Sitting of 10 March 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.

  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 March.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 March at 7 O'clock.

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

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Assembly
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to devolve further powers to the Northern Ireland assembly.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the future of the Northern Ireland assembly.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the working of the Northern Ireland assembly.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent constitutional developments in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Since I last answered questions in this House the Northern Ireland assembly and its departmental committees have continued to scrutinise the workings of government in Northern Ireland. Devolution of powers to the assembly is dependent on satisfying the criteria of widespread acceptance throughout the community, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1982.
    936
    My noble Friend the Minister of State made a statement to the assembly on public expenditure on 16 February; and on 22 February my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met the leaders of the parties in the assembly to discuss agricultural matters and other matters touching on the conduct of assembly business. I welcome the wide range of topics which the assembly is addressing, and my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to do all we can to assist the assembly and to take full account of its recommendations.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agree that it is hard to visualise a more dangerous position than that which emerges from a powerless talking shop of 60 elected representatives from Northern Ireland being goaded, as they were yesterday, by the provisional IRA? Since it is considered imperative in some quarters that a long-term plan should be developed through which devolution might be achieved, will the right hon. Gentleman consider devolving some limited administrative powers to that assembly?
    Mr. Prior: The efforts of the IRA will be centred on trying to make unworkable any democratic institution in Northern Ireland. The assembly should always bear that in mind. That is why it has acted with great responsibility.
    Devolution must wait until such time as there is an agreement between the parties and widespread acceptance throughout the community, otherwise any form of devolution would not have the political stability we seek.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Secretary of State admit that there is no long-term future for his assembly and that only an all-Ireland Parliament, through which the Irish people can decide their own future—instead of being subjected to a sequence of divisive constitutional manoeuvres imposed by Britain—will bring peace and stability?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's remarks show his lack of knowledge of Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not devolution to that body as conceived by my right hon. Friend an impossibility? Could not the useful committee work be transferred to Committees of Parliament sitting at Stormont and Westminster, thus strengthening the Union?
    Mr. Prior: I do not accept for one moment that devolution to the assembly is impossible. Devolution is possible, but it will depend on the parties which take part in that assembly reaching widespread agreement.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party will go into the next general election committed to the principles set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1982?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the assembly is unlikely to work or to bring in the minority community unless there is an all-Ireland dimension at one level or another? In our recent talks in Dublin there was interest in a British Irish council. Following his remarks in The Guardian today, cannot the right hon. Gentleman pursue that possibility, as it might enable people to lake part in the Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: We must take all these things in time and allow proper consideration so that the people of Northern

    937
    Ireland can understand exactly what we are seeking to do. We cannot hurry these things. However, I certainly accept that the better economic and security relationships that we have with the Republic will help. We can build on that basis, but it must be one on which all the parties in Northern Ireland can agree both with the Republic and with Great Britain.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the vast majority of those in the assembly have already embarked on obtaining devolved powers for Northern Ireland by working the powers that have been given to the Assembly? Does my right hon. Friend further recognise that there are those within the Assembly who will not submit to IRA pressure from outside or to the wreckers inside?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the latter part of that question. The Assembly is doing a good job and is scrutinising the work of direct rule. Furthermore, it has already achieved much more than most people thought possible.

    European Assembly (Visits)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department has arranged any visits to Northern Ireland for Members of the European assembly.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to address the European Parliament on the situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: My Department, when requested to do so, has assisted with the arrangements for visits to Northern Ireland by Members of the European Parliament wishing to learn at first hand about the conditions that prevail there.
    I have no intention of addressing the European Parliament on the subject of the political situation in Northern Ireland. The Government's position remains as set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) on 24 February, that the European Parliament has no business to discuss the internal political affairs of a member state. However, the Government will of course continue their efforts to ensure that our policy on Northern Ireland is well understood around the world, including in the European Parliament.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend tell the inadequately employed itinerants of the Brussels travelling circus, who seem increasingly bent on the acquisition of powers at the expense of this House, that they will not be welcome in Northern Ireland and that their ill-judged initiative will not receive any support whatever from him?
    Mr. Prior: I know my hon. Friend's views on the Community and I do not share them. Therefore, I am not prepared to use the adjectives that he used about my hon. Friends in the European Parliament.
    Mr. Brotherton: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply as far as it goes, does he agree that an official visit by busybodies from that Mickey Mouse assembly would certainly do no good in Northern Ireland and would probably do harm? In addition to telling them that they will not be welcome, will my right hon. Friend also refuse permission to visit Northern Ireland to those who purport to form an official investigation team from the European Parliament?
    Mr. Prior: Without casting aspersions on my hon. Friend or anyone else, I must say that there are Mickey Mouses in most assemblies.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: But this honourable House is a Parliament.
    Mr. Prior: That may let a lot of people off who might otherwise be worried. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the Government's position is clear. We are not inviting any Member of the European Parliament to visit under the auspices of that committee. However, I hope that other people will take the opportunity to impress on Members of the European Parliament the true political facts of Northern Ireland, and not those that they might otherwise obtain.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reinstate in his remarks the passage that he dropped from the circulated text of his reply to my Private Notice Question on 24 February, to the effect that the Government would give no assistance to any such investigation?
    Mr. Prior: The Government will not take part in any negotiations with that committee.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Although I welcome the Secretary of State's response to the original question, does he agree that the European Parliament's initiative has been greatly misrepresented and that it is a good idea to invite our allies, both in Europe and the United States of America, to learn at first hand exactly what the situation is in Northern Ireland, and that that is borne out by the recent demonstrations against our Queen in the United States? What have we to hide?
    Mr. Prior: We have nothing to hide. If Members of the European Parliament wish to come, we are perfectly prepared to invite them on that basis, but we are not prepared to allow the European Parliament to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland, or the internal affairs of another country. That remains our position.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I fully support the view expressed by my right hon. Friend when he says that the European Parliament has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a member state, will he express the hope—given that a Republican member from Northern Ireland has supported such interference in the affairs of the United Kingdom—that when Members of the European Parliament visit Northern Ireland, they will urge the SDLP and Sinn Fein Members of the assembly to participate fully in its affairs and business? In that way the assembly can be made to work to the advantage of all Northern Ireland's people.
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on the assembly, which I have noticed on previous occasions. I want everyone to take part in the assembly and I hope that the Members of the European Parliament will persuade certain members of their own organisation to take part.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that we would also encourage anyone to visit Northern Ireland to find out what is happening in the Province? The danger arises only from the one-day-visit wonders, as I call them, who come up with one-line solutions afterwards?
    Mr. Prior: I endorse every one of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to refer to Members of the European Parliament as hon. Friends?
    Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of indifference to me at the moment.

    Lear Fan 2100 Aircraft
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the progress towards certification of the Lear Fan 2100 aircraft.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Lear Fan aircraft to receive its certificate of airworthiness.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Although the precise date of certification is difficult to predict with accuracy, the company's latest business plan points to achievement of type inspection authorisation for the aircraft by the summer of this year, with basic airworthiness certification following by about the end of 1983. Delays in a programme of this complexity are not uncommon and some slippage in the business plan dates could occur.
    Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed reply. Does he agree that this aeroplane's potential is particularly exciting and that some of the publicity that has surrounded it in recent months is unmerited in terms of the design and production that is going into the aeroplane on behalf of those working in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: There has been some unfair criticism, but, on the other hand, this aeroplane still has some way to run.
    Mr. Christopher Price: And fly.
    Mr. Butler: And fly. So far, the new management is pleased with its success. I know that the management intends to do everything possible to keep to these dates and to bring to Northern Ireland levels of employment that are possible.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has my hon. Friend seen the prediction from a Federal Aviation Authority official that the aircraft is unlikely to receive certification until into 1984, although whether that means well into 1984 or just into 1984 is not clear? In view of the statement by the company that production was to start this year, is not this contradiction a rather serious matter? In those circumstances, will my hon. Friend guarantee that no more public money will be put into this project until he has had absolute assurances from the company that its work programme is on schedule?
    Mr. Butler: I have just given the House details and the dates by which the company expects to achieve basic airworthiness certification, which is towards the end of this year. It is conceivable that some delays may occur. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that we are closely monitoring the project on the financial side, and that in respect of technical matters we have the help of the CAA. Therefore, my hon. Friend can be assured that we are keeping it very much under review and that money is being put in under the right terms.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister undertake to keep a close watch on the activities of rival concerns, which might possibly delay the process of certification?
    Mr. Butler: I am not entirely sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. The company and the aeroplane have to compete against whatever competition there is. I understand that it is technically well ahead of any likely competition.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that we very much hope, metaphorically and literally, that the project will get off the ground? Will he further accept that, with a removal of control from the Government by their handing over of the project, in effect, to an American-based company, there are reservations about the way in which a substantial amount of taxpayers' money is being ploughed into it? What provision is there to enable the taxpayer to obtain full control of the project?
    Mr. Butler: I shall never persuade the hon. Gentleman that the best control results from private money being put into a project, as it then has the support of private interests. In this case, there is approximately two-thirds private funding and one-third public funding. Nevertheless, we are regularly monitoring in the way I have described. We have representation on the board and that is fully satisfactory to give us the degree of control of the sort that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's loan guarantees, which run into summer 1986, will be welcome to the company and to a revolutionary and exciting aircraft of great potential for which there are already 276 orders and for which more than $20 million has been paid in deposits by potential buyers?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, that number of aircraft have been ordered. That is surely evidence of the prospects that potential buyers see for it.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister clarify his initial answer, which appeared to imply that new delays may have emerged since I visited the plant about a month ago? If the difficulty is with the FAA, is there not a case for involving the CAA even more? There are vast areas of overlap with both airworthiness certification authorities. Surely there is a case for going for the British certification first, if the delays are at the American end.
    Mr. Butler: It would be best if certification were obtained through the FAA, because the vast bulk of orders come from America, which is where it will have to fly first. It will follow the normal practice with so many of these aircraft if CAA certification follows FAA certification.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I press my hon. Friend further on the question asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley)? Is my hon. Friend aware that the procedures undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority to validate FAA certificates of airworthiness to our standards are often long, complicated and expensive? Has my hon. Friend's Department ensured that in this case the CAA will, more or less work to the FAA guidelines?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot guarantee that. The fact that we have the advantage of the CAA being involved in the technical monitoring of the aeroplane will mean that it is being kept fully up to date with progress and that, of itseff, should help to accelerate certification when it is due.

    Prisoners (Alcohol Dependence)
    Mr. Soleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will undertake a study to assess the number of prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland who are dependent on alcohol.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): No, Sir.
    Mr. Soley: That is an extremely unhelpful answer from the Minister. Does he accept that, according to the most recent figures for the United Kingdom as a whole, about 60 per cent. of male racidivist offenders have a serious alcohol abuse problem? Given that some studies have already been carried out, what is wrong with the Minister pursuing these studies properly and publishing the results? They are important if he wants to prevent crime, as prevention is more important than anything else.
    Mr. Patten: To the best of my knowledge, only one study has been conducted recently in Northern Ireland prisons by someone outside Government circles. That research, as I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, has not been completed and therefore neither the Government nor anyone else can publish it.
    With regard to the problem of alcoholism inside prisons, we have an extremely good prison medical service which gives every help that is needed to the relatively small numbers of people inside prisons in Northern Ireland who have an alcohol problem. In addition, we also make available, through the excellent help of Alcoholics Anonymous, all the help that prisoners need, should they choose to take it.

    Security
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 10 February I regret to report that four members of the security forces and two civilians have been murdered in Northern Ireland.
    On 20 February a member of the RUC reserve was shot dead as he left Warrenpoint RUC station, and on the following day an RUC sergeant on a mobile patrol was killed in a bomb explosion in Armagh. On 25 February a part-time corporal in the UDR was shot dead as he was about to get out of his car at his place of work in County Tyrone. And on 2 March a constable was brutally gunned down in front of children leaving a primary school in north Belfast.
    On 19 February a postman was shot dead near Enniskillen when he was lured into delivering a letter. The police believe that his killers thought he was a part-time member of the security forces.
    The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for this murder and for the murder of the four members of the security forces.
    Finally, the House will no doubt be aware that a joiner was shot dead in Armagh yesterday afternoon as he left Housing Executive offices. The RUC is investigating this latest killing.
    942
    I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute again to the steadfastness and dedication of the security forces, whose important work continues in the face of these murderous assaults, especially on them.
    So far this year 111 persons have been charged with terrorist type offences, including seven with murder and five with attempted murder; 41 weapons and 20,515 rounds of ammunition together with 177 lbs of explosives, have been recovered.
    Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the list of murders that he has just read out, and also the list of further attacks on the security forces, scattered as they were right across Northern Ireland, demonstrate an almost casual ability by the IRA to commit murders of selected targets, when and where it wishes? What further specific measures does he intend to take to combat this experience?
    Mr. Prior: Certainly the IRA has concentrated on selected targets. The Chief Constable and the GOC are well aware of this and are doing all that they can to prevent it. I do not believe, as I have had to tell the House before, that there is any simple measure that can prevent terrorist murders taking place. What we require, of course, is a long-term solution to the problems of instability in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Has Dr. FitzGerald restored to the Irish security forces on the border those forces that were cut by Mr. Haughey during the latter part of his premiership?
    Mr. Prior: So far as I am aware there was only a very small reduction of Garda on the border for a period in recent months. Certainly, we are entirely satisfied with co-operation on the border. So far as I know, there have been no major changes in the number of Garda or Irish Republic troops on the border in the past year or two.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State accept that in the past few weeks the IRA seems to have adopted a pattern of killing somebody in each of the Six Counties and in Belfast and Londonderry in a deliberate attempt to thumb its nose at the security forces and the Northern Ireland assembly? Is one to conclude from the Minister's response that we simply have to sit and watch the same thing happen again in the next few weeks?
    Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not conclude from my response that I am not well aware of the dangers and the continuing murders. As he knows all too well, the IRA is constantly seeking to get a response through the assembly and the people of Northern Ireland that would undermine all that we are seeking to do to bring stability. I urge everyone in Northern Ireland to help me in that battle.
    Mr. Fitt: Has the Secretary of State taken account of what seems to be a change of tactics by the IRA, which is now concentrating its killing activities on Northern Irish people—members of the UDR out of uniform and members of the RUC and its reserves? Could it be that in killing Northern Ireland Protestants rather than British soldiers the IRA is trying to provoke a backlash from the Protestant community?
    Mr. Prior: I do not think that one should necessarily draw that inference as attacks have been made on soldiers

    943
    as well, but certainly the pattern of violence has changed. The GOC and the Chief Constable are well aware of this and are taking what measures they can to counter it.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in future when the Army gives briefings to foreign journalists the information imparted is four-square with that conveyed by his press officer at Stormont?
    Mr. Prior: I would certainly hope so. If my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary, I hope that he will give it to me so that we can ensure that the information is the same from all sources.
    Mr. Concannon: The Opposition pay tribute to the security forces who have lost their lives and the families who have lost their loved ones in the past months in this further instance of the tragedy in Northern Ireland. I do not suggest for a moment that he should give up the powers of strip searching in Amargh women's prison, but is it necessary to continue planned searches of that kind, as I am afraid that it is providing a cause for which the IRA, Sinn Fein and others are looking? Will he also give us information about the firing of plastic baton rounds since September and since the last Northern Ireland Question Time? In anticipation of the results, may I suggest that the lack of street disorders has led to a substantial decrease in the use of plastic bullets?
    Mr. Prior: Since September only 19 plastic baton rounds have been fired. Four have been fired this year, so none has been fired since I last gave information to the House. If riots do not take place and children therefore do not take part in them, there will be no danger either to children or to the public generally.
    On the allegations made about strip searching of prisoners in Armagh women's prison, the prison authorities have a duty to ensure the safe and. secure custody of prisoners in their care. I deeply regret the inaccurate accounts of what has happened. I am keeping the matter under regular review and I hope that that will ease some of the tension.

    Industrial Development Board (Strategy Document)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the reply of 10 February, Official Report, c. 458, to the hon. Member for Basildon, whether he has yet received the strategy document for 1983–84 from the Northern Ireland industrial development board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Adam Butler: I have now received a strategy document from the industrial development board. This document sets out the activities and initiatives that the board would like to see the executive undertaking in the year 1983–84 to encourage and support industrial development in Northern Ireland. The board has done well to produce such a document within a few months of its appointment. I have studied it and earlier this week gave my approval to the broad strategic objectives outlined in the document.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will welcome the fact that he has now received the report and considered it? Will he publish the document and make arrangements for Members of the House to consider it and debate it?
    Mr. Butler: I assure the House that the board intends to publish a document—either the report as it stands or, more likely, a version of it that will accurately reflect the contents.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on discussions about the development of teacher training in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am not yet in a position to do so. The statement of 22 December on the future of teacher training provision promised discussions with the teacher training institutions on the intakes for 1983. When these discussions are completed I shall make a further statement.
    Mr. Madel: With regard to the possible transfer of certain practical subjects from the colleges to the proposed new university institution, does my hon. Friend agree that compromise is possible and, if agreed, will continue the momentum towards greater co-operation in higher education throughout the Province?
    Mr. Scott: We are still receiving comments about the proposals for the pattern of subjects and I shall clearly wish to consider those comments. There is a very low demand for specialist secondary school teachers in training in the coming decade and we must ensure that the courses provided are viable.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Has the Minister read Bishop Daly's evidence to the Select Committee to the effect that he is very much more anxious than his predecessor for real co-operation between Stranmillis and the new Catholic college? In the light of that, should he not give a greater proportion of the teachers trained than the 31 per cent. already given to the Catholic colleges and Stranmillis, as they strongly believe that 40 per cent. is the right proportion?
    Mr. Scott: We welcome Bishop Daly's comments. This helps to make up for the disappointment of not being able to put Stranmillis and the two Catholic colleges on the same site. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be a great mistake for teacher training institutions in Northern Ireland to become hooked on particular percentages. We must ensure, year by year, that the intakes to the various institutions reflect the need for teachers in the Northern Ireland education system.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Accepting that there should be one and not two Catholic colleges, has my hon. Friend now satisfied representatives of the Catholic Church that in the future there will be enough Catholic teachers for Catholic schools?
    Mr. Scott: I have no evidence that there is likely to be any shortage of suitably trained teachers in any section of the Northern Ireland education system.
    Mr. Freeson: How do these considerations contribute to the ending of compulsory segregation in the school system? Should not some priority be given to that?
    Mr. Scott: There is no compulsory segregation in education in Northern Ireland. Every school that is aided by Government funds is by law open to anyone of any religious denomination.

    Antrim Hospital
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on discussions with the Northern Health and Social Services Board on the construction of the new Antrim hospital.
    Mr. John Patten: The Government are committed to the modernisation and rationalisation of hospital services in the northern board area. I shall have discussions shortly with the board on how best the construction of a new hospital at Antrim can be accommodated in our present spending plans.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that expenditure on updating and carrying out temporary repairs to outdated buildings would ultimately be far more expensive and wasteful than a staged process for the new Antrim complex? Is he satisfied that the Department has taken on board the lessons learnt in the case of the city hospital, the design of which made staging impossible?
    Mr. Patten: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's three questions. The answer to the third is yes. Secondly, I agree with him about the desirability of looking at staged building plans for the hospital. Thirdly, we are intent on learning all the lessons that we can from some of the rather long drawn-out building sagas for hospitals in Northern Ireland.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures relating to farm incomes in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Adam Butler: In 1981–82 net incomes on Northern Ireland farms participating in the farm management survey recovered from the very low levels of the previous two years. Sharply improved average incomes were recorded in the eight farm types recognised in the survey. Taking the average of "all types", net income rose from as little as £2,801 in 1980–81 to £6,992 in 1981–82. This improvement brings incomes back to the 1977–78 level, in current money terms. In real terms they are only 63 per cent. of the 1977–78 level.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that agriculture is the basic industry of Northern Ireland and that welcome though those improvements are there is a long way to go, particularly in the livestock sector, before families can make a living?
    Mr. Butler: That is why the Government are ensuring that special aid from national funds and from the EC will be at least as great as it was last year.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister continue to do all that he can to counteract the fallacious impact of percentage increases on income that were recently published by emphasising the abnormally low base upon which those percentages were founded?
    Mr. Butler: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the figures gave a misleading impression by suggesting that farm incomes had gone up in Northern Ireland by 450 per cent. when the base on which that figure started was as little as the equivalent of £14 a week.

    Economic Co-operation
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals for closer econimic co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Adam Butler: There is already a considerable degree of economic co-operation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and there have been a number of bilateral ministerial meetings within the framework of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental council on economic issues of common concern. Within these arrangements there is day-to-day co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a wide range of economic matters, and I am confident that this will continue.
    Mr. Dubs: Can the Minister give some specific examples of how this co-operation is working and of what he sees as the longer-term basis for further and closer cooperation with the Republic?
    Mr. Butler: I can give the hon. Gentleman two examples. One is that under the umbrella of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental council there have been a dozen ministerial meetings since the council was set up in January 1982. A good example of the present co-operation is the possible purchase of Kinsale gas from the South.
    Mr. Soley: As the Government now accept that there is a need for growing interdependence across the border, is there not a strong case for setting up an all-Ireland economic development council, which would assist both parts of Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: The Government have not changed their policies. We have always seen that there are benefits from social, economic and cultural co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I do not subscribe to his view that there should be a full economic council as such. On the other hand, we hope, for instance, that the Anglo-Irish encounter organisation will be set up under the umbrella of the intergovernmental council, which will be a useful forum for discussion on these matters.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister agree that the most effective co-operation at the moment would be if the two Governments were to unite in sealing the border, which would stop the drain on the Department of Finance in Dublin caused by the Customs abuse across the border, and might also help to reduce the movement of terrorists at the same time?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member knows that he is suggesting something that is impracticable. As to security matters, the co-operation between the Garda and the security forces in the North is working well.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment statistics for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Adam Butler: The number of unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland on 10 February was 114,735—an unemployment rate of 20·6 per cent. This is a decrease of 1,465 from the previous month, and while the underlying trend was still upwards, I am glad to say that the figures showed some improvement in that regard.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does the Minister expect the unemployment figures in Northern Ireland to get better, or worse, during the next six months?
    Mr. Butler: I expect that Government efforts will continue to be devoted to doing their utmost to ensure that local industry is supported and that new companies are attracted from overseas so as to reduce, as far as possible, the present unacceptable level of unemployment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 10 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings, and will leave this evening for East Anglia.
    Mr. Canavan: Just in case the Prime Minister gets carried away with the idea of statutory elections and ballots in trades unions, how about democratising her own Cabinet instead of using her patronage powers to appoint non-elected placemen such as Lord Cockfield? Will she support my Bill to ballot the Anderson Strathclyde workers on the take-over bid by Charter Consolidated, in which Lord Cockfield certainly has a vested interest, even if we are not supposed to say that he is lining his pockets?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just remind the House that, although the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) may think that he is very clever, there is a long-established custom that hon. Members in this House do not abuse those in the other place and that they do not abuse hon. Members. I realise that the hon. Member did not actually do so, but he was not very clever to throw this back in my face.
    The Prime Minister: My Cabinet is excellent, and it is quite right that the Cabinet should contain a representative from the other place, through which Bills and measures have to go before receiving full assent and entering into the law of the land. As to Anderson Strathclyde, the decision by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade, which was the subject of his statement on 22 December, to allow the takeover to proceed has been upheld in the Divisional court. I see little merit in further discussing the issue. Charter Consolidated's revised bid is now a matter for shareholders of Anderson Strathclyde.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister consider that the occasion of Mr. Scargill's welcome third defeat would be the right moment for a wise leader to abandon the foolish plan to appoint Mr. MacGregor?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am delighted at the result of the miners' ballot, which seems to me the best result for the future of the coal industry, and therefore for the future of those who will work in it.
    Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider whether her present policy in Northern Ireland is such a conspicuous success that it is worth pursuing?
    The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make about the future of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks that the policy is being carried out with conspicuous success.
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sheerman: If the Prime Minister thinks that she has such a superb Cabinet—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and a certain number of sycophants on the Back Benches, will she consider the words of her right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who yesterday said that her Government lack the imagination and the will to tackle the utterly intolerable level of unemployment? Will the Prime Minister turn imagination and will to the problem of solving the lack of investment, stop using our oil wealth by running it away into the dole queue and invest it in Britain instead?
    The Prime Minister: There is only one way to achieve more jobs in this country. It requires imagination in the latest use of technology, using that to secure greater efficiency, and in excellent design—all of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is aware of and all of which he would support. It is not merely investment but productive investment that is required. Merely to ask for more investment will not necessarily be productive and could, in fact, place extra burdens on industry. This Government are going to get more productive investment, which must be used to bring a proper return on capital and proper, increased efficiency to industry.
    Mr. Nelson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable review just published by the Department of Defence in the United States of the significant new generation of advanced weaponry being developed by that country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to deter the use of such weapons, it is essential that the NATO countries should not only maintain their defence capability but should continue to demonstrate their mutual trust and loyalty?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We must maintain our defence capability. That is the policy of the Government. It is also, of course, the policy of the Government to be a true and trusted member of the Alliance and to continue research and development, which is equally important to maintaining our weapon capability.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the reply she gave me a week ago on unemployment? Does she not agree that, whereas all previous post-war Governments have been able to claim with justice that there were more jobs available at the end of their periods of office than at the beginning, this is the first Government who cannot make that claim? This is the Government who have destroyed 2 million jobs.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's original figures were quite right. If he looks—I speak from memory—he will see that the number of jobs decreased under one previous Labour Government. I believe it was the 1966 to 1970 Government, but I speak from memory.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady will find that her memory is at fault. She will also find that under no previous Government has the destruction of jobs been on anything like the scale that has occurred under this Government. Can she give any comparable figure at all? How many of those 2 million extra jobs lost were in Darlington? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady made a speech about real jobs in Darlington. Since then, 7,500 people have lost their jobs in the travel-to-work area of Darlington and south-west Durham.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must know that, even in nationalised industries, more modern methods have resulted in fewer people being able to produce a bigger output. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when he and I first came into politics 700,000 people were employed in mining. Today, there are just under 200,000. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he had to go to his constituents in Ebbw Vale and explain why the number of jobs in the steel industry was reduced. It is ridiculous to try to turn the clock back. We must have maximum efficiency and production, the latest equipment and the latest productivity to keep some of the industries in this country.
    Mr. Foot: Why, in that case, did the right hon. Lady promise more jobs in Darlington? What will she promise this time?
    The Prime Minister: More jobs will come from small businesses and new industries developing. It is no use the Opposition yowling about it. It is a fact. Other countries that have gradually got more jobs have a higher proportion of small businesses and self-employed than we do. It happens that under this Government we now have a record number of people who are self-employed. That is good news for the future.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the miners on the decision that they have just taken against a national coal strike? Will she go further and, in welcoming their decision and associating herself with their good sense and responsibility, seek to appoint as the new chairman of the National Coal Board a person who is acceptable to all sections of the coal industry, to ensure that this industry, which I have had the pleasure to represent, can continue to play its vital part in the energy policy and future of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I have already given my view that the result of the ballot is good news for the future of the coal industry. There is an extremely good future for the coal industry, as the Government have demonstrated by the amount that we have put into investment in coal. It is about £3 billion during the lifetime of this Government—twice as much as during the lifetime of the Labour Government. My concern for the coal industry, with an excellent future before it, is to secure the best management possible for the NCB.
    Mr. Stoddart: Has the right hon. Lady considered this morning what The Guardian today described as a stinging rebuff to her by the European assembly in deciding to confirm that it will go ahead with an investigation of affairs in Northern Ireland? Does she realise the implication for the future of what this mischievous and insolent assembly is doing? For example, when Spain comes into the Common Market—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—Just be quiet. When Spain comes into the
    950
    Common Market, will the assembly interfere in affairs between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar? Does she not realise that the warnings we have given from the Labour side of the House to the effect that this assembly would seek to extend its powers at the expense of this Parliament and, indeed, the British Government, were well justified?
    The Prime Minister: We have already made our view clear, which is that the European assembly has no business discussing the internal political affairs of a member state. I believe that the decision to produce a report on Northern Ireland will be widely resented throughout the United Kingdom. May I make clear that all six Conservative members of the political committee voted solidly against that proposal. I believe that one Labour member voted for it. We are absolutely against it. I make that clear.
    Mr. Raceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Race: Does the Prime Minister not realise that the creation of mass unemployment implies the creation of mass poverty? Does she not know that this year her Government have cut £610 million from benefits to retired people, £300 million from benefits to the sick and the disabled, £300 million from the benefits to the unemployed, £50 million from the benefits to widows and orphans and £150 million from benefits to families? When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind the phrase "Don't blame me, I'm only the Prime Minister"?
    The Prime Minister: It is not a phrase that I have ever used. May I add to what the hon. Gentleman stated by saying that in the four pension upratings since this Government took office the pension has increased—[Interruption.] Pensions are benefits. The pension has increased by 68·5 per cent. During that period the retail prices index rose by 64 per cent. and the pensioners' prices index by less. We have put up pensions by more than the cost of living. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to putting up each pension by that amount, there are now about 600,000 more pensioners than at the time when the Labour Government left office. Their pensions have also had to be funded by payments of national insurance contributions.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that President Reagan is made aware of the astonishment of most people in this country and, I think, in the House, at the proposal of the Americans to resume the shipment of arms to Argentina before that country has declared an end to hostilities with Great Britain, before there has been an accounting for the abduction, torture and killing of vast numbers of people, including British subjects and Community citizens, and before the restoration of democratic Government in Argentina?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have already made our views known and hope that those shipments will not be resumed until Argentina has declared a permanent cessation of hostilities, which it has not yet done.
    Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Prime Minister agree that when local authority services are privatised, employees should have the right to form co-operatives or companies so as to be able to tender to have the opportunity to run those services?
    The Prime Minister: If they were able to do so, I think that it would have to be wholly outside their own duties. If they were to form companies wholly outside their duties it would be a matter for the local authority to consider.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 MARcH—Consideration of the following Estimates: Class XIII, Vote 23, stationery and printing supplies to Parliament; Class II, Vote 10, overseas aid.
Second Reading of the Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill.
The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes and Supplementary Estimates.
TUESDAY 15 MARCH—My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
European Community documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 16 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 17 MARcH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 18 MARCH—Private Member's motions.
MONDAY 21 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget Statement.
[Documents cited as relevant to Budget debate and relevant reports of European Legislation Committee:

10337/82

Annual Economic Report 1982–83

10480/82

Annual Economic Review 1982–83

See HC 34-iv (1982–83) paragraph 7

and HC 34-xi (1982–83) paragraph 4]

Mr. Foot: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has announced other business for next week, but I remind him that we are still awaiting the fulfilment of the promise he made for a debate on disarmament. We are still awaiting the fulfilment of his promise for a debate on the second Brandt report. We are also waiting for a debate on the Anderson Strathclyde and Charter Consolidated matter, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) a few moments ago. We shall return to these demands immediately after the Budget.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about an even more urgent matter, in view of the reports that have appeared in the newspapers over the last day or two about Ravenscraig and the renewed threat to work there. Opposition Members believe that the Government are committed to maintaining Ravenscraig. We believe that the Government may have taken action to override what Mr. MacGregor wanted in that respect. We are committed, and we want no weakening or departure from that commitment. I understand that there is to be a statement about the British Steel Corporation's strategic plan next week. May we be assured that it will be made in the House of Commons so that we may have a proper chance to cross-examine the Government about Ravenscraig and all the other steelworks?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise that there is interest in all parts of the House in any decision that affects the British Steel Corporation, Ravenscraig, and the corporate plan. I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about the
954
desirability of a statement being made, and I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is made aware of that point.
On the other three matters on which the right hon. Gentleman requests debates, I cannot say any more now than I said last week. I hope that I can satisfy him on two. On the third, Anderson Strathclyde, I can do no more than repeat what I said last week. Perhaps we can all wait and centre our attention on the Private Member's Bill that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will introduce.
Mr. George Cunningham: Has the Leader of the House considered carefully the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill that is being put forward by the Government, which proposes to enlarge the discretion of local authorities to spend money as they please? In the light of the fact that some local authorities, with Islington in the lead, are using public money for party political purposes, and that the Leader of the Opposition in a letter to me has refused to condemn that practice, will the Leader of the House give up his previous intention of sending this highly controversial Bill to a Second Reading Committee so that the whole matter can be properly examined on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I would like to look at that.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless share the sense of shock, disappointment and dismay that has been caused on both sides of the House by the recent outbreaks of racial intolerance and tribal warfare in Assam, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. He will be aware that those unhappy events call into question most fundamentally the criteria for membership of the Commonwealth. Is it not time that we had a chance to debate these matters?
Mr. Biffen: The points raised by my hon. Friend are of fundamental importance. I only regret that I cannot find Government time for such a debate next week.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the Leader of the House looked at early-day motion 368?
[That this House believes that, before money is given away in this year's Budget, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer should return money taken from some of the least well-off in society in recent years and, in particular, those affected by the Social Security Acts of 1980 and 1981, which according to a Written Answer on 18th November 1982 Official Report, columns 281–2, have cut the current year's social security budget by £1,410 million made up of: (a) ending of earning link for pensions and long-term benefits at £500 million, (b) deferring the 1980 uprating by two weeks at £100 million, (c) the cuts in the 1980 (No. 2) Act of 5 per cent. off short-term benefits, freezing the pensioners' earnings rule, changes to waiting days, abolition of earnings-related supplements, abatement of unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners and changes in supplementary benefit payments to families of strikers at £500 million, (d) clawback of 1 per cent. in all benefits in 1981 at £200 million and (e) four other measures not requiring primary legislation at £110 million; and notes that the people affected by this £1,410 million cut fall into the following broad categories: (i) elderly £610 million, (ii) sick and disabled £300 million, (iii) unemployed £300 million, (iv) widows and orphans

955
£50 million and (v) families £150 million, who would not generally be those who would benefit from the substantial tax concessions referred to by commentators in the pre-Budget period.]
Will he draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointing out the substantial cuts that were made in the benefits to the unemployed, the pensioners and the disabled? Will he make it quite clear that before there is any talk of a giveaway Budget those cuts should be restored, because the people involved would not benefit from any alterations to income tax?
Mr. Biffen: As the terms of the early-day motion refer specifically to the Budget, I should have thought that next week would provide endless opportunities for a debate on that topic.
Sir Peter Mills: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention early-day motion 354 entitled "Commonwealth Day"?
[That this House, conscious of the unique character of the Commonwealth which brings together in voluntary association 1,000 million people of diverse races, cultures and religions belonging to 47 nations, devoted to the rule of law, hereby supports the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in its endeavours to foster understanding and co-operation between parliaments; and wishes to be associated with all other Commonwealth parliaments in the observance of Commonwealth Day on 14th March.]
As the day approaches and we have 25 distinguished Commonwealth parliamentarians with us in the seminar, will he seek an early debate on the Commonwealth, and particularly the Government's future position in that regard, to ensure that more encouragement is given to the Commonwealth and to assist it in the light of some of the present difficulties and problems throughout the world?
Mr. Biffen: Alas, I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time on the Commonwealth. In the context of Commonwealth day, any such debate would be incomplete if it did not bear testimony to the tremendous work that my hon. Friend has undertaken in that cause, and the affection in which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is held in all parts of the House.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House be a little more forthcoming about the Estimates debates on Monday? Is it not a fact that the Liaison Committee has recommended debates on the Turks and Caicos Islands and Stationery Office printing supplies for this House. In his statement he transposed those debates. Can he confirm that they will be taken in the recommended order? Will he say something about the time span of each debate?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that, when the Votes are translated into language that we can all readily understand, they are exactly on the topics that he mentions. After appropriate consultation, it was decided that it would be more sensible to take them in the order that is now proposed. The time available will be roughly equally divided.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about the misuse of ratepayers' money for political purposes by Labour-controlled councils, not least
956
in Cambridge? Will he also consider the desirability, on this of all days, of having a debate on the importance of secret ballots?
Mr. Biffen: I thought: that the reply that I gave was measured and moderately forthcoming. I do not think that I can go further than that.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that we shall have an early discussion on the implications for freedom of speech and freedom of association of the recent injunctions against the Greenham Common women?
Mr. Biffen: I regret that I can offer no such opportunity in Government time next week.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As there has been speculation, at least in the press, that the Government may raise the level of tax relief on mortgages, would it be wise for the House to debate that issue? Clearly that cannot affect the Budget judgments, but it would be against Tory principles. To raise the level of exemptions for stamp duty would be far more sensible. We should have a chance to express our views on that before my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor puts forward his view in the Budget.
Mr. Biffen: I should have thought that those points would be as well made in the Budget debate as before. There are many precedents for the initial Budget judgments being adjusted in the light of the Budget debate.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read early-day motion 366?
[That this House notes the announcement of the Liverpool Labour Party that, if it gains a majority in the elections in May it will attempt to close all church schools in the city; condemns this proposal as further evidence of the extreme position of the Labour Party in Liverpool; regards their move as disruptive and damaging to those schools affected; reminds the Liverpool Labour Party of their obligations under the Education Act 1944; recognises the superb contribution and the high levels of academic excellence of the church schools; condemns the Labour Party's failure to consult the church authorities before issuing this irresponsible and divisive document; and pledges its determination to safe-guard religious freedom in the United Kingdom.]
It has been signed by Members on both sides of the House and relates to the announcement that was made earlier this week by the Liverpool Labour party that, given the opportunity, it will abolish church schools in the city. Will the right hon. Gentleman draw that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement on the wasteful expenditure by Newbury district council in going to the High Court to obtain an injunction to prevent the women of Greenham Common from demonstrating? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Attorney-General to make a statement on the way in which the court was closed to the public and the sentences that were passed, which, in effect, prevented free speech? It is important that the Greenham Common peace women should be protected against such vicious action through the state apparatus.
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps the ratepayers of Newbury can be left to judge whether their council acted with prudence or otherwise. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's other points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend seen the series of written answers this week in which the Department of the Environment has made clear the steady and worrying increase in nitrate levels in public water supples? In view of the health implications of that, particularly for babies, do the Government plan to make a statement and what action do they intend to take, particularly as the increase stems partly from the increased use of nitrate fertilisers and increased cereal production?
Mr. Biffen: I should be the first to acknowledge that my hon. Friend has raised a matter of real and central importance. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. John Roper: I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the debates on the two Estimates on Monday. Will the Leader of the House help us further on this important matter because it will be the first time that the new procedure has been used? As three hours have been made available for the debate on the two Estimates, if the debate on Class XIII—stationery and printing supplies to Parliament—were not to take up an hour and a half, would there be more time for the second debate?
Mr. Biffen: That is so.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the case for a debate on competition policy? That would allow a consideration of some of the results of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Many people would welcome the opportunity to know whether the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports have lived up to their criterion and expectations of enhancing the degree of competition that is supposed to be provided by the fair trading legislation.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will concede at once that the Department of Trade was recently the subject of a debate, although it inevitably concentrated
958
upon aviation, shipping and trading interests. I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I cannot offer any prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House find time for the House to discuss the important issue of Government aid and stimulation for small businesses and co-operatives? Is he aware that many hon. Members wish to debate that subject? Will he consider that, in view of the fact that last year the Japanese spent £2 billion on small businesses while we spent £1,500 million?
Mr. Biffen: The small business sector is an integral part of the Government's industrial policy. Therefore, it would be relevant to the debate on the Budget resolutions.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If not next week, will my right Friend try to find time for a debate on the way that the Independent Broadcasting Authority operates, bearing in mind that on the one hand it allows a programme to take place which enable enemies of the state—the IRA—to put over their views, while on the other hand the advertising scrutiny committee prevents the promotion of the "Buy British" campaign? Is there not an anomaly there, and will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a debate on that important issue?
Mr. Biffen: I do not deny that the issues are important, although I do not share my hon. Friend's anxieties about the behaviour of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. However, there is no prospect of such a debate in the near future in Government time.
Mrs. Renee Short: May I support the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a debate on disarmament at the earliest opportunity, particularly in view of the British Medical Association's recent report on the medical effects of nuclear warfare? When I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment recently what discussions he is initiating with local authorities in the light of that report, he said that he was not because it has not been formally published. Are we to wait for the report to be formally published before we have any discussions in the House on that crucial matter?
Mr. Biffen: The Budget has intervened in the normal process of major parliamentary debates, but I hope that a debate on disarmament will soon take place.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
3.46 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1982–83 Spring Supplementary Estimates and the 1983–84 Vote on account of Northern Ireland Departments.
Part I of the schedule to the draft order describes the supplementary provisions sought. Those amount to some £62 million. The Spring Supplementary Estimates represent the final adjustments to the spending plans for 1982–83. Those, together with the main Estimates for 1982–83, which were approved by the House in July last year, and the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, which were approved in December, bring the total voted provision for expenditure by Northern Ireland Departments for this financial year to £2,581 million.
Part II of the schedule gives details of the services for which the Vote on account of £1,139 million for 1983–84 is required to enable services to continue in the Province until the 1983–84 main estimates are debated and, we hope, approved—usually in July. I should point out that the sums required on account are not indicative of expenditure plans for 1983–84 but are based on a standard and perfectly normal calculation of 45 per cent. of the total provision for the current 1982–83 financial year. It is important that this crowded Chamber should realise that. However, the final Estimates for 1983–84 will be framed within the total already determined by the Government and set out in the White Paper on public expenditure that was published last month.
Before I deal with the various services in the order I should like to comment on Government policy as it is reflected in the provisions of the order. First, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the plans for 1983–84 he emphasised the basic strategy that underlies the Government's policy in Northern Ireland. Moreover, he reaffirmed that our overall priority in Northern Ireland was the protection of property and the attainment of peace in the community. I know that all hon. Members present will share those aims. That overall priority is amply reflected in our allocation for law and order and the protection service programme in the Province.
Given that overriding priority, we must not sit back and let economic and social recovery and change happen by themselves. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimates demonstrate our second priority, as do our plans for the financial year 1983–84 for which the Vote on account is required, which is industrial development and regeneration by the provision and protection of viable long-term jobs, leading to sustained growth.
As the House knows, the Government have determined national policies that are aimed at controlling inflation and public expenditure, especially public sector borrowing. Northern Ireland must operate within the national stategy. The newly formed industrial development board and the local enterprise development unit are in the forefront of the difficult and trying task of stimulating job creation. The industrial development board is engaged in deciding how
960
best to develop its strategy for the future. I am certain that the allocations to the programme will ensure that the funds necessary to sustain our drive to provide and protect viable jobs will be available to those who wish to make use of them.
I have already referred to the industrial development strategy that we are pursuing. A substantial part of the additional provision now being sought for 1982–83 is for that purpose. However, should also like to remind the House briefly about the success of the Government's substantial programme of special training and employment measures. The primary aim has been to provide comprehensive training and work experience for young people and to attempt to offer those who cannot find jobs a real alternative to the dole queue. We believe that it is only right to devote considerable resources to programmes of training and work experience for school leavers arid for other young people who might otherwise have to wait some time before getting any work experience. One has only to visit such places as Strabane to see how desperately needed such programmes are. The youth training programme is now operational in Northern Ireland—a full year ahead of the rest of the country. In 1983–84, we expect to spend about £55 million on it. the programme represents a major development in youth training in the Province, which will form a bridge between school and work.
What is the use of all the money spent on youth employment and youth work experience and what are all the endeavours of the industrial development board worth in the face of the destructive activities of terrorists in the Province? Just as terrorists murder and maim people, they murder jobs that already exist in the Province and they murder jobs that might come to the Province but which are inhibited from coming by the image of the Province. The terrorists maim the lives of thousands and thousands of young people who do not get the employment that they would otherwise have. Terrorists from both sides of the divide bear a heavy responsibility for the murder of jobs in the Province in that way.
Our third priority area in Northern Ireland is housing.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: How many new jobs does the Minister expect to create and how many existing jobs does he expect to save with the extra money that is being provided for the industrial development board?
Mr. Patten: Those are matters with which my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for the Department of Economic Development will deal with at some length in his winding-up speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until my hon. Friend deals with that matter.
The increased provision that is now being sought for housing must be seen in the context of the substantial increase in resources that have already been allocated to housing this year. Those increases flow directly from the priority that the Government have afforded to housing in Northern Ireland as a deliberate act of policy. The House will know from statements by successive Northern Ireland Ministers that housing conditions in Northern Ireland, especially in some parts of Belfast, are among the worst in the United Kingdom. However, there has been a major drive, which began under the Labour Administration, to alleviate the Province's housing problems.
To give effect to that priority, the Government and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive have agreed on a

961
physical strategy that calls for enhanced levels of activity on new house building, improvements to the existing stock and house renovation grants. The high levels of expenditure on maintenance and support for the voluntary housing movement, which is extremely important in Northern Ireland, will continue.
As we are not yet at the end of the first year of the strategy, it is too early to measure its effects, but those of us who travel around Northern Ireland have seen the impact on the ground, especially in west Belfast. I witnessed that impact in the lower Falls road area last week where the standard of new housing provided by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is of extremely high quality and compares well with that found on this side of the water. There is a significant increase in the number of schemes on site for the provision of new and improved homes. That high level of physical activity is reflected in increases in expenditure. Total expenditure on housing in Northern Ireland, including capital works that are not funded from the Vote, will show an increase of some £50 million over 1981–82.
Against that background, the Supplementary Estimate seeks an increase of almost £9 million for housing services. The major requirement for the increased provision are the housing grant, which meets the difference between the Housing Executive's rental income and approved revenue expenditure, and support for the voluntary housing movement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said that those high levels of expenditure will continue into 1983–84 to sustain the drive towards better housing conditions. I am sure that the House appreciates the benefits that that will bring, not only to housing, its quality and the quality of family life in the Province, but to the Northern Ireland construction industry.
I should now like to deal with the major items in the draft order one by one. I shall do that against the picture that I have already painted of our three expenditure priorities. It has been said that making a speech on the highly technical appropriation order interesting is as difficult as setting a list from Crockford's Clerical Directory to music or making a laundry list into an interesting screenplay. That may be the view of some hon. Members, but the programme is of extreme importance to the people of the Province and I make no apology for speaking at some length and in some detail about the Appropriation order and its provisions.
On the subject of the economy, it is right to underline the continuing emphasis on agriculture. The provision sought in Class I, Vote 2, relates to the EC calf premium scheme under which Northern Ireland farmers are expected to benefit to the extent of between £8 million and £9 million in both the current financial year and in 1983–84. Of that, more than £6 million will be paid in 1983–84. The provision required is only a token, because the amounts to be paid will be received from the European Community. I am pleased to inform the House that special aid to Northern Ireland agriculture, which operated in 1981–82 and in the current financial year, will continue in 1983–84. A total of £12 million will be allocated, mainly to the beef, milk, pig and poultry sectors and will assist the seed potato growers, about whom there is considerable anxiety in Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for
962
Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is worried about them—and improve the quality of grassland, which we discussed in the debate on an Appropriation order in December.
In addition, farmers in Northern Ireland will benefit by about £3 million in 1983–84 from the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme and by about £1 million from European Community aid for the feeding stuffs project. Altogether, the Northern Ireland farming industry will continue to receive special assistance in 1983–84 from national and Community funds amounting to at least £22 million, or about the same as was available in the current financial year. I hope that that aid, together with improved returns from the market, will further strengthen confidence in the industry and enable Northern Ireland farmers to obtain reasonable incomes in 1983–84. I stress the words "reasonable incomes" in view of some newspapers headlines in the Province during the past two weeks that were discussed at Question Time today.
Mr. Clive Soley: Has the Minister considered the suggestion by the trade unions of building a grain intervention store? That would have advantages for many other industries.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering those matters. We take seriously the suggestions of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. I have already demonstrated in my introductory remarks about housing the boost that additional housing activity can give to the construction industry in Northern Ireland, where it is much welcomed.
The supplementary provision of £634,000 for Class I, Vote 5, on forestry, is required for the purchase of land, together with increased salaries expenditure and the cost of additional projects.
Dealing with industry, I draw hon. Members' attention to the highly technical nature of the net additional requirement of about £20·5 million under Class II, Vote 2, which deals with general support to industry. Part II of the Estimate provides the necessary subhead details. Hon. Members will recall the establishment last September of the industrial development board as an arm of the Department of Economic Development with the absorption into that board of the functions of the former Northern Ireland Development Agency. Under the rules of Government accounting, the agency's debt to the Consolidated Fund must be extinguished by an appropriate payment to the Fund by the industrial development board. The provision of about £5·5 million at subhead A9 is for that purpose. A similar position arises from the decision to restructure the package of financial assistance for the Lear Fan project, which was mentioned at Question Time. Details of the revised scheme have been given to the House, and are recorded in the Official Report for 8 December 1982.
One element of the revised package provided for additional loan funding and for the waiving of repayment of earlier loans, and £14 million of the additional £18 million provided under subhead Al for loan assistance relates directly to the Lear Fan project. The waiving of the repayment of earlier loans can be achieved technically only by paying to the company an amount of grant equal to its indebtedness so that it can pay off Government loans. The provision made at subhead A3 for that purpose has no public expenditure significance.
The additional funding of about £6·8 million required under Class II, Vote 3, is attributable mainly to the effect

963
in Northern Ireland of the Government's decision to abolish the four-month moratorium on the payment of capital investment grants. Again, that has provided a welcome cash injection for the manufacturing sector, and has provided some benefits to the construction industry.
Under Clause II, Vote 5, a token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 is being sought simply to draw attention to three new areas of expenditure that will be funded by the switching of projected savings from other areas within the overall labour market vote. The new services are youth community projects, the job splitting scheme and employer-based schemes. The provision of £800,000 for youth community projects at sub-head A8, and of £1·9 million for employer-based schemes at sub-head C8, form part of the overall youth training programme within which we have expanded the range of schemes available further to enhance the opportunities for 16 and 17-year olds to be trained in a working environment.
Employers in Northern Ireland are playing an active role in supporting the youth training programme by undertaking and managing programmes for full-time trainees. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are very grateful to employers in Northern Ireland for playing such a full and wholehearted role in the schemes. The programmes will meet fully the criteria for the youth training programme by providing a combination of training and work experience in a realistic environment—the workplace. They add into it the necessary element of further education. The Department of Economic Development is funding both the allowances to trainees and the costs of training. The introduction of the youth community projects scheme is intended to give 17-year olds the opportunity to gain realistic work experience.
The new provision of £70,000 at sub-head A9 for the job splitting scheme parallels the arrangements already operating in Great Britain. I commend the scheme to employers in the Province, who may find some advantage in the arrangements. I hope that they will encourage it. We hope to encourage them to support it by providing their initial expenses. We shall offer a once-and-for-all grant of £750 for each job split in that way. Applications under the scheme will be accepted until 31 March 1984 and we hope that employers will take the opportunities that it presents.
The necessary funding for the new services and for increases in other support arrangements to counter unemployment has been found by switching resources from other sub-heads in the Vote, as detailed in part II of the Estimate. We must continually review services and provisions and reassess our position.
The key workers' scheme and the training on employers' premises scheme have received fewer applications than expected, which reflects the economic difficulties faced by industry. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme has been drawn on to a lesser extent than was originally forecast, and there have been fewer applications under the job release scheme to facilitate earlier retirement in the Province. Those schemes are all demand-related and it is difficult to forecast the exact take-up in such schemes. We have also made savings in capital expenditure and in the operation of Government training centres without a reduction in activity. That is good news. The changeover to new management training arrangements has also provided some savings this year. However, at the same time we have increased the
964
resources for the major counter-unemployment measure—the action for community employment scheme—by about £2 million, and have given an additional £250,000 to the young workers' scheme. The additional provision for Enterprise Ulster has enabled redundancies to be avoided. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) expressed anxiety about the scheme.
Energy matters are discussed in Class III of the Estimates. Negotiations with the Republic of Ireland on the terms under which natural gas from the Kinsale field could be made available to Northern Ireland are continuing. There are, however, a number of areas of difficulty and these require further exploration before a final decision can be taken and agreement reached. The proposals that have been discussed already provide that the delivery cost of the gas from the south to the north should be met partly by a capital contribution of £5 million towards expenditure incurred by the Republic of Ireland in constructing a pipeline from the field to the border of the United Kingdom. Provision for this amount was included in Vote I to cover the eventuality of agreement being reached and some payment being made in the present financial year, but I must report to the House that it would be unrealistic of me at this stage to suggest that the prospects of such payment are other than slim before the end of this financial year.
Moving from the economy to environmental matters, the House will see that in Class IV, Vote 1—Roads Services—an additional provision of £3·4 million is being sought, partly for new construction and improvement and partly for operation and maintenance.
A sum of £1·3 million is required for additional expenditure on the construction of roads and bridges, which increases the estimated provision for the whole of the year to £28 million. These funds are needed largely to meet the costs of the final resurfacing of certain roads throughout Northern Irelard and to enable a number of priority works to be started. The high quality and the good network of roads in the Province is something of which I feel the Government can be proud. Indeed, it is something that is envied in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Abnormal weather conditions during the winter of 1981–82, however, not surprisingly caused severe damage to the road network in the Province and therefore we have had to increase the volume of maintenance work. Consequently, there is an additional £2·1 million included to supplement the maintenance programme so that the cost of making good the worst of the effects of that winter can be defrayed. So the estimated provision for operation and maintenance is increased to £38·7 million.
I have already referred to the housing programme generally, which I think has been a marked success, particularly in urban areas in the Province, in recent years. However, a net increase of nearly £9 million is being sought in the provision for housing services and this can be attributed to three things. The first is an increase in the annual housing grant payable to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The grant is, of course, payable to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to meet the difference between its rental income and approved revenue expenditure. The second is the increase in the level of renovation grants, and that will surely be welcomed by all Members of this House who hold seats in Northern Ireland. The third factor is additional support for the voluntary housing movement.

