Sitting of 30 January 1984

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

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the costs, and what are the estimated savings per annum, achieved by the existing energy conservation schemes in Great Britain.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Government expenditure at 1979–80 prices on energy conservation from 1979 to the end of the current financial year will exceed £330 million. During that time energy efficiency has improved so as to reduce final energy consumption by an average rate which is equal to around £700 million per annum at current prices.
    Mr. Rathbone: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's answer and will also wish to thank the noble Lord who has this subject under his wing. Do those figures compare favourably, or unfavourably, with the return of about 30 per cent. which seems to be achieved in Northern Ireland? One must bear in mind that expenditure there is much less and the saving is much less, but that is perhaps a higher percentage.
    Mr. Walker: Different regions have different potentialities, and results differ very much according to the
    2
    nature of the heating and energy used in any area at any one time. I assure my hon. Friend that there is the closest liaison between myself and the Northern Ireland Office and that any good ideas for progress are exchanged and used together.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: How do the national figures compare with those of other EEC countries?
    Mr. Walker: I have not obtained comparative figures for this period, but generally speaking this country has not done as well on energy efficiency as a number of our major competitors, and there is considerable progress to be made.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that energy conservation could be enhanced if the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 were amended so that there were both maximum and minimum permitted temperatures for such establishments?
    Mr. Walker: I personally would rejoice at that, in particular for offices, shops and other areas where the heating is exceedingly high. However, this matter is the responsibility of those concerned. I hope that a careful study will be made by all commercial and other organisations of the manner in which they could introduce a much more effective energy policy without creating conditions detrimental to the comfort of their staff.
    Mr. Orme: Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that energy conservation creates jobs as well as saving energy. Can the Secretary of State tell us what role the newly formed energy effeciency unit will play in coordinating energy efficiency within his Department?
    Mr. Walker: It will play the fullest possible role. I am pleased to say that the initial programmes to contact those who make decisions on energy efficiency in different parts of the country have created a considerable response and a great deal of activity. As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is much potential for creating jobs in this sphere.

    Coal Output
    Mr. Burtasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of coal output in the European Economic Community was produced by the United Kingdom in 1982.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): British coal accounted for half the coal output of the European Community in 1982.
    Mr. Burt: The Government's investment in the coal industry puts our level of investment, both in money terms and on a per tonne basis, ahead of that of our EEC counterparts. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite what is said by the prophets of doom, and although there may be much to do, the future of the industry is not as dull as some might think?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. We invest more than any other European producer. We produce more coal and we have a lower average production cost. No doubt for those reasons we now have a positive export trade with Europe amounting to about 5 million tonnes per annum. I trust that that progress will be followed up in new markets.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Why do we have a common agricultural policy under which we are compelled to buy food from within the EEC, when, although we produce 50 per cent. of the coal output of the Common Market, countries in the Common Market purchase coal from other parts of the world?
    Mr. Shaw: The opportunity for the sale of United Kingdom coal within the Community is greater now than it ever has been. That is one reason why there is great demand for the type of hard coal that we produce. I do not believe that there is any real relationship between the agricultural policy and the prospects for coal sales.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: If we did not have to put so much money into keeping uneconomic pits open, would there not be more money to put into new capacity and new pits, or do those schemes not exist?
    Mr. Shaw: I believe my hon. Friend recognises that world demand for coal is low and that world coal supplies are high. There will undoubtedly be a period during which an adjustment must be made. That is the line which the Coal Board is pursuing.
    Mr. Boyes: In a written reply to one of my questions last week the Minister informed me that we were importing 3·5 million tonnes of coal. If there is a lack of demand, why do we have to import coal, while at the same time shutting pits? As the Minister is aware, a pit in my area is to be closed. Would it not be better to keep it open than to import 3·5 million tonnes of coal?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the import of certain coals has always been a feature of our industry. He must equally recognise that 95 per cent. of our indigenous coal requirement is met by the National Coal Board, and that is the significant figure.

    National Insulation Plan
    Mr. Berminghamasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce a comprehensive national insulation plan.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): There is already a comprehensive set of measures to promote insulation. If the hon. Gentleman has any further suggestions, I. am ready to consider them.
    Mr. Bermingham: How does the Minister reconcile his Department's campaign with the lack of incentives because of the cut in availability of grants for the domestic consumer for insulation, and with the failure by his and other Departments to develop a capital grants system in the private sector to encourage householders to install energy conservation techniques and facilities?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring what is happening. This year we are spending about £40 million on the insulation of lofts, pipes and tank lagging, and more will be spent in the next financial year. In that and other ways a considerable amount of money is being spent and I believe that that expenditure is well worth while.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend do more to make known to the public the latest welcome extension to the Homes Insulation Act, so that people will know that more help is available?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, that is important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hopes to announce early in the next financial year a new topping-up scheme for loft insulation. I shall consider whether there is adequate publicity, because it is an important scheme.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister take note of the problems which many people, including my constituents, face over the effect of cavity wall insulation foam on timber-frame houses? Will he bring pressure to bear on his colleagues in the Government, who have so far said that they will not put pressure on building societies which are not now supporting buyers of timber-frame houses which have suffered severe damage as a result of deficiencies in the foam insulation programme?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is related more to the building regulations within the construction industry. He will no doubt follow up the point with my hon. Friend at the Scottish Office who is responsible for the construction industry.
    Mr. Orme: Does not the decision of the Welsh Office fly in the face of what the Minister has just said? When did he become aware that home insulation grants had been cancelled for the remainder of this year by the Welsh Office? What action will his Department take to reverse that decision?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that during the next financial year £4 million will be spent in Wales on the home insulation scheme. That is nearly double the amount spent in the present financial year.

