. However, we need no lectures about voluntary agencies and a proper regard for them. The Prime Minister is fond of telling us about the Victorian virtues. Let me tell the Minister about the Victorian virtues as they

551
affected the Labour movement. The Labour party built its own education and hospital institutions so we shall not take lecturing about the need for voluntary institutions.
We believe that voluntary provision has a supportive role to play in the NHS. It certainly cannot be a substitute for state provision, but it can be a valuable adjunct and most of us have played a part in such hospital services as members of the leagues of friends of hospitals and by other means of voluntary participation in Britain's health care. However, I did not hear a word of tribute from any Conservative Members for the people working within the NHS. They are the people who are low paid and who work with much dedication and a great deal of personal inconvenience, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) pointed out. We are complaining not about the mention of the voluntary sector but that 20,000 places can command the total absorption of Conservative Members with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), with no recognition of the hard and devoted work of NHS workers. That should be remedied if the Conservative party is to retain our sympathy.
There are three main points on health matters which are unresolved and unsatisfactory and which deserve division. The first concerns the family practitioner committee. The Minister said that it was purely administrative but then let the cat out of the bag by saying that there were two reasons why they wanted that—first, cash limits and, secondly, direct accountability to the Government.
An industry which has recently been made more independent is the water industry which was reorganised for the second time in my experience as a Member of Parliament in order to have less public representation on it and it was to be independent. In the recent dispute we have all seen just how independent a cash-limited, Government-appointed body can be when the crush is on. That gives us no pleasure at all.
The hon. Member for Canterbury was quite right to say that to take the family practitioner committee away from the integration of the three arms of the NHS is both out of step and out of time. It is necessary to promote the integration and to get people working as closely together as possible. If I understand the position correctly, I believe that in Scotland the FPCs are part of the DHAs. It can be done there and I believe that that is the way we should go rather than making them allegedly independent.
It is more ironic than that. I said that it was the second reorganisation of the water industry, because in a paroxysm of guilt the Government have to get rid of everything that the Heath Government did. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is being written out of history quicker and more assiduously than Joseph Stalin is being written out of Russian history. The hon. Member for Canterbury and I were on the Committee in 1973 which dealt with the reorganisation of the National Health Service, and the Government's proposal to change the status of the family practitioner committee is undoing the work that the Government did then. The then Secretary of State for Social Services is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He apparently is more adaptable than some of the forms of government that he then introduced.
We oppose the Bill because we believe that there is a need to integrate, and we believe that the Government's proposals make that integration more difficult.
552
My second point is on community care and joint finance. In a legal aphorism, it is suggested that, like the Ritz hotel, justice is open to all. There is no point in having a notional development of a theory without the money to back it up. Community care is a great concept which is being backed by a minuscule amount of money. That is why we oppose it.
Thirdly, we oppose charging as provided for in part VII. The House of Lords passed an amendment enabling a local authority to charge what it believed to be reasonable and deleted the phrase about having regard to the person's means. The Minister seemed genuinely puzzled by the amendment. I hope that he will give us an undertaking that the Government propose to restore it in Committee, otherwise the point made by right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that local authority services are being charged to people whose only income is supplementary benefit will be a reproach to us. Lord Trefgarne made sympathetic noises about the removal of that category of people from charges. He said that discussions were going on with local authorities to agree a formula to overcome it. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made?
I wish to deal mainly with the part of the Bill relating to social security adjudication. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that the tribunals are the courts of the welfare state and that therefore we should not underestimate the number of people who are involved. While in Opposition, some members of the Government tended to create the impression that those who received social security benefits were oddballs and exceptions in society, whereas we all know that social security payments are received regularly by roughly half our people. Therefore, that which affects social security affects at least half the people in our society, and any change in adjudication will be vastly significant.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead and for Stockport, North were worried about the quality of service, but I shall return to the later.
Another great worry is how and by whom the appellant is to be represented. In a system that is increasingly becoming precedent-bound by cases and commissioner decisions, the appellant who appears in person is often totally bewildered and at a disadvantage. If the Government were sincere in saying that the world had moved on and that what started as an informal system could no longer be informal, they would extend legal aid to the tribunals so that appellants were properly represented or they would fund the voluntary bodies so that they could provide representation.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the membership of the tribunals. At present tribunals include, as of right, people who have experienced working conditions and social and financial backgrounds similar to those of claimants. It is vital to have them on tribunals, and it is even more important that they should be independently nominated. At the Home Office we had a list of the great and the good at national level. I suppose that at local level it would be a list of the mediocre and the moderate. However, they would be appointed by the Secretary of State. His ability to sift through the nominees and to choose those who would represent his wishes is a disabling provision because he may not choose those who would best represent the claimant.
There should be independent nominations by trade unions and trades councils and there should be—the Bill

553
does not contain this and it has been insufficiently noted—an obligation on the Secretary of State to accept those nominations. The phrase in the Bill has been changed to
"Before appointing members to a panel, the Secretary of State may take into consideration".
However, he may not take those members into consideration. They should be appointed as of right and they should have a guaranteed place.
Some hon. Members talked about the chairmen of tribunals. One's view depends upon whether one likes lawyers. I declare an interest as a lawyer and, on the whole, I like myself. However, there is a serious question about whether the present mixture of lay and legal chairmen is correct. The Bell report recommended the appointment of legal chairmen. One reason for that is that we must accept the fact that many decisions of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals are being overturned on appeal, which must be a reflection of the quality of the tribunals. However, that does not mean that being a lawyer is the sole qualification for being a tribunal member.
Even if we accept that a legally qualified chairman will be the norm, the chief adjudication officer should have power to recommend to the Secretary of State that if a chairman is doing a good job, but he has no legal qualifications, he should be allowed not only to serve out his present term but should be reappointed. We should not sacrifice good lay chairmen because they lack legal qualifications, any more than we should sacrifice good magistrates' clerks who are not legally qualified just because the norm is to have legal qualifications.
There are a number of points about the ostensible reason for the amalgamation—efficiency. As my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead and Stockport, North said, it is no good ensuring that the quality of the decision is improved without certain other things. The first is the speed in the hearing of the appeal. I understand that in London appeals are three months in arrears. When people are living on small sums of money, that is a denial of justice, not in any decision that is taken but in the time that they have to wait for the appeal to be heard. I hoped that one of the reasons for the amalgamation would be the speeding up of the procedure. However, that depends upon the number of tribunals that are set up to replace the present separate tribunals, and the frequency with which they sit. Before we can form a judgment, we must have some more information about what the Government propose.
The distinction between the supplementary benefit tribunals and the national insurance appeal tribunals is being abolished. That will not be satisfactory if, within the offices concerned, there continues to be a distinction between the supplementary benefit and national insurance parts of the office so that when there is a supplementary benefit appeal a supplementary benefit officer is sent to represent the DHSS, and when there is a national insurance appeal a national insurance man is sent. There will be a proper saving and mixing of the two only when, at local office level, we have the mixing of the staff. Is that mixing proposed, or is the only unity to be at an appeal level?
We are placing upon the members of the new tribunals, whoever they may be, one of the most onerous jobs of any member of any tribunal, because to prepare themselves for
554
appeals of this kind they will not only have to master the two yellow books for supplementary benefit but there will be no fewer than four brown books for the national insurance law and regulations and cases. This is a tremendous job. Therefore, we must do several things. We have to present the members with adequate material, and there is much evidence that not all the tribunal members are getting their material or the supplements to the books on time. Have some of these books been published? We had a debate about this a year ago, but the matter appears to be in limbo, and I should welcome some information about the availability of the up-to-date books and their price. That also affects the ability of voluntary organisations to represent appellants.
We need to set up for all members of the tribunal, both those who are reappointed and those who are appointed for the first time, a proper system of training. The Government have not been living up to that condition. Not only do the members have to be trained, but refresher courses should be undertaken from time to time because of the array of the commissioners' decisions and the hair-splitting that is implicit in some of those decisions, which is truly bewildering. If we expect the members of the tribunal to do justice on our behalf, we have to train them properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead spoke about the independence of tribunals indirectly when he asked whether it would be ideal for us to have a legally qualified clerk rather than a legally qualified chairman. In my experience, the existence of a legal clerk does not remove the necessity for a legally qualified chairman, as the stipendiary magistrates system proves. However, there is an important point here that deserves an answer.
At the moment, the staffing of the tribunals is done by people seconded from the DHSS for a certain time to fulfil their role as clerks to the tribunal before returning to the system. As my hon. Friend has said, it is inhibiting for a clerk employed by the DHSS to be expected to be firm and tough with members of his own Department when he knows that he will have to work with them again and that his own promotion chances rest upon that.
If the Government feel that the time has come to set up this system, to be consistent they must also provide the appeals system with its own machinery and servicing and its own career structure. The chairman or the chief adjudication officer should be responsible for recruiting and employing people who must be seen to be independent of the Department on the advice of which the tribunal may be expected to act impartially.
I shall now deal with what is not in the Bill. The Government take great pride in setting up this huge new appeal system that they believe will be so much better than the previous system. That being so, what is the position with regard to appeals about housing benefits? At the moment, the arrangements are truly pitiful. The person denied housing benefit has the right to appeal to a committee of the same council that denied him the benefit. Indeed, the same members of the committee who made that decision often deal with the appeal. That does not even appear to be justice, and as time goes on it will increasingly be regarded as both ramshackle and unfair. I know that the Minister regards the housing benefit scheme almost as he would a gifted child of his own. He has a certain paternal interest in it and takes umbrage when none

555
should exist. Nevertheless, unless he deals with the appeals structure his brainchild will suffer grievous mental damage before very long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked about children in care and the attitudes of some local authorities towards the natural parents. Although the care procedure is intended not to be adversarial, the local authority often develops thoroughly hostile reactions towards the natural parents, from whom it has taken the children because it regards the parents as unfit to care for them, to such an extent that the authority is extremely reluctant to grant any access for the parents to see the children. The authority may also refuse to give any information about fostering, how and by whom, with the result that great friction is engendered between the foster parents and the natural parents. That is neither inevitable nor desirable. First, and most important, it scars the child who must be aware of the tension and friction caused by such quarrels. Secondly, it scars the natural parents. We must avoid dealing with them in a draconian way. They may well be parenting other children, so one hopes that their attitude towards children will improve rather than deteriorate as a result of that experience.
The Government must take a far broader and deeper view of the subject of children in care and give wider representation to the parties at the care proceedings than they are at present prepared to do. Too often the local authority gains custody almost on the nod, certainly without adequate representation for all parties. That is not the best way to deal with the matter.
To sum up, the Bill is the repository of some matters that we do not consider objectionable. It is the repository of some things that we believe can be improved greatly in Committee. It is the repository of some things that we find objectionable in principle. However, our chief criticism is that it does not match up to the scale of need within the welfare state. It does nothing to answer the real anxiety felt by millions of people about the intentions of the Government towards the welfare state. We fear that another Conservative Government, if that misfortune was ever to happen, would mean the destruction of the welfare state. It is because the Bill does nothing to deal with the central questions that beset us that we intend to divide the House.
9.30 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I had expected to be able to start my remarks by referring to something that I might have described as a general but grudging welcome for the Bill or at least most parts of it. I still find that that, in effect, has been the tone of most of the speeches, yet they have somehow been put together in an extraordinary edifice which now persuades the Opposition apparently to vote against the Bill although they approve of almost every part of it. [Interruption.] I accept the qualification of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), representing the SDP, that only one part of the Opposition will vote against the Bill.
So far as I can judge from the many interesting points that have been made in the debate, the only part of the Bill to which Opposition Members strenuously object, and which they feel has virtually no merit, is that dealing with the status of family practitioner committees, about which I hope to say a few words. In effect, the intention of the Labour Opposition to vote against the Bill rests entirely on
556
issues that are extraneous to the Bill. I understand the reasons. I do not particularly resent or object to such an attitude. It should, however, be put firmly on record that this is not a Bill that either does, or could, deal with the bringing of large additional resources to health and social services.
The Bill is concerned with the machinery by which resources are applied within the health and social services and the social security adjudication system. It improves the efficiency of our use of the resources that we possess. It would be possible for me to make a speech, and, indeed, I intend to make some remarks, on the issue of providing resources. It should, however, be clearly on the record that that is not the fundamental purpose of the Bill. To vote against a Bill that contains, as most hon. Members will accept, many good and useful provisions solely on the ground that if this were a debate about public expenditure there would be a vote against the Government has a slightly strange air about it.
Given that a good deal has been said about money, I might perhaps be allowed to say a little. No one listening to the remarks from the Opposition Benches would dream that those remarks were directed at a Government under whom spending on the National Health Service had risen significantly in real terms and under whom spending on the personal social services had risen significantly in real terms by nine per cent. between 1978–79 and 1982–83. The indicative figures for local authority expenditure this year show that the Government have placed no less than a quarter of the increase in personal social services, when social services represent only 10 per cent. of local authority expenditure, which is a clear lead. The plans for the next three years continue to give local authority social services a two per cent. lead in these terms over the indicative figures for other parts of local authority spending.
Mr. Ennals: Surely the hon. Gentleman should be extremely angry with those local authorities which have been spending above their limit on social services. The fact that they have done so has been in spite of pressure from the Government to reduce their expenditure. It is those local authorities which care that have done so, and as a consequence they have been penalised.
Mr. Newton: I see no reason why I should be angry with local authorities which have to a significant extent done what the Government have urged, which is to concentrate the resources available to them on priority areas, including substantial parts of the social services. My right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently hoped that local authorities would look at the pattern of their expenditure with a view to concentrating on priorities, and have stated what some of those priorities should be.
I say for myself and for my right hon. and hon. Friends that I am glad that local authorities have recognised the importance of social services in planning their budgets over the past few years. I hope that they will continue to recognise the importance of social services in the next few years. It is clear that the decisions which many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see made to achieve the objectives which we hold in common are decisions which depend on what happens in local authorities and cannot be dictated in every respect by the Government.
We cannot expect to run the personal and social services from Alexander Fleming House. Guidance and

557
exhortations can be issued and authorities can be congratulated rather than condemned when they respond to the Government's hopes for the priorities that they will place on social services expenditure and on expenditure for those with special needs.
My final point about money ties in with points that have been made by various Members, including the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who told me that he would not be present for the winding-up speches. One would not have recognised from what was said tonight that in the past few months the Government had announced a series of significant initiatives to deal with many of the problems of current concern. There have been initiatives on drug abuse, on additional help for the under-fives and not least on the problem of the one-parent family, about which the hon. Lady waxed so eloquent.
The Government have announced new initiatives on the improvement of services for the elderly and the severely mentally infirm. This issue was touched on by a number of hon. Gentlemen, not least the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who has also apologised to me for not being present now, and who is concerned about the problem of senile dementia.
Within the last two or three weeks there has been a sizeable initiative on intermediate treatment, designed, as I said when intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, to earmark funds for the development of the important technique of treating and helping young offenders in the community.
Nor would one have recognised from what has been said—in fact it was ignored by several hon. Members—that the Government have been increasing the funds going into joint finance. The Government have recently announced an additional £6 million for the forthcoming year in connection with the attempt to move further forward on the policy of care in the community, which is supported and encouraged from both sides of the House.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that if direct finance to local authorities is cut back there is no point in giving a small amount more for joint financing? That point has been made time and time again.
Mr. Newton: I do not accept that. The joint finance programmes that have developed within the past few years have grown and developed significantly. The Government have given a sizeable boost to the development of community services of the kind needed for developing these initiatives.
I do not think the hon. Member for Crewe has fully recognised some of the ingredients of the new proposals which the Government are bringing forward on care in the community. The £6 million of additional money is not designed just to help local authorities cover that period when resources are being released from the Health Service towards care in the community. Health authorities will be given power outside the joint finance arrangements to transfer sums of money to those patients who are leaving long-stay hospitals for community alternatives.
I do not claim, and nor do my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Bill goes as far as we would like. It would be absurd to make that claim. However, it is equally absurd for the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and her hon. Friends to pretend that it is not a useful and
558
welcome development that will help to bring about the progress that we all wish to see. The Opposition do themselves no service, nor the House or those whose interests they seek to speak for, by minimising what is being achieved and planned.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) talked about joint finance in Scotland. In this respect I adopt the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, (Mr. Brown) about the meeting that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will have next week with the representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss joint financing. The problems which the hon. Members for Fife, Central and for Provan raised will be discussed at that meeting.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is kind of the Minister to refer to the Scottish context, because I am sure that he knows nothing about it. Will he take on board the fact that there are different circumstances in Scotland? I am not suggesting for a moment that he can instruct the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but perhaps he will try to understand that Scottish local authorities are anti-Government because the Government are trying even now to place additional burdens on local authorities under the joint financing scheme.
Mr. Newton: It is right that my understanding of the Scottish context is limited. The hon. Gentleman is even more right to suggest that as a DHSS Minister in London I am in no position to issue orders to my independent Scottish friends in Edinburgh. No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has heard what has been said and will have marked, learnt and inwardly digested it for his talks next week.
Many hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), have observed that the Bill will make a number of changes to children's legislation and provide increased protection for vulnerable groups of children and prevent their unnecessary suffering. The hon. Lady referred to some of them and I am grateful to her for the welcome that she gave to these measures. They may appear to be small, but they may prove to be quite large in protecting a small number of children who are subject to particular risks in the community. The provisions for children and child care may be relatively limited, but it is clear from the discussion that took place in another place, and from what has been said tonight, that there is considerable interest in the possibilities of making the Bill rather larger in its application to child care. Considerable concern has been expressed about a number of matters which at present are not covered by the Bill.
It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, from a number of other speeches and from what was said in another place that there is much concern about the exercise by local authorities of parental rights resolutions and the granting or denial of access to parents of children in care. The Government understand the concern that is being expressed. In the past few weeks I have met the local authority associations and the Association of Directors of Social Services for discussions on these matters in the light of some recent cases and against the background of what was said in another place during its discussion of the Bill.
I am pleased to say that, although I cannot make a detailed announcement of the Government's proposals

559
today, considerable agreement between all those interested in these matters is beginning to develop on what needs to be done. I shall say more about that a little later.
Before doing that, I should like to emphasise several general points which echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. She spoke with her experience, which we greatly value, as Chairman of the Social Services Committee, which we also greatly value. That Committee is now studying child care legislation. The Department warmly welcomes that and looks forward to examining the report that will appear in due course.
My first general point is that nobody should allow himself to run away with the idea that passing laws can solve many of the problems. In the end, the solution of most of them depends on good practice among those concerned, especially local authority social workers in social services departments. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East recognised that we are dealing with legislation that has grown up and the complexity of maintaining a balance between the interests of the child, the interests of the local authority that is asked to act as if it were the parent of that child, the interests of the parents and, in many cases, the interests of foster parents who have been asked by the local authority to help it exercise its parental responsibility. One might also have to consider the interests of adopting parents. It is a difficult balance to be sure of getting right. It is definitely one in which it is proper to proceed with caution when one considers changes in the law. I hope that the House will be careful.
Another general point also relates directly to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said. The Social Services Committee is conducting an inquiry into these matters. Many of the witnesses that have appeared before it have suggested the need for a bigger inquiry. The hon. Member for Ormskirk went so far as to demand a Royal Commission. Whatever form that further inquiry takes, there is a growing suggestion that some people feel that the inquiry should be broader.
We shall want to consider what the Social Services Committee finds as well as what emerges in further debate on the Bill before attempting to decide on many of the points that can and may be advanced, including that of a wider-ranging inquiry. For all those reasons, it is clear that whatever we or Opposition Members try to include in the Bill, we shall not be able to cover all the anxieties and pretend that, by amending the Bill, we can have the last word on the delicate and difficult issue of child care.
Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from being willing to examine the most obvious areas of worry and to make changes where they are clearly needed. I hope that, despite the caution in what I have said so far, the House will agree that we should not be inhibited from making any change because of the work of the Social Services Committee or an inquiry that might take place. Down that path lies more or less permanent inertia. That is not what I or the House would wish.
I shall now comment on the major issues. Parental rights procedures, which have become the subject of much controversy, are intended to protect and to promote the welfare of the children concerned. There is general agreement that some mechanism is needed to transfer parental rights to the local authority when that is seen to be in the child's interests. It has been argued that that step should not be taken without recourse to the courts and that
560
the changes that were proposed in another place would do away with the power of authorities to assume such rights by resolution. It has also been argued that the changes would do away with the right of parents to agree that the local authority should take over their rights and duties. It would not be right to go that far in circumstances in which local authorities are often taking over those rights without any difference of opinion with the parents, and when there is no objection or dispute.
It cannot be right to bring in the courts when everyone is agreed about the right course. Clearly there is concern, but, on the subject of whether the courts should be involved in all cases of parental rights, I say that the main need is for improved practices by local authorities. It is in that direction that we are now moving with the local authority associations—and, I hope, the Association of Directors of Social Services—to produce a code of guidance that will enable arrangements for parental rights resolutions to be made against the background of greater co-operation with and information for parents about their rights and the duties of local authorities.
Mr. John: It is necessary to remove many children into care because their parents are inadequate. Therefore, they will not understand their rights and obligations. Thus, a purely executive power would give no more justice than the present system.
Mr. Newton: I took it that there was fairly general agreement with my remarks that the law could not solve some of the problems. I seek to do no more than to reemphasise that and to say that a code is needed, whatever the law may say on the matter.
There are two other points. The extent to which parents have clear legal rights under the existing law on parental rights resolutions is sometimes underestimated. I shall return to one aspect of that matter. In most cases, the local authority must notify the parents of its intention to take parental rights. At that point, if the parents object to the local authority's intention, the authority can proceed only by taking the matter to court. That is a significant right, given that the parents are entitled to legal aid in those circumstances. It is a significant protection against the abuse of local authority power in the way that has been feared. That is about the right balance, as far as I can judge, in normal cases.
However, there is one point in the existing law that clearly needs to be changed, and that is the aspect that allows parents whose children have been taken voluntarily into care to sign in advance that they will not object to the introduction of a parental rights resolution. That means that they do not then need to be notified of the making of the resolution, and they thus lose their entitlement to the right of appeal that I have just outlined. We have concluded that it is right to table an amendment to the Bill to prevent parents signing away their rights in that way. I felt that some disagreement was developing between the two sides. I am glad that Labour Members, now that they have heard all that I have in mind, at least welcome that as a useful move.
As time is short and I have deliberately attenuated my remarks, I shall summarise what I want to say about child care. We recognise the concern that is felt about the balance between the powers of local authorities and the rights of parents. We are anxious to respond to that

561
concern, so long as we can do so in ways that cannot be seen to weaken the paramount need, which must be the welfare of the child or children in question.
In relation both to parental rights resolutions and to the grant of access to children in care, for whatever reason they may be in care, we feel that there is a need for improved standards of practice. We are therefore working in conjunction with the local authority associations to prepare a code or codes of guidance to cover these matters.
Beyond this we are persuaded that the law should be changed to prevent parents from signing away in advance their right to object to the making of a parental rights resolution and thus their right to have the matter dealt with by a court. We are actively considering whether there is a further change that we can appropriately bring forward to meet the anxiety expressed about the position of parents who are refused access to their children in care.
In the few moments left to me, I want to mention residential care homes and the inspection procedures which have been the subject of some comment during the debate. I emphasise that the frequency of inspection set out in the Bill is the minimum. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from inspecting homes more frequently if they wish to do so, and there is certainly nothing to stop the spot checks and the visits without notice, which some hon. Members have mentioned.
It is at present difficult to see how statutory backing for a code of standards could sensibly be applied to such a varied range of accommodation and the needs of such widely different client groups as are currently in these homes. We feel that at the moment the right approach is the voluntary code which we are hoping to construct with the aid of the Centre for Policy on Ageing and which we hope will be produced later this year.
Let me deal quickly with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the mandatory grants on which hon. Members have touched on a number of occasions and at some length. I cannot, as my hon. and learned Friend indicated in his opening speech, say what our intentions are with regard to the amendment introduced by Lady Faithfull and passed in another place.
Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman ought to be able to say.
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that I ought to be able to say. I had it in mind to listen to the views of the House of Commons on Second Reading before coming to a decision.
Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman should have made his mind up.
Mr. Newton: I have been urged all evening to listen to the House. Now I am told that we should have made up our minds in advance.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is out of step with the rest of the Government.
Mr. Newton: I do not think I am out of step with the rest of the Government. This is a listening Government—[Interruption.]—who are ceaselessly prepared to hear and consider the advice of the House.
It seems to me far from clear that the proposal that has been inserted in the form of an amendment to the Bill in another place will actually achieve the objectives that it
562
and its authors have in mind. The pattern of qualification in social work demonstrates that a very large number—indeed, the majority—of social workers have the sort of training that has been discussed today. The biggest need, as far as I can judge, is to improve the training of the people working in residential care homes and the like. It is not the case that the extension of mandatory awards in the form presently contained in the Bill would necessarily be the best way of devoting additional resources to the main needs for increased training in social work. I put that before hon. Members as one of my own reservations against the background of what has been said tonight in considering the appropriate policy for us to follow.
I hope that Opposition Members will reconsider their decision to vote against what is a modest but useful Bill to improve social work provision.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 43.

Division No. 71]

[10 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

McCrindle, Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

MacGregor, John

Alton, David

Major, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Marlow, Antony

Banks, Robert

Mather, Carol

Beith, A. J.

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Bendall, Vivian

Mellor, David

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Moate, Roger

Blackburn, John

Murphy, Christopher

Body, Richard

Myles, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Nelson, Anthony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Neubert, Michael

Bright, Graham

Newton, Tony

Brinton, Tim

Normanton, Tom

Brooke, Hon Peter

Osborn, John

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Penhaligon, David

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Cope, John

Renton, Tim

Crouch, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dorrell, Stephen

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Dykes, Hugh

Rossi, Hugh

Emery, Sir Peter

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Sandelson, Neville

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Freud, Clement

Sims, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Speller, Tony

Goodlad, Alastair

Stanbrook, Ivor

Greenway, Harry

Stanley, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Gummer, John Selwyn

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Thompson, Donald

Hawksley, Warren

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Heddle, John

Trippier, David

Henderson, Barry

Viggers, Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Waddington, David

Howells, Geraint

Waller, Gary

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Warren, Kenneth

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Watson, John

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Wells, Bowen

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Wheeler, John

Luce, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Winterton, Nicholas

563

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. Archie Hamilton and

Mr. Ian Lang.

Tellers for the Ayes:

NOES

Allaun, Frank

John, Brynmor

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

Lamond, James

Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp't N)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Morton, George

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Pavitt, Laurie

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Cowans, Harry

Prescott, John

Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

Race, Reg

Cryer, Bob

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Short, Mrs Renée

Dalyell, Tarn

Skinner, Dennis

Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Spearing, Nigel

Deakins, Eric

Tinn, James

Dixon, Donald

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Dormand, Jack

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Welsh, Michael

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

Foster, Derek

Woodall, Alec

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Tellers for the Noes:

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Dr. Edmund Marshall and

Homewood, William

Mr. Allen McKay.

Janner, Hon Greville

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [Lords]

  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES AND SOCIAL SECURITY ADJUDICATIONS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the financing of certain social services in England and Wales and Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act—

  (i) in making payments authorised by the Act to local authorities in Wales or in connection with the provision of housing accommodation in Wales or payments in lieu to voluntary organisations;

  (ii) in making grants for the training of social workers;

  (iii) for the purpose of any provision of the Act relating to any tribunal or other body or to medical practitioners appointed to determine questions under the Social Security Act 1975;

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;

  (c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums repaid to the Secretary of State in pursuance of the Act.—[Mr. Newton.]

Thorpe-on-the-Hill (Underpass)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
10.11 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity of raising on the Adjournment of the House the need for an underpass to be constructed at Thorpe-on-the-Hill in the event of the Lincoln bypass being constructed, which it will be.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and to her predecessor for the support that they gave to the construction of a bypass at Heckington, which has proved a great relief to the residents of the village. I also thank my hon. Friend for the urgent consideration that she is presently giving to the construction of a bypass at Leadenham. I hope that her final decision to proceed will not be long delayed.
The construction of the Lincoln bypass is, of course, of great importance to all who live in Lincoln and to those of my constituents who live in North Hykeham. The Government are to be congratulated on having authorised the construction of that important road.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) in his place. Special thanks must go to my hon. Friend, whose dedication to the interests of his constituents in Lincoln is well known in the House and without whose advocacy the bypass might not have received such early authorisation. Speaking for myself, I always view the bypass as Carlisle's road.
Despite my pleasure at the prospect of an early start to the Lincoln bypass, one aspect that causes me great concern is the safety of those of my constituents who live at Thorpe-on-the-Hill and who will have to cross the bypass on frequent occasions.
I should like to take this opportunity to urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reconsider the decision that was previously taken by her officials not to authorise the construction of an underpass. I have in mind a modest affair—an underpass under the bypass capable of use by cyclists and pedestrians. The point at which it should be constructed is at or near the part of the bypass that bisects Moor lane and Thorpe lane. There are a number of points that I hope my hon. Friend will consider.
First, the bypass will bisect Thorpe lane and Moor lane. Thorpe lane is a residential area. It contains several houses, and many of the children living in Thorpe lane attend the primary school at Thorpe-on-the-Hill. The number of pupils travelling from Thorpe lane to the primary school at Thorpe-on-the-Hill is likely to increase, because the primary school is to be both enlarged and improved. It follows that, after the construction of the bypass, a significant number of children will have to cross the road when going to and returning from school. In view of the speed at which vehicles are likely to be travelling at that point—it will, of course, be a fast road—and the age of the children involved—they will, of course, be attending the primary school—there must be a significant risk of a road accident.
Secondly, there is a reverse flow of pupils who live in Thorpe-on-the-Hill and who attend the Robert Pattinson school in North Hykeham. Many of those pupils now bicycle to and from school. They will bicycle down School lane into Moor lane and then cross the new bypass into Thorpe lane. They must therefore be at significant risk.