965
The Housing Executive has been faced with an unprecedented increase in demand for, and the costs of, repairs and maintenance and it has had to take positive action to keep expenditure as close to its budget as possible by in recent weeks excluding all but emergency repair work.
Mr. Soley: How on earth can the Minister describe his housing policy as a marked success when it would take at least another 500 new starts in this year to keep pace with the present level of unfitness and when half the construction workers in the Province are unemployed? How on earth is that a marked success?
Mr. Patten: I have already pointed out to the House the increased amounts spent on housing in recent years. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, who I know has visited Northern Ireland on several occasions in recent years, just to reflect on the difficulties of rebuilding, particularly in dense urban areas, and of rehousing those who have to move out of redeveloped areas sometimes into temporary accommodation before being moved back into their own properties. These difficulties are made even greater by the fact that the policy of the responsible Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), has been to stop large-scale new developments, to stop the building, in most circumstances, of large housing estates, and instead to go in for what people in the Province seem to want—the rehabilitation and rebuilding of areas within the communities within which individuals live. I believe that particularly in Belfast we can see the success of that policy.
Mr. Soley: We all know what the difficulties are, but what the hon. Gentleman is claiming to be a marked success is, in fact, a deterioration in the overall standard, because we are facing an unfitness level such that to keep up with the present level of unfitness would require 500 new starts. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?
Mr. Patten: This really will not do. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the censuses for Northern Ireland in 1971 and 1981 to see the considerable improvement in the housing stock that occurred during that period, thanks to the efforts of both Labour and Conservative Administrations. To take just one example the proportion of people in Northern Ireland in 1971 who had to share a bathroom was 27 per cent. of the total populatin. That had been reduced by 1981 to only 9 per cent. and the percentage is decreasing fast. Great strides have been made.
Returning to the Housing Executive and some of the problems which it has been facing, I must point out that there is always a gap in time between placing orders for repair work and accounts falling due. Consequently, despite the efforts of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the corrective action it has taken, there is a need, I am afraid, for increased funds this year. We accept that the nature of maintenance expenditure creates unexpected difficulties for the executive. None the less—and I wish to emphasise this—we feel that its system of financial planning should be reviewed so that it may be able to predict more accurately in future the level and costs of maintenance demands in the Province, particularly in urban areas.
966
As far as house renovation grants are concerned, an additional £2 million is being sought. These grants form an increasingly important part of that element of the Government's housing strategy, which is aimed at reducing levels of unfitness in the housing stock—the point just raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). The level of expenditure on grants is an expression of the Government's commitment to the principle of self-help, which is needed to supplement high levels of direct works by the public sector agencies. The increasing demand for grants indicates the success of this policy and is reflected in the need for increased provision.
I should like to turn now to the subject of housing associations, where an additional provision of £5·4 million is being sought to meet the increased cost of schemes already on site which have progressed more quickly than planned because of the exceptionally fine summer weather last year, and to respond to the public demand for participation in the equity-sharing scheme that is operated by the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association.
The voluntary housing movement, like the voluntary sector generally in Northern Ireland, has an enormous capacity, some of which is developed and some of which seems capable of being infinitely further developed. As soon as the voluntary sector is asked to do something in partnership with Government it seems to respond.
It has demonstrated an ample capacity to respond to increases in resources, which it spends to great effect in refurbishing inner city areas in Belfast and in providing suitable accommodation for different groups such as the elderly, the disabled, the mentally handicapped and other groups whose housing, whether refurbished or newly built, requires specialist provision and particular forms of management. It is gratifying to know that the movement has pushed ahead with such projects. The Government are matching voluntary efforts with resources.
One of the movement's outstanding successes has been the pioneering work of the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association. It has been in the vanguard in the United Kingdom as a whole in promoting part ownership and part rent housing schemes for those unable to take the full step to home ownership. The co-ownership scheme as pioneered in the Province has demonstrated a strong, heightened desire for home ownership. I am sure that no one would disagree with the contention that there is nothing wrong with the desire to own one's home. Demand continues at a high level, and the construction industry has responded quickly to the stimulus. It is expected that by the end of the financial year about 2,000 applicants will have benefited from the scheme.
Hon. Members will have noted that, for the first time, some provision is being sought for Northern Ireland's share of the costs of the national exchange scheme and the national mobility scheme, which were extended to the Province in October 1982. The Government expect the schemes to make a valuable contribution towards mobility of public sector tenants, and will also help waiting list applicants.
Other areas of social expenditure must be considered, such as education services. The supplementary provisions totalling £2·9 million sought in Class VIII, Votes 1 and 2, relate mainly to increased costs arising from the awards made in 1982 to school teachers and further education teachers. But provision is also being sought in Vote 2 to fund the increased number of further education lecturers

967
needed to meet the needs of the expanding youth training programme—that must be a good thing—and the latest recommendations of the University Grants Committee.
I know that hon. Members are aware of the importance that we attach to the youth training programme, and the education contribution to that is significant and substantial. The education services are now providing 3,500 full-time places in addition to offering educational support through day release schemes to other participants in the programme.
It is important that such resources available to the education service in the Province should be spent wisely. That is not to say that the money already being spent is not the pursuit of providing some of the best education in any part of the United Kindgom. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that point from time to time, both in the Province and in this Chamber. At the same time, we must ensure that money is put to the best possible use where it is most effective, which is in the classrooms.
The Government will continue to press those directly responsible for school provision—the five education and library boards and the voluntary school authorities—to examine carefully and urgently the rationalisation of existing school stock where that appears to be necessary because of demographic trends. Forgetting the deathless prose, we must consider which schools must be closed and in which areas.
It is now almost two years since the Department of Education and Science published its planning paper called "Schools and Demographic Trends." It asked school authorities to initiate immediate consideration of how the school provision for which they were responsible could be rationalised—such as by school closures, school amalgamations and by paying careful attention to the rural areas and areas served by poor transport facilities. I can only delicately describe the response to that request as disappointing. That is the strongest language that I shall allow myself to use. Last November the Department wrote again to school authorities pointing out that the effects of falling rolls continued to be a serious problem for many schools. It asked them to give further and urgent consideration to plans for the rationalisation of school provision. We are convinced that that is absolutely essential if the high standards of education in the Province are to be maintained.
Mr. Soley: How does the Minister expect to maintain high standards when the book and practice material allowance for pupils has fallen by between £3 and £9 per pupil in 1982 compared with 1979?
Mr. Patten: I do not deny that there has been some rejigging of the provision. However, part of that has been caused because there are more schools in the Province than are required. Considerable Government expenditure is being wasted—I choose my words carefully—in providing schools that simply are not needed. Under no circumstances can we imagine that, with the present demographic trends in the Province, all schools existing today should exist next year or the year after that. To use a coal mining analogy, do we say that every coal mine open today must be kept open tomorrow?
We cannot have schools that are too small and do not provide an adequate number of forms to enable pupils, especially sixth formers, to develop. Part of the answer to
968
the problem is that rationalisation has not taken place sufficiently quickly. If it had, resources could be switched to classrooms where they were really needed.
The Government remain convinced that rationalisation is essential. In the primary sector most schools have already experienced the effects of the fall in the number of births. While there has been some sign of a slight upturn in those numbers during the past two or three years, it is too early to make with any confidence predictions about any substantial increase in primary school enrolments in 10 or 12 years.
We shall continue to attach importance to the provision of adequate numbers of teachers in Northern Ireland. But it is essential that the school authorities attach equal importance to the use of those teachers in the best possible way. That is only common sense. There is no doubt that small schools require proportionately more teaching resources than larger schools. Where larger units can be achieved by rationalisation, there will be not only more efficient use of teachers, but better opportunities for children.
I wish to deal now with health and social
services—
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is there any provision in the Supplementary Estimates for implementing the recommendations of the Thompson report?
Mr. Patten: That is being actively considered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He will write to the hon. Gentleman with a full answer in the usual way.
The provision that the Government are making for health and personal social services in the coming year will not only meet forecast pay and price increases but will allow for some expansion of services. Health and social services boards are being asked in addition to secure efficiency savings amounting to 0·5 per cent. of their budgets, and these savings, I emphasise, will not be taken away from them but will be redirected into new and necessary developments in the services. From new money and savings, about 1·5 per cent. should be available for developments and growth in services. This will be used to bring new facilities into operation and to expand provision for community care for the elderly, the handicapped and children at risk or in trouble.
We are putting considerable emphasis on the effective use of these substantial resources and the efficient management of the services which they include. We have had a thorough review in the Province of the structure and management of services. It is nearing completion. Its essential aim is to delegate day-to-day decisions to the operational level, involving clinicians in particular, rather more in management decisions, freeing chief officers to concentrate upon policy, planning and monitoring and at the same time to reduce management costs. That is not something that we are simply asking the four health and social services boards in the Provinces themselves to do; we are also asking the Department of Health and Social Services in the coming financial year to pay equally stringent attention to efficiency savings.
In 1983–84 I shall be starting a series of accountability reviews with the chairmen and chief officers of the boards to discuss progress and the problems that they face, on the basis of a newly developed set of performance indicators at which we are looking. All that is not to stifle the boards' activities or over-emphasise efficiency; it is to ensure, in a more systematic way than perhaps hitherto, that the

969
taxpayer receives value for money from the sizeable investment which is made in the health services in particular in the Province. Over £400 per annum is being spent on health and personal social services for every man, woman and child in the Province.
I have described at some length and in some detail most of the main objectives of Government policies across the economic spectrum. I have highlighted, where I can, some of the positive indicators for the future. However, industry, commerce and agriculture do not exist in a vacuum. They are not immune from the effects of political trends or the state of security, although both those issues are not the subject of this debate.
This is an important order, and I commend it to the House.
4.33 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: It is hard to find words that have not been used before to describe the state of the Northern Ireland economy. However, whatever we say, the Northern Ireland economy has been a damning indictment of the Government's economic policy and an awful warning to the people of this country should we continue down that road.
The Minister said rightly that the paramilitary activities had sought at times to undermine business confidence in the Province. That is true. We all know that some of the paramilitary groups set out with that as one of their aims. I agree with everything he said not just in describing it, but in condemning it.
However, the Government's economic policy has destroyed far more jobs than all the paramilitary groups together. We are talking about a male unemployment rate of 26·7 per cent.—a quarter of the male work force. How on earth can any Government justify that? How on earth can they say that they have an economic policy that is working?
We are in danger of becoming repetitive if we continue to say that the Northern Ireland economy is in a critical condition. I am not the only one who stands at the Dispatch Box from time to time and says that. The Northern Ireland CBI said it again recently. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Committee have said it and issued a useful document showing a way out of the troubles. The SDLP has said it, and at various times in the past the Unionist parties as well as parties representing the nationlist community have spoken to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and other hon. Members who have gone over there and said that the Northern Ireland economy was in dire and terrible straits.
We are talking about virtually 21 per cent. of the insured working population being unemployed, and 30,000 more people being on the dole than are working in manufacturing industry. Whether or not the recovery is coming, either in the world or the British economy, even Ministers have at times acknowledged that they cannot be sure that Northern Ireland will ever be able to pull itself out of the recession given the damage that has been done to its economy, particularly in the past four years.
Speaking in the Northern Ireland assembly about a month ago, Lord Gowrie, said:
"The ultimate answer to"
the Province's economic
970
"weaknesses does not lie in ever increasing public expenditure. It lies in promoting basic structural change, achieving a fair settlement of political difficulties, getting the cancer of violence out of the system, attracting investment and activity and thus reducing gradually our over-dependence on a level of public spending which in the long term is very damaging to sustain."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Assembly; 16 February 1983; Vol. 5, p. 334.]
There are elements of truth in what he said. What is fundamentally missing is any sign of significant attention being paid to how public expenditure can be used to pull an economy out of recession at a time of rapid technological and structural change.
The Minister directed most of his remarks, as Lord Gowrie has done at other times, to the problem of public expenditure. We all know about the problem of public expenditure on law and order, but the one subject to which Ministers never pay any attention, either when they are dealing with Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole, is the incredible burden of mass unemployment on public expenditure. It is a failure to do anything about it which is the damning indictment of the Government's economic policy.
We all know that pouring money, whether public or private, into certain areas of the economy will not necessarily help. We know that it is more difficult than it has been in the past to identify such areas, but we know that we need to pour money into areas that do not suck in imports but which encourage new technology. There are a number of ways of achieving that. One way of achieving it without sucking in imports is to boost the construction industry. That is why I am critical of the Government's approach to the housing problem. I shall return to that subject later.
Compared with Lord Gowrie's consulting-the-crystal-ball remarks, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland launched into a flight of fantasy and optimism which would make Dr. Pangloss look like a pessimist. He spoke to the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry and said:
"there are genuine signs for cautious optimism about economic recovery over the next 12 months."
He put the "cautious" bit in there and we are grateful for that small mercy. He continued:
"The commercial outlook is brightening and over the past 12 months there has been no less than a 19 per cent. increase in private sector housing starts—in fact the best figure since 1973. In the past year the registration of new cars and vans has gone up 23 per cent. and retail sales are bouyant with many shops breaking their highest records at Christmas."
I do not quibble with some of that. What is missing is recognition of the underlying problem, which goes much deeper, particularly with retail sales. Although retail sales may show what is to come, they may also show a desperation level in the economy, where some people are able and willing to spend, particularly redundancy money. It does not necessarily indicate an improvement in the economy.
He went on:
"We all know the world was plunged into recession"——
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): The hon. Gentleman is probably aware—he certainly should be—that the level of retail sales in the Province has increased sharply partly, we hope, due to recovery and partly due to the fact that it is much more attractive for those who live in the Republic of Ireland to come north of the border to do their shopping

971
for certain items. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the reason why it is more attractive is the success of the United Kingdom Government's policy in making it so.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to something that I had omitted to mention. Of course, much of that increase is due to the recent Budget in the Republic, but it has more to do with the economic problems there and with the distortion of the economy of the whole of Ireland by previous economic policies over most of this century than with anything that the United Kingdom Government have achieved in the Northern Ireland economy.
The optimistic survey goes on:
"We all know that the world was plunged into recession by rocketing oil prices."
Is it not amazing that one of the few countries in the Western world that is self-sufficient in oil and which does not have, as the French do, a £12,000 million oil import bill per annum is still struggling in the doldrums and is in a worse position than its major competitors? That is all despite our oil wealth. The oil price rise that caused the problem in Britain about 10 years ago initially and began to get progressively worse should have been cushioned by our use of oil reserves that came on tap a few years ago. However, it was not.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point of what I was seeking to say during that speech, which was that throughout the world countries and people had to use the money that they would have used for purchasing the products of our consumer goods producing factories to buy oil and energy simply to keep themselves going. That pre-empted the resources that should have been available for purchasing the products of the Western economies. That is why the world went into recession. Our customers did not have the money. Whether we had the money is irrelevant to the export trade of this country.
Mr. Soley: The Minister is missing the fact that the oil price rise hit the previous Labour Government some time ago, and that his Government have used the oil wealth to subsidise mass unemployment. That money has not been put into productive investment as it should have been, as Norway and a number of other countries have done. We have misspent that wealth. The Minister continued:
"Prices are now falling and soon world demand will begin to grow. When that happens Ulster's industry will be in a lean"—
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by "lean"; I think that he meant emaciated
"efficient and competitive form in which to go out and grab its share of the market."
I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is trying to encourage it. However, it has to do so from a base to which it has been lowered, and from which it is difficult to compete effectively. He went on:
"I have a feeling that business investment will rise later this year as shrewder entrepreneurs prepare for increased production."
Hope springs eternal.
Mr. David Mitchell: Before the hon. Gentleman refers to that as hope springing eternal, may I draw his attention to the fact that three days later a CBI survey in Northern Ireland showed exactly that fact?
Mr. Soley: The Minister also knows that the CBI in Northern Ireland has been banging on his door pleading
972
with him to do something more to stimulate the economy in Northern Ireland. Does he deny that? I am sure that he does not because he knows that it is correct. It is not as if that speech was just one burst of optimism. In another speech on another day, this time speaking to the Institution of Structural Engineers, he said:
"There is no doubt that the construction industry has come through a difficult period but by improving its efficiency and increasing productivity it has shown its resilience and is now in much better condition to take advantage of an upturn in the economy. Indeed it is possible that the construction industry may itself lead the improvement out of recession."
If only the hon. Gentleman had listened to us when we said that a year or two ago—indeed, more than that. However, he did not listen to us and he is now saying, "Yes, we ought to use the construction industry to pull us out of the problem." As I said when I intervened in the Under-Secretary of State's speech, half the total construction work force is out of work. The Minister went on to say:
"I would not like to suggest, however, that things have stood still over the last few years."
They certainly have not. They have gone backwards under the Government. The hon. Gentleman then said:
"As all of you will be aware, the housing programme is top of my list of priorities".
Goodness knows what it is like to be at the bottom. He continued:
"in the current year well in excess of £400 million will be spent on housing."
I have said that a number of groups, including the CBI, the SDLP, and the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, have produced economic programmes to arrest decline. That does not happen, and the other political parties do not knock on one's door, unless there is serious and desperate concern about the state of the economy. The order fails to face up to that in its inadequate use of public resources. The SDLP has said that it is willing to serve on an expanded Northern Ireland Economic Council. The Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions recommends increased public expenditure on key areas accompanied by an approved planning framework. I recommend that as a fairly good basic philosophy for recovery.
The failure of the Government's approach is that the percentage of public expenditure remains high precisely because of the rise in unemployment and the fall in the gross domestic product. That is the Government's problem. They have that problem in abundance in Northern Ireland. The lesson that is writ large for Northern Ireland will be the lesson for Britain as a whole unless we pull out of this absurd experiment.
I have argued that there is a need to put public expenditure into certain key areas. I have said that construction and housing is one of them—it comes under Class V in the order. I shall not dwell on this matter. We have dealt with housing in Committee. We shall have another opportunity to discuss it later this Session. However, the Minister said that there had been great successes. That will not be impressive in Northern Ireland. Housing has been improving; it had to. It started from a low level. The Housing Executive has been doing a marvellous job. I have great respect for it. Many of the developments are extremely good. However, we all know that simply to keep pace with the unfitness level it would need to make another 500 starts this year. There is no sign of that.

973
If we were to get on top of the housing problem in Northern Ireland, we would need to aim for 10,000 starts per annum. Although I would not anticipate being able to reach that aim in the immediate future, if we started aiming at that, we would begin to pull the economy out of the recession without sucking in imports. That is crucial. We can do that by renovation and repair. I welcome the additional £13 million for the housing associations and the voluntary organisations. That is good, but it is inadequate.
We should do more on energy conservation in housing in Northern Ireland, which is particularly important. Energy conservation schemes not only save energy but can produce enough employment without sucking in imports. The raw materials are produced and fabricated here. That produces work in this country. In doing that one also effectively subsidises the fuel bills of people who are already being clobbered by high energy costs in Northern Ireland when they have on average a 10 per cent. lower income rate.
The Minister cannot get round that argument by saying, "We are doing more to sell houses." We know what is happening. The so-called right to buy has become "forced to buy". Why has that happened? Because the rents in the public and private sectors have been going up so fast that they have meant the lowering of the interest rates for the person with a mortgage. It is now more economic to buy because of the lower interest rates and the increased rents. Under the Government, in Northern Ireland as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the private and public rented sectors have become increasingly heavily burdened while the person who owns his own house—I am not against home ownership, which I am happy to extend, even in a public way, if it is not in a housing stress area—does not have such a burden. One cannot claim that it is fair massively to subsidise the person who buys his house, as the Government are doing, at the same time as people in the private and public sectors are being clobbered with increased rents. That is totally unacceptable and putting people increasingly into debt in Northern Ireland.
I refer now to Class II, which deals with selective assistance to industry. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), in his speech to the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce, said:
"People now recognise that the smaller firm is the seed corn of tomorrow's successful business and that their diversity strengthens the local economy. Since small businesses have their roots here they will grow in time of prosperity, and dig in if recession strikes but will never disappear back to some overseas base."
We have all learnt that lesson in recent times. Many hon. Members have been struggling for years to find ways of helping small industries. I do not think that the Government are making a sufficient effort. I welcome some of the Minister's comments about Enterprise Ulster and I wish to look at the small print. I am suspicious when the Minister says that the Government are safeguarding jobs. The difficulty is in identifying success. Hon. Members must remember that job preservation and creation save public expenditure in the long run. Since it takes about three years for a new small firm to find its feet, identifying success is a problem. Perhaps we ought to take more risks by giving public money to new firms, with
974
adequate safeguards during that three-year period, to see whether they can survive. That will help the development of new technology as well as jobs, and that is important.
Between 1973 and 1980 Enterprise Ulster gave employment to more than 10,000 people. Fifty-four per cent. of the people who took part in the schemes gained regular employment.
The reduction in the Enterprise Ulster budget has reduced the number of projects and there were 400 redundancies in 1981. At the end of March 1981, 351 work schemes were in the pipeline, but by March 1982 the figure had fallen to 285, with 54 completed during the year. That is why I and others outside the Government's ranks are not content with their performance. The percentage of leavers placed in employment dropped from 36 per cent. in 1980–81 to 19 per cent. in 1981–82. That is a failure of Government. The Enterprise Ulster annual report made sad reading. It noted the effect of redundancies and uncertainties about its future. That is the real criticism of the Government. Uncertainty about its future reduced morale to its lowest ebb. When an organisation of such enterprise, initiative and long-term importance makes such points in its annual report, it is a sad reflection on the Government's commitment to supporting small industry and new innovative ideas in order to get the economy moving again.
Although I welcome the Minister's apparent assurance that there will be no more redundancies, Enterprise Ulster needs an assurance that it has a future and that the Government will stand by it, safeguard it and, if possible, expand it. Nothing would do more for morale than if the Minister were to give that assurance now or at the end of the debate. As long as the Government fail to do that, there will always be an underlying suspicion that they are not prepared to use public money in a sensible, planned way to resume growth in the economy.
Mr. Adam Butler: As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, the life of Enterprise Ulster has been extended for a further three years to the end of March 1986.
Mr. Soley: I am glad to hear that repeated. Will the Minister tell the House whether he will increase in a planned way the resources available during the next three years? Those involved would then recognise that their jobs were valuable to the economy as a whole. Will the hon. Gentleman consider that in his reply?
The general aim should be to fund employment in new technology and not in ailing plants. I suggest that some of the industries should be linked with agriculture, given that it is such an important part of the economic base.
I welcome the statements of the Minister on cross-border co-operation, and I am glad that he was willing to meet Mr. Peter Barry, Eire's spokesman on economic affairs, to discuss further economic co-operation in the eastern border region. I hope that that is a successful meeting and brings further meetings. That could generally assist economic development. I emphasise—I appreciate that Ministers resist this—that there should be an economic assessment of the needs of the island of Ireland. It is nonsense to have two competing and overlapping economies in a country with a population of 5 million. Positive links could be made between the universities and colleges, on the one hand, and industry, argiculture and new technology, on the other, and that could be done across the border. That would be a useful way forward.

975
The Minister defended the Government's performance on education as if it was something to be proud of. It is not. I do not criticise the fact that it is necessary, at times to consider falling rolls and whether schools should close. Those are difficult decisions which must be faced, but that is not the problem. The problem is that the Government have not sufficiently funded certain key areas. I told the Minister that the amount spent on books and practice materials has dropped by between £3 and £9 per pupil compared with 1979. Falling rolls and closing schools must not be used as an excuse for failing to keep that amount up to scratch. Ministers frequently state at the Dispatch Box how good the Northern Ireland education system is. It is good, but it will not remain so if the Government whittle away its base. If books and practice materials are not provided to teachers and schools at the previous level, let alone at a higher level, standards will decline.
Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Gentleman made that point in an intervention. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was well aware of the increased expenditure which the Government have provided for education. He wanted to be certain of the facts. The Government are spending more than ever before per pupil. Recurrent expenditure per pupil is 20 per cent. higher this year than it was two years ago, and will increase further in 1983 and 1984. That is a considerable achievement. The responsibility of the area boards and other school authorities is to manage those resources according to the needs of the pupils and the individual schools. They have discretion.
Mr. Soley: I shall take a close look at those figures. I shall want to establish whether it is a real or a paper increase. The Minister does not deny that there was a drop in expenditure of between £3 and £9 per pupil on books and materials between 1979 and 1982. However he dresses that up, he cannot pretend that it will lead to better education. If only books were concerned, it might be possible to say that the money was going into something else, but we are talking about books and practice materials which are basic to work in the classroom. If the Minister wants to kid the House that that will maintain or improve education standards, he will have to come up with a much more convincing argument.
In addition, school library provision has dropped by 51 per cent. in Belfast and 89 per cent. in the south-east of Northern Ireland. Such a massive drop underlines once again the Government's total failure to maintain standards in education. As I have said, the Government have failed badly, because they are practising an economic policy that is irrelevant to the needs of the country as a whole and profoundly and deeply damaging to the economy of Northern Ireland.
5 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It cannot be said that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) does not try. His speech proves what a diligent reader he is of the speeches of Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Indeed, as I listened to him I made a private note to put him on the distribution list for my speeches so that I may get a slab or two written into Hansard with his assistance. But he has a more difficult task to attempt.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North has often told us that he believes that the best future for the people
976
of Northern Ireland lies in an all-Ireland state. As he believes that that must come about with consent, because therein those involved have perceived a better future and better prospects for themselves, he must persuade them that the massive addition which he demands to the already heavy expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland will be forthcoming from the semi-bankrupt state on the southern frontier of the Province. Next time the hon. Gentleman speaks, perhaps he will address himself to the task of commending that improbability to the people of Northern Ireland.
It has already been said that this debate is ill-attended. I would go further and, greatly daring, say that it is a scandal that a whole day should be devoted to passing this order. I would not say that, of course, if I thought that such an allocation of time derived from a conviction on the part of the managers of Government business that six or seven hours ought to be devotee to debating on the floor of the House certain detailed and important matters concerning Northern Ireland. However, that is not the case. It is not that the Whips Office or the Lord President of the Council thinks it would be a good idea to devote to the Province another six or seven hours of time at this stage in the parliamentary year. The Under-Secretary of State reminded the House that the order was laid before us under the 1974 Act. It is part of the operation of maintaining, as far as possible, a separation between the rest of the kingdom and a province which, financially, politically and economically, is an integral part of the United Kingdom. That is why these triennial charades are conducted, however we Northern Ireland Members may try to make the best we can of them in the interests of our constituents and the good administration of the-province.
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that, above all, the Province needed stability All who represent Northern Ireland would echo a fervent "Amen.". But, what stability can there be in a Province whose form of government has to be renewed annually by the House? Could one imagine any other part of the United Kingdom being governed on an annually renewable lease? Yet it is in order to maintain the Province on an annual basis in a state of maximum insecurity and instability that we go through this procedure.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to sums paid out of the Consolidated Fund. I could not help grimacing, when I remembered that of course it is a different Consolidated Fund—and that we go through all this charade simply because we are determined that the representatives of one fortieth of the population of the United Kingdom shall not be able to take their share with the rest in debating and eventually voting the financing provision for the whole United Kingdom, of which the provision for Northern Ireland is an integral part, as indeed it is an integral part in all the statements that we received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in past and future months.
Those in search of stability for the Province should ensure that Northern Ireland escapes as soon as possible from that deliberate formal separation, which is paraded before the House in these debates three times a year.
On such occasions it is only right that we should benefit as much as possible from the work done on our behalf not only by the Comptoller and Auditor General but by the Public Accounts Committee. It is good news that the PAC's programme is gradually being altered so that we may hope to receive its comments earlier on the

977
animadversions of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General upon the relevant appropriation accounts. As it is, however, though we have before us the appropriation accounts for the year ending March 1982 and the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General on them, we do not have the benefit of the PAC's deliberations on those comments. However, that should not be a reason for failing to hark back to some matters that have excited the anxiety of that Committee and of hon. Members.
I wish to refer to the important issue of arrears owed to the Housing Executive. On these we have not only the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but those of the local government auditor. He refers to tenants' rent arrears as well as to arrears in the context of the house purchase scheme, to which I shall refer later. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State responsible is present, because I wish to draw his attention to what the. local government auditor said, the humane and understanding nature of his comment being not of the type one usually associates with auditors' reports. He said:
"The main cause of increasing arrears … is the difficulties many tenants, particularly those eligible for but not claiming rebate, face in paying rent."
Those words will strike an echo in the minds of all who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. It is a constant cause of frustration to us to know that many of our constituents who are Housing Executive tenants and who are experiencing difficulties and even falling into arrears, are entitled to benefit by the extensive scheme of rent and rate rebates. I ask the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), to urge the Housing Executive to find much more effective ways than hitherto of ensuring, as far as humanly possible, that all those tenants who are entitled to claim rebate do so and enjoy the advantage. When one receives an application from a constituent in difficulties, one constantly finds on examination of the circumstances that he is entitled to rent and rate rebates but that his entire family budget has been distorted by failure to claim them. I simply cannot believe that there is no way in which the Housing Executive, as a good landlord and an arm of the state, cannot ensure far more adequately that such rebates are enjoyed. We should thus have before us a much more realistic figure for arrears, which could then be tackled through an analysis of the component causes which lie behind it.
Another form of arrears excited the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee, in its report published last June on the accounts for the year ending 1981. It said:
"We will expect the Comptroller and Auditor General to keep under review the performance of the Scheme"—
the house purchase scheme—
"and, in particular, the level of any deficits incurred."
The Committee said that it would expect to see evidence that every effort was made
"to effect a substantial reduction in the remaining £l million of arrears."
It was with some dismay therefore that, in studying the Comptroller and Auditor General's latest report, I found no reference to this important matter. I hope that the Minister concerned will make it a subject of inquiry and that the Public Accounts Committee will continue to keep up the pressure, not with the desire of hounding
978
individuals in arrears, but because the whole phenomenon of arrears in the finances of the Housing Executive is an unsatisfactory feature.
Mr. William Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real reasons for the lack of uptake of the rebates is a lack of communication at local level between the Housing Executive and its tenants? Has not that lack of communication been made a great deal worse by the fact that we no longer have rent collectors going around? Surely it is no excuse for the Government to say that they cannot send out rent collectors because of the lawlessness of the areas. After all, the Government are equally responsible for the lawless condition of the state.
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend may well be right in saying that the disappearance of the rent collector, like the disappearance of the bobby from the streets, has represented a loss of communication between Government and the governed. But that is no reason why we should not try to replace him or why the Housing Executive should not be asking itself why so many of its tenants are not claiming the assistance and the money which is their right and which is there available for them. I hope that that will not need further emphasis.
Later this evening we are to consider a rates order; but it will be out of order in the scope of that debate to refer to the major question of rate reform which is, nevertheless, within the terms of the Appropriation Order in respect of the Department of the Environment.
The regional rate for the Province, which was struck this year, was struck upon a basis provisionally proposed by the study of the matter in a discussion paper published in January 1983. I suppose it indicates commendable promptitude that the Government, in striking the rate in March 1983, should have implemented proposals that were put forward as a basis for discussion as recently as January. The result was an average rate increase in Northern Ireland of approximately 4.3 per cent., the percentage forecast by the Secretary of State in a written answer on 22 February.
It is worth noticing that the increase in the rate charge in Northern Ireland has this year been well inside the rate of depreciation of the currency under inflation; but perhaps more important for ratepayers in Northern Ireland is to be aware that the new system is not in fact producing a higher burden than would have been produced had the old system continued for a further year.
Speaking for my hon. Friends and myself, we do not deplore this somewhat accelerated demise of the old system. Under the old system, an area and population corresponding as nearly as possible to Northern Ireland and its people was identified in England and Wales. An assessment was then made on the basis of what rates such people in such a part of England and Wales would be paying. Having done that some five or six years ago, we have lived on annual upgradings of the figure thus struck. I think that we are well free of a system not merely so slipshod as that but so difficult to justify to the ratepayer.
The system now proposed, and already being implemented, is to identify the Northern Ireland equivalent of the rate-borne expenditures in England and Wales and then to relate to those expenditures the rate burden which results from them in England and Wales after account has been taken of the various Exchequer contributions. Given the situation we in Northern Ireland

979
are in, this would seem the logical way to approach the objective of equity for the Northern Ireland ratepayer. However, as matters stand at the moment, I do not think the ratepayer will understand either the beauties or the benefits of the system, used to assess his present rate burden—or, at any rate, that greater part of his rate burden which is represented by the regional rate. I am going to suggest that the Government should see that the rate demand is accompanied in future by an appropriate explanatory document.
Hon. Members who pay their rates in this country are accustomed to receive with their rate demand a detailed analysis of the expenditure that has resulted in that burden. As a ratepayer in Northern Ireland I can assure the House that there is nothing whatsoever there that corresponds with that information. The answer admittedly cannot be given in Northern Ireland in the form in which it can be given to a ratepayer in this country; but at least the ratepayer in Northern Ireland can be told how the calculation has been arrived at and what are the elements of expenditure which entered into that calculation. I hope therefore that the Government will accept that from now on, under the new system—if this is to be the new system—of assessing rates for the next few years, we shall have a proper explanatory document accompanying the rate demand, which sets out and endeavours to rationalise the manner in which the rate is being arrived at.
I should have thought that a fairly warm welcome for the new system of rate assessment; but that said, I have to add that no method of assessing the rate burden in Northern Ireland will be satisfactory until there is again genuine elective local government in Northern Ireland on those subjects to which rate-borne expenditure relates. As long as we have a complete separation between local elective representation and the levy in Northern Ireland of a rate, we cannot, by definition, have a satisfactory system of assessing and collecting rates, nor one which in the long run is tolerable in any democratic country. What we have at the moment breaches the essential link between the elected person's responsibility for levying taxation and his responsibility for administering the services which that taxation goes to pay for.
It was no part of the intention of this House in its legislation for Northern Ireland in 1972 and 1973 that the Province should be deprived of the local government that the rest of the kingdom enjoyed. This House simply took over the results of a transfer which the Stormont regime intended and initiated from the county and other local authorities to itself. It was the predecessor administration before direct rule of the Secretary of State which had absorbed into itself the functions and responsibilities of both tiers of elected authorities in the Province. That is how we have carried on since 1972—virtually destitute of local government for either minor or major matters.
The question of rate levying reminds us of how much our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland are deprived through the absence of local government. They are deprived in the first place of local government as it affects the environment. That is all too well known to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Basingstoke and his customers on this side of the House. It was my good fortune two or three weeks ago to be able, with the hon. Gentleman's assistance, to prevent those responsible to him at the Department from removing the Mourne granite kerbstones at Warrenpoint, a thing that I had been promised by one of his predecessors would not occur.
980
Between the two of us, we had it stopped; but it is a reminder of the absurdity of attempting to administer a province without elective local government that he and I were the only people who could, with proper responsibility and authority, concern ourselves with that important matter.
Mr. Soley: I always feel for the right hon. Gentleman at times such as this. He referred in his opening comments to the position of Northern ireland in this respect, but he never faces the fact that no British Government have ever treated Northern Ireland as a normal part of the United Kingdom. I hope that one day he will recognise that fact—indeed, I think that at one level he does—and join me on the road towards a united Ireland where I hope that he will have an exciting new career in an all-Ireland Parliament.
Mr. Powell: It might be exciting, but the logic of doing so does not follow from the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Certainly, this is a standing complaint of ours. It would be a standing complaint of any other part of the United Kingdom, if it were not treated and administered in all relevant respects like the rest. The way to deal with that problem for Northern Ireland, however, is not to pitch the Province into another state, to which the majority of its inhabitants have no intention of belonging, but to deal with Northern Ireland in financial and other ways precisely as we deal with every other part of the United Kingdom. Sooner or later, not just the logic—people are often impervious to logic—but the fairness, justice and unique practicability of that will dawn on an Administration of one political complexion or another. In that faith and in that conviction I live.
Mr. Adam Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Powell: I hope that if I give way to the Minister he will not weaken my faith and conviction.
Mr. Butler: I support the right hon. Gentleman's basic premise that the matters to which he refers should be the responsibility of locally elected representatives, but he knows what my question to him will be. If for the time being at least it is not possible to give the powers enjoyed by district councils in Great Britain to equivalent bodies in Northern Ireland, assuming that that were the policy of any Government, and in the absence of a first tier of local government, as the right hon. Gentleman may or may not wish, surely it would be preferable for the granite kerbstones at Warrenpoint to be raised not in this House but in an assembly in Northern Ireland with, one would hope, power being devolved to a Minister responsible to that assembly and elected by the local people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Powell: I had indeed hoped, if not anticipated, that one of my more intelligent pupils would carry me further by asking that very question. There is a very swift answer. Even if rolling devolution ever started to roll and encompassed not merely matters which could even now be devolved to the existing district councils and which are the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Basingstoke, but also health and education, the justified complaint of Northern Ireland ratepayers would still be no different from what it is today; for the boards through which those services are administered would themselves need to be made democratically

981
responsible for raising the funds to finance those services. Thus, mere devolution to a Northern Ireland destitute of local government, even if it were made in the form that none of us expects to live to see—that of rolling devolution—would not meet the justifiable indignation at the consequences of the lack of local government.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The mention of kerbstones reminded me of car parks. As the Minister of State expressed some sympathy with the object of entrusting the district councils with more powers, I am emboldened to refer to my correspondence of some years with successive Ministers of various parties in charge of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, suggesting that district councils might be allowed to run car parks. The Department of the Environment, however, insists on running them itself. I wondered whether I might enlist the right hon. Gentleman on my side in this cause.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman does not even have to ask: I have been on his side since long ago. I was astonished at the phrase used by the Minister of State when he referred to it not yet being possible for matters such as car parks and kerbstones to be administered by district councils. As we and the Under-Secretary of State well know, the district councils are capable of taking those responsibilities tomorrow if the House is prepared to entrust them with the administration not only of these but of other important matters—I apologise for the digression into which I have been tempted by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—and in my assertion that this is possible I pray in aid the actions and personal enthusiasms of the Under-Secretary of State himself in relation to planning control.
Decisions on planning applications might be regarded as more problematic and sensitive than either car parks or Mourne granite kerbstones; but the Under-Secretary of State has publicly announced that he will not only consult the existing district councils but implement their decisions.
Mr. David Mitchell indicated dissent.
Mr. Powell: The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head and I understand why he does so, as I have pointed out to him the constitutional impropriety of that if he meant it literally. Nevertheless, he will not deny that he is relying virtually 100 per cent. on the district councils for the implementation of planning control. Thus, the Minister of State's notion that there is some impediment to giving the ordinary environmental functions to district councils right now is not shared by his hon. Friend. It may be argued that a 1 per cent. risk of abuse or unreasonableness exists or that sometimes general policy must be taken into account; but throughout the United Kingdom the Secretary of State for the Environment always has the power for just those reasons to call in a planning case and deal with it himself, and I assume that that would be so when these matters were in the place that they should be in Northern Ireland with the district councils.
This brings me to the composition and powers of all the boards, and in particular of the education boards, on which I have been conducting a running fight for a year or so with the Minister answering for education in Northern Ireland.
982
I found education boards in my constituency were taking certain policy decisions not only with which I disagree, but with which I found it likely that the Minister would disagree, only to be told, to quote from his letters, that those matters were
"effectively the responsibility of the Boards … a matter for each Board to decide … in the allocation of finances."
In one instance, the Minister went on to say, he was "disappointed" that the Southern board had made a certain decision but that, none the less,
"I do not think I would be justified in intervening."
For all administrative decisions in the United Kingdom, there is, or perhaps I should say there should be, responsibility to an elected body. I do not think that that definition of our democracy would be challenged in the House. Where Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office accept responsibility, this responsibility is discharged to the House; and when the assembly, the "Mickey Mouse assembly", to use words spoken earlier today, commenced its operations, a state document was placed before it by the Secretary of State making it clear that his responsibility, and that of his Ministers, to the House was in no way altered, diminished or compromised by the existence of the assembly.
What happens, then, where decisions are transferred, or devolved if that is not an incorrect word, by Ministers to non-elected boards? There is no responsibility to the electorate for those decisions. This is a matter directly linked with what I was saying earlier about rating and local government. My constituents will be paying, through rates and taxes, for the provision of education in the respective parts of my constituency where they live. When a decision is taken by the Southern education board or the South-Eastern education board, and my constituents come to me and say that they think it is a bad decision, and I think that it is a bad decision, and I discover that the Minister thinks it is a bad decision, what are my constituents told? They are told that the board can do what it likes. The board, which is not elected, has been allowed, without responsibility to any elected body, to allocate sums provided by the local and national taxpayer and no one responsible to the public is going to answer for it.
Whatever the 1972 Northern Ireland Education Order says, that is an intolerable state of affairs anywhere in the United Kingdom. I am referred by the Minister in question to the terms of that order, which brought the education and library boards into existence. There was a phrase in the explanatory note to that order when it was made that clinches my point. It says:
"The principal change made is to establish five education and library boards in place of the existing eight local education authorities and sixteen library authorities which will cease to exist not later than 1st April 1973."
What we have done in the case of these major responsibilities of democratic local government in the Province is not to transfer them to Ministers responsible to the House—that might be open to criticism, but at least it would be constitutionally valid—but to transfer them to boards unelected and undemocratic in character, for which responsibility is not taken by Ministers responsible to the House within the limits of the finance which they allocate.
I have said before, and I will say again if necessary in other debates, that that is a state of affairs not to be tolerated in the United Kingdom, which has to be remedied by restoring democratic responsibility—not the right just to chatter but real democratic responsibility,

983
founded upon taking responsible decisions and raising a rate. That is what must be restored to the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have one other matter that I wish to use the opportunity of this debate to raise, and that also falls within the scope of the Department of the Environment. If is the matter of concessionary fares.
Mr. William Ross: Before my right hon. Friend gets too far away from the flagstones of Warrenpoint—
Mr. Powell: Kerbstones.
Mr. Ross: —would he turn his attention for a moment to the fact that even if it were now a matter for local councillors, it would be very difficult for the constituent concerned to know which local councillor to go to because he probably has a choice of five or six in his electoral area? Would it not be far more satisfactory if there were one person responsible for the area concerned?
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend exposes me to a dangerous temptation. It might not have been immediately perceptible to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was instantly so to me, that he was drawing me on to the subject of proportional representation, and hoping that he would excite my indignation at the spectacle of no identifiable representative existing for an identifiable group of electors—one of the inevitable consequences of the system of proportional representation which, so far, this part of the kingdom has refused to accept, but which it has been happy enough, under the influence of certain delusions, to impose upon the one fortieth of the population of the United Kingdom that is situated in Northern Ireland.
I shall not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) except to venture to say that if we are to have responsible, elected local government in Northern Ireland, as we need it and should have it, let us have it in the same form in which it is insisted upon in this part of the United Kingdom, where each elector in each place knows who to go to on the council to whom he can say, "If you do not put this right, you do not get my vote next time." That is impossible under proportional representation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry with that will allow me to return to the matter of concessionary fares which I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the last section of my discourse, for concessionary fares, like so many things, relate back to the absence of local government in the Province.
My hon. Friends and I, as the Minister knows, have been exercised for a long time by differences between concessionary fares in Northern Ireland and concessionary fares in various parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister has replied to us by producing a statement of the average concessions, if one can imagine that, on the mainland, and saying that, taken as a whole, we are not that much worse off in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that we do think—at least in one major respect—that we are worse off, and we believe that, in that respect, there should be a change. In most places on the mainland where there is a concession for persons of retirement age, the concession is available for women at the age of 60 although not for men until the age of 65. We believe that there is no justification for withholding that form of concession from our constituents in Northern Ireland. The argument from deficiency of income in retirement, that
984
underlies the principle of concessionary fares must, exhypothesi, apply just as much to retired women over 60 as to retired men over 65.
The anomaly of the comparison made by ourselves and by the Minister between circumstances on the mainland and circumstances in the Province comes about because these are matters that, here on the mainland, are decided by local authorities. If Mr. Livingstone decides that the inhabitants of greater London are to travel free in certain circumstances, or in all circumstances, that is a matter to be settled between the majority on the GLC and the ratepayers in London, provided, of course, that the central Government are wise enough to allow the impact of that local government decision be painfully felt by the ratepayers. Thus in various parts of the United Kingdom, acting upon democratic responsibility and under pain of the financial consequences, different provisions have been made for concessionary fares on public transport.
In Northern Ireland, there is no means of doing this. Since the responsibility lies with the Minister, there is no one who can bring home to the ratepayer the consequences of a particular concession, saying, "You have to pay for this on the rates but I am sure that you would wish retired women over 60 to enjoy the same fare concessions as retired males over 65." That would be a matter, as it probably should be, between the elected representative and his electors and between the elected majority party and the electorate.
The absence of local government is not an inevitable absence, as the Minister of State seems to think. However, in the regrettable but immediately remediable absence of local government in the Province, we say to the Minister—we hope for a favourable policy decision from him—that this is a really glaring anomaly against which many complaints by retired women have been brought to our attention and which the hon. Gentleman should put right, and we take this opportunity of saying that if there are to be concessionary fares for the retired, they should be made for all the retired. Whatever the definition on which it is decided that people are retired, the concessions should apply to them all.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is to your relief that I here announce that, lush though the pasturage is that is disclosed, not, of course, by the Supplementary Estimates embodied in this appropriation order, but by the Vote on account which covers everything, I shall exercise a self-denying ordinance and sit down.
5.43 pm
Mr. John Farr: I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks in too great detail except to say a word about concessionary fares. I was lucky enough a few years ago to introduce a private Member's Bill on concessionary travel for the elderly, people who are sick and other categories, notably handicapped people. At that time, the research carried out by myself and supporters of the Bill—it was an all-party measure—showed that there was tremendous support throughout the country, particularly among pensioners, for some form of concessionary travel.
The right hon. Member for Down, South is right in saying that in Britain it is left to the local authority to impose the form of structure it wants or to adopt no form of structure at all. The right hon. Gentleman should have added that over half, in fact nearly two thirds, of that

985
support in Great Britain comes from the rate support grant. It amounts to 57 or 58 per cent. This leaves the local authority to find about 40 per cent. There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has a special case for a generous form of concessionary travel covering special categories that should be worked out and harmonised.
I have described Northern Ireland as a special case because, apart from the longer distances that people often have to travel from one community to another in remote areas, there is also the inevitable comparison to be drawn with the Republic where, until recently and maybe still today, completely free travel is enjoyed by pensioners on trains and buses. It would not be right, in my view, for pensioners and others in similar positions in Northern Ireland to be disadvantaged.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for missing most of his opening remarks due to an urgent telephone call. I wish to raise with my hon. Friend an issue relating to energy. I refer particularly to Class III expenditure on page 6 of the Appropriation order. The two items in Class III relate to subsidy for restructuring the gas industry and a further sum of expenditure on subsidies to electricity tariffs. It seems to me that these two sums, particularly the latter one, are likely to be an ever-increasing burden on the Exchequer. Only the other day, on 28 February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy was answering questions about the cost of generating electricity in the United Kingdom. The difference in the figures is remarkable. The comparative advantage of nuclear energy over fossil fuel energy has grown to the extent that according to a report to which my hon. Friend referred:
"a new PWR is expected to produce electricity at 2·61 pence per kilowatt hour over its lifetime compared with 3·88 pence per kilowatt hour for a new coal-fired station. Therefore, the PWR is expected to produce electricity at only two thirds the cost of a coal-fired station."—[Official Report, 28 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 9.]
A couple of years ago, when a similar question was answered by the then Minister, the cost of nuclear generation was slightly less than that of coal. Today, as we see, it is markedly below the cost of coal. It seems to me, with exciting new projects ahead in nuclear generation, the sooner that Northern Ireland is coupled up to nuclear generated electricity the better.
The supplies of gas on which the customer relies at present are drawn from a declining and reducing source. There is no indigenous coal in Northern Ireland. There is only peat, which is of a rather mediocre quality.
Mr. William Ross rose—
Mr. Farr: Perhaps I might continue for a moment.
I am aware that there are small reserves of coal, but there are no meaningful reserves. There is only peat, which is of a mediocre quality compared with other forms of fuel for generation.
Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a large deposit of lignite around Crumlin in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), and there are certainly deposits of coal in Northern Ireland, although I understand that they are rather weak.
Mr. Farr: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for his helpful intervention. I
986
was, of course, aware that there are dubious reserves of coal in Northern Ireland. They have been analysed at different times, without any positive result. I view the proven reserves of coal in Northern Ireland as I view the proven reserves of oil in the sea around the Republic of Ireland. They both exist as figments of the imagination, but they would take a long time to come to fruition. Even if there were substantial quantities of first-class quality coal, the fact remains that the picture is changing. Nuclear energy is becoming cheaper, safer and more readily available. Fossil fuels, for one reason or another, are becoming more expensive and less satisfactory. From the figures that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave in answer to the oral question at the end of last month, it would seem sensible and prudent to consider some form of nuclear generation for future supplies of electricity for Northern Ireland.
I want to say a word about the cost allotted to expenditure on the Northern Ireland assembly, on page 7, of £1,260,000. Again, it is my fault, because I should have been in the Chamber when my hon. Friend was speaking. Perhaps he has already said how this figure was arrived at. It is a significant item in this Appropriation measure. After all, it is the second biggest item in Class XI. It would be strange to accept this measure tonight without some form of analysis of the figure of £1,260,000. Does it include the salaries of the assemblymen? I assume that it does. If the answer to that is in the affirmative, does it include the salaries of those assemblymen who do not take their seats? Again, if the answer is in the affirmative, if they do not take their seats, why are they paid and why are they allowed to be a drain on the taxpayer?
If the £1,260,000 includes the salaries of the assemblymen, and if they do not take their seats and adopt a highly negative attitude—from this side of the Irish Sea one might almost call it a "dog in the manger" attitude—why should they be subsidised by the British taxpayer?
Mr. John Patten: Perhaps I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest. He is right to say that the order makes it possible for salaries to be paid to employees of the Northern Ireland assembly and to assemblymen and women who have taken their seats. No one who has not taken his seat is being paid.
Mr. Farr: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the hon. Gentleman accepts that reassurance, will he also obtain from his hon. Friend as assurance that such members taking their seats nominally at a later stage might not be entitled to retrospective payments for the period during which they had not attended?
Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps if I were to ask my hon. Friend through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, something along the lines of, "Would he give an assurance that any assemblyman who takes his seat at a late date will be in receipt of a salary only from the date he took his seat?", I might receive more appropriate information through you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It is not a matter for me. I would much rather not answer that.
Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing us to put my head into the noose. Members of the Northern Ireland assembly, under the Northern Ireland Act 1982, should they not sign and not attend, will not he paid for that period, but should they come to the assembly for the last 20 minutes, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggested, in an uncharacteristic seated intervention, they would be permitted to receive their salary for the whole of the period that they were elected.
Mr. Farr: I come now to a more general point about the £1,260,000 that is being spent on the Northern Ireland assembly. The feeling is growing among Conservative Members that the sooner the character of the Northern Ireland assembly changes the better. We know that the Northern Ireland Bill went through the House after some very dubious manoeuvres by those who were in charge, and that it eventually reached the statute book. I and some of my hon. Friends have watched the happenings in the Northern Ireland assembly with growing concern, ever since it came into being. Some of us endeavoured to say at the time that we were hatching what might turn out to be a bad and rotten egg. I hope that, instead of blithely approving a sum of more than £1,250,000 for the Northern Ireland assembly, we shall be given an assurance that the Government have not completely closed their mind to a radical change in the format of a Northern Ireland assembly in the fairly near future, so that it may adopt the role—so badly needed—of a major local government organisation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber at present, told those of us who questioned him about this matter during the debates that after a year or so of operation the Northern Ireland assembly, its structure, mechanics and purpose and where it was going, would be discussed in the House of Commons. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that Conservative Members are anxious about that Bill and that we look forward to an early debate with great relish.
Mr. Adam Butler: I rise to respond to the specific point whether the Government's intention is to bring forward a measure to alter the assembly's nature and to change it into a body that is essentially suitable for local government. The answer is a categoric no. Our intention is to do everything possible to encourage the assembly to work, to encourage those who believe in constitutional arrangements to take their seats and to move forward to the next stage of devolution.
Mr. Farr: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's intervention. However, I remind him once again that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State repeatedly said that the fears that were felt by many Conservative Members will be not only taken note of but that the future role and powers of the Northern Ireland assembly will be carefully analysed after it has been in operation for a year or two. That is all that we are asking for. I do not think that on reflection my hon. Friend will disagree with that.
Agriculture in Northern Ireland is a matter of fundamental importance. I was lucky enough to receive an encouraging reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State this afternoon to a question in relation to farm incomes in Northern Ireland. The figures that he gave were startling. They showed that Northern Ireland's farm incomes have risen in a substantial and welcome way in the last 12 months for which figures are available.
988
However, they started from a low base. There is real poverty and difficulty in Northern Ireland and there are terrible problems in making ends meet among some small stock farmers, notably in pigs and cattle. I hope that that improvement will not blind my hon. Friend to the fact that while some categories may have done fairly well, there is real poverty in sections of the agriculture community in Northern Ireland. If he is not aware of where that is I am sure that those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland will write to him and point them out.
The House knows that the quality of Northern Ireland's agriculture produce is first-class, but what about its presentation? Are Northern Ireland producers associated with Food From Britain? I hope so. The other day my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food launched a massive multi-million pound scheme in London called Food From Britain. All the specialist food products that Britain produces so well were on display there. That expensive organisation, backed by new Government legislation, has been established to sell British food abroad. I hope that the authorities in Northern Ireland are aware of its potential. I am sure that they must be.
Sir Peter Mills: Perhaps when my hon. Friend was looking around the international food fair at Olympia the incredible stand with the most wonderful food from Northern Ireland escaped his notice. That had some of the best food exhibits that I have ever seen and it shows that Northern Ireland is participating in the scheme. Moreover, is it not a fact that years ago Northern Ireland gave the lead in much better marketing and exporting of food products than Britain?
Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I am relieved to learn that Northern Ireland is playing a prominent role in the Food From Britain organisation. However, I am still convinced that there is an opportunity for Northern Ireland producers to expand their role. Northern Ireland has a great potential for producing different foodstuffs—not just the traditional ones—expecially in the west, where the climate tends to be a little more temperate. There is money available and I hope that the Government will ensure that it goes where it is needed in Northern Ireland.
The House is voting upon an impressive sum of money tonight. I do not suppose that there will be a vote against it because everybody realises that it will be money well spent in Northern Ireland and that it is going where it ought to go. However, I hope that not a penny of the sum that we are voting tonight is spent upon entertaining any of the members of the European Parliament. They seem to envisage that the red carpet will be laid out for them, that there will be different departmental officials available and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be there to meet them. I hope that that will not be the case. It would not only be a great waste of taxpayers' money but entirely against the wishes and desires of hon. Members on both sides of the House. With those few words I welcome the order.
6.6 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: As I listened to the Under-Secretary of State presenting his Estimates this afternoon in such an earnest way I was almost convinced

989
that the Government have been and are trying to do what they can to attack the problems of poverty and deprivation that exist in Northern Ireland. However, I am a realist and after he had sat down I asked myself what are the facts of the case in Northern Ireland. Why are the econony and housing so bad there?
It is an unmistakeable fact that when the Government took office in 1979 the unemployment figure for Northern Ireland was 61,000. There was no fiddling of the books or new arrangement of statistics then about which we hear so much in the House now. That figure was completely unacceptable to both the trade union movement and myself. The figure that we heard in the House today, after all the juggling with the figures, is over 120,000. The trade union movement in Northern Ireland does not accept that as being the optimum figure because there are many people in Nothern Ireland who are unemployed who do not qualify for social security benefits and who, therefore, do not think that it is worthwhile to sign the unemployment register. The figure of 120,000 can be inflated. I have had detailed discussions with the trade union movement and I have read its document "The Trade Unions' Alternative". I am sure that the Minister will have read that too and I hope that he will pay some attention to its recommendations. It accepts that the figure is now 180,000—three times the figures when the Government took over in 1979. No Government can be proud of that but it is a fact of life from which we cannot escape. The figures are inescapable.
We also heard from the Minister about the effect of the oil price increase and how there was a recession all over the world. In his defence, the Minister said that foreign countries that did not have oil were paying so much more for their oil that they were unable to buy our exports. We had oil and did not have to import it from anyone else at grossly inflated prices, so we did not face the same problems as our competitors.
Mr. David Mitchell: The point is that there is work for our factories when there are customers for our goods, and our customers stretch the length and breadth of the world. They did not have the money to buy our goods. That is why we have had recession and fewer jobs. It is nothing to do with our oil.
Mr. Fitt: Another argument we have been given is that our industrial work force is lazy, inefficient and badly managed. The reason, therefore, is not that we have an inefficient work force.
Mr. Soley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Minister's reason is just another myth that he puts about and that the explanation that he has just given does not explain why the slump here started earlier, lasted longer and was worse? The fact is that we used our oil wealth to finance our mass unemployment.
Mr. Fitt: That is exactly what has happened. The overall profits from North sea oil have amounted to £40 billion. A large proportion of that money has been used to pay people to sign the unemployment register. By anyone's standards, that is a sheer waste of money and manpower. One would have thought that Tories would have thought that more than hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.
990
It is not true that manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland have been inefficient and unable to compete, or that people in foreign countries paid an increased price for oil and could not afford to buy our exports. I shall never forget that it was 28 July 1980, about a year after the Government came to power, when they cut expenditure in Northern Ireland by £50 million. The £50 million was taken off education, health and social services and the Department of the Environment which is responsible for house building in Northern Ireland.
That cut had nothing to do with manufacturing industry. It meant that home helps and council employees were made unemployed and that there was a cut in the number of school teachers. That was the direct result of the Government's cut in public expenditure. Not only were those people then thrown on to the dole queue, they are still there. None of them has had a job since 1980. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that they will get one in the foreseeable future.
Further still, the cut in public expenditure led to a deterioration in the standard of service provided for the aged, the sick and the terminally ill. The cuts therefore had a double effect.
According to the Government, 120,000 people are unemployed. I prefer the figure that was given in the trade union document published last month. The figures can be updated, but of the 180,000 people that the trade union document said were unemployed, 20,000 are under 19. I will try to get more accurate figures from the Government in the next few days.
Many thousands of people under 25 are unemployed. That is the age at which disaffection with the Government, the system and the establishment becomes most obvious. I have no doubt that in my constituency of Belfast, West and other areas where Sinn Fein candidates were elected at the recent elections, the majority of people aged under 25 voted for them. I am convinced from what I was able to see at those elections and from what I was told that that is true.
Irrespective of what Ken Livingstone tells us, I do not believe that Sinn Fein has any policy to attack the unemployment problem or to erase some of the terrible problems that are associated with it. Sinn Fein's record, in association with the IRA, is one of creating unemployment by blowing up industrial establishments and causing explosions at what it calls economic targets. Those economic targets are places where men and women are trying to do a day's work.
Sinn Fein cannot claim to have any answer to the problems, yet people under 25 voted for a Sinn Fein candidate. They did so for many reasons, including the overlap of attitudes that we witnessed during the hunger strike. A major factor in their choice was that they did not see the system under which they were living doing anything for them. It appeared to them that the system would not provide them with a job. Indeed, there seemed to be no hope of their getting a job, and, in West Belfast especially, they were living in appalling housing conditions, being thrown up against a wall when the Army decided to have a search on the Falls road and taken to Castlereagh and interrogated. Each of those elements drove those young people to vote for Sinn Fein, which has absolutely no policy except that of destruction.
It is understandable that those young people voted as they did. I do not know whether they have gone for ever. It may be that they are utterly alienated and will never