    Domestic Energy Supplies
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many consumers are being assisted by the standing charges concession.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received concerning the abolition of standing charges.
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on standing charges.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The rebate scheme operated by the industries is currently benefiting around 1 million gas, and up to 2 million electricity, consumers. Representations have been received, but the principle and broad level of gas and electricity standing charges have been confirmed by independent consultants' reports.
    Mr. Durant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer and the help given by the Government in persuading the nationalised industries to lower standing charges. Will he look at the new proposal to read meters only every six months and to do an estimated reading for the other three months, which may cause difficulty for the elderly and those on low incomes?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Meter reading is a matter of concern to the electricity and gas supply industries. One does not want difficulties to be created for older people, and I shall discuss the matter with those responsible in the industries.
    Mr. Greenway: As each year the elderly pay the equivalent of a month's pension in standing charges, will my right hon. Friend press the industries to abate standing charges for old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, both the gas and electricity industries already operate rebate schemes which keep the amount of the standing charge to no more than 50 per cent. of the total bill, which is of enormous help. Through the various schemes to give help to those who need it, the Government are spending about £350 million this year. That is probably the most effective way to make sure that help reaches those who really need it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that it is not only the elderly who have to suffer, but all those on low incomes? Is he further aware that families throughout the country are shivering in the cold and hanging over their fires in the hope that they can gain the necessary heat to keep alive? What is the Minister doing for them? Is it not fair to say that the Government have turned a blind eye to those people's problems?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman forgets that if the total cost of standing charges were put on the tariff rate that would bear particularly hard on many low-income groups, particularly those with large families and those who are dependent on only one form of heat, such as electricity. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that when his party was in government it commissioned a report in 1976 called, "Energy Tariffs and the Poor", which stated that abolition would not necessarily help those most in need.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider yet again the principle of standing charges, not for emotive reasons, but purely because it is a foreloading charge which does not reflect use and therefore does not encourage conservation?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In addition to the report commissioned by the Labour Government, the matter was considered recently in relation to both the gas and electricity industries. Both reports are available in the Library. They show that there is a good and sensible justification for standing charges, but it is important that
    6
    the level of those charges is watched carefully. It is significant that while there have been recent increases in gas and electricity tariffs, it is proposed that standing charges should not be increased at all.
    Mr. Cartwright: Has the Minister seen the evidence produced by Age Concern, and other organisations, which suggests that the Government's 50 per cent. standing charge rebate scheme encourages pensioners to cut down their consumption to try to get the benefit of the rebate? Does the Minister regard that as acceptable?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is not just the rebate scheme. As I said, about £350 million is being spent to help the less well off, including pensioners, and many pensioners benefit from that. That shows that the Government are giving the help where it is needed. I hope the hon. Gentleman also recognises that in the November increases the heating allowance was increased by 8 per cent., which was much more than the increase in tariffs.

    Petrol (Lead Content)
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the effects on national energy costs and petrol consumption of the proposed reduction in the lead content of petrol.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The reduction of lead to 0·15g per litre will not affect petrol consumption of vehicles. But the British refining industry is having to invest some £250 million to maintain the present octane rating of petrol and will need an extra 500,000 tonnes of crude oil a year to produce its present volume of petrol.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of evidence which has been given to the Commission's study group looking into these matters which shows that by the mid-1990s the increase in the amount of petrol consumed in the Community because of the move to lead-free petrol will absorb the entire output of the North sea? Is he further aware that the cost to the average motorist, mile for mile, will increase, adding 60 per cent. to his petrol bills in the next few years? In view of the evidence of Professor Elwood of the Medical Research Council that no damage is caused to the health or intelligence of children because of lead levels in the blood, the fact that 250 of my constituents have been put out of work by the Government's decision on this matter will not be welcomed by them.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is true that there will be certain increases in petrol consumption, but I ask my hon. Friend to put this matter into perspective. The figure of 500,000 tonnes of additional crude oil needed to achieve the reduction of lead in petrol to 0·15g per litre represents only about 2 per cent. of total annual petrol demand. I believe that, on the medical evidence and the evidence that we have had from the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Government are right, first, to move towards the 0·15 g per litre level and, subsequently, to lead-free petrol. That is certainly a measure that I support.
    Mr. Speller: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's point about the reduction of lead in petrol and the ultimate reduction to zero, I must say that the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) are not

    7
    shared by the majority of my constituents, who look forward to totally lead-free petrol and argue the cost case by asking how it is that in the two great motor manufacturing countries, the United States and Japan, lead-free petrol is the standard rather than the exception.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is worth looking at that point, but it is important that we look at this issue on a European Community basis as well. There is virtually one market for the motor industries of the Community. I hope that the Community makes progress. A report is expected from the Commission in April, and I hope that definite action will follow.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Minister agree that the time has come for Britain to show some foresight and give a lead in encouraging engine manufacturers to go totally diesel in four or five years? Although Ministers may laugh, surely it represents the opinion of engineering designers to believe that the way to overcome all the environmental problems which have been mentioned with regard to petrol engines is to move towards diesel engines for passenger cars.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman at least welcomes our objectives of reducing the level of lead in petrol by January 1986 and by 1990 getting rid of it altogether. My immediate task is to try to carry that programme forward. I shall leave any question of the merits of petrol and diesel engines to others to work out. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will raise that point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