565
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend will know, in a letter dated 11 September 1981 the Lincolnshire Road Car Company stated its intention to site a bus stop at a point on the south side of Moor lane as near as possible to the junction with the new Lincoln bypass. Passengers alighting at that stop and wishing to cross into Thorpe lane will have to use the bypass. The Lincolnshire Road Car Company has already asked my hon. Friend's Department to consider the possibility of a suitable pedestrian crossing at that point. Clearly, the bus company thinks that its passengers will be at significant risk.
Fourthly, in the event of a road accident occurring at this junction there is bound to be considerable local pressure for the construction of an underpass and the cost of doing the work at some future date will be much greater than the present cost. Indeed, it may not be possible to do the construction work at all.
That brings me to the last issue—cost. As I have said, what I have in mind and what my constituents would like is a modest affair—an underpass capable of providing a means of transit for bicyclists and pedestrians. That has been considered by officials at the Department of Transport and they have costed it. So far as I am aware the cost that they have attached to it is about £33,000. I am well aware that that assessment was made some time ago and that it has no doubt grown. However, in view of the Government's success in containing inflation, it will certainly have grown less fast than it would have done had the Labour party been in power.
In the context of the overall cost of the Lincoln bypass, which is measured in millions, we are talking about a very small sum. If I am right in thinking, as I believe I am, that the construction of an underpass will greatly improve road safety for my constituents in Thorpe-on-the-Hill, the expenditure of £33,000 will be money extremely well spent.
As far as I am aware, this is the only significant aspect of the Lincoln relief scheme which has not been settled. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the points that I have made and will feel able to authorise the construction of the underpass when the bypass is being built. If she does that, she will receive the permanent thanks of my constituents for whom the construction of an underpass could well be a lifesaver.
10.19 pm
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on initiating this debate and thank him for his kind words. He understands the need for the Lincoln relief road and its contribution to life in Lincoln and the surrounding district. We have waited a long time for the relief road in Lincolnshire, and I am glad that work is in sight. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for her support for this much needed road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has been assiduous in defending his constituents' interests. I believe that he was right to bring to the House the anxiety felt by those in Thorpe-on-the-Hill. I hope that their needs will be met and that there will be no delay to the start of building this much needed road.
10.20 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) for providing me with the opportunity to tell the House about the Lincoln relief road scheme and the benefits which the new road will bring to that historic city. I realise that that was not his prime interest in initiating this debate, but I believe it is right to recognise that, as well as being a major administrative and employment centre, Lincoln is a city of national importance in terms of its historic monuments. One always thinks immediately of its marvellous cathedral, in its most impressive setting, visible from far around. It is right that the cathedral and the many listed buildings and ancient monuments nearby should benefit from the relief road.
Lincoln has long been recognised as a place of major tourist attraction, and it has thereby contributed significantly to the local economy. Its important role means inevitably that the city is also a focal point of road communication. Routes from the industrial areas of Lincolnshire, south Yorkshire and Humberside as well as the direct route from the South via the A41 and the A46 converge on the city. All through routes present a problem in either entering the city or going round its conservation area. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) is here because he has worked hard to ensure that a Lincoln relief road was possible.
It is the mix of traffic which has often led to us to know that it is right to provide relief from the severe traffic congestion and unpleasant environmental conditions for those who live, work and shop in the city. I want to see relief for the historical areas which are close to the centre because they undoubtedly suffer from the effects of traffic, noise, fumes and dust. It is a real problem.
In Lincoln, as in similar cities, the Government's main priority is to build roads which can aid economic recovery and bring environmental benefits. The Lincoln relief road is important in both those ways. It has been under consideration since 1938 and there is absolutely no doubt about the extent of local support for such a scheme.
I shall now deal with the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham asked for the Adjournment debate. He and I have already corresponded and spoken about the need for an underpass of the Lincoln relief road at Thorpe-on-the-Hill for pedestrians and cyclists.
The proposals by the Department of Transport for the relief road cut across an existing minor road between the settlements of Thorpe-on-the-Hill and that part of North Hykeham lying to the north-west of the A46. The vehicular access that is to be allowed on to the new road from Thorpe-on-the-Hill via Moor lane will enable many of the existing services, such as the bus services, to be retained, albeit with a diversion along the new road, but the road leading to North Hykeham—Thorpe lane—is to be stopped up from the Lincoln relief road.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of buses stopping on the Lincoln relief road. We have already agreed to provide a bus lay-by, where the bus company has asked, to ensure that the buses stopping for the villagers' convenience is not an impediment to traffic on the Lincoln relief road when it is built.
My hon. Friend is not so much worried about the traffic from North Hykeham wishing to travel to Thorpe-on-the-Hill, because it can use a slightly longer route via the A46,

567
nor is he worried about the diversions of vehicular traffic. He is worried about the local people and the arrangements for pedestrians and cyclists to go between Thorpe lane and Moor lane when the new road is built.
My hon. Friend and I have been in correspondence about the matter since last autumn, and that was not the first time that this issue had been raised. My hon. Friend knows full well that at the public inquiry held in November 1981 into the draft line and side road orders for the scheme, the parish council and the governors of Thorpe-on-the-Hill Church of England primary school put the case for an underpass to connect those two roads linking the two settlements. The matter was discussed thoroughly at the public inquiry. The independent inspector, nominated by the Lord Chancellor, in his report on the objections that he heard at the inquiry, concluded that the number of pedestrians and cyclists using the crossing each day did not justify the provision of an underpass at an estimated cost of £33,000.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport considered the objections and the inspector's report and recommendations most carefully. They agreed with the inspector about this matter, and their decision was conveyed in a letter dated 16 July 1982 from the regional director of the Departments of the Environment and Transport's east midlands regional office. That letter drew attention to the difference of view expressed at the inquiry between the objectors and the Department of Transport's representative about the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists using the existing lane between North Hykeham and Thorpe-on-the-Hill.
The letter concluded that even the objectors' higher figures of recorded usage of the route would not justify the expenditure of the £33,000 estimated as the cost of the underpass. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State agreed with the inspector that there was no case for providing an underpass for use by pedestrians and cyclists travelling along Moor Lane and Thorpe Lane.
The decision was taken not in isolation but after the needs of cyclists and pedestrians had been closely examined during the preparation of the trunk road scheme. Personal safety is a very important consideration in the planning of each scheme, but in deciding what facilities it is reasonable to provide for pedestrians and cyclists in any case we are bound to have regard to the numbers of people involved and the cost of the provision. We must do that for each and every scheme in the country, not just for the Lincoln relief road, as I believe my hon. Friend understands. I wish that funds were not limited for the provision of safety underpasses, but they are limited, and I must be realistic in my approach to where the resources can be devoted. We must demonstrate that a scheme is real value for money, and we cannot escape from that responsibility.
My hon. Friend and I have exchanged letters on the subject since the decision of my right hon. Friends was announced, and I have had to say in those letters that there was no possibility of a change of mind about the underpass, as there would not be enough usage of the crossing to justify the capital expenditure. It is clear that local feelings are running high, and in response to repeated and enthusiastic representations of my hon. Friend I have re-examined the evidence presented at the public inquiry. I have listened with great interest tonight to what he said in support of the case for an underpass, and to what he has
568
told me on many other occasions since the happy day we spent at Heckington in December at the opening of one bypass in his constituency.
At the public inquiry the Department's representative presented evidence of a survey that had been carried out to establish the movement of pedestrians and cyclists along Moor lane and Thorpe lane in both directions. On three days during school term time in 1981 the highest daily movement recorded was 19 pedestrians and 40 cyclists between 7 am and 7 pm. There were no unaccompanied child pedestrians observed during the three days in question. I am glad that there were none. Young children should not be crossing roads on their own until they are of an age to do so. The figures recorded are extremely low when set against the capital cost of an underpass. The parish council considered, on the basis of its own count, that 24 pedestrians was a more realistic figure, but even so that does not significantly alter the balance of the case.
In addition to the number of people wanting to cross the new road between North Hykeham and Thorpe-on-the-Hill, an important factor is the amount of traffic that the road will be carrying and the nature of the road. At this point the relief road will have a single carriageway 24 ft wide with very good visability. The road is quite straight for a considerable distance either side of the point. This part of the relief road is not expected to be carrying more than 7,000 vehicles a day by the year 2000. That is a relatively light load when compared with all the other roads that we consider for the same reasons. I believe that pedestrians and cyclists can cross such a road with good visibility, while taking reasonable care, in complete safety. I repeat that it is an adult responsibility to see small children across the roads.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend's major concern, and rightly so, is that children will be crossing the road to get to school. Young children of play school age could be involved, but I know from the work that has been done on this and other roads that great care is taken in the majority of cases with these children to ensure that they are not allowed to travel to school alone. That is obviously very well understood by local parents in the area even before the new road has been built. I am supported by the fact that no unaccompanied child pedestrians were encountered.
I am sorry that I cannot answer my hon. Friend positively. It is always much more pleasant to be able to give an hon. Member a positive answer to his request. I have to ask myself when considering this request for an underpass the same question to which I address myself when considering all other such requests. The question is whether there is considerable room for doubt about whether an underpass in a predominately rural area, such as the one requested by my hon. Friend, is a facility which the local residents will readily use.
I regret to say that there is a further harsh reality that has not so far entered into our considerations tonight. It is that underpasses so often, unfortunately, attract anti-social behaviour. As a result, we can never guarantee that any underpass will be immune from that sort of attention. Many pedestrians will not use an underpass when it has been provided. Most of them prefer to cross the surface of the road because of the anti-social behaviour that sometimes occurs in underpasses.
I can assure my hon. Friend that our approach to his case would be different if the figures were different and there were a much greater tide of traffic at all times of the day. Every check that has been undertaken and all the

569
advice that I have received leads me to the conclusion that I cannot agree to meet his request. It is true that the Secretary of State has a continuing responsibility under the Highways Act 1980 for the provision of new roads and the safety of their users. That responsibility does not cease on the completion of the construction works. We shall keep under review the need for any improvement when the road is in use. The needs of pedestrians and cyclists are an integral and important part of our responsibilities.
I can assure my hon. Friend also that, if the traffic conditions on a stretch of road turn out to be significantly different from those expected, active steps will be taken as rapidly as required. In accordance with our normal practice, we shall be appointing the local highway authority, the Lincolnshire county council, which, incidentally, supports the view that we have taken on this issue so far, as the Department's agents for the management and maintenance of the new road. I have absolutely no doubt that it will bring to our notice any case that it sees for additional measures to be taken in the interests of the safety of all highway users.
The statutory orders confirming the line of the new road and various side road arrangements were made last December. The draft compulsory purchase order for the land needed for the construction of the new road was published in January this year and objections to that order are under consideration. A further public inquiry into the compulsory purchase proposals may be necessary. Depending on the completion of the statutory procedures, however, I am hopeful that construction work on the new road can start next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln asked whether including an underpass at a late stage might delay the building of the road. The true answer, as I think my hon.
570
Friend knows, is that one can never say for certain. If, in a few months time, it was decided to build an underpass, and if there were objections to land being taken for that purpose, those objections could lead to further delay. I do not imagine that the delay would be significant, but there is always that risk with further CPOs and orders to which public have the right to object.
All being well, we hope that Lincoln will have its much-needed relief road by 1986. I know that new roads always create some minor disadvantages, but I believe that this road will bring great benefit to the city of Lincoln. I am not unaware of the disappointment that I shall have caused my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham by not giving an extra aid to the people of his area, but I assure him that if there were evidence to show that it was really necessary I should have been only too happy to agree to his proposal.
We do not live in times in which money comes easily and every pound spent on a road must be justified. This applies not just to this case but to bypasses and relief roads throughout the country. Although I shall always put safety needs at the top of the agenda, I cannot genuinely justify the expenditure required when I know from experience that underpasses are so little used.
If the situation changes, we shall be advised immediately by our agent, the Lincolnshire county council, and take remedial steps. At present, however, there is no evidence to justify my going against the inspector's report and against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport based on the inspector's report. I regret to say that the case for an underpass is not justified.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Offshore Licensing
  Offshore Licensing
  Power Stations (Generation Costs)
  Power Stations (Generation Costs)
  Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
  Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Report)
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
INDUSTRY
  Machine Tools (Imports)
  Machine Tools (Imports)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Alnwick and Amble
  Alnwick and Amble
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Criminal Damage and Injury (Compensation)
  Criminal Damage and Injury (Compensation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Foreign Language Teaching
  School Meals
  School Meals
  University Grants
  University Grants
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  British Aerospace, Woodford
  British Aerospace, Woodford
  Argentina (Arms Supplies)
  Argentina (Arms Supplies)
  Industrial Policy
  Industrial Policy
  Bank Representatives (Meeting)
  Bank Representatives (Meeting)
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Remand Prisoners
  Remand Prisoners
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Turriff
  Turriff
  Nationalised Industries (Privatisation)
  Nationalised Industries (Privatisation)
  European Community (Visit)
  European Community (Visit)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Suspended Officers)
  Metropolitan Police (Suspended Officers)
  Prisoners (Remand Appearances)
  Prisoners (Remand Appearances)
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Ipswich (Magistrates' Courts)
  Ipswich (Magistrates' Courts)
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Maritime Radio Operators (Examinations)
  Maritime Radio Operators (Examinations)
SCOTLAND
  Shipping Services (Assistance)
  Shipping Services (Assistance)
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Public Expenditure (Roads and Transport)
  Public Expenditure (Roads and Transport)
  Construction Industry (Apprenticeships)
  Construction Industry (Apprenticeships)
  House Building
  House Building
  Gaelic (Departmental Leaflets)
  Gaelic (Departmental Leaflets)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Housing (Consolidation Costs)
  Housing (Consolidation Costs)
  Health Boards (Commercial Contractors)
  Health Boards (Commercial Contractors)
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
WALES
  Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Drugs (Safety)
  Drugs (Safety)
  Public Path and Definitive Map Orders (Inspectors)
  Public Path and Definitive Map Orders (Inspectors)
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Private Health Schemes
  Private Health Schemes
  Inflation
  Inflation
  OECD (Economic Survey)
  OECD (Economic Survey)
  Investment Outflow
  Investment Outflow
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
TRADE
  Companies Acts (Investigations)
  Companies Acts (Investigations)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  British Airways
  British Airways
  North Sea Supply Ships (Safety)
  North Sea Supply Ships (Safety)
  Tampons
  Tampons
  Dry Batteries (Imports)
  Dry Batteries (Imports)
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  HMS Sheffield
  HMS Sheffield
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Caesarean Birth Rate
  Caesarean Birth Rate
  NHS (Theatre Operating Staff)
  NHS (Theatre Operating Staff)
  Opticians (Underpayment)
  Opticians (Underpayment)
  Greenfield Report
  Greenfield Report
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Hospital Closures (Geriatric Care)
  Hospital Closures (Geriatric Care)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  "Social Trends 1983" (Chart)
  "Social Trends 1983" (Chart)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  World Heritage Convention
  World Heritage Convention
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Butter and Butter Oil
  Butter and Butter Oil
  "Food from Britain"
  "Food from Britain"
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  EAGGF Expenditure
  EAGGF Expenditure
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
  Lobster Licensing
  Lobster Licensing
  Pig Herd
  Pig Herd
  Grain (Intervention Stores)
  Grain (Intervention Stores)
  Cereals (Intervention Sales)
  Cereals (Intervention Sales)
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Feedstuffs (Ingredient Marking)
  Animal Feedstuffs (Ingredient Marking)
  Surplus Cereals
  Surplus Cereals
  Agricultural Products (Guarantees)
  Agricultural Products (Guarantees)
  White Sugar
  White Sugar
  European Community (Food Costs)
  European Community (Food Costs)
  Marginal Land (Review)
  Marginal Land (Review)
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Land Settlement Association
  Land Settlement Association
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Ware Potatoes
  Ware Potatoes
  Beef Variable Premium Scheme
  Beef Variable Premium Scheme
  Stubble Burning
  Stubble Burning
  Fish Catches
  Fish Catches
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Danish Pigment
  Danish Pigment
  Rabbits and Pigeons (Crop Damage)
  Rabbits and Pigeons (Crop Damage)
  Farming Unions (Discussions)
  Farming Unions (Discussions)
  Common Agricultural Policy (Prices)
  Common Agricultural Policy (Prices)
  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Milk Co-responsibility Levy
  Milk Co-responsibility Levy
  Farm Animals (Protection)
  Farm Animals (Protection)
  European Community (Milk Imports)
  European Community (Milk Imports)
  Milk Producers (Aid)
  Milk Producers (Aid)
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Milk
  Milk
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Cod Imports
  Cod Imports
  Butter
  Butter
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephone System
  Telephone System
TRANSPORT
  A38 (Bridges)
  A38 (Bridges)
  Motorways (Lighting Costs)
  Motorways (Lighting Costs)
  Disabled People (Car Badges)
  Disabled People (Car Badges)
ENVIRONMENT
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Ed. Berman
  Mr. Ed. Berman
  Inner City Policy
  Inner City Policy
  Secure Tenancies
  Secure Tenancies
  Council Houses (Repair and Maintenance)
  Council Houses (Repair and Maintenance)
  Housing (Insulation)
  Housing (Insulation)
  Grants
  Grants
  South Islington Law Centre
  South Islington Law Centre
  Rates
  Rates
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
  Local Government Act 1972
  Local Government Act 1972
  Consultants (Fees)
  Consultants (Fees)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Dog Licences: Statistics
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many dog licences were issued in the last year in which figures are available.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the number of dogs licensed in Great Britain in the year ended 31st March 1982 was 2,740,928.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say whether the Government are making a profit out of this?—because I gather that they are not doing so. If they are not, can he say whether the Government will consider either increasing the amount payable for the licence or abolishing it altogether?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right; the Government are not making a profit out of this. The Public Accounts Committee went into the matter last year and worked it out that in 1981–82 payments by the Department of the Environment to the Post Office to cover the costs of issuing licences in England and Wales amounted to just over £3 million. In Scotland, the sum involved was less. The annual revenue is about £1 million. The Government obviously realise that the present situation, which has evolved over a long period, is far from satisfactory, and they are at present studying the report of the Public Accounts Committee.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many dogs were unlicensed?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in 1976 an interdepartmental working party on dogs estimated that there were about 1 million unlicensed dogs in this country. I think that that estimate is probably still about right.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there are any figures available as to how many dog licences are paid for by old-age pensioners?
Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not have those figures but I shall write to my noble friend if I can ascertain them.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to know, professionally: how many of these licensed dogs wear dog collars?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that perhaps it is a question of every dog having his day!

Airline Operating Permits: Conditions
3.3 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 will take steps to obtain agreement with other Governments so that the conditions under which operating permits and licences are granted to airlines may be enforced.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, many Governments have much the same difficulties as we do about tariff enforcement, but Her Majesty's Government are prepared to raise the matter at Government level where it seems worthwhile doing so.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we seem to be at variance on these matters? Is he further aware that the reply that he gave me on 20th January last was, with respect, I think, incorrect? Has the noble Lord seen Recommendation 29 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation Conference which met in 1980, which recommendation was accepted by the United Kingdom? Furthermore, arising from that, is he aware that because of that recommendation the organisation here which issues these licences has indeed a very important obligation to see that the terms are carried out?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I cannot imagine what gives the noble Baroness grounds for thinking that we are at variance on this or, indeed, on any subject; but I am afraid I have not studied Recommendation 29, and, therefore, I am not in a position to comment in detail on it today. Nevertheless, I shall study it myself and draw the comments of the noble Baroness to the attention of my noble friend, and we shall certainly write to her on that matter. Of course, the noble Baroness and your Lordships will be aware of the many problems of enforcing these regulations, which we have discussed many times in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I might do without the correspondence, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would be willing to receive some information that I have on these matters. Is he further aware that I am sure we do not wish to be at variance, and perhaps I might put down a Question when we have sorted this out so that we are proved to be in agreement.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it would be a very dull day if we were ever in agreement. Variety is the spice of life; but I hope we may carry on with our traditional

335
courtesy. Of course, I shall be delighted to receive any information that the noble Baroness has, and I shall expedite it before my noble friend.

British Airways: Profit and Personnel
3.6 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 British Airways are on target in increasing their profits and reducing their number of personnel.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in the six months to 30th September 1982 British Airways earned a profit of £80 million after interest and tax. This was a big improvement on the corresponding six-month period in 1981, when a loss of £32 million was made. It is not possible at this stage to forecast the profit for the year as a whole, and it is necessary to bear in mind that the summer is always the most profitable period of the year. Between August 1979 and the end of January 1983 British Airways has reduced staff by 32 per cent, from about 58,200 to around 39,500. The airline still expects to achieve its target of around 35,000 employees this year, but it is difficult to forecast the timing of such large redundancies with precision.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will think it is a considerable achievement to have secured a reduction in staff, because for several decades British Airways has tended to be over-manned? Is my noble friend also aware that the punctuality and morale of British Airways have both improved considerably in the last year? Can he say whether, when they come to re-equip with more modern aircraft, they will bear in mind the merits of an aircraft, 24 per cent. of the total of which—that is, the wings—is made in this country, therefore providing valuable jobs? I am referring to the A320.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on to the chairman my noble friend's comments on the achievements of British Airways in this respect, and indeed in punctuality and productivity. I am sure that he and all who serve and work in British Airways will be delighted to receive my noble friend's compliments. As regards the possibility of the A320 being purchased by British Airways, I am quite sure that British Airways will give full consideration to the place which the A320 might occupy in their fleet, the British Airways fleet, provided that the A320 project, as we see it at the moment, goes ahead. Of course, it is also reasonable that British Airways should look at all the aircraft which are on offer at any time they might need to re-equip their fleet.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, on the question of the progress of British Airways towards privatisation, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is a fact that in their current accounts British Airways had an extraordinary item of the write-off of £208 million?
336
May I also ask whether the present management of British Airways, brought in by the Government, are proposing that there should be a write-off of £1,000 million of loans with the American banks, £750 million of that to come from the British taxpayer? If those are facts, would he not agree that if these written-down public assets are sold off there will be an even bigger scandal than in the case of Amersham International or Associated British Ports—over-subscribed 34 times this week?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry, but I have no reference to the last large amount of £1,000 million, and certainly there is no reference to it in the accounts. I should be happy to go over the accounts later with the noble Lord, should he wish to do so. However, he is quite correct in mentioning the write-off as an extraordinary item of £208 million, which is, of course, mentioned in the chairman's statement and in fairly close detail in the accounts published by British Airways for the last financial year to March 1982.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, looking at this from another angle, if there is to be this £1,000 million write-off and then the assets are floated at this underwritten value, is this really fair on other British operators, such as British Caledonian or British Midland Airways, who, through good times and bad, have paid their own debts?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I must reiterate that I have no knowledge of this figure of £1,000 million, however it is arrived at. The noble Lord wishes to quote it as a fact; certainly we do not believe it to be a fact. The remainder of his questions clearly flow from that hypothesis.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, if the noble Lord finds on inquiry that it is a fact and that I am right and he is wrong, will he be good enough to write to me?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly ascertain all the information that I can from British Airways, but whether that information will tally with what the noble Lord quotes as a fact remains to be seen. If I am wrong, of course I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, in view of the very important issues raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in his Question and the fact that major changes in policy, personnel and administration have taken place in British civil aviation over the last two years, since civil aviation was debated in February 1981, would the Minister consider approaching the Leader of the House to see whether the time is not due for another general debate on civil aviation? We have already had two debates extending the borrowing powers, but we in your Lordships' House have not had a general debate for two years.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if my noble friend would wish to consult through the usual channels, we should be only too pleased to see what we could do to help him.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if my noble friend writes to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I wonder

337
whether he could also write to me and tell me what nationalised industries have not had immense debts written off over the last 30 years?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is a fairly wide ball; I shall attempt to dispatch it. Indeed, I shall see whether there are any industries which have a similar type of reconstruction as that which might be applicable to British Airways. Certainly I shall consult with British Airways and with my colleagues and write to my noble friend.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, when he writes to his noble friend would the noble Lord underline the fact that here we are talking about writing off debts of a publicly owned company and then handing it over to private enterprise?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I do not know where the noble Lord gets the idea of writing off debts, as these have not in any way been written off yet on any accounts that have been published.

Assisted Places Scheme: Number of Participants
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question on the Order Paper which stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who is delayed in another part of the Palace of Westminster.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many children are now receiving education under the Assisted Places Scheme.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the total number of children who are now receiving education under the Assisted Places Scheme is estimated to be 8,616.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I sincerely thank my noble friend the Minister for his very encouraging figures. Are the Government considering any plan to extend the scheme, in view of its very wide popularity? I should also like to ask him whether it is possible for a school that is not now in the Assisted Places Scheme to be considered for joining that scheme in future.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as new intakes are successively added, we envisage the number of assisted places growing from the present 9,000-odd to about 30,000. There are no present plans to enlarge the scheme beyond that point. As regards my noble friend's second supplementary question, it is open to any school, provided that it is fully registered on the independent schools register, to apply to join the scheme. The list of participating schools is kept under review. In considering applications, Ministers have looked for schools with a broad and balanced curriculum at both O and A levels, a well-established sixth form with reasonable numbers of candidates and a range of subjects, good achievements in external examinations, appropriately qualified teaching staff
338
with not too quick a turnover, and appropriate teaching facilities and accommodation. Schools wishing to join the scheme should submit supporting evidence on these matters to the Department of Education and Science.
Baroness David: My Lords, how many of the 8,616 pupils who have assisted places are transferred at the age of 16, and how many 16 and 17 year-olds now have assisted places?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked about the numbers. We went into this in fair detail in the debate the other night. I think that 1,139 of the total number of assisted place holders are at sixth form level. Perhaps the noble Baroness is a better mathematician than I, but if you subtract that from 8,616 you will have the answer for the number under sixth form level.
Baroness David: My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to discover how many children are moving from the independent schools into the maintained system at the age of 16?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can find this out and let the noble Baroness know.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the use of commercial contractors in the Health Service.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships 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 and during this adjournment the Report stage of the Dentists Bill will be taken.

King's College London Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Kingston upon Hull Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and committed to a Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions.
Lloyds Bowmaker Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and referred to the Examiners.
Parkeston Quay Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and referred to the Examiners.
Pwllheli Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Applications for registration and for amendment of registered particulars]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
("In special cases where commercial interest is paramount, it shall be acceptable for the data user to implement an alteration of particulars and seek confirmation from the Registrar within 2 days.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 58 relates to the special needs that may occur with commercial users of data. When they wish to mount a commercial campaign of some sort, possibly overseas, they might find themselves at relatively short notice, in order to meet overseas competition, having to change the details of paragraphs (c), (d) or (e), particularly (e), in Clause 4(3) of this Bill. If they wish to make an alteration, as one sees from Clause 7(1) the registrar may take up to two months before he makes the necessary alteration. Though no doubt he would not in the ordinary case take two months, the Bill allows him so to do.
It seems that it is possible that the registrar and his staff may not have that extra understanding of the need for speed in commercial operations that one would expect an ordinary commercial operator to have, because it is not their business to understand these things and live with them day by day. Accordingly, it is suggested that it should be possible for a data user who, on the whole, will be not only a competent businessman but also a responsible one, to be allowed to implement an alteration and inform the registrar within a very short period of time.
The businessman, of course, can operate within two days. He does not need two months because he is used to working at that sort of speed. I hope that the sense of this amendment, if not the amendment itself, will appeal to my noble friends on the Front Bench. Another way of tackling this might have been to make some qualifications in Clause 7(1) so as to not make the two months quite so rigid. That might be a better way of going about it. I hope that the principle is understood. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Concern has been expressed that the registration requirement under the Bill will
340
represent an unnecessary and burdensome restriction upon data users unless some mechanism is provided to allow data users wishing to alter their use of personal data, to do so without having to register the change with the registrar. It might help the noble Lord if I explain a little about the workings of registration and Clause 5 in particular.
Clause 5 makes it an offence for a data user to hold personal data without being registered or, if he is registered, to operate beyond his particulars entered in the register. Thus, where a registered data user has in mind an alteration in his operations which will take him beyond his registered particulars, he would first have to apply for, and receive acceptance of, an appropriate change in those particulars. Clause 6(3) allows him to apply for such a change at any time.
We do not foresee such applications for alteration of particulars being particularly frequent. The Bill allows the particulars entered on the register to be in general terms, which will allow users to cater for most modifications to their operations when they originally register. Clause 4(3) specifically allows the data user to register, for example, a description of the person to whom he intends to disclose the data. Thus registration details will be in terms which permit some flexibility.
Where more major changes in a data user's operations are envisaged, the time-scale involved is likely to be such as to allow an application for alteration of registered particulars to be submitted in good time. The longest the registrar may take to reply to an application is two months under Clause 7(1) of the Bill, but obviously we would expect that where straightforward alterations are proposed he will be in a position to respond earlier.
I think that all this suggests that many of the consequences feared by my noble friend Lord Mottistone are rather unlikely to flow; yet, quite rightly, it can be asked: what is wrong with altering the Bill as suggested by this amendment in order to provide some additional flexibility, even if, in the event, it may not be necessary? I think my noble friend underestimates the value of the process of registration. Once the scheme is in full operation the requirement to register under Clause 5 will mean that the registrar will have opportunity to consider any use of personal data prior to its being implemented. The proposed amendment would change this at least in relation to data users who are already registered.
For example, therefore, a data user could decide to make use of personal data in a way which flagrantly contravened the data protection principles and posed a potential threat to numerous data subjects. Provided the purpose could be achieved quickly it could be completed before the registrar was made aware of what was proposed, so the approach which my noble friend has advocated creates a significant loophole in this respect.
Besides the substantive objection to the principle underlying this amendment there are numerous defects which would, in any case, appear to preclude its acceptance. First, the test for when this extra flexibility may be claimed—that is, in special cases where commercial interest is paramount—is, I think, unduly imprecise. The Government feel it would be

341
wrong to give the benefit of such provision only in cases involving commercial interests, important though we realise they are. In addition, the current amendment fails to achieve the desired result because it does not disapply the offences under Clause 5 of the Bill which require registration. I hope, in view of what I have said, that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: There is one point that my noble friend has repeated throughout his speech at different times. He suggests that by my amendment I am proposing that people should be excused registration. At no stage am I suggesting that. I am talking only about the implementation of an alteration of particulars. His whole background to what he had to say implied that I was seeking that somebody would not have to be registered before he used the data. I am talking only about altering it.
I am not sure that my noble friend has really hoisted in the small variation on the procedure that I am seeking. I should be grateful if he could give me an undertaking that, having had a chance to read what I have said, he would look at this again. I accept that the wording may not be precise or accurate enough, and that consideration of the question of definition of commercial interests might have to be necessary, but in fact one is seeking to have these things done more quickly. It would be particularly applicable to Clause 4(3)(e), where it could be that a trader wishes at short notice to add a country, or group of countries, in order to get the better of some competitor from overseas, and really could not afford to wait for two months. There is a need to have some sort of means of reducing that two months in some way or another. I should have thought that the substance of what I am trying to say is as good a way as any other.
It is not, after all, seeking to change things and just sit there. It seeks to change things and seek confirmation within two days. I should have thought that a good look at what I have been saying deserves something more than the sort of rejection that my noble friend gave. I hope that perhaps he can give me an undertaking as to a further look, otherwise I shall have to come back at Report.
Lord Swinfen: May I support my noble friend Lord Mottistone on this. The Government should have a look at this again, from the purely commercial rather than the data protection aspect. With the sort of delays that could be involved as the Bill is written at the moment, we could lose possible export opportunities to other countries, to the detriment of our own balance of payments.
Lord Glenarthur: I understand the points behind the remarks of both my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Swinfen, particularly as they relate to matters overseas. The small variations that my noble friend Lord Mottistone describes in part of his amendment lead to considerable effects which I think I described admirably—not admirably, but which I described. I shall certainly look at what has been said and perhaps, in the light of my assurance that we will look at them, my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for that. But I also will keep my eyes open and perhaps if something is not forthcoming quite soon I shall find myself putting down a further amendment on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(4A) A data user may apply to the Registrar for guarantee status.
Where such status is granted, data users will guarantee to apply the principles listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act and such other relevant provisions of this Act as may be required by the Registrar, excluding the requirements of Part II of this Act.
(4B) Before granting guarantee status to a data user, the Registrar must satisfy himself that the application was made in good faith and that the data user possesses the experience and reputation suitable to justify guarantee status.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of a different nature and with it I should like to take Amendments Nos. 61, 108 and 109, but not Amendment No. 84. I believe that the Government's list would include Amendment No. 84, and that is a separate amendment which in fact is more akin to Amendment No. 58 which we have just been discussing than it is to the points behind Amendment No. 59 and the others. This amendment, which was inspired by the Engineering Employers' Federation in their discussions with me, is an attempt to persuade the Government that large and reputable public companies can be relied upon to look after their own affairs and not require nannying by the registrar to the extent which the Bill seeks to inflict upon them. It would save the registrar a great deal of time and trouble, and therefore save the Government some money. It is only the large public companies that I have in mind, though it might be, with experience, that the registrar would extend it to smaller companies. The company in question would have to have a thoroughgoing reputation, such as is indicated in subsection (4B) of my amendment.
Your Lordships will find that in Amendment No. 108 or 109—I am rather confused because one of us has put down a lot of other amendments; it is Amendment No. 109—we are threatening a substantial, swingeing financial penalty for anyone who is caught cheating. As was pointed out by the representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation with whom I spoke, not only will they be subject to this massive fine but also they will lose the guarantee status if they are caught out. That in itself will be an even bigger penalty than any financial one to the kind of companies that I have in mind.
In the earlier parts of this debate and at Second Reading this sort of relaxation of the rules for special cases was indicated, where clearly it is in everybody's interest to accept the fact that there will be some companies with experience and reputation which are just as reliable and capable to look after the data principles as set out in Schedule 1 as any Government department or any registrar. It would seem to me that the saving of time and money, and in the case of commercial companies the commercial opportunities that may spin from not having to waste time on