991
return to a civilised political atmosphere. Such people may have left school at 13 or 14. The British Army has been there since 1969. Those young people's earliest memories are of poverty—the poverty that their parents experienced and then the poverty that they suffered when they were forced to sign the unemployment register. Many of them have never had a job, and they cannot envisage the possibility of a time when they will have one.
I know that the Minister will say that there are many youth training schemes. I do not decry them—indeed, I warmly welcome them—but I have seen young people who have availed themselves of training services, after which they are still unemployed. Although we have the new youth employment schemes and other forms of assistance to create outlets, I cannot forget the youth training schemes that were initiated by the Labour Government in the 1970s which young people went through and at the end of which they still had no job. That creates a great deal of frustration and anger and it is one of the reasons why young people voted for Sinn Fein candidates.
When Sinn Fein candidates win votes from a section of the community such as that, they are bound to be given more verve to carry on. If they say that they are supported by a young electorate, they can say that those young people have voted not only for their economic and social policies—non-existent as they are except in the imagination of Ken Livingstone—but for the Armalite.
The Government must be aware of the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I know that Ministers do not like to associate street disturbances with unemployment, but it is a fact of life in Northern Ireland. It was a fact of life in major cities in Great Britain last year and the year before. I hope that the problem in English cities never reaches a proportion similar to that of Northern Ireland. However, unless the Government reassess their economic policies and their outlook on Northern Ireland, we can look forward only to more frustration and disaffection, leading to a continuation of the tragedy.
I attended a meeting last year with economic experts, trade union representatives and a Minister. Their assessment was that in the 1990s there would never be fewer than 30,000 or 40,000 people unemployed in Northern Ireland. We must accept the figure, because there is no hope of getting away from it with this Government's economic outlook. We have had to live with such numbers for many years, but they are still unacceptable.
I need not speak at great length to impress upon the Minister the urgency of doing something to create employment, especially for the young, who will be the future population of Northern Ireland. One cannot disregard or push aside older people, because they have suffered unemployment for many years, but the young are an especially worrying problem. May I give the Minister some advice about the measures that he announced to cope with unemployment? The local enterprise development unit is not being used to its full extent. There is great potential in that organisation and many of those employed by it are dedicated to attracting industries to the more deprived areas. Many of them live in such areas and can see the deprivation that surrounds them. They are motivated by a sincerity that one does not see in all Civil Service departments. The local enterprise development unit should be given much more scope.
992
The Minister convinced me, within the ambit of Tory doctrinaire political thinking, that he is trying to cope with the housing problem. However, he will have received documents from Shelter in Northern Ireland, which is closely involved with all housing problems. Its latest estimate is that Northern Ireland needs 50,000 more houses. It draws attention to the fact that once people enter hostels for single people in Belfast, they do not leave them until they are carried out in a box. I have not heard of a single person who has been taken from a hostel and given Housing Executive or local authority accommodation. Those people, many of whom contributed to society when they were in a better position, have become a forgotten race. It is unfair that once they are resident in such hostels, society seems to forget about them. Will the Minister consider their plight?
Many hon. Members have talked about the European Community, and we have heard repeatedly about the fantastic sums of money that Northern Ireland will receive from that organisation. I hope that I live to see the day when we receive it. We have heard of an integrated operations plan, which means that about £40 million of EC money will be given to Belfast. However, there has been a hold-up, because Germany has objected to the plan. People in Ireland, especially in the south, refer constantly to EC money, but there is no such thing. Since the formation of the EC, two or perhaps three countries have been net contributors while the other six or seven have been net beneficiaries. At present the net contributors are Germany and the United Kingdom, while every other member is a beneficiary. German and British money will be used if and when the integrated operations plan is accepted and begun in Northern Ireland.
Germany has probably objected to the plan because it has great political problems. There are 2½ million people unemployed there, and some Germans must ask, "Why should we give our money to the EC kitty only for it to be given to part of the United Kingdom?" There must be constraints upon any German leader, but I believe that the German Government agree that the money should be paid. I hope that our Government can impress upon the German Government the terrible housing problem in Northern Ireland and thus remove German objections.
Some hackles have been raised by the European Parliament's proposal to hold an inquiry into Northern Ireland. Many objections would be raised to the plan by the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who, for many historic reasons, may believe that it is another knife to be stuck in their backs. I understand that, but they do themselves less than justice by protesting so vehemently. If there were such an inquiry, the Government might be acquitted of the charges that are levelled against them and might come out of it in a good light. It would be wrong to reject the proposal, because the question will be asked, "What do they have to hide?" I mentioned the £40 million that Northern Ireland is supposed to receive from the Community. The Government could say to the Commission, "If you speed up the provision of that money, we shall allow you to conduct an inquiry."
Mr. John Patten: What does the hon. Gentleman believe the Government have to hide? During the hunger strikes there were more foreign journalists and television crews in and around the Maze prison than any other

993
Government would have allowed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing to hide in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Fitt: I cannot be sure about that. I have serious reservations about whether an outside source can contribute to a reduction in violence, but if the EC countries believe that they can do something, what would they ask about? The political position, with the assembly and the House, is obvious. Perhaps some EC countries see it as one way of having a go at Britain because they have never regarded us as a great European nation. Britain is not the most loved country in the EC. However, the Government must not put up barricades and obstacles to the inquiry, because they may be vindicated. We all know of the number of soldiers and policemen who have been killed. Yesterday in Armagh there were more murders, and there may be more in another county tomorrow. No EC Government could have dealt with the security problem better than this Government or the previous one.
I sometimes wonder what the position would be if we had German soldiers in the Falls road under an EC banner, or if we had the French police. We all saw how the latter acted against rioters in 1968 and 1969. I do not think that there is any EC nation whose army would be more acceptable on the streets of Northern Ireland than the British Army. I hope to see the day come very soon when it will be unnecessary to have any soldiers in any part of Northern Ireland. I only hope that I live long enough to see the departure of the soldiers from the streets.
Coming to education and teacher training, we know that there has been great controversy with the Catholic Church in relation to colleges and the order of teachers who will be allocated to the training colleges, and I have had correspondence about this. I sat in the Select Committee on Education of this House and I listened to Bishop Cahal Daly put forward what I regarded as an unanswerable case for an increase in the number of students. When we take into account the number of Catholic children who are attending primary schools and the population basis and effects, I do not think that the Catholic Church is making unjustifiable demands. I listened to the bishop that day, and I was not influenced by the fact that I, too, am a Catholic. He put forward what I regarded as a very substantial case for increasing that figure of 31 per cent. to 40 per cent. I ask the Minister, for the sake of the whole community in Northern Ireland, to get rid of a problem which, the longer it goes on, the more it divides people.
Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he adheres to the view that all Roman Catholic children in Northern Ireland should be taught by Roman Catholic teachers and, if so, is he prepared to allow the same freedom to Protestant parents and teachers?
Mr. Fitt: This is something that we have always had to take into account in Northern Ireland—whether we have integrated education or segregated education. There are many people on this side of the water who believe that it is very important to allow young children to be taught together because from then on they would probably have less to disagree about. I think that there is some truth in that, but segregated education is not a big factor in the problems of Northern Ireland. Catholics in Northern
994
Ireland by and large would give some sort of allegiance to the idea of a united Ireland. Protestants, on the other hand, by and large would want to maintain the links with Britain and the United Kingdom. It is political rather than religious.
I can only put forward my own case. I was educated by the Christian Brothers. It was a Catholic school. Maybe I am wrong and maybe others might see me in a different light, but I do not believe that I am a Catholic bigot. It is because I am not that I find myself somewhat in political isolation at the moment, but it was a stand that I had to take. So again I urge the Minister to have a look at those figures.
A week or so ago we were all lobbied by pensioners and people from Age Concern. I have had documentation from Age Concern in Northern Ireland and it is very concerned about the heating allowance for old people. It is pointed out in the documentation it has sent to us that it knows that old people deliberately deny themselves heating by gas, electricity or coal because they cannot afford it. When people get to that time of life that is when they really need heat, and because of the high cost of energy in Northern Ireland old people are denying themselves something which is essential to their well-being.
I urge the Minister to look at the plight of these old people. We are coming to the summer now and hoping for warmer weather, but I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to paying a heating allowance to people over a certain age when we come to the winter again.
6.35 pm
Mr. William Ross: There are not many speakers in the debate and we therefore have quite a long time to cover the ground. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the lush pastures which confronted him. I must say that the longer this debate goes on, the lusher and more extensive those pastures appear.
I listened with care to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who has now left the Chamber, and of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), both of whom, I think, would glory in being described as Socialists. I listened to them waxing indignant, as so often before, at cutbacks and alleged cutbacks in Government expenditure, social services, and so on, on this side of the Irish Sea. As often before, my astonishment became greater the longer I listened, because they seem intent on trying to get Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom, where there is a high level of social services, a high level of public expenditure, and into a country that is incapable of providing such services on anything like the same level.
If that is the extent of their Socialist conscience and their concern for the poorer people of Northern Ireland, I must say to both of them and to the Labour party that if the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North was speaking for it that attitude is not acceptable to anyone who really cares about the welfare of the poorer people of Northern Ireland. Not only have we no political or constitutional desire to enter an Irish Republic in an all-Ireland context; we have no wish to enter it for the reasons that they claim to uphold in this House—concern for the elderly and the poor and the welfare of those sections of the community.
It astonishes me that hon. Members, being aware of the social deprivation—they certainly talk about it often

995
enough and at great length—insist on trying to get Northern Ireland into a situation in which that social and economic deprivation can only increase and the welfare of the people they represent can only be greatly diminished.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North thinks that there would be some saving in British public expenditure if the border ran up the middle of the Irish sea instead of round the Six Counties. The experience and history of Irish emigration show that all those people who lost economically by the withdrawal of the social services at the level to which they have been accustomed all their lives would, because they have a perfect right to do so, come to where those social services exist. It could not be good for the welfare of Ireland as a whole or for that of this country to have a large number of British citizens coming to live in Great Britain, if the unhappy day should ever arrive when the desires of the hon. Members for Hammersmith, North and for Belfast, West were realised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South spoke of the need for local government in Northern Ireland. When Stormont existed there was no suggestion that county councils, district councils and corporations did not have enough to do. When Stormont vanished, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) warned the House of the dreadful mire Northern Ireland would be in because of changes in local government. From the day that the new district council areas were established and the new local government structure introduced, there have been problems with kerbstones, drains, housing and so on. Every hon. Member representing a seat in Northern Ireland finds his surgery and postbag full of problems that belong with local government.
If the Government wish to carry out the manifesto that they put before the people in 1979, they should establish the structure of local government that the Stormont Parliament intended to exercise. It is no use the Minister saying that there is no change in policy. The Government changed their stated electoral position within six months of taking office. There is no reason why they should not now retreat—indeed, I would call it an advance. The people of Northern Ireland should have the power to care for all the small items that now plague hon. Members and Ministers, especially the Under-Secretary. There is no reason why that should not be done. The structure is there, and so are the people. Although some chopping and changing of the Act establishing the assembly might be necessary, it would lead to more efficient administration in Northern Ireland.
If that were done, the delusions of proportional representation would have to be faced. That system was established to break the mould and obtain moderate consensus politics in Northern Ireland. The plain truth is that it has not worked. PR does not promote the Alliance party; it promotes sectionalism. The sooner that that is understood, the better. The majority of the population of Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are people of moderate views. While the violent and the extreme may succeed for a time under the first-past-thepost system, in the longer term the more moderate views will prevail. The first-past-the-post system should be restored for all elections as soon as possible.
Those remarks were simply a preface to what I have to say. I was incited to make them having listened to other speeches.
An unemployment difficulty arose in my constituency this week, when 170 people in the Monsanto factory at
996
Coleraine lost their jobs. They are a minute drop in the vast bucketful of unemployed in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Those job losses are in addition to the already large number of unemployed in that area. We must wonder whether the man-made fibre industry in Northern Ireland will exist in a few years.
The factory was going like a bomb—[Interruption.] That may be a bad description, but I assure the House that the factory was working fiat out. The job losses occurred because the ownership of the factory is being transferred to a company based in Italy. We all know the background to the Italian man-made fibre industry. It has increased its capacity throughout the years, despite over-capacity in the world market. The factory in Coleraine provided acrylic fibre for the United Kingdom market, the European market, Morocco, South Africa and a number of countries in the middle east. The United Kingdom and European markets were reasonably profitable, and the company could survive. However, other parts of the market made losses.
When the factory is sold and the deal completed, the Italian company will control 25 per cent. of the acrylic fibre production capacity in Europe. That one company will be dominant. That should concern the entire House. There is no doubt that if the Italians face difficulties with their markets they will look after their fellow countrymen first and protect their jobs. Those dependent on the Northern Ireland company will find themselves in a difficult position.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers have received a copy of the textile industry's plan for action, which was published this month. It might help the understanding of the House if I quote what it said about the Italian man-made fibre industry. It states:
"The Italian man-made fibre industry has been subsidised and refinanced over the past 7 years to an extent which has allowed it to remain in business in spite of continuous losses which in some years were in excess of 50 per cent. of turnover. We estimate that this intervention has amounted to some £1,500 million over the period. It is quite impossible for even the most efficient free enterprise to compete in such a situation. It is quite clearly the responsibility of the Government to insist that: the Commission should act to correct it."
A Government who, during the past seven years. have spent £1,500 million to keep their people working in the man-made fibre industry will not worry too much about 300 people in the Coleraine factory. It is a matter for Government action and concern. The industry was efficient. It cut down its work force to about one third of its previous level for the same level of production. It should have some future rather than go down the drain to join the remainder of the Northern Ireland production of man-made fibre.
The people of Northern Ireland and the industrialists of the United Kingdom have no cause to fear fair competition. The people of Northern Ireland are worried about unfair competition. The House must do something to give the industry a base for the future. The feedstock, which is mainly oil in one form or another, carries a tax which is higher than that prevailing in the rest of the EC. The Budget will be presented next week. Perhaps the Minister could draw the matter to the attention of the Chancellor to see whether something could be done to improve the economic and competitive position of our industry. It is the cost of the fuel and feedstock that matters to our manufacturers. If other people use unfair competition, I see no reason why we should not tilt the

997
balance and make it worthwhile for them to produce acrylic fibre in our country rather than theirs. What matters is not that we have oil, but the cost of that oil to our manufacturers.
The House will be aware that on "Panorama" next week there will be an investigation into what it called "Britain's wasteland"—Northern Ireland. It is an investigation into how Government and British money has been spent there. I should like to help the producer of that programme, Mr. Peter Taylor. Many things can be said about public expenditure relating to any part of the United Kingdom. I should not want Mr. Taylor to feed the people of Great Britain with falsities. I should like him to give the whole picture rather than a small part of it.
As so often happens in the case of Northern Ireland Members, I have a copy of a confidential report from the Northern Ireland Office to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was written some time ago to help defend British Government policy with regard to Northern Ireland. It points out that, of the total identifiable public expenditure for the United Kingdom in the year 1979–80 per head of the population, Northern Ireland received £1,637 compared with £1,107 for England, £1,302 for Wales, £1,366 for Scotland and £1,155 for the United Kingdom as a whole. I thought it might be wise to bring Mr. Taylor and his team up to date. I should not like them to use old figures. However, unfortunately, the public expenditure figures for each component nation of the United Kingdom are not available for the current year, although they are available for previous years.
For the year 1981–82 the percentage of public expenditure in Northern Ireland had fallen slightly from 4 per cent. to 3·9 per cent. The figure per head was £2,245 for Northern Ireland, £1,455 for England, £1,876 for Scotland and £1,712 for Wales. The figure for Northern Ireland is still slightly higher than those for other countries but Northern Ireland is in the middle of a terrorist war. Other parts of the United Kingdom do not have the social and economic deprivation and problems, some of which arise from that terrorist war, which have been referred to earlier.
By far the largest amount of public expenditure went to England, which received £68 billion. If one wants to save public expenditure perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North would like to get rid of England from the United Kingdom rather than Northern Ireland. For year after year the people of Northern Ireland have had these figures thrown at them. We shall probably have them thrown at us again from the television screen next week. That would be appalling. The figures should be set in their proper context of the Province's economic and social conditions compared with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. If one breaks down the figures for the United Kingdom as a whole, one soon finds that London is the only place that makes money. The reasons for that are well known to everyone.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I should like to encourage my hon. Friend to believe that the information that he has put at the BBC's disposal will be used in the programme on Monday night, but my experience of the producer is that he fixes an idea in his head and disregards all the uncomfortable and awkward facts that would get in the way of that preconceived idea.
998
I should not want to hold out any hope that the corrections and valuable information that my hon. Friend is prepared to put at the BBC's disposal will be used to give a balanced picture.
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend knows that a balanced picture rarely comes Northern Ireland's way. While it is difficult to convert those whose minds are fixed on doing as much damage to the Province as possible, one lives in hope that if that gentleman does not make use of the figures perhaps his overlords in the BBC will be made to take note of them. Ministers will no doubt bring them to the attention of the BBC so that a more balanced picture may be set before the people of the United Kingdom.
One could continue and refer to the fact that British Leyland has received £2·5 billion since 1975 and during the same period the British Steel Corporation, depending upon how it is counted, managed to get rid of £2·4 billion to £3 billion. That is a fair bit of money to spend on a relatively small percentage of the United Kingdom population. Each part of the nation is interdependent upon every other. The sooner that is recognised and put over to the electorate, the better for us all. The false figures with which we are bombarded by the enemies of Ulster should have no place in the thinking of the people of this nation.
I want to deal with education. The House will have listened with interest to the exchange between myself and the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I noticed that he did not get round to answering my question. However, I hope that as money for education is evidently in short supply this year the noble Lord Gowrie who is in charge of education will make it his business to bring to the attention of the Catholic bishop in Londonderry the fact that there is a mixed primary school in the village of Ballykelly—which suffered so grievously just before Christmas—where Roman Catholic, Protestant, Army and formerly Air Force children have been educated happily and well together. It is deplorable that the local Catholic parish priest has applied for permission to build a sectarian school in the village.
Everyone wishes to have children educated together and good relations fostered, and I hope that it will be brought to the good bishop's attention that the priest's proposal will do nothing to improve community relations or to maintain the good community relations in the village. I hope that the bishop will reconsider the matter. As far as I can discover, the parishioners have no particular wish to be faced with the expenditure, however small, of building a new school when there is a perfectly adequate one operating in the village.
We cannot afford such a school at present. The Government have had the breathtaking effrontery to offer the entire Northern Ireland education system £600,000 only for new building projects in the coming financial year. Any of the education and library boards in Northern Ireland could easily spend that amount of money on new build. I made a number of inquiries of the boards and was told that the north-eastern education and library board has put four new projects to the Department for approval. One is for a new school but the others are all urgent. The board drew my attention to the fact that the Ballyclare high school has 30 mobile classrooms and that the Magherafelt high school, although it is not at the tender stage, is in the same general position. In the western education and library board's area there is the Limavady primary school, on which work is supposed to begin towards the end of the

999
year. There is also the Omagh special school. A school building for Sion Mills and regional libraries for both Londonderry and Omagh are on the stocks.
As well as that, there is the Government's rationalisation programme, which was pressed upon us so clearly and thoroughly by the Minister. Rationalisation and getting rid of the small schools may look well on paper, but there are two problems. First, it is clear that the money to implement it does not exist. If it did, there would be more than £600,000 for next year. Secondly, education in the rural areas is not only a numbers game. A numbers game may make sense in the larger conurbations such as Belfast, but it makes no sense in the country areas. Distance is the predominant feature there. It is difficult to transport small children to and from the schools.
The Minister complained at the lack of progress in closing schools. He could do that only if he did not understand the resistance and fears of the people in those rural communities. I speak for the rural communities, where the problem has been much greater. The Minister also referred to the demographic trend, which is that fewer children are being born. However, we have no idea whether that trend will persist for five, 10 or even two years. The situation could change rapidly. The problem is that, once one closes a school, it has gone for ever; it will never reopen. It takes the heart out of many of the smaller hamlets and rural communities and destroys the possibility of a viable community in the more remote areas.
Some parents do not trust the small schools and transport their children to larger ones. We must face that social problem. We must convince the parents that small local schools are worthy of support because if all the children go to them they become a much better prospect. Of course, it is the wealthier section of the community that can afford to take the children elsewhere.
Apart from future rationalisation, there is the problem that for the past two years since the document was issued there have been no improvements on the smaller schools, which is a danger. By withholding the money for those programmes the Government are assisting in achieving their desired aim—the closing of the small schools. They are in a dreadful state. Only the most vital work is done. It is impossible to teach and do a reasonable job in such conditions. One example is Bellarena. The case has been made that it is still a viable unit, although it is small, but no money has been made available. It should be allowed to go ahead with its improvements. The matter should be sorted out this year.
The north-eastern board area has 350 mobile classrooms altogether. I do not know what the Government intend to do about that. To say that £600,000 will be sufficient to deal with it is nonsense. The figure for new starts last year for both of the controlled and voluntary sectors was £1·3 million. For both sectors this year the figure is £600,000 each. They are having an equal share of the misery.
Last year the voluntary sector had 11 new starts. This coming year it has six. Last year the controlled sector had 24 new starts for various projects. This year it does not know how many it has. That means two things. First, the controlled sector, which is the state sector, does not know how many new starts it will have, so it cannot go ahead with tendering. Secondly, the amount of money available is so small that all those starts will be late in the year. The work cannot start until the winter. Limavady primary school is aiming for October or November. That is the
1000
middle of the winter. Not much money will be spent before the end of March. The £600,000 means that the programme will come to a stop for a number of months. The trouble for future years will build up on top of that. There is a cumulative effect. To try to chop us back to that extent when the work is so badly needed is to store up the problems for the future. Those problems will be harder to resolve.
I refer now to the sums expended on insurance for schools. It is the practice that the controlled sector of schools is not insured against vandalism, fire damage and so on. That means that whenever there is damage through vandalism or whatever the money that is needed for replacements or repairs has to come out of the board's money for the year. No extra provision is made.
The schools in the voluntary sector are insured. Figures have been given to me in the past few months showing the cost of insurance against the cost of carrying out the repairs. It is clear that there is a saving to the public purse through not insuring the schools. However, the voluntary schools are insured. The interesting thing is that they are reimbursed 100 per cent. by the boards for that insurance.
If the voluntary sector is getting what is in effect extra money over and above that which is going into the controlled sector—that is the only conclusion that one can draw from the facts as I understand them—there is a good case to be made for increasing by a like amount the insurance money to the controlled sector. That would go a long way towards resolving some of the difficulties that we face in the controlled sector. If by doing so we can convince the voluntary sector that the Government will meet the cost of repairs in the same way as they meet the cost of repairs in the controlled sector, we may be able to get rid of the cost of insurance in the voluntary as well as in the controlled sector.
I hope that Northern Ireland Ministers will take a careful look at the possibility that I am outlining to them. I may have got some of it wrong, but I think that the Ministers will find that my general thesis is correct: if money is that tight, why throw away £200,000 or £300,000 a year?
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) is still with us. He will not be surprised to hear me refer to housing grants. It seems that he and I are always corresponding on that matter. In a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee a week or so ago I referred to the definition of farmhouses with regard to grants. I have since written to the Minister asking about the possibility of creating another point of entry to the improvement grants for such dwellings. I have made a few more investigations since then, because the agricultural sufficient employment test, which is the only point of entry for houses just over the limit, concerns the Minister as well as me. I asked the Minister in the Northern Ireland Committee to consider a more reasonable system, or whether another point of entry could be evolved. I wrote to him suggesting that an entry point based on a percentage of farming income for the specific individual could be used as another point of entry.
Paragraph 63 of the first: report from the Agriculture Committee on investment aids contains some interesting material. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will examine the report so that his officials can devise a scheme to use those investment aids. An EC directive states that farmers could draw up to 50 per cent. of their income from non-farm work in the less favoured areas. That is an avenue that the

1001
Minister could profitably explore, because this problem is causing both of us considerable concern. We should try to resolve the problem as soon as possible for the benefit of my constituents and those of all Northern Ireland Members. However, I have no doubt that the Minister will examine the relevant paragraph and speak to me about it.
The Minister is always willing to listen to what I have to say and to read the many letters that I send him on the problems of demolition and rebuild. Is he making any progress on that front? I raised that matter 10 days ago, and if I have the opportunity I shall raise it 10 days hence. I should like this matter to be examined as expeditiously as possible. It is just as reasonable to subsidise building a new house as it is to subsidise a tenant paying rent or a tenant who buys.
I find nothing wrong with the principle that I am setting forth, if only to improve the quality of housing in the rural areas. Hon. Members hear much about the poor quality of housing in Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast. They forget that bad housing also exists in the rural areas, especially among the small farmers and owner-occupiers. That problem must be resolved. It is as important as the problem of urban slums. With the exception of a small part of Londonderry, I am fortunate that the bad areas of housing in my constituency have largely disappeared. My problem is the low quality of rural housing, especially in many parts of the west of Northern Ireland. It must be resolved, although it will be difficult.
I wish to deal with the repairs procedure of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The Government have been quietly sliding over the fact that the Housing Executive made a complete mess of the repair programme for this year. It got its sums wrong, thereby causing enormous difficulties.
In the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Basingstoke said that many problems were thrown up at the time of the assembly elections when canvassing took place. When hon. Members canvass this year the same problems, still unresolved, will be waiting for them. When I canvass in my constituency, the problems come back to me. The Housing Executive has got its sums wrong and there is no area in which it has got it sums more wrong than in that of repairs. When the Minister replies to the debate, will he say how the £6 million deficit, which the Housing Executive was heading for at the beginning of the year, arose for the repair of houses? My understanding is that it arose largely in the city of Belfast. If that is so, why did those involved get it wrong and why do my constituents and those in other parts of Northern Ireland have to suffer because Belfast made a mess of things? If my area can get it right, or nearly right, why cannot Belfast get it right? Why has the work not been completed? Why cannot we have a proper standard for house building and repair so that our constituents and tenants are satisfied when it is completed?
I wonder whether Belfast knew what it was doing, whether there was vandalism or whether there was a specific reason for that upsurge in the cost of repairs in that part of the Province. If the cost has not arisen in Belfast, will the Minister tell the House how the deficit arose and how we got into this mess? When my constituents return to me for seven weeks and say that there is a seven to eight week freeze before they can get repairs done, I get fed up. I feel sure they get angry.
1002
I must leave aside the failure of the Housing Executive to solve the problems, for such failures will persist until we have proper responsible local government in control of housing in Northern Ireland. The councils should be prepared to take responsibility for ensuring that the work is done and the people living in their houses are properly cared for.
I do not wish to speak for too long—[Interruption.]
Mr. Donald Thompson: Please, please.
Mr. Ross: If the Government Whip is incapable of getting a sufficient number of Conservative Members to keep the debate going, I will continue for an hour or so.
There was recently a debate in this House on the common agricultural policy. Northern Ireland has waited many years for an extension of the less favoured areas. Hopes have been raised and expectations created, but there has never been any commitment by the Government to provide money for an increase in grant levels that would result in an extension of the less favoured areas. If the Government are not prepared to make the money available and to give a commitment, it is about time they said so. However, if they are prepared to give a commitment, again it is about time they said so. The expectation may be founded on sinking sand. It is unfair and morally wrong to lead people to believe year after year that there will be some salvation and then at the end of the day, when the Commission accepts the extension, to say, "We are spreading the current money over an increased area." The increased area must have a commitment to that section of farming.
The CAP debate was on a telling motion. I do not think that I need rehearse the argument. I am sure that those who were present or who read the reports of the debate will recall that there was nothing in that motion about the level of farmers' incomes. The only commitments were to ensure that the consumer had cheap food and that the processor made a profit.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), who opened the debate today, talked about a reasonable level of income for farmers. That sounds good; it is a wonderful term. But what does it mean? When the Minister replies, will he tell the House what a reasonable income is? What percentage is it of the average industrial income in this country? How much more than that does the farmer need in his pocket every year to spend on machinery, improvements, new stock and all the things that he needs? The Minister talks about a reasonable level of income, so surely someone somewhere in the Department of Agriculture or in the Government has some idea what that means, either in relation to an acre of land or to industrial incomes. Many farmers would be delighted to hear what it was, so that they could see how far short they had fallen.
Mr. Adam Butler: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman a rest. He has been talking for a little while, and it is only fair that he should have a break. I am glad that he has come to the subject of farm incomes and I look forward to his saying a little more about them. However, while he waits for the Department to give that definition—perhaps some time, perhaps never—could not he give the House his definition of a reasonable income?
Mr. Ross: I am not in a position to do that. I did not coin the term. To give a definition of what farmers feel is a reasonable level of income, I would have to ask the

1003
Ulster Farmers Union, which is closely in touch with all its members. I shall send the UFU a copy of my remarks, and I am sure that it will then let the Minister know what it considers to be a reasonable income.
In reaching that reasonable income, the less favoured area extension is a very necessary measure, but it will not wholly overcome the problems caused by remoteness of market and the high cost of stock feed in Northern Ireland. The less favoured areas are not necessarily hill areas, as the Minister knows. The characteristics that make an area less favoured are those that will limit the production of food for various reasons. For example, soil and drainage may be poor, the area may be remote, sea crossings may be involved or there may be steep land or other environmental considerations. Therefore, Ministers will see that there are several problems to concern them. The objective of the less favoured area measures is to increase the level of profit of farming in those areas, while maintaining a viable population. I wonder whether those two statements are contradictory. Money can be used to improve the soil. The level of fertility can be improved and much can be done about drainage. Also, better roads and cheaper services, such as telephones and electricity, can help with remoteness.
The Minister responsible for the environment in Northern Ireland is also responsible for areas of natural beauty and for their tourist applications. If society is to preserve those areas of outstanding natural beauty, society as a whole—rather than the agriculturists or graziers who live there—will have to pay for the special conditions laid down for farm buildings and other housing that may be erected. If there is to be a viable population that is not necessarily connected with agriculture, there must be a change in the planners' attitude towards those areas. One of the aims of farmers is to increase in size, become more efficient and thus have a lower proportion of the population dependent upon it. That leads to all the problems of education and so on that have been mentioned.
The question of sea crossings may be dealt with in the same way as the Scottish islands were dealt with. I refer the Minister to paragraph 21 of the report, which deals with that problem in Scotland. When I read it, I wondered whether the road equivalent tariff system which is to be used for the Scottish islands might be considered for Northern Ireland. The problem of transport in Northern Ireland should concern us all. If something is done to lessen that burden, we may begin to get somewhere.
I think that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North raised the possibility of building a grain intervention store in Northern Ireland. That may help, but there is still the problem of transporting the grain to it. In addition, it will not bring the price of the grain down to the level that we used to enjoy when we obtained it from North America. That affects the cost of food production in this country. No doubt the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland will have read the book written by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I do not agree with everything in that book, but he certainly raised several questions to which the Government, farmers unions and farmers should address their minds. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston simply asked how much longer we were prepared to go on paying for an increase in the level of production, and what we would do with the food when we had it.
1004
In Ulster, the system of small farms is slowly but surely disappearing. The cheap grain has gone. However, I must still assume that the Government wish to maintain food production in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom at some level. But we have never been told what farmers are expected to do. The Government are no more prepared to commit themselves on that than the Minister is to tell me what a reasonable income is.
Farmers cannot assume that the Government will maintain and increase food production, regardless of economic considerations and the cost of production. Thai: is what the motion on the common agricultural policy 10 days ago meant. I just hope and pray that the farmers, and their representatives in the farmers unions, will consider what is inherent in that, even if Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office and at national level are unwilling to state it in cold black and white. I also question whether it is wise or morally just to mislead farmers in the way that they have been misled by this and previous Governments over the level of food production wanted in the United Kingdom.
7.27 pm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I hope that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will forgive me if I do not follow him down all the various paths that he trod of Northern Ireland politics. Hon. Members would be here for longer than they would choose if I were to attempt that task. In addition, the hon. Gentleman's deep knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs is such that I could not hope to match his detailed points.
I am glad to have this opportunity to make, in a sense, my maiden speech on Northern Ireland affairs. However, I regret that I must begin with some apologies. First, I am sorry that I was unable to hear the speech made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), because, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I was at our party's committee dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. There we met the director of the Province's industrial development board and discussed the problems of industrial development in Northern Ireland with him. Therefore, I regret that I was unable to hear the opening speeches.
I must also apologise to the House because I shall have to slip away after my speech due to a previous engagement elsewhere. Nevertheless, I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate. It will come as no surprise to those who take part regularly in debates on Northern Ireland when I say that I come to this subject relatively fresh, and that what I have to say is said unashamedly as an outsider.
I do not profess a deep and long-standing knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, although anyone who is involved in British politics must be interested and concerned about what is happening there. I have had such an interest throughout my adult life. Anyone who is relatively young in politics must recognise that Northern Ireland has been a continuum, going along in the background of British politics. No one involved in politics can afford to ignore that.
This debate is an ideal opportunity for someone coming to the problem from such a background to make his opening comments. The debate ranges broadly over every subject in Northern Irish politics. It is an opportunity for hon. Members to speak on any issue involving public

1005
expenditure in Northern Ireland. As we know from our procedures in the United Kingdom as a whole, that means in practice anything to do with politics in the Province.
Anyone coming to Northern Irish affairs for the first time must obviously begin by expressing concern about the continuing toll of loss of life and damage to property. It has gone on throughout my political life and represents the failure of Government in one of their most basic duties. Thomas Hobbes said that without Government, life is "nasty, brutish and short."
Mr. Soley: That is the case with this Government.
Mr. Dorrell: No, Hobbes said that about the total absence of government. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North is leaping a long way from the position in any part of the United Kingdom. One of the basic purposes of Government is to allow every citizen in any part of the country to go about his lawful business without fear for his own safety or for the security of his property. The task of Government to maintain law and order in the areas for which they are responsible is one of high trust, which no Government of the United Kingdom over the past 15 years can claim to have discharged in all their territories with the success that they would have preferred.
I become impatient with those on the mainland of the United Kingdom who, after looking at Northern Ireland, say that we should cut ourselves off, that we should withdraw our troops and that the Northern Ireland problem is one for the Irish. Northern Ireland is—and until it chooses for the position to be otherwise, will remain—part of the United Kingdom. It has chosen by democratic vote on many occasions to remain so. It makes no more sense for my constituents in Loughborough to say that we should withdraw our troops from Northern Ireland than it would for constituents in Belfast to say that we should withdraw our troops in the event of a breakdown of law and order in Loughborough. That would be a grave dereliction of our duty. If the maintenance of law and order is one of the basic tasks of government, then the time that citizens need Government most is precisely when law and order is in danger of breaking down. That is exactly the position that pertains at times in parts of Northern Ireland.
I very firmly believe that the United Kingdom Government have an inescapable duty to try to ensure a return of civilised standards of life and security in the Province, just as they have to maintain them through the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will continue to regard it as an important part of their job to explain the need for that policy, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, so that all citizens understand beyond peradventure the need for it to continue. I hope also that they will continue what I know have been considerable efforts on the part of the ministerial team in Northern Ireland and sympathetic Back Benchers in the House to try to ensure that those who interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland from outside the United Kingdom, particularly from North America, understand the truth of the position.
I well remember visiting New York at the time of the hunger strikes in Northern Ireland. I was being driven through the streets by an Irish-American taxi driver who said that, while he did not profess to have a great
1006
knowledge of Northern Ireland, he did not feel that all that was being put about by IRA sympathisers was true. I told him that it was not true. I told him that there was no easy solution for the British Government as long as it was recognised that the majority community in Northern Ireland is Protestant and that the majority community had repeatedly shown through the ballot box that it did not wish to leave the United Kingdom. The taxi driver told me that he did not know that. He said that he, as an Irish-American, thought that it was a case of the British Government holding down the Province against its will. It came as a surprise to him when I said that in repeated referendums people had voted to stay in the United Kingdom. That should come as no surprise to anyone in North America, particularly to Irish-Americans in New York. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have made it part of their job to try to ensure that that depth of ignorance is removed from North America. I hope that those efforts will continue, because they can be of major importance in bringing back law and order to the streets of Northern Ireland.
An unavoidable question for an hon. Member to ask is, what can we, in the House and in Government, do about the problems pertaining in Northern Ireland?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: They are covered by this order.
Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, the problems are covered by the order. As I said at the beginning of my speech, everything that the Government do in Northern Ireland is covered by the order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring himself to talk about the responsibilities of Northern Ireland Departments. Police and security matters are not within the scope of this order.
Mr. Dorrell: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree that my points about the importance of understanding the issues in Northern Ireland are the proper responsibility of every department of government in Northern Ireland, whether paid for out of the Consolidated Fund through the Northern Ireland Office or through the individual departments of government in Northern Ireland.
Since the troubles began in Northern Ireland, all the departments of government have tried to remove the legitimate causes of concern that have led to a growth in terrorism in recent years. Anyone who is concerned with the evolution of government, whether it be in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or indeed any part of the world, must accept that no Government will ever be perfect. There will always be causes of unrest. There will always be things to which individuals in a community object, or that people think are being done wrongly and unjustly. I do not believe that anyone can argue against the proposition that Governments of both parties over the past 10 to 15 years have made a serious attempt to deal with some of the problems that clearly existed in the late 1960s. That is not to say that the people who were responsible for government until the abolition of Stormont were wrong but simply that problems existed then—that is not a controversial statement.
Serious attempts have been made by Governments of all political parties in the Province to try to deal with those

1007
legitimate causes of concern in the Community. One cannot rebuild the basis of consent that is the bedrock of a free society without a consensus in the community that the organs of government are working for the purposes and the interests of the whole community.
Mr. Soley: I really cannot let the hon. Gentleman continue that line of argument without intervening. I welcome him to the debate, but I suggest that he studies the Irish election results in 1918, the way in which the border was drawn in 1920, how the majority came to be where it is and why the Unionists felt so insecure in the following years and chose, unfortunately, to discriminate against the minority. Having done that, if he re-reads his comments today he may reach a very different conclusion.
Mr. Dorrell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that I would reach a different conclusion. I deliberately eschewed comment on what happened before the abolition of Stormont. As I said, whatever went wrong before then—and all Governments make mistakes—I do not think that the House would now deny that serious attempts have been made since the abolition of Stormont to deal with some of the problems that existed before then. I have chosen my words carefully. No one would argue—I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North would not argue—that things were perfect at that time, but I do not believe that many hon. Members would now deny that serious attempts are being made to deal with the problems that remained after the abolition of Stormont.
That is the important point. Where there is terrorism and a breakdown of the essential consensus that is the basis of a free society, there is a denial, as there has been at times in Irish history, that Governments are interested in the real problems of parts of the community. My point is that that is no longer the case. The Government are making genuine attempts to deal with indisputably real problems and I believe that that is widely recognised in the Northern Ireland community.
In recent months the Government have tried to build a consensus on that recognition in order to cut the ground from under the men of violence so that the community can go forward on the basis of local consensus about the proper development and form of society in Northern Ireland. In seeking to do that, the argument inevitably tends to centre around the form of institution necessary to build that consensus and make it work.
Mr. Richard Needham: I am interested in my hon. Friend's argument and I am sorry that I did not hear the earlier part of his speech. Does he agree that it is vital that the Government should be seen to be careful and even-handed in their approach? For example, the Minister of State has been carefully considering the matter of dog licences in Northern Ireland. Although it is an important matter, it is essential that the Government do not do anything that might destroy the consensus by forcing on the people of Northern Ireland something that may benefit farmers in one section of the community but perhaps create hardship for dog owners in another.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must seek to build on that consensus. It is perhaps an illustration of the fragility of the consensus in Northern Ireland that an issue such as he mentioned may be thought to imperil it. In England, it would seem absurd to suggest that dog
1008
licences might imperil the consensus on which a free society is based. That very fragility of the consensus in Northern Ireland is the basic problem facing anyone interested in the affairs of the Province.
As I said, anyone interested in rebuilding the consensus tends, perhaps inevitably, to turn first to the institutions. I suggest that perhaps the time has now come to turn our attention away from the great issues and institutions towards some of the more mundane issues covered by the order.
In considering the great institutional debates that have gone on in Ireland, depending which view of history one takes, since the time of Oliver Cromwell or even earlier, we must recognise that we are only human and mortal and if there were a perfect solution to the problems one of the great men who went before us might have stumbled across it.
It may be more sensible to accept that some questions have no answers and one can deal only with little bits at the edges and to apply our minds to dealing with some of the other questions to which there are more obvious answers and more specific steps that Governments can take to deal with specific problems. That may ultimately be more productive than endlessly arguing about the type of new Jerusalem we are trying to build.
There is the precedent of Henry Kissinger—again, not a perfect man—and his achievements in the middle east. He realised that it was impossible for an American Secretary of State at that time to envisage the end solutions to the problems of the middle east, but he saw specific things that could be done to reduce the size of the problem and to nibble at the edges of it.
Perhaps we could take the same approach in Northern Ireland. Instead of trying to redraw the whole thing from scratch on a clean sheet of paper, we could try to deal with some of the less ambitious issues. Again, it is perhaps an illustration of the size of the Northern Ireland problem that one regards the problems of social and economic development as less difficult to solve than the institutional problems. Nevertheless, I believe that that is now the case.
The House might be well advised to turn its attention to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) when he described the problems of unemployment and social deprivation in parts of Northern Ireland. He said that unemployment in his constituency had increased threefold since 1979. In absolute terms, unemployment in my constituency is nowhere near so high as in Belfast, West, but it has also increased threefold in the past four years, so the problems that the hon. Gentleman described are not unknown to Members in other parts of the House.
I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North but I understand that his approach was that the problems of Northern Ireland were to some extent caused by unemployment and social deprivation and could be solved by a substantial increase in public expenditure. I take issue with that analysis. I do not believe that economic problems can be solved simply by throwing money at them. The last time that I spoke in the House—I do not generally indulge myself to such an extent—was in the debate yesterday on public expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) reminded the House on that occasion, it is oversimplistic to imagine that economic

1009
problems can be solved by massive increases in public expenditure without reference to the impact of that on the real economy that one wishes to stimulate.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman will have to read my speech tomorrow. That is exactly what I said. I said that there was no point in simply throwing money at the problem because so much depended on how the money was used, and I called for it to be used in very specific ways. I understand that the hon. Gentleman could not be present to hear my speech, but it is dangerous to start taking apart a speech that he did not hear.
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not trying to take apart a speech that I did not hear. I am pointing out the dangers of regarding public expenditure alone as the solution to the economic problems of the Province. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that, I am happy to climb aboard his ship, although it will be interesting to see exactly what limitations he sought to place on the role of public expenditure in Northern Ireland.
An aspect of public expenditure that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and I discussed earlier today and which illustrates the role of public expenditure very clearly is the way in which the industrial development board is working in the Province. It would be very easy to see the role of the industrial development board as being a money-dispersing machine trying to stimulate industrial projects in the Province.
It is interesting that that was precisely how Mr. Tate did not see it, and when I pressed him closely on whether the availability of finance was the chief problem facing local business men, he said that it was not. Finance is available, sometimes through the IDB, but more usually from commercial sources of finance, for a project that has a real chance of being economically viable and providing jobs. For such projects, availability of finance was not the main cause of the problem. There are other problems, most particularly those concerned with the overall economic problems that this country and the developed world face. The problems are much more to do with overall recession than with cash availability in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tate emphasised that there is a large number of local entrepreneurs in the Province who have the management expertise and the willingness to take the risk, but, against the background of the recession that we face, do not have the realistic prospect of making a return on their investment. He emphasised that the best way to provide for the industrial rebirth of the Province was to engineer circumstances in which the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom could expand. He saw no reason why, particularly bearing in mind the strength of the local entrepreneurs and the availability of finance locally, Northern Ireland should not be well placed to benefit from an expanding United Kingdom economy.
I am struck in politics by how often one comes back to the fact, whether we are discussing the affairs of Northern Ireland or of some of the groups that are disadvantaged in my constituency, that many of these problems can only be solved by a restructured and healthy British economy. There is no more a local solution to the problem of Northern Ireland than there is a local solution to the problems of Loughborough. Those problems are, in
1010
reality, part of the whole problem of how we can make our economy expand and provide the wealth and opportunities that we want for our people.
That in itself is only a small part of how we make the world's economy expand again. It is cloud-cuckoo-land to imagine that we can get our economy expanding against a background of the deepest world recession this century. The most effective thing that the Government can do to improve the outlook for Northern Ireland is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been doing through his work in the interim committee of the IMF and on the international monetary scene to get the world's economy expanding. It is by that means that we can provide the resources necessary to solve many of the social and economic problems of the Province.
7.53 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I wish to intervene because a number of points have been raised concerning the matters for which I have responsibility in the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) took housing as one of his themes. Therefore, perhaps it might be appropriate if I say a few words on that subject. I am glad that the hon. Member is taking such an interest in housing. I know that he has recently visited Belfast to see the housing conditions there for himself. He and I share the common purpose of trying to improve the housing conditions for the people of both Belfast and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member does not do the Province a service by underplaying the progress that has been made. It is right that he should examine, analyse and probe, but if his analysis and probing show that there is an improvement, it lends credibility to his argument if he accepts that that is so.
The hon. Member spoke about the need to keep pace with unfitness, and suggested that we were 500 short in the number of starts. There are over 500,000 houses in the Province and to know within 500 the precise level of unfitness is a degree of fine tuning that is not realistic. It will not be until next year that we shall have a fitness housing survey giving us the up-to-date circumstances. The hon. Member may be right but he may not be, and one cannot fine-tune to that extent.
I accept that we need to see maximum progress in dealing with the serious housing problems. The hon. Member went on to call for 10,000 housing starts. We have made rather more progress towards that point than the House recognises. Starts last year by the Housing Executive were 4,600. The Housing Executive, with the housing associations, also rehabilitated 1,100 houses. A rehabilitated house will not be an unfit house, so we are making some progress, and it is right to add that number to the overall figure.
There is also the private sector, and some 4,500 starts were made there. That is a 19 per cent. increase over the figure for the preceding year, for which I might expect hon. Members to be pleased. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, as he shares my interest in housing, might have applauded the success that we have achieved. Those figures add up to 10,100. The hon. Member asked for a programme of 10,000 starts, but, taking the public and the private sectors together, we are 100 over that benchmark. I am never satisfied, but rather more progress has been made than we are sometimes given credit for.

1011
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North took a view, with which I do not agree, about housing sales, which he says are worsening the problem, particularly in the areas of housing stress. The waiting list in the Province is the difference between the number of houses and the number of families. Who owns the houses makes no difference to the balance of the equation of the number of the houses and the number of families. It makes no difference to the shortfall in the number of houses whoever owns them, whether they are owned by former tenants or the Housing Executive.
Mr. Soley: The Minister cannot get away with murder. He knows that it makes a difference to the possibility of transfers within an area so that in a housing stress area a person who is unable to buy cannot transfer because the better properties are sold first. Therefore, that does nothing to help the worst housing condition areas. The other point that the hon. Member has missed is that the whole thrust of my argument about housing is that that is the way to use public expenditure effectively to rejuvenate the economy and take half the construction workers off the dole.
Mr. Mitchell: In this matter the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We are talking about the problem of homelessness and of those who are on the waiting list. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the waiting list has come down from 30,000 in 1979 to 24,571, which is a substantial reduction. I have reason to believe that it has fallen further since those figures where worked out.
I do not accept the argument that making available to people in Northern Ireland the opportunity of becoming owner-occupiers by the purchase of their Housing Executive houses will in any way diminish the supply of housing or make the position of those on the waiting list worse. I was astonished when the hon. Gentleman went on to say that we were forcing people to buy houses from the Housing Executive. No force is being applied. There is attraction. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between force and attraction, that is perhaps one of the reasons why he is a Socialist and I am a Conservative. I want to see an economy in which people can exercise their free choice. They are exercising their choice because the cost of mortgages has fallen as Government policy has successfully reduced interest rates. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome an additional option that might not otherwise have been available. People who would not have been able to afford it can now, with lower interest rates, encompass the thought of becoming an owner-occupier.
The hon. Gentleman asked about rents. This year, we have increased rents roughly in line with the rise in the cost of living. If we had failed to do so, we would, in effect, have been diminishing the rents in real terms. The balance has not been tipped this year by rents, although this may have been the case last year. It has been tipped because of the significant reduction in the cost of the mortgages. I would have thought that the extra choice available to people in the Province would be welcomed by all hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman talked about an increase in rents simply leading to increased debt. I have to say to him that 70 per cent. of the Housing Executive tenants are not in arrears. It is not a black picture overall. Both the hon. Gentleman and myself are aware of street after street in
1012
Belfast where houses have not had money spent on them in repairs and maintenance for years. To discover the reason, one need look no further than the fact that most of the houses in that condition are let at a rent of under £1 per week. When a landlord is not receiving adequate rental income, one cannot expect him to maintain houses in a decent condition. I do not want to see the Housing Executive get into a position where it is not receiving the necessary income to enable it to maintain its property properly.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put some probing questions. He asked about housing arrears and explained that the local government auditor gave as the main cause of arrears the fact that those who were eligible for rebates did not seek them. He asked me to take steps to ensure a bigger take-up by those eligible for rebate. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) made the same point. I can give that assurance. I agree entirely. Both the executive and I have been seeking over the past year to encourage an increase in the take-up. The right hon. Member for Down, South may be mildly reassured when I say that we have succeeded in increasing the figures from 19,000 to 41,750, more than double. I am never satisfied, but it is significant progress.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: When officials of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive write to those tenants who are in arrears, would it be possible to point out to them that they might be entitled to a rebate if they have not already claimed one?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the chairman of the Housing Executive.
The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned the reference by the Public Accounts Committee to the deficit in the Housing Executive's house purchase scheme. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Comptroller and Auditor General uncovered a substantial number of mortgages under the home loan scheme where there was debt. The matter was raised by the Public Accounts Committee. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has set up procedures to monitor the executive's performance in recovering mortgage arrears and is keeping the position under review. I should explain, although it is only perhaps part of an explanation, that the executive was the lender of last resort during this period when building societies in particular were reluctant to be involved. There is perhaps a disproportionate element of those who would have difficulty in funding the continuing purchase in this group. I have given the assurance to the right hon. Gentleman who, as usual, has put his linger firmly on a sensitive point.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised the rate increase in the Province and the changed system. He suggested that rate demands should be accompanied by a statement setting out the basis on which the rate was arrived at. I shall look into that suggestion. It would undoubtedly be more possible now to do it that it has been in the past. My recollection is, however, that it took me half an hour with a wet towel round my head to understand it myself. It may take some considerable explanation to arrive at a form of words readily digestible by the public. It is, however, a constructive suggestion. We shall see what can be done.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of concessionary fares. He drew the comparison with Great

1013
Britain, stating that most places provided concessions for women at 60 years of age. I am not sure that this is true. My understanding is that there is enormous diversity across the length and breadth of Great Britain. It varies between places where there is free off-peak travel to others there is no concession. It is difficult to state dogmatically that the position in Great Britain is better than in Northern Ireland. We have tried to achieve provision on a standard basis throughout Northern Ireland on the average of the multi-mix that exists throughout Great Britain. If we were to reduce the age for women receiving the concession to 60, this would cost approximately £400,000. We should perhaps consider whether it is right to incur expenditure for that purpose with the consequence, presumably, that the rates would have to be put up by that amount next year.
Against the background of the substantial pressures on my budget, not only for kerbstones in Rostrevor but for a multitude of other matters, especially priority for housing, I am not sure that I would wish to spend the £400,000 on the concessionary fares. It is a matter that we can consider. It is necessary, however, to recognise that it represents £400,000 less for some other deserving expenditure in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) also asked for concessions to be given to the disabled and pensioners. There is clearly concern on both sides of the House. I shall bear these views in mind when taking up the question of the cost and the appropriateness of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South, raised the question of car parking. He asked whether it was self-evident that car parking must be a function of Government in Northern Ireland. I have been considering the matter, and it seems to me that we should be doing more to privatise it. Where it is viable to do so, I am seeking to move in that direction, particularly in the case of multi-storey car parking. On the other hand, we should consider offering district councils the opportunity to manage and run car parks in their areas on an agency basis. I have asked officials to consider the matter and report to me. So my hon. Friend and I are thinking along the same lines. Indeed, it was something that he said to me earlier that prompted me to look into the matter more closely.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I warmly thank my hon. Friend for what he just said. It marks a great step forward in a long journey. I hope that the plan that he has announced will come speedily to fruition, and that whether by privatisation or through the agency of district councils, this function will be transferred from the Department of the Environment.
Mr. Mitchell: I have not announced a plan. I said that I have set in hand an investigation to see whether it is a practical proposition.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Oh, dear.
Mr. Mitchell: I should not wish my hon. Friend to be too enthusiastic. One has to assess the implications.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to planning, and suggested that the Department of the Environment was now simply rubber-stamping the views of the district councils, following the consultation
1014
procedure. We take considerable cognisance of the views of district councils, and the consultation is a genuine part of decision making. However, the decision making still rests with the DOE. It is not true to say that we simply rubber-stamp the views of the district councils. In many DOE activities, including roads and planning, we are trying to make consultation much more genuine and effective, having a bigger impact on our decision-making process, but it is not true to say that we have transferred planning as a function to the district councils.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The point I was making was that if, for example, the hon. Gentleman finds that in 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the planning propositions, road propositions, submitted to local authorities their advice is what he himself would accept, that is prima facie evidence that district councils are perfectly capable, subject to the normal relationship with the central Government Minister, of exercising these functions.
Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman's line of thought is interesting. However, we have introduced a further step. Where there is disagreement between the district council and the local planning official, we have now made arrangements that the district council can ask to have a particular planning application taken back to the planning directorate for further examination. It is fascinating to recall that in the majority of cases when this has occurred the planning directorate has found in favour of the district council rather than the planning service in the locality. I make no criticism in any way of the planning service in the locality because it is doing a good job. However, there have been changes in emphasis and in the way in which we view planning applications. It takes time for that to become apparent. It is interesting that to this extent the views of district councils on planning are being further implemented.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) drew my attention to the Shelter report in connection with the needs of single persons. He referred to people in hostel accommodation as the forgotten people. He asked me to look into the matter. I accepted his invitation, and I shall write to him. In this connection, we have to take continual stock of whether the balance of housing provision is right. The Housing Executive is aware of the considerable numbers of pensioners and single persons who are wanting accommodation. It tends to say that it should build, not single-person accommodation, but accommodation with two bedrooms for the reason that flexibility is important, and that although the people now on the waiting lists are single, in due course they may be young married couples. It is better to have a mix of population, rather than a costa geriatrica. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West also raised the question of EC money for housing, and asked me to clarify the position. When the integrated operations concept was first thought of, the Commission, asked both Naples and Belfast to co-operate in developing the idea, and turning it into reality. We got together and analysed the problems in Belfast and the priorities that we should use to deal with them in an integrated operation, and it was clear that for us housing was the overwhelming priority. So we made it a major part of the integrated operations document. I took the documents to Brussels and handed it over to Sgr. Giolitti, the Commissioner. I also saw our former