    Solar Energy
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy what research is being undertaken by the European Community into solar energy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The European Community's second energy research and development programme included spending some £27 million on solar energy applications in buildings, electricity production, the use of plants as fuel and fundamental research into biological processes dependent on sunlight.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that solar energy offers the best long-term prospects for permanent and cheap sources of energy for the benefit of all mankind? Will he and his European colleagues consider some initiatives in this important field in collaboration with the United States and the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree that there is considerable scope for solar energy, but it must be considered alongside other forms of alternative energy, such as wind power. It is necessary that this is done on a wider basis. Our co-operation with programmes in Europe means that the evidence gained is of advantage all round. Although it is interesting to examine solar energy, I wish that in the part of Britain which I represent we had more evidence of the sun's power which we could use than we have had in recent weeks.
    Mr. Hannam: Has my right hon. Friend received any encouraging reports on the research into geothermal energy being carried out at Camborne?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In this country that is one of the most encouraging areas of alternative energy and one for which we have a very large and continuing investment programme. The results are indeed encouraging.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if the miners' overtime ban has had any effect on the amount of funding from the taxpayer required by the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the financial loss in coal production and in tonnage he has been advised the National Coal Board has suffered since the commencement of the overtime ban in the mining industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The chairman of the NCB has said that output lost because of the overtime ban totalled about 4·2 million tonnes to 20 January and that if the ban continues until the end of the financial year it could increase the NCB's loss by £80 million. The Government will need to consider whether the effect of the ban on the board's profit and loss account requires an increased payment of deficit grant. The ban has had a favourable effect on the board's cash flow and hence on the PSBR.
    Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anything that adds to the board's difficulties in achieving a return to profit must be a serious matter for the long-term future of coal? Does he further agree that in the short term, however, the miners must be feeling the effects? Can he tell us the amount that they have lost in wages?
    Mr. Walker: In the period to which I referred the miners lost £38 million in wages. If the overtime ban continues until the end of the financial year the NCB will have lost £80 million on its profit and loss account, but the miners will have lost more than that in wages.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures are disputed and that it is argued that since the overtime ban began the board has lost 22 million tonnes in production and about £240 million in revenue? Does he agree that it is time that the NCB returned to the negotiating table'? Is he aware that the NCB's submission in the wages negotiations shows that it polluted the discussions by bringing in the subject of pit closures? Will he now act to bring the NCB and the unions back to the negotiating table?
    Mr. Walker: It is for the NCB and the NUM to decide how to settle the dispute, but miners working underground currently receive £58 more than they did in the last week of the Labour Government and more in real terms than they earned when the present Labour candidate for Chesterfield was in charge of the coal industry.
    Mr. Skeet: Is there not a credit item involved in that the cost of coal stocks is currently £6 per tonne and as the ban continues the 57 million tonnes of coal stocks in this country will gradually be reduced?
    Mr. Walker: Stocks at the power stations are very substantial and higher than they were a year ago, but in view of the importance of maximum efficiency and competitiveness in the coal industry it is tragic that a dispute of this kind should continue.
    Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State commented on the revenue aspect of the overtime ban. Will he comment

    9
    on the capital aspect in relation, for example, to the Solsgirth and Bogside pits on the boundaries of my constituency, where the community is worried that the NCB may use the dispute to threaten pit closures?.
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone, if maintenance work is not carried out there is a considerable threat to the future of pits. I hope that careful consideration will be given to that aspect. I have no need to remind the hon. Gentleman that investment by the NCB is currently very high. As I have said before, only the investment programme in "Plan for Coal" has been adhered to.
    Mr. Orme: Is it not time that the Government intervened in the dispute to bring the two sides together and indeed joined in the talks so that meaningful discussions may begin at once?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. At present, people can examine and compare miners' wages and earnings with the past and with the rate of inflation. The National Coal Board the National Union of Mineworkers should settle the matter, and politicians should not intervene.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will bring forward plans to reorganise the coal industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Marlow: If my right hon. Friend has not already done so, will he consider the possibility of leasing individual or groups of mines to the miners within them, so that they have more control over their future and employment and can help to reduce the losses in the industry?
    Mr. Walker: If at any time miners wish to approach the National Coal Board along those lines, I am sure it would be willing to listen to them and to consider the advantages and disadvantages that there might be.
    If the question were whether the Government plan to reorganise the collieries, I can say that our aim is to ensure that the considerable investment that has been made produces an efficient coal industry with a good future for the miners.
    Mr. Wilson: Given the number of pit closures already in Scotland, the expected drop in coal burn and the new economic criteria used for the closure of Polmaise colliery, what do the Secretary of State and the National Coal Board intend to do about the Scottish mining industry, and what proportion of it will remain after they have had their way?
    Mr. Walker: In the pit mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and the other pits there is an agreed procedure between the NCB and the NUM for an examination on a pit-by-pit basis of any closure proposals. That is taking place now.