343
unnecessary activities, thoroughly justify a relaxation of this sort. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: If I have correctly understood this amendment, I imagine it must be possibly the most dangerous amendment to the whole existence of this Bill that the Committee will have to consider. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mean by it that over somebody's notepaper, however large and important a public corporation and however respectable, there will be written the words "guaranteed status" under this Bill? Will that give the impression that the Government have guaranteed the integrity of the company concerned to comply with Part I? Or does it mean no such thing at all but that certain corporations granted that status will be completely exempt from Part I of the Bill?
I do not understand the force of this amendment, but I believe I understand its effect. Apart from anything else, enough duties of an embarrassing nature are being cast upon the registrar under these provisions. Is the further task to be given him that he should in fact judge the experience, reputation and good faith of the applicant? Because under this amendment, and bearing in mind subsection (4B) in Amendment No. 59, in order to grant this status the registrar must satisfy himself that the application was made in good faith, and therefore presumably if he turns it down it will be an implication that it was made in bad faith; or, if it gets over the first hurdle, having been made in good faith, he then has to decide upon the experience and reputation suitable to justify the status. Therefore, he will take upon himself the rather embarrassing and odious job of saying: "your application may be of good faith but I personally hold that you neither have the reputation nor the experience to justify my granting you this status". This is a most dangerous amendment. I do hope the noble Lord will not persevere with it, or, if he does, that the Government will oppose it.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said and I am bound to say that I agree with a great deal of it. These amendments propose a most interesting new concept for consideration, and I am sure that the Committee will have listened with attention to what the noble Lord has said on behalf of those amendments. The idea of placing responsibility for compliance with the data protection principles back in the hands of the data users concerned, rather than imposing a detailed system of regulations in regard to them, is one which is superficially attractive. But I am also bound to point out that there are a number of serious defects in the scheme which the noble Lord proposes. These defects are of so fundamental a character that we are bound to conclude that the approach itself is simply not on.
In the first place, it is not possible to require compliance with the principles from those who have not been registered. Four of the eight principles listed in Schedule 1 are cast in terms of specified purposes, which means purposes as specified in the register entry. Half of the principles, in other words, simply could not be observed by those who are not registered. I do not see any easy alternative way in which purposes could
344
objectively be said to be specified. Moreover, we need to bear in mind the fact that one of the intentions behind the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe convention on data protection, and that one of the provisions of that convention is that any person should be able to establish the identity of an automated personal data file and the purposes for which that file is held.
It has been our intention to meet that requirement, just as the majority of European countries have done, or are proposing to do, through the system of a public register. If we were going for a widespread system of exemption from the requirement to register, as has been suggested here, we should need to find some other satisfactory way of meeting that obligation as well as of specifying the purposes as regards the principles. I suspect that the net result would be a more cumbersome system for data users than the simple registration procedure we propose in the Bill.
What is suggested is a potentially wide-ranging system of exemption from registration, and from the powers of the registrar, which could in theory be claimed by any public or private sector data user no matter how sensitive his data and regardless of the degree of public concern there might be about the use made of that data. It is true that it would be an offence to be discovered by the registrar in breach of the undertakings which had accompanied the granting of guaranteed status, but the amendment makes no provision for the registrar to exercise his powers of entry or in any other way to place himself in a position in which he could theoretically discover that those undertakings had been breached.
I am afraid it would offer so substantial an exemption from the general provisions of the Bill as virtually to negate its entire purpose. The registrar could in theory accord guarantee status so widely that the register was worthless as a public guide to activitity in this area, so that he himself had virtually no functions left to perform, and once such status had been granted neither the registrar nor anybody else could withdraw it. I hope I have said enough to satisfy the Committee that there does not exist the easy alternative to a general registration system that my noble friend proposes, and I hope that in view of that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigoder: I find the Minister's response convincing so far as the practical problems are concerned, and indeed the problems in principle of making effective the interesting and ingenious proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I hope the Minister is not to be taken as implying that he will not approach with an open mind proposals made later in the Bill to try to relieve the registrar and his limited number of staff from the supervision of a vast mass of trivial computerised data, the control and release of which could not conceivably do any harm to anybody.
Lord Glenarthur: My mind is of course open to all suggestions that come in the form of what is said in the Committee and in the amendments that are tabled; but we shall come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in due course.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his full answer, which I shall study to see whether there is

345
anything more that can be done under this sort of heading. I was disappointed by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who seems to think that the registrar is a pretty hopeless sort of fellow who will not be able to make any decent response at all, and I should have thought that was rather pushing that side of the argument. Having heard the Minister's comments, and with some gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who knows I support the principles of what he is putting across, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon move Amendment No. 60:
Page 6, line 4, after ("respect") insert (", or knowingly or recklessly fails to furnish the Registrar with any material information,")
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(6) provides:
"Any person who, in connection with an application for registration or for the alteration of registered particulars, knowingly or recklessly furnishes the Registrar with information which is false or misleading in a material respect shall be guilty of an offence".
The purpose of the amendment is to bring forward the point that one can fail to tell the registrar something which is material and that that is just as bad as misleading him positively by telling him something that is wrong. That may be implied in the criminal law by the normal interpretation; but so that the Bill may be read clearly in regard to an offence—and may therefore put any person who is guilty of that offence on notice beforehand in the clearest possible terms—I should have thought it was sensible to make this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Clause 6(6) is concerned with those who supply false information to the registrar in connection with an application for registration or for the alteration of registered particulars. It already provides that it shall be an offence knowingly or recklessly to furnish the registrar with information which is false or misleading in a material respect, as the noble Lord described. The amendment is an attempt to extend that offence to include failure to furnish the registrar with any material information.
There are two circumstances to which the new offence could apply. One is where an applicant for registration fails to include some crucial factor in his application and thereby deceives the registrar as to some aspect of his operation. That is, of course, a serious matter, but I suggest it is already covered in subsection (6) as drafted. It is just as much a matter of furnishing false or misleading information if a key fact is omitted from information supplied as if a positive untruth is stated. In this respect I believe the Bill already provides a sufficient sanction, and that it would be otiose to repeat what is already there.
The same is true of the other objective behind the amendment; that is, the attempt to provide a sanction against applicants who refuse to supply the registrar with the information he seeks. Again, the noble lord will find that that is unnecessary. Under Clause 7(2)(c) the registrar can refuse an application for registration when he considers that the information available to him is insufficient to satisfy him that the applicant is unlikely to contravene any of the data protection principles. If an applicant fails to supply the necessary
346
information he will simply not be registered, and that seems to be a far more satisfactory sanction than creating another new criminal offence.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and for the attention he has given to the amendment. I said frankly that it could be that the matter was already covered within the wording, and I was, as I said, merely trying to make things abundantly clear—clear beyond a peradventure. If the Minister, on the advice he has received, is absolutely certain that the point is covered, I would not wish to press the point. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gardiner: I have not taken up much of the time of the Committee so far. I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would consider a question to which I have not been able to discover the answer. This is a hypothetical question; or, as I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his place, perhaps I should say it is "an" hypothetical question. Suppose one day it was discovered that in the deep recesses of the Home Office there was a large computer containing a great deal of data with personal information on it about numerous people who together were called immigrants. Perhaps it is not so frightfully hypothetical a question after all. It is clear from the clause that the person who holds that is under an obligation to register as a computer user. My simple question, which I think nobody has asked and which has certainly not yet been answered, is whether that person would be Mr. Whitelaw, the Home Office, the Secretary of State or Mr. Smith, the civil servant told by the Secretary of State to take charge of that computer; or would it be somebody else whom I have not been able to think of?
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord will understand if I take a little time to come to the meat of his question. As a preliminary, I would comment that there are many recesses in the Home Office, some of them very deep, but in none of them have I encountered the Mr. Smith to whom he referred. The precise question to which the noble and learned Lord addresses himself is whether we are to be dealing with the Secretary of State as an individual, or, I presume, as an officer of state, or as a body corporate. I am not certain; I think that it may well be a matter to which we should return at a later stage, unless I can be enlightened very soon—I have only been told where to place my money: it is on the Home Secretary.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Registrar to give advice on application of data protection principles.
Where any data user or data subject seeks advice from the Registrar as to any matter concerned with the application of the data protection principles the Registrar shall give such advice, without charge and without commitment.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friends. This is an important, but simple point. It is whether the registrar should be empowered to advise and be under a duty to advise both data users and data subjects. In paragraph 15 of its report, the Data Protection Committee said that the DPA should be an open and friendly authority. The report further stated that it should also provide assistance, guidance and rulings. In paragraph 38.34, among the specific legislative proposals, the report stated that the DPA should provide users on request, and perhaps on payment of a fee, with guidance, assistance and rulings. The Government considered the point, and apparently agreed with it, and in paragraph 11 of their White Paper they said of the registrar:
"He will be expected to offer advice to data users and data subjects".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, whose speech on the Second Reading of the Bill I naturally know more or less by heart, said, as reported at column 1582:
"There is a progression of steps that the registrar can take to influence what is done. The Bill is constructed so that he will normally operate by consultation and advice and persuasion".
We have ventured to add to the Home Office words the further words "without charge and without commitment"; but these are matters of detail and obviously are open to discussion.
I have not been able to find anywhere in the Bill any power to enable the registrar to give advice, and so we rushed to the Government's assistance because this has been left out. The simple point is that the registrar is entirely a statutory figure. He can lawfully do only that which the Bill empowers him to do; other acts would be ultra vires. None of us wants to see the day (do we?) when a High Court judge will say, "Tell me. Mr. So and So which is the section of the Act which empowers or requires the registrar to give advice?" Mr. So and So will have to say, "Mv Lord, I understand that they intended to put it in the Bill, but I am bound to say that there is no such section and therefore for him to do either one or the other would be ultra vires"; It is only to assist the Government that we raise this point—unless we have missed something in the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has the magnificent record of having successfully turned down 65 out of 65 amendments. We are a little more hopeful about the 66th amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord has addressed himself to a particular point and therefore I shall not address myself to the whole of the amendment. The information he seeks to elicit is: where in the Bill is the power for the registrar to give advice? The answer to that is in Clause 33(2), where the noble and learned Lord will see that:
"The Registrar shall arrange for the dissemination in such form and manner as he considers appropriate of such information and advice as it may appear to him expedient to give to the public"—
et cetera. I hope that is sufficient reassurance for the noble and learned Lord. I could speak for much longer on the amendment, but in view of the fact that I have answered his question, and bearing in mind his predilection for learning my speeches by heart, it might be a good thing if I kept it short.
Lord Wigoder: Is there not a distinction between giving information and advice to the public, in the terms of Clause 33, and giving advice to the data user or the data subject, as is sought in the amendment?
Lord Elton: In the light of that question I have to look more closely at the amendment and that particular point in it. The difficulty is if the registrar is to be under a duty to give advice to every single person who asks him about any matter, he might well become absolutely submerged. We therefore want him to be able to give advice in the form most expeident for its use. On occasion a very large data user may come along with a very important question which applies to many other people and require direct advice in some quantity and some length. But other matters which apply generally are more suitable for general publication. I think, and it must be for the registrar himself to respond to the different situations as they arise, rather than for us to try to preconceive what each single one of them will be.
I think that the noble and learned Lord will find that the effect of the Bill as drafted is to enable the registrar to respond with advice. If the noble and learned Lord fears that the registrar will be in any way reluctant to do so, or will not be sufficiently active in this or in any other field, I would point out that his annual reports, and indeed his other reports to your Lordships' House and to another place, will provide ample opportunity for your Lordships and members of another place to keep him on the hop.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether, if not this afternoon, certainly between now and the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord the Minister will reconsider a little more thoroughly the answer to the question which my noble and learned friend put to him. As I understood the question, it was concerned with the following point. The registrar can do only that which he is authorised by the Bill to do. If a data user or a data subject asks the registrar for advice upon which he wishes to act, and acts, one obviously hopes, in good faith, the registrar is entitled to say, first of all, from his point of view, "I am afraid that I have no right under this Bill to give you advice". Secondly, if he does not adopt that unhelpful attitude, it could be said that he has given advice and that he was acting ultra vires in giving advice upon a specific question that was addressed to him. That could be said.
The noble Lord the Minister—helpfully, I am sure he thought—sought to answer the question by saying that it was already covered in the Bill. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was trying to point out—and may have succeeded in pointing out—that the subsection to which the Minister referred follows a requirement that the registrar shall lay before Parliament a general report on the performance of his functions. Then, while still dealing with general provisions, Clause 33(2) states that he,
"shall arrange for the dissemination in such form and manner as he considers appropriate of such information and advice as it may appear to him expendient to give to the public about the operation of this Act and other matters within the scope of his functions under this Act".
That is for the purpose of general guidance to be given in a general way to the public.

349
What my noble and learned friend was saying was that since in the White Paper it is acknowledged, and has been acknowledged by the noble Lord the Minister in his speech on Second Reading, that the registrar should helpfully advise both users and subjects, he ought to be given the necessary power. If the noble Lord the Minister—and here I conclude my submission—had said that it ought to be a permissive power, and not a mandatory one, I am perfectly sure that my noble and learned friend would have conceded the point at once, but what the Minister has said does not really go to the heart of the point that my noble and learned friend was making. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give further consideration to it.
Lord Elton: I always read what the noble Lord says with great attention. If I am wrong I will be ready to say as much. My present understanding is that, by becoming a data user, one does not stop being a member of the public, that one is entitled to advice and that the terms in which Clause 33 is phrased are not such as to preclude the registrar from giving advice in particular cases. That is the anxiety which the noble and learned Lord has and which his noble friend has underlined. I do not think that the clause has that effect. I will make certain that I am right before the next stage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): If I may be allowed to add this, I was rather surprised to learn the premise upon which the noble and learned Lord opposite based his argument. Throughout my department, at any rate, and throughout every department for which I have been responsible, which has now developed into quite a large number, certainly my private office and, I think, almost every other division, constantly gives advice. I would be absolutely at a loss to know what is to prevent them from doing so even though I know of nothing in the duties of a Lord Chancellor to compel him to give advice. I invariably refuse to give advice of a legal character, which could be called legal advice; but to be as helpful as possible in every possible set of circumstances is part of the general duty of the public service and, certainly throughout the county courts, the officials are constantly doing it every day of the week.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Before my noble friend the Minister finally replies, if he is going to do so, may I ask him to address himself to one part of the amendment which I think is of some importance, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, did not press that part? It is that if advice is going to be given to those who apply for it, is it going to be charged for or not; or is that perhaps a matter on which my noble friend might write to me?
Lord Elton: I am certain that there is an ordinary power to give advice and I am equally certain that there is no power to charge for it.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble and learned Lord decides what he is going to do with his amendment, could he answer in his speech one small point? The registrar, as I understand it, has a supervisory position
350
under the Bill. Why, therefore, should he give any advice that he gives without commitment?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I wonder whether, with great respect, the noble and learned Lord is right in equating the position of the registrar, this creature of statute, with the position of the Lord Chancellor. I do not think that they are comparable in any way, if I may say so with respect.
The Lord Chancellor: I was not only equating it with the position of the Lord Chancellor, I would equate it with that of any lady or gentleman in the public service.
Lord Foot: Is it necessary to have Clause 33(2) at all?
Lord Elton: That sort of thing is required to allow him to insert expensive notices in newspapers, to publish pamphlets and circulate them, to have posters put up in libraries and all the other ways of which he may wish to avail himself.
Lord Foot: Before the discussion comes to a conclusion, may I make a further point in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says. Is not the material word in Clause 33(2) in this context the word "dissemination"? Is not that word wholly inappropriate to giving advice to a particular individual? Is not the whole effect of this subsection, if you read it together, enabling the registrar and requiring the registrar to disseminate circulars of information and advice to the general public? Is not the point that the noble and learned Lord was making in the first place correct?—that there is nothing at the present moment in the Bill which specifically authorises, empowers and requires the registrar to give advice in individual cases.
Lord Elton: As I have said, I believe that there is a natural right, anyway, and my noble and learned friend has said that better than I can. I believe that the particular is subsumed in the general and I believe, therefore, that the registrar is perfectly capable, under the Bill as it stands, of doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I, and the noble Lords, Lords Wigoder and Mishcon, and so on, all want the Bill to do. The only question is whether it does. I have already undertaken to take expert advice and make myself doubly sure that it does do so. I do not know whether I can give a more committing undertaking than that. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is about to try to make me do so, but I do not think it will be possible.
Lord Gardiner: The first thing which I think is perfectly clear is that both the Data Protection Committee and the Government thought that data users and data subjects ought to be able to obtain the advice of the registrar, and that it should be his duty so to advise them. The second thing which is perfectly clear is that Clause 33 deals with something entirely different. It is not dealing with advice for the benefit of data users and data subjects; it is dealing with the dissemination of information to the public. I would respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in an entirely different position. He is one of the most eminent Ministers in any Government; this is a new statutory creation. If there

351
is any doubt about it at all, if our intentions are all the same, what can be the possible objection to trying to deal with it specifically and to give him both the power and the duty to advise data users and data subjects? As the noble Lord has said that he will consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill, I shall not divide the Committee upon it but will return to it at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Acceptance and refusal of applications]:
4.7 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 6, line 21, leave out ("not").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an important amendment. It is discussable with Amendment No. 64. Clause 7(2) provides that the registrar shall not refuse an application for registration or for the alteration of registered particulars—and here I go to (b)—
"unless he is satisfied that the applicant is likely to contravene and or the data protection principles; or … if he considers the information available to him is insufficient to satisfy him that the applicant is unlikely to contravene any of those principles".
The purpose of this amendment is to place the registrar under a positive duty to exercise his powers where the interests of data protection so require. The essence and purpose of this Bill is to protect the data user and, instead of this curiously nervous, negative provision, we suggest that here there should be a mandatory duty upon the registrar, in circumstances where he is satisfied that an application comes from an applicant who is likely to contravene any of the data protection principles, to refuse the application; so that the amended subsection would read:
"The registrar shall refuse an application for registration … if he is satisfied that the applicant is likely to contravene any of the data protection principles".
This is a crucially important part of the Bill and we feel that the duty should be put in a positive way, as the amendment proposes.
Lord Elton: The effect of the amendment proposed is to alter, subtly but quite significantly, the manner in which the registrar will approach his task of compiling the register. The Bill, as drafted, establishes a stiff test to be met by the registrar before an application is refused registration. He shall not refuse an application unless one of the considerations set out in subsection (2) has been satisfied. This is quite deliberate since the Government do not believe that the registration stage is the appropriate point at which to submit data users to close scrutiny. To do so would be to risk overburdening the registration process not only at the first setting up of the register but subsequently, when it may be crucial for individual users for applications to be considered quickly.
The registrar has the power to refuse registration in any case which is blatantly in contravention of the data protection principles or where the information available is inadequate to satisfy him that the contravention is unlikely. The point at which it will generally be more appropriate for the registrar to become involved in the details of users' operations will
352
be later, when there is both more time to investigate and some positive evidence of how the activity has worked out in practice. I am bound to say that if the registrar started off by being obliged to operate the stricter test proposed here, which might well imply to both data users and subjects alike that some kind of standard of excellence had been achieved, he might well find himself inhibited in the investigation of complaints at a later stage. It would be asserted, I fear, that having accepted a user in question on to the register in the first place, he was acting unfairly in concluding at a later stage that a breach of the principles was going on.
It is never easy to predict how a change of emphasis, which is what we are discussing here, would work out in practice. It may be that such a change would make no great difference. But the noble and learned Lord must expect it to exert some influence on the climate in which the registrar operates or obviously he would not have tabled his amendment. To the extent that it did it would, I submit, be to the detriment of the registrar's operation and to the scheme in general. It would commit the registrar too early and too quickly to giving data users something which in our view is a little too like a final seal of approval.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Lord says that it may be that such a change would bring about no great difference. We on these Benches are convinced that it would bring about a fundamental difference, and that the effect of these amendments would be to highlight the very rationale of the Bill itself. We conceive this Bill—watered down though it be—as a piece of legislation that is dedicated to protect privacy. That is the purpose of the Bill. Its secondary purpose is to bring the law of the United Kingdom into line with the European Convention, and the purpose of that convention in itself is to protect privacy. The main purpose of the Younger Report of 1972 was to protect privacy. That is the main objective and purpose of the Lindop Committee which reported in 1978. That is the raison d'être of the White Paper of last year. The arguments in support of privacy are all based upon the belief that privacy is a natural right and condition to which each and every one of our citizens is entitled. It is therefore the data users who have trespassed upon that privacy who have to prove their case, and not the other way round. Therefore it is for the registrar to say: "Unless you have proven your case, I must refuse to register you."
We who sit on these Benches are astounded to hear the proposition that the time for considering the real status of the applicant is not at the time of the original application but at a later stage. Why is that so? We say the registrar, under this legislation, is already in a far too defensive situation. This is a watered-down provision in relation to many proposals that have been made far firmer and far bolder over the years. We say, therefore, that this is a matter of fundamental principle, and if the Minister is not willing to reconsider the matter we shall have to divide the Committee.
Lord Mottistone: Before we get to that stage, perhaps I may say that not only am I convinced by

353
what my noble friend had to say, but the Committee will see I have down an amendment (Amendment No. 65) to be considered later, the purpose of which is to try and remove a paragraph which is much too vague. In the event of noble Lords opposite succeeding in winning their amendment, it is even more important to have Amendment No. 65. I am therefore implacably opposed to what noble Lords opposite are seeking to do with their Amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
Viscount Bledisloe: May I seek guidance from the Minister? At the moment the registrar has discretion to refuse an application if he is satisfied that the applicant is likely to contravene the principles. Under the amendment, he will be bound to refuse it. Can the Minister give me an example where it will be appropriate for the registrar to be satisfied that the applicant was likely to contravene the principles but, none the less, to register him? Surely, it must be inconceivable that he should be satisfied that the principles are going to be broken but none the less grant him registration.
Lord Elton: I am not certain that I did not lose the last and vital half sentence of what the noble Viscount was saying. Could he repeat his conclusion?
Viscount Bledisloe: I am suggesting that it would be wholly wrong, as the clause now stands, for the registrar to have power, although satisfied that the applicant was likely to contravene the principles, none the less to grant registration. That is what the clause says at the moment, unless this amendment is passed. I should like the noble Lord to give me an example of where the registrar should grant registration to an applicant who was likely to contravene the principles.
Lord Elton: As I read the Bill, it says that the registrar shall not refuse an application for registration or for the alteration of registered particulars unless the situation to which the noble Viscount adverts arises. If that arises, then I suppose if there is a lingering doubt in his mind that the operator may be marginally infringing a principle which could be properly protected by a small alteration of the way that he runs his operation, it would be quite proper—and the Committee will think that it will be proper—that if nobody's interests were harmed in this matter then the operator should be given the opportunity to put it right. If, on the other hand, there was a flagrant breach of principles intended or expected, if the registrar felt the anxieties which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has suggested he might feel, then it would be proper for him to refuse to register.
Throughout this Bill we have attempted to give a level of discretion to the registrar appropriate to the calibre of the man to be appointed to that type of job. We do not want something which is mechanistic and therefore likely to break; we want something which is realistic and therefore likely to be flexible and to survive. This seems to be a theme that runs through all our debates. I think that we have it right in this matter. Noble Lords opposite think we have it wrong. I hope that, with the clarion support of my noble friend behind me, your Lordships are convinced that we are right.
Lord Mishcon: To any objective observer of this debate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is an opponent of this amendment ought to be one of the most winning features, if I may say so, in the Division Lobby. But, having said that, as I know the noble Lord knows, with a smile, may I return to the actual argument.
Is one not a little anxious about the question of a judicial review in these circumstances, if the Minister is right? If it be mandatory upon the registrar not to refuse an application unless he is satisfied, if he does refuse an application, is not the onus then cast upon him? This is despite the fact that the applicant has not given him the information which he requires in order to satisfy himself. Is not the onus upon him then to prove on any question of judicial review that the registrar had positive evidence of the facts which enabled him to refuse the application under this subsection? Obviously, the onus ought to be the other way; but unless the applicant can satisfy the registrar in regard to these matters, the registrar is not to grant the registration. Without this, this clause and this Bill are not doing the job they are supposed to do. I am not at all sure, if I may say so with respect, that it would even comply with the convention if the onus did not apply in this way.
The Minister apparently is not prepared to give way, but he is always open to reason, so he tells us, and I am waiting on behalf of my noble friends for an intimation that he is prepared to accept this amendment. If he is not prepared to accept it, I hope that all your Lordships who have preserved an objective mind upon this question will go into the correct Division Lobby.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has asked me to speak again, which I do with reluctance. I would say, as I said before, that what he proposes reads a little too like the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, which was something which threw him into great anxiety when it was proposed more overtly by my noble friend Lord Mottistone earlier on, I think properly. What he requires is a degree of detailed inspection before registration, which would greatly delay the operation of this Bill, which both he and I want to see operating. The noble Lord is quite right: I am always open to reason, but I am open to rather more of it than he has on this occasion presented.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 125.

DIVISION N0.1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ardwick, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Beswick, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Foot, L.

Brockway, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Caradon, L.

Galpern, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Gardiner. L.

355

Garner, L.

Nicol, B.

Hale, L.

Northfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Oram, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Hayter, L.

Peart, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Plant, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Ilchester, E.

Jacques, L.

Porritt, L.

Jeger, B.

Segal, L.

John Mackie, L.

Shannon, E.

Kagan, L.

Stamp, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Tryon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Melchett, L.

White, B.

Mishcon, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Molloy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Aldenham, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Amherst, E.

Hunt, L.

Avebury, L.

Inglewood, L.

Avon, E.

Kemsley, V.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Byers, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cathcart, E.

McNair, L.

Chelwood, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Coleraine, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Moyne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Denning, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Derwent, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Diamond, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Digby, L.

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Dundonald, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Richardson, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Ridley, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Roberthall, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glasgow, E.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Just, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Grey, E.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seear, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Hampton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Soames, L.

Henley, L.

Stedman, B.

Hives, L.

Stradbroke, E.

356

Strathclyde, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Swansea, L.

Trumpington, B.

Swinfen, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinton E. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Terrington, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Teynham, L.

Wise, L.

Tordoff, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Glenarthur: I think it might now be convenient to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NHS Commercial Contractors
4.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services in the other place about the use of commercial contractors for domestic, catering and laundry services in hospitals. The Statement is as follows:
"It is in the Government's view essential that the resources devoted to the National Health Service should be used as cost-effectively as possible. Only in that way will these resources, which have increased in real terms year by year under this Administration, benefit patient services to the maximum extent. Authorities already use outside contractors for a variety of services. In 1981–82, £159 million was spent in England on commercial contracts. Only a small part of this sum—£17 million—was, however, spent on domestic, catering and laundry services, which together cost the health service almost £800 million. There is a large potential here which is not being realised.
"I therefore want to see health authorities go to competitive tender for these three services on the basis of a fair comparison between the private contractors and the authority's own staff. Authorities should therefore work out which would be the most economic way of delivering their services to the specified standard and then either enter into contracts with private companies or continue to use their own staff, using their tenders as the budget for the service. I should stress that health authorities will be able to use all savings achieved in this way for extra patient services.
"Up to now one anomaly has been that the National Health Service, unlike local government, has had to bear VAT on most contracted out services. My right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is today announcing that the Government will seek powers in this year's Finance Bill to refund VAT to health authorities

357
where services are contracted out. This will permit a fair comparison with in-house services.
"I held a discussion earlier this month with the representatives of private contractors. They are confident they have the capacity to provide straight away in many places the level of services which health authorities will be wanting.
"I am today issuing a draft circular, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office, to health authorities, and to the Staff Side of the General Whitley Council, inviting comment by the end of March.
In this circular I shall be asking district health authorities, special health authorities and boards of governors for the postgraduate hospitals to test the cost-effectiveness of their domestic, catering and laundry services, by putting them out to tender. Regional health authorities will be asked, in relation to their own premises, to take similar action on their cleaning and catering services. In each case, the authorities' own staff will be invited to compete for contracts on equal terms. I intend to make regular checks on progress and to ask regional health authorities to do likewise.
"Mr. Speaker, the aim is that each authority should make the most cost-effective use of the resources allocated to it in the interests of the patients it serves. This is a further step to achieving that."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and, for me, that is as far as it goes. I do not know whether the noble Lord reads the Sun, but on page 2—I emphasise page 2, and not page 3—there is a headline
"Maggie sells off dirty jobs in hospitals";
and, from what the Guardian contained, it seems to me that there is a lot of dirty linen being washed behind the scenes at No. 10 so far as the social services are concerned. In fact, this Statement is significant, coming as it does on the day when the Guardian has revealed what is going on behind the scenes in Cabinet circles in exercises designed, in effect, to dismantle the welfare state. In revealing what is going on and publishing confidential documents, the Guardian is rendering a public service.
In spite of the Prime Minister's pledge to maintain the National Health Service, it is clear that every effort is being made to undermine the service and to promote the private sector. This move, outlined today in plausible terms, is yet another move to undermine the team spirit—and I underline "team spirit"—which is so essential and vital to the National Health Service. Some would say that this is an act of revenge against industrial action, but I would not go quite as far as that.
Of course, I agree with the Government that commercial contracts exist, and have always existed, in the National Health Service in building, pest control—that does not include the Government—cleaning down of old wards and, especially, drugs. By the way, this is the fourth attempt by this Government to enforce private contracting in the National Health Service, starting with Health Circular HC(80)8 in
358
1980. All have so far failed, mainly through being impractical.
The Government want to see health authorities go to competitive tender on the basis of a fair comparison between private contractors and an authority's own staff. Indeed, the circular asks for considerable paperwork, effort and concentration, for comments to be received by the end of March. This is insufferable. This means additional work for administrative staff, who are already obverburdened, matters being what they are in the service today. Are the staff available to meet this demand, and are they fully trained to carry out the exercise so quickly?
Another question is this. What happens if an outside contractor is successful? Does one assume that there is, therefore, a wholesale sacking of that particular section of the staff? Then, again, what happens if a contractor underestimates his contract and goes broke? I know that this has happened in the past with certain contractors. Do you bring back the staff? You would have some hope of getting your staff back in those circumstances!
Health authorities already have enough on their plates, with disruption through reorganisation, enforced economies in expenditure, particularly in the Thames region, and hospital closures, completed or planned. Now this burden is loaded on to them. Why throw this spanner into the works at this stage? Health authorities already have power to go for private contracting, if they so wish.
In domestic services and catering, it is questionable whether real savings would be made. When I mention domestics, I ask your Lordships not to forget that, although there has been industrial action, they are still grossly underpaid in the health service. What is worse, there would be disruption of team effort, and anyone with any experience of hospital life will realise that, in their contact with patients, ancillary services, such as domestics, play a significant part in patient care.
I know that much laundry work is already under contract, but it is a fact that not all hospital laundry is acceptable to contractors. Will a hospital, therefore, have to launder its own very dirty linen while the contractors get the better stuff to cope with, in order to make their profits? Catering is even more important, as it involves special diets and must be handled with extreme care. A hospital catering officer is in a special category compared with the individual running a glorified snack bar for profit.
This is a doubtful effort to save money. Has any estimate already been made, bearing in mind the low wages already being paid to ancillary workers? Is this an effort to save money on Government National Health Service contracts? If it is, would it not be better for the Government to concentrate their energies on drug contracts, particularly with multinational companies, where many millions of pounds can be saved without risk to patient care? The Government seem to be obsessed with privatisation and the overwhelming desire for a few to make handsome profits out of national resources. This Statement is nothing but platitude and humbug; and, what is more, it will cause unrest and despair in a service which has suffered enough already at the hands of this Government.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for having repeated the Statement. As Liberals, we start with a certain predilection in favour of competition and against monopoly. In matters such as those referred to in this Statement we are nevertheless prepared to be pragmatic in judging cases on their merits. I have to say that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, we do not for our part see what is here proposed as an attack on the health service. If we did, we should certainly deplore it roundly, as he has done. But on the face of it, surely the more health service resources are absorbed by ancillary services the less there will be available to be spent more directly on patient care, and it is that care which should be the prime consideration of us all.
We are glad to learn of the Government's intention to issue a draft circular inviting comment by the end of March from, among others, the staff side of the General Whitley Council. Presumably the Government are doing this—but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will confirm it—because they are prepared genuinely to take account of the views of staff before they act. The Government say that they want health authorities to go to competitive tender for domestic, catering and laundry services on the basis of a fair comparison between private contractors and the authority's own staff. Arising out of that, I have only one specific question to ask: are the Government satisfied, in the light of their plans for wages councils, that the competition really will be fair in relation to this matter of pay?
4.42 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Rochester, for his constructive and helpful response to the Statement. We shall certainly wish to consult effectively with the staff side, as with the others whose views we shall be taking. We shall of course go into that consultation with an open mind, ready to consider most carefully the views that they will wish to put to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, slightly overdid it. In the remarks which he made he implied that this matter had to be sewn up by the end of March. I can assure the noble Lord that it is only the consultation which has to be completed by then. The proposals contained in the circular, when they finally come to be issued, will be issued without a time limit. We shall watch the regions to see how they proceed, but we shall not impose upon them any rigid timetable as to the number of services they need to put out to tender within a particular period of time.
The noble Lord also asked about the staff. We anticipate that in those cases where contractors take over services the great majority of the staff presently employed in these services will go over to and work for the contractors. Inherent in our proposals is the idea that the existing service within a hospital—the laundry service, or the catering service or the cleaning service—should be at liberty to prepare a quotation of its own for consideration by the district or the region, as the case may be, on an exactly equal basis—to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—as any outside contractor. We have merely removed the difficulty which up to now has
360
existed in some cases where VAT would have to be charged by the contractor for supplying his services to the health authority.
The essence behind the proposals is to obtain the very best value for money that we can from the resources that can be made available to the health service. I cannot think that noble Lords opposite are really at variance with me on that proposal. The added value for money which will be obtained—namely, an increase of resources which will be released for other purposes—will of course be ploughed back into the health service.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench would also like to thank the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement. We, like our Liberal allies, are not against the burden of the Statement in principle. There may well be some instances in which non-medical services can be more efficiently and cheaply provided on a contract basis. We agree and think it is right that in-house tenders should also be invited. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the procedure is right. We learn from the Statement that health authorities are urged either to enter into contracts with private companies or to continue to use their own staff, using their tenders as the budget for the service—their tenders presumably being the tenders of the outside companies. On the next page we read:
"In each case, the authorities' own staff will be invited to compete for contracts on equal terms".
Could the noble Lord tell me whether the implication is that they will be invited to compete in the knowledge or in ignorance of the outside tender?
There is also, despite what the noble Lord said about the transfer of staff, the possibility of redundancies. I was glad to see that a special point is made of this in paragraph 4 of the draft circular. I hope the noble Lord will undertake to draw this point particularly to the attention of the health authorities concerned. Finally, would the Government urge health authorities to consider matters such as these on their merits and not on the basis of ideological prejudice, one way or the other?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is our view that by removing the constraints which some authorities have felt themselves under thus far from putting their contracts out to tender, we are indeed removing an ideological constraint that is presently upon them. Now they are going to have the choice either to go to a private contractor or, if this appears to be more economic, to go to an in-house service.
To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, we visualise that where the in-house service is successful, the figure that they have tendered, along with the others, will then be the budget to which they subsequently have to work. If an in-house organisation had tendered an excessively and unrealistically low price in the knowledge that they would not have to stick to it if they got the business, if would be an unreasonable burden to impose upon the commercial contractors. That is why we say that if the in-house service is successful in its tender it should then have to stick to that price as a budget.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about the logic behind the differential