1015
colleague, Commissioner Christopher Tugendhat, who was very helpful, and Gaston Thorn, the President. As a result, there was considerable analysis and assessment of the best way to proceed.
It was accepted that housing was so important in Belfast that we should try to do something in advance of whatever might or might not develop out of the new concept of an integrated operation coming from the Commission. We still have a long way to go in developing a practical programme. Thus the idea of housing as a separate application to the EC for finance was developed.
I think that we were on the right lines. We got the full agreement of the Commission. That was a major undertaking. By hammering on the door, and with the cooperation of the Belfast city council, we persuaded the Commission. The only difficulty was that when the proposal went to the Council of Ministers for ratification, the West Germans had some misgivings. They thought that once they started to put up money for housing, they would find themselves rebuilding Athens, Madrid and heaven knows where else. I very much regret that view, but I would be less than human if I did not recognise its basis. It was not in any way an anti-Belfast feeling. It was a recognition of their unease of going down that road. Since then I made further representations to Senor Giolitti in December. He showed a great deal of sympathy and was anxious to do all that he could to put the scheme on the road successfully. As a result, further attempts are now being made to try to find some way, perhaps by funding an urban development programme in the Belfast area—which would ease the pressure on our budget elsewhere—to help Belfast and the inner urban areas.
I am at the moment operating on the assumption that we shall be able to provide Belfast with funding of one sort or another during the coming year and I hope that I shall not be proved wrong. I say that because I know that many people are anxious and some have jumped to the conclusion that because the integrated operations concept, as opposed to housing, has not turned itself into cash, Belfast is not getting its share of the EC regional fund. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Belfast has received £54 million over the past two years from the EC regional fund for roads, sewerage and for environmental improvements. That is a significant sum of money. We shall be linking the MI and M2 later this month or next and that project will be part-financed by the EC. However, the integrated operations concept is an experiment in which we were asked to participate within the EC and it has changed as it has proceeded. Senor Giolitti does not talk about new expenditure and a new programme but about a means of making the existing regional aid more qualitative, improving the way in which it is spent by relating one project to another, rather than having quantitative increase in the resources allocated.
I hope that that may help to set in context what has happened because there has been too much raising of hopes in Belfast. It was thought that there was a pot of gold waiting to be picked up by us. There is not, but we have been picking up everything that we can get. One additional amount that is available is 2 million units of account for studies and we are applying for some of that money for Belfast and indeed some for a difficult assessment of the future development of a site in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Member for Londonderry raised several pertinent points. He asked me to consider farm grants and
1016
explore the possibility of a redefinition of the way eligibility for them can be gained. I shall consider that. He also raised, not for the first time, the question of a replacement subsidy in rural areas. I recognise the weight of his argument and the fact that he has highlighted a genuine problem. I have asked my officials to assess whether we can move in the direction that he wants and he knows of that. However, there are considerable problems of principle involved.
It would be difficult to use the grants system on the basis that grants are available if a house is in sufficiently good repair that additional money will put it in apple-pie order for the future and at the same time to use the money on the basis that a house is in such bad repair that it should be demolished. That cannot be part of the same grant scheme. We may have to see whether a different approach is necessary and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have news for him.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Housing Executive's repairs. He said that they were still not up to the standard that he would wish to see. Last year the Housing Executive asked me for £42 million for repairs—a substantial increase on the previous year. I considered the matter against the background of the Housing Executive's need to keep its stock in good condition and its introduction of the new concept of planned housing repairs instead of simply response maintenance. We have spent vast sums of money on response maintenance. There were 400,000 applications for 198,000 houses in a year. I took the view that that was not a rational way to deal with the proper repair and maintenance of houses. We have begun the concept of planned maintenance, taking a street or houses where, for example, we know that the window frames are rotten, and we repair the lot. In that way we can ensure that houses are put in good condition with a viable life in front of them.
We anticipated that we would see a significant cutback in response maintenance demand, but we did not. The hon Gentleman put his finger on one reason and that was that during the elections for the assembly candidates clearly aroused interest. There is a direct link between the assembly elections and the flood of applications for additional response maintenance over and above what was expected by the Housing Executive.
I have written to the chairman about that. Obviously. there are worries about the extent to which expenditure overran the sum provided. The £42 million is a substantial sum and was the full amount asked for. It should have been the right assessment. One understands if it is not, but it is the purpose of proper financial control to see that one lives within a given budget. That budget was exceeded and that: is a cause for concern. I know that the chairman is looking at ways to strengthen financial control within the executive to see that that does not recur.
The hon. Gentleman said that his constituents are complaining about the difficulties and problems of housing repair delays because of the seven-week moratorium. That is now over. Housing repairs are going ahead. If he has a constituent with a particular problem he can write to me about it and I shall look into the matter closely.
Mr. William Ross: Perhaps I am jumping the gun, but there is a further point. My constituents were complaining because they thought that the overrun occurred mainly in Belfast. Will the Minister say whether their assessment is correct or whether the overrun was spread evenly across

1017
the country? Furthermore, it does not matter whether there is a moratorium because the repairs are still there; there are just more of them.
Mr. Mitchell: I have asked for information about the breakdown of the overrun of expenditure between one part of the country and another. I do not have that to hand and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when I have it.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of areas of outstanding natural beauty and the needs of farmers and others. I have just published a discussion document which covers that. It has two main areas on which it is homing in. One is the fact that we use the description of an area of special control both for the area round a town where one is inhibiting building and development to prevent an urban sprawl from one town to the next, and for areas of outstanding scenic beauty such as the Mourne mountains, the Glens and the lakes of Fermanagh.
It is muddling to have one term used for two completely different concepts. Therefore, one of the ideas that I have advanced in the consultative document is that we should rename the areas of special control around towns as green belts. I believe that people will identify with that as a more appropriate phrase. I see that hon. Members are shaking their heads. This is a consultation document. I shall be interested to hear their views—that is the purpose of consultation.
Concomitant with the new name green belt, is the worry of a few district councils about their size. They fear that the size of green belts is disproportionate to the size of the town. If one looks at a map, green belts are like a series of cores with quite large circles around them which bump into each other. They are almost like a string of doughnuts across the map of Northern Ireland. One must ask whether we are applying light control in the green belts because they are so large and because it would be unreasonable to apply tighter controls.
Hon. Members and the public should be asked whether it would be better to have much smaller green belts which are genuine and in which only extremely limited development that is essential for agricultural purposes is allowed. That would release a much larger area for our normal rural policy which allows a much more generous approach to development for a variety of reasons and purposes.
The other aspect was raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry when he said that there is a problem with areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is the other area of nonsense. We use the terms "area of outstanding natural beauty" and "area of special control" for an area of outstanding natural beauty that is so outstanding that we refer to it as an "area of scenic beauty". That makes the concepts extremely muddling and difficult to understand, but is what I inherited when I arrived at the Northern Ireland Office. It is not satisfactory.
If one examines the map, one finds that the statutory areas of outstanding natural beauty and the areas of special control, the best of which are of scenic beauty, are not statutory but administrative. There is a case for bringing the two categories together. Perhaps one should extend the areas of scenic beauty a little and shrink the areas of outstanding beauty. Much of Northern Ireland is of outstanding natural beauty, but much of it is good rather than exceptional and it would be right to be extremely rigid
1018
in the areas that are genuinely outstanding and not to try to sweep up half of Northern Ireland in areas that should be subject to such strict control. If that view, which is in the consultation document, were to prevail, the hon. Member for Londonderry would find that many of the problems of his farming constituents would be resolved, as they would find themselves in normal rural areas.
I am conscious of the fact that I have delayed the House for some time, but several important points have been raised. Moreover, they relate to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, for which I am responsible. I hope that what I have said has been helpful.
8.32 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will have been greatly encouraged and assisted by the Minister's explanation of the degrees of outstanding natural beauty. At my time of life I have settled for being an ancient monument. We wish the Minister well in his patient endeavours to get more of our money from the EC for development in Northern Ireland, but we are as cautious as he has been and will believe it when we see it.
Although the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has responsibility for health and social services in Northern Ireland is absent, I want to touch on his decision in January 1983 about the review of the structure and management of health and social services in Northern Ireland. Although the final decision was made in January, it will be implemented on 1 April 1983. I accept that the matter has been under consideration since 1979, but the interval seems to have been taken up with what has been called consultations. I wonder how real those consultations were. One gets the impression that it has been a one-day operation. Many of the bodies and individuals believe that there was little response from the DHSS either in the form of immediate comeback or in adoption of the more sensible suggestions.
I do not dispute the fact, as the Minister has said, that the whole exercise was complex and took much longer that expected. Most of us who have been caught up in such operations, especially in the Health Service, understand that such matters can become drawn out. But was not the complexity and delay in the consultation stage a good reason for taking a little longer over implementation? The Health Service dispute, which was not the fault of Ministers, Departments, boards or the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, held up negotiations and discussions with hospital staff. I should have thought that there was some justification for proceeding with a little less haste.
The Minister admits the undesirability of dealing with the eastern board in two stages, and he will know that most people in the board area are worried about that two-stage operation. There was a curious decision to place a civil servant at the top level of the eastern board. The words used in an official announcement were that the civil servant would live with the board as a lodger for about a year. I hesitate to describe a senior civil servant as a cuckoo in the nest, but it is an extraordinary development that leads me to ask whether the initiative came from the board or whether the idea was put into its head by the Minister. The proposal could be seen as a lack of

1019
confidence, or self-confidence, in the staff of the board. Any such suggestion is unacceptable, because my experience of the board points the other way.
Will the Minister give an assurance that, in the event of Muckamore Abbey hospital being transferred from the eastern board to the northern board area, in which it is geographically positioned, care will be taken to ensure as little upheaval as possible in that transfer? Both the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State will be sensitive to the needs of the 800 handicapped patients in that hospital and, almost as important, to the needs of the parents and friends of those patients. Reassurance for patients, parents and friends can best be supplied by the administrative and medical staff of the hospital. If they are to perform that task, they must feel secure. The need for security must be common to staffs of all the boards, and I hope that that fact will be borne in mind at all stages of future negotiations.
While the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) was reading quotations from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, I was studying the speech of the Minister with responsibility for health and social services. As would any public representative, I have studied the passage headed "Loss of District Identity". To avoid that loss of identity, the regrouping of teams may be of some help. I fear, however, that the grouping of former districts into larger units may have the opposite effect. For example, how will the services be brought nearer to the customer by—and this is an example—amalgamating the districts of Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus and Larne into one rather unwieldy area? I should have thought that that was a move in the opposite direction.
I shall finish this part of my remarks by making one request of the Minister in which I am sure I shall have the wholehearted support of all Members who represent Northern Ireland when they are here in the House. We should be supplied with a "who's who" of the new structure. Such information would be of great help to us, but it would also benefit the departments, the boards and their staffs, because we could then on a personal basis know with whom we were dealing. We would be able to put faces to those rather anonymous titles of chief or deputy chief administrative officer which make no sense at all to the elected representative. This would do much to avoid a lot of the disturbance and misunderstandings which are bound to be associated with the kind of changes contemplated by the Minister. I am not condemning the changes or objecting to them on principle; I am simply saying that some disturbance and misunderstandings are unavoidable in this kind of operation.
Despite all the handicaps which have been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in another context earlier today, we who contribute to real decision making where the decisions are made, in the House of Commons, will continue to do our best in this matter of reorganisation on behalf of those whom we represent.
I want to raise only one other matter. It comes under Class XI(1). Provision is made for over £1¼ million for the Northern Ireland assembly. I shall not be tempted to catalogue the defects of the assembly; we have done that on another occasion. Nor will I attempt to forecast its future—not that that would be a very difficult operation after the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) earlier today, because it is quite clear that the Secretary of State will not
1020
permit progress to be made without the consent of Mr. Hume, and Mr. Hume will not consent without a promise of a united Ireland, in which there would be no place for any assembly anyway and no excuse for paying an extra £1¼ million for the half year or whatever it is.
The £1¼ million which we are today providing for the assembly is of rather more immediate relevance. This has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who expressed the hope that none of this money would be misused to provide entertainment and facilities for the so-called investigators from the European assembly. The point was also touched upon by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I support the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough, but we have not yet, unfortunately. received a satisfactory assurance from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Earlier today I gave the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reinsert the words left out of his reply to my private notice question on 24 February. The Times of 25 February supplied the omitted sentence, which it reported as being
"to the effect that the Government would not give the committee"—
that is, the EC committee—
"any assistance."
We have to ask why those words were omitted from the prepared and circulated text of the Secretary of State's reply to my question.
There is another crunch issue, particularly in relation to this £1¼ million for the assembly. On 1 March the assembly debated the proposed visit of the representative of the European assembly political affairs committee. Perhaps here I could correct those who have said, "Let them come, we have nothing to hide." I agree that we have nothing to hide, but it is inaccurate to say, "Let them come," because, as I understand it, there will be only one. The usual pattern is that only one representative is appointed by the political affairs committee. It is usual for him to produce a report. That report will be amended by the other members of the political affairs committee., who will not have set foot in Northern Ireland.
On 1 March, the Northern Ireland assembly, at the end of a two-hour debate, unanimously carried a motion condemning the investigation, and decided to offer no co-operation.
Given the ambivalent attitude of the Government to cooperation, what will the clerks of the assembly and the clerks who serve the statutory committees do if they are approached by the European representative for information and assistance? The clerks' salaries are paid from the money that we are voting tonight. Will they be required to co-operate, or will they be permitted to remain aloof and loyal to the members of the assembly that they serve?
I think that most hon. Members would agree that the EC representative may be capable of travelling to Northern Ireland, provided that his passport is in order, but he should be given the status of tourist, and no more than that. The Government cannot, with any credibility, condemn the visit and the meddling and then provide facilities to enable the offence to be committed. The Government must give a lead. If they say that the internal affairs of the United Kingdom are not the business of the EC, they should follow that through and direct that no co-operation be made available to those who can do no good, but can certainly do a great deal of harm.
8.46 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had no need to apologise for detaining the House. We listened to his speech with pleasure. In my hon. Friend we have a Minister who clearly has gained a great knowledge of the problems of the Province. He tackles them with deep sympathy for the people, and we honour him for that. I repeat my thanks to him for making a little progress in the matter of car parks. He told me that he did not have a plan, but I hope that he will soon reach a decision. If I return to the matter this time next year, perhaps further progress can be recorded.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) for what he called his maiden speech on Northern Ireland matters. He spoke with characteristic charm and modesty. He apologised—and I join in that apology—for spasmodic attendance at the debate. As he explained, we were both attending an important meeting about the economic progress of the Province.
The debate has been ill-attended. The Official Unionists have been in their place, but I have not seen any members of the Democratic Unionists. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) must feel a little isolated in his splendour on the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that it was not so much the neglect of right hon. and hon. Members of the affairs of Northern Ireland, as the way in which we conduct those affairs in this place. I agree with him that as much legislation as possible for the Province should be taken as part of United Kingdom legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), who paid us a fleeting visit, gave us an instance of what I mean when he referred to dogs. That is to be found in Class I, Vote 1—
"expenditure by the Department of Agriculture on educational, research and development services including expenditure on dog control."
We discussed that subject in the Northern Ireland Committee. I remember well the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who discussed Catholic and Protestant dogs. In many ways it was a helpful debate. The Minister took many suggestions away with him, and I should like to thank him for his courteous letter in which he said that he had digested what had passed in the Northern Ireland Committee.
It is urgent and important that stock in Northern Ireland should be protected from savage dogs. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Belfast, West has returned; the sound of dogs must have brought him in. The hon. Member for Londonderry always speaks with authority about agriculture. I have had the pleasure of visiting him on his farm. He would be the first to recognise the urgency of this problem. The cost of dog licences is too low. It is too low throughout the United Kingdom. There is no reason why the people of Northern Ireland, who are poorer and generally harder pressed than people in the rest of Great Britain, should be expected to pay more for dog licences than people on this side of the water. The legislation should have covered the Kingdom as a whole.
The subject of how we legislate brings me to the Northern Ireland assembly. It is the subject of Class XI, Vote 1:
"For the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly £1,260,000."
1022
I am not sure that we are receiving value for money. I know that the presiding officer, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) receives money for his value. He was here briefly tonight but he has gone about his other business. I suggest that in time we should quietly let that body disappear or adapt it to fill the Macrory gap in the system of local democracy—it was not Sir Patrick's fault—which would be all to the good. We could then develop Committees of this House and the other place to deal with Ulster matters. Those Committees could perhaps meet not just at Westminster, but at Stormont.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said about the central function of Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. There will be more of them in the next Parliament and that is only right and just.
The industrial development board is comprehended by Class II for expenditure by the Department of Economic Development. I want to refer to Part 1, Class VIII, Vote 3. It concerns expenditure by the Department of Education on libraries, museums, arts, youth, sports and so on. I should like to refer to the Northern Ireland Sports Council in relation to the Gaelic Athletic Association.
I have corresponded on that matter with Ministers many times. I have corresponded also with the Gaelic Athletic Association. Ministers have replied to me, but the Gaelic Athletic Association has never replied to me. It is a matter of concern and of justice that public money dispensed through the Northern Ireland Sports Council should not go to a body that denies membership to those who have served the Crown in the Army, the Navy or the police. Perhaps that is the position on paper and the unjust ban is ignored. However, as public money is given to the Gaelic Athletic Association in Northern Ireland, and as that rule is still in the constitution of that association, I should be glad to know from the Minister who replies whether that is merely on paper and is ignored, or whether that unjust discrimination continues. That must influence our attitude to the expenditure of public money.
The executive of the industrial development board, which is an important organ of Government policy in the province, is part of the Department of Economic Development. It has its own independent advisory board under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Desmond Lorimer. I have just had the privilege of meeting the vigorous chief executive, Mr. Saxon Tate. He would be the first to say that unemployment cannot be cured by the IDB alone. It has been in existence since 1 September 1982. Its arrival means the transformation of the system of Government support of industry. It is entirely right that the board intends to pay much more attention than in the past to local Ulster enterprise and place less reliance on flamboyant aliens.
I am not sure how far the draft strategy for 1983–84 has got and whether it is before the Minister. I understand that the board is engaged in informal and confidential consultations with the local enterprise development unit, which has survived the reorganisation, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. After all those consultations have taken place, when will we hear from the Minister what the draft strategy is to contain?

1023
The arrival of the industrial development board means a move away from the former bureaucratic control to commercial and business-like control of this important work. When I say a change from bureaucratic control, I do not mean to criticise unduly the work that was done before the Department of Commerce, because wherever I went in the Province I heard tributes to the Department of Commerce from industrialists and business men. However, civil servants are not the best people to advise ailing firms or encourage investment in the Province.
The executive of the industrial development board prepared a document for a committee of the Northern Ireland assembly, which states:
"Northern Ireland's image is a major impediment to any industrial development strategy. It discourages overseas investors from establishing new operations here; it places doubts in the minds of export customers about the ability of NI companies to maintain supplies; and it generally makes conducting business here that bit more difficult because of the problems of persuading managers, engineers, salesmen and other specialists to visit or live in the province. The IDB is, therefore, paying close attention to the preparation of a sustained public relations programme to counteract the impact of this adverse image on business life".
That is commendable. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce produced a film about the better side of Northern Ireland. Agencies within the Northern Ireland Office—I acknowledge the work done by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott)—and other bodies are working on the projection of Northern Ireland. I trust that there will be full co-operation in all these efforts and that overlapping will be avoided.
Hon. Members could do a great deal without any public expenditure to convey to foreign investors and those in Great Britain that Northern Ireland is worthy of their attention. The Province has great natural beauty. The people of Northern Ireland are hospitable and industrious. The trade unions are responsible and have a record of industrial harmony unequalled in most comparable countries. In addition, there is an admirable road system. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) forecast the linking of the M1 and the M2. I wonder sometimes why there is an M1 and an M2 in Northern Ireland and why the motorways are not numbered in serial as they are in England, Wales and Scotland. Furthermore, Northern Ireland has a first-class school system.
Mr. Enoch J. Powell: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) referred to the contribution that hon. Members can make. I am sure that he is right. However, one of the difficulties is that hon. Members are seldom, if ever, invited to support those who are making approaches to potential investors in the Province. I am not speaking about trips to the United States of America to explain to them what is not their business. I am thinking of the activities of the Northern Ireland Office inside the United Kingdom, where so often the evidence of hon. Members, especially an hon. Member who represents an area where a business might be established, would be authentic and could be useful. My experience is that although one makes repeated suggestions, that is available, the offer is never taken up.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: What the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. More hon. Members should go to
1024
the Province, and that is quite easy because it is now possible to travel free within the United Kingdom for a public purpose. Their constituents will listen to them and so the idea will spread that Northern Ireland is not quite as it is portrayed in some of the more depressing programmes of the mass media.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to the United States of America, to which I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) to meet the press and prominent people. I was struck by how much more dangerous New York city was than Belfast. I am not trying to minimise the horrors that occur almost daily in Northern Ireland, but when we were in New York city a policeman was murdered within the city limits every day of our stay. I do not say that that happens every day of the year, but it happened when my hon. Friend and I were there.
Mr. John Patten: Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should pass on a message to our friends in the United States of America about the excellence of the physical conditions in prisons in Northern Ireland? The very good regime that exists in prisons in Northern Ireland is often, sadly, misunderstood and contributes to the bad image of the Province unfortunately held in the United States of America.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I know that that has been the subject of vigorous publicity on the part of the Northern Ireland Office. That publicity has had an effect in the United States of America, but there are those who will believe only what they want to believe. Indeed, there are those nearer home who make the most virulent attacks on the Northern Ireland prison service. However, that service deserves our admiration. In one of the Catholic newspapers in this country the most extreme allegations have been made, not so much about the treatment of prisoners in Northern Ireland as about the treatment of visitors to them. I wrote to my noble Friend the Minister of State, who I understand has some responsibility, desiring that some reply should be made to those allegations. I think that Father Faul—a well known name—and Father Murray were concerned in some of those distortions. It is important that a proper reply should be given to such allegations, whether they are made at home or in the United States of America.
Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is intense disatisfaction among many prisoners in Great Britain, including those in my local high security prison of Gartree in Leicestershire, because the standard of their accommodation does not approach that of prisoners in Northern Ireland?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I have heard my hon. Friend make that point before in the House. It is true, and more should be made of that when replying to the allegations that are unjustly levelled against the Administration and the prison service.
I do not wish to detain the House, as I am sure that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I have tried to enumerate some of the advantages of Northern Ireland. It is up to us all to make those attractions known to potential investors in the Province. Of course, one of Northern Ireland's attractions is the splendid school system. That is the subject of Class VIII(1). It is remarkable that, when

1025
there is so much stress on the children of the Province, their academic results should be in general superior to those of children on this side of the water.
Could it be that, owing to a happy change of Government in the United Kingdom, the Province was spared the wholesale comprehensivisation of the secondary schools? Will the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North say that that is pure coincidence or will he attribute it to the way in which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), who now calls herself a Social Democrat, insisted, against the wishes of parents, that grammar schools should go comprehensive and that there should be no local option in this matter? The right hon. Lady now calls herself a great moderate but she, more than any other member of the previous Labour Government, wrecked the secondary school system on this side of the water. Fortunately, Northern Ireland was spared that disaster. I submit that that is probably the reason. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North shakes his head. Does he wish to intervene to contradict me?
Mr. Soley: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is wrong.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong. To what factors does the hon. Member attribute the superiority of academic results of Northern Ireland children?
Mr. Soley: There are many reasons, far too many to go in at this time. To put it down to one factor is utter nonsense.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I did not put it down to one factor but I suggested that there was a connection. My guess is that this was the dominant factor. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North says that there is no time to intervene to explain to me where I am wrong. There is time, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain what those other factors are. Does the hon. Gentleman wish further to intervene?
Mr. Soley: I shall intervene later.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall listen with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
When I think back to 1972 and compare Northern Ireland then with how I see it now, I realise that, despite the continuing horror, it is now a very much more normal Province. That is not to gainsay anything my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, in what he called his maiden speech, said on the security of the Province and the safety of the population being fundamental to its economic revival and economic progress, but we should recognise that there is much more normality in Northern Ireland—I will not put it any higher than that—than there used to be. Those who visit the Province regularly will recognise that to be true.
I offer these thoughts to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the hope that more of them will study Northern Ireland and visit that wonderful Province so dear to the hearts of many of us. They will then be all the better placed when they talk to potential investors, whether they be from this country or from the continent of Europe or from the United States, to convince them that here is a place where they should be prepared to live and to put their money.
9.13 pm
Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I wish to intervene for a few moments not to answer in detail the points of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), but to say to him that if he wants explanations he should start by looking at the size of schools, population structure, family size and structure, and stability in the inner city areas. All of those are infinitely more important than the other matters that he raised, although I have no doubt that the comprehensive system is basically good, and I should like to see it introduced in Northern Ireland. But that is not the main purpose of my intervention at this stage.
I wish to put it on record that despite interventions from two Ministers—we are about to have an intervention from a third Minister—I am not confident that we will convince the people of Northern Ireland that we are taking their economic problems seriously enough.
I do not wish to trade insults with Ministers about who cares most. I fully accept that they care deeply about the problems of the Province, but the debate today did not give the feeling of urgency necessary to put some life back into the Northern Ireland economy before it collapses altogether. Male unemployment in Northern Ireland is now 26 per cent., with all that that implies for the economy, for the stability of society and, not least, for recruitment to paramilitary organisations, especially from the younger age groups. The situation is deadly serious and deadly dangerous. I hope that the Government will give thought to that.
It is increasingly sad to hear the Official Unionist party and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), aided by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), desperately trying to persuade the Conservative party and the Government to treat Northern Ireland as though it were just another part of the United Kingdom. They are down to quibbling about whether roads there should be called the M1 and the M2 and about draft dogs orders and the like when it has been self-evident for donkey's years that no British Government and no major British party have been prepared to treat Northern Ireland as a normal part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: And look what has happened.
Mr. Soley: The sooner we face that political and economic fact, the better it will be for the people of Northern Ireland.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Could not that be the explanation as to why Northern Ireland is troubled as it is today?
Mr. Soley: No. I have given the answer to that many times before. The sad fact, as we all know, is that after the division was made in 1920, the Unionists exercised their responsibilities in a way that led to the present problems. No one regrets that more than I. As I have said more than once in the House, if the Unionists had behaved differently at that time and taken the minority community with them into government, into the economy and into the social structure of the nation, Northern Ireland might just have worked. But it has not. The evidence stands out glaringly not only in the political but in the economic sphere. It has become a distortion on the face of Ireland.
9.17 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): This has been a memorable debate. There is clearly a great deal of ground for me to cover and I have no doubt that those who took part in the debate and others interested in Northern Ireland would like me to respond in as much detail as I can.
The debate has been memorable for several reasons. It is a matter for some regret—in my position I should not use stronger language—that the number of Members from Northern Ireland constituencies present today has been rather smaller than is usual for these debates. I shall not point fingers in any direction, save to note that three members of the Official Unionist party have taken part in the debate. Although I believe that the Northern Ireland assembly has an important part to play in the developing constitutional and political life of Northern Ireland, this Parliament is this Parliament. There is a role to be played in this House by all who have been elected to it and we should appreciate it if they could join us on these occasions.
Despite the comparative emptiness of the Chamber, it was clear that those who took part appreciated the importance of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom in many ways—economically, socially and politically. Yet apart from an intervention from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who I think is now the SDP spokesman on these matters, there was no speech from either the Liberals or the SDP.
Although some might argue that there are no votes in Northern Ireland for Great Britain parties, it is failing to accept a responsibility towards one part of the United Kingdom that a party that has been around for some time and another one that is aspiring to power—indeed two parties that are arguing about who should be Prime Minister—cannot bother to take part in our debates on Northern Ireland. This is an insult to the Northern Ireland people, and I wish that the hon. Members representing those parties were present to hear me say this. It would at least have been a contradiction of what I am saying. Their behaviour is not good enough.
Mr. Molyneaux: Given the Minister's interest in Northern Ireland and that of his colleagues, to which we all pay tribute, it will not have escaped his notice that a place called Darlington marked one of the low points in Northern Ireland's history, and that the same might apply to the absentees.
Mr. Butler: I thank the hon. Member for that interesting fact.
I found the debate memorable for another reason. I should not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but he said that a day was too long to debate these matters. He went on to explain his reasons, and we know the basis of his thinking, but I hope that he did not think that it was wrong to have three-day-long or part-day debates on Northern Ireland affairs during the course of the year.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is absurd for Northern Ireland Members to have so much more of the time of the House in the process of passing the Consolidated Fund legislation. It is unreasonable, and there are legitimate complaints on the part of the rest of the House, that those who represent one fortieth of the electorate should not take
1028
their opportunity in chance with their colleagues in the days that are set apart for the debates on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Butler: I do not need to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are days set aside for debates on Welsh and Scottish Affairs and I know the point that he was making—that he does not see why the finances of the Province should be treated in a different way. He seems now to be saying that there should not be debates confined to Northern Ireland matters but that Northern Ireland Members should have the opportunity only of raising matters of finance, Consolidated Fund matters, on the few occasions during the parliamentary year when the House sits up all night and debates subjects suitable for such a debate.
When the right hon. Member said that he objected to the form of government having to be renewed annually, this was—I hardly dare say this to him because his command of the English language is better than mine—an unusual expression. We are debating sums of money to do with matters that are transferred in the Province. For instance, I should be right in saying that all or most of those matters to be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next week will be applicable to Northern Ireland, in that we have a common tax regime, and standard benefits operating throughout the United Kingdom, and pay standard national insurance payments. We are talking about the sum of money voted as a block grant but then apportioned as the papers in front of us show. That is what we are about and I do not feel that that can legitimately be described as a form of government.
I have had occasion in mock seriousness to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) on introducing, on every occasion that we have debated the draft Appropriation order, the Strabane bypass. Today I lament the passing of the Strabane bypass as a subject for debate. Instead we have had introduced the granite kerbstones at Warrenpoint.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has my hon. Friend some news about the Strabane bypass?
Mr. Butler: I knew that my hon. Friend's interest extended to car parks in Northern Ireland, but I had not appreciated that it extended to the Strabane bypass. It is not a departmental responsibility of mine. For those who have an interest in the Strabane bypass I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who is temporarily not present, should write, at appropriate length, explaining the position.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: When hon. Members last discussed the Strabane bypass in the Northern Ireland Committee—it was raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), who is much missed today—I expressed my interest as someone who tries to drive through and around Strabane. This interest is, I believe, common to all Northern Ireland Members and to many others who travel in the Province. If my hon. Friend has some news that he can convey from his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who has just returned, because of the importance of this issue, I am sure that the House will be grateful.
Mr. Butler: I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) if I have

1029
slighted him in suggesting that he did not have an interest in this important matter. The best solution is that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke should ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest is brought up to date on this matter. It is not a frivolous matter. The reason for the Strabane bypass being introduced in debate after debate—one day we even discussed the lighting in some small streets in a comparatively small village in, I think, County Londonderry—and the reason for the granite kerbstones at Warrenpoint being mentioned is that these matters are at the moment the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke as a member of the United Kingdom Government. I wish to deal with that issue in a moment.
I should like first to clear my list of memorable occurrences during the debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) appeared to be short of a speech, although, by leave of the House, he made an important statement at the end of his comments. The hon. Gentleman spent at least half his time quoting speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I must admit to some jealousy. The subjects with which my hon. Friend dealt were, I thought, my responsibility. They were, however, admirable speeches and formed the best part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North.
The final piece of memorabilia came from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North when I thought I heard him say that Northern Ireland should be treated not as an abnormal part of the United Kingdom but the same as other parts. We know, however, that his party does not intend that. It wishes, against the express desire of the majority of the community in Northern Ireland, to push the province into a united Ireland. If that is treating Northern Ireland like other parts of the United Kingdom, it seems to me a total contradiction.
Mr. Soley: I must put the Minister right. In fact, it was something that I said twice, at the beginning and at the end of my remarks. No British Government and no major British political party has ever treated Northern Ireland as a typical or normal part of the United Kingdom. That is a fact.
Mr. Butler: What the hon. Gentleman's party wishes to do is not to treat it as part of the United Kingdom at all, but to push it into a united Ireland. That is firmly on the record.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Was it the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), or someone else in a leading position in the Labour party, who suggested that social benefits in Northern Ireland should be paid through Dublin so that when the recipients received them with a Republican stamp they would feel grateful to the Republic?
Mr. Butler: I am not sure where that suggestion comes from, but I am reminded that during the course of this debate it was said by at least one hon. Gentleman that with the present economic difficulties in the Republic of Ireland it was hardly likely that it would be able to carry the economic burden of the north. However, I shall not trespass further on that ground.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: It was our money, but through Dublin.
Mr. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for putting me right.
I was moving on to the other point that was raised in the debate about whether the economy of the south could ever stand the economic cost of the Province, as the United Kingdom does at present. A consequence of good government by the present Administration is that the United Kingdom economy is basically sound, inflation is down, and interest rates substantially lower, whereas the economy of the south is not in a very happy state at present. That is reflected in the countless dozens of citizens who are coming north from the Republic to do their shopping—to the benefit of the Northern Ireland economy. Places like Newry are almost boom towns. Despite the high unemployment in Newry, at least the retailers are benefiting from that circumstance, and that circumstance arises from the juxtaposition of a strong economy and a weak economy.
I said that I would revert, not to Warrenpoint granite kerbstones, but to what followed from their introduction to our debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest reminded the House of the Macrory report. That is significant when it comes to the responsibility of district councils. As the House knows, it was not the result of direct rule or of any decision taken by the Westminster Government; it was one recommended by the Macrory report before the introduction of direct rule that removed these powers from district councils. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, the Under-Secretary of State, believe that we should be looking for ways to increase their present responsibilities, even in small ways. I shall give two examples. They may not seem of great significance in the overall constitutional and political picture, but in the case of the draft dogs order, which I hope will be laid before the House before long, if it has not already happened, I hope that the House will approve an amendment that I have tabled since we debated the matter in the Northern Ireland Committee, that the district council should be responsible for the administration of the dog control scheme. I am particularly glad that that was recommended by several hon. Members during the debate and it has also been welcomed by the local councils.
Mr. Fitt: What about the dogs in Strabane and Newry?
Mr. Butler: I remember a speech of the hon. Gentleman that I have quoted from time to time to my friends to demonstrate the wit and the tone that he brings to our debates, and which at the same time underlines what are real problems. We know that it was done extremely cleverly, but it had a moral behind it.
In a draft miscellaneous provisions order that I have in the Department we have to consider the licensing of slaughtermen. Again, I hope that it will be possible to leave that responsibility with the district council, despite arguments that it should be taken away. There is a need, where possible, to strengthen the district councils in their responsibilities rather than vice versa. Having said, that we are still living in the shadow of Macrory, overtaken by direct rule. Instead of a first tier of local government we have direct rule, with Departments being run by the Secretary of State with Ministers responsible to him and we know how that works out in practice. That is why I was happy to agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South when he voiced the need for locally elected representatives to carry as much responsibility as possible. I am glad to reaffirm my support for that basic principle.

1031
In the absence of a fully integrated arrangement, presumably with a first tier local authority, I asked whether we should not try to see whether the assembly can work. I have been impressed with how, within its limited opportunities, the assembly has started on its work. It is not easy. There is always the frustration of knowing that the formula that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid down and which was approved by the House, of 70 per cent. plus evident cross-community support, is impossible to reach without the participation of the SDLP or others representing the minority community to a greater extent than does the Alliance party. I know that the Alliance party is essentially non-sectarian but to some extent it represents the minority community. Nevertherless, the assembly, and particularly the committees, have set about their tasks in an extremely responsible way. They have challenged Ministers and questioned policy. They have questioned civil servants and have called for evidence from a range of witnesses. It is my view, and I think it is also that of my hon. Friends who appeared in front of their respective committees, that there is a real influence at work. They feel democratic pressures arising from the deliberations and the conclusions of the committees. Already they have had some effect on the way that Government have addressed themselves to policy. That is entirely helpful. As I have said before, I regret the continual obstruction and destructive criticism when what is required now is constructive criticism and sympathy for what the assembly is trying to achieve.
I shall say a little more about constitutional matters as the subject has arisen several times in regard to the visit by Members of the European Parliament to Northern Ireland. Those Members of the European Parliament who wish to come to Northern Ireland to improve their knowledge about it, whether in groups or singly, should be encouraged. When they arrive, they should be given as much information and shown as much as possible. We should draw a careful distinction between them and the members of the committee who are apparently demanding the right to investigate and report on an internal matter which is the responsibility of a national Government. We have drawn the line there. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear. The distinction is important.
Perhaps an even more contentious matter is that I hope that, if the leader of the Greater London council goes to the Province again, he will examine all the aspects there, instead of meeting just one party which does not deign to take part in constitutional affairs.
Mr. John Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, as I have not taken part in the debate. He mentioned Mr. Livingstone. As I am a member of the Council of Europe, I have an interest in the Minister's earlier comments. If the committee from the European Parliament wishes, is my hon. Friend prepared to make facilities for discussions available to it in London or elsewhere? How will he play that difficult ball?
Mr. Butler: I would be wise to refer my hon. Friend to the clear statements that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made on the issue.
Education is not one of my responsibilities, but I should like to repeat to a slightly fuller House what I said on a
1032
previous occasion. In contrast to the changes that are levelled against the Government, we are spending more than ever before, per pupil, in Northern Ireland. For example, current expenditure per pupil is more than 20 per cent. higher this year than two years ago and it will increase further in 1983–84.
I admit that resources are limited. If they were not, we could respond to the demands that have come from all parties to spend more on capital projects. However, the fact remains that resources are limited and priority in the education budget must be given to maintaining support for the classroom and the teaching force. That is a continuing restraint on capital expenditure and it may have an effect on such things as books. However, I understand that these matters are the responsibility of area boards and the school authorities.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—not my noble Friend the Minister of State, as was said earlier—who has responsibility for such matters, will study carefully what has been said in the debate and respond appropriately.
I must make the same comment about health. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked whether the introduction of the new management structures could be deferred. The review of management structures was started in 1979, since when there have been negotiations with interested parties. My hon. Friend is anxious to make speedy progress to reap the benefits associated with a more efficient management structure, and to remove much of the uncertainty that has adversely affected staff morale. The Government wish to introduce the new structure on 1 April 1983, but the detailed implementation will proceed progressively thereafter.
The hon. Gentleman sought an assurance that, if Muckamore Abbey hospital is to be transferred from the administration of the eastern board to that of the northern board, care will be taken to avoid upheaval for patients and staff. That is clearly important. He also asked for a "who's who" of the new structure. My hon. Friend either heard or will read about that suggestion, and I shall ensure that he gives it attention. I am sure that he will be happy to make such a directory available to hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North talked about economic co-operation between Northern Ireland and the south. He said that he was pleased to hear that I would meet Mr. Barry to discuss economic co-operation. That may have been a slip, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Mr. Barry, who has responsibility for foreign affairs. The Ministers whom I might expect to meet are those with responsibility for industry, energy, employment and agriculture.
Mr. Soley: That is rather puzzling, because a Northern Ireland information service document dated 24 February states:
"Mr. Butler indicated he would welcome an opportunity to attend a meeting at the invitation of the Committee, with Mr. Peter Barry TD, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister, or any other Sothern Minister."
Perhaps the Minister wishes to correct that.
Mr. Butler: That document refers to an invitation extended to me and to a Minister from the Republic by the east border region committee to discuss a limited cross-border co-operative exercise. Such a meeting would not be held under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. I said that I should be content

1033
to accept the invitation from the committee. However, that is different from the matter that I mentioned, which dealt with economic co-operation and organisations that may be established.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend clarify this? What is this organisation? It is not part of the Anglo-Irish Council arrangement. What is it?
Mr. Butler: This is an organisation consisting of two district councils from the Republic of Ireland and two district councils from Northern Ireland which have got together voluntarily in order to carry out cross-border work, largely in the area of tourism. They have one or two ideas that have been supported by EC funds, amongst other things, and as far as I can establish they are carrying out a useful function.
I ought to refer also to the document put out by the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North referred in his speech. I too have read this document with some care and in no way do we reject it. There are some things which clearly we are not going to agree with the Northern Ireland committee about. Equally there are some where I think where we probably see pretty much eye to eye. In any case, my right hon. Friend hopes to meet the Northern Ireland committee in the comparatively near future and will be discussing with it the various points made.
The document is a valuable contribution to the whole debate. Where it is lacking is in its dependence on the expenditure of money as the way out of all Northern Ireland's problems. I sometimes feel that that is the only way forward that the hon. Gentleman and his party have. This is the suggestion in that document and it has been said in different ways in this debate. Indeed, it was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) in his speech, I understand—it was the only one I did not hear—when he said that the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be solved just by throwing money at them. That is a very sound comment.
In industrial development we believe that at the moment we have a sufficiency of funds to carry out the work of the industrial development board and of LEDU, as well as any other activity in this field. What we are lacking is potential investors. If they were queuing at our door we might be anxious about funds and we might be wondering whether more funds could be made available. That is not the reality of the situation today. The IDB is entirely satisfied that it has sufficient funds in its budget to meet the needs of prospective investors and for the other work that it is carrying out.
I shall return to industrial development in a few moments, but I should like to pick up the question of support for agriculture, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough introduced and which was followed up by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Agriculture incomes in Northern Ireland are at present on average two thirds below what they were in 1977–78 in real terms. In opening this debate my hon. Friend did not say that he considered these were reasonable—he was wise enough not to say that. Indeed, he was wise enough, as I shall be, not to attempt to define "reasonable". He said that he hoped that with a continuance of good market prices and with the aid that the Government were continuing to
1034
provide, supported by the aid that will come from the Community, farmers should not only regain confidence but be able to profit from reasonable incomes during 1983–84.
I want to stress the point that the level of special aid to Northern Ireland agriculture during 1983–84 will deliberately be left the same as in 1982–83, despite a sharp improvement in incomes. Confidence must be built up. The industry is of considerable importance to the Northern Ireland economy. I have said—and I chose my words carefully—that the level of aid from national funds and from the Commission will be at least as good as for 1982–83. Depending on the outcome of the price review, there may be more money available for farmers in the Province. Nobody pretends that everything in that garden is rosy. There are considerable difficulties in the pig and poultry sectors. We gave help to the potato sector by introducing a stock feed scheme. It was a reaction to the real needs of the seedsmen, whose case was presented to Ministers by the committee of the assembly and the Ulster Farmers Union.
Some of the problems in the pig and poultry sectors are similar to those being experienced by equivalent producers in Great Britain. However, there is the special disadvantage in Northern Ireland of the stock feed price differential, which can be as high as £10, £12 or £15 a tonne. That places considerable strain on the finances of intensive livestock producers. However, the aid goes a long way towards closing the gap. I am considering the possibility of obtaining intervention in Northern Ireland. It is not possible under the present rules, but circumstances may change. There is no need to build an intervention store because there is at least one accredited store—and there are a number in different centres—that will be available if intervention grain becomes available. We are investigating what support we can give to those industries.
The hon. Member for Londonderry asked about the less favoured areas. He wanted to know whether the Government intend to put money into those areas, and asked us to commit ourselves one way or the other. An application was put formally to the Commission on 13 December. Certain questions were asked about details affecting Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. It is evidence of the Government's attitude that the questions were answered within two or three weeks. The case is now before the Commission again, and we hope that it will process it quickly. I can say no more about funds than I have said on previous occasions, which is that the Government are not committed to putting in money. We must see whether the Council of Ministers agrees to the extension of those areas.
I have dealt with the problem of dog control raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. I want to deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough about membership of Food from Britain. We are playing our full part. A past president of the Ulster Farmers Union, Mr. Joe Patten, sits on the council. He is suitably qualified to represent the Province. We recognise the importance of improving the marketing of our produce.
The industrial development board attaches great importance to the food processing sector, where there has been considerable progress during the past year or two. There has been massive investment in processing equipment by a number of companies, and the pigmeat sector has demonstrated that it can take on work. It is

1035
supplying substantial quantities to chain stores in Great Britain as well as selling further afield. It is an area where there is a concentration of effort which, I believe, is paying off.
One or two hon. Members have raised the subject of energy. The Department is working on its consultative document, which we hope will be available shortly. It will pull in the work of the Northern Ireland electricity service which was made public some two or three weeks ago. I hope that it will allow all those involved to make a proper contribution to the subject. In the meantime, we are not wasting time. I have authorised a design appraisal for the conversion of phase one of Kilroot from oil to coal because the electricity service has identified it as bringing about the best savings. Phase two deals with the building of a new coal-fired station. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough doubted whether we had coal or any comparable fuel other than peat in the Province. We have identified deposits of some 100 million tonnes of lignite. The company that is likely to become the licensee and the Department are proceeding with investigatory work and fuel consultancy analyses as to when and how this fuel should be used and what its most economic and effective use for the Province's economy will be.
I come now to industrial development. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to "image" once again. We must continue to treat that subject seriously. I reject absolutely the ridiculous suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North who said that Government policy had accounted for more job losses than the paramilitaries. That is not the way to look at the problem. The image created by the paramilitaries has, without doubt, put off a high proportion of would-be investors from setting up in the Province. That is proved by the fact that so much investment has continued to go to the south where this problem is not perceived to exist.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who unfortunately is not present at the moment, drew our attention to the other equation in this matter—the fact that high unemployment can give encouragement, and lend reinforcement, to the paramilitaries. He suggested that Ministers did not like to associate street violence and unemployment. In no way does every unemployed person become involved in street violence. That too would be a ridiculous assertion, but there can be no doubt that the paramilitaries draw some strength from those who are unemployed. There is no doubt that unemployment causes frustration among the young who are drawn into the type of activity in which the paramilitaries indulge.
I can say without hesitation that Ministers are conscious of the benefit that would flow in that regard, if no other, from an improvement in the economy and particularly employment.
The strategy document of the industrial development board will be made public in its present form, an abbreviated form or a modified form before the end of the financial year. It will show the emphasis that the new board is giving to the industrial development effort. Those emphases will be seen to be similar to what they have been in the past. Perhaps there will be a greater emphasis on developing indigenous industry. Certainly it is something to be encouraged to the ultimate, but not over-encouraged.
There will be an emphasis where necessary on rescue operations where future viability exists, but in no way would the industrial development board seek to ignore inward investment. Although my hon. Friend the Member
1036
for Epping Forest suggested that all inward investors were flamboyant aliens—we may have some knowledge of the investor to whom he refers—most investors come soberly and because they have assessed the advantages of Northern Ireland, which my hon. Friend outlined, and which we all know are there in regard to industrial relations and so on. They come because they believe that they can exploit what Northern Ireland has to offer.
Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister referred to the publication of the strategy document. He seemed to suggest that the full document would be available to Ministers and that there would also be an abridged or popular document. Will the full document be available to Members of Parliament, because only by having the full facts will we be able to make a judgment? Will the Minister confirm that the main document will not be suppressed or censored and that an abridged or popular document will be issued as well?
Mr. Butler: The industrial development board is required annually to provide the Minister with a strategy document. That requires approval. It has been approved, as I have said tonight and at Question Time today. The industrial development board is now considering whether to publish that document in full or a document that accurately and comprehensively reflects what is in the document. Therefore, it may be phrased in a slightly different way. I am not sure what is in the board's mind at the moment. I believe that it has still to consider that point. What is important is that a document will be published and will reflect accurately what is contained in the strategy document that has been put before me and which I have approved.
I have announced tonight that I have formally issued the guidelines to the chairman of the industrial development board, Sir Desmond Lorimer. Arrangements have been made to distribute copies to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the various bodies representing the interests of employers and unions in the Province. Copies of the guidelines will be placed in the Library of the House and will be made available to the Members of the Northern Ireland assembly. I am planning to issue a press statement tomorrow.
Now that the strategy is approved, and with the guidelines, I hope that we shall have a clear definition of the role of the board and its executive to enable the new organisation, in co-operation with the local enterprise development unit, to promote a strong competitive industrial base in Northern Ireland. That is what we are seeking to achieve. I do not doubt the concern of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. It is impossible not to be deeply anxious about the economic situation in the Province. I have not sought to hide from anyone that the present levels of unemployment will be difficult to reduce with any speed, but I am confident that the United Kingdom economy is behind us, in the best potential shape that it has been in for some time. Inflation is the best it has been for 13 years and interest rates are substantially down. There are signs of recovery in the United Kingdom economy as a whole and of an economic recovery in America. Those signs are important to the United Kingdom, but are even more important to Northern Ireland, because that is its main source of investment. We have the right machinery for promoting industrial development in the industrial development board, and the

1037
local enterprise development unit. I was challenged that the Government were not doing enough in that area. The local enterprise development unit has shown a substantial increase in performance throughout the past year and its budget has been increased by 30 to 40 per cent. More inquiries are coming forward for industrial development both from within the Province and overseas. This gives one reasonable grounds for optimism about the future.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Rates)
10.12 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
The order seeks to do three things; to require only one rate demand to be sent out to ratepayers each year, instead of the current half yearly billing; to allow discount for prompt payment of domestic rates only if the full amount of rate is paid as a single sum; and to provide for the partial exemption from rates of non-domestic hereditaments which straddle the boundaries of enterprise zones.
The provisions on annual billing have resulted from a package of proposals made by a team of officials working in consultation with Sir Derek Rayner. This team was charged with the task of considering ways of improving efficiency and reducing the cost of rate collection in Northern Ireland.
With regard to the frequency of rate demands, ratepayers are at present billed for their rates twice a year. The new proposal will mean that only one demand will be issued each year. This change will both reduce administrative costs and facilitate the introduction of our new computerised rate collection system—a beneficial side-effect is that annual billing will enable action for the recovery of arrears to begin earlier in the rating year and to take account of the amount due on a full year's rates. Similar procedures have been introduced by many local authorities in England and Wales, with a resultant reduction in costs and an improvement in their cash flow.
I assure the House that few ratepayers will suffer any inconvenience as a result of this proposal. They will continue to have the choice of payment methods which they have at present. For example, they will still be able to pay rates by monthly instalments, two half-yearly payments or by a single payment. To keep ratepayers informed of developments, I propose to publicise the new procedures fully during the first year of operation.
Article 4 of the new order modifies the existing discount scheme which currently allows a discount of 21½ per cent. to domestic ratepayers who pay their half year's rates within one month of the issue of the rates demands. This system is not cost-effective. In its report the Rayner study team recommended that discount be discontinued, and, when a previous draft rates order was published for consultation, it proposed to abolish the discount for domestic rates. That proposal was withdrawn for reconsideration in the light of comments and condemnation from elected representatives and from district councils during my visits to them.
The new proposals now before the House are the result of that reconsideration and provide for discount for the prompt payment of domestic rates only if the full year's rates are paid in a single sum.
When the draft order was published on 29 November 1982, it proposed a level of discount of 3½ per cent. However, I have re-examined the position in the light of further comments put to me, and as a result I have now raised the discount to 4 per cent. In arriving at this increased figure, I have also been influenced by the comments made during the debate on the order by the Northern Ireland assembly, which itself reinforced points put to me by district councils.

1039
The level of discount allowed will be reviewed annually to see that it reflects the cost of providing the discount facility for ratepayers. In this connection, it is worth noting that only 7 per cent. of the rating authorities in England and Wales operate a discount system; and most of those allow it on the basis of a single payment for a full year's rates, as proposed in this order. During the debate on the draft order both district councils and the assembly commented on the availability of service for ratepayers following the introduction of the new procedures. I am, of course, fully aware of the need to avoid difficulties for ratepayers making payments and in dealing with particular queries.
The House will wish to know that arrangements have been made with the Post Office for ratepayers to make payments through the national Giro. Hon. Members will know that one of the problems facing sub-post offices in particular is that with changes in the payment of pensions, there is a potential reduction in their work load. We are concerned to ensure as far as possible that sub-post offices can remain a viable business proposition, because they play an important role in the community in addition to providing stamps and so on. Therefore, this is a helpful way of making potential business available to them. The cost of the transaction will be borne by the Department and will not be charged to the ratepayers. I have more than recovered the cost of that by discontinuing the issue of receipts for rate payments made by cheque.
If any ratepayer has an inquiry about the state of his rates account, it can be dealt with by a visit, telephone call or letter to any of the 13 continuing rates offices. Rates inquiries can also be made through any of the Department's district development offices, which are sited in the larger towns in Northern Ireland. We shall also arrange for staff to visit senior citizens requiring help over rebates or any other special difficulties.
The last of the points covered in the draft order is a bit lengthy and complicated in legislative terms, but the effect is simple—to remove a technical anomaly where the hereditament straddles the boundary of an enterprise zone. Provision is made for exemption from rates of those parts of a non-domestic hereditament lying within an enterprise zone. That brings Northern Ireland law into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The House will, I hope, recognise that the general effect of the order is to streamline rate collection procedures and to make them more efficient and cost effective. The changes proposed will form an integral part of our new computerised rate collection system. When the changeover is complete, savings approaching £1 million a year should be realised. I therefore commend the order to the House.
10.18 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not detain the House for long, but I have a few points to make. I recognise that the order stems from Rayner's recommendations to obtain more efficiency. However, I am a little concerned, because in a sense the Government's policy is always the same, to obtain efficiency at any price. The fact that they do not consider the unintended consequences of such legislation may be one reason why they continually get into difficulty over public expenditure. The Government create more unemployment through their quest for efficiency and by cutting public expenditure in general. But they still cannot keep public
1040
expenditure down, because, with a falling gross domestic product, the main factor determining public expenditure is the payments made to the unemployed.
The order involves the problem of job loss, particularly outside Belfast. What is the Minister's estimate of that job loss? What proposals does he have to deal with those who lose their jobs? Is he thinking of redeployment, retraining or simply of making them redundant? We should like some answers to those questions. If there are to be major changes in the economy, there must be plans for how to deal with unemployment. Although there have been a few small steps in the right direction in recent years, the Government still seem to be at the "Get on your bike and look for work" stage, which is not helpful to the economy of Northern Ireland.
I understand the issue of discount, but why are we sticking to the discount for annual payments only? The people who have most difficulty with paying are those who have to split their payments. Those are the ones who need the discount. I never cease to be impressed by the way the Tory party can get money back from the public without making them aware that they are losing it to the Tory Government. That is what seems to happen so often. There is a strong case either for accepting the Assembly's original recommendation of two discounts of 3½ per cent. or, if the Minister wishes to stick to his 4 per cent. mark, two discounts of 2 per cent. As I have already said, the people who have most difficulty in making ends meet are those who have to split payments.
Where will the computer hardware come from? My information is that it is being bought from outside the United Kingdom. Is that correct and, if so, has the Minister looked for possible alternatives in this country?
10.21 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to make three observations on the order and on the Minister's speech.
First, my hon. Friends and I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the arrangements for payment of rates through post offices and about the maintenance of sub-post offices. That is said with particular warmth by a representative of a deep rural constituency where the Minister's remarks are particularly applicable. In that connection, the hon. Gentleman mentioned rate rebates and the visit to pensioners and others by officials, presumably of his Department or, at any rate, the rating service. There is some difficulty where rate rebates are separated from rent rebates. Where rent and rate rebates are dealt with together, relatively little difficulty arises. Although earlier today the Minister was good enough to say that he accepts the desirability of the rent rebates available from the Housing Executive being made even better known and more availed of than they are at present, where there is an owner-occupier and where, therefore, it is the rent rebate only, instances come to the attention of hon. Members of real hardship where the owner-occupier, often in difficult circumstances, fails either to be aware of the possibility of a rate rebate or to get it calculated properly. I welcome what the Minister says, but, recalling one of two of these cases, I wonder whether in sending out the rate demands some thought might be given to information on rent rebates and the way in which they should be claimed and calculated.
That brings me to my second point, which concerns the information which accompanies the rate demand. It will

1041
still be possible after this order for the ratepayer at his option to pay annually in two instalments or in ten monthly instalments. The fact that these possibilities are available is certainly not at present made known to the ratepayer on his rate demand. One simply receives a demand for the half year in the plainest possible form with an indication of the rebate available for payment within a month, but nothing else. So far as I know, there is nothing on the document of the rate demand which intimates to the ratepayer that there are alternative ways in which he can pay, though admittedly without attracting rebate.
It is only right and fair that the alternative ways of payment should be set out in all the rate demands issued, especially now that there is a choice between making one block payment with a rebate and paying in two moieties or in monthly instalments. I hope that the Minister will see whether that can be included with other information in the rate demand. I may have been mistaken, but I thought that the Minister said that the guidance and information on the new system would be given only once, on the occasion of the first year of operation. I see no reason why it should not be supplied automatically with the rate demand every year in a standard form covering all the points.
Thirdly, on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), let us consider the most favourable case of a ratepayer whose gross rate demand is for £400. As things stand, if he pays each moiety promptly he pays only £390—that is, 2·5 per cent. less on each of the moieties. If he pays the whole sum straight away, he will pay only £384. Even then, however, it is not the bargain that it seems because he has lost the use of £200 for the first half year, which is certainly worth at least the difference between the old reduction to £390 and the new reduction to £384. Thus, for the person who pays the demand in full at the outset, it is, to use the classic phrase, a mouldy turnip and there is no more inducement than there ever was.
Meanwhile, all those not in a position to pay the full amount in one go will be disadvantaged as compared with the present circumstances, so I do not think that the Minister or the assembly should claim too much for the exercise of the assembly's political clout in forcing or driving the Government to make the concession of raising the 3·5 per cent. to 4 per cent. For the ratepayer paying £400 in domestic rates, for what must be a rather large and nice house, the concession is worth just £2. I hope that that marginal ratepayer will appreciate the constitutional importance of the work of the assembly in securing that £2 for him.
There is no point in concealing the fact that the new system is a disadvantage for almost all ratepayers who will be affected by it. That might as well be put plainly on the record at this stage.
10.28 pm
Mr. William Ross: The debate seems likely to be short, but I should like some clarification, for the benefit of myself and my constituents. It concerns the rates collected on behalf of the rating authority by the largest landlord in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
First, under the present system there seems to be no possibility of any Housing Executive tenant paying the entire rate bill in one fell swoop and thus receiving the
1042
rebate, if only because the rates are collected with the rent. Moreover, the person who pays week by week on that basis may not know how much is rent and how much is rates. Can something be done to bring the facts to the notice of those concerned?
Secondly, how often does the Housing Executive actually pay the rates that it has collected to the rating authority? Do they send cheques 10 times a year, biannually or annually? What is the procedure? If it pays them only once a year, is it expected to pay them all within the first month or does it pay them at the end of March? If the latter is the case, the private individual would be at a great disadvantage compared with the public body.
10.30 pm
Mr. David Mitchell: We have had a short but interesting debate on the order, which is one that affects everybody in the Province. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) attacked the general concept of the Government approaching efficiency as an object in itself without concern for the consequences. There are two points to be made on that. First, as to the job losses resulting from the closure of some of the rating offices through computerisation of the system, we do not expect that there will be any redundancies. We expect to be able to redeploy virtually all the people concerned.
Secondly, the hon. Member referred to the undesirability of efficiency as an objective in itself. If we achieve the saving of £1 million here, that is £1 million that we can use to a better purpose—to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland—than having an inefficient system of rate collection, which does not do anything to benefit anyone in the Province. With another £1 million I can build more houses, which is a rather more valuable way to use the money, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not object to efficiency for efficiency's sake, because it is doing something helpful.
The hon. Member asked why I did not have the discount in two halves. The big economy comes in sending the rate demand out only once, and thus the stamps, the envelopes and the contents. There is a big saving in that. One can only provide for a discount against the bill that one has sent out. Therefore, it is not practical to do this in another way.
The hon. Member also asked where the computer is coming from. It is an IBM computer, part of which is made in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised the problem of the separation of rate rebates, particularly where there is not a rent rebate, and the fact that there may be a failure to be aware of the availability of the rate rebate. He went on to ask that information be made available to ratepayers on the rate demand as to the alternative ways of paying, and about the discount. I shall be pleased to leave one of the forms with him as a specimen. I am not sure whether a rate demand is something that is likely to send the right hon. Gentleman's blood pressure up, but he will find that it provides full details of how to pay, whether one can pay annually, in two parts or 10 parts, where one can pay, help with rebates, the arrangement over the discount, and such information. I hope that he will find that most of the points that he was raising in that part of his speech have been met. I take the right hon. Member's point that this information is not only for this year, and it would be my intention to proceed in that way. There will be a good deal of publicity this year about the introduction of the new methods.