    Electricity Prices
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to raise electricity prices at his next meeting with the chairman of the Electricity Council.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on electricity prices.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Electricity Council has recommended to area boards that domestic electricity prices should rise by 2 per cent. from April and that tariffs for larger users should be held at their present level. I have regular meetings with the chairman of the council, and this has been one of the subjects discussed.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How did the Secretary of State respond to the statement by the Electricity Council chairman, Mr. Phillip Jones, that the 2 per cent. increase was unnecessary? Is it not true that because the Government lack the courage to raise taxes through direct or indirect taxation in their annual Budget they are using the energy industries to raise taxes?
    Mr. Walker: That is a remarkable question from a supporter of a Government who raised electricity prices by 2 per cent. every five weeks. Our proposal is a rise of 2 per cent. on domestic prices only over two years.
    The chairman made it clear to the Select Committee that the council considered that it was unnecessary, but decided to accept the suggestion because it knew that the Government considered it would be a safe way of meeting the external financing limits set by the Government. We are considering a sum of £70 million on a total turnover of billions of pounds. It will be interesting to see where the correct judgment lies.
    Mr. Orme: Did not the Coopers and Lybrand report which was commissioned by the Secretary of State's predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, recommend that tariffs be reduced by 5 to 10 per cent. and that there should be a freeze for several years? Why does not the Secretary of State publish that report so that the public can see it?
    Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the report has been made available to all members of the Select Committee. It has not been published because the information it contains was obtained on the basis that it was commercially confidential. All previous Governments have done that. We have not tried to hide it from the Labour party or anybody else. Members of the Select Committee were given copies of the report so that they could study it fully, and doubtless they have discussed it with the right hon. Gentleman.
    As to the result of the report, we had a freeze last year, and in real terms there is a substantial reduction in electricity prices this year. Our record compares favourably with that of dear old Socialist France, where electricity prices rose 12 per cent. last year and where there is another application for 5 per cent. now.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that it will come as a bitter blow to consumers, especially those on low incomes, to learn that, instead of the recommended reduction, electricity prices will be increased again in April? Why should consumers be penalised because the right hon. Gentleman lost the argument with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Cabinet?
    Mr. Walker: Last year there was a total freeze. This year there will be a reduction in real terms. People on low incomes will have their allowances increased by far more than the increase in electricity prices. If that is a bitter

    11
    blow, all I can say is that the hon. Gentleman remained extremely silent during bigger blows every five weeks under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the chairman of the Electricity Council, who told the Select Committee last week that the industry would have preferred the raising of financial targets as an incentive, as that would have allowed it to improve efficiency still further, and that electricity prices should have been increased only as a last resort if the industry could not improve its internal efficiency?
    Mr. Walker: That is a matter of judgment. The Electricity Council decided to do this. The Government put forward the anxiety that if the calculations were slightly on the wrong side, the increases that would be needed later in the financial year would be much steeper. After consideration, the industry, which has ultimate powers over price increases, recommended the 2 per cent.
    Mr. Madden: Have not this Government, who are taking more in taxation from the British people than ever before, leant on the electricity industry to increase prices—a move which is wholly unnecessary and undesired by the industry? If the Secretary of State was so opposed to this increase, would there not have been more respect for him in the House and outside had he resigned rather than run around complaining to journalists about the wonderful fight that he put up against the increases?
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman holds such views, he should not have stood at the last election in view of the fact that the Labour Government increased electricity prices by 170 per cent.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that large industrial users, which are relieved that the prices have been held, are concerned more about the maximum demand tariff than about percentage increases of this order? Has he discussed this subject with the Electricity Council?
    Mr. Walker: As I think my hon. Friend knows, we have had considerable discussions with the industry on this topic, and a number of major improvements have been made. Discussions are continuing with the interested parties.

    Coal Liquefaction
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress being made on Government plans for the liquefaction of coal.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Considerable progress has been made since the hon. Member last raised this subject. Babcock Woodall Duckham has been working since last November on the specification, design and costing of the NCB's 2·5 tonnes per day coal liquefaction pilot plant. The Government and NCB are making equal contributions to this phase of work, which is expected to be completed in the autumn. Good working relationships have been established, and I am pleased with the progress being made.
    Mr. Dormand: Is it not significant that yet again the Minister refuses to give any figures? Why are the Government so stubborn and doctrinaire about an issue on which there is widespread support for public investment
    12
    in such a project? Is it not ironic that a country such as ours, with massive coal reserves and some of the best scientific coal expertise in the world, should be trailing rather than giving a lead in this important matter?
    Mr. Shaw: I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures. He will recognise that much progress has been made, as evidenced by my original reply. He is, however, right that this is an important technological development. For that reason, great care has been taken to ensure that in the pilot process the technology is correct. Some changes have already taken place. That is why this is taking longer than both the hon. Gentleman and I would wish.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When will the project come into production? Is the Minister aware that when it does it will give an immense boost to north-east Wales, where, in the county of Clwyd, unemployment now totals 24,000?
    Mr. Shaw: I note the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. He will be aware that the chairman of the board recently visited the plant. The board will assess the results of the pilot work and will then decide whether to proceed with the next stage—the full production unit. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance as to when that will be, but no doubt as soon as favourable results are obtained.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation to provide a scheme of Government assistance with energy conservation, including insulation and double glazing and fuel economy measures for houses in the private and public sectors.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government already have adequate powers for the promotion of energy conservation in the domestic sector. Many of the measures available to the householder are very cost effective.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, as far as it goes, but how would he explain to my constituents why, in almost every other Western country, including other members of the European Community, help for desirable fuel economy measures is available from the Government? In West Germany there is even assistance with double glazing, which greatly reduces fuel costs.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said earlier, our home insulation scheme is being extended in the next financial year to cover topping up. We are spending about £40 million a year on various forms of insulation. In addition, the Community insulation projects, the support that we are giving to the Open University home energy audit and a host of other projects add up to a good combination of Government and other efforts.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Government Policy Statements
    Mr. Jannerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take steps to ensure that, wherever practicable, statements on Government policy on matters of public concern are made orally to the House.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The Government are