361
between domestic, catering and laundry services. Speaking as an old VAD, which is the bottom of the pile in the hospital service, we used to have to make a cup of tea or wash out a sheet whenever the need arose. It seems to me that by restricting these processes to three different services, the kind of overlap in general care which anyone who is working in the National Health Service must be prepared to undertake will be undermined. I also want to ask particularly about the catering services because, as my noble friend has said, catering must be closely tied up with diet. If we are to have dietary officers in the NHS, but having to work through private contracts on the provision of the food, some difficulties may arise.
May I surprise the noble Lord the Minister by saying that there is one aspect where I believe there might be benefits from contracting out, and that is gardening. I have been in many hospitals where there have been what I consider to be excessive grounds and people employed full-time. I would have thought that gardening rather than catering would have been a much more useful subject for what we are trying to achieve. I really want to know whether the noble Lord will safeguard the dietary needs of patients when he is putting out catering to tender; whether he will not consider gardening; and why he wants to separate domestic services from other services. I can assure the noble Lord that, in practice, it is very difficult to define what is "domestic".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, you would not believe it to look at the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, but a little while has elapsed since she was working in the health service, and I must tell her that some of the things she talked about have to a certain extent moved on since then. The principal areas we are talking about in this Statement—catering, domestic services and laundry—are now, essentially, separately organised and are certainly separately costed, or should be, by and large within the health service. That is why we considered it appropriate to move forward with this particular area. Secondly, there are in any event well-established firms able to consider taking on these services in appropriate cases.
The noble Baroness asked me particularly about catering. It will of course be a requirement of the catering enterprises that they have proper regard in their tenders to the dietary requirements of patients, and that they will have to work precisely in accordance with the instructions of the clinicians and others who have direct responsibility for patient care in the wards. As for gardening, I must confess to some surprise when I discovered a little while ago that there is a separate salary scale for seed propagators in the National Health Service. I agree with the noble Baroness that that is another area which certainly needs to be looked at. We intend to bring forward further proposals in due course for other areas in the National Health Service. For example, we are now considering whether we could bring out a circular, for consultation at least, in regard to the manufacture of products within the National Health Service, which happens on a small scale. There are other areas, too, which are being looked at and I am certain that gardening ought to be one of them, even if it is not one now.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Minister did not quite answer my question on the matter of open tendering. I am still not clear as to how it is intended that this should work. The question really concerns the problems which appear to be attached to or the interpretations placed upon the words "their tenders" as the budget for the service, whether that is the tender from the outside company or that of the in-service staff. For example, will the in-service staff be obliged to use the model tender form, which one has not had time to read but is in here as an attachment to the Statement? I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear up my doubts on that matter?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, we want to see the in-house catering, laundry or cleaning organisations tendering on precisely the same terms as the commercial firms who make their proposals. That means, of course that concerning the other tenderers, the tender will be confidential. The purpose of the budgetary control to which I referred is that if the in-house service is the successful tenderer in a particular case, then they will be obliged to adhere to their successful tender as a budget for the future.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.55 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert ("he has given the applicant the opportunity of making written or oral representations and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is, as I hope the noble Lord the Minister appreciates, a probing amendment. It is quite unnecessary for the Minister to point out that it is drafted in a way that is defective or eccentric; or to point out that it will be difficult to draft an amendment that would be effective and fit into the framework of this Bill; or to point out—which I also accept—that if there were anything to be said for this amendment it ought similarly to be tabled on a number of subsequent clauses. The whole purpose of this amendment is to invite the Government to express their view at the moment as to how the registrar will carry out his various functions.
The registrar will no doubt be given a substantial amount of discretion. If I may say so, harking back to the previous amendment, I believe that the greater the amount of discretion he has, the better. He will no doubt exercise that discretion in a judicial or quasi-judicial way—but the fact remains that under this Bill the registrar will have substantial powers; powers under Clause 7 to refuse an application, under Clause 10 to serve an enforcement notice, under Clause 11 to de-register, and under Clause 12 to serve a transfer prohibition notice.
The purpose of this amendment is to discover whether the Government will accept that the registrar will inevitably find, as he carries out those duties, that he must give an opportunity to an applicant to state his case either in writing or, if the registrar so prefers it, at an oral hearing, before the registrar takes any of those important decisions. To give one obvious example, in

363
Clause 7(2)(b) the registrar has in certain circumstances to be satisfied,
"that the applicant is likely to contravene any of the data protection principles".
I hope I am right in assuming that the registrar will in no circumstances come to such a view unless he has given the applicant an opportunity, in one way or another, to put his case. Indeed, I am perhaps rather fortified in taking up this stance by the fact that if the registrar were not to give an applicant the opportunity of making representations, it might be a breach of natural justice and judicial review might follow.
For those reasons, I do not consider that it is necessary to incorporate in the structure of this Bill precise provisions as to the way in which the registrar shall carry out his functions, but it will be a considerable assurance to many people if the noble Lord can indicate that there is no question but that the registrar will invite representations before proceeding to exercise any of the substantial powers he has under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We on these Benches wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments so clearly enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It seems to be the case that the registrar will already be clearly under the duty the amendment seeks specifically to place upon him. If he did not act equitably then he would be placing himself in the greatest jeopardy. It may be, however, that the inclusion of the words suggested in this amendment will place the matter beyond any doubt and, in an even more public way than the assurance which I am sure the Minister will be prepared to give, would allay any fears that might exist as to the restrictive right of the applicant to articulate his case.
Lord Elton: I hope that I shall be able to serve your Lordships' Committee by allaying the anxieties of both noble Lords who have spoken, and to reassure them that an extra stage for the production of submissions by applicants, as set out in this amendment, is not needed.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for letting me know that this was a probing amendment, and therefore I will not address myself directly to it. I would tell your Lordships that the registrar will take all due account of what applicants say on their own behalf. I believe it would be most unlikely that he would refuse an application on the basis of the application as submitted without having first gone back to the applicant for more information. In dealing with applications for registration, and indeed with registered persons whose activities he may be for any reason investigating, the registrar will be keen to resolve problems as informally and simply as possible. He will not want cases to go to appeal on issues which could have been resolved quite early by direct contact with the person concerned. I hope this will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Elystan-Morgan, that the registrar will deal with these cases in a fair and reasonable manner.
I ought also to remind the Committee that the registrar is already placed under very tight constraints
364
in consideration of applications, including in regard to the length of time he is allowed to take to consider them. By virtue of Clause 7(5) and (6) the registrar is required, in cases where he is unable to conclude consideration of an application within two months of its receipt, in effect to treat the applicant as though his application had been accepted until such time as he is able to consider it. Once an applicant has been so deemed to be on the register he may only be stopped from continuing his operation when he has been afforded the opportunity of appealing to the tribunal. In other words, the Bill takes all reasonable steps to ensure that applicants will receive swift and fair consideration of their cases by the registrar, with the prospect of an appeal mechansim in those cases (which I hope will be rare) where the registrar concludes that he cannot accept an application on to the register. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with these assurances.
Lord Wigoder: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I think the indications he has given do meet the point which has been raised, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 6, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: We now come to paragraph (c), which has been the subject of a fair amount of discussion between myself and the CBI, because they have persuaded me that it is fantastically vague; in fact so vague is it that it will leave open the serious possibility of prejudice to the applicant for registration. I was sympathetic to the amendment we have just discussed for that reason. Even with the reassurances given by my noble friend Lord Elton. I really think it too vague. When you say "information available to him is insufficient to satisfy him that the applicant is unlikely …", how can the registrar possibly ever satisfy himself that the applicant is unlikely to contravene any of the principles on the basis of the particulars submitted for registration? It may be there is something in this area which needs to be said, but I would suggest at this stage of the game that the thing to do is to remove it, because it is too vague and could have unfair effects on applicants. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: This paragraph is indeed a veritable fog of obscurity. If my noble friend is not prepared to agree to its removal, would he be prepared to reconsider its wording and come back with a more definite wording at Report stage?
Lord Elton: Let us cross that bridge when we come to it. My noble friend feels that the terms in Clause 7(2)(c) are too general and permissive, and that the registrar is unlikely ever to be able to safisfy himself on the information available to him that the applicant is unlikely to contravene any of those principles. I must say in the short time I have known my noble friend I have been able to satisfy myself as to one or two of the ways in which he would conduct himself; I referred to one of them last week, and I was not disappointed when it occurred again this week. So I think it is quite

365
possible on a minimal amount of information for a person in public office to come to a general conclusion about the likely conduct of a person applying to him for anything.
Paragraph (c) of the subsection deals with the case where the general information available to the registrar is insufficient to allow him to consider the application properly. The particulars submitted by the user for registration may offer a satisfactory description of his operations, but for one reason or another the registrar may have doubts as to whether the user will comply with the principles—the principle relating to appropriate security measures, for example. To come to a view he seeks further information, in the hypothetical case, from the user, but he is denied it. He may find that he is therefore unable to satisfy himself that the applicant is likely to contravene the principles, but equally cannot satisfy himself that such a breach is unlikely. Under the Bill the registrar will have no formal powers to require information, but he will by virtue of paragraph (c) be empowered to refuse the application where insufficient information is forthcoming.
If this paragraph were deleted, the registrar would not have this power and would, therefore, in effect have to register an applicant who simply refused to give sufficient information to allow him to consider the case fully. The only thing that could be substituted for this would be something much harder and more exacting in the way of a power to demand access for information. I do not think the noble Lord, or those whose advice he takes or to whom he gives advice, would find that preferable to what is in the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will be content with it.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I will examine that with care and discuss the matter further. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 6, line 36, after ("which") insert ("he is satisfied that").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I can be very brief. The clause that we are dealing with deals with a case of vagueness in the registered particulars. If such a case is to be made out it ought to be made out very clearly, that the registrar is satisfied that all is well in spite of the fact that for commercial reasons, for security reasons, or whatever, the particulars are given in a general form. If one leaves the wording as it is, it is doubtful, quite honestly, who is the party who is going to be satisfied that the proviso does take effect. If, however, one puts it clearly, that it is the registrar who has to be satisfied, then one knows precisely what the position is, and certainly one knows what it is in regard to any appeal or any judicial review. It is a question of the registrar's satisfaction, not the applicant's. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment represents a small but welcome oasis on the long and thirsty march in search of a concession which I can make to the noble Lord. While it is a very small oasis, and I think it may slake the noble Lord's thirst better than mine, I do not think
366
any enormous difference in the Bill results from it. I do not want to belittle what the noble Lord has achieved. I am happy to advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: If the Committee finds me speechless hereafter they will understand the reason.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Codes of Practice.
.—(1) Where any data user or any body representative of any category of data users submits to the Registrar a Code of Practice as to the holding or processing of personal data for any purpose or purposes, the Registrar shall consider whether the holding or processing of personal data by that data user or by any data user within that category for that purpose or those purposes in accordance with the provisions of that Code would be likely to infringe any of the data protection principles, and the Registrar shall thereupon inform the person or persons submitting the Code of his views in that respect.
(2) If the Registrar is satisfied that the holding or processing of personal data by any category of data user for any specified purpose in accordance with the provisions of a particular Code of Practice would not contravene any of the data protection principles, the Registrar shall issue a certificate to that effect in relation to that Code.
(3) The Registrar shall have power to withdraw any such certificate at any time on not less than 12 months' notice.
(4) So long as any data user in any category holds or processes personal data for any purpose only in accordance with the provisions of a Code of Practice for the time being certified by the Registrar for that category and that purpose the data user shall be treated for all the purposes of this Act as not contravening any of the data protection principles.").
The noble and learned Lord said: A concession by the noble Lord the Minister on this amendment would really be significant, important, and mean a great deal. I move this amendment with confidence because it calls in aid principles which should be attractive to the noble Lord. First, the effect of it will be highly economical in terms of the expense and time of the department of the registrar. Secondly, it enables the private sector to intervene actively in this field and to draw up its own code of practice. The Lindop Committee attached great importance to the existence of a code of practice, and since the publication of the report a number of trade associations have in fact prepared codes of practice and many of their members already operate them.
It is our view that the registrar's task would be greatly lightened, and indeed that data protection would in turn be vastly improved, if the registrar were enabled to ensure that codes of practice of the kind that are provided for in the amendment were adequate, and gave them his formal approval if he found that to be so. Therefore, here is an amendment which sets out in the proposed new clause the whole basis of the operation of codes of practice and the degree of control that the registrar should exercise over them before issuing a certificate of approval. It reserves his power to withdraw the certificate at any time on not less than 12 months' notice. But it gives the covering in subsection (4) that:
"So long as any data user in any category holds or processes personal data for any purpose only in accordance with the provisions of a

367
Code of Practice … certified by the Registrar … the data user shall be treated for all purposes of this Act as not contravening any of the data protection principles".
So this is a proposal which involves simplification and economy. I am sure that it will meet the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—surely he must approve of it if there is any consistency, as I suspect there is occasionally, in the positions that he is taking in the course of the Bill.
I am happy to see that noble Lords from the other two parties in the House have also subscribed to the amendment. The acceptance or rejection of the amendment will be very critical in regard to the extent to which the Government have shown any open-mindedness about any of the important principles in the Bill. It has had a bad press and here is an excellent opportunity to approve something which I should have thought would receive pretty general acceptance. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: Perhaps I might tempt the noble Lord the Minister by saying that he has already rendered the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speechless and if he were now to take the opportunity of rendering the noble and learned Lord and myself equally speechless it would much facilitate the Committee stage of the Bill. I most enthusiastically venture to support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord. It seems to me that this is a very real step forward which in no way weakens any of the purposes of the Bill and in fact makes the functions of the registrar the more easy to carry out. There is no question but that the Government are not proposing a very large-scale operation in the setting up of a registrar and his staff and one can quite understand the reasons for that.
I think that this is a helpful opportunity which the Government might take in order to relieve the burden on the registrar and to enable him, and his no doubt small staff, to carry out their duties the more efficiently. I would add, too, that codes of practice, which have been recommended with such force in the Lindop Committee Report, clearly ought to have a very real part to play in the working of the Bill. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord will look at the amendment with care and with an open mind and come to the conclusion that there is a great deal to be said for it.
Lord Digby: I rather like this amendment. The Lindop Committee wanted codes of practice by law, but the Government replied that it would entail too many resources, although in their White Paper they accepted that professioanl bodies might well produce these codes. I appreciate the Government's point, but I feel that the concept of codes of practice being framed by the organisations involved and then approved by the registrar, is very cost effective.
I should like to make two small points. First, if codes of practice are approved it will mean that smaller data users will know where they stand without having to take professional advice on exactly how the Bill affects their particular business. Secondly, these codes would only be produced when the organisations concerned really thought that they were necessary. That means
368
that there would not be vast numbers of codes which were quite unnecessary and which might have happened if the registrar had to produce them. I believe that the amendment will result in an economic use of resources.
Lord Mottistone: I should briefly like to say that I certainly support the amendment in principle, as the noble and learned Lord would obviously appreciate. However, whether it is quite the right amendment is quite another matter and we shall hear about that from the Government. I have been told by the Consumers' Association that they support the amendment, and also by the Advertising Association. So there is a rather wider support for this amendment which I think the Government might care to take into account.
Lord Swinfen: Last week I advocated that a professional data users body should be responsible for drawing up the codes of practice, and I still adhere to that view. One of the points that I do not particularly like about the amendment is that is says, "Where any data user"; I would prefer that a data users' association drew up a code of practice for all data users rather than individual users producing their own code of practice for the registrar to approve, because there could be very many different codes all with approval and all slightly different. However, to have an association or, to use the words of the amendment, "any body representative" would be an extremely useful and good way of doing it because they are the people who are working with computers and data the whole time and they know what computers will do and can, therefore, ensure that if the code needs updating at any point it can be updated.
Lord Elton: I was expecting an intervention from the other party whose support appears on the Marshalled List, but I see that they have observed their customary silence on this Bill. I recognise that in proposing a mechanism in which voluntary codes of practice drawn up by data users are certified by the registrar, the new clause attempts to find a path somewhere between the statutory approach to codes of practice which was recommended by the Lindop Committee and the voluntary approach which was put forward by the Government in their White Paper. I acknowledge the care with which noble Lords have reached a compromise between those two approaches. It will enable those who wish to prepare codes of practice to do so at their own pace and then receive some official recognition for their efforts. That is a most attractive prospect. However, seductive as this path may seem, I am not entirely convinced that it will lead us to where we want to go.
First, it would result in the advantages of voluntary codes of practice being heavily outweighed by the bureaucratic process of certification. The purpose of the proposed provision is to encourage data users to submit codes of practice to the registrar. It is clearly in their interests to do so, because once certified, and provided they adhere to it, a code would guarantee them at least 12 months complete immunity from the exercise of the registrar's enforcement powers. In these circumstances, I submit that the registrar would be placed in an intolerable position. With limited

369
resources he would be required to consider and required to respond to every submission, no matter how complicated, confused, individualistic or poorly prepared it might be. Lindop said that only a small number of codes of practice might be needed. As I mentioned the last time we discussed this Bill, even Lindop found that to be of the order of 50 or more.
But let us not forget how difficult it is to draw up codes of practice, particularly sectoral codes applicable to substantial numbers of users. That suggests that the larger individual users would more often than not try their hands at individual codes applicable to their operations. There could literally be thousands of them. The registrar could be inundated and this could tie down the registrar for many years and prevent him from doing other important work, work which your Lordships on all sides of the Committee are anxious for him to begin.
The Government recognise that the registrar should give advice to those who need it, and who have discussed this already. He may wish, where appropriate, to assist in the preparation of voluntary codes of practice, but we consider that the registrar should be allowed some power of discretion in this task. For this reason we believe that the power to give advice, which we have discussed when dealing with Clause 33 of the Bill, is both appropriate and adequate. Certainly we do not believe that the registrar should be obliged to consider and respond to every one of a flood of codes, no matter how many there are, no matter in what form they come, no matter how impossible it may be to see what practical effect they may have.
That brings me to a further and, I think, more important objection that we have to the proposed new clause. It concerns the status of these codes and the central role that they are given by the amendment, a role which, by their nature, they will be unlikely to be fit to fulfil. Consider the difficulty of developing a truly exhaustive code of practice. There are many complicated factors to be taken into account. These may present both to the user and to the registrar formidable problems. For example, the same terminology may be used in respect of many systems, but the meaning of the words may vary according to the system to which they relate.
The registrar would have to be alert to these interpretations. More generally, it will be quite remarkably difficult for the registrar to test a code against all the possible circumstances that may arise in the future and say with any certainty that in every case observance of the code will ensure compliance with the principles and, let me add, protection to the data subject, for that is what this Bill is about.
Can any code absolutely guarantee that data will be adequate or accurate for the purpose for which they are held? Yet under the proposed new clause that is precisely the judgment that the registrar will have to make. He has eventually to certify a code, and thereafter it is not the principles but the code that matters. For at least 12 months the principles are secondary. Indeed, if a subject found that data held about him by a user were inaccurate, there would be no point in his going to the registrar with a request for assistance. If the user were observing his certified code, the registrar would be helpless. However blatant the inaccuracy or any other breach of the principles, if the
370
code were being observed, nothing could be done about it by the registrar.
I think that this illustrates the impossible position that the registrar would be in when faced with a proposed code. How could he ever be sufficiently sure of its effect in practice in circumstances that he could not fully foresee to certify it and so suspend the principles for the duration of the code's validity which, under the terms of the amendment, cannot be less than a year? Faced with that position he would have to go through each code with a fine toothcomb—a monumental task—and even then to certify a code would never be less than a calculated risk, taken on behalf of the data subjects whom he is there to protect.
Lord Mishcon: In the past I have had occasion to mention the phrase—and I borrowed it from a very eminent former Member of your Lordships' House—that some departments have the happy knack of finding a problem for every solution. I pay my tribute to the department of the noble Lord the Minister in precisely those terms this afternoon. If one had only heard from the Minister a tribute to the very principle of having codes of practice—recommended as mandatory in the Lindop Committee, recommended as voluntary by the Government's own White Paper—and if the noble Lord the Minister had said, "I find it wrong that there should be protection for 12 months; I find it wrong"—as one noble Lord intervened to say—"that each individual user should have the right to submit a code of practice; it should be a body", or "I find it wrong that the registrar should have the duty of considering such individual applications, and therefore only applications from associations or groups of users", then I think the Committee would have been a little more content with the answer.
The whole of the answer was negative, in spite of the fact that one of the main recommendations was that, in order to keep up with the very fast progress in which the industry dealing with computers marches through the years and in order to deal with the different categories of users that were envisaged by the Lindop Committee and, indeed, by the White Paper, there should be a data protection authority to keep up with the times and to make recommendations for different types of codes of practice. The Government have said "no" to a statutory data protection authority. The Government have not yet said that they are prepared even to have a statutory advisory committee. So one is left with a registrar with a staff of 20 to deal with the whole question of keeping things up to date and being able to differentiate between the various types of computer users in order that there may be a sensible code regulating them because of their individual and respective practices.
There is an opportunity for the Committee to take a stand here. Regardless of the ways in which this amendment may have to be looked at possibly later on at the Report stage and despite the Minister's argument that technical terms may be used which the poor registrar could not understand—and the very reason for having an advisory committee is in order that he may be told what they mean—if one is to accept the ability of any data user and in order that the Committee can see that organisations can come forward voluntarily with codes of practice which suit

371
their own individual needs, and so that the registrar can certify those codes of practice with whatever the Government may want to do hereafter by way of provisos, which we can look at at another stage, I hope that the principle here will be supported by the Committee if, as a result of the negative approach by the noble Lord the Minister, this matter has to go to a Division.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As one who deals closely with codes of practice in his own business—the marketing research business—I confess that I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments of the noble Lord the Minister about the complexity of codes of practice. In my business we indeed have codes of practice for individuals and for companies undertaking survey research, which seek to protect the clients and the practitioners themselves. These have been going for some 25 years now. But the work that was involved in codes of practice at the outset 25 and 30 years ago has been by no means continued as the codes of practice have been extended to new kinds of research, as they have become international, and as they have applied generally to new conditions.
I would suggest that the overwhelming volume of work imposed on the registrar according to the noble Lord the Minister would not take place because codes of practice would, in practice, overlap. There would be consistency between codes of practice in different areas of data. There would be common areas which would rapidly become accepted and would no longer be contentious. After perhaps an initial burst of activity for the registrar, the amount of work in future years, with future developments of information technology, would become very much less, and the savings which my noble and learned friend suggested would occur for the registrar in the work involved would very much outweigh any initial difficulties. I hope that this amendment will be agreed to.
Lord Elton: I think I must return to the Box to dispel something approaching an illusion which I may have generated. Your Lordships should realise that we accept the value of voluntary codes of practice drawn up as general guides to users in particular areas, and the registrar has the power, under Clause 33, to assist in developing such codes as he thinks appropriate. But I do not think we can require him to crawl laboriously over every code submitted by uncounted individual users and leave him with no time to do anything else.
Let us not elevate codes of practice to a position above that of principles. They will be useful as general guides but they cannot guarantee that all the principles will, in all circumstances, be complied with over an extended period. If noble Lords are going to go into the Lobbies about this, they should not go under the mistaken impression that they are casting a vote in favour of voluntary codes of practice, because that is not in dispute. What are in dispute are the principles which I have already addressed wrapped up in this particular amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Then the sooner the Committee divides on this matter, the happier we shall all be.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 67) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Avebury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Balogh, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barrington, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brockway, L.

Melchett, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mishcon, L.

Caradon, L.

Molloy, L.

Collison, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Digby, L.

Peart, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ridley, V.

Foot, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Stamp, L.

Gardiner, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kagan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Avon, E.

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Caccia, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ilchester, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kemsley, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Margadale, L.

Elton, L.

Marley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Norfolk, D.

Glanusk, L.

Northchurch, B.

Glasgow, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Orkney, E.

Greenway, L.

Pender, L.

373

Penrhyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Stradbroke, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Richardson, L.

Teynham, L.

Romney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trumpington, B.

St. Just, L.