1043
The right hon. Member then suggested that there was some significant disadvantage to people who pay with the 4 per cent. discount rather than the existing 2·5 per cent. discount. He took as an example a house, obviously a rather large house, with a £400 rate bill. The difference between the old and the new system in terms of benefit to the occupier is not as great as he suggests. I take the average payment on a £200 house. Under the old system, the ratepayer would have paid £100 on his first half year for which he would have collected £2·50 in discount. He would then have deposited his money, presumably to earn its best return, the second £100, for six months, at 6½ per cent. interest. He would have got in just over £3. He would then have paid the second amount of £100 and collected his second £2·50 discount. His cash position under the old system would have been £8 benefit, £5 in discount and £3 from investment. Under the new system he pays £200 in the first month. He gets 4 per cent. discount, which is £8. He is therefore pari passu with where he would have been under the previous system.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are many ways of looking at this matter. It is a curious way of looking at it to treat the interest that is earned upon money with which the ratepayer has not yet parted and that has not yet been demanded from him as part of his rebate.
Mr. Mitchell: I am simply comparing like with like. In the one case, the ratepayer hands over £200 in the first month and gets his 4 per cent. discount, which is £8. If he takes the same amount of money in relation to the previous system, he would actually have collected two lots of £2½50 and had £100 in hand for six months. If one is comparing like with like, it is arriving at the same sum. It cannot be said that people have been disadvantaged by the introduction of the new system.
Mr. Powell: I stated that it balanced roughly for the person who was in a position to pay the whole of his rate account at once. For everyone else, it is disadvantageous.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that for people who cannot afford to pay the full amount at the beginning, there will be a disadvantage, but the practice will, I think, show that most of the people who could afford to take advantage of putting the £100 down twice a year instead of the 10 instalments system will be those who can afford to take advantage of the discount we are now offering. In the genuine area where people would have found it difficult to lay their hands on half a year's rates in one lump, they will be the ones who have made use of the 10 instalment system and will not use the present system either.
Mr. William Ross: It is all very well to talk about the fellow with £200, £300 or £400. What about the business man with £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 who probably has to delve into his bank overdraft and pay interest?
Mr. Mitchell: He will have the option of doing whichever he wishes to do. I have tried to show that some of the assumptions that it was a major disadvantage are perhaps slightly exaggerated and that there is not the great difference that might be thought to exist. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (International Airports)
10.38 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing (International Airports) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
A little earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, winding up the debate on the Appropriation order, commented unfavourably on the lack of any substantial speech by any representative of the Social Democratic party or the Liberal party and the scarce representation in the House of those two parties. I am very surprised that the one political party in Northern Ireland that has demonstrated a great interest in the order and great antipathy towards its provisions should have chosen not to be here tonight to debate it. It seems to me pretty rum.
The main purpose of this order is to allow duty-free goods such as cigars, cigarettes, alcohol, perfumes and jewellery, to be sold at any time to departing international passengers in the licensed premises within the duty-free area of designated airports in Northern Ireland. It will also enable a much wider variety of duty-free goods to be sold. That fact has been little appreciated in the Province. At present the airport can sell only a very limited range of goods such as cigarettes, cigars and matches, and a few souvenirs, as anyone who inspects the kiosk at the shop in Aldergrove airport will realise. However, up to 3,000 additional lines of goods could be provided, should this order be passed. The main additional items would be perfumes, lighters, cameras, watches, silks, and possibly furs. The House will appreciate, therefore, that on the duty-free side there is considerable potential financial benefit to the airport under the proposed new arrangements. The order will also allow sales of non-duty-free alcoholic drinks for consumption in such premises, provided other kinds of hot and cold beverages are available at the same time
I want to stress a number of facts about the proposed departure lounge. First, all these facilities will be available only to bona fide international passengers who are departing from Northern Ireland. Second, in no circumstances and at no time will friends and relatives of departing international passengers be permitted to enter the international departure lounge and consume drinks or purchase any of the goods being sold there, and the general public will have no access whatever to that departure lounge. Third, the order brings the law in Northern Ireland in this respect into line with that applying in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It does so by enabling an airport such as Aldergrove—or any other airport that might be proposed—which satisfies certain conditions to be exempted by the Department of Health and Social Services—which, curiously enough, has this responsibility in Northern Ireland—from the normal restrictions contained in the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 regarding the opening hours of licensed premises and the ancillary businesses that may be carried on in them.
Mr. Donald Anderson: It seems curious and anomalous that the Department of Health and Social Services should have that responsibility. Is that a historical accident, or is there a good justification for it?
Mr. Patten: I welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in this debate. He brings a fresh face and a fresh voice to accompany his hon. Friend for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who has borne the heat and burden of the afternoon, the drinks hour, the dinner, and the after-dinner hours with great stamina on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Swansea, East asks whether it is a historical accident. It all depends on his view of where history begins and where contemporary events begin. It is an accident that dates back to as long ago as 18 months. The arrangement took place under the reorganisation of the Departments in Northern Ireland. As some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will remember, we had a debate last year on the draft order which set out these arrangements. It is the Department of Health and Social Services, as it is called in Northern Ireland, that has this responsibility.
What sort of airports will qualify? Only an airport that has a substantial volume of international passenger traffic and at which the Customs and Excise Department has approved the provision of duty-free facilities will qualify for exemption. That exemption will apply only to licensed premises that are located inside the duty-free area. It will be an additional condition of exemption that hot and cold non-alcoholic beverages must be available in the exempted premises at all times when alcoholic liquor is obtainable for consumption. An airport will have to be able to satisfy the Department of Health and Social Services that it meets those strict conditions. In that event the Department will be empowered to make an order specifying it as an airport which qualifies for exemption. If an airport ceases to qualify in any sense the exemption will be withdrawn.
I am sure that it is clear to all right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland that the only airport in Northern Ireland that is likely to qualify at the moment is Aldergrove, through which they, like me, regularly travel on domestic flights; I suspect, less regularly on international flights. Therefore, at this stage I shall interpose a word about Aldergrove airport. The House probably appreciates that Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. is rightly required to be a self-supporting company, subject only to grants for approved capital projects. The major proportion of its income is derived from landing charges, and those have been a bone of contention in the past. Those are borne by the airlines and hence are recoverable from passengers through airline ticket costs. This week we have seen a further increase in the shuttle fare of flights between London Heathrow and Aldergrove airport.
There are other sources of income that derive from concessions in the airport buildings and from rentals. Therefore, it is important that the airport is able to make the most that it possibly can from such alternative revenue raising sources and to ensure that they are fully developed in order to avoid or to reduce the need to increase the already high charges that passengers have to pay when travelling from Aldergrove to London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow, the Isle of Man and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is particularly so for Northern Ireland, where Aldergrove airport, as the only major airport in the Province, is vital to its social and economic development. We must look to its health and vitality.
Sales of duty-free goods, including alcoholic liquor, have contributed significantly to airport revenue elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is common ground between
1046
all hon. Members. At the same time the sales of duty-free goods of all sorts, including alcohol, but not exclusively, have helped significantly to keep down landing fees and charges to airport users. This order will enable Aldergrove airport, where there has been a considerable growth in international passenger traffic in recent years—notably through charter flights—to benefit likewise from the sale of duty-free goods.
At the moment, as everyone interested in the health of the airport would agree, the position is most unsatisfactory. Although there has been a duty-free shop at the airport since 1980 it has been restricted to selling intoxicating liquor during the normal permitted hours for licensed premises, which, in Northern Ireland are from 11.30 am to 11 pm on weekdays alone. That has proved unsatisfactory as many charter flights depart on Sundays and outside those hours on weekdays. It is a matter for speculation just how much charter traffic has been lost from Belfast to competing airports such as Dublin where facilities such as duty-free shops are available. Passengers on flights out of Aldergrove are denied the opportunity to purchase such goods, so the airport loses revenue. If approved, the order will remedy that.
At the root of it all are two things. The first is the commercial commonsense of enabling the airport in Northern Ireland to make proper use of the revenues to be gained from duty-free facilities. It makes simple commercial sense for Northern Ireland to have an airport that enjoys that facility. It is commercial nonsense for it not to have it. Secondly, the order has a significance for Northern Ireland in the eyes of the world at large.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) spoke of how important was the image of Northern Ireland in developing industry and inward investment. What we wish to see at Northern Ireland's international airport at Aldergrove, where a splendid new terminus was opened as recently as January, is a projection of Northern Ireland as a country which, like most others, is concerned with utterly straightforward and normal things. I refer to such normal objectives as promoting tourism, commerce and international trade. What is wrong with any of those objectives? Nothing. Should the order be passed, it will play its albeit small part in the continuing normalisation process which we all wish to see. I commend it to the House.
10.52 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I do not intend to detain the House for long as we are happy for the order to go through unopposed.
There is one question which I should like the Minister to consider, although I do not necessarily wish him to reply today. I ask because of a complacent reply earlier today when I asked him about alcohol abuse in prisons in Northern Ireland. I ask not simply because I have a long-term interest in the subject, have worked for many years with people who suffer from alcohol abuse and am chairman of the Alcohol Education Centre, but because of the Government's Central Policy Review Staff report, which, although it has been hushed up by the Government, has been published abroad and is easily available.
I recommend to the Minister that he gets hold of a copy of that report from Sweden and reads it, because it points out that one of the problems with alcohol abuse, which has reached serious dimensions recently, is the easy

1047
availability of alcohol. I do not necessarily want it to be less readily available, but there are several ways in which to deal with the problem.
One of the aspects of orders such as this is the curious arrangement whereby alcohol can be sold as long as hot and cold non-alcoholic beverages are also available. There seems to be a curious sense of fairness whereby if someone does not want an alcoholic drink, coffee or tea should also be available. I am not sure what it is about.
What matters—I believe that the Central Policy Review Staff has also said this—is that, where alcoholic beverages are for sale, food should also be available. That does not necessarily involve extra staff as the food can be packed and dispensed through automatic food dispensers. There is a strong case for ensuring that, when we increase the number of outlets for alcohol, we ensure that food is also available.
The Minister may think this a minor point if he does not believe that alcohol abuse is a serious problem, but about 1 million people in Britain are believed to be dependent upon alcohol. Anyone who has worked with alcholics, and tried to get them off alcohol, recognises that it is as great a problem as trying to get people of the so-called hard drugs such as heroin. The dossers who wander the streets represent only 5 per cent. of alcoholics. The problem is centred in trades linked with drink, and involves licensees and those who work in places such as the House of Commons, where the bars are always open and drink is always available.
I recommend the Minister to read the CPRS report and to consider it carefully. Although it will make no difference to this order, the Government must—they have already done so but have not yet announced it—respond to some of the suggestions in the report. That includes ensuring that food is available where alcohol is dispensed.
10.55 pm
Mr. William Ross: With the Minister of State, I am disappointed that those who are most vocal in their opposition to this measure in Northern Ireland are not present tonight, because it might have made some difference to the Government's intentions. No doubt they prepared themselves carefully for battle this evening, and it is sad that we have been deprived of their presence, which would have enlivened the proceedings. The only hon. Member from Northern Ireland to whom the House can listen tonight is me. As I neither drink nor smoke, consider furs too costly and my wife has enough perfume, this venture will not get too much income from me.
However, I am rather curious about the hot and cold beverages. Will that proposal be peculiar to the airport in Northern Ireland, or is it common throughout the United Kingdom? The Minister seems to believe that many people will use the facility. Has consideration been given to the possibility that some people will travel by air via Dublin in order to reap the benefit of duty-free liquor on the way across to London and on the way home?
What are the normal rates of tax on the items that will be sold in this establishment? Will they be sufficient to make the goods appeal to customers? What guarantee is there that the removal of tax will not lead to an increase in the net price of such goods? The Minister made it plain that the airport authority hoped to gain considerable income from the operation of the facility, but the person who takes on the concession is not doing so for fun but intends to make a profit from it. If the rental is high, he
1048
must recover the cost from the customer. If he recovers it from the customer, he may well raise his profit levee. If he does that, some at least of the benefit of the removal of the tax will not be passed on to the customer. I have had some experience of such establishments in other airports, and I wonder whether the saving is as great as the customer believes.
10.59 pm
Mr. John Patten: I must not be led too far clown the path that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) asked me to follow. I apologise if, as he believes, my earlier reply about alcohol abuse was unhelpful. I did not mean it to be unhelpful. The Government believe that a substantial proportion—about 40 per cent.—of the people in Northern Ireland are teetotal, like the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). About 4 per cent. of the population is believed to have an alcohol problem, and about 1 per cent. are believed to be genuinely alcoholics. We do not underestimate it, nor do we not deal properly with the alcoholic problems of prisoners. There is some doubt to be fairly cast on the value of social research when prisoners or young offenders are asked to give details of their drinking habits. Some surveys have produced boasts by individual drinkers in prisons and training centres that they manage to drink up to 23 pints a session. That is unlikely to be helpful. The evidence produced in Scotland, where the licensing laws were subject to considerable change a few years ago, does not point to any increase in drunkenness.
The hon. Gentleman touched on a serious point when he mentioned food. In all departure lounges in airports throughout the world, food is invariably provided as a simple part of the commercial exercise. I cannot think of any international departure lounge that does not have some food available, albeit in snack form. The snacks are provided—I admit at some cost—in the shuttle lounge at Aldergrove. There will be no difficulty for passengers wishing to consume food with drinks, but that provision is not written into the order. Any sensible airport would wish to meet that demand.
It is usual in all departure lounges throughout I he United Kingdom for hot and cold beverages to be supplied. The hon. Member for Londonderry should not underestimate the considerable revenues that will be brought to Aldergrove airport. The airport authorities reckon that in the first year alone a revenue of £100,000 will be produced, rising to £150,000 or more in a full year thereafter. How much money is raised depends not only on the number of passengers going through the departure lounges but on the prices that are set for each of the articles, be they alcohol, perfumes, furs and so on. Clearly the Northern Ireland airports authority will wish to ensure that, however it is operated, the maximum amount of revenue is gained with prices being set at the most competitive level possible. I do not have the exact details of the proposed price levels as the order has not been made and the concessional and other arrangements have not been undertaken.
We believe firmly that the implementation of the order will be one further step towards greater commercial success for Aldergrove airport and towards the improved image of Northern Ireland as a place concerned with the development of tourism, industry and commerce. Its airport should hit the incoming traveller immediately, and

1049
send the outgoing traveller away happy with those items that he wishes to take with him from the duty-free area. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Licensing (International Airports) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Gas and Electricity (Resale)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
11.4 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I welcome the opportunity provided by the Adjournment debate to set out some of the problems that occur in the resale of gas and electricity by landlords to their tenants. I am confident that the Minister will be glad of the opportunity to set out clearly why the Government felt it necessary to object to the Bill that would have had its Second Reading on 18 February. They have effectively killed it, although it remains in a sort of life support system until it eventually dies.
I shall define the nature of the problem. First, landlords can resell gas and electricity to their tenants either by including the price of energy in the rent or by submeters. Secondly, dealing with the scale of the problem, as many as 250,000 people buy energy in this way. The maximum price must not exceed that laid down in section 29 of the Electricity Act 1957. It is difficult for tenants to establish that landlords are exceeding the maximum statutory price.
The tenant must take action in his own name against the landlord in the local county court. The tenants affected by what in a number of cases is gross cheating and overcharging are private tenants, students in short lets, those in holiday homes and, particularly, those on caravan sites.
The current remedies are inadequate, and it is clear from the volume of evidence available to consumer councils that tenants are trapped by the state of the law. Tenants are frightened of taking landlords to the county court. There is a fear of losing their accommodation or at least of being harassed by the landlord. There are considerable problems in providing adequate evidence, often because tenants are dealing with uncertified old meters that have perhaps been removed by the various area boards from registered consumers. Old meters often do not register accurately.
As the Minister is aware, there is a brisk market in secondhand meters that have been disposed of by area boards and not sold for scrap. Such meters may calibrate inaccurately. The Minister will be aware that many consumer councils recognise the need for change. The National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and, in particular, the Electricity Consumers Council and area councils, have long campaigned against the anomalies in the current system. A change would be welcomed by Members of all parties.
Consumer councils recognise how powerless they are to enforce the maximum statutory price. The Bill would have made over-charging a criminal rather than a civil matter. Trading standards officers would have been able to take up the problems of tenants who find themselves over-charged and make clear to landlords, who may be unaware that they are over-charging, that they are in breach of the law.
A number of landlords have written to me to say how dissatisfied they are with the current state of the law, and that they would prefer the boards to accept tenants as registered customers which would avoid all the hassle to which landlords are subject when applying the present law.

1051
After my Bill was published, I received a large volume of mail. From the style of the letters it was clear that many of them were from people who would not normally put pen to paper and write to Members. Some of them, however, were eloquent. I received a letter which stated:
"We are paying almost double the legal maximum rate at which unit charges are fixed … We shall be lucky to get a penny back—even if we take the landlord through the civil court to reclaim the excess we have paid, it is still apparently only his word against ours as separate individuals … On the front of the meter, where he is actually charging 50p for 4·8 units of electricity, he cleverly only displays the final 8, carefully concealing the 4 and the decimal point."
Others say that in many holiday homes and caravans they know that they are being grossly over-charged but feel that they cannot, for the small amount involved—it may be a large amount to the landlord over the season—take the landlord to the county court. As the Minister will know, there are special problems in mobile homes. I suggest that there might be incorporated in the agreements between mobile home owners and their tenants a duty, first, to provide a regular supply and, secondly, to ensure that that supply is at a price no greater than the statutory maximum.
I shall seek to anticipate the Minister's possible objections and provide him with some material to which he can refer. One objection may be that it is sufficient to advertise the maximum resale prices. Of course, there is a role for greater advertisement both on television and on radio and possibly for the incorporation of the landlord's duty in the standard rent book. However, ultimately the enforcement of the law will rely on the civil remedy, which, as I hope I have shown, is totally ineffective in the vast majority of cases for evidential reasons and because of the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship.
The Minister may say that even the suggestion of criminalising the conduct will not solve the problems for many tenants, who will be afraid to take their landlords to court. I concede that there will still be a minority of tenants who will be afraid of harassment, but my Bill would be a giant advance. If the matter were dealt with at the local magistrates court, the tenant need not be directly involved because the trading standards officer would have the action brought in his name. The evidence for the prosecution could be provided by the trading standards officer setting out the result of a visit to the landlord, the discussions that he had with the landlord as proof that the landlord is knowingly over-charging and a second visit to show that the landlord had not mended his ways. The tenant need play no direct part in the prosecution case.
Another objection may be the greater work load on magistrates courts. I would not expect a flood of cases, as only extreme cases are likely to be brought to the magistrates courts after clear evidence and warning by the trading standards officers.
What about the greater pressure on the work load of the trading standards officers? The Bill that I had proposed is formally supported by the relevant professional organisation, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, which does not anticipate problems and said that a Bill on those lines would be helpful.
What about the objection that the Englishman's home is his castle and that there is a clear objection in principle to the rights of entry set out in the Bill? I stress that that was a negotiable formula. We would have done our best to meet any objections in that area.
1052
What about the objection that the Office of Fair Trading is now considering that matter? I would need convincing that that is not another bureaucratic kick for touch. One would want to know the terms of reference of the OFT inquiry and the time scale, though I am assured that it is likely to report fairly soon. As the Minister knows, the OFT has been considering the matter for some time—certainly since 1979. I would need to he assured that not only has the inquiry taken a long time but that it is thorough.
Perhaps the key objection is that my Bill would have extended the criminal law in an objectionable way, and that that is wrong in principle. This category of criminal activity is analogous to those areas where the consumer is already protected, such as the food and drugs and trade descriptions legislation. That would constitute a proper extension of the criminal law into an area which would make this activity ineffective.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government recognise the problem? Are the Government content for the present unsatisfactory position to continue? If they are not, what do they propose to do about it?
The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), in a letter to the chairman of the Electricity Consumers Council dated 17 September 1979, said that she was aware that this problem had long been the subject of discussions and discontent. She went on to say that the question of new legislation was not one on which she could give a commitment at that stage. I trust that the Minister will not play for time in that way, but will overcome official inertia, which should not be allowed to block attempts to protect a vulnerable section of the population who are living in short lets, holiday homes, and student accommodation from being cheated by an unscrupulous minority of landlords.
11.13 pm
The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I am pleased that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has brought this matter before the House. It is an important problem. The Government recognise the seriousness of the problem, and they are not satisfied with the present position. The hon. Gentleman stated the position clearly. He will know from our discussions that I have great sympathy with him in this matter.
The problem arises in accommodation such as bedsitters, holiday flats, mobile homes and caravans. The problem the hon. Gentleman has described does not apply to the majority of tenants who obtain their gas or electricity direct from the respective boards in the normal way.
The Government do not know the size of the problem, but the Electricity Consumers' Council estimates that probably 250,000 people are involved. That group, inevitably, includes many people whose housing security is the least safe and those who are least able to argue for their rights.
The vast majority of landlords and site operators deal with gas and electricity charges in a straightforward and honest manner. However, there are exceptions. I recognise the problems that have worried consumer organisations for many years.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that arrangements exist to deal with over-charging by landlords and site

1053
owners. Facilities exist whereby occupants can recover any excess charges by action in the civil courts, including using the small claims procedures.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill urges the Government to use criminal sanctions to enforce those people's rights. I do not agree with that. This is a civil matter. The Government must think carefully before extending the criminal law in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has urged.
Under the Electricity Act 1957 and the Gas Act 1972, maximum resale prices are fixed by the gas boards and the area electricity boards. Those prices are set slightly higher than the rates for normal domestic supply in order to cover some of the special additional costs that a landlord may incur in providing the service. If an overcharge is made, the Acts specifically provide for occupants to recover the excess above the maximum resale price through actions in the civil courts. Those arrangements are supplemented by the area electricity or gas consultative councils, which are very willing to take up and look into complaints about overcharging, to advise consumers of their legal rights and to publicise the resale arrangements.
Any occupant, landlord or site-owner who is unsure of the position or is doubtful of the accuracy of his charges can, therefore, get in touch with his area consultative council, and I urge those who have doubts to do so. However, as I have said, we accept that in some cases those arrangements have not prevented overcharging and that those overcharged are often extremely reluctant to use, or perhaps incapable of using, the remedies open to them to recover their money through the courts. Of course, there are several reasons for that. Sometimes people do not know of the arrangements. In some cases, there is insufficient evidence of the amount being charged. The hon. Gentleman has also spoken about old and faulty meters, and the problems of proving the exact amount of electricity or gas. Sadly, there is also an understandable reluctance on the part of tenants to pursue actions against their landlords, because they are afraid of some reprisal. We recognise that.
Given the efforts made to publicise the arrangements, it is perhaps surprising that many of those on both sides—both tenants and landlords—appear to be quite unaware of the maximum resale prices and of the civil law remedies if there has been overcharging. If more occupiers were aware of their rights and were prepared to take them up with their landlords—perhaps after consulting the area consultative council—there would no doubt be a significant reduction in the number of cases of overcharging.
There could well be scope for further action to draw attention to the arrangements and to make tenants and owners of mobile homes more aware of their existing rights. I shall certainly look into that. I hope that this debate will also help to give greater publicity to the subject. I shall do what I can to encourage a wider understanding of the existing arrangements.
The reluctance of tenants to pursue actions against their landlords and to take them to court has already been mentioned as the main reason why the existing arrangements are inadequate. I well understand why that occurs. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, for example, in very short-let accommodation, such as holiday flats or caravans, the amount by which a tenant has been overcharged may be relatively small, and the tenant
1054
will not think it worth his while to go to court about it. Of course he is quite right. If the landlord is doing this regularly throughout the holiday period for tenant after tenant, however, he may have quite a lot of money. I shall be arranging consultations with colleagues and with the tourist authorities to see whether it is practicable to take further steps on that aspect of the problem.
However, it must be borne in mind that a substantial number of tenants have their tenure protected by the rent Acts. I therefore advise anyone who hesitates through fear to claim his rights to consult his local rent officer. The Mobile Homes Bill [Lords] contains proposals which will make the tenure of many more residents of mobile homes much more secure, and will improve the take-up of statutory agreements and provide greater security in them. I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. The Bill will provide that agreements will set out in writing the sums to be paid under them and will also cover the provision of services. These provisions should mean that residents who are being overcharged will feel much more free to claim their rights under civil law.
I have discussed the problem, but, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, it is difficult to know the extent of abuse. It is possible that even those 250,000 cases are only the tip of the iceberg. Because people are reluctant to come forward, it is difficult to know how great the problem is. One of the main reasons why the Government do not wish to pursue this at present is that the Office of Fair Trading is conducting a further review. The hon. Gentleman appeared to imply that it had been reviewing the matter ever since 1974. That is not the case. In 1977 that body concluded that the evidence did not justify any change in the law. It recommended that consultative councils and electricity boards should give more publicity to the maximum prices and the need to keep proper records, and that tariffs should be simplified. A great deal of action has followed along those lines.
In 1981 we were so concerned about this that the Office of Fair Trading agreed to review the situation again. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a very thorough review. Evidence is being collected to discover whether any further action against overcharging is necessary.
I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading hopes to publish his findings in the very near future, and I of course undertake to consider the results and recommendations very carefully. I hope that this will give us some really up-to-date information on the size of the problem and what, if anything, needs to be done about it now.
To sum up, I do not for one moment condone the action of any landlord who knowingly overcharges his tenants for gas or electricity. I hope that I have made it clear that we recognise that there is a serious problem and one with which we have great sympathy. There are, however, arrangements intended to tackle it at present through the civil law and the inquiry has been undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading. I think that we should wait to see the results of the inquiry and the recommendations made to see what action can be taken as a result.
Nevertheless, I am glad that the matter has been raised and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing it before the House today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Solid Fuel (Moisture Content)
  Solid Fuel (Moisture Content)
  Video Tape Recorders (Imports)
  Video Tape Recorders (Imports)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Liability
  Liability
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
  Argentina
  Argentina
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Women (Discrimination)
  Women (Discrimination)
  European Assembly (Political Affairs Committee)
  European Assembly (Political Affairs Committee)
  Earnings and Output (Statistics)
  Earnings and Output (Statistics)
  Downing Street Policy Unit
  Downing Street Policy Unit
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Oaklands and Mardley Heath
  Oaklands and Mardley Heath
  Joint Funding Arrangements
  Joint Funding Arrangements
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Purchasing Policy
  Purchasing Policy
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Aujeszky's Disease (Eradication)
  Aujeszky's Disease (Eradication)
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
INDUSTRY
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Textile and Clothing Industries
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. David Williams
  Mr. David Williams
  Video Recording Equipment
  Video Recording Equipment
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Hyde Park Corner (Traffic Control)
  Hyde Park Corner (Traffic Control)
  Television Licence
  Television Licence
  Nationality (Missionary Service)
  Nationality (Missionary Service)
  Rape
  Rape
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Film Classification System
  Film Classification System
  Dr. Forouhi (Member's Correspondence)
  Dr. Forouhi (Member's Correspondence)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Racial Attacks
  Racial Attacks
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tanzania
  Tanzania
  Aid Statistics
  Aid Statistics
WALES
  Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor
  Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor
  Wales Supply Policy Group
  Wales Supply Policy Group
  Galleries and Museums
  Galleries and Museums
TRANSPORT
  M25 (Essex)
  M25 (Essex)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Cross-Channel Link
  Cross-Channel Link
  North Devon Link Road
  North Devon Link Road
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
  Sealink (Privatisation)
  Sealink (Privatisation)
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Fishing Grants
  Fishing Grants
  Sex Shops
  Sex Shops
  Flooding (Sutherland)
  Flooding (Sutherland)
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  European Parliament (Elections)
  European Parliament (Elections)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Visas (United States of America)
  Visas (United States of America)
  Soviet Union (Trade Delegation)
  Soviet Union (Trade Delegation)
  Iraqi Embassy
  Iraqi Embassy
ENERGY
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Super Sara Project
  Super Sara Project
  Britoil
  Britoil
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Consultants
  Hospital Consultants
  Children (School Clothing)
  Children (School Clothing)
  Doctors (Staff Wages)
  Doctors (Staff Wages)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Lignocaine (Dental Prescribing)
  Lignocaine (Dental Prescribing)
  NHS Inquiry (Guidelines)
  NHS Inquiry (Guidelines)
  Mr. Roy Griffiths
  Mr. Roy Griffiths
  Pregnancy
  Pregnancy
  Civil Servants (Private Health Care)
  Civil Servants (Private Health Care)
  Nurses (Exeter)
  Nurses (Exeter)
  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Pensioner Households
  Pensioner Households
  Detained Children
  Detained Children
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Mrs. Margaret Crawford (Member's Correspondence)
  Mrs. Margaret Crawford (Member's Correspondence)
  Place-of-safety Orders
  Place-of-safety Orders
  Fostering and Places of Safety
  Fostering and Places of Safety
  Telephone Installation
  Telephone Installation
  Organ Transplants (Code of Practice)
  Organ Transplants (Code of Practice)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Further Education (Tuition Fees)
  Further Education (Tuition Fees)
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Departmental Land (Scotland)
  Departmental Land (Scotland)
  Nuclear Radiation (Compensation)
  Nuclear Radiation (Compensation)
  Armed Forces (Clothing)
  Armed Forces (Clothing)
  Nuclear Tests (Personnel Statistics)
  Nuclear Tests (Personnel Statistics)
  Exocet Missiles
  Exocet Missiles
  Nimrod Mark 2
  Nimrod Mark 2
ENVIRONMENT
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Rates
  Rates
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Rents
  Rents
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Black Economy
  Black Economy
  Personal Allowances (Indexation)
  Personal Allowances (Indexation)
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Special Drawing Rights
  Special Drawing Rights
  Television Advertising
  Television Advertising
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Devaluation (Employment Effects)
  Devaluation (Employment Effects)
  Industrial Rateable Values
  Industrial Rateable Values
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Unemployment Benefit (Elderly Persons)
  Unemployment Benefit (Elderly Persons)
  Holiday Entitlement
  Holiday Entitlement
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Working Hours
  Working Hours
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Wages (Payment)
  Wages (Payment)
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Job Release Scheme (Occupational Pensioners)
  Job Release Scheme (Occupational Pensioners)
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Youth Training Programme
  Youth Training Programme
  Assembly (Sittings)
  Assembly (Sittings)
  New University (Salaries)
  New University (Salaries)
  Alternative Energy Sources
  Alternative Energy Sources
  Emergency Provisions Legislation (Review)
  Emergency Provisions Legislation (Review)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Organisations (Legal Status)
  Organisations (Legal Status)
  Republic of Ireland (Gas Supplies)
  Republic of Ireland (Gas Supplies)
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
  Regional Rate
  Regional Rate
  Assembly Committees (Ministers)
  Assembly Committees (Ministers)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Public Sector Inflation Level
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the level of inflation in the public sector during the last period for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the prices of goods and services included in the retail price index and produced mainly by nationalised industries increased by 14 per cent. in the year to January 1983.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that interesting reply, may I ask him whether he can give a little more information about the question of charges for goods and services within the public sector from the index?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the charges experienced by nationalised industries with regard to the goods and services which they have to purchase, then that figure I think was about 5·9 per cent.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, are not these figures entirely misleading? For example, gas prices have gone up by 30 per cent. because the Government decided that they would go up by 30 per cent. Also, the results of the nationalised industries are directly related to the financial targets set by the Government, so are not these figures quite meaningless?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the increases which I have referred to stem to some considerable extent from the effects of price restraints in these industries in past years, and they also reflect some of the pay settlements which have been reached in nationalised industries in recent years as well.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, as a variation on the question asked by my noble friend, may I ask by how much would the first figure given by the Minister have been reduced if the Government had not compelled the gas board to raise its prices by 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the reasons why we thought that to be necessary have been discussed in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. If the noble Lord will remember, I said that that was because the price of gas had been kept artificially low for a number of years, and that indeed is still the case.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, that may be very interesting, but it is not an answer in any way to the question which I have asked, which is: To what extent would the figure have been less if the Government had not imposed this additional burden of 10 per cent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would have to take some advice on what the effect would have been on the price index. The noble Lord will be aware that the calculation of the retail price index is not a simple, straightforward matter; but I can tell him that gas is weighted to the extent of 22 per cent. in that calculation.

School Syllabuses: Uniformity
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to encourage the various examination boards for CSE, O-Level, and A-Level examinations to ensure the maximum common ground between their syllabuses in the interest of pupils who have to move to different parts of the country during their courses.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, the GCE boards are making progress towards agreeing common cores for A-Level syllabuses in a number of subjects; and the GCE and CSE boards are collaborating in the preparation of national criteria for examinations at 16-plus. Both those initiatives would help to meet the needs of mobile candidates.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister the Leader of the House for that interesting and helpful reply. May I ask her whether there are 22 examination boards and how the standards vary?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there are a number both of GCE and CSE boards. The object of this exercise is that national criteria will be agreed. On each new regional examining board there will be representatives both of the GCE and CSE boards. The object of this exercise is to agree national criteria which will help to eliminate variations of syllabuses from one board to another, where those exist.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that once one examination is fixed on—we have been waiting for that for a very long time—that will ease the problem, because at least there will be only one examination at 16-plus for everybody? Will she agree further that this whole problem will be resolved if there is no examination at 16-plus and a new system of profiles and assessment is taken up?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the first half of the noble Baroness's question, I can confirm that so far proposals for 14 subjects have been submitted to the Secretaries of State. This is on the subject of national

321
criteria. A preliminary response to the first three of these in physics, French and history will be made shortly. On the second point, I would not agree with her, because the Government believe that there is an important role for national examinations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, in her Question for achieving a degree of uniformity in this matter, there is the further important reason that when young people are seeking employment overseas the people overseas should know exactly what these certificates stand for? Otherwise, if the system that we have here is too variable, there will be a lack of credibility in the certificates.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend makes a very important point. One of the objectives, of course, of the national criteria is to eliminate some of the differences in the syllabuses as they occur today.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any further consideration has been given to the idea of introducing an I-level or intermediate level to run in parallel to the A-level?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is a separate point, and if the noble Lord would care to put down a Question on it I would be glad to answer it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I just ask the Leader of the House whether a bright child at the age of 15 will be able to take the 16-plus examination, or will the examination only be for children who are 16 and over?
Baroness Young: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge there is no restriction on the age at which a child can take the examination. It would of course depend on the child following the complete course before sitting the examination.

Civil Service: Savings in Pay Costs
3.7 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government what has been the total saving achieved so far by the reduction in the size of the Civil Service.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the total saving in the Civil Service pay bill achieved since we came to office is about £1.2 billion at present prices. There are now on-going savings in pay costs of £590 million each year.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House for that Answer, which I think represents a considerable achievement on the part of the Government, may I ask
322
her, in respect of these savings which have been obtained, whether they are due to the normal process of retirement and a reduction in recruitment in respect of appointments which might be considered to be superfluous?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the savings have been achieved in a number of ways. There have been savings by what is called natural wastage and there have been savings by privatisation, including contracting out and hiving off.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, could the noble Baroness divide the figures up as between the industrial side and the rest of the Civil Service and indicate where these great economies were made?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not have the precise breakdown of figures between the industrial and non-industrial civil servants, but I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that an overall total was agreed at the beginning of the lifetime of this Government and each department has contributed towards it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not dealt with my question. Is this information available; and, if it is, could it be circulated?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall certainly see whether I can let the noble Lord have it.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that, quite apart from the savings made by denationalisation, real savings could be made by simplifying a great deal of legislation, taxation, benefits and so on? As a result, there would be real savings in administrative staff as opposed to those which come about by denationalisation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, there have been real savings in the Civil Service, and they have been achieved by civil servants. Indeed, it is a very great achievement on their part, and one which the Government acknowledge. Of course, there are arguments in favour of the simplification of legislation, and I take the point made by the noble Viscount on that matter.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the reduction in the number of civil servants is being achieved on a sufficiently selective basis? For example, is there not a strong case for there being as many people, and perhaps even more, in the employment service division of the Manpower Services Commission in order to counsel the increasing number of long-term unemployed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that there has been considerable flexibility within the overall target, and the number of civil servants in both the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security has in fact increased.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that these cuts have had an effect upon morale in the Civil Service? Is she aware that the

323
Financial Times, among other newspapers, describes the situation as:
"a palpable decline in Civil Service morale accompanying the cuts"?
Is this not an extremely serious matter? Is that the reason why this year's quota of administration trainee vacancies has fallen so substantially? Given that we are all extremely proud of our Civil Service, are the Government not in danger of damaging it irreversibly?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated in answer to a previous question, the Government are the first to acknowledge that the reduction in numbers in the Civil Service has been brought about by civil servants themselves, and that they have in fact been willing for the publication of the scrutinies, many of which have shown up areas where savings can be made. All this has been open to public inspection. It is a tribute to their work that they have agreed both to the reductions in numbers and to this matter of open government.
On the question of the numbers of administration trainees, it is true that last year the Civil Service was unable to recruit as many administration trainees as it would have wished, and we have taken this matter very seriously. But we are hopeful that this year looks better. We are looking at recruitment methods, because it is very important that we should continue to recruit some of our most able young men and women into the Civil Service.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House make it clear that this is a gross saving and not a net saving? Will she confirm that it does not take into account the cost of redundancies, unemployment pay and, in certain cases, the increased cost to taxpayers by, for example, increased travelling expenses when certain offices have been closed down?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to confirm the savings that have been made. Most of the savings in numbers have come about for the reasons that I have described, and there have been only a very few redundancies.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what was the percentage reduction in that part of the Inland Revenue engaged in trying to recoup money lost on the "black economy"?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my information is that, as far as the Inland Revenue is concerned, the number of people engaged in identifying fraud has been increased.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, apart from the savings can the noble Baroness say how much money has had to be expended by Government departments in carrying out work which used to be done by civil servants? For example, I am thinking of the transfer of the Engineering Consultancy for Road Development, and organisations of that kind.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot do so without notice. The fact of the matter is that where the savings have been made they have always been made in the
324
interests of the better management of the Civil Service and of the more effective carrying out of the service that is involved.
Lord Plant: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us the Government's attitude to the decision taken by your Lordships opposing the privatisation of the Ordnance Survey Department? Can the noble Baroness make any statement in this respect?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that, of course, is quite another question.

The School Meals Service: Costs
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government what are the estimated national figures for the cost of the school meals service in 1983–84, and whether they will give a breakdown of the figures for providing:

(a) free meals;

(b) the supervision of children at meal times;

(c) facilities for children bringing their own packed lunches.

The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, forward estimates for the component costs of school meals are not made. In the financial year 1981–82, the latest year for which returns of actual expenditure are available, the cost of providing free meals was £182 million. The cost of mid-day supervision, excluding the costs in Scotland, where this information is not collected separately, was £62 million. Separate information is not collected on authorities' costs in providing facilities for pupils who bring their own food to school.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Nevertheless, as regards that Answer, does he not fear that the nutritional level of school meals will be lowered as local authorities bear the growing amount of the statutory cost, and will consequently have less for the direct costs, such as food? Would the Minister not agree that this is most likely to happen in areas which are already economically stretched, where the resources of the local authorities are going elsewhere, and also in areas where there are children from poor families who are most in need of a good school meal?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not sure quite why these figures should in any way refer to the nutritional quality of the meals provided. It is very much up to the local education authority what sort of meals they provide, taking into account the circumstances of the children they have in their area.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the real cost of this type of service in a gravely unemployed society is nil, but all that really happens is that a number of people who were previously occupied in providing this service are now unoccupied?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I really understand the tenor of the noble Lord's question. There are people occupied producing school meals and there are children occupied in eating them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, in view of the massive increase in unemployment, can the noble Lord give us the figures for the increasing number of children who must obviously be able to benefit from school meals? Those figures would be very enlightening to your Lordships. I understand that at present in Birmingham it would be nearly 50 per cent. of the children in the schools.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I have very detailed figures indeed on the number of children who are taking school meals. They are broken down into various categories: primary schools, secondary schools, free meals and so on. I think that the best thing for me to do would be to write to the noble Baroness with the detailed figures.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Minister satisfied with the means for ensuring that the quality and quantity of school meals are adequate, whether they be "Merton packed lunches" or full meals? Is he aware that a study by a team from St. Thomas's Hospital showed that those who were entitled to receive free school meals were significantly shorter in stature than average, and that the study team felt that the withdrawal of school meals might well prejudice their future development?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, perhaps it is rather inappropriate for me, with my stature, to answer the Question. It had become increasingly apparent even before the Education Act 1980, that centrally determined nutritional standards were restricting innovation and preventing local education authorities from providing the type of food which pupils wanted. This led to a lot of waste, and wasted food clearly has no nutritional value whatever. One of the things that arises is that, under the new cafeteria system which many local education authorities have adopted, there is far, far less waste and, in fact, at places where the pig swill man used to come round, local authorities are now having to pay him to come and take away the little that is left over.
In fact, the noble Lord may be interested to know that a survey of the dietary intake of school children is at present going on, and has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security. The results of this should be available next year which will probably give the Government more chance to study what is going on.
Baroness David: My Lords, will that survey cover the London borough of Merton, which apparently has ceased to provide any meals at all, except sandwiches for those who must have free meals? I should have thought that sandwiches for those having free meals was a totally inadequate diet. Could that borough please be covered by the survey, if it is not already?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that the decision was taken only last night, so I really cannot say whether the borough of Merton is covered by the
326
survey, or whether it has decided to produce sandwiches or to go elsewhere. However, I should like to make it absolutely clear that it is no part of the Government's policy that the school meals service should be abolished, and public expenditure forecasts adequately provide for its continuation.
A number of authorities have demonstrated that it is possible, through greater efficiency, to achieve the necessary reductions in school meals expenditure without abandoning parts of their service. However, such decisions are for individual local education authorities to decide and defend in the light of local circumstances.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is this not an instructive lesson on the priorities of the present Government, that they are quite happy to allow local authorities such as Merton to exercise their discretion to abandon the provision of school meals while insisting by law that all local authorities shall prepare for a nuclear war?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that that is a somewhat different question from the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Earl have available a comparison of the figures he has given with those for 1979? When he says that it is no part of the Government's policy to destroy the school meals service, is it not part of the Government's policy to reduce that service? Will he pay particular attention to the rural areas, where many children leave home at eight o'clock in the morning and do not return until about five o'clock in the evening? In many rural areas, have not school meals had to be abandoned because there is either no one to supervise them or no one to provide them at lunch time?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is quite right. In fact, since this Government took office, it has been their policy to halve net expenditure on meals and milk in real terms so as to protect provision in the classroom. A number of local education authorities have responded positively to that policy and have attained expenditure levels consistent with the Government's plans. I myself live in a rural area where schools have gone over to the cafeteria system. Not only is it saving money, but it is also enormously more popular with the children who take the meals.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there is a threat of a reduction in the school meals service and that this will lead to another problem of employment for married women? I am sure he will agree that many of those working in the schools service are wives of unemployed people and also single mothers who have children at that school.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that it is up to the local education authorities themselves as to who they employ or do not employ in their services.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Earl does not have the figures available, would he be so kind as to write to me and let me know what they are?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the figures for which the noble Lord is asking, but I shall read with interest what he said in Hansard and send him the figures for which he has asked.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Report stage of the Data Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period.
Energy Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to allow the second Motion standing in the name of the Lord Elton to be taken after the first Motion standing in his name.—(Baroness Young.)
Lord Airedale: My Lords, what is it that makes the noble Lord, Lord Elton, apprehensive that, on Monday next, the second Motion standing in his name should not be taken after the first Motion standing in his name?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that to be precise the Motion should probably read:
"to be taken immediately after the first Motion standing in his name".
That would meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1983
3.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th February of this year be approved.
The draft order is designed to give effect without modification to the final recommendations contained
328
in the Third Periodical Report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. Article 2 of the order substitutes the 72 constituencies described in the schedule for the existing 71 constituencies in Scotland. The draft order was approved in another place on 3rd March and it has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments who had no comments. If the draft order is approved by the House this afternoon, the Secretary of State will submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made. Article 1(2) provides that the order will come into operation on the fourteenth day after the day on which it is made, but the new constituencies will not come into effect until the next general election.
When the commission began their review just over five years ago they were faced with a daunting task, partly because of the effects of the major reorganisation of local government in 1975, and partly because of shifts of population. The local government changes meant that eight of the existing constituencies crossed the new regional boundaries and many more crossed district boundaries. Given that the commission are required, so far as is practicable, to have regard to local authority boundaries, it was clear that major changes in constituency boundaries would have to be made. At the same time, population changes had resulted in wide disparities in the electorate of constituencies. When the commission began the review in February 1978 there were five constituencies with more than 70,000 electors and eight had fewer than 35,000 electors compared with the 1978 average of 53,649. The success of the commission in equalising constituencies is illustrated by the fact that there are unlikely to be any constituencies with an electorate more than 20 per cent. above the average and only a handful with more than 20 per cent. below the average, and these are mainly in the islands and scattered rural areas. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing thanks to the commission for their work and to the assistant commissioners who held the local inquiries into the commissions' proposals.
The original intention of the commission was that the number of constituencies in Scotland should remain at 71. However, as a result of the local inquiry held into their proposals for Glasgow, they were convinced that 11 seats should be allocated instead of 10. This decision was reached in the light of the evidence produced at the inquiry rather than because of a decision in principle that the number of seats in Scotland should be increased.
The commission resolved to avoid making recommendations for constituencies which would cross regional boundaries except in the most exceptional circumstances and their aim was, wherever possible, to recommend constituencies wholly within one district or comprising whole districts. Where this was not possible they decided to adhere to regional electoral divisions or, exceptionally, district wards. The effect of their recommendations is that 10 constituencies consist of a complete district, three consist of two complete districts, and more than 30 consist of one district only. Of the remainder more than a half consist of one district and part of another, the boundaries of the constituencies covering the

329
islands areas remain unchanged. Only 11 constituencies consist of district wards.
It would have been impossible for the commission to please everyone, but I think it can be agreed that their recommendations are generally on the right lines, I therefore commend their final recommendations to your Lordships, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister of State for the information that he gave us. He did not seem to draw any lessons at all from the events in Scotland in relation to the redistribution of seats. I had hoped that he might have done so. Although there has not been the degree of complaint in Scotland that there has in England, it has not been without its complaints. It would be surprising if it was.
I too join him in my congratulations to Lord Ross. There was a certain measure of confusion about that, but the honourable Lord Ross is one of the Scottish judges who very ably became, I think it is, the assistant chairman. The chairman of the Boundaries Commissions in all the four areas is of course Mr. Speaker, and the man who took the task in Scotland was the judge appointed by the justiciary itself. Then of course there are two appointees by the Secretary of State for Scotland in agreement with the political parties.
They have done a first-class job. It is a difficult job. It is an invidious task that is thrown upon them. It was made even more complex by the fact that I think the last change of the rules was somewhere about 1958, but the greater part of those rules, or one of the insisting parts of those rules, was that they had to abide by, as far as they could, local government boundaries. But the local government boundaries were changed. They were changed comprehensively in the year 1972.
The result is that one of the other considerations which they had to bear in mind about the break-up of community of interest just went by the board right away. Familiar titles, familiar areas, have gone. There has been a lot of not only heart searching but seat searching in respect of the changes that have taken place. I am sorry for some of the people involved. I know their allegiance to particular areas, particular communities, and they have now discovered that by the whim of Parliament in 1972 it has to be changed because of rules that were drawn up in 1958.
We have always had a certain measure of flexibility in respect of the rules in Scotland. I remember that the old rules in respect of England were tight about crossing boundaries. It never was the same in Scotland. I hope that one of the lessons to be drawn from this is that it does not necessarily provide you with the best division, be it into 71 or 72, and to get the proper spread and equality of electorates if you are going to be tied rigidly to the basis of not crossing regional boundaries.
After all, remember what happened in 1972 with that Act of Parliament. It was not a Labour Government, it was a Conservative Government. It was a
330
Conservative Government opposed by this House in respect of one of the major local authorities and local authority boundaries, that of Strathclyde. This contains within itself half the whole population of Scotland in one local authority area. They were going to do away with Fyfe. That was going to be swallowed up by the encroachment of Edinburgh and the Lothians in the one part, and the reduction from Tayside. Can your Lordships imagine what kind of task the parliamentary Boundary Commission would have, and what anguish there would have been, if they had had to abide by that kind of local authority boundary?
One aspect that troubles me about this matter is the extent to which Parliament comes into it. We have an order before us. We cannot amend it. It was not possible to amend it in the other place. Somebody tried, but it was out of order. Now what do we get down to? It is explicit in the report of Hansard of what the Scottish Minister said in another place that he relied entirely on the impartiality of the Boundary Commission, the wisdom of the Boundary Commission, and virtually said that the Secretary of State to whom it is sent, and who has the power of modification, was not going to exercise that power, and would never exercise that power. When the Secretary of State is not going to modify, and when Parliament cannot modify, that means we leave the whole power in the hands of the commission.
They are not all wise. In respect of Glasgow they changed their mind on the basis of a report from an assistant commissioner. I think everyone was quite pleased about it because there they added in a seat. Do not think that they added a seat to Glasgow, because Glasgow was going to lose three and they only lose two instead of three. But from their provisional proposals they added a seat to Glasgow. It made much more sense in respect of the constituencies that they were able then to create. We know the trouble there has been in the central constituency where the provisional decisions of the Boundary Commission were completely overturned by the assistant commissioner.
It becomes rather invidious if we are in the position that assistant commissioners can overturn the Boundary Commission; the Boundary Commission accepts that without modification; the Secretary of State refuses to exercise any power; and Parliament is not allowed to exercise any power. You are placing a considerable power in the hands of the Boundary Commission. To that extent they have to be even more careful than ever. They have the right, when they produce provisional electorates, for there to be an inquiry, and there were inquiries. If that is modified and they accept the modifications, there can possibly be another inquiry. When there are fairly sweeping changes from their provisional arrangements there ought to be a second inquiry if it is requested.
I question, too, the wisdom of the Secretary of State saying, "I am not going to change anything. It has come from them. It is not my right." I can understand his reluctance, but there are a lot of smaller things in respect of which he could make changes. I do not agree with the entire wisdom of the commission. They had to take into account the new local authority boundaries. They had to bear in mind the desirability of having equal numbers in respect of electorates, and