    13
    always mindful of their responsibility to keep the House properly informed, and oral statements will, where appropriate, continue to be used for this purpose.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that following assurances given to the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health that a statement on Government policy would be made, a written answer was given instead and the Ministers concerned gave their statements on behalf of the Government to the press upstairs in this building? Bearing in mind that the Minister for Health assured the House, no doubt inadvertently, that copies of the answer were available to hon. Members at that time, which was incorrect, so that the House was misled, will the right hon. Gentleman apologise to the House on behalf of the Government and the Minister and give an assurance that that sort of absolute scandal will not recur?
    Mr. Biffen: On the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, statements are frequently made in the written rather than the oral form. That has always been the practice, and I have no reason to believe that it will be otherwise in future. On the second part of the question, I will look at the hon. and learned Gentleman's detailed allegations and write to him.
    Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. Friend occasionally lift the veil of secrecy which seems to surround impending statements in the House? He is good enough to tell us on a Thursday the business for the following week and he sometimes tells us weeks in advance when we can expect the Budget statement, but we normally get only two or three hours' notice of ministerial statements, and then only if we are in the House at lunchtime. Obviously some ministerial statements have to be made at short notice, but others are prepared well in advance. It would be helpful to hon. Members if we could have a little more notice of them.
    Mr. Biffen: The code of practice that we adopt has been followed over many Parliaments, but I will look at the matters raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that on many occasions Ministers in Departments covering England and Wales make statements in the House and are questioned on them, but the equivalent statement for Scotland is made by the Secretary of State to the press in Scotland? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland always makes an equivalent statement in the House?
    Mr. Biffen: No, I cannot give that undertaking. If this causes material dissatisfaction, I am sure that it can be pursued through the usual channels.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is there prior consultation with the Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government information before oral statements are made? Would not such consultation have helped to avoid the gaff made by the Foreign Secretary in his statement about GCHQ last week?
    Mr. Biffen: Ministers are primarily responsible for the statements that they make in the House. Any prior consultation is that which is considered appropriate.
    Mr. WilsonDoes the Leader of the House not realise that he is a usual channel of communication in relation to statements? Will he note the points that have been made
    14
    about the exasperation of Scottish Members'? The Secretary of State for Scotland is a bad offender in the making of surreptitious written replies.
    Mr. Biffen: I do not accept those comments about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I gave a measured and serious reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
    Mr. Pavitt: It is well known that often important statements are made in reply to inspired written questions. Will the Leader of the House make arrangements at Cabinet level with all his colleagues to ensure that, because these statements are known at least 24 hours beforehand, they are issued through the usual channels to Opposition spokesmen?
    Mr. Biffen: I have no reason to believe that there will be much merit in disturbing a long-established and existing practice; but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Skinner: Notwithstanding all the other requests made to him on this matter, will the Leader of the House deal with one specific question? Will he ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on how much her son got out of the Cementation deal in Oman?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but I am afraid I cannot add to the reply that I have already given to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).

    Second Chamber (Reform)
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government are planning any study of possible areas of reform of the Second Chamber.
    Mr. Biffen: The Government have no present proposals to do so.
    Mr. Rathbone: While in no way impugning the role or function of the other place, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider what steps are necessary to protect the future of the other place so that it may maintain its function and role in the future as it has in the past? Will he consider setting up a Royal Commission or some such body to ascertain what steps are necessary?
    Mr. Biffen: I should have thought that the best way to protect the future of the other place was to do as little as possible about it.
    Mr. Maclennan: To what aspects of the proposals for the reform of the Upper House put forward by Lord Home of the Hirsel do the Government object?
    Mr. Biffen: The Government's position was made clear at the general election. We reject the fundamental changes that Lord Home of the Hirsel had in mind. May I say, on the point that I made previously—not a jocular point—that the best way of preserving the other place is to maintain it roughly in its present form?
    Sir John Biggs-Davision: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend's position, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient Northern Ireland representation in the other place, and may fresh consideration be given to ending the exclusion of peers of Ireland?
    Mr. Biffen: That raises considerably wider issues, but I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the point that my hon. Friend makes.

    Sales Kiosk
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what were the takings of the sales kiosk outside the Members' Cafeteria over (a) the four-week period to 23 December 1983 and (b) the 12-month period to 23 December 1983; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman of the Catering Committee.
    The takings in the Refreshment Department's souvenir kiosk in the four-week period and the 12-month period to 23 December 1983 were £122,759 and £313,517, respectively. These figures include value added tax.
    Mr. Greenaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the services of the much-improved kiosk are widely appreciated on both sides of the House, as are the services of those who work in it? Will he confirm that a wide variety of people avail themselves of the facilities of the kiosk and that the remarkable takings he has mentioned have come not solely from the pockets of Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the very hard work put in by the staff during the year and in the run-up to the Christmas period when the business level was so high. I confirm that advantage of this kiosk has been taken by a broad band of people within the Palace of Westminster, both Members and staff, and the profit arising from it helps the Catering Department in its trading position.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was looking forward to the opportunity of asking the Leader of the House whether, when he had occasion to wander past the kiosk, the same reflections passed through his mind as passed through mine—namely, that the sale of momentos may be good enough for the impoverished owners of stately homes, but that it is far below the dignity of Parliament?
    Mr. Shepherd: I am not entirely prescient of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and certainly I am not aware of the goings on in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the dignity not only of the merchandise offered but of the operation. It is very much appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members, officers and servants of the House, who are proud to be associated with the House of Commons and wish to give gifts and make purchases of items associated with it.