Vivian, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 8 [Duration and Renewal of Registration]:
5.40 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 7, line 33, after ("prescribed") insert ("being not less than three years").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather strange part of the Bill, as I read it, in which we are talking about the duration of renewal of registration. I am a bit puzzled as to why so much time and space is given to it anyhow. As the Bill stands, it seems to me, and to the retail consortium which advised me on this amendment, that the Secretary of State may prescribe any period, however short, after which a registration must be renewed. It would seem undesirable both from the viewpoint of the data users, who will have to register, and from the viewpoint of the workload to be undertaken by the registrar, that the period after which renewal is required should be unduly short.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B, to which I hope I may speak, is to provide a minimum period of three years. In fact, that is a minimum period. It is hoped that the Secretary of State will feel it appropriate in normal cases to prescribe a substantial period before renewal. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am seized of the force of the view that my noble friend has put forward. We would be the first to agree that data users, once they had registered, should not be required to renew their registration unnecessarily frequently. Indeed, we have been thinking in terms of something like three years as the period to be prescribed in the regulations which would be made consequent upon the prescriptive power contained in Clause 8(2). But rather than specify a particular period on the face of the Bill we prefer to retain maximum flexibility, partly because we felt that at some point in the future, for reasons which we cannot now foresee, we might regret being statutorily limited to no shorter period than three years. Nevertheless, I am attracted by what my noble friend has said.
I think it would be right to undertake to review whether it might be sensible to set out on the face of the Bill the minimum period for which long-term data users can be sure they can register without the need for renewal. As I made clear, in prescribing the period under the Bill as cast, we had in mind a similar period to that suggested by my noble friend, but I accept there may be a case to put that beyond all doubt and I hope that in view of that he will find it unnecessary to pursue the matter further at this stage.
Lord Mottistone: I am indeed grateful to my noble friend. I take it that he will come forward with an amendment of his own at some later stage. Is that so?
Lord Elton: I am undertaking to consider it, and that customarily means that one has it in mind to bring forward an amendment, or advise one's noble friend how to bring forward an amendment, if one's consideration turns out in the way that one's noble friend hopes that it will. I cannot be more specific than that.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend very much. I am sorry for pressing him slightly on that but there was a little vagueness about the answer, which delights me greatly. With that I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67B not moved].
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Inspection etc. of registered particulars]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) Where the Registrar has reasonable grounds for believing that information supplied in response to a request under section 9(2) above will be used neither for the purpose of determining whether any particular user or computer bureau is complying with the relevant principles in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act nor for the purpose of proceedings in a court of law he shall refuse to supply copies of the information requested.
(4) Information supplied in response to a request under section 9(2) above shall be used only for the purpose of ensuring that any particular data user or computer bureau is complying with the relevant principles in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act or for the purpose of proceedings in a court of law and it shall be an offence to use that information for any other purpose.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the part of the Bill where facilities are to be given for making information in the entries to the register available to third parties. It is thought by the CBI, who have advised me on this matter, that there is a possibility that it might be in the interests of certain persons or bodies to pay the required fees in order to obtain large sections of the particulars that are entered on the register for commercial or other purposes, quite unconnected with the protection of personal data. It is suggested, accordingly, that amendments on the lines of the two subsections in Amendment No. 68 might be desirable in order to protect the data users and the data subjects from information being released for the wrong reasons. I should hope that the Government would agree that something in the way of this extra safeguard is necessary. I fully appreciate that they may have a better way of expressing it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Clause 9(1) of the Bill places the registrar under a duty to make the contents of the register available for inspection by members of the public. Clause 9(2) requires him to supply, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, certified copies of register entries. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone is designed to prevent abuse of this entitlement to these certified copies. I think there is no need for concern on that score, if I have his intentions right. The Bill makes adequate provision to ensure that the process of public

375
registration does not require data users to reveal sensitive details of their operations. I hope I can explain to him that there is nothing to fear from the availability of certified copies of register entries under Clause 9(2).
The information contained in any register entry will be that supplied by the applicant for registration. In the case of a data user, the application will contain the information set out in Clause 4(3); that is the name and address of the user, a description of the personal data to be held and the purposes for which such data are to be held or used, a description of the sources of the data and the persons to whom the data are to be disclosed, the names or the descriptions of the countries to which the data may be sent and, finally, the name and address to which requests for access should be made. In the case of a person carrying on a computer bureau the entry will include only a name and address.
The requirements in Clause 4(3) are deliberately cast in terms to permit general descriptions to appear on the register. Although the registrar is empowered to refuse an application which fails to give sufficient information under Clause 7(2)(a), Clause 7(3) provides that this does not preclude the acceptance of particulars expressed in general terms. In addition this clause provides that the registrar shall accept particulars expressed in general terms where more specific particulars would be likely to prejudice the purpose for which the data are to be held. This comes to the nub of my noble friend's concern. This provision has been specifically included to ensure that the process of registration does not cause data users to suffer by having to reveal, for example, commercial confidences. The Bill is therefore alive to the need to ensure that the register does not provide assistance to those who seek data for ill-intentioned reasons towards data users or who seek information far removed from data protection. If, as we believe, these mechanisms ensure that data users need not place any prejudicial information on the register, then I think there is little to fear from certified copies of the users' registered entry being available.
Lord Drumalbyn: I think I heard my noble friend aright to say that the information provided to the registrar would be in general terms. Does that mean that the requirement to supply the sources will be in general terms, or do the actual sources have to be given? It would be commercially totally inappropriate to give the actual sources in certain cases.
Lord Elton: That is exactly the problem to which the Bill as drafted addresses itself. We had a debate on this earlier. The registrar can require information in sufficient detail to satisfy himself that the principles will not be breached. But, equally, he is allowed under the parts of the Bill I am now discussing to accept registration in such general terms as will protect the data user from revealing commercially damaging information not necessary for the protection of the interests of the data subject. There is, therefore, no need to fear what my noble friend implied there might be need to fear.
Lord Drumalbyn: Perhaps I might pursue that by asking my noble friend whether that means he would be prepared to listen to an argument, despite the clause with which we have just been dealing, that information would be commercially damaging if the applicant were required to provide it to the registrar, because the penalties for not providing the information are severe.
Lord Elton: The penalty for not providing the information is not to get registered and, therefore, not to be able to operate. That is the sanction. It is for the user to satisfy the registrar of the degree of detail in which registration should be accepted. The Bill provides for those cases—I find it difficult to give an example, and I do not want to be tied to this in future debate—where the information might be only from clearing banks or might be only from married women, but it would not say from which clearing bank or from which married woman.
Lord Mottistone: I am partially reassured by my noble friend. I say "partially" because I do not think my advisers, who include people who understand computers a great deal better than I do, would have suggested this sort of amendment if they had not been concerned about the matter. They are obviously aware of the terms of subsection (4) as being the basis of the information and of the safeguards, as it were, in Clause 7, and I have a note on their advice that Clause 7(3) is very important. They are therefore aware of the sort of things my noble friend was saying.
I am slightly concerned lest, despite all the wisdom in the world of my noble friend and his department, there may be areas where the wrong use of information might be put together as a result of the access—the untrammelled access—which at present Clause 9 seems to give. You need only produce the money and you get the dope, and it may be that you get a little more than people are thinking. My expert advisers must be aware of that, and that is why they have asked me to make quite a point in moving the amendment.
Having said that, I shall consider with great care what my noble friend said, but this is probably a matter to which I shall endeavour to return to get a greater safeguard in Clause 9 than is at present the case. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, addressed himself to the problems that may be faced by the commercial data user as a result of Clause 9—in that he may be compelled to give information to any member of the public in the form of a copy of the register, which might prove to be commercially damaging—and the Minister has given assurances that the data user is fully protected from the revelation of any information which might be commercially damaging to him.
There is however the other side of the case, which I understand is also covered by Clause 9: that of the public sector computer which holds personal data; and obviously it is highly desirable that any member of the public should be able to get full information as to what

377
that computer contains. I will use the example of the computer referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner; the computer used for the purposes of immigration control which, as he said, would be under the control of the Minister's department.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would confirm that Clause 9 applies to that computer, so that any member of the public may go and inspect the register and find out the particulars that are required to be given by the Home Office as a data user under Clause 6(1). I should also be grateful if he would confirm that the particulars will be those as set out in Clause 4(3)—the name and address of the data user, the description of the data and so on.
That would not necessarily be enough to satisfy the public that the computer—the one I am using in this example—was being used properly and that there were adequate safeguards against the inclusion in it of extraneous material that did not belong in that file. I say that because the Minister may have seen an article in the magazine Computing last week about the intelligence-gathering system at Harmondsworth with the Prime 550 computer, which has been installed there for the purpose of controlling illegal immigration and over-staying, but including a great mass of material relating not only to suspected or attempted illegal immigrants but persons connected with them in a fairly remote way.
Among the files that will be contained in that machine is a name index, with other particulars of anyone, including businesses, sponsors, educational establishments or other organisations, which may in any way be connected with suspected or attempted illegal immigration. It will be seen, therefore, that the net will be cast very wide and that there is a legitimate public interest in knowing precisely what instructions have been given to those who will be operating that computer so that it will be relatively easy to say whether a particular individual is contained in that file.
That could be of importance because the presence of a name in the file might have adverse effects in terms of employment or promotion prospects on the individuals concerned. If an individual, for example, is working in the public sector and reference is made to that file to see whether he has been in any way connected with illegal immigration or over-staying, and his name is present—simply because in some remote way he has had a connection with a person who was an illegal immigrant or an over-stayer, even though he himself has never broken the law or has never been connected in any way with an infringement of the law—then obviously it could be harmful to him to have his name on that file. Unless full information is given in the particulars, he will never know he is there.
It is, therefore, important at this stage, before we come to the substance of the matter, which we shall be dealing with on later parts of the Bill, to know precisely what information a member of the public can have in relation to these extremely sensitive files, which have far-reaching implications for the individual who may be contained in them, going well beyond anything that would be in the commercial sector discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly says, the substance of these issues is something that we come to later in the Bill, and specifically in Clauses 27 and 28, when we come to exemptions, on which I think we shall have a number of exchanges. Except on matters of national security, all computers are embraced by Clause 9. I think that that is the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wants. It is of course the register, kept by the registrar, that we are talking about. It is the summary of all the installations in the country that fall within the description of "computer", and that is just a guidebook to the data subject as to where he may direct his inquiries if he thinks that his name is being held somewhere to his disadvantage. Therefore the important feature of the register is that it is sufficiently comprehensive to show people where to look, and sufficiently detailed to eliminate needless causes of anxiety about the purposes to which information comprising data is put, or about the sources from which it is to be found.
The more specific legislation deals with what happens next when the data subject seeks to find out what there is in his name on a particular file: first, if there is a file, whether his name is on it at all; and, secondly, if so, what is said about him, and the right that he has to correct it, if it is wrong or misleading. But as to whether the machine alluded to earlier would be on the register, the answer is, yes.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord did not quite answer the point that I was making, which was that while the particulars to be given in the register include a description of the personal data to be held by the data user, it is not stated whether the data user will be required to state what particular classes of persons are to be contained in a particular file. The example that I was giving was that in the case of the computer at Harmondsworth, we know that it would contain a list of suspected illegal immigrants and overstayers, but as was shown in the article in Computing which I quoted, there were numbers of other persons who in some way were supposed to be connected with these illegal immigrants or overstayers, and whose names might also be contained in the computer. What I was asking the noble Lord—perhaps not very clearly—was whether the particulars that were given to the registrar would contain a sufficient description of the types and classes of individuals whose names were to be contained in the computer so as to enable anybody to say whether a person would be likely to find his name in the file.
For example, we are concerned with businesses, sponsors, educational establishments, and other organisations—which might of course be persons, because it might be partnerships that were running them—which were in any way connected with suspected or attempted illegal immigration. The case of sponsors may be taken to illustrate the general proposition. Would a person who was a sponsor of an immigrant coming to this country for any purpose be likely to find his name on the computer if the immigrant himself had been questioned at Heathrow, for example? Would it be as remote as that? I am trying to discover not whether a particular individual can see his name on the computer, but whether the person who is generally interested in the way that the

379
Home Office is approaching the task can look at the description, which will be filed with the registrar, and know from it whether a particular individual will be included in that class. That was my question.
Lord Elton: The substance of what the noble Lord seeks is behind Clause 9, and in Clause 4. I am sure that he is aware of Clause 4(3), which sets out the categories, and of paragraph (b), which states that one of them is,
"a description of the personal data to be held by him and of the purpose or purposes for which the data are to be held or used".
Paragraph (d) of the subsection relates to people to whom the description is to be communicated. I see the noble Lord's anxiety. As we have drafted the Bill, the actual precision of the information to be provided rests with the registrar, under the supervision of Parliament. This is for reasons to which I addressed myself in a debate very recently about the difficulties which would arise if the registrar, for commercial reasons—not for reasons of state—was not able to make a decision as to how general should be the information, in order to satisfy the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, or how precise it should be for other reasons, in order to satisfy the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
If we become too specific, we fall into one ditch; if we become too general, we fall into the other; and as the road is a winding road, we cannot on the face of the Bill state exactly how precise we should be in every case. I can only say that the intended purpose of the register is that people shall be able to discover whether their names are held, under whatever category, and that is the anxiety that the noble Lord has.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enforcement notices]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
6.7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 8, line 25, after ("has") insert ("materially").
The noble Lord said: We have reached an important stage of the Bill, because this is the stage which is headed "Supervision". In other words, it is the teeth of the Bill, designed to make sure that the provisions here are effective for the protection of the user as well as the subject. The first way of dealing with any question of enforcement is by means of an enforcement notice. In order to keep a proper balance here your Lordships' Committee may well feel that the registrar should be given a clear direction in regard to the serving of an enforcement notice, but, on the other hand, it should not be a direction which makes him serve an enforcement notice when there has been what might be called a minor infringement of the principles or one of the provisions of the Bill.
The amendment seeks to give that direction to the registrar by substituting for the word "may" the word "shall", in regard to the serving of an enforcement notice, but, on the other hand, it protects the prospective recipient of the enforcement notice by using the
380
word "material" in regard to any breach or offence that he may have committed. So that there should be no doubt about the position, there is the further amendment to line 30, where at the moment the Bill reads:
"In deciding whether to serve an enforcement notice the Registrar shall consider whether the contravention has caused or is likely to cause any person damage or distress".
Under the amendment that is altered so as to read:
"In deciding whether a contravention is material"—
thus defining what the word "material" means—
"the Registrar shall consider whether the contravention has caused or is likely to cause am person damage or distress".
So the registrar is given, first, a very clear directive under the Bill in regard to the serving of an enforcement notice—he is to serve it in certain circumstances. It is to be served only where there is something "material" by way of contravention; and so that no one is in any doubt, the word "material" is defined in the way that I have just indicated. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment which the noble Lord has elegantly explained is designed to restrict the discretion which, quite deliberately, the registrar has been afforded by the Bill to decide the circumstances in which his powers are to be exercised. As drafted, the registrar must be satisfied that the data protection principles have been or are being contravened before he may serve an enforcement notice under Clause 10. But he is left an entirely free hand to decide whether or not in an), given case he will exercise that power. The registrar is required, once he has decided that there has been or is a contravention, to consider whether that contravention has caused or is likely to cause damage or distress to any person. Again, he is given a free hand. He is not obliged to take action in every circumstance in which the harm test has been met, nor is he precluded from acting even when there is no harm.
I suggest that this is the most appropriate way of ensuring that the registrar is able to do what is necessary where occasion demands it without obliging him to act where no good would be done thereby. He must be able to ignore the trifling cases and act on the serious ones. The amendments under consideration here will deprive the registrar of that discretion by obliging him to act in certain circumstances. By virtue of these amendments, he would have to serve a notice wherever he was satisfied that a registered person had materially contravened or was materially contravening—and I know not whether the word "materially" has a definition in law, but I shall doubtless be told—any of the data protection principles.
We would expect the registrar to take action in the majority of such circumstances, but it is possible to think of exceptional cases where this would not be necessary and some where it would actually be counter-productive. For example, it might be the case that although harm has been caused in a way which constituted a material breach of a principle, there was no possibility of a recurrence and thus no requirements which could reasonably be placed upon the user in the enforcement notice.
Under this amendment, he would still have to go ahead and serve a notice. In many cases we would hope that a word from the registrar to the user in

381
question without any need for resort to the formal powers would have the effect of ensuring that the harm in question did not recur. I am afraid that acceptance of these amendments would seriously undermine the atmosphere of sensible negotiation which we are anxious to see regulating the operation of these new provisions, and would force the registrar to act with quite unnecessary formality in certain cases. Moreover, they would leave the registrar in considerable uncertainty as to when he was obliged to take action. The amendments offer him no clear guidance, as I suspected, as to what constitutes a material contravention. They only remind him of a factor which he is obliged to consider if they place on him the legal requirement to act whenever that undefined test has been satisfied. I think that the amendment would leave the Bill not as good as it now is, and I hope the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Mishcon: I think that what the noble Lord the Minister has said about this important provision is of such a measure of seriousness that one ought to consider what he has said and decide later what position to take. I make only one quick observation. It is that, while we consider on our side, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will also consider on his side what he has said about subsection (2) of Clause 10, meaning that the registrar has discretion as to whether or not to serve an enforcement notice in circumstances where the contravention has not caused or is not likely to cause any person damage or distress. I would have said, with deep respect, that subsection (2), on any ordinary interpretation, limits him to the power to serve an enforcement notice by the consideration as to whether the contravention does cause or is likely to cause any person damage or distress; and that the wording, if it is to fit what he has said, ought to be that he should take into account, possibly among other considerations, the matters mentioned in subsection (2). We will possibly, both of us, if I may say so, be considering what has emerged this afternoon. It may be convenient if I say that I deem myself to have spoken not only to Amendment No. 70, but to Amendments Nos. 71, 73, 74 and 100. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 8, line 35, after ("with") insert ("paragraph (a) of").
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 75 and 140 together. They march hand in hand. The first relates to Clause 10(3), which is designed to ensure that in the first instance data subjects go directly to the data user concerned to request subject access, involving the registrar only where access is, in their view, improperly refused. Thus, the registrar is to be empowered to issue a notice requiring that the data user give access to a data subject only where the latter has duly requested access in accordance with Clause 21 and that access has been refused.
It has come to our attention that, as drafted, Clause 10(3) goes beyond this. It refers to the seventh data
382
protection principle, which is in two parts, The clause properly limits the registrar's notice powers in respect of paragraph (a) of the seventh data protection principle concerning the entitlement to subject access; but it also applies to paragraph (b) of that principle, which concerns the subject's entitlement, where appropriate to rectification or erasure of data.
The amendment proposed would restrict Clause 10(3) to paragraph (a) only. To take an example, a data subject might request access from a data user and be given a copy of the data in accordance with Clause 21. The subject might then discover some breach of one of the other data protection principles—an inaccuracy in the data, perhaps—and seek rectification or erasure of the inaccurate data, to which he would be entitled under paragraph (b) of the seventh principle. If this were refused, the registrar, clearly, should not be prevented from exercising his notice powers just because the user had given access in the first place. Yet under Clause 10(3) as drafted the registrar could not issue a notice requiring the data user to rectify or erase the data unless the data user had refused access in the first place.
The proposed amendment would restrict the limitation on the registrar's powers to paragraph (a) of the seventh data protection principle concerning subject access. It will thus enable data subjects to benefit from the registrar's powers when they may need his help in obtaining rectification or erasure of incorrect data.
The second amendment covers a similar point in relation to Clause 26(2), which defines the subject access provisions. This term is used in Part IV of the Bill in relation to exemptions. As currently cast, Clause 26(2) encompasses the whole of the seventh principle, including the entitlement to correction or erasure, as well as to access. Again, the clause as drafted goes unduly wide. The exemption from subject access need not include exemption from the entitlement to correction or erasure. Again, in a minor way the amendment is in the interest of data subjects inasmuch as it reduces the scope of the exemption only to that part of the seventh principle from which exemption is required. I hope I have made this clear. I understood it when I embarked on it. If your Lordships do so as well now, we shall all be content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Wigoder: May I draw the attention of the Minister to the words in line 32 of Clause 10 which read:
"is likely to cause any person damage or distress".
The same phrase "damage or distress" appears in Clause 11 and Clause 12. I can understand that the concept of the word "damage" is sufficiently precise to enable the registrar to act; I should simply like to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the word "distress" is equally precise and has therefore a useful part to play in these three clauses.
Lord Elton: I am advised, on the one hand, that it is an ordinary dictionary word and, on the other, that it gives therefore the registrar discretion to decide what it means. I am not sure whether that will entirely satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. If he has remaining doubts perhaps he will discuss them before the next stage. Now I merely take note of his anxiety that the term "distress" is imprecise. As I have just said that "materially" is imprecise, it would be disingenuous of me not to take note of what he has said; and, if it is necessary to do more, I shall be in touch with him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The concept of distress in the law of privacy is not unimportant. I hope that the point will not be abandoned without very careful thought.
Lord Elton: Indeed. I have just said that I shall think about it. When I think about legislation I always think very carefully because I always find it necessary to do so in order to understand it.
Viscount Bledisloe: May I ask about the relationship of subsections (5) and (6)? As I understand it, if an enforcement notice is served and one gives notice of appeal then one is not obliged under subsection (5) to do anything until the appeal has been determined. But under subsection (6) the registrar can, if he thinks it important enough and urgent, require steps to be taken notwithstanding that an appeal is pending. Is there any provision by which one can appeal against that requirement itself, or has the registrar total power to say, "This is a matter or urgency. You must comply although you have an appeal pending"? Perhaps there will be no one to whom one can go to ask for a revision of that and therefore one has to comply and then have the appeal some time later.
Lord Elton: If I can just recapitulate, as I emerge from a flurry of irrelevant papers, the noble Viscount is asking whether there is an appeal not only on the grounds specified in the earlier subsections but also about when it is unreasonable to be required to make it within the period set out in subsection (5). Am I right?
Viscount Bledisloe: Yes. He may be saying that it is unreasonable to be required to do it that quickly or he may say that he has such a good appeal pending that it is unreasonable for that reason to make him do it immediately. I am asking whether there is any way in which he can challenge the registrar's issue of what one might call an urgency notice.
Lord Elton: I think I should refer the noble Viscount to Clause 13, which deals with emergency procedures. The Committee will be addressing itself to this clause later. That might be the appropriate time to deal with this matter.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [De-registration notices]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 9, line 21, after ("has") insert ("grossly or persistently"),
The noble Lord said: One of the complaints that was made on Second Reading is that this Bill—and I
384
believe that the Minister misunderstood me when I was trying to make my own contribution—came about too speedily after a long period of delay in which nothing had happened, and then it was speedily put together, with the result that we have imprecise directions given under the Bill where it is very important that they should be precise.
There is nothing more serious in regard to the sanctions imposed, one would have thought, than de-registration, which is the alternative to—or it may even be the follow-up of—an enforcement notice. Yet the draftsman, presumably under a directive regarding policy, has precisely the same provisions to guide the registrar as to what he ought to do for an enforcement notice to be served as for a de-registration notice. That really is remarkable. Exactly the same wording is used: that he be satisfied and he may serve with a notice. In deciding whether to serve he should consider whether the contravention has caused or is likely to cause any person damage or distress. Again, it is permissive.
For something as serious as a de-registration notice—which can literally put somebody out of business, quite apart from the fact of contravention and committing offences—one would have thought that there would be a provision here that there has to be gross, persistent or serious—whatever the case may be—contravention. That would guide the registrar and again the user would know exactly where he stood.
This amendment seeks to put this right and to put in appropriate language, as we see it, for the de-registration notice procedure. But once having reached those depths—as it may be—of contravention, then of course the registrar is told that this is an occasion when he shall serve the de-registration notice. I think that I can leave the Committee with that explanation of what we consider on these Benches to be a very important amendment indeed. We are dealing with a very serious position when we come to the de-registration notice. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: May I venture to support this amendment? I agree that it is an important one. I hope that I am not going to be accused of nit-picking in any way, but may I suggest that it may be slightly improved if the words "grossly or persistently" were so placed in the line as to cover both past contraventions and present contraventions? At the moment, think—perhaps per incuriam—they only cover the words "as contravened" and not the words "is contravening".
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. If I may quickly deal with the helpful point of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, he may well be right; but I am sure that he will agree with me that acceptance of this amendment or non-acceptance will not depend upon the interchange of these words.
Lord Elton: We are on somewhat familiar ground. I have already indicated in responding to the similar amendments moved by the noble Lord in Clause 10 that the Government do not believe that the protection provided under this legislation will be made more effective by attempting to place obligations on the registrar. Our belief is that nothing will be served by attempting in advance to identify the circumstances in

385
which a particular use of his powers will be appropriate and then prescribing that in those circumstances he shall always act in that way no matter how precisely the circumstances are defined.
We have deliberately avoided any indication in the Bill as to the circumstances in which a de-registration notice will be more appropriate than an enforcement notice. We have done that by choice and knowingly. Clearly one will be a more serious response than the other; but it has seemed appropriate to us that in any given case the registrar should have discretion to choose between the two courses. Obviously there will be cases in which the principles have been contravened so grossly and so persistenly that no amount of detailed improvement would make that user system acceptable.
Those are the circumstances for which the de-registration notice has been designed; but it could also happen that a user who has been responsible for serious and persistent breaches could be brought into compliance with the principles by the judicious use of the enforcement notice power. That more sensible solution would be precluded by the current amendments and the draconian and most extreme recourse that the registrar has would then be brought needlessly to bear upon a data user who was prepared to conform. I can only repeat my belief that the registrar's discretion is likely to be the most effective means of control in these circumstances, and we would be foolish to think that we could prejudge every issue for days, years and indeed decades before they arise. On that basis, and for that reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I feel that the noble Lord the Minister, if he will forgive my saying it, is asking your Lordships' Committee not to fulfil a very heavy duty that is cast upon it. There are no precedents for all this—no precedents to guide the registrar—and we in this Chamber would be failing in our duty if we did not give him some guidance and say that a de-registration notice (apart from my point about "may" or "shall") is only to be served where there is this gross or persistent breach of the principles or the provisions of the Bill. In these circumstances, and because we feel it is our duty to say that the registrar should be guided in this unprecedented field, it appears to be appropriate, unfortunately, to divide the Committee.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 77) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Avebury, L.

David, B.

Balogh, L.

Diamond, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Beswick, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Brockway, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Collison, L.

Galpern, L.

386

Gardiner, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Garner, L.

Nicol, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hampton, L.

Oram, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hayter, L.

Phillips, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mayhew, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Molloy, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Bellwin, L.

Marley, L.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Benson, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Northchurch, B.

Craigmyle, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Digby, L.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Duncan Sandys, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Plait of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glasgow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

St. Just, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sudeley, L.

Kemsley, V.

Swinfen, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner rose to move Amendment No. 82:
Insert the following new clause—
(" . If any person shall complain to the Registrar that any registered person has materially contravened or is materially contravening any of the data protection principles the Registrar shall investigate the complaint and notify both the person who has made it and the registered person of the outcome of his investigation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friends. It raises the

387
same point that I raised before: there are certain things that we all think that the registrar should have a duty to do, or at least be able to do. The Government think so; the Opposition think so; the Liberal Party think so; and the SDP think so; but we differ on one point—why it is not in the Bill. We all agree it is not in the Bill. This is a similar point to that which I raised before, because this is what it depends on.
The Data Protection Committee expressed the view that the registrar should investigate complaints. The Government's White Paper set out that in their view they agreed with that and they said one of its important functions would be to pursue complaints. But there is nothing about it, unless I have missed it, in the Bill. I beg your Lordships' pardon. I understood that Amendment No. 82 had been called.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I think I should make it clear that, rightly or wrongly, I called Amendment No. 78.
Lord Elton: I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, does not wish to move his Amendment No. 78.
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert ("and whether the registered person has had sufficient opportunity to rectify the contravention").
The noble Lord said: I am moving this amendment. On a theme which is slightly similar to what we were talking about before, but I think on the other side of it, it seems to me and to some of my advisers that it is a little abrupt to be able to go straight to de-registration—and there does not seem to be anything within Clause 11 to prevent that—because once de-registration has occurred you then cannot use your computer, which could be absolutely disastrous for all sorts of people; and, in broad terms, the bigger and more complicated the organisation the more disastrous it would be. Therefore, it seems to us that, at least, there should be some opportunity for the registered person to rectify the contravention, and, indeed, to have been informed about the contravention so that he could rectify it, before this rather desperate step of de-registration was taken.
I do not know whether my wording will satisfy my noble friend on the Front Bench. An alternative way is to say that the registrar must go through an enforcement procedure first, but I can see that there might be circumstances in which this would not necessarily be the right thing to do. But, at least, he must give some sort of warning, and there must be some way in which the data user can rectify the contravention, before the registrar adopts the sledgehammer attack of serving him with a de-registration notice. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: Would not the registrar have already given the contravener an opportunity to rectify the contravention under Clause 10?
Lord Swinfen: Would my noble friend on the Front Bench think of the case where a data user is improving
388
his computer, and needs to change all the information from his existing computer to a new computer before he can rectify the fault?
Lord Mishcon: I shall look with interest to see those who divided one way or the other on the last amendment, and with particular interest to see which way the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, voted, because if the words "grossly or persistently" had been inserted, and, indeed, the word "serious", the purpose of his amendment would have been fulfilled by virtue of the fact that it would not be a question of rectifying on notice. Before the de-registration notice could be initiated, there would have to be gross or persistent breaches. I leave the comment there.
Lord Wigoder: May I support this amendment? I agree, in a sense, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; this is a different way of putting the effect of the last amendment, on which we divided. But it is not very helpful to start inquiring which way noble Lords divided on the last amendment. The real point is whether the present amendment has merit. May I suggest that it has, and invite the noble Lord the Minister to consider it sympathetically before the next stage?
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. I have no shame about what I did. My interpretation of the earlier group of amendments, including No. 78, was that they were in opposition to my amendment rather than in favour of it, and that, collectively, they did not achieve the same object. It may be that I did not appreciate what I should have done, in which case, perhaps, noble Lords opposite should have spoken in a different way. However that may be, I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will give particular care to Amendment No. 81, forget the past, concentrate on the future and give me a sympathetic reply.
Lord Elton: Every time I concentrate on the future and forget the past noble Lords teach me lessons from history, so I am a little averse to taking that advice. As I understand it, what noble Lords sought to do by the last amendment—and we ought to address ourselves to this one—was to see that in certain circumstances the registrar had to take the extreme step of a de-registration notice. What my noble friend is now saying is that he should not be required to do that until something else has happened and people have had an opportunity to put themselves in the right, as it were, with the registrar.
I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend's general intention. Indeed, the Government entirely agree that the issue of a de-registration notice should be seen as a last step, and they fully expect that the registrar will do so. There is, as it were, within the Bill, if one looks at it in a musical way, a rising crescendo of seriousness between Clauses 10 and 11, which we believe make Parliament's intention plain to the registrar. Any attempt to translate that plain intent into express provision will, we believe, take us into difficulties which we would do best to avoid.
Clause 10 empowers the registrar to issue an enforcement notice requiring specified steps to be

389
taken where he is satisfied that a registered person has contravened, or is contravening, the data protection principles. Clause 11 allows him to issue a de-registration notice, and, thereafter, to remove a registered person from the register, again in the event of contravention of the principles. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would require the registrar, before deciding to issue a de-registration notice, to consider whether the registered person had had sufficient opportunity to rectify the contravention.
I think there are two difficulties in attempting to differentiate between Clauses 10 and 11 in that way. The first of these is that the amendment does not seem apt to cover all the circumstances in which de-registration may be appropriate. We certainly expect that in normal circumstances, if the registrar had to resort to his formal powers of any sort, he would first issue an enforcement notice requiring modifications in the registered person's operations. I ought to say that, in the natural course of events, even that would not take place until there had been correspondence and exchanges of views of some other less formal sort. But only after such measures had failed would the registrar resort, we expect, to de-registration.
Yet there may be cases where it would be inappropriate to serve an enforcement notice. This would be so where the contravention of the principles was so fundamental to the registered person's operations that it could not be rectified, short of ending those operations. In such cases, it clearly would be inappropriate to apply the test of whether or not the registered person had been given sufficient opportunity to rectify the contravention. These cases, we think, will be rare but not impossible.
The second consideration is that the factor identified by my noble friend in this amendment is not an appropriate one to differentiate between the cases where an enforcement notice or a de-registration notice would be inappropriate. We all expect the registrar to operate through a process of persuasion and education, and it is expected that he would normally issue only an enforcement notice. I think I am repeating myself. I have other points to make, but I wonder whether I should stop at this moment and see how my noble friend takes what I have said, which, in sum, is that we expect the registrar to proceed from the informal to the lesser of the formal steps, which is the enforcement notice, and from there to the final step of de-registration, from which there is an appeal. If we require that to be done, there will probably be cases in which the enforcement notice is either irrelevant or unenforceable, and the process of de-registration, which could be a matter of some importance to data subjects, would simply be delayed.
Lord Mottistone: As I understand my noble friend, he is saying that situations could arise in which it is not practicable, because of the nature of the operation, for a contravention to be rectified. My noble friend implied that the registrar would make a decision about whether or not that is so. I should have thought that it is on the arrogant side to suggest that this is the situation. It is up to the data user to decide whether it is possible to rectify the contravention. He must be given the opportunity to do so, if he can. It is jumping to conclusions to say that there will be areas where this
390
can never happen. Besides being a sufficiently gentle suggestion to the registrar to look at whether the data user is going to cause damage or distress, I should have thought my amendment then invites the registrar to go a step further and find out whether the data user has had an opportunity to rectify it.
My noble friend says that normally the registrar will proceed from Clause 10 to Clause 11, but the Bill does not say so. There may be occasions when the registrar wants to go straight to Clause 11. If one is giving the registrar an instruction to consider damage or distress, surely it is reasonable for him to consider whether there has been an opportunity to put it right. In all sorts of situations we give somebody the chance to go right if they have gone wrong. We are not talking about criminal actions. We are talking about technical ways of handling matters. I should have thought that this was a reasonable modification. I should very much like my noble friend not to stop where he did but to say that he is going to have a proper look at the matter.
Lord Avebury: I should like to support the noble Lord by saying that if the Minister's crescendo of activities is followed we shall start with the informal representations by the registrar to the data user to tidy up his operations so that the cause of the contravention is eliminated. It is at that stage that the data user might have to say, as the noble Lord has put it, that the contravention is so fundamental to the nature of his operations that he is not in a position to comply with any request that the registrar has made to him. If he says that, then the requirement contained in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is satisfied: that the registered person had had sufficient opportunity to rectify the contravention, because when it is drawn to his attention he looks at it and says to the registrar, "I am sorry, but there is nothing I can do about it; it is absolutely fundamental to my operations". We then immediately proceed to Clause 11, without the intermediate stage of Clause 10, and there would be no disadvantage in having the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, written into the Bill.
The other point which went through my mind while listening to the Minister was that if the contravention were really so fundamental to the nature of the data user's operations, it would surely have emerged as such during the process of initial registration. I could not for the life of me think of an example of the type of use to which this consideration would apply. The data user obviously convinced the registrar, when he originally applied and submitted the information required under Clause 6, that he complied with all the principles set out in Schedule 1. Therefore it seems to me that there must have been a change in the data user's operations by which he ceases to be in conformity with those principles. It is that change which he could put right once it is drawn to his attention by the registrar. Or he might have to say, in the unlikely event that this is so, that something has changed in the nature of his operations or in the way that he records the personal data to make it impossible for him to comply with the suggestion of the registrar that would bring him into conformity with the Bill.
In either of these cases I cannot see that there is any disadvantage in the Government accepting the