331
particularly in relation to those that were neighbouring.
I cannot entirely justify the changes they made in the Highland area. I ask noble Lords who question the justification of Scotland having a lower electoral quota than England or Wales to please remember that if you take this particular Highland area—I think they call it Inverness now—it has an area the size of Cyprus. From the North-West to the South-West of this area there is a distance of 240 miles. It is quite a constituency. I do not think that Mr. Russell Johnston was all that pleased with the changes that were made in that respect. It took away a settled community, I think it was Skye, and put it in Ross and Cromarty, and left it with as big an area as possible and left him with a bigger electorate than he had before, and just as well scattered.
Take that constituency and the new Borders constituencies, which are relatively small. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is only a handful that are 20 per cent. above the quota, and another handful 20 per cent. below. That is a difference of about 40 per cent. To the extent that the rules that were laid down—which, to my mind, are a little out of date—make that possible, or make it difficult to get away from that, that is something that really has to be looked at again.
They took into account—they did not pay much attention to it, however, because by statute they are not entitled to take it into account—future population developments. According to statute, the electorate is taken as at a certain point, and the Secretary of State is told, "We are going to start at this date". I think that in England and Wales it was 1956, and in Scotland it was 1958. This is 1983, and there have been considerable population changes since that time—and they are still taking place. In other words, the electorates are out of date before we even start. The commission, although they consult, are not bound to take into account—in fact, they are hound not to do so—the information they get from the Registrar General of the most up-to-date electorates, some of which are changed very considerably.
I notice the changes that have been made in the Ayr constituency. That has been raised to 65.000 or 66,000, and it is still rising, while the neighbouring constituency is very much lower—and from that constituency they took a considerable chunk. Nobody was objecting to it; the Secretary of State was not objecting to taking Troon into his constituency. I reckon that will save his seat at the next election. And Mr. David Lambie will not be objecting to taking Troon out of a fairly good Labour seat. But looked at from the point of view of equity, I begin to wonder.
The argument was that the new town of Irvine was growing. It may have been growing in 1958, when they started out; but I wonder when they last consulted the Scottish Office about the development of Scotland's new towns? That applies to Livingston, Cumbernauld and East Kilbride, as well as to Irvine. The Government have practically stopped building in the new towns. Although they said that, in respect of the new towns, they took into account likely population changes—which they were not really entitled to do—I
332
think they have been wrong about that. On the other hand, if one looks at the Grampian area, where there have been considerable population changes since 1958, one sees that they did not give the same weight to that.
All the faults are not those of the Boundary Commission: they are the faults contained in the rules. On the whole, they did a first-class job, considering the difficulties they faced. But I plead with the Secretary of State to exercise a little of his power. Would anyone object if the Secretary of State, having been given a reasonable case, made a decision in respect of the name of a constituency? For example, there is a constituency that has been called, since ever I can remember, South Ayrshire. We all remember Emrys Hughes and the First Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a commoner, a miner named James Brown, who came from South Ayrshire. What is it now to be called? I am surprised that even the ex-officio chairman did not give them a certain measure of whispered guidance in view of the fact that the Speaker, instead of calling the Member for South Ayrshire, will have to call the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. We want to shorten our proceedings in Parliament, not lengthen them with constituency names like that.
We are told that they are the names of the districts. There is a district called Cumnock and Doon Valley and there is a district called Carrick. Actually, there is not a district called Carrick but a district called Kyle and Carrick. But where is Kyle? In fact, Kyle is Ayr.
"There was a man was born in Kyle",
as Burns said. I had to get him into this speech. He never had a vote, but let us get him in. All the forebears of the bard came from Kyle. Had they been on the other side of the Doon, they might have been considered as coming from Carrick; but never mind that.
Why is the Secretary of State allowed to call his constituency Ayr when it is not Ayr? It is Troon, which was a burgh on its own; it is Prestwick, which was a burgh on its own; and parts of Ayr County. I do not object to it because I live there, but that is how it will be known. But is it fair to resort to an old name which is not realistic in these terms? Although the assistant commissioner who reported on the South Ayrshire constituency suggested that it could be called South Ayrshire, the Boundary Commission ruled that out. I suggest that when faced with a question like a name the Secretary of State should not be afraid to make a decision and make a change, even if it means changing his own one. After all, as he is going to get benefits from his own constituency as a result of the change made there, he should give the benefit to others as well.
There is another interesting one called Hillhead. Your Lordships know who the present temporary Member for Hillhead is. But Hillhead is not in Hillhead, and although two great new Labour wards have been moved in and other bits have been moved out, it is still called Hillhead. Partick is in what is now called Hillhead; Yoker and Hawick are in what is now called Hillhead; and Buchanan Street, in the very centre of Glasgow, is now in Hillhead. It is quite nonsensical to have a misleading name like that. That is why I say that in a matter like that the Secretary of

333
State should have listened to voices and made up his own mind. Nobody would have called him gerrymandering if all that was involved was changing a name, if that is what he was afraid of.
The lessons that stick out from it all are that the rules that were applied in 1950 do not necessarily apply today; that they are not of the same help and are not of the same standing as they were in the older days, certainly in Scotland when we had the burghs and counties. I trust the Government will now pay some attention—I am sure this applies equally to England and Wales—to the old rules in the new situation.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for putting forward the Motion, and we shall not oppose it. We have a certain wry amusement as we listen to the two parties, Labour and Conservative, concentrating on the minutiae of the Boundary Commission and their work, determined not to look over their shoulders at the wider problem of electoral reform, which is the only way to produce some form of proper representation in this country. But I shall not dwell on that. My noble friend Lord Mayhew pointed out the anomalies and mentioned the problems that we on these Benches and certain others have in trying to get democracy into an outdated voting system.
I believe the electorate will be faced, after the work of the new Boundary Commission, with having to turn the existing electoral system on its head to get proportional representation, and I think that will be one of the major factors in the forthcoming by-election and the general election which will follow. We on these Benches are not in any way critical of the unbiased arithmetic of the Boundary Commission, and certainly we accept the drawing up of the new boundaries. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, my honourable friend Russell Johnston in Inverness is indeed concerned that his very large constituency should have been made even larger. It is 4,000 square miles.
The same can be said of the re-drawing of Galloway under the new constituency Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Here, perhaps, the Boundary Commission are reverting to the more romantic description of Galloway, which was,
"From the glens of Glena to the Brig-end of Dumfries".
which I always used to try to point out as being the constituency in the days when I stood as a candidate there. Another 9,500 voters have come into this constituency, which has probably increased the size of it to an area (which the Member must try to get round) of 2,500 square miles. My question to the noble Earl is whether or not the commission should have considered the factor of a Member representing not a number but an area in order to give the voters the proper representation they deserve. If I recall aright, in 1959 one needed 72 advertised meetings in a constituency the size of Galloway, compared with four public meetings in an urban constituency like, say, Dumfries.
Perhaps some adjustment could be made in terms of television coverage of those constituencies which have a very wide geographical area, from which Scotland—and maybe parts of Wales and some parts
334
of Northern England—suffer, in order that the voters have a better chance of seeing their candidate and hearing the views represented. Although that was not in the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission, it is a factor from which candidates in large Scottish constituencies suffer. When you consider, if I recall correctly, that one travelled between 3,000 and 4,000 miles a week in a vehicle to cover those 72 meetings, I do not expect the situation has changed much today.
Today, when communications are so much better—visually, by television, and by radio—and with the talk-back one can get into programmes today, that may be one way of getting these larger constituencies nearer to their candidates and Members. I hope that that is a matter on which the noble Earl can perhaps give a view, even though it is possibly slightly outside the terms of the Motion. I will then not make a speech about proportional representation, which will be to the relief to the noble Earl and to those noble Lords who sit on the Labour Benches. Nevertheless, having made those points, I should be interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we on these Benches would not oppose the proposals contained in the order. We believe that the Boundary Commission has an extremely difficult job, in the very nature of the geographical distribution in Scotland and the fact that there is a heavy concentration of population in the industrial centres stretching from Glasgow to Edinburgh. There are also large areas of rural population, which are so widely spread. Therefore when drawing up the new boundaries it is important that we should have some respect for the fairness and objectivity which has been the basis of the proposals in the order.
With regard to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in connection with the Secretary of State's intervention, I would say that it would be extremely difficult, and dangerous, if the Secretary of State, being a political animal and being personally involved in distribution, were to intervene in any substantial way. Of course I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said with regard to names. That might be possible. But, as we know from the redistribution following local government reform, even names can be extremely contentious in Scotland. People have loyalties to names. So it is important that the Boundary Commission's recommendations should be seen to be above the political debate and, so far as possible, above controversy.
I am afraid that the references of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to the Hillhead constituency bear no relationship to the current public opinion polls which are published in Scotland, following the Bermondsey by-election. I am quite sure that, despite the changes in his constituency, the Member for Hillhead will not be regarded as a temporary Member for Hillhead.
On behalf of those of us on the SDP Benches, I should like to say that we support the recommendations, and we congratulate the Boundary Commission, as well as thank it for discharging a very difficult task.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words on this matter and to add my congratulations to those extended to the Boundary Corn mission on the way in which it has dealt with this extremely complicated subject. I think that this is the third reorganisation of constituencies that I have known in Scotland during the many years in which I have been engaged in politics there. In Glasgow there were originally 15 constituencies; there are now to be 11. The one that I knew best—Kelvingrove—no longer exists; at any rate, not in name, though of course it exists in fact, because it is still there. But it is not listed as a constituency. A reduction to 11 constituencies from 15 is quite a big change. Of course the population has gone down enormously, and I am quite sure that the change is right.
Another change affects the area that I know very well, the Borders, where there are to be two constituencies instead of one. I think that this is a good thing. As I say, I know the area very well, and having studied the point rather carefully, I think that the new arrangement will work very well. I think that the Boundary Commission has done the right thing. It was becoming a vast area, and the population was very large. So I think it only right that it should be changed as it has been.
The job of the Boundary Commission is a very difficult one. People hate a change being made in the name of the constituency in which they vote; and, on the whole, they resist it. However, so far as I can see, this reorganisation has been well received, and I should like to add my congratulations to those that have already been extended by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock, and Lord Tanlaw.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, I should like to add just a few words to the debate. First, I wish to express the hope that my noble friend will not follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and get the Secretary of State involved in anything, except—I would agree—in the minor changes of names. I say that because the one thing of which people in the country can become only too well aware is any attempt by parties of either side to gerrymander the results of the Boundary Commission's independent report.
My other point relates to the size of constituencies. As some of your Lordships will know, my constituency was not exactly small. I can remember travelling down to support an honourable friend of mine who was fighting against the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, at the time. One of the areas involved was in New Galloway, a great burgh of that part of the world. I think that a penny rate raised about 13 shillings. I was warmly congratulated on having travelled such a long way to support our candidate. However the journey there from my home in my own constituency was much shorter than were most journeys that I undertook in my own constituency. It was also much easier to get there.
Nowadays travelling is much easier than it used to be. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, would care to refresh his memory since I do not believe that he was covering 3,000 miles every week—that would be 500 miles a day—getting around his constituency. I think that the noble Lord was in fact referring
336
to his mileage during the whole election campaign—because my mileage figure was about that, too. In my constituency I had to travel by boats, aeroplanes, and everything else, because I had 17 islands as well as a little bit of mainland. But I do not believe that travelling makes life more difficult if one has the energy and the desire to keep in touch with one's constituents. I honestly believe that in my constituency I was more closely in touch with my constituents than are most Members in a city with 50,000 or 60,000 people. I do not think that within reason the question of size is necessarily a good ground for changing constituency names and other things too greatly.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to put the record straight. He is quite correct. I made a slip of the tongue. The mileage to which I referred was undertaken during the course of the campaign.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, as a mere Englishwoman, I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in his plea that names should be left as they are. So far as English constituencies are concerned, I think that I can console my noble friend by pointing out that people who come from the great city of Bristol will never talk about coming from Avon and Somerset; nor will people from Liverpool talk about coming from Merseyside. Fortunately, people will always survive the nonsense of the changing of names. I still find that in the old London boroughs I cannot use the new names, which are almost meaningless. Obviously there was an obsession with rivers, or in the case of the shires, with mountains. Long may the old, historical names remain the names by which people know the place in which they live.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who in the main have welcomed this order. To come straight to the various points which were raised, I think that one has to remember that the Boundary Commission had to set about its duties in accordance with a number of rules and, while it is true to say that possibly the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and for England and Wales have not always interpreted them in exactly the same way, I do not think that anyone has seriously suggested that there should be only one Boundary Commission. Nevertheless, equally, I do not think that we should lose sight of the fact that the rules were drawn up by Parliament with all-party agreement—although, in the next breath, I agree with the noble Lord who said that the rules are capable of a number of different interpretations and there seems in the experience of the present exercise to be a case for clarification. However, that and possible alterations will be for Parliament to decide on or before the time when the Boundary Commissions next embark on their general review.
I think it is right to say that the Government are paying careful attention to the views that have been expressed. There is one matter on which, for the record, I must reluctantly correct the noble Lord, Lord Ross. He put the enumeration date at 1958. It was 1978—a slip of the tongue, I know. Then the noble Lord, in effect, chided the Secretary of State for not

337
modifying, in instances where he thought fit, recommendations which the Boundary Commission sought to make. I think that that point was covered to an extent by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and by my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas.
One has to realise that, in an exercise such as this, particularly where some people's parliamentary careers are going to be cut short, there is a very keen eye kept on everything that is done. If the Secretary of State was minded in effect to modify one constituency, he would inevitably be modifying at least two. The resulting chain effect could be quite severe in the effect which one decision had on the whole series of proposals. At the same time, the Secretary of State would be laying himself open to charges of political chicanery or, at the very least, bias. That is why it has been the normal practice for Secretaries of State to follow the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, who are responsible and, above all, impartial; and they are assisted in their inquiries by the assistant commissioners. So I think I do not find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, on that score.
Then we come to the difficult matter of the sizes and shapes of the constituencies. Even allowing that Scotland receives a benefit by virtue of the fact that there are large parts of the country which have either suffered depopulation or, in any event, have a small population, in those terms one gets constituencies of large size. Even my own (if I can bring the personal touch into it) is going to stretch from suburban Perth—imagine an inverted piece of cheese—to Kirriemuir, going north-east and then due west to Rannoch before coming down south-east to the north of Perth again. It is a colossal constituency with most means of communication going north to south rather than east to west.
A number of noble Lords took up the matter of nomenclature. It was the task of the Boundary Commission to reflect changes in local authority boundaries and nomenclature since 1975. It was for that reason that they abolished the word "shire" because we do not have them in the sense that we had the old county council. Coming to Lord Ross's neck of the woods, of course Troon is presently in Central Ayrshire and therefore, as Ayrshire no longer exists in the local government sense, it is entirely appropriate that it should be renamed. Incidentally, I think that the only Member who is cheering as loudly as he who is going to embrace Troon is the Member for the present Central Ayrshire constituency who is going to lose it. The reason is that it has, I think, the highest rateable value of any community in Scotland.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Subject to appeal, my Lords.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, to some appeal. I personally do not see anything too bad about some of the new names. It may be that Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley does not exactly trip off the tongue but it will be found rather more romantic than some of those little towns if one visits them, and not too far away one gets Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale which three Members of your Lordships' House take as their titles
338
or part of them. I think that it is something we shall learn to live with and possibly become quite affectionate towards before the next changes are made and the resulting complaints start up again. As I said at the beginning, I think that the Boundary Commission have done their best. Obviously, even to those who have suffered, so to speak, from the changes, they have been quite impartial and have made what some people used to describe as parliamentary chaos into a reasonable system of order. It is on that basis that I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Definition of "data" and related expressions]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("by") to end of line 11 and insert ("computer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we start this Report stage as we did the Committee stage, with the important subject of how we define the word "data". I must begin, if I may, by taking issue with the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in column 1337 that we now all know what data are. He said that they were "fugitive". The data user hopes that they are not; and while, if he is prudent, he takes a back-up of his disk, he does not normally expect the data to disappear off the disk overnight or in between runs. The noble Lord said that they were uninterpretable to the human eye. But three columns before he had himself agreed that the state of modern technology is such that a great deal of printed matter would fall within the definition of "data". He said that they were transferable at the speed of light to distance. They may be; but it is not a necessary requirement of the definition and we can think of types of data certainly not so transferable.
Finally, he asserted that they could be collated instantaneously with other unknown masses of information. Both parts of that statement are wrong. Firstly, they can only be collated with known masses of information specified by the programmer; and, secondly, if the noble Lord has ever seen a sort take place on a smaller machine, he certainly would not call it instantaneous—certainly not on the kind of micro that we find used frequently in the smaller businesses these days.
What I am concerned with in the definition of "data" is the fact that nowhere in the Bill is there to be found a direct statement of what a computer is. The data which are to be protected are:
"information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose".
One can think of lots of types of data which are not to be processed on a computer at all. I believe that a pianola roll would come within the definition of "data" that we find in the Bill. So, too, would punched cards usable only on the electromechanical sorting

339
machines that preceded the computer. There is no requirement in this definition in the Bill that the equipment should be electronic. It can equally be either mechanical or electromechanical. So without a definition of "computer" we are in some doubt about exactly what kind of equipment could be used to process the personal data that are the subject of this Bill.
In the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the word "computer" is defined as it is in this amendment. It is the word "data" which I believe is not defined in that Bill, so creating, I fear, endless possibilities of confusion where the two pieces of legislation intersect. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill provides that where a circuit judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an arrestable offence has been committed, that there is evidence which relates to that offence held in confidence by a person and that other methods of obtaining that evidence have been tried and failed (or that, if those methods had been tried, they were bound to fail), the judge may issue an order requiring the evidence to be produced, and that would include data held on a computer as defined in the amendment.
It is not for me to construct hypothetical examples showing where confusion could arise, but to indicate the way in which difficulties could be experienced. Suppose there was a device which did not satisfy the definition but which, nevertheless, could process information automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose. Then the information would be "data" within the meaning of Clause 1(2) of the Bill if it were to be unamended, but it would not be "data" within the implied meaning of Clause 14(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
Clause 28 of this Bill allows a data user to give personal data to a third party if the disclosure is for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. So if a data user refuses to give that information to the police, as he is perfectly entitled to do, then the police can go to the circuit judge for a warrant and under Section 14(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill a constable who considers that a computer may contain data that can be used in evidence can require those data to be produced in a form which can be taken away. But then the data user might argue that his equipment is not a computer within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Even if the argument were entirely frivolous he might, thereby, secure a delay which would enable him to transfer the data elsewhere.
As I say, it is not for us at this stage to foresee all the difficulties that might arise from incompatibility in the treatment of the terms "data" and "computer" in these two Bills. It would save an enormous amount of trouble and the time of the courts if we get it right at this stage. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I rise with hesitation because at Report stage I can rise only once and I trust that no noble Lords will put points to me after I have sat down to which I would be debarred from replying.
340
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, both for his eloquent reprise of his criticism of amendments in the Committee stage and for his eloquent forecast of his objections to the Committee stage of a later Bill that we shall take in this House. My principal attention is directed to the amendment on the Marshalled List. I must say that I am hardly flattered by the noble Lord's description of my ability to describe "data" let alone to define them, and if I have left him with the impression that a pianola roll carries personal data, my ability of explanation has failed conspicuously.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I meant data, not personal data.
Lord Elton: Indeed, my Lords, but we are dealing with personal data, are we not? Therefore we need not concern ourselves with that.
The purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is different from that which we have before us. We are seeking to describe the activities to which the protection afforded by the Bill should extend by identifying where the main risk to personal privacy might lie. That is a very different task from describing the circumstances in which a document produced by a computer may safely be admitted as evidence in court, which is the concern of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. As the noble Lord said, we shall doubtless return to this juxtaposition when we have had the benefit of having seen both Bills in this House.
The first part of the noble Lord's amendment seeks to delete the existing description of the equipment doing the processing in subsection (2), which is cast in terms of what the equipment does—the equipment is,
"operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose"—
and in its place puts a simple reference to computers, thus shifting the apparent emphasis in the definitions upon the activities being performed, towards the equipment being employed. Our approach, as noble Lords will have noticed, is to avoid reference to computers as such, except in the specialised context of computer bureaux.
What the noble Lord's amendment then does is to define a computer in terms of its storing, processing or retrieving functions, so that we end up with a definition of data in terms of "information recorded in a form in which it can be processed by a device capable of processing" as well as capable of performing various other functions—storage and retrieval—which are either contained already in the processing definition or are implicit in the definition of a data user. In other words, this part of the amendment makes no difference to the scope of the definitions, except that it substitutes the imprecise term "electronic device" for the tighter concept of automatic operation in response to instructions given for that purpose.
With great respect—because I am well aware of the noble Lord's familiarity with the technology of this field—I suggest that for all the difficulty which they have generated the definitions we have at the moment are at least as precise and clear as the change being proposed and that there is no merit in making this amendment. I am aware that the computer definition he has suggested in these amendments is based on that

341
in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, but it is only rarely the case that definitions applicable in one context can be transferred happily to another.
May I deal also with the proposal in the final part of the noble Lord's amendment, to create a power for the Secretary of State to amend this provision to cover other kinds of device performing similar functions. I had expected a flicker to pass across the face of his noble friend, Lord Wigoder, as this rather large new order-making power should be added to the list which the noble Lord had already described as being grossly excessive, but he had his usual impassive control.
The noble Lord has indicated—or he has implied—that the purpose of this is to take account of changing technology so that when the day comes in which these functions are performed by other than electronic devices (I am informed that we may one day have biological, chemical or optical devices capable of doing all these things) the law may be amended to take account of such developments. His second amendment is of course only made necessary by the first. If the definition was left as drafted the function would be caught, regardless of what equipment performed it, by catching the equipment. The noble Lord is stuck in a technological rut from which he has to give the Secretary of State power by order to extract him. By the first amendment he tied himself specifically to electronic devices and the second amendment is made necessary by the thought that these devices may, one day, look decidedly old hat.
I would respectfully suggest that the best solution of all is not to embark on a description of the equipment, which is hound to change, but to rely, as the Bill does at present, upon the identification of the activities which it is desired to control and which are actually constituting a threat to the privacy of the individual. I hope, in the light of these comments, the noble Lord will agree that the approach we have adopted to this Bill, notwithstanding my inadequacies in explaining them, is preferable to what he has put before your Lordships.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister says that a pianola roll is not data—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I said it was not personal data; it certainly is data.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, not personal data. But we are talking here about data. We are talking about Clause 1(2) and we come on to the question of personal data later on. I would put it to the noble Lord the Minister that what is contained on a pianola roll could be personal data—for instance, if one were to write a code which linked musical notation with the ASCII code, which is used in a computer, it would not be a physical impossibility to make a pianola roll record personal data.
Regarding his criticisms of the definition which I advanced as an alternative, I would only say that those criticisms will come back to him with a vengeance when we start talking about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill because as I pointed out, but I do not think he was listening, I copied the wording exactly from Clause 54 (12) of the Police and Criminal
342
Evidence Bill. Therefore, all the criticisms he has levelled against my definition here must also be directed towards the draftsman who produced that other piece of legislation. I think we have had a case here where two different draftsmen were engaged on these different Bills and they did not consult very well with each other.
I am perfectly content to let my remarks stand on the record, with the Minister's reply. If there are no changes in the two Bills to bring them into a greater degree of conformity with each other as regards the definitions of "computer" and "data" and we subsequently find a flood of actions going to the courts, then be it on the noble Lord's head for ignoring the suggestions I have made this afternoon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("or referred to in information so recorded").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think I can best explain the purpose of this amendment by giving an example. Let us take a data user who has a large file of personal data perhaps on all his employees, most of it very routine stuff and perfectly proper. But he also has, or wishes to gather, some highly controversial information on a relatively small number of his employees—perhaps his key employees—material which would contravene a large number of the principles. Let us say some of it is hearsay and scandalous gossip, some of which may not be accurate. It is excessive for his registered needs and indeed some of it may even have been illegally obtained.
If he puts that on his equipment he is going to be in serious trouble and so what he does is to store it manually in what I suspect might well become known in the works concerned as "the dirt book". It is, of course, very important for his purposes that anyone looking up a reference to that employee or data subject should know that he is in "the dirt book", so he puts on the computer a symbol which will come up whenever that entry is consulted and which just means "something about him in the dirt book". The person consulting the computer sees that symbol and either says, "We don't want him", or he goes on to look at the manually-kept record and finds out (having been told to do so by the computer) this information which is stored and which has been accumulated contrary to the principles, if the principles apply.
The data subject who wants to know what is on the file about him can only see what is on the computer and he will perhaps see against his name an asterisk. He may be told that the asterisk means that further information is held manually, but in no way will he be able to get to the information which is stored manually and see that this scandalous gossip about him is wholly untrue and may relate indeed to another chap of the same name, so that his own name is being blacked quite improperly.
I submit that that defeats the whole purpose of this Bill, because we have there on the computer a message which colloquially one can describe as meaning, "There is dirt on this chap"—but the chap is not able

343
to see what it is and have it put right or to make a complaint about it. I fully accept that the Government do not want and do not intend to make this Bill deal with ordinary manually-recorded data. But to all intents and purposes this is not manually recorded; it is in the computer because the reference is there and the message is there; it is made quite clear to the person consulting the computer that there is some nastiness about this chap which can be gained by looking in the tiling cabinet. Therefore, I suggest that the definition of "data" should include information that is referred to in the data stored on the computer, so that the data subject may be able to see what is in the file and also the principles applied to it as well. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has raised an important point and it is one on which he and I have already corresponded. But I am sure he will forgive me if, for the benefit of your Lordships, I go over much the same ground now. In many respects this amendment turns on whether manual records should or should not be controlled in the same way as automatically processed data. The arguments on both sides are by now well known and I shall not dwell on them unduly. Quite simply, it is the speed and ease with which computers can process and link information about individuals which poses the greatest potential threat to privacy.
We have thought long and hard to see how computerised indexes would fit into our scheme. What is their threat to privacy? Are manual files which are so indexed significantly more open to abuse than those which are not? What are the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention? We concluded that a computerised index could certainly point the way quickly to where manual information was kept—to "the dirt book", mentioned by the noble Viscount. However, that information still lacked the capacity to be processed in the same swift manner as computerised data; like all manual data, the processing would still be time-consuming and cumbersome. The potential threat was therefore not of the same kind as that which applies to data actually held in computerised form. These were the reasons underpinning our decision not to cover information held in manual form which was referred to in an automated index.
Let me give an example to show what I mean. A building society may have on computer the name and address of a mortgagee, details of the mortgage and the state of the account. This is the information to which they need ready access and which they may want immediately available to them. In addition they have further information on a manila file covering all the mortgagee's past dealings with the society and details of former mortgages. And on the computer file is an indication that the manual file exists. Now, anybody having access to the computer is simply told that the manual file exists. He is told nothing of its contents. Indeed, the contents are no different from other information in manual form not referred to by the computer. Only when recorded on the computer do the capacities of the computer to collate, retrieve, transfer and the rest become relevant. And then, of course, the information has become data and the processing of the data is caught by the Bill. But, as long
344
as it is only in manual form, it is, as it were, safe from the capabilities of the computer. We do not, therefore, believe that it should be caught by the Bill, and that, for instance, a subject seeking access should have access to all the contents of the manual file, as well as to the computerised record.
Finally, I should note that the amendment as drafted does not, in fact, succeed in bringing manual information that is referred to in computerised data within the scope of the Bill as a whole. It brings such information within the meaning of "data" in Clause 1(2). But since the information is not processed automatically, it is not "held" by a "data user" in the terms of Clause 1(5). And since the Bill's obligations attach only to personal data that are held by data users, the amendment misses its target. However, that is a matter of mechanics, as it were, and I would rather address myself to the matter of principle.
I think it is common sense that nobody can stop people writing scandalous things about other people and keeping them in a drawer in their office. Subject to the correction of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, no offence is committed if the information remains there. If someone uses it slanderously or libellously, he is, of course, guilty of slander or libel and exposed to the penalties for so doing and, if he turns it into data, then it becomes a threat to the individual, then it is caught by this Bill and that is what we intend. We do not think that the Bill ought to be extended to have the scope which the noble Viscount proposes.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that answer, albeit I confess that I find it unsatisfactory. I am sure that the amendment may not achieve the whole purpose, but, as he said, the whole purpose could be achieved if one wanted to do so. Of course, as regards the ordinary manila file which merely records the date of one's payment, it does not matter whether or not you can get to it. But my worry—and I suggest that it should be a worry of this House—is when the symbol on the file means, "This chap is in the dirt book and is, therefore, dirty. Do not touch him". Surely, if that is on a computer and can be flashed around the the world, it does not matter that what lies behind it cannot be flashed around the world. But if that can be flashed around the world and is available to anybody at the press of a button, then the subject in question ought to have the right to see it and it ought to be properly controlled. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.
I still feel that, without this amendment, there is scope for lawyers to drive a coach and horses through the purposes of this Bill. But, if the Government are resolutely determined that that shall remain the position, it is hardly for me as a lawyer to deprive my trade of scope for driving coaches and horses. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
4.33 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from first ("data") to ("processed") in line 4 and insert ("are collected for the purpose of being").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House—and I hope that the Government will agree—I should like to take Amendment No. 6 with this amendment. Both amendments seek to tackle the same point but from slightly different points of view and, in a sense, one can be seen to be an alternative to the other. It seems from col. 725 of the Official Report for 22nd February that my noble friend Lord Elton, in replying to my Amendment No. 153A, was saying that the wording of Clause 1 is such that word processors are not caught by the definitions. But it is possible that they are caught, if word processors enable information relating to individuals to be retrieved automatically, even possibly with difficulty, and even though that is not the object of the system.
The consequences of that, if it were to occur, would be mitigated by Clause 21(4), but I suggest that that is not going far enough. Indeed, I have the impression that the Government have indicated that they would like to narrow the definition so as to exclude word processors, but there is difficulty in this, given the intricacies of the interlocking provisions of Clause 1.
The purpose of my Amendment No. 4 is to provide just that sort of answer for the Government. The idea behind the amendment is to focus more clearly on the idea of purpose, and to exclude those cases where personal data simply happen to be recorded in a system and are retrievable from it, but whose collection is not the purpose of the system.
The purpose of Amendment No. 6 is rather more straight forward, in that it states specifically:
"Nothing in this subsection shall apply to automatic word processing and text editing".
In considering that, what one is really saying—though this is, perhaps, something that should be the subject of a further amendment—is that a word processor processes words, whereas a data processor processes information and they are different in that respect.
Having put down both of these amendments, and having endeavoured to help to do what I believe the Government were seeking at Committee stage, I then found myself reading in today's copy of The Times on page 3, under the heading "Computer to do routine work for solicitors—and I quote the opening paragraph—
"Computers could undertake all routine work done by solicitors in domestic conveyancing, undefended divorce and probate, through a package of systems launched yesterday for use by word processors in solicitors' offices.".
If word processors are to be used for purposes of that kind, one would have thought that that was just the sort of stuff which the data subjects would want to get at, within the terms of this Bill. So we really must tackle the problem of word processors.
I am not suggesting for one minute that either of my two amendments is the answer to the problem. They are an attempt to give a line for the Government to look at. But it is not something which can be left within the present definitions, which do not really cover this ground. I suggest to your Lordships that word processors have recently been developing extremely fast, and it is quite clear from the article, of which I quoted merely the opening paragraph, that they will go on developing even faster. The Government
346
might like to take this away and see whether, at some stage in the passage of this Bill through Parliament as a whole, they can tidy up what I believe to be an important loose end. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, chose to couple Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 together, because I have certain reservations about Amendment No. 4 which I need not go into, but I think that Amendment No. 6 is one of importance and it is one which I am very happy to support. I support it on the basis that the definitions throughout Clause 1 are so vague and so sweeping that, unless there is some reservation of this kind, there will be unlimited argument as to whether or not it does in fact include automatic word processors.
The reason why I did not raise my eyebrows, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested I might have done, at the previous amendment of my noble friend Lord Avebury is that, although I recognise the force of the Minister's observation that my noble friend's Amendment No. 3 was a sweeping one, it did not seem to me to be any more sweeping than the extremely wide definitions which are already contained in the clause. If the Government agree—and I suspect that they will agree—that this clause is not intended to include automatic word processors, then I suggest that, for the sake of safety and clarity, it might be better specifically to exclude them and I hope that consideration will be given to Amendment No. 6.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I perfectly understand my noble friend's wish to achieve the objective, which we share, of including within the scope of the Bill only those activities which are rightly so included. I note his particular concern, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, with word processors, and with other methods of storing data, whether using word processors or not, which may unwittingly and unnecessarily have been caught by the Bill's provisions. Perhaps I should begin by outlining how the Government see the definitions working out.
The key provisions, so far as this issue and this amendment are concerned, are the definitions of "processing" and "data user". "Processing" takes place when any of the activities referred to in Clause 1(7) are performed by automatic means—that is, whenever the data are amended, augmented, deleted or re-arranged whenever the information constituting the data is extracted. But for the definition of "processing" to apply in the case of personal data, those operations must be performed by reference to a particular data subject. If the equipment in question can only, for example, augment or delete the data as a whole and not by reference to individuals, then it falls outside the scope of the definition.
I may say that we constructed this aspect of the definitions with a view to excluding equipment which does not operate by reference to a particular data subject and which therefore cannot raise the threat to personal privacy to which this Bill is addressed. Equipment which can perform those tasks by reference to particular data subjects, on the other hand, would be caught—and quite rightly so—whether or not it is called a "word processor", since the potential threat it poses is the same, regardless of its

347
name. The character of these instruments changes so fast that it is quite possible for a data processor to be innocuous one day and for Mark 2 of the same machine to be noxious the next.
However, the definitions contain an important further qualification, by requiring that a data user must be one who either processes data or intends so to process it. If the computer in question contains personal data but such data are distributed at random through the whole collection, and the responsible person has no intention of processing the data by reference to particular individuals (evidence of which might be the absence of an appropriate programme to carry out the task) then that person is not a data user within the terms of the Bill. It is to this test that my noble friend's amendment is addressed, by excluding from the data user definition not only those who lack a current intention to process but also those who had no such intention to process at the time that the data were collected.
I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend that I must resist his amendment, and on a number of grounds. I am speaking now of his first approach to the problem. In the first place, and on a technical point, I am far from clear when the collection of data, as opposed to information, may actually be said to take place. Is it when the substance of a telephone conversation is recorded on a magnetic tape, for example, thereby becoming data for the first time? Is it—bearing in mind the ability of equipment nowadays to read plain text—at the point when a manuscript is turned into a typescript? Is it when a body of data are collected together? I do not see that the amendment addresses itself to this point, but it is obviously crucial if we are to determine when the intention to process has to be present. The reference to data being collected for the purpose of being processed is also open to uncertainty. Except for those—if there are any—who engage in data processing for the sheer joy of the thing, most data users would claim to be assembling data for the purposes of their trade or profession, or whatever, rather than for the purpose of those data being processed.
But the overriding objection to this amendment is that it could seriously undermine the protection which the Bill affords, for it places the whole test of whether a person shall constitute a data user upon his intentions at the time of collection of the data, whenever that may be. It disregards entirely any change of intention he may subsequently have had. If a person could show that he had not intended to process at the time the data were collected, he would be entitled thereafter to make any use he chose of the data. He would not be subject to any of the controls of the legislation. It would clearly not be right to exempt him from the provisions of the Bill or to exempt any data which happened to have been collected with a purpose other than processing in mind. Given the difficulty which would be experienced in attempting to prove an original intention to process, the proposed amendment appears to pose a major loophole in the Bill's provisions.
I hope that what I have said regarding the definitions being directed towards activities potentially capable of causing harm (and away from those which do not) will satisfy my noble friend that the Bill already goes as far
348
as possible towards meeting his concern and that it would not be practical, without risking the effectiveness of the protection provided, to go in the direction he has suggested in the first amendment to which he has drawn your Lordships' attention.
If I may turn to the second of my noble friend's amendments, his second approach is more open. My noble friend has explained his desire to ensure beyond doubt the exclusion from the provisions of the Bill of the operation of what he calls "word processors". The device of stating in plain terms in the Bill just what it is that we wish to exclude from it does, I am bound to say, have certain immediate attractions. They proved overwhelming to the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder. Our task in framing this legislation would have been substantially easier had we been able to follow that approach. But for better or worse, I am afraid that the advance of technology demands that one should be extremely cautious in describing what one intends to achieve by reference to the state of technical progress at any given time, and I suspect that the approach being suggested by my noble friend has already been overtaken—as he has hinted—by such developments.
In view of my noble friend's recognition of that point relating to his second amendment and the flutter of interest on the Opposition Front Bench when it was discovered how much of the work of the legal fraternity might soon be automatically performed, I hope that he will be prepared to let this matter rest where it is.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for his full reply to my amendments. I fully accept the arguments which he has put forward. Nevertheless, when he has occasion to look again at the matter I hope he will find that there is a faint loophole which needs to be covered. I am slightly unhappy that it is not properly dealt with, but I fully accept the shortcoming of Amendment No. 4 and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert ("or subjects").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Interpretation Act 1978 I understand that the singular includes the plural, except where otherwise stated. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1(3) it says:
"'Personal data' means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual…".
Subsection (4) says:
"'Data subject' means an individual…".
I am worried that where data is held on families or family groups or on other small groups of people not incorporated as one body they might not be protected by the Bill. Therefore I beg to move the amendment, in order to obtain the Government's views on this point.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the concern which led to the tabling of the amendment. Initially it escaped me. Having listened to my noble friend's explanation, I am bound to say that I do not think that

349
the amendment is necessary. The second part of the processing definition contained in subsection (7) is there to limit the scope of the Bill to those activities capable of causing harm—to the situation, in other words, in which it is possible to interrogate the computer for information about a particular individual and then to perform tasks in relation to that data. If the equipment in question can only be used to perform tasks in relation to the collection of data as a whole, then the threat is not present and it would be wrong to subject that activity to the Bill's controls.
What my noble friend's amendment seeks to do is to add to the concept of performing these tasks in relation to a particular data subject that of doing so in relation to a subject or subjects. But I suggest, with respect, that this effect is already achieved. It is not so much a question of the male embracing the female as of the singular embracing the plural, as my noble friend has put it. If I go to the computer to seek data in regard to half a dozen specified data subjects, I am no less doing this in relation to a particular data subject, albeit six times over, than if I performed the task just once in relation to a single individual. Equally, if I ask the computer to serve me up with all the names of left-handed Viscounts, I am also processing data by reference to each individual data subject in that small but distinguished group. I hope that my noble friend is reassured that the Bill as drafted does what we intend and does not omit anything that it ought to do.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, having heard my noble friend's explanation, I am not sure that I am satisfied. My noble friend referred throughout to individuals as though individual members of a family could always be regarded totally independently of the other members. Legally, children are represented by their parents. A family unit can be considered as a unit, and in certain circumstances would, I am sure, be a single data subject with the information being held on a family as a whole rather than on individual members of that family. However, I will read what my noble friend has said. I may discuss it with him later and I feel free to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 [The data protection principles]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State may by order list types of data user who must inform data subjects that they hold data on them.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to give power to the Secretary of State to deal with particular types of data user who may in the future make a nuisance of themselves. When man first discovered the sharp edge and used it to skin a beast before cooking it, he had no idea that later a similar sharp edge could be used to produce the carvings in your Lordships' Chamber. At the same time, sharp edges in the form of knives have done considerable damage, even to the extent of killing people. I am not suggesting that computers can be used to kill but, in
350
the wrong hands, I am sure that computers can do very considerable damage to people.
Although this may not be necessary today, a time may come in the not too distant future when a data subject should be informed that information about him is being collected and collated without him having to apply to the data user for that information, because he may have no idea that such data is being collected. The way in which I have framed the amendment, it does not affect the security of the nation or the use of computers by police, because it will be up to the Secretary of State to decide what type of data user is affected. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Swinfen was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to make this approach to the Bill. I am grateful to him for that and for his explanation to your Lordships as to why he has done it. I appreciate his desire to make sure that nobody is left unaware of the fact that possibly important data about him are held, but I wonder whether this amendment is not in fact an unnecessary duplication of the provisions already in the Bill. The job of the register, as well as providing a point of reference for the registrar, will be to inform the public of the data processing activities being undertaken, so that they will be able in a general way to decide whether data about them are likely to be held—and can then decide to make use of their rights under Clause 21 to be informed whether data are held about them, and to be supplied with a copy of the information therein.
The Bill provides a clear mechanism for determining whether data are held, and I can see no obvious advantage in providing for a parallel procedure in particular circumstances. Continental practice in this area appears to be either to require that data subjects are informed of the fact that data are held (as certain parts of the West German data protection system provide) or to have some sort of central public register. The latter appears generally to be the more common approach, and is of course the one which we have followed in our Bill. To have both a public register and a requirement to notify data subjects (even if only in regard to certain types of data) would, I fear, be an act of supererogation.
The proposal contains no obligation upon the Secretary of State to make use of the power that it gives to him, but I think it not right to place order-making powers in statutes—especially, as here, quite significant powers—raising expectations that they will in fact be used without some belief that, one day, they ought to be. We already have in the Bill a wide-ranging power for the Secretary of State in respect of data in the most sensitive areas that it is possible to imagine. I am referring to Clause 2(3), which provides a power for the Secretary of State to modify or supplement the data protection principles in order to provide additional safeguards in the areas there listed—race; political, religious or other beliefs; health; sexual life; and criminal convictions.
It is perfectly possible that a Secretary of State would decide that one way to provide such additional protection in one or more of these areas, would be to amend the data protection principles, so as to require notification in such cases—although I am bound to say

351
that any Secretary of State would think very carefully before imposing a requirement of this kind on data users, which could prove onerous and costly. In other words, the power my noble friend seeks already exists in the Bill in regard to all the circumstances in which it is possible to believe that the exercise of such a requirement could be justified. I hope that my noble friend will be content with that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he has said, which I will read carefully. I am not entirely convinced that it is an unnecessary power. None of us really knows yet what computers can do or will do. They are changing and are being improved very quickly. I still believe that it would be a useful power for the Secretary of State to have. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The data protection principles]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 28, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
("7. An individual shall be entitled—
(a) at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense—

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

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

The noble Lord said: This amendment, my Lords, is a response to those who have pointed out that the seventh principle contains no reference to an entitlement to confirmation of whether or not data are held by a user—only to access to the data. Of course, under Clause 21 the statutory entitlement covers confirmation as well as access. So any individual can, under Clause 21, be sure of knowing whether or not data are held about him. Nevertheless it was put to us by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Wigoder, that it was odd that the entitlement to confirmation appeared in the European Convention but not in the seventh principle.
I think that the practical effect of the absence of any entitlement to confirmation would have been slight. As I say, the statutory entitlement was there in Clause 21. But we accept that it would be preferable for the seventh principle to be wholly consistent with Clause 21. And it is true that a user who simply refused to respond to an individual who was not a data subject would be open to court action under Clause 21(8), but would not be breaching the seventh principle and therefore would not be liable to any action by the registrar.
We are happy to bring forward this amendment. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will take particular note that, under the amendment, the seventh principle is cast in terms of an "individual's" entitlement, not a "data subject's", because, if it were cast in terms of a data subject, then its effect would be nullified where the user held no data about the person applying; a point which the noble Viscount made at an earlier stage. He would not be a data subject and therefore would have no entitlement. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for picking up this point, and I would just add that that is one of the reasons why
352
Amendment No. 9 tabled in the names of noble Lords opposite would not have done—because that amendment leaves the seventh principle cast in terms of a data subject. However, I hope that they are content, for our amendment does, I think, meet precisely the point that they made, and achieves precisely the same effect that their amendment is aimed at achieving. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, noble Lords who referred to this matter at Committee stage will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for meeting their anxieties that the Bill as it stood did not comply with an important part of the Convention. I think it was my noble friend Lord Mishcon who initiated the debate on this in what, if he will not mind my saying so, was a record for him, in almost the shortest speech I think that has ever been made in the House—certainly the shortest ever made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I merely wished to say that I hope the noble Lord took note of the result of his brevity.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Indeed, my Lords, he has asked me to say how deeply grateful he is on that account. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not mind my reminding him that his first response to this was that he thought the Bill was as comprehensive as it should be; in this case second thoughts are better than the immediate first thoughts. We are most grateful to him for having met our wishes. Indeed, looking through some of the other matters that arise, there are one or two other instances where it will be a pleasure to say "thank you".
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, may I also express my gratitude to the noble Lord for dealing with this point, and indeed for the care he took in dealing with all the points I raised?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 3 [The Registrar and the Tribunal]:
5.2 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 3, line 15, leave out subsections (2) to (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9A, which is to leave out subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5). May I first of all say that the draftsman had to break new ground in this Bill. He must have had a very difficult job, and for the most part I think he has succeeded in doing it very well indeed. Such points as I wish to make about the drafting are not intended to be critical in the ordinary way; they are just, I hope, constructive suggestions for one or two alternative ways of doing it.
So far as these subsections are concerned, it is not even a matter of drafting, but of arrangement. I suggest that these subsections could very well have been put into the second schedule. The second schedule deals with a number of administrative or it might be said quasi-administrative matters, and so do the subsections. They are not matters of law which the

353
ordinary citizen is being required to obey. They are matters of administration within the establishment of the Government. For that reason, I think it would have been more consistent not to clutter up a clause in the Bill with these kinds of things but to have them in the second schedule. I should be interested to know what my noble and learned friend feels about this, if he is to comment on it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, all I wish to say is that on the face of it the subsections we are considering are certainly far from being merely administrative. Clause 3 goes to the very heart of a good deal of the Bill and it provides for matters that go outwith the field of administration, I would have thought. I may be wrong.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I am sure that the draftsman, when he comes to read what my noble friend has said at the beginning of his speech, will be grateful for the compliment he has received. As a matter of fact, we have of course considered the very matter which my noble friend has raised, but, like the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Bench, we think that the Government prefer to have these subsections in the main body of the Bill to putting them in the second schedule. They are the most important provisions relating to the registrar. Were we to accept my noble friend's amendment, it would mean that there would be no provision about the appointment of the registrar or the chairman, deputy-chairman or members of the tribunal, or about the constitution of the tribunal, in the body of the Bill. It is, as my noble friend said, a matter of arrangement, but we think that, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, these matters are so important that they are better in the body of the Bill than in the schedule. I think that was the main point with which my noble friend wished me to deal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I feel that there is very little distinction in principle between the kind of things included in those subsections and the kind of things included in the second schedule. However, my noble and learned friend has spoken with the authority of his office. As I say, I am grateful for the explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2. [The Data Protection Registrar and the Data Protection Tribunal]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 30, line 23, leave out ("first").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is yet another example of where I must express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having listened to and then acted upon the views that we expressed, that it was desirable that the term of office of the registrar should be a five-year certain term. That has now been embodied in the provisions of Amendment No. 11, where, if I may say so, the drafting combines both effectiveness and brevity and deals with the matters that I had previously put down before we saw the
354
Government amendment. In the light of good things to come, I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No 11:
Page 30, line 23, leave out from second ("the") to ("five") in line 26 and insert ("Registrar shall hold office for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—who has just with such grace, courtesy, and brevity, withdrawn his own amendment—with the strong support of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, proposed a period of office of five years, but was good enough to withdraw the amendment when I undertook to consider the matter further. We acknowledge the force of the arguments that have been advanced. We are anxious to demonstrate and to bolster the independence of the registrar. It is with pleasure therefore that I bring forward the amendment in my name. It was for reasons of drafting only that I preferred it to the noble and learned Lord's amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No 13:
Page 33, line 10, leave out ("5") and insert ("paragraph").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to put right the reference to the words in Section 8(2) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Act so that the Tribunal will come within the purview of the Council of Tribunals. It is also intended that the Council shall enjoy oversight in respect of the registrar's non-executive functions. It has come to our attention that the insertion we wished to make in the 1971 Act would not have been properly achieved by paragraph 13 as drafted. This amendment is designed to give proper effect to our intentions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Data Protection Advisory Committee.
.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Data Protection Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Advisory Committee").
(2) The Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than five and not more than nine members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar.
(3) The members of the Advisory Committee shall include persons appearing to the Secretary of State and the Registrar to have professional knowledge or experience of health care, research, statistics, the prevention and detection of crime, employment, public administration, the law, and the design, manufacture or use of data equipment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment covering some of the ground that we covered at the Committee stage, and therefore I need not address your Lordships at any great length upon it, but I do not want the brevity in any way to reflect any measure of lack of importance of the amendment. It proposes the setting up of a data protection advisory committee. There is one important change from the way in which it was

355
originally presented in the Committee stage. In subsection (2) your Lordships will see:
"The Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than five and not more than nine members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Registrar".
The purpose of that is to avoid any possibility of serious conflict between the registrar and the advisory committee.
If I may say so, the attitude of the Government in regard to the advisory committee has been somewhat flabby, if I may use a rather unattractive adjective to describe what I regard as an unattractive position that has been taken. But there was some hope of improvement on the Government's side when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at the Committee stage said that he would consider very carefully what had been said in the debate.
It seems to be agreed on the Government side that there is much to be said for having an advisory committee, and indeed there is. The duties of the registrar cover a considerable range of expertise. Your Lordships will see from subsection (3) of the proposed new clause that in setting up the advisory committee it should include:
"persons appearing to the Secretary of State and the Registrar to have professional knowledge or experience"
of a number of specialised branches of activity, law and administration, most sensitive and in respect of which data protection will most carefully need to be established—
"of health care, research, statistics, the prevention and detection of crime, employment, public administration, the law, and the design, manufacture or use of data equipment".
If a single registrar had all the knowledge of Solomon it would be doubtful whether he could embrace expertise in all those fields and a sufficient professional knowledge or experience of them. We therefore think that it would be helpful, and indeed very desirable, from the beginning—from the setting up of this machinery—that the advisory committee should be in existence and should be available.
There is nothing of course to prevent the composition of the advisory committee from being changed to reflect different or other expertise which may be required at different times, and we do not propose any limitation on the matters on which it will be able to advise. But we do attach importance to ensuring that the advisory committee should have a statutory standing. First of all, it will then exist and be in existence regardless of changing political character of Governments. It will have an element of permanence rather like that of the Law Commission which is respected. Then we feel that it would be helpful that both Parliament and the public should know where and to whom the registrar goes for advice, especially, as I have said, in the more difficult questions of data protection and in the sensitive fields that I have indicated. Accordingly we think that the time is now to make provision for the advisory committee in the Bill. I beg to move.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I undertook in Committee, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, to reflect on the arguments that had been advanced for a
356
provision in the Bill in regard to an advisory committee, although I was careful to do so without commitment. The noble and learned Lord in introducing his remarks hoped that I would not take it that brevity meant a lack of weight. I did not then feel that he was being in any way personal about my figure, but when he went on to say that my position was flabby, I began to wonder whether he had chosen the happiest means of illustrating his position. But I take it not amiss.
If my failure to put down an amendment on the point has disappointed the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid that I, too, must record a measure of disappointment that he has not been able to come up with sufficient refinements to make his scheme attractive. As I made clear in Committee, the Government need no convincing as to the value of expert advice in a field as complex as that of data protection and that we would of course consult as appropriate. I have also already said that the Government would establish a formal committee structure if that seemed the best way of conducting such consultation—before exercising the powers contained in the Bill or embarking upon legislative changes. But I argued that to establish such a structure in the present Bill, and to make the exercise of any of the Secretary of State's powers dependent upon consulting it, would be to run the risk of rigidity and of restricting the usefulness of the committee in question.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, argued in Committee that the problems of inflexibility to which I had referred could be got round by an order-making power, enabling changes to be made in the constitution or functions of the committee, as circumstances changed. Such a power would obviously be useful up to a point, but it would not go all the way towards meeting my concern. To take an example, suppose the Secretary of State used all his powers at an early date, consulting the advisory committee as he would be required to do by virtue of the present amendments, if the ground had all been well covered so that there was little prospect of further substantive changes there might be little point in keeping in active being an advisory committee constituted just for advising on the exercise of those powers; but if a minor point arose, say, in regard to the tribunal rules, on which some technical change were necessary, the Secretary of State would then be obliged to reconvene a possibly moribund advisory committee before the change could be made.
I take it that the noble Lord's envisaged order-making power would not go so far as to dispense with a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the committee, or we should in effect have lost the elements of a statutory advisory committee, which I had thought it the purpose of this amendment to achieve. It would be a sort of self-destruct mechanism in the amendment. I am not seeking hereby to score debating points but only to show that it might be far from easy to establish a statutory advisory committee on terms which did not involve the sort of rigidity which the example I have quoted demonstrates. Moreover, the amendment as drafted does not come near to producing the sort of committee which was being urged upon us at the Committee stage.

357
I was a little surprised that the noble and learned Lord did not speak to his Amendment No. 91 at the same time, because that is the only point later in the Bill where I can find a mechanism to bring the committee into mesh with the Bill. There your Lordships will see that it is to add to the requirements on the Secretary of State in Clause 36 of the things he must do before making an order that he should consult not only the registrar but also the advisory committee. It may be by oversight, but that appears to be the only point at which this amendment is tied into the function of the Bill beyond this point. Therefore, it seems to me that the amendment as drafted only provides a consultative function for the Secretary of State and not, as I thought was the intention, for the registrar.
If it remains the noble Lord's objective therefore that the committee should have the broader function of advising the registrar, I would respectfully suggest that rather more is needed before the present amendments were in a state to achieve it. I suspect indeed that the fact that the noble and learned Lord has come back on Report with an amendment so nearly identical to the one that he moved in Committee demonstrates how difficult it would be to find a suitable formula. I hope therefore that the assurance that I have given as to the Government's recognition of the value of outside advice, and our readiness to seek it in extra-statutory form, will persuade him not to press the amendment at this time, either.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am afraid we are taking a very unrealistic view of the future in regard to computers and the provisions of the Bill if we really feel that we can leave it on the basis that a registrar will be appointed, independent as we know he will be, to carry out all the functions that could be envisaged. I have said before—and in saying it again I had better say it briefly, having earned a certain reputation with your Lordships this afternoon—that he is not to be, surely, the same type of registrar as the Registrar of Companies or the Registrar of Business names, as they used to be. The onus put upon this registrar and upon the Secretary of State in some matters is too heavy by far for any one individual. Lindop saw that, and the White Paper saw that. Therefore, in both documents there was a recommendation that there should be an advisory committee.
The Minister, with great respect, does not answer the point by saying, "Oh, yes, it is perfectly right that there was a contribution made last time"—it does not matter whether it was by me or by anybody else—"that you could bring this up to date by order or regulation". But the objection to that one is that the order or regulation presumably could not terminate the advisory committee, if ever it were intended to do so, because it was functus officio—it had carried out all the work that it could. There will be, we hope—and the Minister himself has said so—voluntary schemes put up by various bodies of computer users, so that there can be rules of conduct which will be looked at by the registrar and the advisory committee.
At Third Reading one could obviously set out what might be the purposes of the advisory committee. My noble friends and I were anxious to do two things: first,
358
not to limit those powers and rights: and, secondly, not to walk into the trap that one finds something that the advisory committee is called upon to do but which the noble Lord the Minister thinks it is inappropriate for it to do, and you then lose your advisory committee. We wanted the principle of a statutory committee to be admitted.
We think that this is such a vital matter—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is coming to a conclusion, and before he does so I wonder whether we are on the same wavelength as regards this matter. I am saying, inter alia, that the amendment which he has brought to the House appears to give the advisory committee only one function, and that is to advise the Secretary of State on his order-making powers under certain circumstances. The noble Lord was again addressing himself to the great need that the registrar would have for the support of such a committee. That is another matter, but it is not provided by his amendment, as I sought to make plain.
Therefore, I addressed myself to the proposition that what was needed was an advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State on powers, most of which would be used very infrequently after the first flush of activity, If, in fact, the noble Lord is seeking to do more than that, then all I have to add—and I am not sure he took this point on board—is that he does not do it by this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord the Minister is a perfectly fair one. I meet it only in this way. It is perfectly open for the noble Lord the Minister, having promised to reconsider this matter without any commitment at Committee stage, to do what I believe your Lordships would want him to do; namely, if there is a case for the advisory committee not only to advise the Secretary of State on the limited matters which may be set out in the amendment and in Amendment No. 91 but also to advise the registrar on the many matters upon which expert advice is called for, then the noble Lord the Minister has only to say so and it will stop us having to divide on what we regard to be a principle. If the noble Lord cannot concede that point, then quite obviously we regard this advisory committee as being so important for the larger series of powers and objects that may be set down in this immediate amendment that we would want to test the views of the House upon it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, let me say that at Committee stage I advanced a number of reasons why I did not think that the statutory road was the right one to go down even though I accept that advice will be needed. I will not weary the House by repeating those reasons now, as I think the noble Lord is inviting me to do, and therefore I must tell the noble Lord that I cannot accommodate him, and he will doubtless now move his amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I wonder whether I could intervene, because I have looked at Amendment No. 91 and it seems to me that the function of the

359
advisory committee is misconceived. It should be an advisory committee for the registrar. I am not sure whether I am right about this, but it seems to me that the committee, as conceived in this particular amendment, could quite easily, with minimum drafting changes, be made an advisory committee to the registrar. When we come to Amendment No. 91 we could probably fill it out quite a bit.
However, I think that it is undoubtedly the case that there are all kinds of questions which are really for the registrar to settle under this Bill in the course of his normal duties—for example, how he is to determine whether he is going to allow registration at all; whether the purposes that are set for the data files, and so on, are right; whether they are compatible, and so on. I should have thought that if this were done it would be very much better, particularly as the registrar seems to be conceived, in the Bill as drafted, as being a totally independent person. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for it to advise the Secretary of State; it should be advising the registrar.
I do not know what the movers of this amendment think of what I have said, but it would be very interesting to hear their views. My noble friend the Minister reminds me that this is Report stage, but I thought that the person who moved the amendment was able to sum it up at the end. Anyway, I have said enough.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in view of the adamant and determined refusal of the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench to contemplate at this stage an advisory committee of a statutory character, and in view of the fact that we have a Third Reading stage yet to come when further amendments can be made to what is proposed, it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity to express its view upon this matter.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 93.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Amulree, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Avebury, L.