    Restricted Areas
    Mr. Speedasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list those areas of the Palace of Westminster which were restricted to Members of Parliament and officers of the House 15 years ago but which carry no such current restriction.
    Mr. Biffen: The only two changes in the last 15 years are that the secretaries of Members with rooms in Commons Court building are now permitted to use the lift
    16
    in that building; and Members' secretaries are permitted to collect mail from the Members' post office until 2 pm on a Friday on which the House sits.
    Mr. Speed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It seems to me and to many other right hon. and hon. Members that there is a plethora of research assistants and others, not least in the Corridor from the Members' Lobby through to the Members' Cloak Room. This seems to me to inhibit not only security but the character of the Corridors of the House.
    Mr. Skinner: They are new Members.
    Mr. Speed: By now we know the new Members. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that only hon. Members and the others referred to by him are allowed in these various Corridors?
    Mr. Biffen: I agree that most right hon. and hon. Members aspire to having a retinue of secretaries and research assistants, and this gives rise to the great difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. The question of access is under consideration by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, to which I shall make known my hon. Friend's views.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Recruitment
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his policy on recruitment to the Home Civil Service.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): To ensure, within the requirement of open competition on merit laid down in the Civil Service Order in Council 1982, that those appointed to posts in the Home Civil Service are best suited by aptitude, ability and, where appropriate, experience to undertake the work required of them.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the recent study by the International Monetary Fund, pointing out that Britain today has more civil servants per head of the population than any other country? If so, why are we recruiting civil servants?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As my hon. Friend knows, we are having considerable success in bringing down the size of the Civil Service and now have the smallest Civil Service since the second world war. The IMF study is seriously inaccurate and misleading. The IMF will be amending its report. One of its major errors is that the numbers shown in the functional analysis as being in the administration are 440,000 too many, which is not much bigger than the total size of the non-industrial Civil Service. That report is not an accurate guide and should not be followed.
    Mr. John Morris: In view of the repercussions on recruitment, will the Minister lay in the Library of the House copies of the orders recently made about the GCHQ under the Employment Protection Act and also the legal justification not only for the orders but for the agreement that employees are invited to sign not to join a union—or to resign from a union—and not to discuss with any trade union official conditions at the GCHQ?
    Mr. Hayhoe: These are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

    17
    I shall ask him to make sure that these documents are available in the Library of the House, if they are not available already.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend say whether candidates for the Civil Service are told that civil servants are likely to enjoy index-linked pensions for all time?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that all the conditions of employment are drawn to the attention of would-be civil servants before they undertake employment in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, does the hon. Gentleman realise that many people take great exception to the sort of sneering that has been directed towards civil servants this afternoon? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, as we do, the important input made to the Civil Service by, for example, those working in the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security, who are now dealing with far more people than ever before because of the high number of unemployed people and the consequences thereof?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I heard no sneering from any part of the House about the conduct of civil servants. The absurdly exaggerated and emotive comments that we have heard in relation to recent Government action are wholly unjustified. The loyalty of civil servants is not in any way being questioned. From this Dispatch Box I have often paid tribute to the work done by them, in many parts of the country and in many different ways.
    Mr. Marlow: Why is it not possible to recruit more people from outside into the senior levels of the Civil Service so that Government can receive advice as to why things should be done as well as why they should not be done?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Some such recruitment takes place. I am always anxious that there should be as big an interchange as possible between those in the Civil Service and those in industry and commerce. I am glad to say that under this Administration the position has improved, and I trust that it will continue to do so.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister for the Civil Service tell us whether he was consulted by the Foreign Secretary prior to last week's statement on Cheltenham? For the benefit of applicants to the Civil Service, will the hon. Gentleman say which sections of it now prohibit trade union membership?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Minister for the Civil Service is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that she was fully aware of the decisions that were announced last week.
    Dr. McDonald: Is it now part of the Government's Civil Service recruitment policy to withdraw arbitrarily the freedom to join trade unions? Does the Minister accept what General George Keegan, formerly of United States Air Force Intelligence, said on the "World At One" yesterday about the United States Administration being delighted with the decision to ban trade union membership? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will enter into serious negotiations with the trade unions before taking the extreme step of finally withdrawing the freedom of those civil servants to
    18
    join trade unions, instead of entering into further discussions with the American Government, as the general also suggested?
    Mr. Hayhoe: There is another question later on the Order Paper about a meeting that has been arranged with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Wednesday at the request of the Council of Civil Service Unions. I am sure that those discussions will be serious and responsible on the part of all those who take part in them.