391
amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. In the light of the arguments which have been put, I hope that at least the Minister might agree to have another think about this before Report stage.
Lord Elton: Of course there is force in what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says about everything having come through the first filter of registration, that the number of cases we are likely to be looking at will therefore be small and that most of them will be in breach of the requirement to register a change of use. But we are trying to think of other, hypothetical cases.
I wonder if my noble friend would consider whether what he wants to achieve is not already achieved by the appeal provisions. The concern of the amendment is whether there has been sufficient opportunity for the contravention of principles concerned to be rectified—in other words, whether the registered person, knowing that it needs to be rectified, has had sufficient time to put it right before he is threatened with being put out of business. Obviously that is right, and I have explained how Clauses 10 and 11 work. But I should point out that these notices will not take effect until the date specified in them. In normal circumstances, this date cannot be before the expiry of the period during which an appeal can be brought. Where an appeal is lodged, the notice will not have effect until the tribunal issues its decision. Thus, where a data user is issued with an enforcement notice which he feels gives him insufficient time to remedy the contravention, or where he is issued with a de-registration notice and he feels that he has not had adequate time to rectify the contravention, in both cases he will be able to appeal to the tribunal before the notice has effect.
There are special procedures for notices coming into effect after seven days for urgent cases, but again there is the opportunity to bring the issues before the tribunal before the notice takes effect. I accept that that is not writing in big letters on the face of the Bill the progression that we want the registrar to follow, but equally, if the registrar is so wrong-headed as to use the axe when the feather duster or the hammer would do on more than one occasion, then the tribunal will teach him a very sharp lesson about the fact that it is wrong to bring a de-registration notice against which an appeal is upheld because the decision taken by the registrar was too severe or extreme.
The effect of this, I submit, is that the registrar will naturally go first for the Clause 10 order, the enforcement notice, and only later, or if driven to it in extremis, for the Clause 11 order. I wonder whether this is one of those rare occasions when, rather than the other way round, the Minister should ask his noble friend to go away and consider the matter.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, speaks, may I say that despite all I said about looking at the Division Lobby list, what the noble Lord the Minister has just said has convinced me that my noble friends and I ought to support the amendment. My reason for saying this is that the noble Lord the Minister referred to the appeal procedure and said that if the registrar had been shown to use the sledgehammer when something lighter would have
392
done, eventually he would be taught a lesson by the tribunal. I immediately thought of the poor victims before that stage has been reached, and the disgrace, quite literally, of the service of a de-registration notice in the industry, quite apart from the fact of whether or not the appeal tribunal may set it aside.
The fact is that a de-registration notice will have been served, and there will be complete uncertainty in the whole of the firm on which the notice had been served as to what will happen on appeal and what arrangements they ought to make in regard to their staff and everything else. This is a terribly serious step. In the circumstances, what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Mottistone, has certainly convinced me that the answer given by the noble Lord the Minister is not sufficient by any manner of means.
The Lord Chancellor: I wonder whether I might just add a word, because I am really rather shocked by what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. The purpose of this Bill is largely to protect the data subject from misbehaviour by the data user. The kind of code of conduct in what I might call "The Ten Commandments", although there are only eight of them, is set out in the first schedule to the Bill. It must be obvious—and I see two of my predecessors sitting opposite—that there can be contraventions so severe and so serious that an enforcement notice is utterly inappropriate from the start. My noble friend Lord Mottistone quite rightly referred to the fact that it is a general principle in penal provisions of any kind that one gives a man another chance before the ultimate penalties are exacted, whatever the ultimate penalties may be—whether he be the tenant of a landlord enforcing the covenant of a lease or a criminal who has committed an offence.
Considering the purpose of the Bill, and that "The Ten Commandments", if I may continue so to call them, lay down that the information shall be obtained lawfully and fairly, and that personal data shall be held for only one or more lawful purposes and shall not be disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose, to suggest that there can never be circumstances in which an immediate sentence of de-registration is appropriate seems to me to be losing all touch with reality. To give in every case a chance to remedy that which can never be remedied seems to be carrying the rights of data users, having regard to the appeal provisions to which I have referred, utterly beyond what is reasonable. I do not believe that my noble friend can give way on this. I am sorry, but there are times when one must speak out.
Lord Wigoder: Is it not possible that an adaptation of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, might serve to reduce the number of appeals and to reduce the expense in that way? Is that not a desirable end?
Lord Mottistone: I am delighted to have such support from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench because I must say that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not convince me one bit. It was very interesting to hear the whole of the debate on this amendment and on earlier amendments, as each noble Lord has spoken. As my noble

393
friend Lord Elton spoke at one stage, he convinced me differently from the way he would have done had he not spoken. That happened when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on his earlier amendments, and it has happened again now.
I accept what my noble friend has said—that the appeal is a form of protection against the kind of situation I am seeking to modify the Bill to cope with. But as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, it does seem a rather heavy kind of protection, and maybe more gentle protection would be possible. I will certainly look at this again and talk to my expert colleagues—I note in particular what my noble friend Lord Elton has said about the appeal serving as a safeguard—to see whether they are satisfied. I hope that my noble friend will see that this is-not, perhaps, the proper use of appeals, when judged against the kind of amendment the acceptance of which I was seeking from him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: This might perhaps be a convenient moment to break for dinner, until a quarter to eight. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dentists Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 11 [List of titles]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 2, at beginning insert—
("( ) In section 15(3) of the principal Act, the word "special" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is much the same as that which I moved previously to the same effect. I will not go again into great detail, other than to remind my noble friend the Minister that I consider that the word "special" does not define, has no special significance, and is meaningless in this clause of the principal Act. On those grounds, I sought my noble friend's agreement to deleting it.
As I understand it, the drafting of my amendment may not be absolutely precise. When I look at Clause 11, perhaps the proposed wording should be inserted after line I rather than after line 2; I am not quite sure on that point. I do not wish to press the Minister on that aspect but merely wish him to agree to the principle of this change, which he said he would look at. I had hoped that he might bring forward a Government amendment, but I now hope that he will accept this amendment in principle tonight.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as usual the perspicacity of my noble friend knows no bounds. There was no need for me to bring forward a Government amendment on this matter because my noble friend's amendment deals with it quite well. I am happy to accept both this amendment and Amendment No. 9.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before we finish with this may I say that in supporting this amendment, which deals with Section 15 of the Act, I am still trying to sort out a way in which dentists who qualify in other parts of the world might be able to use their qualifications here. We have had a long argument about the title "doctor", and I am not wishing to bring that up again; I have accepted the Minister's arguments on that point. But I am being lobbied heavily by one or two American dental societies and wonder if there is any way in which we can persuade the Government, or maybe the General Dental Council, that the qualifications of overseas dentists could be registrable; and then in some way, at the same time, not allow such dentists to use the title "doctor". I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can signify his thoughts on this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this is really a matter for the General Dental Council. I understand that they do not accept the DDS qualification for registration because it is a primary qualification equivalent to our BDS or LDS. If the GDC registered it under present arrangements, then dentists with that qualification will be able to call themselves "doctor" in this country. The GDC believe, as do the Government, that that would be misleading. This was along the lines of the arguments I deployed at an earlier stage of the Bill. I believe that the primary court of inquiry for my noble friend is the GDC, and doubtless he will be better able than I to convey his thoughts to them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Erasure from register, or suspension of registration, for crime or serious professional misconduct]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, leave out lines 7 to 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6? At Committee stage your Lordships agreed to the repeal of Section 25(3) of the Dentists Act 1957. That section provided that findings of fact in matrimonial proceedings in the High Court or Court of Session should be taken as conclusive in GDC disciplinary inquiries into infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. This repeal requires the consequential deletion of references to the repealed Section 25(3) in Clause 13(3) of the Bill and Section 25(4) of the 1957 Act. It is this which is achieved by the amendments to Clause 13 and Schedule 2 which I now propose. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert ("; and
(cc) in section 27(1)(e) of that Act, for the words "infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect" and "such

395
conduct" there shall be substituted the words "serious professional misconduct" and "such misconduct" respectively.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister spoke to all these amendments together, I am not sure whether my comments relate more directly to Amendment No. 3 or Amendment No. 6. I would make the comment at this point. I am still somewhat concerned that the amendment moved by the Minister does not really take into consideration the case of the dentist who is suspended on disciplinary grounds in such a way that he is immediately and summarily suspended. I am concerned for his practice, for his patients. I wonder whether the Minister considers it necessary, or would give some thought as to whether he considers it necessary, for the General Dental Council or the health service authority or some other body to have the right to ensure that those patients are not suddenly left stranded without a dentist because the practice is wound up or sold off or disposed of in some way.
I brought this matter to the Minister's attention on an earlier occasion, and I asked whether it could be that the dentist would have the right to employ someone to run the practice. Since then it has been explained to me that suspension is in no way equivalent to conditional discharge; a suspension will be a very serious action. It has also been said that suspension will be a summary matter, perhaps pending a court case. It does seem to me that an injustice could be suffered if the court case then proved someone innocent and the suspension was then revoked. Meanwhile, he had lost his right to practise, and the patients have lost their dentist and all his services during that time. I wonder if the Minister would consider this. I am not sure whether it is relevant to this amendment or to Amendment No. 6.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no doubt in my mind that the procedures we are here providing for are the right procedures. The sort of circumstances my noble friend has in mind are those where the GDC conclude that the interests of the patients demand that the dentist ceases to treat them more of less forthwith. I am certain that is the right way to proceed in this context. My noble friend raises a proper point when she refers to the need of the patients to be able to secure alternative dental treatment should they need it. Some of them may be in the middle of a course of treatment of some sort, and some may need treatment for other reasons. It seems to me that the patients in those circumstances could be assigned to another dentist in the locality pretty readily, and I have no doubt that is what the FPC would seek to do. However, my noble friend raises a real point, and perhaps I could consider it further and write to her at a later time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Dental auxiliaries and Dental Auxiliaries Committee]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 17, leave out from first ("in") to ("for") in line 18 and insert ("any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of subsection (1) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to apply the change in terminology from "ancillary dental worker" to "dental auxiliary" wherever the term "ancillary dental worker" occurs in existing enactments and instruments. Clause 23(1) provides that the persons hitherto known as "ancillary dental workers" shall be called "dental auxiliaries" and Clause 23(2), as at present drafted, provides for this change in terminology to apply wherever a reference is made to "ancillary dental workers" in the Dentists Act 1957 and in instruments made under it.
It has, however, been noticed that references are made to "ancillary dental workers" in other enactments and instruments—for example, in the VAT legislation. These references also need to be changed to "dental auxiliaries". This amendment achieves that objective by substituting for the reference to the Dentists Act 1957 and related instruments in Clause 23(2) references to any enactment or instrument passed or made before Clause 23 comes into effect. It is a very straightforward and technical matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 22, line 33, leave out ("(a),") and insert—
("(a) in paragraph (a),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments, Nos. 5 and 6, are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which my noble friend spoke earlier. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 22, line 34, at end insert ("; and
(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "such inquiry as is mentioned in subsection (3)" substitute "inquiry under this Act as to whether that person has been guilty as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 23, line 21, leave out ("(2)(b)") and insert—
("(a) in subsection (2)(b).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment concerned with appeals against decisions of the disciplinary committee of the General Dental Council. The procedure to be followed in appeals to the Privy Council against decisions of the disciplinary committee is set out in Section 29 of the 1957 Act. That section now includes—by virtue of an amendment made at Committee—a new subsection 29(1A) which stipulates the powers of the Judicial Committee in appeals cases. One of those powers is to recommend that a case be referred back to the disciplinary committee for disposal under Section 26 of the 1957 Act.
The need for this amendment arises from the fact that the appeals procedure in Section 29 is used not only for Section 26 cases (which concern the erasure or suspension of an individual from the register) but also for Section 40 cases (which concern the withdrawal from corporate bodies of the right to carry on the business of dentistry). For this second category of cases (the Section 40 ones) the reference in Section 29(1A) to Section 26 is inappropriate. Consequently Amendment No. 8 alters the wording of Section 40(4) so that, in appeals concerning corporate bodies, Section 29 shall apply "with the necessary modifications". The effect of the amendment will be that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may refer cases concerning corporate bodies back to the disciplinary committee for reconsideration under Section 40.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 23, line 22, at end insert ("; and
(b) in subsection (4) after "shall" insert ", with the necessary modifications,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I was going to say, briefly, that the Minister was very impressive in his explanation, and, if I may, I shall look at it in Hansard at a later date and try to understand it then.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 25, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 15(3), the word "special".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the previous amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc:
Page 26, line 39, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 41.
Page 27, line 2, leave out ("the said section 26") and insert ("section 26 of the principal Act").
line 7, leave out ("the said Article 7") and insert ("Article 7 of the Dental Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1980").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 together. The matter with which they are concerned is indeed technical and, I hope, fairly minor. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 provides that Clause 2(3) of the Bill—which makes changes in the composition of the disciplinary committee due on 1st October 1984—shall not affect the hearing and determination by the committee of cases referred to them before that date and still before them on that date.
As at present drafted the paragraph relateas only to cases arising out of conviction of a criminal offence or serious professional misconduct. The same principle should apply to other cases which the disciplinary committee may hear; for example, cases of fraudulent registration or the withdrawal from corporate bodies of the right to carry on the business of dentistry. This particular object is achieved by the first of these amendments to Schedule 4—that is, Amendment No. 10—which, by deleting specific references, leaves paragraph 4(1) of more general application. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are consequential changes to paragraph 4(2), where the specific references are still required. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.24 until 7.45 p.m.]

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Registrar to investigate complaints
.If any person shall complain to the Registrar that any registered person has materially contravened or is materially contravening any of the data protection principles the Registrar shall investigate the complaint and notify both the person who has made it and the registered person of the outcome of his investigation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friends and address myself also to Amendments Nos. 83 and 139. It is not my intention, if I can avoid it, to go into the detail of the wording of these amendments but to deal with the principle behind them. I am afraid that we have already had one difference of opinion on an earlier occasion when we were considering whether or not the registrar should give advice to data users and data subjects. It turned out that the whole Committee was of opinion that he should. The Data Protection Committee had said so; the Government in their White Paper had said so; and I gathered from what was said from the Benches opposite that the Government said so, and that all political parties were agreed.
But there was one difference of opinion because, whereas we thought, rightly or wrongly, that for the registrar to be able to do this it would have to be put in the Bill, because he was a purely statutory person who would have no powers except those powers which are given to him by the Bill, the Government had a different view. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed the view that as he, the Lord Chancellor, could give advice, so any statutory authority can give advice. Subject to the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, I would be the first to agree that the view of the present Lord Chancellor is worth the view of two ex-Lord Chancellors. But I would also suggest that where you have two ex-Lord

399
Chancellors who express a legal view, it is possible that that view may be right.
What I could not understand about the Government's reluctance to accept the amendment was this. If the amendment had been accepted, then it would have been agreed that the registrar would be able to give advice and we should all have got what we wanted. Now it is simply in doubt. I should have thought that from a corn monsense point of view the practical thing to have done would be to have accepted the amendment, and then we should all have been certain of getting what we wanted.
This is exactly the same point. In paragraph 19 of its report the Data Protection Committee said how important it was that the registrar should be able to investigate complaints. It said:
"The data subject will often have neither the resources nor the expertise to find out for himself whether users comply with the rules. Sometimes he will not even be aware that a breach harmful to him has occurred".
It was saying how important it was that the registrar should be able to investigate complaints. The Government, in their White Paper, agreed with this. Indeed, they list as one of the things which the registrar was to do was to pursue complaints. There is nothing about this in the Bill, and I can only respectfully repeat what I said before, and I repeat something that I said when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was not here. I said that I would assume that the view of any Lord Chancellor is worth the view of any two ex-Lord Chancellors, if my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones would be so good as to agree.
On this occasion I do not of course know what the Government will say. They may be going to say, "We have changed our minds. We did think when we published our White Paper that it was important that the registrar should investigate complaints, but we have changed our minds." Or they may be going to say, "We have not changed our minds, but what we say is that, although we have not put it in the Bill, the Lord Chancellor can investigate complaints, and as the Lord Chancellor can investigate complaints it follows that any statutory being can do the same."
Again, I think most respectfully and hesitantly my noble and learned friend and I would disagree with the view that the registrar of data protection is in the same position as the Lord Chancellor. I was always brought up to believe that the first Lord Chancellor was appointed in 605, and that is a long time ago. His name was Augmundus. He was the monk who came from Rome with St. Augustine to convert the English barbarians to Christianity. Whether that is correct or not, the Lord Chancellor is a very old and permanent pillar of the British Constitution, and I am afraid I cannot agree that because the Lord Chancellor can do something it necessarily follows that any statutory creature can.
If there is this difference of opinion, if what we all want is that the registrar should be able to investigate complaints, is not the sensible thing to do to accept the amendments and thereby put it in the Bill rather than leave this point to be decided at some day on a dispute before a High Court judge? On that footing, without wishing to go into the details of the amendment, I beg to move.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord has not addressed himself to his own amendment, and he will forgive me if I do not either. He started by addressing himself to the weight to be given to a Lord Chancellor as being double that of any other, and then pointed out that there were two ex-Lord Chancellors on the Bench opposite and that this formed a sort of equilibrium, in which I sit delicately balanced more or less in the middle.
What I would therefore address myself to is this question of the powers of a statutory creature. I am advised that in fact since the notice powers are in the Bill, and since the notice powers could not be pursued except by inquiry and investigation, then it follows that those powers are implicit in the Bill and are the attributes of the statutory creature. I do not know whether that is a long enough speech, but it contains the nugget of information which the noble and learned Lord sought. Therefore, I offer it as an answer to his inquiry.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We on this side of the Committee are disappointed at the response of the noble Lord the Minister. I am afraid that this amendment, like one or two other amendments tonight, has not brought out the best in the noble Lord, and he has not exhibited to the Committee his sparkling personality, of which we are all well aware.
Lord Elton: I am very happy to do so, but I do not think this is the occasion.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We would be glad if the noble Lord would reconsider the situation after I have addressed the Committee. He has not shown us his sparkling personality, but rather has exhibited the mustiness of bureaucracy that lies heavy on his notes from the Home Office. As my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has put it so succinctly, the White Paper laid specific emphasis upon the registrar's function of pursuing complaints.
The Lindop Committee, in paragraph 19.97, part of which has already been quoted by my noble and learned friend, put the matter more trenchantly. May I be allowed to quote that paragraph, for it sets out the matter with greater force and clarity than I would be able to muster. It reads:
"the Authority will need powers to investigate complaints. We see this as a most important function. Presumably one of the principal reasons why the Government has decided that there should be a DPA at all is that the individual data subject will seldom be in a position to discover for himself whether there has been an infringement of his interests. The Authority must therefore have the power to do this for him. There are many precedents for such a function, and we recommend that the DPA should have the necessary powers to call for witnesses and the production of documents. In addition, since the DPA will play an important role in subjecting to its independent scrutiny the data processing of government departments, we recommend that it should have the same powers to compel the disclosure to it of official information and documents as are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration under section 8 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967".
Unless the Government are prepared to spell out that the scrutiny of complaints is an important and integral part of the role of the registrar, then in our submission from these Benches the registrar will be lacking in

401
authority, his role will be incomplete, and his position will lack credibility.
It is of course inevitable in the course of things that complaints will be sent by the thousand by data subjects to the registrar. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right as to his contention as to the basic authority of every Minister, as I understand his case to be, to give advice—and who am I, a poor barrister, to intervene in such a conflict between the Titans of an incumbent Lord Chancellor and two former distinguished noble and learned Lord Chancellors?—then it may well be that the registrar will take this function on board.
What if he did not? What if he were to say, "Well, it is purely a matter of discretion for me. Nothing appears in the relevant legislation in relation to this". He would then presumably be reporting to Parliament year by year to say, "This year I received 37,000 complaints, 10 per cent. up on last year, but I have not dealt with any one of them at all, and I am unable to tell you what their content was".
This issue of the registrar pursuing complaints is, in our view, something that is utterly central to his function. The registrar, in order to have credibility, must show himself to be a person who is willing to look at all times at the whole system of which he is a head, and to be able to examine at all times the efficiency of that system in so far as it protects, or fails to protect, the privacy of the subject. That is the very raison d'être of this legislation.
If the registrar does not do this, then this legislation will be made a nonsense of. If the registrar does do this, then we say that the estimate of the shoestring capacity of a score of staff will be utterly ludicrous. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the registrar intends doing this—and I should be grateful for the assurance of the Minister that it is his intention to regard this as a central feature of his role—how can it possibly be done with the minuscule resources of a score of staff referred to in the Bill itself?
Lord Elton: Clearly I did not speak for long enough to impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, the importance which we attach to the investigative function of the registrar, which is evident if you read the Bill and you see the centrality of the notice giving powers without which, he is, after all, powerless. Really the imagination cannot conjure up a situation in which a person who can only act by exercising these powers should not exercise them for the simple reason that he was not going to inquire into the circumstances of the cases presented to him.
The noble Lord raised another issue, and in this he echoed things that were said from the Bench on which he was sitting at an earlier stage. That was that he felt that there should be a requirement for the registrar in this exercise of a general power, just as it was thought by his noble friends that there should be a requirement in other circumstances. It is obviously the case that the registrar will pay great attention to any accusations of malpractice which he receives. After all, such allegations are likely to be the chief means by which he learns of possible contraventions of principles to which notice will apply.
402
The whole tenor of the powers and obligations placed upon him—I am thinking of his powers of entry, for instance, his notice powers and his reporting and advisory functions which Clause 33 prescribes—are all directed towards such a role. But the noble Lord wants us to go further than that. He said that there will be thousands of complaints and, as this amendment proposes, he requires him to investigate every single one of them, regardless of how patently ill-founded it may be and how little evidence there may be to support it. This will place on the registrar the most enormous burden. As is rightly said, if he is to pursue not only gnats but also will-o'-the-wisps, he will need an army of supporters, and I do not think that is necessary in order to protect the data subject by means of this Bill.
As I suggested in connection with the earlier amendment, under the terms of this amendment the registrar would be unable to distinguish between the genuine complainant and those who were vexatious or unbalanced. He would have no discretion to decide whether he had already spent sufficient time examining complaints in a particular area and that now was the moment to look at other areas which attracted less publicity. He would be obliged each time to prepare a formal report of his findings which could be shown both to the user and to the complainant.
It is possibly this latter function which might place the greatest burden on his already stretched resources. In addition, such a report could conceivably be used as a means for the unscrupulous to obtain access to information to which they had no right. I am thinking, for example, of the use which might be made of this provision by a commercial organisation vis-à-vis its business rivals. I think I have made clear the Government's opposition to a requirement which we believe would hang a substantial millstone round the neck of the registrar.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: While accepting, of course, that the complaint procedure—whether it is a formal procedure written into the Bill or whether it is an informal procedure which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor says will be open—is open to abuse, does not the Minister accept that it is necessary for the success of this legislation that the ordinary data subject should know that there was a sympathetic and patient ear for his complaints? If that sympathetic and patient ear is not to be the registrar, who else could possibly discharge that role?
Lord Elton: The amendment, as I understand it, is not about accessibility by the data subject to a patient and sympathetic ear. It is about the owner of the patient and sympathetic ear being allowed to go out with a penetrating and perceptive eye to see whether the complaint is justified or not; in other words, to investigate. What the noble and learned Lord has said he is concerned about is the power to investigate. His first concern was that the power to investigate was not actually stated on the face of the Bill. To that I replied that since so many provisions of the Bill, in order to be put into operation, depended on the power to investigate, I was reliably informed that it was implicit in the Bill and that the noble and learned Lord need not have any worries on that score.

403
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, then returned to the charge and said, first, that if this was sedulously pursued the staff would be too small and, secondly, in order to see that every single complaint was pursued, no matter how factious or trivial—the noble Lord did not put it in those words, but his amendment does—there should be no discretion given to the registrar whether to pursue a matter by investigation or not. As I have said before, and no doubt I shall say again on this Bill, we do not believe in producing a huge and expensive machine to deal with every instance however trivial, laughable or irrelevant. We believe in having a degree of flexibility in which the registrar can decide what are the matters to pursue with urgency and what are merely those courteously to take note of. I think that is what ought to happen in real life, and having sat behind a number of ministerial desks for a short time and seen the sort of inquiries and complaints that come flooding in—not all of them, by any stretch of the imagination, susceptible to following up or inquiring about without manifestly wasting public resources—I think we are on the right track in this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord has done a valuable service to the Committee by drawing from the Government their own commitment on the pursuit of cases, and to the fact that the registrar should be the defender of the small and otherwise helpless data subject and that he will have the power to investigate at his finger tips in order to discharge this function. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that this has served a sufficient purpose.
Lord Gardiner: The discussion has at least resulted in one thing becoming clear, and that is that the Government have not resiled from their position taken in the White Paper that one of the things the registrar ought to do is to investigate complaints. Here again is a case in which we all want the same thing. The only difference between us is whether it is better to put it into the Bill or not.
I quite accept that it is a bona fide argument for saying that, in some way rather mysterious to me, it is implicit in some other clauses in the Bill. I do not myself take that view, but where there is this difference of view we all want the same thing. What surprises me is that the Government do not accept the amendment, because we are more certain to get what we want if they did. Instead of doing that they prefer to leave quite uncertain what the position is in law and what the registrar's powers are or are not.
Having said that, I see, for the record that apart from the Front Bench there are, including the noble Lord the Chief Whip, three Members on the Government side of the House and seven on this side, so it is obviously quite useless to call a Division. Accordingly, I hope that further reflection will lead to some change in the Minister's view. I shall certainly raise this again at the report stage of the Bill, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Transfer prohibition notices]:
8.8 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 10, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) In arriving at a decision under the terms of subsection (2) above, the Registrar shall take into account any guarantees of adherence to the principles in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act by recipients of data in States not bound by the European Convention which may be made by United Kingdom data users.—).
The noble Lord said: This is a brief amendment. If one examines Clause 12, which concerns the transfer prohibition notices. I am seeking in this amendment to make sure that the registrar, when he is taking action in the terms of subsection(2)—which relates to states which are not bound by the European Convention—he will take advantage of the fact that some of the data users in the United Kingdom who may wish to transfer information to such countries will have subsidiaries or agents in those countries for whom they could take a measure of responsibility. I trust that the Government might find that this would be helpful to the registrar when he arrives at a decision under Clause 12(2). I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment comes before us as an orphan or bereaved, because I was expecting it, until my noble friend was kind enough to tell me otherwise, to be trotting off with Amendment No. 59 and others in company. However, we are now to look at it on its own and I understand the reasons.
It appears to me at first blush that the amendment is not necessary since the registrar is already required to be satisfied that the transfer in question is likely to contravene or lead to a contravention of any of the data protection principles before serving such a notice. Where the transfer in question is from a United Kingdom user to an overseas subsidiary, the registrar would, of course, consider the extent to which that subsidiary could be relied upon to observe any data protection provisions insisted upon by the United Kingdom parent company. In other words, the registrar can be relied upon to look precisely at the sort of issues which this amendment requires him to consider, and I hope that my noble friend will find this a sufficient reassurance.
Lord Mottistone: It is not an important enough point to make a meal of, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that the registrar will do that. However, I trust that is the way it will work out in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 11, line 8, after ("person") insert ("or class of persons").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4), on page 11, reads:
"In deciding whether to serve a transfer prohibition notice the Registrar shall consider whether the notice is required for preventing damage or distress to any person.".
It may not be possible to identify any particular individual, but it may be obvious that harm might result to people falling within a general description; namely, a class of persons. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I think this is a question of comprehension. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the registrar's attention, when deciding whether to serve a transfer prohibition notice, is not to be confined solely to the risk of harm to individuals but that he can consider whether a category of persons will be placed at risk. I sympathise with that desire to enable the registrar to look broadly at the harm which might be caused if the transfer in question goes ahead and to ensure that he would not be inhibited in the use of his powers by the fact that he was unable to identify individuals put at risk, as opposed to categories of persons.
Our belief, however, is that the Bill as drafted already goes as wide as the noble Lord intends by the amendment, and that to add these additional words would be superfluous. If damage or distress is caused to a class of persons, then regardless of whether it is possible to identify individuals who might be harmed it would still be the case that there was a risk of damage or distress to some among the individuals who make up that category of persons. That one will comprehend or embrace the other. We believe that the reference is adequate, just as in the equivalent provisions in Clauses 10 and 11. It would be unusual to make such a change here but not in those other contexts. It is out belief that such a change would not be necessary anywhere because the greater includes the lesser.
Lord Mishcon: I shall not waste the time of the Committee in further arguing the matter. I shall look at what the Minister said and, in the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("(12) For the purpose of compliance with this section a data user shall be required to identify the country of origin of a telephone request for personal data before responding to it in order that any transfer of such data by telephone shall not contravene any transfer prohibition notice or give cause for the Registrar to issue such a notice.").
The noble Lord said: This is designed as a technical amendment which, it is hoped, will clarify rather than alter the Bill in any way, although I shall be flabbergasted if the Minister agrees with that suggestion. I am advised, in terms of the international transfer of data, that access is normally by telephone; that it is not normally by physical removal from the data user's system; that, therefore, to make Clause 12 more effective, it would be desirable to state that there is a clear obligation on the data user to identify the country of origin of a telephone request for personal data; and that it would ensure that in those circumstances there was compliance with this desirable clause. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I might refer to the purposes of these provisions. The international nature of the information technology industry came up on Second Reading on a number of occasions. It means that if there were no controls on the transfer of personal data from this country to one which lacked equivalent safeguards for data protection, the purposes of the Bill might be defeated. Indeed, if there was no control over the passage of personal data from this country, others
406
with data protection legislation might not allow personal data to be sent here—hence, one of the reasons for the Bill. It is with that in mind that the Bill's controls on transfers of personal data abroad have been developed; and we have also paid very close attention to the provisions of the European Convention in this respect.
Under Clause 4(3)(c) data users will have to include in their registered details an indication of any countries to which personal data are to be transferred. It would be an offence under Clause 5 for a person to transfer data to any country which was not included in his entry on the register. This information on the register will give the registrar an indication of what transfers of personal data take place. Clause 12 empowers the registrar to issue a transfer prohibition notice in certain circumstances, either preventing the transfer of personal data absolutely or prohibiting such transfers pending the taking of specified steps. In a case where the state to which the personal data are to be sent is not bound by the Council of Europe Convention, the registrar may issue a notice where he is satisfied that the transfer will contravene, or lead to a contravention of, the principles. Where the state involved is a state that is bound by the convention, a notice may be issued only in the more limited circumstances set out in Clause 12(3), which are in accordance with Article 12 of the convention.
As the proposed amendment clearly demonstrates, it would be unrealistic to expect these controls to apply to transfers abroad of all information extracted from personal data. That would be to apply controls to such disclosures of information as telephone calls and letters. The test the registrar must apply in the case of transfers to other states is, broadly speaking, whether the transfer will contravene or lead to a contravention of the data protection principles. He will therefore consider not only the actual transfer but also what is going to happen to the personal data once transferred, and this would clearly be impractical in the case of a telephone call or letter. Thus, Clauses 5(2)(e) and 12 deal only with transfers of personal data and exclude transfers of information.
I am not absolutely satisfied that I have addressed myself squarely to the issue which the noble Lord put to the Committee, as I am not certain it was exactly what I anticipated, but the controls we have established are those designed to apply, as he rightly said, to data and not to information extracted from data. Where data are transferred by telephone line, that is already caught by Clause 12, which deals with material transferred as data as opposed to information extracted from data.
Lord Wigoder: I have followed with care every nuance of the Minister's explanation. I hope he will forgive me when I say I should like to look at it again in the Official Report to see if it deals with the object of the amendment, and, if it does not, perhaps to return to the matter at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Rights of appeal]:
8.18 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 3, after ("any") insert ("acceptance or").
The noble and learned Lord said: It might be appropriate to consider, with this amendment, Nos. 88, 89, 90, 96, 97 and 98. In its present form and in relation to the present provisions of the Bill, the tribunal seems to be a one-way street, users can appeal to it if they feel the registrar has been too strict with them, but data subjects, for whose benefit the whole concept has been contrived, have no redress if the registrar has been overlax. As the whole scheme of the Bill is designed, at the very least, to strike a balance between users and subjects, surely the subjects should have the same rights of appeal to the tribunal as are conferred upon users. That is the broad point—a very strong one—of this series of amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having put the point in such a succinct manner. As I understand the Bill, it would alter the whole philosophy on which this piece of legislation is founded. As was brought out very clearly just before we adjourned the Committee stage at about seven o'clock, the registrar is partly an inquisitorial figure and partly a policeman, to ensure that data users do in fact register, if they are qualified for registration under the Bill and are bound to register under it, and also to ensure by his own discretion that they keep to the eight commandments in Schedule 1 and that they do not damage the rights of the data subject. Those are the functions of the registrar.
In order that he should discharge his functions as we discussed earlier he is given somewhat draconian powers. The powers were described at one stage by my noble friend Lord Mottistone as imposing on the data user an unduly heavy burden, and there was one brief moment—I thought myself it was an aberration—in which my noble friend was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. But I would agree that the Bill gives, and is intended to give, somewhat draconian powers to the registrar. He can deprive people of their means of livelihood by refusing to accept their registration applications; he can issue an enforcement notice, which may impose very high degrees of expenditure and inconvenience; and in the last resort he can impose the ultimate sanction of de-registration.
It is therefore right that the data user, who is the target for these powers, should have a right of appeal, by way of a quasi-judicial hearing, to a tribunal composed (as we heard during our first evening) of a legal chairman, a data expert and a member of the great and the good, as it were, representing the general public. That seems wholly desirable.
The data subject on the other hand has given to him a series of protections by Part III of the Bill, to which I suppose in the end we shall resort, and the tribunal before which the data subject effects his rights is the courts of law. In addition I would think—though here I speak rather unadvisedly, but I still think that I am right—either a member of the public, such as Mr. Raymond Blackburn, in a famous case, or a village Hampden of some other kind, or indeed a data subject
408
as a member of the public, could apply for judicial review if it were manifest that the registrar was abusing his powers or refusing to use them reasonably. The noble and learned Lords opposite will remember Blackburn v. the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, not to mention other cases. That is the way in which the registrar can be compelled to discharge his function.
These amendments would entitle the village Hampden of whatever kind, or the data user—in fact any member of the public, so far as I understand the amendments, but perhaps that was not the intention—to challenge the registrar for not exercising his powers, whether by way of acceptance or erasure; and that is contrary, I should have thought, to the general purpose and philosophy of this piece of legislation. If the amendments were accepted, it would mean that the registrar would be exposed to continual risk of challenge for having accepted applications for registration, despite the consideration in Clause 7(2), and the test to be applied for applicants would be tougher.
The total effect is to run contrary to the philosophy of enforcement which the Bill contains, and it is also contrary to our conception of the way in which the registrar would exercise his functions. As my noble friend said before dinner, in resisting my noble friend Lord Mottistone, it is not our conception that the registrar would resort immediately to the most severe of sanctions, or indeed at all to compulsion, if it could be avoided. The idea is that he would first seek to persuade, advise, warn, and then proceed to the sanctions which it is amply within his power to use. I have no doubt that if he proved to be wholly unwilling to exercise his functions in good faith, the courts would provide a remedy to whomsoever sought it.
For the reasons that I have sought to explain, the idea that the village Hampden should have access to the appeals tribunal, by way of the appeals procedure provided by Clause 13, runs counter to our idea of how the Bill, when it becomes an Act, ought to work; that is, for the protection of the data user against the draconian powers of the registrar. The appeal procedure is not intended to inhibit the flexible use of the power with which the registrar, as a public authority, with police and inquisitorial powers (using the words in a non-technical sense of course) has been endowed by the Bill. I hope that that explains the view that I at present hold on the matter. I do not know what will be the view of the Opposition Front Bench about it, but I have done my best.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The best of the noble and learned Lord is always very well worth listening to, if I may say so without being patronising. But as I see it, it presents an unequal situation as between the data subject—the person whom we are principally out to protect—and the data user. If I may say so, with respect, it is all very well to mention that there is judicial review, but that is an expensive, difficult process. I know well the problems that the noble and learned Lord faces with legal aid. Judicial review could well give rise to legal proceedings which could justify an application for legal aid. The procedure is not easy, and one of the advantages of the whole tribunal set-up is ease of access, in circumstances and an environment that are as informal as possible.