Gardiner, L.

Aylestone, L.

George-Brown, L.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bishopston, L.

Hughes, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Briginshaw, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Caradon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

Mayhew, L.

Denington, B.

Mishcon, L.

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peart, L.

360

Perry of Walton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Phillips, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Richardson, L.

Underhill, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

White, B.

Segal, L.

Wigoder, L.

Shackleton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marley, L.

Beloff, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Carthcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Digby, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ferrers, E.

Portland, D.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glanusk, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandford, L.

Gray, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Ilchester, E.

Teynham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trumpington, B.

Leathers, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 [Registration of data users and computer bureaux]:
5.35 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert ("(f) one or more addresses for the receipt by the data user of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 4(3)(f), to which this amendment relates, is to

361
provide in the register entry of each data user the point in the user's organisation responsible for dealing with requests for access. The register will in this way assist both data subjects and data users by helping to ensure that requests for access are directed to the place where they can be dealt with most effectively.
However, I must here thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for pointing out in Committee that it would be helpful to allow data users not to be restricted to a single access point. My noble friend argued convincingly then that offering a number of targets would enable data subjects to seek access from the most appropriate point in a user's organisation, and that this in turn would be helpful to data users. If I may say so, I believe that my noble friend was correct in this view. There are benefits to be gained all round from a degree of decentralisation in these matters. This amendment will therefore enable data users, if they so wish, to spread the burden of responding to data subjects over a number of offices, which may perhaps be geographically distributed, and to offer a choice to subjects.
In drafting this amendment we have also taken the opportunity to simplify the paragraph in one respect. We have removed the reference to individuals to make it absolutely clear, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen pointed out in Committee, that data users should be able to nominate a post, rather than name an individual. We did not feel, on reflection, that the words "description of an individual" gave quite the right flavour here. For these reasons we have chosen to recast subsection 4(3) (f) in terms of addresses. Thus users will be free to make their own choice: if they want to give a single access point, they may do so; but if they want to offer a choice, then that is open to them as well. If they would be helped by including in the address the name or post of an individual, they can do that too. I should of course say that subjects will not be restricted to applying to the address that deals with their data. An application to any address will suffice, since the subject cannot be expected to know to which to go. Indeed, many subjects will not inspect the register as a preliminary to access, and so, for example, may go to head office for access even though that is not listed at all on the register. And that too must be permissible.
I hope that by bringing forward this amendment we have responded positively to the demands of data users and made a minor improvement to the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend and I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, briefly, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend for picking up the point that I made in my Amendment No. 49, and indeed for improving upon it. I thank him very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Power of Registrar to give advice.
.—The Registrar may give advice to any data user or data subject who seeks it from him as to any matter concerned with the application of the data protection principles.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another of those happy occasions when we can thank the Government for the consideration that they have been good enough to give to amendments that we advanced on Committee stage of the Bill. As the House may remember, I then moved an amendment to impose a duty on the registrar to advise data users and data subjects. I urged in the alternative that, even if there was no duty imposed on him, there should be a power in him to advise them because otherwise, being a merely statutory creature, he was liable to be told that he was acting ultra vires if he did something for which the Bill did not provide.
In answer to this and various other points which were advanced it was said first that there was another clause in the Bill which already provided for that. That turned out to be a clause requiring the registrar to disseminate information to the public, which is quite different from advising data users and data subjects. Then it was said that he could do it anyway because the Lord Chancellor often gave advice and there was no Act of Parliament which said that he could do so. It did not seem to us on this side of the House that that was a convincing analogy to take. However, since the Committee stage the Government have put down Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 which enable the registrar to give advice to data subjects and data users. I may have a small point to raise on the wording of those amendments when we come to them, but in these circumstances I thank the Government again for the consideration they have been good enough to give to the arguments advanced in the Committee stage of the Bill, and accordingly I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Acceptance and refusal of applications]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("two months") and insert ("seven days").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved a somewhat similar amendment, No. 58, tackling the problem from a different point of view. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur undertook to look at the points I made at that stage. However, nothing seems to have come of that. It is still unsatisfactory that a data user may have to wait up to two months for notification of whether his application has been accepted or refused under Clause 7(1).
Today not only can systems be set up quickly, so that a delay of as much as two months could have serious commercial consequences for the potential data user, a point which I made at Committee stage, but perhaps more importantly service bureaux with existing systems will not want to wait two months before new customers can be registered. My noble friends on more than one occasion said at Committee stage that the registrar himself will use a computer, and so he really should be able to react more quickly than within the two months which is being provided in the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend indicated in Committee his intention of keeping the Government up to the mark on this issue, and he has now produced

363
for our consideration an alternative approach to the problem which he identified at that time. It would be nice, in the light of that, if I were able to indicate Government acceptance of the line proposed, but I am afraid that I must, at least for the present, continue to resist. Let me explain how the Government see the situation. I argued in Committee that in our view the approach we proposed to registration would be unlikely to lead to difficulty for data users; changes in registered particulars were likely to be rare, because applicants were able to cast registration entries in general terms to cover any situation which might arise, and those undertaking the processing of personal data for the first time would be likely to know a substantial time in advance of the likelihood of their doing so. So that there would be adequate time to submit an application to the registrar. I referred also to the need to allow the registrar the opportunity to consider applications before the start of the activity in question, and I suggested that to undermine that principle would be to risk creating a serious loophole in the Bill's provisions.
Our view of this question remains that the registration scheme as drafted is unlikely to cause serious difficulties for data users, but my noble friend undertook to consider whether there might be ways of mitigating any difficulty which could arise in certain cases, just as the Government have undertaken to view favourably what I termed the hunt for the unicorn—some harmless exception to the rule of general registration in the Bill as it stands.
The two issues have certain links—both are concerned with the supposed burdens which the registration requirement might place upon users—and since Committee we have been giving some considerable thought to ways of meeting either, or both, of these issues. I am sorry, however, that the difficulty in coming up with a satisfactory scheme in the short time available has meant that we are still at the thinking stage, but we have very definitely not abandoned the search as impossible. I do not wish to give any sort of commitment to our finding any better approach than we have at present to the question of the registration procedure (or, indeed, in the hunt for the unicorn, which we shall be considering on a later amendment) but I want to assure the House that we have not abandoned the attempt.
It is, of course, always easier to see the flaws in other people's schemes than it is to come up with a workable alternative of one's own, but I must point out to my noble friend that the scheme which he has proposed is not practical. It would require the registrar, within seven days of the receipt of an application, to indicate whether it had been accepted or rejected or, if that were not possible in the time, to state that the special procedure in Clause 7(5) would apply. I fear, however, that this would mean that the registrar never exercised any discretion in regard to applications for registration, and would probably have to submit all applications to the "special" procedure of subsection (5), even if it were possible anyway to deal in a purely automatic fashion with all applications in the very tight time which is being suggested. And one has only to think of the effect of the Christmas period on any office environment to realise how unlikely it would be that the task in question could be performed within the
364
time-scale allowed, and there are many other bank holidays as well.
I am forced to say to my noble friend, therefore, that his amendment as it stands simply would not be practicable even with the aid of the most sophisticated office technology. I would hope, however, in view of what I said about the seriousness with which the Government are examining the possibility of a change in this area, that my noble friend will not feel obliged to press for details at this present stage.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that is indeed a reassuring answer. I trust that the Government will keep up their enthusiasm to find a solution to this particular problem. I take the points he makes about seven days being perhaps on the short side. I hope that he may find himself having come up with a solution to this problem by the next stage of the Bill in this House. If not, perhaps it will have to wait for another place. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 36, after ("that") insert ("it is not reasonably practicable for the data user to supply more specific particulars or"),
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take with Amendment No. 18 Amendment No. 21. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has kindly added his name to my Amendment No. 21, has agreed that I might do that. Both these amendments tackle the problem which was raised under my Amendment No. 68, which sought to add further subsections to Clause 9. I went away at that stage and said that I would think further about how I might recast those. Frankly, our problem has been the same as the Government's on the last amendment; we see an answer, but we cannot find it. It is hidden somewhere in the undergrowth.
In Amendment No. 21, in order to keep the subject alive, I have sought to leave out subsection (2) as a sort of probing amendment and nothing more at this stage. There is no intention on my part to have subsection (2) swept away from the Bill. Under that heading it really poses a series of questions which I should like to put to the Government for their consideration. I would not expect an immediate answer to them at this stage. The first is why, in the Government's view, should the register be available to the public? What sorts of limits, if any, will there be to the registrar's powers to make copies available to the public? Would the registrar be able, if paid the requisite fees, to make the whole register available to anyone requesting it? That problem arose in Committee and, hopefully, we shall ultimately get the answer to it. Those are the sort of basic questions with which this probing part deals.
Amendment No. 18 is somewhat different in that it seeks to give an answer. It stems from the fact that my noble friend Lord Elton gave assurances on 17th February last, at column 375, in replying to my Amendment No. 68 in Committee, when he said that under Clause 4 data users would not have to make detailed entries in respect of the matters specified in Clause 4(3) and that general descriptions of the

365
matters mentioned would be sufficient. In saying that, it would appear that my noble friend was relying on Clause 7(3), which requires the registrar to,
"accept particulars expressed in such terms in any case in which he is satisfied that more specific particulars would be likely to prejudice the purpose or purposes for which the data are to be held".
That is welcome so far as it goes, but I do not think it goes far enough. It appears to be directed at protecting matters such as trade secrets, but the point is that in many cases it may be quite impracticable for the data user to specify in advance, for example, all the possible sources from which he or she may wish to obtain data or all the persons to whom they may need to disclose them. It is with that problem in mind that I have proposed amendment No. 18, which I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend has not resolved the doubts I expressed in Committee. As the Bill stands, the registrar is able to accept particulars in general terms whenever that is appropriate. If my noble friend looks at the earlier part of Clause 7(3) he will see that that is the interpretation:
"Subsection (2)(a) above shall not be construed as precluding the acceptance by the Registrar of particulars expressed in general terms in cases where that is appropriate",
and it goes on to give the circumstances under which he,
"shall accept particulars expressed in such terms",
more precisely; but the power is there.
We have deliberately sought to avoid burdening users with an unreasonable requirement for more details than are necessary, and in particular we have recognised that where a user's purpose might be prejudiced by the registration of specific particulars then, as I say, the registrar shall be obliged not to insist on them. It seems to us that the ability of the registrar to accept general particulars where appropriate, and the obligation on him to do so in the specific circumstances, are a well-balanced and adequate combination of safeguards for the data user, without placing the registrar in an impossible situation in deciding what the law demands from him. The Bill also provides that the user can go to the tribunal in the most unlikely event that he ever is refused registration because he cannot supply sufficiently specific particulars.
If the amendment were accepted, the registrar would find himself faced with a requirement that could make life very difficult for him. When would it be "reasonably impracticable" for a user to supply more specific particulars? The user could do so. After all, the particulars refer to the user's own operations and the data he himself holds. His capacity to supply more specific particulars would not be in doubt. So it would presumably depend on how burdensome it would be so to do. But is that either a right or a sensible test to apply in these circumstances? In practice, I doubt very much whether the registrar would come to any different decisions than he would if he exercised the powers presently afforded him in the Bill. But it would encourage much greater argument, and possibly litigation, which would not, unfortunately, be resolved by the test of "reasonable practicability" which the amendment offers, for that is a test of such subjectivity as to be of little meaning in this context.
366
I turn to the next stage. My noble friend having addressed himself to the particulars to be included on the register, then, on the Marshalled List, turns to the use which might be made of that information by members of the public consulting the registrar. The right of public access to the registrar is contained in Clause 9, which deals with the availability of the contents of the register to members of the public. It obviously must be available for public inspection. Its existence as a public document—if one can talk in those terms of a computerised record—will itself go some way towards increasing public knowledge and confidence in this area. In addition, the register will often be the starting point for data subjects wishing to exercise their rights under the Bill.
Clause 9(1) therefore obliges the register to make the information contained in the register available for inspection free of charge, and the registrar will arrange for that as he thinks fit. But however comprehensive the arrangements he makes, there will be some people who cannot physically inspect the register, and there will be other people who need copies of a particular entry or entries in the register, possibly for use in proceedings under Part III of the Bill. Clause 9(2) provides the essential back-up whereby the registrar is obliged to provide certified copies of registered entries. The amendment would delete that obligation to provide copies.
The worry was expressed in Committee that there might be an abuse of information about registered persons contained in the register, and we considered an amendment designed to make it an offence to use information obtained from the register for an improper purpose. I do not think I caught that note repeated in my noble friend's remarks today and therefore I shall not reply to it again.
It seems to me that the Bill makes adequate provision to ensure that public registration does not entail the disclosure of sensitive details about the operations of data users. My noble friend has suggested that the deletion of Clause 9(2), or something like it, might further safeguard data users. First, I see no need for users to fear anything from others seeing their particulars as they appear on the register. Secondly, even if there were something to fear, which I do not for a moment accept, abuse of the information would be just as possible by means of inspection of the register under Clause 9(1).
I hope I have explained why the register needs to be available to the public if it is to act as part of the safeguard of privacy, and the need for copies of parts thereof. As to the number of entries that should be copied at any one time, I shall need to take advantage of the notice my noble friend gave me and let him know that later, but I think the principles are clear.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication of the circumstances in which he thinks the registrar is likely to be satisfied that more specific particulars would be likely to prejudice the purpose or purposes for which the data are to be held? Does he think that is likely to be confined to systems which are exempted from the subject access provisions under Clause 28(1), which talks about matters such as the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, where, clearly, the arrangement of the files might give

367
criminals or potential criminals some clue as to police methods, which the police would want to withhold from public inspection when somebody asked the registrar for a copy of the entry? If the noble Lord can give some examples of the kinds of file which are covered by Clause 28(1), which would be likely to satisfy the registrar, I should be grateful.
Secondly, I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks that systems that are not exempt under Part IV of the Bill would ever be likely to satisfy the registrar that specific particulars would prejudice the purposes. When I looked at the clause I could not think of an example in the insurance field, in banking, or in building societies. There are many cases of personal data which are held by commerce or industry. I could not think of a single instance where a data user would have reasonable grounds for expressing his particulars in general form, or where he was likely to satisfy the registrar that he ought to be enabled to do so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, as to what kind of occasion there might be for requesting registration in terms more general than those required, I would say that the first example that comes to mind is that of a commercial organisation wishing to avoid a very detailed description in a case where that would reveal to its competitors information about its activities which it might be damaging to divulge. It is very difficult to speak in precise terms, but I think that it is easy to conceive that where an organisation was drawing information of a particular kind from particular sources, and putting it together in a particular way, that might reveal to competitors in the same field something which would unfairly be to the advantage of the competitors so far as the commercial organisation was concerned.
The second consideration is that police investigations of a particular offence or kind of offence might be prejudiced if the registered details referred in very specific terms to the sources from which data were being obtained for the purpose in question. I am not absolutely certain that I caught the beginning of the second leg of the noble Lord's question. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to direct me to it again.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord has taken the matter the other way round, because first I was asking whether systems that are exempted under Clause 28(1) were the only kinds of systems that might satisfy the registrar. The noble Lord has in effect answered that question by saying that there could be commercial considerations of the type that he has outlined which would justify expressing the particulars in a more general form, as well as by mentioning the example relating to the police that he has just given.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I am greatly heartened by his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which shows that he has got the point of what we are trying to tackle. As I understand it, the Bill is all about safeguarding data subjects and making information available to them, but as a by-product commercial rivals could get at it, too. I am not altogether happy
368
that we have solved this problem. I quite understand the answers that my noble friend has given, and I shall have to read them with great care. At this stage I should certainly not wish to press either of the amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 18.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Duration and renewal of registration]:
6.3 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 33, after ("period") insert ("(not being less than three years)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise under something approaching false pretences, because this is not properly the Government's amendment at all; it is the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. When in Committee he moved almost identical amendments—and with your Lordships' permission I now speak to Amendment No. 20, as well as No. 19—I wanted a little time to consider the full implications of committing ourselves to a minimum three-year registration period. But we have satisfied ourselves that no unacceptable problems would result. I was impressed by the case which my noble friend made in Committee in support of the amendments. I can see that it would be helpful to set out on the face of the Bill a minimum period for which long-term data users can be sure that they can register without the need for renewal. We are, therefore, happy to return to the House with them. I am very grateful to my noble friend. I only regret that I did not arrange things so that the present amendments could stand in his name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for retabling these amendments, which are identical to those we had previously. I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks about my argument for them at the earlier stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Inspection etc. of registered particulars]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Enforcement notices]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("or a person holding data to which section 31(4) below applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 82. Both amendments are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and in my name, and with the permission of the House I shall speak to both amendments. They stem from a series of amendments, of which my initial one was No. 52 at the Committee stage and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was Amendment No. 155. At that time we

369
told your Lordships that we would try to solve the problem here, and (in the words of my noble friend Lord Elton) to hunt the unicorn and find it.
I wish to advance my views for putting forward, in particular, Amendment No. 82, and I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to make his own case in due course. The amendment affects a more limited exemption than did my original Amendment No. 52, because the Government made it clear that they did not want to accept that amendment. It is important to note that the exemption is from only the registration requirements; all other safeguards afforded by the Bill would continue to apply. If exemption for such routine data as are contained in payroll files, invoices, sales ledgers, et cetera, could be secured, that would represent a considerable administrative saving for both industry and the registrar and his small staff. Such data present no threat to data subjects, and in any case our amendment exempts data from only the registration requirements and not from the remaining provisions of the Bill, such as those dealing with subject access.
I am not sure whether the Government are prepared to agree that there are considerable administrative difficulties which will face the registrar if all the users covered by the Bill are to be registered. It can legitimately be asked: how many applications for registration do the Government realistically expect the registrar to receive, and, in particular, in the light of European experience how can they be confident that the system will work? I should like to quote the experience of the Norwegians. I quoted the Norwegians in Committee, but they were not quoted by my noble friend in reply. The Norwegians, for example, have had to modify their legislation since it was first introduced. Originally there were three tiers: a minimal registration for common systems; complete registration for other systems; and licensing for systems with sensitive data. This scheme has been modified so that the second tier has in effect been removed and the definition of common systems expanded. Too many systems fell into the category of uncommon systems, thereby requiring full registration and demanding too much in the way of staff resources from the Norwegian authority.
I also previously mentioned the experience of the Swedes. They were mentioned by my noble friends, but it was not explained why they were worth mentioning and why, therefore, their experience was an argument for not agreeing to the earlier amendment. The Swedish Data Inspection Board quickly introduced a system of short licensing, not foreseen in the original legislation, under which 70 per cent. of all applications were in effect registered with the minimum of detail, due to pressure on the licensing system. Yet under our Bill the registrar is supposed to scrutinise applications and to satisfy himself about compliance with the data protection principles in respect of an undisclosed number of users.
I now wish to move on to the experience of the French—and they, too, were mentioned by my noble friends, but the reason for doing so was not explained. The French have found that only about 28,000 of the estimated 200,000 existing files have been declared by the private sector. Incidentally, France has pre-
370
authorisation licensing for central and local government applications, but registration only for private sector applications. This is in spite of the simplified declarations now made available.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur, at col. 1406 of Hansard for 10th February, said in Committee:
"…it is vital for the reassurance of public concern that there are not significant areas that are not registered and so brought directly and immediately within the ambit of the full complement of the registrar's supervisory powers. We believe that data subjects will want to be confident that the register is comprehensive and will not give a false impression of the scope of the processing of personal data by omitting significant numbers of users".
These are splendid aims so far as they go. However, if the French experience is any guide, the register is likely to be very far from comprehensive in any case and the registrar and his staff will be so busy that they will not be in a position to carry out the scrutiny implied by the registration procedure. Acceptance by the Government of exemption from registration for routine data, such as my amendment involves, would go some way towards alleviating the situation. I trust that we may have found the unicorn. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is getting on so well with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at the moment that I have the feeling that it can do nothing but harm to intervene from this side of the House in his support. I do so on these two amendments because they seem to me to be the most important ones that we are considering in relation to the particular topic of business efficiency. I accept that business efficiency is by no means the only objective to be secured by this Bill. I accept that the rights of data subjects at all times have to be borne in mind when we are considering to what extent we can assist business to carry out its work with that degree of efficiency which is obviously in the national interest.
I know from what has been said on previous stages in the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee that the noble Lord the Minister shares the objective. I know that he recognises that there is a very real risk that a large number of registrations will have to be entered in accordance with the Bill at the moment that might impose a very great burden on industry and might also impose a very great burden on the registrar. The real issue is how we can pick out those where we can exclude them from parts of the operation of this Bill and, at the same time, safeguard all the appropriate rights of data subjects.
What these amendments endeavour to do is to help industry, and particularly small businesses, which will inevitably find, as the Bill now stands, that they have a very large volume of routine files such as pay rolls, invoicing, sales accounting, and documents of that sort, the existence of which is perfectly well known to all the people about whom information is contained thereon. All data subjects know perfectly well all about it and the documents in themselves are of absolutely minimal sensitivity.
The Bill is confined—and we have been over this ground many times—to automatic data processing. So long as this situation exists, I am deeply anxious that many small firms are going to find themselves with a choice of two very undesirable alternatives. One undesirable alternative is to accept the necessity of filling in forms and going through all the (may I say?)

371
bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo which is going to be quite inseparable from making entries on the register under the Bill. That is one alternative. The other is that small firms in particular are going to say that rather than do all that, they will not computerise these activities and will keep them only on manual records instead. That is not conducive to their efficiency.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree that, if it is possible, we must find a way of removing that sector of activity from the need to be entered on the register, provided that we can do so and safeguard the rights of data subjects. The previous amendment, Amendment No. 155, moved at the last Committee stage, tried to do that by removing altogether such data from the operation of the Bill. That, of reflection, I think went very much too far and the noble Lord pointed it out forcefully in Committee.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 22 and 82 is that it will only exempt a limited type of data and will only exempt the holders from the need to register such data. Data subjects know of the existence of these computerised data. In any event, they will be perfectly free (under the operation of these amendments), knowing of that existence, to have their rights of access and their rights of correction of data under part III of the Bill. Those rights will be quite unabridged. The registrar will be empowered to make enforcement notices under Clause 10 of the Bill even in relation to all this class of data—and that is important because it means that the data user, even though he will not have to register these particular classes of data, will nevertheless have to ensure that he is complying with all the data principles in order to avoid the possibility of enforcement action being taken by the registrar. Therefore, I venture to think that the way that this amendment is now drafted gets round the proper and understandable objections which were raised by the Government on the last stage of the Bill.
The only difference now between when data will be exempt and when it will not be exempt, in practical terms, is that the registrar will be relying (if he wishes to make an enforcement notice) on complaints by aggrieved data subjects, who know all about the existence of the files, anyway, rather than having to refer to the register entry because the register entry itself in these limited categories will not exist. It is clear from the way that the amendment is drafted that, in practice, it will exclude from the registration part of the Bill ony those transactions which involve the data user and the data subject and about which the data subject is fully aware. It extends that to cover only such transactions as PAYE, national insurance, VAT and so forth, and the use of the elementary reference lists such as telephone directories and electoral registers. It is clear from the way the amendment is drafted, that with any form of sensitive information there will remain a necessity for their being registered.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be able to say that this is a substantial improvement on the amendments that were brought forward at an earlier stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is breathing fire and slaughter and is about to lead us into the Division Lobbies on this amendment. I have not discussed that issue with him but, if I may say so, I hope that that is not what is proposed. This is essentially an area where a great
372
many people are agreed on the objective that has to be achieved and that we all have to keep on chipping away stage by stage in this Bill until eventually we can reach the situation in which those of us who are seeking to put this point forward can be at one with the Government on the best means of doing it. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows in his heart that before the Bill gets on to the statute book there will be an amendment of this nature dealing with the problem. I hope that between now and Third Reading he, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I myself might perhaps find a mutually acceptable way of dealing with the situation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, most warmly for the conception of the amendment and for the careful thought that they have obviously put into its drafting, which is so clearly in the interests of not just the small businesses, to which my noble friend has referred, but also the voluntary sector and many individual users of computers who otherwise might have to register under the provisions of the Bill.
I am thinking of one class of user that we spoke about in Committee in a different connection; that is the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I have not taken instruction from them on this matter but what I say may be likely to represent their view. They are in the process of considering the application of new technology to the work of the CABs up and down the country. It may be a very large application indeed if it were to be properly encouraged and facilitated. Clearly the kind of information given by the data subject is given with full knowledge and he knows that information will be put on to the computer.
An example I might give is the splendid work done by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux in Cardiff which led to its receiving one of the British Computer Society's awards last year for assisting the client to calculate his social security benefits. Many people find it difficult to argue with the offices of the DHSS because the calculation of benefit is an immensely complex subject. If such people can go to Citizens' Advice Bureaux where the whole of the benefit system is held on the computer, after taking personal details of the client—such as marital status, his rent and so on—they can work out for him how much benefit he should be receiving. He will be given a computer print-out which he can take to the DHSS office, as people do, and he can then argue with the officials on far more equal terms.
It may be surprising to your Lordships, but enormous numbers of mistakes are made in the DHSS in its calculations and the CABs, with the aid of the computer, have been able to correct them on some occasions. This is the kind of application no one wants to inhibit, but if the information is to be held on the computer, clearly the CABs will have to register unless an amendment of the type the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my noble friend have down is approved. This is likely to inhibit the application of computers not only in Citizens' Advice Bureaux but in many other voluntary advisory agencies, such as neighbourhood law centres and so on, throughout the country. Surely that is not what we want.

373
The second area of concern for me is the personal computer user. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be aware that we are among the foremost countries in the world in the use of personal computers because we have a lead in technology. We have the Sinclair machine and we have the BBC machine which are selling in very large numbers and are creating new export markets for this country that obviously the Government would like to encourage. Among the uses to which the personal computer may be put is holding records of personal data on, for example, clubs; the membership of clubs, their subscription records, names and addresses of members and so on. This is obviously done with the full knowledge of the data subjects and with their approval. But under the Bill, as I understand it, all these holders of personal data of a quite innocuous character will have to go through the machinery of registration and many of them—if they were thinking of embarking on computerisation of personal records of this innocuous kind—might say it was really not worth the trouble and abandon the effort.
I very much hope that the Minister, even if he is not able to accept the precise wording of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my noble friend Lord Wigoder, will at least give an undertaking to your Lordships that now, or before the Bill gets on to the statute book, he will do something to help not only the small businessman but also the voluntary sector and the personal user whom we so much want to encourage.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, briefly I support the amendment brought by my noble friend and urge my noble friend Lord Elton to consider the amount of work the small businessman has to do already in dealing with VAT. This will remove a potential burden from him and will also help to keep down the costs of the small businessmen, therefore reducing their costs and leading to increased exports.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend addressed much of his force to explaining why he wanted to get as many users as possible off the register altogether. That is an aim which is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder; and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made it more explicit, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen wished to add the small businessman in some respects to that number. This is an objective which all of us share and which all of us have great difficulty in achieving. That is why I likened it last time to the hunting of the unicorn. What we are looking for is that sort of data which, in the hands in question, is totally innocuous, something quite harmless. It is a characteristic of the unicorn that it can only be caught by that which is quite harmless. If we come across one we shall certainly make use of it. We shall not allow it to escape. If there are data that can safely be exempted and satisfactorily defined and whose exemption will be of real benefit to users, we shall give every consideration to that exemption. But when my noble friend Lord Mottistone comes, leading a beast by the halter to the loud applause of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the satisfaction of my noble friend Lord Swinfen,
374
I fear that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor feels that maybe the captors cannot always be harmless since they are virgins and much evil can be wrought by virgins—but I shall not be deflected from my theme. My noble friend comes in with this beast trotting at his heels, and I fear what I see looks to me not like a unicorn but more like an elephant, because it is capable of carrying so many passengers.
If we look at the amendment, there seems to be doubt as to the intended result. It is not clear whether the references to tax collection, national insurance and statutory sick pay qualify data obtained only from a Government department or apply also to data obtained from the data subjects and published reference material. But although the drafting suggests otherwise I imagine that it is intended only to refer to data obtained from Government departments, because if that were not so the scope of the data defined would be so limited as to be scarcely of any value to the data user. I further suppose that the intention is to build up a description of data used for payroll purposes enabling them to be exempt. However, given the way that payroll data are used—and certain such data are regularly disclosed other than by statutory requirements and other data are received from sources other than those listed—I fear that the intention is not achieved. Indeed, I have serious doubts as to how much use the category of data defined in the amendment would be to data users. I suspect that very few would hold data of a kind and in a way that would fit all the requirements laid down.
I also have to question the approach of the noble Lords in providing for partial exemption in the way that they do. They leave the allegedly harmless data open to supervision. By doing so the noble Lords rather suggest that they are, after all, not entirely convinced that the data need not be regulated because it is so harmless. Quite apart from that, the approach of requiring unregistered data to comply with the principles does not really work, for half the principles are cast in terms of the purposes for which data are held. It is only with the process of registration that those purposes are specified. Without registration, or at least some other specification of purposes by users, the registrar can scarcely make sense of the principles, even if he knows where the data are located, which is in doubt because of the exemption from the requirement to register.
I do not wish to sound too defeatist: unicorns are not found in a day. Let us continue the search, but we must not hurry it, for that way lies risk to data subjects and little benefit either to data users or to the registrar. I fear we shall not find our quarry in this House, but many promising covers can be drawn in another place and until then I fear we must confess to drawing a blank.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I accept the points made by my noble friend about the inadequacy of the drafting. It is extremely difficult to do, but I am heartened by the fact that he, too, feels it is necessary to search for this. Perhaps I might suggest to him something which I am sure has been done—although it is not clear from what has been said most recently by my noble friend or at Committee stage—and that is that a real study of the problems of our European

375
colleagues should be made. I am sure that has been done but it seems to me they came across the same problem after they had put their legislation into effect and had to change. If we can avoid that I am sure it will be helpful. I am sure also that the Germans need a rather more thorough study because they seem to have tackled it differently. I am sure that it is the case that they have already ratified the appropriate convention and will shortly be signing it. Therefore it cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility to find some solution along the lines that we have sought.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I, too, would not dream of pressing this amendment. Apart from any faults it may have, it would be much too premature to do so. I therefore beg 'eave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert ("and the Registrar shall not serve such a notice unless he is satisfied that compliance with the principles in question cannot be adequately secured by the service of an enforcement notice")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendment No. 24, which is consequential upon this Amendment, No. 23. These amendments seek to meet the concern expressed in Committee and outside your Lordships' House that the registrar might be tempted to use the more severe powers contained in Clause 11, without first having considered whether the enforcement notice powers would be sufficient to meet the situation in question. As I made clear in Committee, it is the Government's view that there is a clear distinction, in the Bill as drafted, between the circumstances for which Clauses 10 and 11 provide. I talked, I recall, of a rising crescendo of seriousness between the two provisions, and I indicated that it would be difficult to spell out in the Bill the distinction between the two powers without tying the hands of the registrar in one direction or the other. On many occasions it will be appropriate for the registrar to proceed by means of the enforcement notice power first before contemplating the more serious step; but there could conceivably be situations in which immediate resort to a deregistration notice was the only realistic way of responding to the problem.
I made no commitment at that stage as to the possibility of our being able to find ways of distinguishing between the two powers without at the same time undesirably restricting the registrar's freedom of action. But I am pleased to say that we have found a formula contained in the amendments now before your Lordships, and I hope they will be seen to provide the appropriate pointer to the registrar which I believe underlay the concern of those who argued for some kind of distinction to be made between the powers.
What the amendments do is to require the registrar, before serving a deregistration notice, to consider whether the desired objective cannot be adequately secured by an enforcement notice; and, in giving his reasons for deciding upon deregistration (in those cases where he eventually does so decide), to require him to state his reasons for that decision. Such reasons would then be open to challenge before the appeal tribunal. I
376
frankly do not believe that these amendments will make a significant difference to the way in which the registrar exercises his powers because I remain of the opinion that he would have done so sensibly, even as the Bill was originally drafted. But I hope that by formalising the requirement to ask himself this question, we shall have made clear in the Bill, as we were asked to do, the processes through which we expect the registrar to pass. I hope that this will reassure your Lordships that the registrar will be unlikely to behave in any arbitrary fashion. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we on this side of the House see the value and force of these amendments. The need for flexibility which is provided and the freedom of action which it responsibly gives seem to us to be a valuable change in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should also like very much to support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 39, before ("; and") insert ("and for deciding that compliance cannot be adequately secured by the service of an enforcement notice").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Notification by Registrar
. If the Registrar is satisfied that a registered person has materially contravened or is materially contravening any of the data protection principles he shall forthwith notify his findings to any data subjects who may, in his opinion, have suffered damage by reason of such contravention.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an amendment in very similar terms to the amendment now on the Marshalled List was put down at Committee stage but was not moved. I apprehend the reason is that at the time it was thought to have been consequential upon Amendment No. 82. But on reflection it is clear that it would in no way have been governed by that condition. There are in fact situations where the registrar himself would have discovered that there was information which it would be vital for the data subject to be aware of but which in many cases is information which the data subject may never even have suspected was in existence. May I once again quote what seems to me to be a central truism which occurs in paragraph 19 of the Data Protection Committee report, where it says:
"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".
The purpose of this amendment is to make it incumbent upon the registrar to relay to the data subject any information that he will come across in any way at all. Very often it will not be in consequence of any complaint at all but something that the registrar will have discovered when he is considering the question of registration. Therefore we say that it would be oppressive if such information were not to be relayed to the data subject and that it is something which goes to the very heart, core and kernel of the Bill itself. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—if that is the appropriate way to put it—would he be kind enough to indicate whether the notification by the registrar in the terms of this new clause is to take place before or after the data user has had the opportunity of appealing to the tribunal?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate that that information should be conveyed to the data subject as soon as reasonably possible. I agree that it is a difficult matter; but since the person who is primarily to be protected by this legislation is the data subject rather than the data user, I should have thought that logically it should be relayed as soon as possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not difficult to sympathise with the intention of the noble Lord in moving this amendment: to give full publicity to significant conclusions by the registrar and to draw those conclusions to the attention of those most affected by the use of the data to which his conclusion relates. I understand his wish to ensure that a data subject should know when those holding data about him had been taken to task by the registrar. But I do not believe that it is necessary, in order to achieve this aim, to go further than the Bill already provides, and I fear that the approach advocated by this amendment could place a substantial burden upon the resources of the registrar. Clause 33 (even without the amendment to it which I shall be moving later) already requires the registrar to disseminate such information and advice as he thinks expedient about the matters for which he is responsible, and where he thought it necessary to give publicity to a particular conclusion, or action promoted thereby—in the interests of data subjects, or for any other reason—it would, therefore, be open to him so to do.
Little might, in some cases, be necessary. For example, I cannot believe that the service of an enforcement notice on a prominent data user, perhaps on a matter affecting large numbers of data subjects, would not attract substantial press interest. Still more is that likely to be the case if the registrar were to take the more severe step of serving a deregistration notice. But if, in an extreme case, the registrar believed that it was necessary to go further, and to communicate individually with the data subjects involved, then again it would be within his power so to do.
I believe that this is a much more satisfactory approach than the somewhat cumbersome procedure for which this amendment provides. By virtue of the amendment the registrar would be required, whenever he concluded that a material contravention of the principles had occurred, to consider whether any data subjects may have suffered damage as a result, and then to notify that conclusion to them. The task of identifying who those data subjects were who might have suffered such damage, and then of sending each one of them a statement of the conclusions which had been reached, could be a very substantial exercise. We could be talking of hundreds or thousands or even millions of letters being sent out, notifying data subjects of a fact that might have been widely reported in the press, anyway.
378
The noble Lord has suggested, however, that his objective would be satisfied by a newspaper advertisement; or, if he has not, I wrongly anticipated it. But the amendment goes further than that by placing a much more particular requirement on the registrar. And the ability to publish an advertisement is clearly present already in Clause 33(2) and would, I think, answer the circumstances which he has in mind.
The amendment proposes placing a quite unnecessary and rather formidable burden on the registrar, in an area where it would be far more satisfactory to depend upon his discretion to provide whatever publicity or notification he may deem to be appropriate. In view of what I have said about the powers for which the Bill already provides, and the undesirability of clogging the mails on some occasions with myriad communications, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, as I understand it, I have a right of reply since I moved the amendment. I well appreciate the argument put forward by the noble Lord the Minister, and I also appreciate that there could well be difficulties if the registrar were to be expected to communicate with thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people. However, I am sure that the Minister will readily concede the force in the argument put forward from these Benches, that there will be many cases where the only way in which the data subject can find that his name is included in a situation highly prejudicial to him will be through the medium of the registrar himself. If the registrar sets his face against communicating to individuals, then one of the main purposes of this legislation will have been totally frustrated.
With great respect to the Minister, Clause 33(2) does not cover the point. It states:
"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",
and then there follow the words:
"to give to the public".
The very last thing that the data subject will want is that the public should be informed, for example, that his name appears in the book of shame, which was described in rather different terms by a noble Lord on an earlier amendment.
I wonder whether the Minister could come this far in assisting those who have doubts about this matter. Will he give an undertaking that, wherever there is information which the registrar would regard as being likely to damage the data subject, and where it would be unlikely that the data subject would himself be aware of it, he will be prepared to communicate? If the Minister goes that far, then it may well be reasonable not to press this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the noble Lord is inviting me to put down an amendment to require the registrar to do certain things, that I could not undertake to do. If the noble Lord is asking whether the registrar will use the powers already in the Bill in a reasonable manner, then obviously that I can endorse. I cannot go into particular cases, because I cannot foresee particular circumstances. But the noble Lord will have seen Clause 33.

379
He will have seen the amendment which I am putting in about advice, which he has, I think, himself elicited from me. It seems to me that within this, and given the fact that the central function of the registrar is to protect the data subject, he need not be unduly worried about the registrar then deliberately leaving data users who are subject to abuse in the dark as to what is happening. I do not think I can go further than that without advice.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in the light of that assurance, at this stage, most certainly, the matter will not be pressed to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 26:
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, unless he is satisfied that the complaint is trivial or manifestly ill-founded, 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: My Lords, this is an amendment to provide for the investigation of complaints by the registrar. I think that this has always been regarded by all parties as an important function of the registrar. The Data Protection Committee made that clear, and the Government, in their White Paper, apparently accepted it and, indeed, gave as one of the principal functions of the registrar the pursuit of complaints.
When we discussed this at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke of the,
"importance which we attach to the investigative function of the registrar". [Official Report, 17/2/83; col. 401.]
The only objection then made to an all-embracing amendment on investigating every complaint was that the registrar would be swamped by this. After all, it was said, he is only one man. This has, of course, been the answer to some other problems raised about the Bill, and, if I may say so, it has always surprised me a little because, after all, the Government had the great advantage of a two-year examination of the whole subject by the Data Protection Committee—people with great experience in this field going into the whole matter in detail.
They obviously took the view that one man could not possibly do everything. They recommended that the Data Protection Authority should be made up of eight to 12 members of a board, with a chief executive. The Government said, "No, we are not going to have any of that nonsense. One man can do the whole thing perfectly well". Now we are told, time after time, that he cannot do it all and will be overloaded. The only objection raised to the amendment before was that he would be overloaded with trivial complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"This will place on the registrar the most onerous burden…the registrar would be unable to distinguish between the genuine complainant and those who were vexatious or unbalanced." [col. 402.]
380
Then he said:
"…in order to see that every single complaint was pursued, no matter how factious or trivial," [col. 403.]
and continued,
"however trivial, laughable or irrelevant".
I thought that that was exaggerating the difficulties a good deal. But in consequence of what he said, we have now incorporated in this amendment the words,
"the Registrar shall, unless he is satisfied that the complaint is trivial or manifestly ill-founded, investigate the complaint".
We have not included the word "laughable", but with those changes I hope that the Government may now feel able to accept Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in responding to this amendment I should like to say a word of appreciation for the close attention which the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment clearly paid to the concern I expressed in Committee and for the efforts he has made to satisfy my earlier objections. In responding to the predecessor of this amendment I laid great stress on the danger of the registrar being placed at the mercy of every complainant with a grievance against data users. The noble and learned Lord has sought to meet my fears with the saving provision in this amendment in regard to complaints which the registrar considers trivial or manifestly ill-founded. The noble and learned Lord took the word "trivial" from my lips.
I wish I could therefore respond with equal generosity and say that I am now content with the form of the amendment being proposed, but I fear that, useful though this saving provision would undoubtedly be, it would still leave open the prospect of the registrar being open to challenge over the use he had or had not made of his powers. Your Lordships may think it excellent that he should be made accountable for inaction, but I would invite your Lordships to reflect on the implications. It would mean in regard to every single complaint which the registrar declined to investigate that he would have to consider whether a defence for not having investigated could be sustained under the heading of triviality or of being manifestly ill-founded. That could take as long as proceeding with the investigation itself.
There are other grounds, moreover, on which the registrar might quite legitimately conclude that no useful purpose would be served by a special investigation—if, say, he had already looked in general terms at the activity of the user in question and had served a notice upon him requiring compliance with the principles. The investigation of individual complaints is likely to be the most commonly used device for enabling the registrar to discover what is happening as well as for protecting the interests of individual data subjects, but that does not mean that he should follow up every such complaint, especially not in the detail necessary to produce the statement of the outcome of his conclusions which this amendment requires. On occasion it may be that the interests of data subjects would be better served by tackling the root cause of a particular grievance, of which the registrar may be fully aware from previous complaints, than going over the details of each individual case. Let us suppose that he has scores of complaints, all very

381
similar, against the same user. To follow each of them up in detail would seem to me to be a waste of time and resources. We should beware of so directing him to the details that he has no time to take the broader view.
I genuinely wish that I could accept the amendment without running the risk that it might hamper the cause of data protection more than it would help. The powers which the Bill gives to the registrar make quite clear our expectation that he will go out and investigate. A registrar who sat in his office in the way postulated by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in Committee and resolutely refused to look at any complaint put to him would very soon find parliamentary moves afoot to remove him in favour of a registrar who was prepared to do his job. But it is still a far cry from that kind of role, in which the registrar will be free to plan the use of his resources in the fashion most appropriate to the needs of the situation, and tying the registrar to a response to every individual complaint, except the trivial and ill-founded, which he may happen to receive.
I hope that the further expression which I have given to the Government's commitment to the principle of an actively investigative registrar will persuade the noble and learned Lord that he can quite safely withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if a person complains to the registrar and the registrar declines to investigate, would that person have the right of access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand that he would not.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we have endeavoured to identify in the amendment a situation where a complaint to the registrar shall be investigated. The circumstance which we have postulated is that a registered person has materially contravened or is alleged to have materially contravened, or is materially contravening, any of the data protection principles. The investigation of complaints of that character is, I imagine it will be agreed, an important part of the function of the registrar. It seems to those who sit on this side of the House that that process of investigation is not really completed until the person who has made the complaint is informed, and the registered person is informed, of the outcome of the investigation. We believe that this is a very important part of the registrar's functions and that on this issue the opinion of the House should be sought.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 63.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ardwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Avebury, L.

Beswick, L.

382

Bishopston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Caccia, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Craigavon, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shannon, E.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kennet, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Mersey, V.

Avon, E.

Molson, L.

Beloff, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boardman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Newall, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Norfolk, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glanusk, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gray, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swansea, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinfen L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this may be an appropriate moment at which to break for dinner, and I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 7.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.4 until 7.50 p.m.]
Schedule 3 [Appeal proceedings.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 33, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
("(b) of the members other than the presiding member half are persons appointed as having such knowledge or experience as is mentioned in section 3(5) of this Act and the other half include at least one person who is neither a deputy chairman nor a person appointed as aforesaid.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it has fallen to me to move this amendment, which is in fulfilment of a commitment I gave to the Committee in response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He raised a point in connection with the make-up of the appeal tribunal. As the House will remember, the Bill, as drafted, provides that the tribunal will consist of three classes of person: there are the lawyers who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor; there are the computer experts on data equipment; and there are the great and the good, whom we have agreed to call the common man, the lay members who form the third class. I had to admit, on my noble friend's amendments, that I had failed in the drafting of the Bill to make it certain that one of the third and last class would always form a part of the panel which actually sat. There is no doubt that it would be possible, at least theoretically, for the tribunal to consist entirely of members of one or both of the first two classes. So I agreed to propose an amendment and this is the result. I hope it will be agreeable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble and learned friend for realising the undertakings that he gave at Committee stage, and this is indeed satisfactory.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to associate myself—I am happy to do so for once—with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in acknowledging the willingness and appreciating the willingness of the noble and learned Lord to meet us on this matter. It is a helpful amendment, and I entirely support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 34, line 17, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we covered this ground at an earlier stage, but it is important enough to traverse it again. It deals with what we regard as a very important question. We have the unique situation, as the Bill now stands, that the Minister, the Secretary of State who is most liable to be pursued in proceedings arising from data protection—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Office—is not only to be the person who appoints the lay members of the tribunal, but it is also he who is to determine the procedures of the tribunal, which, among other things, might well have the responsibility of dealing with proceedings in which the Secretary of State himself is a party. Although there are abundant precedents for heads of departments of Secretaries of State drafting rules of procedure for tribunals functioning under the aegis of the department, I venture to think there can be no precedent for what is now proposed in the Bill.
The answer, in our respectful submission, is that the matter should be put outside the embrace of the person most likely to be in the firing line, namely the Secretary of State, and put in the detached hands of the Lord Chancellor, whoever he may be. We attach great importance to this. It will give the appearance of independence and impartiality and will have the reality of independence and impartiality. We greatly hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept this.
When we discussed it before, the noble and learned Lord said that he did not particularly want to die in the ditch over it. I hasten to say we do not want the noble and learned Lord to die in any ditch, least of all do we want him to die in this particular ditch. Therefore, I greatly hope that, having had the opportunity during the leisure time that has elapsed that sometimes occurs in the life of a noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, he may have had the opportunity to reflect, and has decided that it is really quite intolerable that the Minister most liable to be impugned should be the very man not only to appoint the bulk of the tribunal but also to devise its rules of procedure. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the absence of anybody else I suppose it now falls to me to respond to the noble and learned Lord. I have reflected on this. I think there is a genuine difference of opinion between us. I recognise the compliment to the successive holders of my office which is implied in the amendment; it is that we do, despite our party loyalties and party affiliations, attempt to discharge our duties without party considerations, and we do it over quite a wide range of responsibilities. I think that no holder of my office, for a very long time at any rate, has departed from that tradition. So I appreciate the compliment to the office which is being paid, and I hope that in what I do while I hold it—before I die in the ditch—I shall be worthy of the tradition.
I explained the difficulty which genuinely affects me in approaching this problem. I do not like to be a cloak for somebody else. I am a cloak for somebody else in a quite large range of subjects—and I see two of my predecessors here—and I frankly do not like it, and I do not suppose they did when they held my position. It means that you cannot be as candid as a totally impartial person ought to be. Of course, every Minister has his normal responsibilities for the expenditure of money, and the Lord Chancellor is no exception, in regard to which everybody knows—although nobody is allowed to admit—that there has been a lot of argument between him and the Treasury, whose function it is to preserve the public purse. I think that is acceptable in the main because everybody knows it happens, and it fixes the Minister with the responsibility of loyalty to his colleagues which he ought to accept, and a discipline to which he ought to subject himself. But I am not sure that this is at all in the same field.
There has, as I was driven to admit in Committee, been no consistent policy over the years about the constitutional problem involved in the making of rules on tribunals. Sometimes Parliament has veered in one direction and sometimes it has veered in another. I think that it would depend upon the date at which the rule-making power was conferred on the Minister to

385
discover exactly what direction Parliament will have taken. But as I pointed out in my Committee speech, for about 15 years we have achieved consistency and we have achieved a rational distribution of responsibility. It has been more or less the position which is accepted by the drafter of the Bill.
Obviously where the Lord Chancellor is in truth responsible for the drafting of the rules he ought to assume responsibility for the drafting of the rules. I think that we would all agree about that. The problem arises where in practice—and this is such a case—the tribunal comes very largely under the aegis of an executive Minister other than the Lord Chancellor and his officials do in fact draft the rules with the very limited power of the Lord Chancellor to intervene at the stage of draftsmanship.
I am very anxious indeed for the preservation of the high standing in which my office has stood for many years now, and not to be a cloak for something which is a bit of a sham. The constitutional status quo over the last 15 years was good enough for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he was Lord Chancellor and it was good enough for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, at any rate during part of the time when he was Lord Chancellor; and it was good enough for me during my first term of office when I was Lord Chancellor. Now we are being asked to depart from it and I frankly do not like it very much.
The constitutional position does not deprive the Lord Chancellor of a certain responsibility in the matter. The Council on Tribunals exists and the executive Minister is statutorily bound to consult the Council on Tribunals. The Lord Chancellor within the Government machine is rightly considered to be the champion of the Council on Tribunals. The Franks Committee proposed a solution which was not adopted in the outcome. It was that rules of this kind should be formulated by the Council on Tribunals. That is not what has been done by either Conservative or Labour Administrations and it is not what is proposed in this amendment.
The Council on Tribunals has to be consulted and has to report annually to the Lord Chancellor and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom I apologise for not referring before in this connection. The Secretary of State and I are then required to lay the annual report before Parliament with comments, if any, as we think fit. These are not mere formalities. Behind them lies the plain implication that the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will answer to Parliament for matters which are the subject of comment in the report of the Council on Tribunals.
Experience over the last 25 years, I am told—although I can speak for only part of it personally—appears to demonstrate that the Lord Chancellor can make his most effective contribution in this field if he is called in when there is a particular question to be resolved about the fairness of the proposed procedures of a tribunal. I think it is arguable, and it is certainly my view, that the existing checks and balances are appropriate to the procedure of the new tribunal created by this Bill. I should myself be sorry to see a status quo, although it is of comparatively recent origin—15 years in our history is a
386
comparatively short period—disturbed by this particular amendment.
I understand the reasons which underlie it. Indeed, I very largely sympathise with them, but it is very important if we are going to retain the position of Lord Chancellor in the position in which I hope he still is that he should not become a cloak for the activities of other departments unless he has to. I would rather stand back from this myself and leave it to the Minister in the department who is in fact drafting the rules to take responsibility for what he is doing and to stand behind the Council on Tribunals if it finds that those rules do not match up to the requirements of justice and impartiality. I realise from the distinction of those now occupying the Opposition Front Bench that I may not be unanimously supported by my predecessors in this, but this is the best judgment that I can bring to bear on it.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, there is a question here to which we simply cannot get an answer. We tried to do so in the Committee stage; we did not succeed then and we have not done so now. It is a question the answer to which the Government must know. It is a fairly simple question. It is this. Allowing for the fact that in this field there has been a great variety of practice as to whether the regulations for a tribunal should be made by the Lord Chancellor or by the Minister, is there anywhere in our history a case in which there has ever been a tribunal before which the Minister may be a party and yet it is to be the Minister who has everything to do with the tribunal? Is there any possible precedent for this?
Look at his powers. Who is to decide:
"rules for … the exercise of the rights of appeal conferred by…this Act"?
Answer: it is to be one of the parties—the Minister.
"Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph … above, rules … may in particular make provision—
(a) with respect to the period within which an appeal can be brought and the burden of proof on an appeal.".
This is a tribunal of which the Minister himself, for the first time in our history as far as I know, will be one of the parties. He will decide:
"the period within which an appeal can be brought …;
"for the summoning of witnesses and the administration of oaths;
"for securing the production of documents and data material".
Who will decide in these proceedings before the tribunal what documents the Minister of State will have to produce? Answer: the Minister of State will decide what documents he is to produce. Who will decide what documents his opponent is to produce? The Minister of State will decide what documents his opponent will produce. The provision continues:
"for the hearing of an appeal wholly or partly in camera".
It is one of the parties who is to decide that. Then:
"for hearing an appeal in the absence of the appellant or for determining an appeal without a hearing".
It will be one of the parties who is to decide that—whether his opponent is to have any hearing at all or whether there is to be a decision in his absence. It continues:
"for enabling any matter preliminary or incidental to an appeal to be dealt with by the chairman or a deputy chairman;
for the awarding of costs;
for the publication of reports"—
and so on.

387
The question that we have asked and to which we should still like an answer—I entirely accept the fact that we have never had any very logical system—is as to whether in the case of tribunals the rules should be made by the Lord Chancellor or by the Minister. Ordinarily it does not matter that much, but unless I am wrong this is the first time in our history when there has ever been a tribunal before which the Minister himself is one of the parties. He may very well be the man in the dock. It really is intolerable to any sense of justice that this should be allowed, particularly if it is something that has never happened before. Therefore, what I would ask the Government is what they must know: has there ever been any kind of tribunal—we have all kinds of tribunals—in which everything to do with the appeal and the rights of the parties is to be decided by one of the two parties?
8.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only reply by leave of the House and I hope that I may have that leave. First, I do not agree that in the majority—or even in a small minority—of cases it will be the Minister who is one of the parties to the tribunal. I should have thought that there were thousands of data users and although the Minister will be a data user and therefore can in principle be classed as that, I should have thought that it was totally unrealistic to describe him as the man who will normally be "in the dock". He will not be "in the dock" and he will not be a party.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me a question. I am a litle surprised that he should have done so because I was under the impression that I had answered it in Committee. If I am wrong I shall apologise to him in advance, because I am quite likely to be wrong about things. There have been so many of these tribunals in the past 15 years and previously. Let us take as an example the social security tribunals. I do not make the rules for those and yet I should have thought that the Minister was much more directly or more constantly a party to what is being done in them than in what is envisaged here. Let us take the even more sensitive Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Minister—the same Minister in this case—makes the rules but I have the longstop responsibility (which I sought to describe) in conjunction with the Council on Tribunals, to see that the rules play fair. However, it is the Secretary of State who makes the rules of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I should have thought that there was a case where not merely was the Minister normally a party, but he was quite frequently—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is fixing me with a basilisk stare—"in the dock". I really think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, whose opinion on almost everything I deeply respect, has got hold of a bad point here. It is not a point for which there is no precedent. It is a point which I answered previously.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly intervene as one whose name is down in support of the amendment but who, I must confess, has some reservations about his position in that capacity. I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House, certainly the only Member present at the moment, who is a member of the Council on
388
Tribunals. The noble and learned Lord is of course quite right in saying that in that capacity we are consulted about the rules of procedure. Not only are we consulted, but almost invariably our recommendations are complied with. The rules having been formulated, we then invariably, as a council, send somebody as a representative to visit the tribunal on a regular basis to ensure that everything is operating fairly in the interests of the ordinary members of the public. If it is not, we report directly to the Secretary of State who is involved, and if that is unsatisfactory we then include a reference in our annual report, and the matter is of course then taken up from there.
I must confess that there is a little weight in the argument of the noble and learned Lord which he put forward in Committee, to the effect that he felt that his department was rather freer to intervene if there was a criticism by the council of a Secretary of State—where it was a departmental Secretary of State—rather than if the council had made a criticism of some rules that had been drafted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself. I see the weight of that.
The problem that arises on this Bill is that perhaps the drafting of rules for tribunals is more of a judicial operation than an administrative operation. I can see that from that point of view there is something to be said for asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to do so, rather than the head of a department of state. In that situation one has a borderline decision to make on the amendment as to whether in fact the Secretary of State is in practice going to find himself very frequently a party to major disputes before the very tribunal whose rules he has himself prescribed. If that be so, and if the Secretary of State is to appear in one form or another before that tribunal, then I should think that the arguments were overwhelmingly in favour of asking the Lord Chancellor to make the rules of the tribunal so that it would appear to the members of the public to be equitable. In practice the rules would be identical probably in either eventuality.
I am not sure, having heard the argument and even though my name appears in support of the amendment, whether in fact the Secretary of State is going to be an active party to applications before this tribunal to such an extent as to make it necessary that it should be the Lord Chanmcellor who drafts the rules. If I may say so, even though I have supported this amendment in the past, it might be that there is something to be said for letting the Secretary of State make the rules and for letting the disputes about them be ruled upon in the first place by the Council on Tribunals and then adjudicated thereon by the Lord Chancellor. It is a very borderline decision and by no means a black and white one.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, these constitutional issues are—to coin an unattractive phrase in contemporary conditions—not a black and white issue. But what are we considering? We are considering a provision in Schedule 3 where it says:
"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".
Those are essentially and entirely judicial matters going to the heart of the procedure of the Bill, the purpose of which is to protect the data subjects.