    Management Policy
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent advice on policies of good management he has given to Departments.
    Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and noble Friend and I, with Sir Robin Ibbs and our officials, offer Departments advice, as appropriate, on all aspects of management, with particular emphasis being placed in recent months on ways to improve financial management and control in line with the Government's financial management initiative, progress on which was set out in the White Paper which we published last September.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister believe that the decision to abolish trade unions at GCHQ is conducive to good management throughout the Civil Service? Will it hinder or help good industrial relations?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The action taken at GCHQ, which was announced last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, was absolutely in tune with, and based on, the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which were introduced by the then Labour Government. The administrative action that was taken was precisely the same as that taken, as I understand it, by the Labour Government with regard to other groups in the security and intelligence services.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the MINIS system has been of value in the management of Civil Service departments? Does he have any plans to extend the programme throughout the rest of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I think my hon. Friend is aware, a considerable effort is being made to extend MINIS-type systems throughout the Civil Service. I am glad to be able to report that good progress is being made.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister think again about his answer? Has not industrial action already been stimulated by the Government's action at GCHQ? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that union leaders have made it clear that they were prepared to discuss with the Government in public a no-strike clause and the removal of industrial tribunals relating to GCHQ? In the light of that, would it not have been better to have discussed these matters with the trade unions and reached an agreement on such difficult topics prior to making a decision?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I said earlier, a meeting has been arranged for Wednesday between the Prime Minister, some of her ministerial colleagues and leaders of the Civil Service trade unions. I shall say nothing today that might in any way affect that meeting.

French Meat Imports (Restriction)
Sir Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement on the ban on imports of meat by the French.
The Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): We understand that the French Government yesterday restricted the number of points of entry through which fresh pigmeat and all live food animals may be imported into France. On hearing of that possibility, I immediately expressed our concern direct to the French Minister of Agriculture, when I met him last Friday, that nothing should be done to impede the normal flow of trade and sought clarification of precisely what was entailed. He agreed that our officials should meet to discuss the detail, and that meeting will take place this afternoon.
Sir Peter Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Is he aware that if the ban continued it would seriously affect producers of cattle, sheep and pigs, especially in the south-west of England? Will he redouble his efforts to clarify the position with the French Government, especially that relating to the ports?
Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be genuine reasons for banning imports of food, such as foot and mouth disease, water in milk and Newcastle disease? Does he further agree that it would be unfavourable to both sections of the Community if there was a tit-for-tat war?
Mr. MacGregor: As we understand it, it is not a ban but a restriction on the number of points of entry. I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel that it is a total ban. I accept entirely his first point. It is important that the trade should be well aware of what is happening, and as soon as we clarify the details we shall make them known. I recognise that my hon. Friend has a great interest in these matters, and I will let him know exactly what we discover.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I agree that there should be genuine reasons for such action. It is worth recalling in this context, however, that there is nothing illegal or wrong in principle about restricting the number of ports of entry for meat. There may sometimes be good reasons for that—it all depends on how it is done. That is what we shall try to clarify this afternoon.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no benefit to either side in engaging in a trade war. That is especially important to the United Kingdom because, I am glad to say, we have an expanding export market, and it is important to insist on a proper flow of trade.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that if this is a genuine restriction by the French because of foot and mouth disease or swine fever, we would support it? After all, Britain has very high standards and we would allow no dimunition of them. But if the restrictions are simply a masquerade in an attempt to apply trade restrictions, strong action must be taken to ensure that there is a proper movement of trade.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I agree with both his points. That is why we shall this afternoon try to clarify the precise details of what is being proposed.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend seriously consider bringing in a regulation that all
20
French wine must be shipped through the port of Fowey in Cornwall so that the labels can be inspected to determine whether the animal glue used on them might introduce a disease to the United Kingdom? Such an idea might have great material influence on the French when they consider the advisability of the steps that they are taking.
Mr. MacGregor: The important point, with respect to my hon. Friend, is that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) about the importance of not impeding the legitimate flow of trade, because we should certainly not benefit from that. We must find out in this case whether the measures that the French Government are taking are reasonable on health grounds or whether we feel that this is an unnecessary imposition on the free flow of trade. We must clarify those details first, before considering exactly what view we take of the proposals.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister make doubly sure that this is not yet another example of Gallic gerrymandering? If he suspects even for a moment that it is, will he reduce to nil the number of ports through which it is possible to bring in the poisonous UHT milk?
Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the first question is yes, Sir. The answer to the second is that we give careful consideration to the number of ports that are permitted for the importation of UHT. There are 17, which we think is broadly the correct number, at which we have the proper inspection systems for examining health and other implications.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the timing of this ban, in view of the nature of the agricultural protests that are going on in France, leads one to suspect that this is nothing more than pandering to the agricultural lobby there? Is he aware that that is how it will be seen by farmers here? Is he aware, therefore, that it is of the utmost urgency that he clears the ground as quickly as possible so that the proper flow of trade can continue?
Mr. MacGregor: To make the position again clear from the point of view of our traders, we are facing not a ban but a restriction on some points of entry. I hope, therefore, that traders will not feel that it is not possible to export fresh pigmeat or live food animals at this time. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we establish precisely what the reasons and motives for this move are, that we clarify any problems and remove any fears. That is why I expressed concern direct to the French Minister—I had the opportunity, fortunately, to meet him face to face on Friday—and made it clear to him that we were anxious that nothing should be done to affect the normal flow of trade and that, as soon as we had the details, we could assess exactly that point. In response to me, he underlined the point that he was doing it for animal health reasons.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: How can there be any ambiguity about what the reasons are? Why did the Minister, when he met his French counterpart, not clarify this issue once and for all? Will he make a statement to the House on the subject in the next 24 hours.
Mr. MacGregor: The procedure by which a statement is made is not for me. It was extremely difficult to