409
I suggest that it might be worth looking again to see whether we can avoid clogging up court process with judicial review applications, with all the delay and expense that that would ultimately entail for the taxpayer and the Lord Chancellor's budget. There is much to be said for the user having easy access to the tribunal. I wonder whether, in the light of what I have said, the noble and learned Lord might be willing to look at this point again?
The Lord Chancellor: I always reflect deeply upon what the noble and learned Lord says, but I think that I shall have another go at him before I give an undertaking. Our theory is—and this is why I am trying to persuade him that our approach to the Bill is right and that this amendment is misconceived—that the registrar is the friend of the data subject and potentially the policeman and inquisitor of the data user. The structure of this Bill, as we conceive it, is that the data subject has two parallel ways of recourse. He has recourse to his friend the policeman and inquisitor, who is designed as a weapon targeted on the data user, and he has resort to the courts—and for that purpose I invoke Part III of the Bill and not judicial review—and that is the ultimate resort that he has.
We do not want to subject the registrar to a great deal of appeal work from either data users or village Hampdens. On the contrary, if I were to hazard an opinion about costs and delay and clogging up—to use the felicitous phrase of the noble and learned Lord—I should have thought that the amendment would do all those things to a much greater degree than the Bill would achieve if the Government's philosophy of enforcement were adhered to. Having said that, of course, I shall take advice again but I do not want to give the smallest glimmer of hope that I have given an undertaking to do more than that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. This is not an easy field. I see the force of what he has said in regard to the rights of the data subject under Part III. Perhaps the argument (if that is the right way of putting it) became directed towards judicial review by the way the argument went. But, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90 not moved.]
8.32 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 12, line 8, at end insert—
("(c) any instruction or recommendation made by the Registrar under section (Correction of wrong information) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 90A 95A and 97A are paving amendments for Amendment No. 121A. If I have the agreement of the Committee, I propose to speak to Amendment No. 121A which has a bearing on what my noble and learned friend has just been saying with regard to the other amendments. I would hope to show my noble friends that this is slightly different. If one looks at No. 121A one sees a new clause, the rubric of which is "Correction of wrong information". It gives a data subject the right to request a data user to delete or amend data which the subject considers to be incorrect or likely to prejudice
410
him. It also gives the data subject the right to request that a short statement by him or her be added to the data. Both data subjects and data users are given the right to appeal to the registrar and the orders or recommendations which the registrar may make are set out in subsection (6) of the new clause in Amendment 121A.
I would add that in discussing this I drew the attention of the representatives of the National Consumer Council, who proposed it, to Clause 24; but they said that in the case of individuals—and here we touch slightly on what my noble and learned friend has just been saying—they will not want to go to the courts. They want accuracy but they will not want to go to the courts for minor inaccuracies. I took courage from the fact that my noble and learned friend said that the registrar would be the friend of the data subject, and indeed that the data subject would have recourse to him. It seemed to me that it is therefore in order to propose this amendment which is very closely based on Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from which the concept behind it has been drawn. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope to persuade my noble friend that this proposed amendment is really a fifth wheel to a coach, inspired by a false analogy. I had observed (and my noble friend has already drawn attention to the fact) that the clause is based on the analogy of Section 159, I think, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from which its language is largely drawn. But, with respect, it is a false analogy. There is no general power in the Director-General of Fair Trading, to whom this procedure applies under the Consumer Credit Act, of acting on his own initiative to correct or erase inaccurate data.
The point about this amendment is that it substitutes for the existing flexible powers given to the registrar in the Bill a formalised procedure which is altogether superfluous to the powers which he possesses. They do not add in any significant way to the protection available to data subjects. What they introduce is an unnecessary, formalised procedure securing correction or erasure of incorrect data.
It is true, of course—and I think that it could be said in addition to the point made by my noble friend—that Clause 24 of the Bill gives a resort to the courts, but only in circumstances entitling the data subject to compensation by reason of the inaccuracy of data or the unauthorised disclosure of data. But the provisions of the new clause apply only where the data subject believes he is likely to be prejudiced if the information in question is not corrected; although the registrar is not precluded in subsection (6) from ordering an amendment to be made even where he is satisfied that there are no grounds for the subject's fear of prejudice.
The proposal seems to us to add nothing to powers already available to the registrar in this area. Since the end of the complex procedure for which the new clause provides, where agreement between user and subject has proved impossible, is to bring the whole issue back before the registrar, nothing appears to have been gained by the proposed formalised procedure; because the registrar is already empowered, where there would otherwise be a breach of the "seventh commandment"

411
in Schedule 1, to order the correction or erasure of data where this is necessary for ensuring compliance with the other data protection principles. That is why the analogy with the Director-General of Fair Trading, who has no such power, is an inaccurate analogy and it is also why the proposals are really a fifth wheel to a coach. I think that it would be more than awkward to have two sets of provisions applying concurrently. I would suggest that the approach being proposed would be much less suitable than reliance upon the powers of the registrar in performing the task required.
In this matter of correction and erasure, the Consumer Credit Act establishes a very appropriate procedure for correcting the fairly simple factual statements (county court judgments and the like) upon which credit reference is generally based—that is to say, it provides for the inclusion on the agency's file, in disputed cases, of the customers' "notice of correction". In the data protection field, however, the material being held by data users will be vastly wider in scope than that of consumer credit: ranging from straightforward factual matters that might possibly be appropriate for a "correction notice" from the data subject, to more complex statements and judgmental material that clearly would not be appropriate—even with the generous allowance of 500 words per notice that my noble friend's series of amendments would allow. The spread of the material is so wide that a more flexible system is needed, and that is. I believe, what is already in the Bill. Although I am very fully in sympathy with what is underlying the amendments, we already have it there and in better measure than the new proposal would provide.
Lord Wigoder: May I indicate that Amendment No. 121A, which we seem to have reached somewhat abruptly, is in a sense an alternative to Amendments Nos. 119, 120 and 121? I propose to deal with those when we reach them rather than at this stage.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend very much for his very full comment on this amendment. In view of the depth of his reply I shall have pleasure in studying it carefully between now and the next stage, and I shall discuss that with the National Consumer Council and I may raise the matter again. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Appeal proceedings]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
8.41 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 34, line 17, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to Schedule 3 paragraph 4 which provides:
"The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating the exercise of the rights of appeal conferred by section 13 of this Act and the practice and procedure of the Tribunal.".
412
It is not placed upon the broad shoulders of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but upon the Secretary of State.
What is troublesome is that the Secretary of State is more likely to be in the firing line than any other data user, should any problems arise out of the provisions in the Act for the protection of the data subject. The ordinary subject affected, therefore, may have particulars and private affairs kept in the relevant computer unbeknown to him. He may be told: "There is no trouble, you have a right of appeal to the tribunal. The practice and procedure of that tribunal has been laid out in rules by the person who is causing you the greatest concern and anxiety, namely, the Home Secretary."
It is, I venture to think, a rather special case. I appreciate that there are many precedents where, even though the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appoints the chairman, it is left to the Secretary of State with direct responsibility for the procedures of a tribunal whose activities relate to his department. But we are in a special field in this Bill, not just a field of liberty of the subject—which is broad and important enough—but the field of privacy. Here we think that it is a special case where the public and the potential—I shall not use the word "victim"—complainant would feel more gratified if the rules that are to regulate the rights of appeal given to him and the practice and procedure of the tribunal were the product of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I shall not say that Lord Chancellors are necessarily more respected than Home Secretaries, but I hope that they are at least equally respected. The special position of the Lord Chancellor—a little shade above the political battle, if I may say so—is such as to make it highly desirable at the very least, and we think necessary, that it should fall to him to make the relevant rules under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: I rise with a little hesitation to support this amendment. My hesitation arises partly from the fact that the other day I supported with enthusiasm the proposition that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rather than the Secretary of State should appoint the members of the tribunal. I must confess that on re-reading the noble and learned Lord's reply in the Official Report I found it somewhat persuasive. I have a feeling that it may be a somewhat persuasive answer which may also be forthcoming to this amendment this evening.
This is not an easy point. There are at the moment a number of Bills or contemplated Bills where the issue arises as to whether tribunal rules should be made by the Secretary of State or by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think there is one relating to the special commissioners of income tax, one relating to wireless telegraphy and one to the registered homes tribunal. Perhaps it is right that one should endeavour to discover a principle by which one can divide from the tribunals where the Lord Chancellor should make the rules those tribunals where a Secretary of State may properly make the rules. There are clearly precedents for both. I would not think that it should be contended that either the Lord Chancellor should make the rules in every case or that the Secretary of State should do so.

413
I suggest that in the ordinary way the proper criterion is that where a tribunal is deciding appeals against decisions which are made by the parent deparment, or where the parent department might be thought by the public to have an interest in the decision, then the public might think, however wrongly, that the tribunal rules were weighted somewhat in favour of the parent department. Therefore there would be a case for the Lord Chancellor to make the tribunal rules. Devising tribunal rules is, after all, basically a jucicial, rather than an administrative process. Of course, the Lord Chancellor has accepted that obligation on many occasions. One can mention the misuse of drugs tribunal, the plant variety rights tribunals, the lands tribunals and no doubt many others.
The difficult question is precisely how to apply that principle, if it is the right principle, to this particular Bill. It is not easy to contend that the department, the Home Office, will have a direct interest in the decisions of the tribunals set up under this Bill. What perturbs me somewhat is that there is a very real danger as this Bill begins to operate that the registrar might be wrongly regarded by many people as in some way representing the Home office as against the data users. Rightly or wrongly, if that danger arises from the way this Bill appears to operate after a year or two, then I venture to think it might be better—I do not suppose it will affect the content of the rules in any way—if the rules were authorised by the Lord Chancellor rather than by the Secretary of State.
I should add what is perhaps, in a sense, the contrary argument, that of course I accept that the Bill places the tribunal under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, which is to some extent a safeguard to the general public as to the independence and efficiency of the rules. But I think there is a very careful and delicate balance to be drawn here and, on the whole, it might be better if the Lord Chancellor were nominally to accept the responsibility for the rules of this tribunal rather than the Home Secretary.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord has, I think perhaps knowingly, introduced what is a very interesting and what has until fairly recently been a fairly debateable constitutional issue: namely, the appropriate Minister to make tribunal rules. Just in passing, I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the registrar is independent both of the Lord Chancellor and of the Home Office. He can, I think, be removed only by a resolution of both Houses, and he is much more like a high court judge, the Comptroller and Auditor-General or one of those characters who are above ministerial influence. Therefore I do not think that the Registrar can be considered in any way as a minion of the Home Office or indeed of the Lord Chancellor, and I should be very sorry to think that that heresy could be promulgated at all.
However, it is idle to pretend that there is absolute consistency in our legislative book about this principle and I am not going to pretend that there is. During the last 15 years we have more or less settled down to an established and consensual philosophy about it. It is true that before that time the Lord Chancellor was given (and still possesses and exercises) the right of making rules for quite a number of tribunals, though
414
now they are only in a minority of cases. They do not by any means include all the most important tribunals or all those where another minister may have an interest in the outcome of the hearings or all those which involve difficult or delicate issues. For instance, the Lord Chancellor does not make the rules for the social security tribunals: that is for the DHSS. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal is perhaps more in point. That matter is very closely connected with the Home Office and it is highly sensitive. The Home Office make the appropriate rules, and I am advised—I think it is right—that during the last 15 years the practice has grown up—and I think on the whole it is a sound practice, which has been followed in the paragraph as drafted—that new rule-making powers have been given to the department with administrative responsibility for the tribunal rather than to the Lord Chancellor.
The tendency during the same period has been that even in those cases where the Lord Chancellor does in theory make the rules it has been the department with administrative responsibility which has done the drafting. This means that in form the rules are made by the Lord Chancellor and in fact they have been drafted by the officials of another department—the department carrying the load of departmental responsibility for the subject matter.
As I say, we have settled down to a view that, at any rate in the first instance, the responsibility for making the rules of these subordinate tribunals should lie in the hands of the departmental Minister with policy responsibility for the subject matter in question. In that way, that Minister whose department is found to have the greatest policy input will be seen to be publicly accountable for the outcome. That does not mean that, even in theory, the Secretry of State could make rules which favoured his own side of the case although, for the reasons I have already given, he has not got a case himself in relation to the registrar. This happens to be a Home Office Bill but the registrar, when he is set up, will be a totally independent official. However, it does mean that the Minister who is responsible for the area of policy and whose officials will in practice draft the rules is made publicly accountable for them.
That does not mean that as this constitutional practice has developed the Lord Chancellor has no role to play. On the contrary, the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the Council on Tribunals, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, very rightly reminded us. They may make recommendations for amendments in any rules drawn by a Government department. It is the general practice—and it shows how our constitution is constantly developing by practice and convention rather than by legal rules—that where the Council on Tribunals makes recommendations in its annual reports (which incidentally are published), and there is resistance on the part of the department, it has become the inter-departmental practice for the Lord Chancellor to take up the cudgels for the Council on Tribunals.
I would have thought there was much to be said for this balance of power, this system of checks and balances within our administrative structure, and that on the whole the appropriate point at which the Lord Chancellor's office can bring their influence to bear is where the Council on Tribunals finds fault with the

415
rules and makes recommendations which are met with a certain vis inertiae. I think it would be more difficult, if the Lord Chancellor had signed those rules himself, for him to take up the cudgels with quite the same degree of enthusiasm as if his colleague had done so. It is, of course, a matter of opinion and a matter upon which views can be expressed on either side; but I would recommend the Committee to take the view that practice in the last 15 years has settled down and we do not want to disturb the existing practice.
Lord Gardiner: There was a time when I was quite familiar with the Council on Tribunals and their work. I accept everything which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, and particularly that there has been a sort of general rule that the Lord Chancellor and not the Minister should make the rules where the Minister might be interested in the result of the proceedings. I agree there has been no settled plan. As a matter of personal opinion, I have always felt it was wrong that the rule should be made by a Government department and not by the Lord Chancellor, who has appointed the chairman and often the deputy chairman. That, as I say, is a matter of opinion; but what I would like to ask is this: Can the Government tell me of any single case like this case for a tribunal where the man who is most likely to be in trouble before the tribunal is the Minister? I know of no such case.
Ever since the Younger Committee it has been said—not once but twice—that what people are afraid of in this field is not computers in the private sector, but the Government computers and particularly those in the Home Office, those dealing with Scotland Yard, police intelligence and MI5 and, to some extent, public health: mainly it is the computers in the Home Office, and concerning immigrants too.
We now know—but we did not know it until this afternoon—that the chief data user in the whole country will be the Secretary of State, because I asked the question: who is going to be the data user of the Home Office computers? Is it going to be the Home Office, which can be a person under the Bill, is it going to be the Minister or is it going to be a civil servant deputed by the Secretary of State to keep the computers? I was told, No, it is going to be the Secretary of State, and the person who is more likely to find himself in the dock before the tribunal than anybody else is, of course, the Secretary of State. I am quite satisfied that there is no other tribunal in the country to which this applies. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will think again about this, because it seems to me to be a unique case.
The Lord Chancellor: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I thought that I had answered his question in my original remarks. I cannot imagine an area which is more sensitive to the Home Office than immigration, and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. I gave that as an example of where the Home Office drafts the rules. Of course, the noble and learned Lord is entitled to say that that is a bad show, but he is not entitled to ask me whether I can give him an example, because I can and have done so.
416
I should have thought almost as good an example as that is the Supplementary Benefits Appeals Tribunals, where the Secretary of State for Social Services is in the same position. Again, I thought I could have said the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he exercises what are effectively a Home Office and, indeed, up to a point, even Lord Chancellorian functions North of the Tweed. At any rate, I am quite sure you would find that he was making a lot of rules.
No, I am not prepared to accept that this is a case in which the Home Office is most likely to be in the dock. I think that very large data users outside government altogether are just as likely to be in the dock, if that is the right phrase. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has rather a "thing" about the police. We have crossed friendly swords with one another on numerous occasions about them. But even the police, except in the metropolis, are not the direct responsibility of the Home Office, although no doubt they have very powerful computers. I have no doubt that I am on a number of computers of the Social Services Secretary. No, this is an all-embracing tribunal effecting appeals from the registrar, who is a non-departmental official responsible directly to Parliament. So I should have thought not only that the case for saying that this was unique was not a good one, but that the case for maintaining the constitutional status quo was particularly strong.
But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has asked me to reflect upon this; and, anyhow, I could not, as he knows perfectly well, act without my colleagues in the matter. I have stated my case—I do not particularly want to die in the ditch for it—and will certainly stick to it at this stage, and tell him that what he said will be taken due notice of before the next stage of the Bill. But I do not want to give him much hope that I shall be the ultimate arbiter who drafts the rules.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble and learned Lord has indicated the importance and the difficulty of this issue. There are obviously two sides to it, but we will be returning to it again. It is a constitutional question of very great importance and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 had been removed from the Marshalled List.]
9.4 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 34, line 28, at end insert ("and data material").
The noble Lord said: This is yet another amendment which is designed simply to be helpful. Under the rules of procedure, which are set out on page 34 at line 28, it appears that rules may be made,
"for the inspection, examination, operation and testing by members of the Tribunal of any data equipment".
"Data equipment" is defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 37, at the top of page 26, as being,
"equipment for the automatic processing of data or for recording information so that it can be automatically processed".
I am told that that definition does not include software or data material, and it is clearly highly desirable that the members of the tribunal, in the course of carrying out their functions, should have the right to inspect, examine, operate and test such equipment. Therefore,

417
the amendment provides that, in addition to the words "data equipment", there should be added the words "data material". I beg to move.
Viscount Craigavon: May I very briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as my name is above the amendment? I am advised by the British Computer Society that the wording in the Bill, as it stands, would not be adequate. The addition of the words "data material" is needed to make sub-paragraph (2)(d) meaningfully complete.
The Lord Chancellor: I think I can offer some comfort here, or at least I hope that I can. I am grateful to those who have propounded this amendment, both the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, who spoke from the Cross-Benches. In one respect the amendment is inappropriate, but there is a respect in regard to which I should like to take it away and think about it. If there is a need for amendment—and I am not at all sure that there is not—it is in connection with the "testing" of data material. Paragraph 4(2)(d) allows data equipment to be inspected, examined, operated and tested, and this would include using the data material on the equipment. But it is possible, so I am advised, that it might be necessary, for example, to take away discs for testing on other equipment, and it is true that paragraph 4(2)(c) and (d) does not provide for this.
We need to ensure that we use the right words in this context. We would, therefore, be happy to consider the drafting in the light of what we have heard today, and, if necessary, return to the House ourselves with a more suitable amendment. If we can find a form of words, we shall do so on Report. With that assurance, perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment in this form.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend could enlighten me on one other word in sub-paragraph (2)(d). Does the testing by members of the tribunal also include testing by servants of the tribunal, or does it have to be by a member of the tribunal?
The Lord Chancellor: I shall have to think about that point and inform my noble friend at some other time.
Lord Wigoder: Apart from that point, I am happy to accept the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be agreed to?
Lord Elton: May I seize this opportunity to straighten the record, particularly since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, took me up on the point and referred to it during the debate on the schedule? Your Lordships will recall that I was asked, under difficult circumstances, who would be the registered data user in the Home Office. After a certain hesitation I said that I would put my money on the Home Secretary. I very much regret to have to tell your Lordships that I lost the bet. I am advised that the
418
statutory person will be the Home Office. I hope that that has not materially altered the arguments which the noble and learned Lord would have used. However, I thought I ought to tell your Lordships as soon as the slip came back from the silver ring.
Lord Gardiner: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I thought that change might come about when it came to the question of making the rule.
Lord Elton: It would have shortened that debate.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Determination of appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 95A, 96, 97, 97A and 98 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Unauthorised disclosure by computer bureau]:
9.12 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 13, line 22, after ("bureau") insert ("or a data user").
The noble Lord said: I apologise sincerely to your Lordships for putting down this amendment somewhat late. However, I feel it to be my duty to raise the matter at this stage. There is a discrepancy in the Bill and also an omission which I should like to point out for consideration by the Committee. In the mail order business, mailing lists are very marketable items. They are therefore very susceptible to misuse. The advent of microprocessors makes this even more the case. I am particularly concerned that a list can quite lawfully be sold by a data bureau or a data user to another registered data user who, even if he is registered, can then unlawfully sell on that list to another registered data user or data bureau. These people could use it unlawfully. It sounds complicated, but this is the reason why I am particularly interested in data users, as covered by Clause 5(1) and Clause 15(1).
Clause 5(1) covers data bureaux and data users. Subsection (5) contains the words "any person". Clause 15(1) mentions only data bureaux. My amendment seeks to include data users. I appreciate that subsection (3) of Clause 15 is similar to Clause 5(5). It contains the words "any person". Therefore, I suppose it could be said that "any person" covers any user, but I believe that this refers to any person within the meaning of "data bureau". If Clause 5 covers data bureaux and data users, it seems to be inconsistent that Clause 15 covers only data bureaux and does not cover data users. For the reasons I gave earlier regarding the complicated business of selling on and misuse, I believe that some people could escape the law.
As I understand it—and I am sure that I can be corrected on this—a data user contravening the provisions of Clause 15 would only be subject to the powers of the registrar and would not be committing a criminal offence. All that could really happen is that he would be fined and the registrar could have him struck off the list, whereas he should be had up for a criminal offence, which would happen if he committed

419
the offence again, having been struck off and not being registered. Forgive me for making this rather complicated point but someone who was sufficiently keen on making money from this item, and who felt that they could escape the law, would probably do so for some time. The first time that such a person was picked up, all that would happen is that the person would be struck off and he would not have committed a criminal offence. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I fear that I must oppose my noble friend's amendment, and for two reasons. The first is largely technical. A data user, as defined by the Bill, is one who, among other things, "controls the contents and use" of data. Yet this amendment would apply to such people the quite separate concept—entirely valid so far as bureaux are concerned—of providing services on behalf of other people. I fear that the idea of "control", and that of being authorised to perform certain tasks, are not ones that will sit happily together, and that the amendment, as it stands, must be regarded as defective.
The second, and substantive, reason why I cannot give this amendment support is that it is unnecessary. I suggest that many of the circumstances about which my noble friend is concerned would already entail a breach of the law—most obviously a breach of contract between the supplier and the user of the list. And where such a use of the data did involve an unlawful act, it would be open to the registrar to conclude that this constituted a contravention of the first data protection principle, requiring lawfulness of collection.
Even if no contractual relationship existed, the registrar might still decide that the "fairness" limb of the first principle had been breached and that action by him was therefore indicated. In short, we believe that to the extent that it is appropriate in a data protection Bill to attempt to tackle this problem, the Bill does already provide an adequate sanction. I frankly do not see how we could go further in providing against the behaviour which has caused my noble friend concern, and I believe that the powers which the registrar enjoys under the Bill will enable him to take whatever action is appropriate. In view of these considerations, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very full reply. I should like to consider the points he has raised and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Powers of entry etc.]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 98B:
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("justice of the peace") and insert ("circuit judge").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take with Amendment No. 98B, Amendments Nos. 101A, 101B, 104A, 105A, 107A, 107B, 107C and 107D. These amendments
420
were suggested to me by the Law Society. The point of this bunch of amendments is really quite simple; it is to suggest that Clause 16, in giving powers of entry on behalf of the registrar if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and that the data protection principles have been contravened, is of sufficient importance and of a level at which it is more appropriate that a second judge should be responsible for issuing the necessary warrant.
In the other parts of the kingdom which are covered by subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 16, it should be left as it stands, in that the sheriff and the resident magistrate respectively are professional persons—unlike some justices of the peace. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to explain to the Committee one point that arises out of these amendments. They do in fact have their source in the Law Society, of which I have the privilege to be a member. I did have a word with the noble Lord the Minister about raising these points on clause stand part because I felt it was unreasonable to put down amendments so late. It is an extraordinary situation that the Opposition Front Bench is more considerate, presumably, to the Minister than his own noble friends. I thought I ought to explain that; that is why the amendments are not down in my name and that of my noble friends. But certainly we support the spirit and say that this person ought to be a circuit judge.
Perhaps I ought to add one word, to remind your Lordships' Committee that in regard to the question of revenue searches, which has been engaging the minds of many people, certainly in another place at this time as well, it is necessary for a circuit judge to authorise the search. It seems to me to be extraordinary, therefore, that we should be considering a Bill where a justice of the peace can authorise a search in a matter of this kind, which is a new type of offence which we are creating. It is not necessarily fraud and matters of that kind with which searches are concerend when it comes to revenue matters—and many of us remember the embarrassment that was caused in certain places when a search did take place in regard to revenue matters some little time ago. I would have thought it extraordinary that a revenue search needs a circuit judge to authorise it, whereas the invasion of the privacy of data users, much though we want to protect the data subjects, should be allowed to take place merely on the authority of a justice of the peace.
I think the Law Society are right about this. I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, took up such a worthy cause, and I hope it will be an encouragement for him in future to support such causes as those advanced by the Law Society.
Lord Glenarthur: I am certainly very grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so far as the tabling of the amendment is concerned. It is a very complex matter, and of course if amendments are tabled late it is very difficult to get all the facts at one's fingertips. I think the point about access to the revenue information to which the noble Lord referred as a case in point is something which we shall have to check specifically in due course.