389
There is no doubt that the Secretary of State for the Home Office—and it is no use avoiding a direct reference to the fact—is likely to be, in at any rate a number of cases, himself a respondent and in many of the Home Office cases the respondent is so named and so described. Therefore, the situation is not comparable, if I may say so with great respect, to the rights of appeal of, for example, supplementary benefit appeal tribunals. In such cases the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is rarely involved as a party directly, at any rate, in appeals, but I am liable to correction as regards that. At any rate that is a different sphere from what we are speaking of in this debate: the protection of the privacy of the individual. It is a very intimate and very important matter as has been made clear throughout our debates.
While of course my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and I appreciate the value of the Council on Tribunals, it operates in individual cases when the horse has left the stable. They have the task of examining the proceedings afterwards and, if possible, of avoiding a repetition of any error that there may have been before by improving the procedures.
Therefore, with great respect, valuable as the Council on Tribunals is, it does not meet the point with which we are concerned in this case. Our jurisprudence, our arrangements, are not so hidebound that Parliament cannot intervene in them in the interests of the subject, in the interests of what we deem, on this side of the House on this issue, to be in the interests of justice itself, so that justice, to coin that much-worn phrase, is not only done but seen to be done. Although I respect the anxious feelings the other way on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I venture to think that this particular case, in which the circumstances are so unique, is a classic case where, in the interests of justice, that which is sought for should come to pass, and that we shall not be at the risk of the person accused being the person who is to arrange the composition of the appellate body and the regulation of the rights of appeal.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I ought to put the Question, but I have just received a short missive which perhaps I ought to communicate to the House.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, certainly I have no objection.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have been told that in every supplementary benefit appeal an officer of the Department of Health and Social Security responds for that department.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, with respect, that was the point which I was endeavouring to make; that is, that there is communication between the officer of the department and the Secretary of State. However, if I may say so, the issue is now fairly clear.
8.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 47.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Collison, L.

Molloy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Gardiner, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Keith of Catleacre, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Molson, L.

Caccia, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.29 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 34, line 27, leave out from ("testing") to end of line 28 and insert ("of data equipment and the testing of data material;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a Government amendment, and it is inspired by points which were made usefully in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, from the Cross-Benches, and by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It was suggested then that data material as well as data equipment should be referred to in paragraph 4(2)(d) of Schedule 3 as being capable of being inspected, examined, operated and tested. In fact, one cannot sensibly speak of operating data material. Since it can be produced under paragraph 4(2)(c) it can already be inspected and examined, but we accept that some testing may be necessary on occasions which might not be covered by the Bill as drafted, and the amendment takes care of this particular possibility.
It also takes care of another small point raised on Committee by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. He pointed out that the provision as drafted might suggest that only tribunal members themselves, and not their staff or agents, could do the testing, and so on. To

391
avoid any doubt we have removed the reference to tribunal members. Any necessary detailed provision can be made in the rules. I am indebted to the noble Lords and the noble Viscount for enabling us to make these, I suppose I should call them, minor improvements in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the consideration that was given to what was said in Committee, and speaking personally I find this amendment entirely acceptable.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, as one of the parties to the amendment at the previous stage, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for his acceptance of the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, may I thank my noble and learned friend for his kind remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of entry etc.]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("justice of the peace") and insert ("circuit judge").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to move this amendment and to be able to speak to 11 amendments together. They are Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. In Committee there was a strong feeling that the issuing of warrants under Clause 16 of the Bill required the most careful consideration. The view was, I think, that here was a very special case. First, the registrar would not necessarily be presenting to the warrant-issuing authority suspicions of a criminal offence; quite possibly he would be seeking evidence of a breach of the data protection principles. That in itself increases the burden of responsibility on the person issuing the warrant. Secondly, and as a consequence of the first point, the questions to be resolved before a warrant is issued may not only be complex and subtle, they will probably be unfamilar and novel. Again, the burden is increased. Moreover, the occasions on which warrants may be sought will hopefully be very few and far between.
In these circumstances it has been argued that to go to magistrates for a warrant is not only insufficient but also places an undue burden on magistrates who would, in all probability, not face an application from one year to the next and then suddenly be expected to deal responsibly with an application in what would be, for them, an unprecedented and possibly uniquely obscure area. My noble friend Lord Mottistone moved amendments in Committee to require the registrar to go for a warrant to a circuit judge rather than a magistrate. He received eloquent support from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; and there was a telling contribution, I remember, from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Finally, my noble friend Lord Swinfen lent his support. We could scarcely resist such an alliance—particularly since we have to concede the force of the argument.
Warrants under Clause 16 are very much a special case. The complexity of the subject, the possible need
392
to consider the data protection principles, the very few occasions when they will be sought—all these considerations combine to persuade us that we should in these unique circumstances depart from the normal, well-tried procedure of going to a magistrate, and place the responsibility in the hands of a circuit judge. What I have said about the exceptional nature of the circumstances will, I hope, make it abundantly clear that the provision we now propose—that of recourse to a circuit judge—is equally exceptional, and your Lordships should not think that we are in any way establishing a precedent for the treatment of applications for warrants under the circumstances.
We are indebted to those of your Lordships who argued so persuasively on this point earlier, and I hope that these amendments will be seen for what they are; that is, a significant increase in the safeguards built into Clause 16. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, does not mind my speaking first, because he had a bigger hand in this than I had. We deal here with issues of law of high complexity and importance. The fact that all who are concerned in the debate have formed the view that it should be a matter more appropriate for a circuit judge than for justices of the peace in no way reflects any lack of confidence in the magisterial benches, in whom I and, I know, the noble and learned Lord have the greatest confidence. But in the exceptional circumstances that we are discussing and which the noble Lord has mentioned, I think that this is the right answer.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, and also my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, for taking the point of the amendments I put down earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert ("in such a way as to cause damage or distress to any data subject").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this succeeds amendments which I had down in Committee which went a bit too far and took out the whole of Clause 16(1)(b). I took the argument then advanced by my noble friend, and have modified the amendment. In this way, we seek not only to try to make sure that there is no power of entry normally available for a contravention consisting merely of a failure to keep some trivial item of information up to date, but also to bring this clause into line with Clause 10(2), under which, in deciding whether to serve an enforcement order, the registrar must consider whether the contravention has caused or is likely to cause damage or distress to any person. I trust that the modification of my amendments, which reflects the views expressed by my noble friends on the Front Bench, will mean that this amendment is acceptable to them. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, we on these Benches consider that this is an amendment which would, to a large extent, undermine one of the main purposes of the Bill itself. The situation under Clause 16 as it now stands is that the power of entry can be exercised if information on oath is supplied by the

393
registrar that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting—

"(a) that an offence under this Part of this Act has been or is being committed; or

(b) that any of the data protection principles have been or are being contravened by a registered person".

We object to this amendment, first, because it would mean narrowing considerably the grounds upon which effective enforcement could take place, because more often than not effective enforcement will have to be preceded by the exercise of a power of entry. We object, in the second place, because the question of whether or not a person has been harmed, or is likely to be harmed or injured, by such data will often involve a value judgment; whereas the question whether or not any of the data protection principles have been or are being contravened by a registered person is a much simpler issue of fact. The eight principles set out in Schedule 1 make no reference to any person being harmed or injured. Therefore, on the issue of principle and the issue of practicality, we invite the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree openly, I think for the first time during the passage of the Bill, with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is on to something here. After all, if one looks at the powers of entry one sees that they are very extensive, and I believe they should in principle always be limited so far as possible. The results of the entry and seizure of data or computerised material could be quite catastrophic to the person carrying on business, and, again, it should be limited to those occasions when it can be justified beyond any question.
All that Lord Mottistone is asking for in the amendment, which I consider to be a very modest one indeed, is that the warrant should be granted only where there is information to the effect that there might be damage or distress to any data subject as a result of a breach of the data principles. To say that these powers of entry and all that follows therefrom should follow on the most technical of breaches seems to be quite wrong and an infringement of the liberty of the subject, which I am surprised to find the spokesman for the official Opposition apparently seeking to support.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Now that we have amended the first part of Clause 16, my Lords, to make it the function of a judge to be,
"satisfied by information on oath supplied by the Registrar that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting … that an offence under this Part of this Act has been or is being committed; or … that any of the data protection principles have been or are being contravened"—
I suggest that those should be sufficient and conclusive grounds without further addition.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment, despite the fact that a justice of the peace has been replaced by a judge, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, it may have been only a technical infringement of the law which has done no damage to anyone in terms of the data protection principles. We should make certain, as the amendment says, that damage or distress is being caused, and is genuinely
394
being caused, to a data subject, before entry is forced into someone's premises, something which could have a very serious effect on the business, causing considerable damage for many years following.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should have thought that the use of the word "may" in this provision is of crucial importance because the circuit judge, as we now have in the clause, does not have to allow a warrant to be issued if one of the data protection principles has been breached in a purely technical manner. He will look at all the circumstances, and if the registrar was foolish enough to bring a trivial case before a circuit judge, it would be thrown out. So I think there is sufficient safeguard against completely trivial cases being brought before the court. While I entirely accept the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, behind the amendment, I think the point has already been taken care of by the amendment we have made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as my noble friend indicated, the amendment is based on the worthy desire to ensure that the registrar's entry powers are subject to the strictest possible control and are not used except where absolutely necessary. His concern, among other things, appears to be that the registrar might seek an entry warrant in a case where he suspected a purely technical breach of one of the principles in circumstances likely to lead to no conceivable harm to anyone. That appears a very reasonable point of view at first sight, but I am sorry to have to say that, on closer examination, the Government cannot go along with this proposal, and I will explain why.
The notice powers contained in Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill certainly require that once he has satisfied himself that a contravention of the principles has taken place, the registrar should consider whether that contravention has caused, or is likely to cause, any person damage or distress. In most cases in which the registrar decides to use his notice powers, he is likely to have concluded that damage or distress were likely, but he is not restricted in the use of his powers to those cases where this factor is present. He may on occasion decide that it would be right to use his powers, notwithstanding the absence of any suggestion of harm, an obvious example being where it had come to his notice that data subjects were being denied access to the data held about them, in contravention of the seventh data protection principle. Denial of access to one's data might cause distress in some circumstances, but there is no reason why one should be distressed by that denial in order to qualify for the benefits of the seventh principle. Access to one's data is a cardinal point in the data protection scheme and it would be quite wrong to limit that right to those who might, for whatever reason, be distressed by being denied it.
It follows that there might be some situations in which to deny the registrar an entry warrant on the grounds that, though there was clear evidence of a contravention of the principles, there was no evidence as to damage or distress, could be to exclude him from circumstances in which he should rightly be involved. To restrict the right of entry to contraventions of the principles likely to cause harm would effectively

395
enable users to exclude the registrar from any access to their operations, unless such harm could be demonstrated. The amendment could effectively tie the registrar's enforcement and deregistration powers to the prospect of damage or distress in a way which the Bill does not do at present and which, as I have indicated, could in certain circumstances limit the ability of the registrar to defend the interests of data subjects.
As for the fear, certainly implied by my noble friend, that the registrar might be tempted to use his entry powers in pursuit of purely technical contraventions of the principles, I would simply point out that there is nothing in Clause 16 to compel the circuit judge, as he now is, to issue a warrant even though the requirements of the clause were satisfied. If the registrar were attempting to use his powers in an irresponsible fashion—which I do not for one moment believe likely—the issuing authority would be perfectly at liberty to refuse him the warrant for which he was asking. I hope that this consideration, coupled with what I have said about the relationship between the registrar's powers and the prospect of damage or distress, will persuade my noble friend not to press the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find my noble friend's argument most persuasive, particularly as he made cross-reference to Clause 10(2), which seemed to be a very good argument for my amendment. I was not quite so impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, whose objection rather surprised me. In view of what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34:
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("justice") and insert ("judge").
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("justice") and insert ("judge").
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("justice") and insert ("judge").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 29, at end insert ("or whether any data equipment was inspected, examined, operated or tested").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an exact repetition of Amendment No. 105 which I moved in Committee and for which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur expressed considerable sympathy. I was, therefore, hoping to see a similar amendment down at this stage on his behalf. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, it is not merely in the hope that I may be readmitted to the good will of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that I find great pleasure in saying that we on these Benches totally support the amendment. Any invasion of privacy, in particular one which involves entry onto private premises, is a very serious matter; but there are
396
circumstances, such as in the Bill, where there is complete and total justification for such entries. However, we say it is right that when there is such an entry there should be the most detailed and specific documentation as to exactly what has occurred in relation to it, and that, we believe, is an ample justification for the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, I indicated in Committee that the Government were prepared to look again at the requirement in Clause 16(6) of the Bill to see whether it would be appropriate to require those executing warrants to provide more information to the issuing authority. This we have now done, and I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that the Government are persuaded that more information should be included on returned warrants. Endorsing warrants is the means by which issuing authorities are able to check that the grounds advanced for the issue of a warrant have been justified in the event, and we agree that the issuing authority should be told more than as is provided in the Bill at present. Indeed, we believe that there is a case for going further and for requiring also that those who execute warrants should be obliged to indicate whether the power to inspect any documents or other material was exercised in pursuance of the warrant.
We would have come forward with an amendment to this effect by this Report stage had the result of our attention being drawn to the detail of Clause 16(6) not been an awareness that that provision may not achieve its objective as directly as may be wished. The policy is that all executed warrants should be endorsed, and that all warrants, executed or not, should be returned to the issuing authority; but we need to look again at Clause 16(6) to ensure that that is what it achieves. We intend, therefore, to come back with an amendment at a later stage in the progress of the Bill, designed to require all uses made of the warrant to be endorsed on it, and attending, if necessary, to any technical changes that may have been identified. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will decide not to press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend, and I trust that if possible the further amendment can be brought forward before the Bill leaves this House, so that I can be personally assured. I look forward to the amendment being presented in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the present amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 32, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 34 and insert ("court from which it was issued").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 37, leave out ("for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances") and insert ("up to a maximum of two working days and thereafter only so long as a circuit judge may direct on an application specifying the documents or other material to be retained, setting out the grounds why it is reasonably necessary to retain them and stating the period for which they are required. The reasonableness of the grounds must take account of any adverse effect caused to the owner or any user.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the power of seizure. As the Bill is currently drafted, it follows automatically that there is an unfettered discretion in the registrar or his officers for any length of time—I repeat, for any length of time. Thus computer files may be seized and retained for long periods of time because of alleged, but unproven, breaches which could be minor in nature or number; yet the same computer files may be essential to the day-to-day operation of the business. Since computerisation is currently developing, the absence of computer files because of seizure could well be crippling and/or disastrous, whatever kind of activity the business is engaged in. The amendment seeks to protect the data user from such interference, and I hope that in its wording it is satisfactory to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, we are in the fullest sympathy with the amendment, and we agree with its principle. However, it may be that the period of two days is rather short. After all, circuit judges are not really geared, as are magistates, to discharging substantial administrative functions. I can well imagine a circuit judge viewing with great disfavour the fact that he has to determine one of these issues on a day when he has a very full list of pleas; or, alternatively, when he is due to carry on with a part-heard trial at 10.30, with a jury waiting. It may be that much time would be taken up by these matters. I should have thought that in the circumstances perhaps a period of five days would be more appropriate.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend has suggested a limitation on the circumstances in which any documents or other material seized through the exercise of a search warrant under Clause 16 may be retained. Under the Bill as cast such material,
"may be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances".
My noble friend's amendment would provide that seized material could be retained for only two days, or until such time as a circuit judge may direct on application being made to him. An application would have to specify the material concerned, the grounds why it was reasonably necessary to retain it, and the period for which it was required. Presumably, the reference to the reasonableness of the grounds taking into account any adverse effect caused to the owner is intended to suggest that in the event of some adverse effect more substantial grounds for retention would be required. I ought to say, however, that it is difficult to envisage how these entirely different considerations could be balanced one against the other. As always, when considering this clause we must bear in mind that seizure will normally be a last resort and will be avoidable by a user who is willing to volunteer documents or other material, having first taken a copy with which to continue his operations.
However, the Government appreciate the concern behind the amendment that the seizure of evidence under Clause 16 shall not interfere to an unwarranted degree with the activities of data users and computer bureaux which have not yet, as it were, had their innocence disproved. At this stage we are dealing with persons who have not been convicted of the offence in
398
question, or who have not had the opportunity to contest before the tribunal the question of whether a notice should have been issued. The problem is that where evidence is seized and the registrar needs to retain it for the purposes of an investigation, or perhaps the bringing of a prosecution, the purposes of Clause 16 would be defeated if he had to return that evidence before his investigation had been completed or the prosecution had been undertaken. Both the current Clause 16(7) and the amendment therefore recognise that in some circumstances it will be necessary to retain evidence.
One effect of the amendment would be to particularise the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether documents or other material seized may be retained. There may, for instance, be cases where it could suffice for the registrar to retain a copy of the material, thus enabling him rapidly to return the original, but this may not be entirely straightforward. I understand that it is not always easy to arrange for copies of discs or tapes to be taken, especially where the equipment involved is not of a standard type. However, having indicated that this aspect of the amendment is not free from difficulties, I ought to say that the Government are not altogether unsympathetic with some of the concerns which have been expressed by my noble friend, and that in this connection we are willing to look again at the circumstances in which seized material may be retained. If it appears that the Bill could usefully be more explicit on this question without impeding the registrar, we shall bring forward the necessary amendments in another place.
However, there is contained in my noble friend's amendment another proposal; namely, that a court order or direction should be necessary before seized material may be retained for longer than two days; and this is a point that the noble lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, raised. I should make clear that the Government's sympathy does not extend to this proposal. Where documents or any other material are seized or retained unlawfully, the person concerned would have a remedy in civil law for any damage caused as a result. It does not, however, seem necessary to impose an additional requirement to apply to a circuit judge for a direction authorising the retention of documents or other material seized in the execution of a warrant issued by such a judge. But with that proviso I have given an undertaking to consider further, and I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and also the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I should have thanked him for his support on Amendment No. 35 as well. In the case of No. 37, I quite take it that two days would be too short a time for a circuit judge. I understand part of the argument presented by my noble friend on that score. Be that as it may, the main thing is that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has said that the Government see the main point behind this and that they will do their best to get something appropriate into the Bill before it finally leaves Parliament. With that, I am very satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the mendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) A person executing a warrant under this section shall not prevent the occupier of the premises from carrying on his lawful business by the seizure of any documents or other material or by the inspection, examination, operation or testing of any data equipment and shall be liable to make full and adequate compensation for any destruction of or damage to any data equipment, documents or other material to the owner of that data equipment, documents or material.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems from Amendments Nos. 106 and 107, the latter having been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, at the Committee stage, and is really on the same basic theme that we have just been discussing but from a slightly different point of view. Here we are asking that any damage done in execution of a warrant should lead to full and adequate compensation. I had occasion to write to my noble friend Lord Elton about this and it so happens that in The Times of 1st March we had a report of police smashing into a flat and holding a couple at gunpoint in a raid error. That may seem a little far from computers, but the last paragraph of that report in The Times was significant. It said:
"The West Midlands police said yesterday that no internal inquiry had been held into the raid because the officers were acting under the terms of a search warrant".
This is what we are talking about, a search warrant; and, although it may sound slightly harsh to say so, in some respects data equipment is even more delicate than humans. It can be totally destroyed in a sense by clumsy people who have done some sort of a search in the wrong place. That is what happened in the case of the police in the West Midlands. They went to the wrong house; they might go to the wrong business; they might go to the wrong data user. So it is quite important to have some means of getting compensation if a mistake has been made and damage has been done which is unjustified. Hence, I hope that this amendment, which is a change from my earlier amendment on the same subject, is acceptable to my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, in the last line of this amendment the word "documents" is in the plural and it should, I think, be in the singular. I hope that that is the only objection that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will take to this amendment; because it seeks to deal with a very real problem which could arise where warrants are executed. There are two situations: first, that police officers may execute such a warrant without proper regard to the interests of the occupant and may take possession of material that is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with any alleged contravention of the law. I would not want for a moment to suggest that this is likely to happen on a large number of occasions, but I think that one would be closing one's eyes to the obvious if one pretended that it was never likely to happen on a single occasion. Secondly, and more serious, is the danger that in executing a warrant police officers may take possession of files, programs or computer material which contains not only a single disputed item but, it may well be, hundreds of thousands of other items which have absolutely nothing to do with any alleged contravention of the law and the seizure of which will bring the occupiers' lawful business to a total standstill.
400
I know that it is not very much of a safeguard in Clause 16(7) which requires that a receipt should be given and that the material can be retained for as long as it is necessary in normal circumstances. That is not very much help in that situation. There is no provision (as the noble Lord mentioned a moment ago) for a copy to be made; although that is in most circumstances practicable and I think is provided for under a number of EEC directives which the Government might perhaps care to have a look at before a further stage in this matter. There is a real danger, unless an amendment of this sort is found to be acceptable, that a person will be impaired from carrying out his lawful business by the fact that a warrant is being executed to deal with a specific isolated incident which would not in any circumstances justify the amount of material of which possession is taken. I hope that, as with the previous amendment, the noble Lord will look at this one, too, to see whether, in some way, an amendment can be drafted to meet this danger.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am afraid that the time has once again come when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and those who sit on these Benches must part company, albeit temporarily. If there was no such thing as the bundle of remedies which lie at common law to a person who suffers an abuse of powers such as this amendment deals with, then, no doubt, there would be irresistible force in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. However, those powers in civil law exist and, in the submission of those of us on these Benches, are adequate.
The real objection to the amendment is that if it were to be incorporated in the Bill, then, despite the total genuineness of the noble Lord in moving the amendment, the effect would be to frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. It would really be a trip wire that would make it virtually impossible for enforcement to take place. We have not the slightest doubt that the registrar, whoever he or she may be, will use the powers given by this legislation with very great circumspection. There will be no question of a power of entry until all the exhortations to the corporation have been rejected by the data user. There will be no question of entry until a circuit judge has stated that he is satisfied, on information given on oath, even though there is a breach of law or a contravention of the data principles. In those circumstances we say that the price that would have to be paid for this amendment would be a very high one indeed. It is a price that is not necessary because of the massive protection which common law would afford any person who suffered an abuse of powers.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid I, too, must part company from my noble friend on this occasion, though I hope not for long, because of the arguments he advocates on this occasion.
There are two distinct elements to the amendment proposed by my noble friend, which it might be helpful to deal with separately. Both aspects were foreshadowed by amendments during the Committee stage and the Government's views were set out fully then.

401
We considered in some detail the various safeguards which have been incorporated in Clause 16 in order to ensure that the powers of entry and search are suitably circumscribed. And those powers have been further increased by our acceptance that warrants should be issued by circuit judges rather than by justices of the peace. In addition, there is a requirement, in normal circumstances, that before a warrant is issued access at a reasonable hour must be previously sought on seven days' written notice and that access must have been unreasonably refused. Where a warrant has been issued there are other provisions in Clause 16 which will ensure that it will be executed so as to cause the minimum possible disruption to the occupier. I suggest that the clause already includes sufficient safeguards to ensure that the power of entry will only be available where it is justified, and that where a warrant is executed, it must be done in a way that causes the minimum disruption.
The first part of my noble friend's amendment seeks to go beyond these safeguards and to provide that the person executing a warrant shall not prevent the occupier carrying on his lawful business by the seizure of any documents or other material, or by the inspection, examination, operation or testing of any data equipment. Thus where the seizure or inspection did prevent the occupier carrying on his lawful business its execution would be unlawful. As I have already explained, Clause 16 will usually only come into play where previous requests for co-operation have failed. Much as the Government agree with the need to provide appropriate safeguards, the amendment would go so far that it could make the warrant almost impossible to execute lawfully. We are dealing here with extreme cases, and in such circumstances it may be that it proves necessary to execute a warrant in a way which does require the data user to interrupt what he is doing—thus preventing some aspect of the occupier's lawful business being carried out, however temporarily. The amendment would therefore risk defeating the purpose of the clause, and I do not believe that my noble friend would really wish to see that happen. The essential argument is that Clause 16 already provides appropriate safeguards for the occupier of premises, and that to restrict further the exercise of the powers which may be authorised by the grant of a warrant, which this amendment proposes, would risk rendering them useless.
The second aspect of the amendment concerns compensation for damage. I should emphasise that the Bill follows established procedures here. I have already explained the various provisions which ensure that the power of entry can only be properly exercised in limited, defined, circumstances. Any purported exercise of the power outside these limits would be unlawful. In such case any person suffering damage by reason of the unlawful entry and search would have a remedy for compensation in civil law against the person executing the warrant.
"But what", my noble friend Lord Mottistone might ask, "of the lawful search?" The important point here is that the safeguards in Clause 16 are such that, barring the most exceptional circumstances, damage will only be a possibility where the occupier has failed in his duties under the Bill. In the vast majority of cases Clause 16 will never come into play.
402
Where it does the power is hedged about by the safeguard to which I have already referred. In addition, the effect of Clause 16(8) is to make it an offence to obstruct the registrar or, when it is required, to fail to provide him with reasonable assistance. The latter means that where the registrar needs to operate or test equipment he will be able to require the occupier to operate it on his behalf. This would be to the advantage of both parties and would avoid the possibility of the registrar causing damage as a result of unfamiliarity with the equipment in question. Thus, as was explained during the Committee stage, it would seem that even where, as a last resort, the powers authorised by the grant of a warrant are exercised they should be exercised in such a way that no damage will result. I do hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with this explanation, and not press for what amounts to established procedures on this point.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I note with interest what my noble friend has said and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, had to say. I respect those opinions and will look with care at the details. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 44 en bloc:
Page 15, line 5, leave out from ("Scotland,") to second ("a") in line 6 and insert ("for any reference to a circuit judge there shall be substituted").
Page 15, line 8, leave out from second ("the") to second ("the") in line 13 and insert ("court from which the warrant was issued there shall be substituted a reference to").
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("justice of the peace") and insert ("circuit judge").
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("resident magistrate") and insert ("county court judge and").
Page 15, line 18, leave out from ("oath") to end of line 22.
Page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 39 to 44 inclusive are consequential amendments and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 45:
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: My Lords, it may well be rashness on my part if I say that I move this amendment on behalf of my noble and learned friend and others on these Benches with a feeling of some confidence. I ask the House to accept that this is an amendment of the utmost importance, dealing as it does with the whole question of excluding from these provisions the case of data in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained.
As the House well appreciates, this is an area that for many, many centuries in both our civil and criminal law has been regarded as worthy of total exclusion. Indeed, that principle has already been incorporated in part in the Bill we are now considering, for in Clause 32(2) of the Bill there is an exemption regarding

403
the relaying of any data information that has passed between a data subject and his legal adviser to a third party about whom that data is concerned.
That is a very important area of exclusion and, in my submission, it would be nothing more than logical to allow this amendment on the basis of that principle alone. Furthermore, referring to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is now before another place, despite the fact that according to the fears of very many people it is an authoritarian piece of legislation, nevertheless I understand that it recoils from invading this area of privilege in legal circumstances. The amendment is one which has already been fully canvassed at Committee stage and, as the House will be aware, it is one that is put forward with great confidence and with great feeling by the Law Society.
The area of professional privacy (for that is what it is) which exists between a professional legal adviser and his client is one of the most intimate and best protected areas of privacy known to our law. This whole legislation is brought forward in the name of privacy. It would be—would it not?—a massive and crushing irony if in this legislation that last bastion, that sanctum sanctorum, of privacy were to be invaded. Therefore we say that we have the fullest confidence that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will say that this is a matter which should never have been included in the Bill in the first instance, and that the Government are now resolved to put the situation right. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have one small point to raise on this and I wonder whether the noble Lord who has just spoken will deal with it when he makes his decision at the end. I understand that computer discs or tapes can hold several hundred thousand bits of information. What would be the position regarding a disc which holds privileged information that does not have to be disclosed, at the same time as it holds information that legally would have to be disclosed? Surely the whole disc would have to be taken for examination—or is the whole disc going to be retained because part of it has privileged information on it? If that is the case, a dishonest solicitor—and I regret to say that there are a few in the profession—would be able to put privileged information on to every single disc so that the rest of it could be filled up with information which he did not wish to be seized.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House deal with that point at this stage, that is a complicated technical matter. But in my understanding it is a matter which crops up regularly in relation to the issue of privilege and the courts will allow severance where severance is possible.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, only a Minister may speak twice on Report with the leave of the House. But the noble Lord can of course deal with this point when he replies to this amendment. That is according to the Rules of Order of the House.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Yes, my Lords. I appreciate that my rights are limited in relation to reply. Therefore, I shall deal with the matter when I come to reply to the amendment. But the answer, in short, is that the courts will sever whenever they can.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the Chief Whip will allow me to intervene, my noble friend's response was in reply to a specific question put to him by a noble Lord on the other side of the House.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. I fully understand that. That is why it was with diffidence that I rose. But under the Rules of Order of the House, not even with the leave of the House may noble Lords speak twice on Report, although, of course, a noble Lord has a right of reply.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I enter into this argument with the greatest diffidence, seeing the legal force behind the amendment. But I just wonder whether one might take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, a little further and look back to the purposes of the clause. We are saying that an offence under this part of this Act has been or is being committed; or that any of the data protection principles have been or are being contravened by the person whose records are to be the subject of examination. So that the crooked solicitor, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has been the subject of investigation by the registrar, and, as he said, he has been through all the procedures attempting to get at records voluntarily, which may be mixed up with legally privileged material. I think that he made a very valid point there, that it will not be possible to separate out those parts of the data which are legally privileged from those which are not.
So one has to ask oneself: Why should the legal profession ask for this special immunity in the Bill, when what we are trying to do is to look after the interests of the data subject? I hope that in this Bill we are not trying to look after the interests of the lawyers. If the data subjects are being damaged by the crooked solicitors, whom the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has postulated, why should they be immune from the provisions of Clause 16 any more than any other data user should be? Why are the lawyers asking for some special privilege here, which is not to be extended to any other class of data user? The good lawyer has nothing to fear from the provisions of Clause 16, because he is never going to be examined. So why should the vast majority of lawyers, who are honest and above board, object to the few rotten ones being the subject of examination under Clause 16?
They are not asking for the same privilege to be extended to doctors. After all, much the same argument would apply to them, because the historical basis of confidentiality between a doctor and his patient is at least as great as that between the lawyer and his client. Therefore, if the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, were accepted, there would be an irresistible demand from the British Medical Association to have the same kind of concession made to their members. But why should we make it for anybody? It really would be best if lawyers did not demand the special privileges which, sometimes, they are inclined to do, and if they treated themselves as the ordinary human beings and part of the community that in fact they are.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has not understood the whole object of professional privilege. The rule is established for the protection of the client, not for the protection of the lawyer. The privilege can be waived by the client but not by his legal adviser. This is entirely a rule for the protection of the client. The lawyer's interest in it is confined to the interest of his client—nothing further.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it was my noble friend Lord Mottistone in Committee who ran the first leg of what I suppose could be considered a bit of a relay race on this amendment, and now he has handed it on—I hope not unwillingly—to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. In Committee I indicated that we recognised the importance of the principle which lies at the heart of legal professional privilege and I asked for time to reflect on what I think I called the dilemma that my noble friend Lord Mottistone had revealed to us. That time was graciously given to us, but I have to say that I need to ask for more.
This is a far from simple matter. That has been brought out in the discussion we have had this evening. The essence of legal professional privilege is the principle that an individual can speak with absolute frankness to his legal adviser without fear of his confidences being used against him. So in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, for example, currently being considered in another place, it is necessary to ensure that the police cannot seize as evidence articles consisting of privileged communications. But it is much more difficult to translate the considerations applying there to the context in which the registrar will be exercising his powers of search under the Data Protection Bill. The parallel, unfortunately, is not exact.
For example, if the noble Lord, Lord Elysian-Morgan, is a data user in his professional legal role, as he might well be, he might hold various kinds of personal data. Some may concern the staff he employs, factual details of clients, or information about suppliers of materials. Some may concern cases on which he is advising his clients—covered, perhaps, by legal professional privilege but not capable in any way of being used against the client by the registrar. Indeed, if anything, they might be used in the interests of the client as data subject against the noble Lord as data user. It would be hard to provide that data subjects were to be denied the general protection of the Bill in the case of any data about themselves which they may have passed to their solicitor in circumstances to which legal privilege would attach, thereby leaving the solicitor concerned (although I am sure this would not apply in the case of the noble Lord) free from any of the Bill's controls over, say, to whom he disclosed data or the security provided to protect the data. That clearly would not be right. But there is a third category: data given to the noble Lord by a data user and concerning possible proceedings brought against the user by the registrar under the Bill. There we are getting closer to a real parallel with situations in other fields where legal professional privilege is protected.
I think it is far from self-evident that we should deal with this matter by the simple amendment proposed
406
by the noble Lord. There are the very real difficulties to which I have referred. We must think carefully of the possible consequences for data subjects of the proposed exclusion, and we must not lose sight of the provisions both in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and in Clause 32(2) of the Bill with which we are dealing. For the time being I am pointing to the difficulties and warning against moving hastily before all the implications are fully thought through. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment but will give us time to continue our consideration. I hope he will be satisfied that we have taken the point fully on board.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, to some extent we are relieved by the assurances which have been given by the noble Lord the Minister, but we are far from satisfied. I beg the Minister, in considering this situation, as I know he will over the next few weeks, to consider that there is something utterly inconsistent between, on the one hand, the provision with which we are now dealing, which allows a search to be made and an invasion of an area of total privilege and privacy, as it is in every other context, and, on the other hand, under Clause 32(2) of this Bill, saying that a person who is himself the subject of certain data comments which have passed between a data subject and, let us say, his solicitor is not entitled to intervene in that area. It would be strange, would it not, if this Bill were to become law in its present form in relation to that provision, which would allow that search to be made and to invade that most private of territories? In our criminal law, no matter how serious the case—even if it were a case that involved the very security of the state itself—there is no judge who would allow trespass even to an inch upon that area. It is on that basis that we urge the noble Lord to reconsider the situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Prosecutions and penalties]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The court shall not order destruction or erasure to be undertaken under subsection (4) above unless it has given twenty-eight days notice of its intention to do so, either directly to the data subjects concerned or by publication in two national newspapers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems from my Amendment No. 109ZA, which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur was somewhat firm in rejecting at Committee stage. This amendment, therefore, takes a rather different form but the underlying principle is the same. It is to ensure that the data subject can find out that personal data is about to be destroyed or erased. He may wish to have a copy of the information contained in that data because the continued availability of that information might be of

407
considerable importance to him. One example that has been suggested is that it might be information concerning the data subject's training or education, which could reflect on his suitability for a job. One can imagine all kinds of other circumstances in which it would be useful for the data subject to know that destruction or erasure was about to take place and to be given warning of any such destruction ordered. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I must tell my noble friend that I still have to remain firm on this point. As my noble friend has indicated, this amendment is similar to one that we discussed in Committee, modified to take account of certain of the difficulties that we identified then as being raised by the amendment. As well as identifying particular difficulties, I argued generally that there was no need to make provision along the lines proposed by the amendment because of the way that the courts would in any event approach these matters. I had hoped that I might have satisfied my noble friend. But, sadly, that was not to be.
Clause 19(4) empowers the court convicting a person of an offence under Clauses 5, 10, 12 or 15 to order the forfeiture, destruction or erasure of any data material appearing to the court to be connected with the commission of the offence. The unmistakable intention behind this provision is to allow the court to remove the opportunity for subsequent abuse of the personal data concerned. Thus, when considering whether to issue an order under this clause, the court will necessarily have in mind the interests of the various subjects of the personal data contained in the data material. As we said in Committee, it seems inconceivable that the court would fail to consider whether data subjects had an interest in seeing that the data material in question was retained.
The amendment proposed during Committee carried the defect of requiring each and every data subject to be consulted before an order under Clause 19(4) was made. The amendment has now been refined and the proposal currently before your Lordships seeks to avoid that difficulty by providing the alternative of the publication in the press of the court's decision to make an order under the Bill. Surprisingly, perhaps, the amendment does not go on to make express provision for the court to hear anyone wishing to make representations. I imagine that the intention is to allow Clause 19(5) to take over at this stage so that data subjects, alerted by an advertisment in The Times or whatever, could claim to be a person interested in the material under Clause 19(5) and thus have an automatic right to a hearing. I have to warn, however, that it is doubtful that a court would construe Clause 19(5) as having that effect. But this does illustrate the practical difficulties. If individual data subjects are to have a right to a hearing—when there may be thousands of them—the court would face quite an impossible situation. That is the case whatever means is taken to provide subjects with the right.
We are in no doubt that it is more sensible—and just as safe—to leave the courts to look after subjects' interests without the kind of statutory provision that
408
my noble friend suggests. The courts are well capable of doing so, and will have the assistance and advice of the registrar to hand whenever they face a situation of this kind. I hope that my noble friend will accept that his amendment would raise more problems than it would solve, and that subjects' interests are already adequately protected by the Bill as drafted.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in listening to this discussion it seemed to me that perhaps my noble friend Lord Mottistone had it in mind that in the event of an appeal there should not be destruction. But of course the court has always power to order a stay of execution with regard to any part of the order it makes, and in suitable circumstances would no doubt do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I appreciate the explanation given by my noble friend, and I shall not delay the House further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Liability of directors etc.]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 47:
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: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to bracket with this amendment Amendments Nos. 48 and 50. These three amendments I had down on the list of amendments at Committee stage as Nos. 109ZB, ZC and ZD. My noble friend at the time said that they were late in going down and he had not had time to consider them but he thought they looked fairly good. I have since talked with the office of one of my noble friends about this, and I understand they are still thought very good. It was a moot point whether I should put them down at this stage, but I have done so merely to indicate to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I am still interested, and I hope they are. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course we are still interested, and I hope I can be a little more forthcoming to my noble friend. As your Lordships recall, these amendments reproduce a group of amendments which, as my noble friend said, were discussed in Committee. Because they were only available rather late in the day we agreed to take them away for consideration. We have had the opportunity to give some thought to the issues involved, but I have to tell him that we have not yet reached a final view.
Ignoring for the moment the situation of persons carrying on computer bureaux, the person who is obliged to register under the Bill is the data user. The data user is defined in clause 1(5) as a person who holds data, and a person holds data if the data form part of a collection of data processed or intended to be processed as set out in that clause and—and this is particularly important—that person controls the contents and use of the data. The Government have not therefore sought to impose a particular level of authority within a company, or indeed within a group of companies. Instead we have simply said that the person to be held responsible under the Bill is the person who actually controls what is to be done with

409
the data. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone seeks to provide that where a number of companies form a corporate group—that is, as I understand it, a group of companies where the holding company has a controlling interest in all the subsidiaries—the group could register on behalf of the constituent companies. In fact, applying the definition of data user set out in Clause 1(5) it can be seen that where a holding company controls the contents and use of all the data in the hands of the group, including the subsidiaries, it could register as the data user. However, where a subsidiary held data independently it would have to register separately.
If it is the intention behind the amendment that in this second case the group should be able to register on behalf of the various data users within it, we must cast a critical eye over the justification for departing from the principle of registering the person who controls the data.
There is, I think, clear benefit in including on the register the person actually controlling the data concerned. Indeed, the right to establish the identity of the controller of a file is explicitly stated in Article 8 of the Council of Europe Convention. In addition, it should be remembered that the process of registration is the means for enforcing the principles for data protection set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. If only notional responsibility for compliance rested with the registered person he would surely often say to the registrar, "I am sorry we have breached the principles but it was not our fault; it was the fault of a subsidiary company whose data we do not control".
I think I can sum up our present position, therefore, as being unconvinced of the case for departing from the principle of registering the person in control of and responsible for the personal data in question. But we continue to have an open ear to those who might wish to persuade us, and indeed are continuing to discuss the matter with interested parties. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I am so pleased that he is continuing to discuss the matter with interested parties. I hope that there will be a reasonable fruition at some stage before the Bill leaves Parliament. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 49:
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 a 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 necesary to comply with the requirements of the relevant notice and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or by 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
410
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: My Lords, this is a recast of Committee Amendment No. 109ZE, which was not liked in its previous form by my noble friend Lord Elton but to which we have added a bit to take account of my noble friend's objections at an earlier stage. I trust that in its new form this amendment will be acceptable to my noble friends on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, under Clause 13 the recipient of either an enforcement or a prohibition notice would have a right of appeal to the tribunal, but, where a prosecution followed, the only question before the courts would be whether the recipient had complied with the notice or not. In the case of an enforcement notice, and many transfer prohibition notices as well, this will be a simple matter of whether the specified steps have been taken. This is designed to ensure that the reasonableness of the original notice cannot be questioned before the criminal courts and to place the recipient under a positive duty to ensure compliance with the notice. Having set up an elaborate appeals mechanism under the Bill, it would be wrong to cast the offences involved in a way which permitted the issues to be reopened all over again before the criminal courts. This would render the appeals mechanism redundant.
Having said this, we have reflected further on the arguments put by my noble friend that in some cases unforeseen difficulties may arise after the hearing of an appeal or after the time during which an appeal may be brought. There may be situations in which it would he appropriate to provide a defence in proceedings under Clauses 10 and 12 provided that this can be done without allowing the defendant to reopen issues that have already been determined before the tribunal. We do not think that, if there is to be additional provision on this matter, it would be quite in the form of the amendment proposed by my noble friend. But if he will agree not to press this amendment, we will happily look further at ways of achieving the result and see whether a suitable amendment might be made in another place.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend and I look forward to further progress in this area at a later stage as the Bill passes through Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Right of access to personal data]:
9.43 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 17, line 31, leave out ("constituting") and insert ("recorded by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the additional change of words here would ensure that the data subject gets all the data to which he is entitled and that there should be no editing of that data before he receives it. I do not think that there is anything more

411
which can usefully be said about the amendment, and I commend it to the House as something that is eminently reasonable. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have heard with interest the admirably brief account of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. The distinction between "information", which bears its ordinary meaning, and the expression "data", is an idea central to the Bill and one which we have discussed on a number of occasions during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. However, I must say that I find it extraordinarily difficult to see the difference between the phrases "constituting the data" and "recorded by the data". I cannot see the sense of a distinction between them. It seems to me that either formulation provides the data subject with all the information of which the data are made up, which the data represent and which the data comprise, and the rest appears to me to be a question of semantics.
I think that we are agreed about the policy. If, as I have suggested, the amendment makes no difference at all to the Bill's ability to supply what is needed, I would respectfully suggest that the case for a change has not been made out because I am advised that the notion of information constituting or contained in the data, and conversely, data consisting of information, is one which runs through the warp and woof of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that in the light of this view, which represents not only my own opinion but the opinions of those advising me, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said we shall certainly look at the matter again. But in the circumstances my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 32, at end insert ("or of such information constituting any such personal data held by him for any purpose or purposes as may be specifically requested by that individual.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment derives from the discussion that took place on my Amendments Nos. 110 and 112 in Committee. It attempts to give the data subject some choice in the information that he obtains. This allows him to take advantage at his discretion—and I stress, "at his discretion"—of the cost options that are available in Clause 21(3), where the charges for obtaining information are in relation to the information obtained. The object of the exercise is to allow flexibility to the individual where this would be appropriate. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not altogether unsympathetic to my noble friend on this point. Of course, I recognise the good intention underlying the amendment—to allow users to respond accordingly when the subjects do not want to see all their data, but only some of the data. But we are still not altogether convinced about how much benefit it will be to users and how much benefit it will be to subjects. We would at present hesitate to add this complicating factor into the subject access provisions unless it would be of some real use to someone. I would ask my noble friend to agree to give us time to take further soundings on this point, because at the moment we are not convinced that it is not a useless complication of the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I fully understand what my noble and learned friend has said. As I see it, the beneficiary from this will be the data subject, which, as has been said by many, including most recently the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is really the raison d'être for the Bill. It is the data subject who perhaps would be able to save himself a bit of cash, if nothing else, in being able to select what he got, which was what he actually needed. I leave that thought with my noble and learned friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 17, line 32, at end insert—
("and where any of the information referred to in paragraph (b) above is expressed in terms which are not intelligible without explanation the information shall be accompanied by an explanation of those terms").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a Government amendment which I rise to move. It arises out of a discussion in Committee in which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, took part. He moved an amendment to Clause 21 which would have required data users to supply information:
"in plain English where the meaning or significance of the information was not by itself apparent".
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who made a rather similar point on one of his own amendments.
At the time we felt that the clause as drafted achieved the necessary effect by attaching the subject's right to the information constituting the data. In any case, I seem to recall that there were certain other difficulties one way or another against both the amendments. But since then, as we have promised, we have considered the matter.
It seems to us that there was some strength in what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord said. The entitlement to access under Clause 21 is at the heart of the scheme established by the Bill. We must ensure that there can be no possibility that data users could supply information either in encoded form or in a form which only means something to the user himself and not, therefore, to the subject. Therefore, we do see some merit in making that clear beyond all possible doubt.
This amendment requires a data user to provide an explanation where the information he supplies is not, without that explanation, intelligible. We have used the word "intelligible" deliberately. We cannot go as far as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, suggested and require people to translate jargon, because jargon—alas!—to one person is plain English to another. What matters is that the information is intelligible. At the moment this is the best we can do to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. I hope that the House will feel disposed to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are quite happy to accept the amendment and we are grateful for the thought that has gone into following up the suggestion of my noble friend and the noble Viscount to whom the noble and learned Lord has referred.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his acceptance of the basic principle of this amendment. Perhaps I may press him slightly further because I discovered in the guidelines to the European Convention that under Point 13 there is something called "the individual participation principle", which covers this point. It says that an individual:
" … should have the right to"—
414
and one of those rights is to have communicated to him data relating to him. Then it says:
" … in a form that is readily intelligible to him".
I am not sure what the persuasive power of guidelines is, but I should have thought that the presumption would be that, unless there was some objection, it would be reasonable to include the word "readily" in this form of amendment. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can give his opinion on that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, very strangely some words have crept into this amendment which should not be there. They are the words
"in paragraph (b) above".
In effect, the amendment is an extension of paragraph (b) and, therefore, with respect, I say that those words should not be there.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, may I take on board what my noble friend Lord Renton has said and consider it in due course? I think that on my feet and at this hour I would be unwise to commit myself.
I am not sure that the word "readily" really adds much to "intelligible". It sounds a phrase which is capable of rather wide interpretations which might lead to inconsistencies in different cases. But I take note of what the noble Viscount says and will pass it on to those responsible for the draftsmanship. At present I am not very attracted by it; but for the present at any rate I hope that the amendment will be accepted in its existing form.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("under subsection (1) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I would take this, if I may, with Amendment No. 55. We have already approved one amendment aimed at clarifying exactly the information that a data subject is entitled to receive under Clause 21. These two amendments seek to make further minor improvements to these provisions. Clause 21(1) entitles an individual both to know whether data are held about him, under subsection (1)(a), and to a copy of the information constituting the data held about him, under subsection (1) (b). Subsection (2) then goes on to provide that a user need not give any information except in response to a request in writing and on payment of a fee. The first amendment eliminates all possible doubt that subsection (2) refers to any information, whether under (a) or (b). It avoids all possible argument that the entitlement under (a) existed regardless of whether a request was submitted in writing and a fee paid. I rather doubt whether that argument could have been sustained, but it seemed right to eliminate any doubt about it.
The second amendment addresses a more substantive point. It was brought home to us, as we looked at Clause 21 in the light of the Committee debate, that subsections (1) and (2), as drafted, offered a loophole. A data subject, in seeking access to data, might well phrase his request in such terms as, "Do you hold any data about me?". If that were the request, an

415
unscrupulous user might interpret it as a request to be informed merely of whether data were held about a subject under subsection (1)(a) and not for any information under (1)(b). He might therefore reply, "Yes, I do hold data on you", pocket the fee, and insist on another fee if the data subject subsequently asked for access to that data.
The amendment therefore makes it clear that a single request, and therefore a single fee, is sufficient to obtain information under (a) and (b) of subsection (1); and it also makes sure that whether a data subject asks, "What data do you hold on me?", or, "Do you hold any data on me?", in either case he will be entitled to a copy of the information constituting the data. We therefore present these amendments as a further clarification, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 17, line 36, at end insert ("; but a request for information under both paragraphs of that subsection shall be treated as a single request and a request for information under paragraph (a) shall, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, be treated as extending also to information under paragraph (b).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 18, line 22, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember our little discussion in Committee when the drafted phrase "twenty-eight days" came under criticism from my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He suggested 60, and I thought 60 was too long but agreed that 28 might be too short. We think that 40 is about right. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for accommodating us in this respect and, indeed, for arriving at exactly the same figure as we did eventually.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 18, line 28, leave out ("except that it may take account") and insert ("together with an indication").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient, my Lords, to discuss Amendment No. 60 at the same time. The effect of these amendments is to make sure—if the certainty does not already exist in the Bill as drafted—that the data subject gets all the relevant data and that there could be no attempt to launder or sanitise any of the transcriptions of the hieroglyphic content of the data which would exist at that stage in hieroglyphic form. If the Minister can show that that would not be possible under the Bill as drafted, we should certainly not seek to press the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment is aimed at a provision in the Bill that is designed to take
416
account of the special circumstances in which computers are used for processing personal data, and we had some explanation of that from my noble friend Lord Mottistone in Committee. We must be careful here. The object of these provisions is to give access to the data subject, but we must not disregard the needs of the computer user and legislate in a way which places unrealistic burdens on him.
When a data user receives a request for data access, he is required to supply the information he holds at the time he receives that request, but there is one caveat to that. The user cannot be expected to deal with the request absolutely immediately because of the process by which data users deal with their material. They deal with requests according to a method of operation, and we must therefore provide a mechanism whereby the data user, on receiving an access request, does not have to drop everything at once to deal with it but can go on with his normal operations until a convenient point is reached for processing the request.
In doing that we must also make sure—and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is on to a good point—that the user cannot abuse the access arrangement by changing the data supplied to the subject in such a way that any embarrassing or incriminating contents of the files are deleted. That is what Clause 21(7) is about; it allows a subject access request to be received and dealt with at a convenient point, while in the period between receipt and processing normal data processing by the user continues. In those circumstances, the user can provide the data subject with the data about him which takes account of changes made in the interests of keeping the data accurate and up-to-date in accordance with the user's normal operations.
The changes proposed in the amendment would alter that. They would require the user to supply the subject with the data held at the time when the request is received, together with changes to the data made in the period between receipt and supplying the information. For a moment we must consider the implications for the user of doing that. He would be faced with Hobson's choice; he would either have to stop all other operations immediately on receipt of a request for access and deal with it immediately, before any changes could be made, or, alternatively, he would have to keep a record of every change he made so that when he came to process the access request he could, as it were, subtract the changes made since the request was received from the data as he now found it, and so supply it as it was, together with the changes subsequently made. In practice either of those courses would place an intolerable burden on users.
What is suggested does little I feel to enhance the protection for a data subject. Under the Bill as drafted, only changes made in the normal course of the user's operations can be made between the receipt of the request and supply of the information; so the subject will not suffer from that. Clause 21(7) has therefore been very carefully designed to steer a course that ensures that subjects will get what they are after in terms of access, but will not involve the user in highly expensive interference in his normal operations.
I cannot say that I have said everything which would satisfy noble Lords opposite, but I hope that I have

417
explained the policy in such a way as to give them reasonable satisfaction.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that highly complex statement, which we shall consider in due course, perhaps at an earlier hour of the day. It is likely that we shall approve of it. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
10.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert ("whether because of the frequency with which the applicant has made requests to the data user under those provisions or for any other reason").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises from an amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which would have removed from a data user the requirement to comply with a request for access to the information held about him if that request, by reason of its frequency or nature, was frivolous, abusive, vexatious, or malicious. I resisted that proposal on the ground that the terms employed were not easy for the courts to construe, and on the basis that Clause 21(8) provided the court with an adequate opportunity to consider more broadly whether access was reasonable in the case in point. But there arose in debate some discussion as to the possibility of frequency and vexatiousness being dealt with separately in the context of applications for subject access, and I agreed to consider further whether the provision in Clause 21(8) was adequate to allow the court to consider this aspect.
There does not appear to be any way in which the subject access right could reasonably be limited by the consideration of vexatiousness. The mere fact that an applicant for access may be ill-disposed towards the user is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether access should be granted, and it would certainly be wrong to attempt to restrict access merely because an applicant was ill-disposed. If one tried to do that, it would seriously undermine the rights conveyed by Part III of the Bill.
But vexatiousness can be made apparent by the very frequency with which requests for access are made. Those of us who have had to deal with vexatious litigants in one form or another will, I believe, recognise the truth of that. Clause 21(8) already absolves the court from granting access if it considers in the circumstances that it would be unreasonable. The amendment serves to remind the court that among the factors which might render such a request unreasonable is that of very frequent requests for access.
In determining reasonableness in this context therefore the court will be likely to consider, as the registrar is invited to consider in the interpretation of the seventh principle—see for instance, paragraph 5(2) of Part II of Schedule 1—whether the data are of a kind likely to alter frequently, and whether the information of which they consist is likely to be of such significance
418
to the data user concerned that very regular access might be desirable.
This amendment is a marker put down for the courts to consider this aspect. It in no way requires the courts to decide against very frequent access, nor inhibits them from considering other factors. I think that I have said enough to explain my purpose, which is to make to my noble friend such concessions as I think it is proper to do in relation to the rights of the data subject. Therefore I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am once again grateful to my noble and learned friend. It was because of this amendment that I withdrew Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. Amendment No. 56 may pop up again for consideration in another place but that need not bother your Lordships now. I am grateful and very satisfied with what my noble and learned friend has done.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be considered frivolous at this late hour but, strictly speaking, if we use the words "for any other reason", we do not need to state reasons at all. It really means "for any reason". But one accepts the intention of my noble and learned friend's amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, for what it may be worth, I notice that in Section 1(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1959 there is added to the words,
"satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently"
the words
"and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatiously legal proceedings".
I do not know whether the addition of those words would be of any further assistance in this matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble friend for pointing out possible matters which will both be considered. The real point is that subsection (8) of Clause 21 already gives the courts a fairly broad discretion. In Committee, I was quite well satisfied with the discretion they are given. We thought that as frequency was a factor which recurs again and again in frivolous or vexatious applications, we could draw the attention of the court to frequency as a special consideration that they might care to take into account. I do not think I can take it further than that this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably a convenient moment to break for the night. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  PRINCES RISBOROUGH LABORATORY: TRANSFER SAVINGS
  PRINCES RISBOROUGH LABORATORY: TRANSFER SAVINGS
  TOLLS: ESTUARIAL CROSSINGS
  TOLLS: ESTUARIAL CROSSINGS
  ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION: CODE OF PRACTICE
  ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION: CODE OF PRACTICE
  TRADITIONAL URBAN PROGRAMME CIRCULAR 23: APPROVED PROJECTS
  TRADITIONAL URBAN PROGRAMME CIRCULAR 23: APPROVED PROJECTS