421
My noble friend Lord Mottistone has spoken with his customary eloquence on this particular amendment, the first of many we are to discuss on Clause 16. Clause 16 empowers a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant authorising the registrar to enter and search premises, to inspect, examine, operate and test equipment, and to inspect and seize any material which may be evidence of an offence under the Bill or of a contravention of the data protection principles by a registered person. This power has been included very much as a weapon of last resort, to be available only where the registrar is unable to enforce the Bill's requirements through persuasion. As is only right, there are a number of safeguards in Clause 16 designed to circumscribe the power of entry to its proper limits. One of these is the requirement under Clause 16(1) for a warrant to be obtained from a justice of the peace or his equivalents in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend would have the effect of requiring such a warrant to be issued in all cases by a circuit judge. It is possible to argue the case for such an amendment by reference to Clauses 9 and 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is currently being considered by another place. The powers of entry and search conferred on the police by Clause 9 of that Bill are exercisable on the basis of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, but this does not apply where the evidence sought is within the scope of Clause 10, which concerns evidence held on a confidential basis, in which circumstances the police must follow different procedures and apply to a circuit judge.
Perhaps it might be easier to explain the function of Clause 10 of that Bill by reference to an example. Where, for instance, the evidence sought consisted of the accounts and other financial records of a company which were held by the company's accountants, it is right that more stringent safeguards should exist. As regards the Data Protection Bill, I think that on reflection perhaps your Lordships will agree that the same considerations do not apply. The registrar's powers of entry, if exercised in relation to an accountant or another person holding information on a confidential basis, will be used to obtain evidence as to the accountant's operations as a data user, not as to his dealings with his clients. The question would be one of whether, for example, the accountant was operating as an unregistered data user or, if he were registered, whether he was operating in contravention of the principles. The client's affairs would not be of any interest to the registrar.
Under the circumstances which the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill addresses, it is the client in whom the police are interested, and if evidence concerning that client held by the accountant in confidence is to be seized, then special safeguards are required. Under this Bill it is the accountant himself in whom the registrar is interested and the client's interests are not at risk. Indeed, it may be on the client's behalf that the registrar is exercising his powers. That is the fundamental difference. Of course, it is not impossible that information relating to another person might be seized in such circumstances as evidence of the data user's activities. But there are strict limitations in Clause 17 upon the disclosure of
422
information obtained by the registrar in the course of his duties under the Bill.
In conclusion, it would seem that the special considerations which lead, in the context of Clause 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—to which I referred, and which is now in another place—to the requirement for a warrant to be issued by a circuit judge, simply do not apply here. Indeed, the fact that the Bill allows applications to be decided usually by a magistrate strengthens the case for this Bill following the same course. I hope that my noble friend will agree with that, and in all the circumstances will feel that perhaps the Bill is pitched about right.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to make two observations. First, the noble Lord the Minister said that this is a measure of last resort, from which I think it would follow that it would not be expected to happen on a very large number of occasions. Therefore, there is no question of any undue pressure of work or time so far as the particular person is concerned who has to authorise the execution of the warrant. Secondly, if one looks at Clause 6(1) one appreciates just what the person who is asked to issue the warrant has to decide. First, he has to decide whether:
"there are reasonable grounds for suspecting—(a) that an offence under this Part of this Act has been or is being committed; or [secondly] (b) that any of the data protection priciples have been or are being contravened";
and thirdly:
"that evidence of the commission of the offence or of the contravention is to be found on any premises specified in the information".
Are these not essentially legal issues? Is it not absolutely desirable that they should be determined by somebody who is legally qualified? I can accept that in the Greater London area, for example the power might be given to a metropolitan magistrate. But I should have thought that outside the areas where there are metropolitan magistrates sitting, it is essential, if this provision is to be applied fairly, that it should be applied by somebody who is legally qualified, which in fact means a circuit judge.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has spoken. We have had eloquent support for this amendment from the Law Society. I venture to think that the Bar would be equally enthusiastic in support.
Lord Swinfen: Surely a circuit judge should be the individual here rather than a magistrate, because it could involve the total livelihood of the person whose premises are going to be searched?
Lord Elton: I do not quite follow that last question. If no offence is committed, the fact that the place is searched cannot destroy the livelihood of the person whose equipment et cetera is inspected.
Lord Mishcon: It may not be very good for him.
Lord Elton: It may not be very good for him, but I suggest that it will not happen very often. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out that the applications will not be very numerous. My noble friend has

423
pointed out that in similar cases in legislation going through another place we have taken the authority of the magistrate for similar circumstances, and only where the circumstances are dissimilar and there is at risk a link between the data user and his client, is it necessary to have a judicial input.
I am very far from convinced by what has so far been said, that what is in the Bill is not as it should be. I feel rather strongly that it is right. On the other hand, we have not had the amendment before us very long. The noble Lord opposite was kind enough to explain that Her Majesty's official Opposition is actually more considerate towards the Government than Her Majesty's Government's supporters in this respect. If Her Majesty's Government's supporters get a rather dusty answer from the Front Bench from time to time as a result, it is not a matter for surprise. On the other hand, I think it would be sensible for me to look at this in the light of the exchanges, but only on the basis that the amendment was submitted so late that I do not think we have had a fair chance to look at it properly.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for undertaking to look at it. Indeed, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if I have stolen his thunder by taking this on. I was asked to do so and I did. Funnily enough, I thought it was kinder to put it down rather than to take it on clause stand part, because at least my noble friends know what to expect. This is basically very straightforward: it is a question of one or the other. It is not complicated. I should have thought that the arguments of the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, are excellent and should be taken into account more than those of any of the rest of us. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to make a change. In the meantime, I, too, will look to see the background to this more fully and hope that one or the other of us will put something down at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 99 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 100.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 13, line 33, leave out from ("committed;") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 101. On these amendments I have been advised by the CBI. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the right of entry in search and seizure can be exercised only where an offence has actually been committed. If the registrar believes that the principles are being contravened, it will be necessary for him, first, to issue an enforcement notice or a de-registration notice. If these are not complied with, as a result of which an offence is committed, then and only then should the registrar be empowered to seek a right of entry, et cetera. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I fully appreciate the need for Parliament to examine the justification when any new
424
power of entry is proposed. As I said earlier, Clause 16 has been included in the Bill rather as a weapon of last resort. Where all else fails the registrar must have the necessary powers to obtain evidence in order to take action against a person who flouts the law. This clause therefore empowers a justice of the peace, or his equivalents, to issue a warrant authorising the registrar to enter and search premises, operate equipment and seize evidence. The justice of the peace may issue a warrant only where he is satisfied that an offence has been or is being committed under the Bill, or that the data protection principles have been or are being contravened, and that evidence to that effect is to be found on the premises in question. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would restrict this power to circumstances involving the commission of an offence under the Bill.
As the Committee has considered the various clauses it will have become obvious to noble Lords that the Bill seeks to ensure compliance with the data protection principles—the "Ten Commandments" referred to by my noble and learned friend—through a combination of criminal offences and administrative sanctions. Thus the provisions of Clause 5 ensure that data users, and persons carrying on a computer bureau, must be registered. Clauses 7, 10, 11 and 12 enable the registrar to take action where he is satisfied that a breach of the principles has occurred, or is likely to occur. In this way contraventions of the data protection principles, which may in themselves be very serious, need not necessarily involve the commission of a criminal offence. This approach has been dictated by the general nature of the eight principles for data protection, which precluded the Government from proposing that data users and persons carrying on computer bureaux be placed under a justiciable duty to comply with the principles.
But these mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the principles can function only where the registrar has adequate information. In the case of the vast majority of operators adequate information will be given voluntarily, and we foresee the registrar working very largely through persuasion. It would be unwise to assume, however, that there will never be an exception to this rule. There may be some who simply seek to avoid any involvement in the registration process and refuse to supply the registrar with any information. There may be others who, once registered, will refuse to co-operate with the registrar. Where in such circumstances the registrar decides that he must resort to a prosecution, or to the exercise of his formal notice powers, he must be able to obtain sufficient information to pursue the matter. That ultimately is the function of Clause 16. Given the reliance of the scheme upon administrative sanctions alongside criminal offences, it is equally important that the power of entry, and so on, should apply when contraventions of the principles are in question, as it is in the case of suspected breaches of the criminal law.
Thus, if we are to ensure that the proposed legislation on data protection cannot simply be flouted, this power must be retained in relation to both criminal offences and contraventions of the principles. The alternative would be to make a contravention of the principles a direct criminal offence—and the most rapid consideration of the principles reveals the awful

425
consequences that that would have, both for data users and for the criminal courts. I would therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Airedale: Are we breaking new ground here? Are there precedents for power being sought to obtain a warrant from a magistrate to enter premises because there is suspicion that conduct has occurred falling short of the commission of an offence in those premises? It may well be that there are precedents for doing what is now sought, but it might be that we are breaking new ground. If we are, we ought to think about it rather carefully.
Lord Glenarthur: We are not in fact breaking new ground. There are numerous examples of existing powers of entry conferred on public officials and the police, some, not dependent on obtaining a warrant from a justice of the peace, which are not limited to cases involving criminal offences. I can give examples. One is Schedule 4 paragraph 24(1) to the Gas Act 1972 which authorises entry into premises served by gas to inspect meters fitted, et cetera; and there are others under the Electric Lighting Act and Section 159 of the Housing Act 1959.
Lord Avebury: It says that there has to be evidence that an offence has been committed, or that any of the principles have been contravened. But supposing that the data user merely declines to provide the registrar with any information on which to base a suspicion that either an offence has been committed or any of the related principles have been contravened? The registrar is not in a position to issue an enforcement notice, or to bring into play any of the other powers that he has under Clauses 10 and 11.
It seems to me that something of an impasse might have been reached then, because although the registrar might suspect that offences were being committed behind the cloak of secrecy which the data user had erected, he would never be able to get enough information either to issue an enforcement notice or to ask for a warrant to be issued. I am wondering, while we are still on this clause, whether the Minister can explain to me how the registrar would proceed in those circumstances.
Lord Glenarthur: To be honest, I did not hear all that the noble Lord said. I should like to read in Hansard in due course the points that he made. I could talk further about examples of contraventions of principle not involving criminal offences, but I am not entirely sure that that was the point that the noble Lord was making. Would it be better if I were to study what he said, and if there is any material substance in it I will perhaps take it up later? I am not satisfied that on what he said I need necessarily reconsider what I said earlier.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his reply, which was very full, and I shall have pleasure in reading it and seeing whether anything further needs to be said at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
9.41 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 14, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 and, with your Lordships' leave, might I take them together. I must confess that my eyebrows rose when I read for the first time in Clause 16(4) that a warrant—
"shall be executed at a reasonable hour unless it appears to the person executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the evidence in question would not be found if it were so executed".
I expect that there are precedents for this form of words. I do not know of them, but there are usually precedents for almost everything. But it seems to me that there are very real problems which will arise if we persist in this wording. What is a "reasonable hour"? Who is to determine what is a reasonable hour? Is it to be the registrar or the court? If it is to be a registrar or a court, at what stage in the proceedings are they to determine whether it was a reasonable hour or not? If the decision is that it was an unreasonable hour, then what is the status of the evidence which was in fact obtained by what would then have been the unlawful execution of the warrant? What will the consequences be if it is held to have been an unreasonable hour? Will the person executing the warrant be liable in damages for some form of trespass or wrongful entry? Will he be liable for some form of criminal action if he uses any sort of force against the property of the person into whose premises he has unlawfully gone? What will the position be if conflict breaks out, as it might well, between the data user and the executor of the warrant as to whether it is a reasonable hour or not? Supposing the data user seeks to exercise what would be the normal powers of a householder in the circumstances, and uses apparently reasonable force to eject the executor of the warrant. If the period was held to be at an unreasonable hour, of course the data user would be within his rights. If the period is subsequently held to be a reasonable hour, what would the position then be if a data user honestly believed that it was an unreasonable hour and therefore he was acting within his rights?
I could go on and on in this strain posing a series of conundra which begins to sound like the final paper in the Bar examinations. I do so only to indicate that the expression "a reasonable hour" in these circumstances is really fraught with difficulty, and that it might be very much simpler to do something along the lines of the amendment, scrap the words "reasonable hour" and give specific hours. I have suggested in the amendment that perhaps a reasonable hour would be between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., but I am not committed to those particular reasonable hours. I am very much open to negotiation. I only suggest that some specific hours would be a great deal better than the expression used in the Bill as drafted.
Lord Mishcon: While the noble Lord is posing questions without limit, may I ask him what, in his view, would happen if somebody was permanently on night shift and his premises could not be searched between six in the evening and six in the morning?
Lord Swinfen: While I am not a computer expert, I understand that a number of computers can be given

427
instructions by telephone. Someone who suspected that his premises would be raided between, say, 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. could telephone at 3 a.m. and wipe his computer clean, so no evidence would be left on it to be found by those investigating. That must be the whole object, where necessary, of allowing an inspection to be made at what would normally be an unreasonable hour.
Lord Wigoder: My amendment would not delete the words:
"unless … there are grounds for suspecting that the evidence in question would not be found if it were so executed".
I would hope, therefore, that the point raised by the noble Lord would be dealt with by that.
Lord Glenarthur: The Committee will wish to consider the proposed powers of entry under Clause 16 to ensure that appropriate safeguards are built in. As your Lordships would expect, the Government have borne that need in mind in preparing the clause. The power of entry, search, inspection and seizure is available only where a warrant has been issued by a justice of the peace and, normally, only where there has been a previous request for, and a refusal of, access. Another limitation (to which the amendment relates) is that a warrant should be exercised at a reasonable hour unless that might result in the evidence sought not being found. Under the amendment, that requirement would be altered, in the way the noble Lord described, so that a warrant would not normally be executed between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
I think it could be unfortunate to lose the flexibility in the term "reasonable hour" for the rigidity of specified hours, particularly in the context of computer facilities, which may run for 24 hours a day, as described admirably by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in another context. To take an example, I understand that, for sound operational reasons, computer users often perform different tasks on their equipment at different times. Thus, something like a pay-roll task can be performed at night if it does not require the presence of the full staff. Obviously, where the evidence sought relates to such a task, it may be more appropriate for the warrant to be executed at night. Indeed, it might cause significant disruption to the data user if the warrant had to be executed at a time of
428
day when the Registrar knew full well that a quite different operation, one with which he was not concerned, was being performed on the computer.
That will not always be the case, and there will be occasions when the evidence will be of a more permanent nature, and then the registrar will be able to execute the warrant during day time. The circumstances in which warrants may need to be executed dictate that we do not prevent the registrar fitting the time of execution to the case he confronts, conscious, of course, that a data user can seek a remedy in the courts if it is considered that the time of execution has not been reasonable. The key point is that it is impossible to specify what "reasonable" is for all users, and it would be for the courts to decide. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, and that "reasonable hour" might be considered an appropriate phrase regarding any further discussion of the amendment.
Lord Avebury: The Minister said that a request for, and refusal of, access will have to have occurred before a warrant is issued under Clause 16. Can he point to the words in the Bill which have that effect?
Lord Glenarthur: I am advised that Clause 16(2) contains the words which apply in this particular case.
Lord Wigoder: I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me if I say that I do not think that he has passed his examination paper. Certainly he has made no attempt to answer the questions that I raised. But I see the problems that arise here. I should like to reflect on the matter, but a possible solution might be to give to the person who authorises the issue of the warrant the power to state within what hours it may be executed, so that he would then have direct evidence as to the appropriate hours in relation to the particular user. I should like to consider that possibility before the next stage. I still feel very strongly that to leave the clause in its present form will give rise to very great trouble in future, and I should find it no consolation to say, "I told you so". For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 104A not moved.]
9.52 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 14, line 29, at end insert ("or whether any data equipment was inspected, examined, operated or tested").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the permission of your Lordships' Committee, I should also like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 106, which is the principle amendment and is intended to provide compensation for damage caused to equipment or programmes during an entry under Clause 16. Amendment No. 105 is intended to provide a record of what equipment was tested or used. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: I wonder whether it would be convenient to your Lordships' Committee if at this stage I were to speak to Amendment No. 107, because it deals with substantially the same issue, but by means of a slightly different wording. It imposes upon a person executing a warrant a duty of care not to impede the owner of the premises or the data user in the carrying on of his lawful business. I perhaps marginally prefer this amendment to Amendment No. 106, but I should very happily settle for either amendment, depending upon which one the noble Lord the Minister thought fit to concede.
Lord Glenarthur: It may help to shorten our consideration of Amendment No. 105 if I indicate the Government's attitude at an early stage. I have earlier described the powers that Clause 16 of the Bill introduces. Clause 16(6) requires that where a warrant has been executed, it should be endorsed stating whether any documents or other material have been seized in pursuance of it. This is designed to give the issuing authority information on the use made of warrants issued by it, and follows a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone would extend this requirement so that where such a warrant had been executed, the endorsement to be made would also have to include a statement as to whether data equipment had been inspected, examined, operated, or tested in pursuance of the warrant.
The Government are certainly prepared to look again at this provision to see whether it would be appropriate to broaden the requirement on those executing warrants, so as to provide more information for the issuing authority. I trust that my noble friend will understand that it is difficult for me to go further at this stage, and I hope that in the light of my undertaking he will agree not to press the amendment.
If my noble friend would like me to continue with Amendment No. 106, we have described the safeguards in Clause 16 at length. I should like to emphasise that damage will, in normal circumstances, become a possibility only where the person responsible for the premises has failed to fulfil his obligations under the Bill. In most circumstances the registrar will never have to resort to his formal powers and Clause 16 will not be needed. Where he must take action, he will in most cases first have to request access to the premises in question, and will only be able to
430
secure a warrant where this is unreasonably refused. Where a warrant is issued, it will usually be executed at a reasonable time and only reasonable force may be used. By virtue of Clause 16(8), it is an offence for any person to obstruct another person executing a warrant or to fail without reasonable excuse to give such assistance as he may reasonably require. Thus, force will normally be necessary only where the occupier fails in his obligations under Clause 16(8).
Once entry has been obtained, it is unlikely that the registrar will have to operate the equipment directly and it would be easier for both parties to request that the occupier do so. The registrar is entitled to seek reasonable assistance by virtue of Clause 16(8). Of course, there is provision in Clause 16(2) for a warrant to be issued without there having been a prior request for access, but only where the justice is satisfied that the case is one of urgency or the giving of notice would defeat the object of entry. Similarly, a warrant may be extended outside reasonable hours where this is necessary to obtain the evidence sought. Yet these powers are limited to extreme circumstances. Thus, I would submit that even where as a last resort the power of entry comes into use it will in almost all cases he exercised in such a way that no damage will result. The Bill follows established procedures in these matters. I hope that with these reassurances and the explanation of how we understand Clause 16 would work in practice, my noble friend Lord Mottistone will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: If I can deal with Amendments No. 105 and No. 106 and then No. 107 will be tackled later, I accept my noble friend's remarks about No. 105, that he will be looking at that; and I am grateful for that. With regard to Amendment No. 106, I will look at what he has said about that. I am not sure that I am really satisfied and will probably come back on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105A and 106 not moved.]
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert—
("(6A) A person executing a warrant under this section shall so inspect, examine, operate and test any data equipment and data material in the possession of the data user as not to impede him in carrying on his lawful business.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment formally in order to hear the noble Lord's reply.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would go rather beyond the detail which I described and which was contained in Lord Mottistone's earlier amendment. It will provide that where a warrant was executed, the inspection, examination, operating and testing of any data equipment or data material would have to be carried out in a way which would not impede the data user's business. Thus, it would seem that wherever any impediment, however small, was caused, the inspection, examination or operation of any data equipment would be rendered unlawful.
While the Government have sought to safeguard the occupier as far as is practicable in this clause, to accept

431
the noble Lord's amendment would take us over the brink. We must remember that a warrant will be used only where reasonable demands for co-operation have been refused. Ther occupier of premises is quite likely to be ill-intentioned towards the registrar; and where computers are concerned, it could be quite easy for the user to ensure that in examining or testing the equipment some impediment, perhaps of a minor nature, was unavoidable.
Where it would not be possible to execute the warrant without impeding the occupier's business in some way, the registrar cannot be prevented from using the power that the warrant confers. The whole purpose behind the clause will otherwise be defeated. In the extreme case—and that is what we are talking about—the registrar must have adequate powers to obtain evidence where all the other measures have failed.
In addition to this fundamental objection to the amendment, there are a number of more detailed flaws. For example, the amendment deals only with data users and not with persons carrying on a computer bureaux, and it refers to the inspection, examination, operation and testing of data material, which is a phrase not found anywhere else in Clause 16. I hope that I need go on no further and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: When the Minister considers these three amendments, would he consider the methods in which computers can give their information? On Amendment No. 105 there is reference to whether any data equipment was inspected, examined, operated or tested. There is also the question of whether anything was removed. A print-out can of course be removed, but information given on a visual display unit cannot be taken away for examination unless photographed. There is also information given out in some form of sound or another modern method. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this when looking into the matter further.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly read what my noble friend has said. I did not undertake to consider Amendment No. 107. I undertook to consider Amendment No. 105.
Lord Wigoder: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107A to 107D not moved.]
10.3 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 107E:
Page 15, line 24, at end insert—
("(12) Nothing in this section authorises the inspection or seizure of any document or other material in respect of which, or the data contained in which, a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment speaks for itself as an addition to Clause 16. It is a matter for consideration in connection with the powers of inspection and seizure as well as the need for an
432
express provision excluding matters subject to legal professional privilege. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point. Legal professional privilege is an important principle in British law. It is vital for the integrity of the judicial process to protect the confidences that pass between an individual and his legal adviser. The courts recognise this, and cannot require such confidences to be exposed. In Clause 32(2) the Government recognise it also by exempting data covered by legal professional privilege from the subject access provisions, thus preventing third parties from gaining access to data concerning them which has been passed in confidence by a client to his legal adviser.
The Bill places no restrictions on the data that the registrar can inspect or seize when in the interests of data subjects, and as a last resort, he obtains a warrant to gain access to data which, for example, he suspects are contravening the principles. It is a complicated and difficult area. If the registrar cannot gain access to data under the entry powers given by Clause 16, he may be unable fully to supervise compliance with the principles, and that is why Clause 16, as drafted, contains no restrictions of this kind. On the other hand, I recognise the force of my noble friend's argument that the normal practice in law is to avoid provisions that allow any third party to see information to which legal professional privilege attaches.
We wish to reflect on the dilemma that my noble friend has uncovered, and, in particular, to have another look at this point in the light of the comparable provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I cannot commit the Government at this stage; but I ask my noble friend to agree that we should have time for reflection and, therefore, not to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the Committee would allow me to say just one word. This, again, is one of the amendments which were recommended by the Law Society to which I referred earlier. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his promise to consider this point, which is one of great concern to the legal profession. I am obliged to him.
Lord Mottistone: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for undertaking to look at this, and with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Disclosure of information]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 107F:
Page 15, line 28, at end insert ("but nothing in this subsection shall permit or require a barrister, advocate or solicitor to furnish the Registrar with any information in his possession in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 17(1) seems to be framed in such a way as to relieve a solicitor, for instance, from the obligation to withhold confidential information about which he would be entitled to claim legal professional privilege. The object of this amendment is to correct that position. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord replies, would he kindly take it that I am saying precisely what I said in regard to the last amendment?
Lord Glenarthur: Following our discussion of the amendment of my noble friend to Clause 16, the reason for this amendment to Clause 17 is quite clear, I think. On the previous clause the wish was to ensure that no third party, not even the registrar under his powers of entry, should be entitled to see information to which legal professional privilege attaches. On this clause it is the desire to ensure that solicitors and barristers who will be the holders of such information are under no obligation to show the registrar this information in the context of the normal discharge of his functions. But we believe that the two situations are different. We have to accept that Clause 16 as drafted might entitle the registrar to inspect and seize documents and material attracting legal professional privilege. It is on that basis that we have undertaken to look at this further.
However, Clause 17 gives no explicit entitlement to the registrar and places no obligation on data users who hold privileged information. Clause 71(1) simply frees users from the restrictions that might otherwise prevent their allowing the registrar to see information that they were quite willing for him to see. The clause goes on to make sure that, having seen potentially confidential information, the registrar cannot dislose it further than is necessary to carry out his function.
Clause 17(1) permits users to be free agents in deciding whether to give information to the registrar or to withhold it from him. It certainly does not compel a lawyer who holds information to which legal professional privilege attaches to disclose that information to anybody. He is free to decide. That is the difference between this clause and Clause 16; and that is why, particularly since we have undertaken to look at the dilemma which is contained in Clause 16, I hope my noble friend will not press this amendment to Clause 17.
Lord Mottistone: I have noted what my noble friend says, and it sounds sensible to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Prosecution and penalties]:
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 109ZA:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert—
("The Court shall also satisfy itself that the relevant data subject has been told of the intention to forfeit, destroy or erase the data and has been given an opportunity to be heard by the court.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 19(5) gives a person claiming to be the owner of or interested in the data the opportunity to be heard by the court before it orders forfeiture, destruction or erasure of data. It does not help the subject of the data, who may have a real interest in its retention or be damaged by its total loss.
434
Indeed, he may not even know what data is under scrutiny. It is suggested that the difficulty can be overcome with this Amendment No. 109ZA, and I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: This amendment would provide an entitlement for what it terms "the relevant data subject" to be heard by any court considering ordering the forfeiture, destruction or erasure of data material, in accordance with Clause 19(4). My noble friend has explained why he believes that such a provision is necessary, but I am afraid that I neither see a case for such a provision, nor do I believe that it would be workable in the form proposed. The intention of the amendment appears to be to ensure that the interests of data subjects are not harmed by the forfeiture, destruction or erasure of data relevant to them, but I cannot believe that any court deciding to take this action would not have had the interests of data subjects very firmly in mind before deciding to do so. Indeed, the whole purpose of subsection (4) is to enable the court to conclude that harm could be done if the data in question were left unaltered in the hands of the data user, and that it would be in the interests of those affected for an order under this subsection to be made.
It seems to me inconceivable that the court would fail to consider whether the data subjects had an interest in seeing that those data were preserved unchanged. Indeed, if the court were in any doubt about the matter, it would be able to consult the registrar, who, other than in Scotland, is likely to have been responsible for bringing the prosecution. If, on the other hand, what is intended is to provide a counter-balancing voice to that of anyone claiming to have an interest in the preservation of the data material—and this is certainly something which is raised by the amendment—then I am sure that the court will be able to come to an appropriate conclusion without bringing in the data subject at this stage; and, again, it will have available the expertise of the registrar where necessary.
Furthermore, I am bound to point out that the amendment would be unworkable as it stands. It refers to "the relevant data subject", but in many of the cases that we are discussing there will be no individual data subject. Among the provisions of the Bill to which this subsection relates is one which makes the unregistered use of personal data an offence. In that instance, for example, there might be millions of data subjects, all of whom had an equal interest in the data in question. Are we to require the court to inform all of them of the intention to destroy their data, and to give each one of them the opportunity to be heard before the court? I am afraid that it is not possible to produce a workable formula like that, and I hope my noble friend will agree, on the basis of that information, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I listened with as much care as I could to my noble friend's remarks, which appeared to have a measure of common sense within them. I shall read them with great interest and may come back, but probably will not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 109ZB:
Page 17, line 12, after ("corporate") insert ("(including a body corporate which is a member of a corporate group in respect of which an entry has been made in the register)").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 109ZC. They are both paving amendments to Amendment No. 109ZE, which is labelled "Defences". This amendment would permit a single entry in the register covering a group of companies. It is intended to mitigate the multiple registration requirements which, without amendment, would apply to a group of companies, members of which use centralise computer facilities operated by one company in that group. The registration would be as a data user and would specify the members of the corporate group which held, or used, personal data in addition to the other information required to be specified on registration by Clause 3(3).
The onerous registration requirements presently imposed on groups of companies in these circumstances were referred to by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in the Second Reading debate at column 1563 of the Official Report. By reducing the amount of unnecessarily duplicated matter submitted in applications for registration, this amendment will also reduce the burden on the registrar and his limited staff. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whether he was moving Amendments Nos. 109ZD and 109ZE together?
Lord Mottistone: No, I was moving Amendment No. 109ZB and speaking to No. 109ZC, but not No. 109ZE.
Lord Glenarthur: I thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for raising this question as to the registration of companies and groups of companies, but I only wish that we could have seen it earlier because it raises complicated issues of both a legal and an administrative nature. These issues need very careful study. As we have already made clear, the Government have sought to ensure that the process of registration should be as simple as possible in order to avoid creating an undue burden on users.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend seeks further to simplify the process of registration in the case of interconnected groups of companies. Unfortunately, we were not made aware until yesterday evening that this amendment was to be moved, and as noble Lords will appreciate it has not been possible since then to give adequate consideration to the complex ramifications of the suggested change. I really think it would be rash of me to pass judgment on the amendment without the benefit of having thought it through fully. Having said that, the amendment deserves consideration. Therefore, I should like to ask my noble friend to withdraw it so that we can consider it further and, if the implications are acceptable, return to it at a later stage.
Lord Mottistone: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for once again having smoothed out the muddle, and I apologise once again for the
436
trouble caused. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 109ZB.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109ZC not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109ZD not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 109ZE:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Defences.
.—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under section 10 or 12 above, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to reliance on information supplied to him or the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control; and

(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

(2) If in any case the defence provided by the last foregoing subsection involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of another person or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless, within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice in writing, giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.;).
The noble Lord said: This is the amendment which relates to defences, and I apologise for having muddled your Lordships earlier. These amendments have been recommended to me by the retail consortium. They analysed a list of many of the offences under the Bill, most of which are qualified by the words "knowingly or recklessly" and accordingly do not give rise to strict liability. Of the offences which do give rise to strict liability, it is perhaps difficult to argue that those under Clause 5(1) and Clause 6(5) should be qualified, since it is an essential feature of the Bill that anybody who is potentially a data user should be under a positive duty to take stock of his position and register under the Bill if he is required to do so. Once registered, he should also be under a positive and absolute obligation to keep the registration up to date.
However, different considerations would seem to apply to offences under Clause 10(8) and Clause 12(10). Enforcement notices or transfer prohibition notices may well place their recipients under continuing obligations to institute and maintain systems of work or procedure which, despite the exercise of all due care, may fall down as a result of an accident or human error. It therefore seems appropriate to introduce a defence of mistake or accident in relation to these offences on the lines of that contained in Section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The proposed new clause follows exactly the wording of that section, which is now the subject of well-established case law. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: It is one of the paradoxes of legislation and many other aspects of life that it takes much longer to write a short speech than it does to write a long one. In order to satisfy your Lordships' anticipations at this hour of the night. I do not propose to deliver the whole of the speech that I had prepared to deal with this amendment.

437
My noble friend prefaces many of his amendments with the name of some august body or another that he has had put in his hand. I suggest that whereas we have to debate everything that is on the table before us, he does not have to take everything into his hand. Perhaps this is something of which the august bodies in question might take note when providing material for occasions such as this, because if this is to be merely a canter round the course before we gallop or perhaps walk round it again at Report, it will be a pity to have done it twice. I say that by way of apology to your Lordships because there may be less than the fluent coherence to which your Lordships are, I hope, accustomed in my deliveries from this Box.
The basic assumption underlying the Bill's structure is that the eight principles for data protection, drawn from the Council of Europe Convention, are not sufficiently precise to be directly justiciable before the courts. Thus the registrar has been given powers to take action where the principles are contravened and these powers are subject to a right of appeal to a tribunal specifically appointed for this purpose. To elaborate, Clause 10 empowers the registrar to issue an enforcement notice where he is satisfied that a registered person has contravened or is contravening any of the data protection principles. Such a notice would specify steps to be taken by a given date, in order to rectify the contravention, and failure to comply with such a notice would be an offence under Clause 10(8). Clause 12 permits the registrar to issue a transfer prohibition notice prohibiting the transfer of personal data abroad, either absolutely, or pending the taking of special steps, where he is satisfied that the transfer would contravene or lead to a contravention of the data protection principles. Again, failure to comply with a notice would be an offence under Clause 12(10).
Under Clause 13 a data user or computer bureau in receipt of a notice has a right of appeal to the Data Protection Tribunal, and the notice powers have been structured so as to ensure that no notice can take effect before there has been the opportunity to take the issues to appeal. Thus data users and computer bureaux will have the opportunity to challenge a decision by the registrar to issue a notice, and the requirements contained in that notice, before an expert body equipped with relevant knowledge and expertise in the data processing field. Where, however, an appeal has failed because the tribunal has upheld the registrar's decision, or no appeal has been brought, and the person concerned still fails to comply with the requirement of the notice, the registrar could bring a prosecution.
Under the Bill as drafted the question before the court in such a case would be the simple question of fact, whether the notice had been contravened. Thus the question in a prosecution under Clause 10(8) might be the direct one; whether the additional security measures specified in a notice had been implemented, or arrangements had been made for the provision of subject access. In the case of Clause 12 a similar question could arise where say the notice had required the taking of appropriate security measures prior to the transfer of the personal data in question. It would not be open to the recipient of the notice to question the reasonableness of it in the course of a
438
prosecution for failure to comply with it. To do so would be to reopen issues appropriately heard on appeal, before the specialist tribunal, in the far less suitable environment of the criminal courts.
I would therefore submit that the Bill already provides adequate opportunity for the recipient of a notice to challenge its reasonableness. Where such notice is reasonable it is right, as recognised by this amendment, that the data user or computer bureau concerned should be under a positive duty to comply with it. The difficulty with the amendment proposed by my noble friend is that it would allow the recipient of such a notice to reopen the whole question of its reasonableness before the criminal courts. In the light of these arguments—which I really do hope satisfy my noble friend so that we do not have to go over them again at Report stage—I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It is really a matter of protest that high technicalities such as these were put down yesterday. We have a great reputation in this House as lawyers and as Members of this honourable House, to take seriously the task of looking at legislation. This sort of behaviour makes it impossible. I hope that the noble Lord takes due note of that. I was referring, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Elton: I can stop shrinking in my Bench and indeed give a sympathetic nod in the direction of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mottistone: I was aware of where the noble and learned Lord was directing his remarks. I thank my noble friend for his full and lengthy explanation, which I shall read with great care and which I am sure will be satisfying when I do so. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I am advised that it would be rash at this hour to venture into the ground of Clause 21, and so therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Conway Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill
Order of Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  HAZARDOUS CARGOES: LIABILITY
  HAZARDOUS CARGOES: LIABILITY
  GREENLAND WHITE-FRONT GOOSE: ALLEGED ILLEGAL SHOOTING
  GREENLAND WHITE-FRONT GOOSE: ALLEGED ILLEGAL SHOOTING
  BARNACLE GEESE ON ISLAY
  BARNACLE GEESE ON ISLAY
  NORTHERN IRELAND: WAGES COUNCILS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: WAGES COUNCILS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: CHILD CARE SERVICE STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: CHILD CARE SERVICE STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LOW INCOME FAMILY LIVING STANDARDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LOW INCOME FAMILY LIVING STANDARDS
  PIPE TOBACCO: HEALTH WARNINGS AND THE BUDGET
  PIPE TOBACCO: HEALTH WARNINGS AND THE BUDGET
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' TRUST REPORT
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' TRUST REPORT