21
establish over the weekend precisely what was being proposed, and it was only yesterday that the announcement was made in France. I reported what the French Minister said to me, but obviously it is a detailed matter; we must look at the number of ports involved and see the exact pattern and so on. That is what our officials are trying to do this afternoon. It is more complicated than just a simple ban, and we shall be giving serious consideration to what we discover as a result of the meeting this afternoon.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does this ban apply to other countries in the EC? If so, should we not be discussing it with other countries, it being a matter for the whole of the EC and not one just between Britain and France?
Mr. MacGregor: That is correct; it does apply to other countries. The reason that has been given for it is the fear of contaminated imports as a result of foot and mouth disease in the Netherlands. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, under a Community decision, meat and certain meat products may not be exported to France and other member states from those areas in the Netherlands which are now subject to foot and mouth disease restrictions. The Commission, I know, is also looking into the matter to establish the details, and if necessary we shall consider raising the issue at the next Council meeting.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is this restriction or ban—whatever one cares to call it—another benefit that we have gained as a result of our entry into the Common Market? Can the hon. Gentleman recall how much we were promised by the Social Democrat types and others who dragged Britain into the Community in 1971? I am waiting to hear of the benefits that we are getting. All we seem to get from Government spokesmen on the subject is a load of misery.
Mr. MacGregor: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that our meat exports are expanding all the time and that we are benefiting in many ways from our membership of the Community. That is why we are anxious that there should not be artificial restrictions on that increasing flow of trade.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be delays at the ports where the restrictions are in force and that this will have an effect on the amount of beef that is able to pass through them? As there were problems in the recent past about the entry of the meat through the French ports even when they were all operating, will he ensure in the course of his investigations that there is a faster movement of meat through the ports? Any diminution in the time that it takes for it to pass through is important, and I urge my hon. Friend to make the necessary representations to the French authorities. Any waste of time will seriously affect the meat, including that which comes from Scotland, especially from my constituency.
Mr. MacGregor: I accept that there should not be undue delays in the importation of the products affected into France. It was precisely for that reason that I raised the issue so quickly on Friday, and that is why we shall be having a meeting this afternoon. I think that my hon.
22
Friend will agree that we could not have acted more quickly. Once we have the precise details we shall be following them up.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Could my hon. Friend at the earliest possible opportunity calculate the additional cost by commodity in terms of the delay in distribution and publish the details in the Official Report? Would he agree with me that the underlying reason for this ban or restriction has much to do with the recent insurgency of the French agricultural lobby and with the fact that the common agricultural policy is running out of funds, and that the way in which we should proceed is to have more national agriculture policies within the CAP so that individual countries are better able to look after their own farming interests?
Mr. MacGregor: These are extremely early days and we are not sure at this stage whether any meat has been restricted. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to table a question in due course, I shall attempt to answer it. I cannot make any comment on his second point at this stage. I shall be unable to do so until we have further details. On his third point, I do not believe that we should return to a heavy dependence on state aids as distinct from having a common agricultural policy because of incidents such as the one that we are discussing. That is not the right way to meet the problems that we are facing.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister referred earlier to the number of ports of entry for UHT milk, which he thought was about right. Is there not now an entirely new situation and ought we not to be reviewing the number of ports of entry for UHT milk as a way of levying pressure?
Mr. MacGregor: We have 17 points of entry, which we think is right for UHT milk. These are the ports where we have the machinery for the work that is necessary. I think that we should wait to see how many points of entry will continue to be available to meat exporters to France before we even begin to consider judgments of the sort suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said, a tit-for-tat trade war would not be in the interests of either party. That is why I put the emphasis on not impeding the flow of trade.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that I called the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in error. I should have called the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), and I do so now.
Mr. Mark Hughes:: Can the Minister assure the House that he is satisfied that this action is not a riposte to the campaign in The Sun and by other elements against the French manipulation of regulations? If the discussions with the French authorities bear fruit, will he ensure that the opportunity is made available—I see that the Leader of the House is sitting next to the Minister—for a statement to be made in some form tomorrow?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I have no evidence that that is so. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's representations have been heard; perhaps we can discuss the matter, if necessary, in the usual way.

Penrith and The Border Constituency
3.44 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that, as required by section 144 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, I have received the certificate and report of the election court in the case of the petition alleging corrupt and illegal practices in the Penrith and The Border constituency by-election.
The judges have determined that the petition be dismissed and that the hon. Member for that constituency was duly returned at the said election. I shall lay both documents on the Table, together with the shorthand writer's note, and will cause the full text of the two documents to be entered in the Journal.

Members Declarations of Interest
3.45 pm
Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday, in response to requests from hon. Members, I undertook to give further consideration to the question of Members' interests. There are three matters which it would be helpful for me to make clear to the House.
The first relates to the declaration of the interests of Members' children in the Register of Members' Interests. In the introduction to the last published register, the registrar states that Members are not required to disclose
"the interests of spouses or children, except in certain circumstances relating to shareholdings".
The rule about registering shareholdings is confined to the holdings of infant children. There is, therefore, no interest to register in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
The second matter concerns the declaration of interests in the House. I reaffirm what I said last Thursday. It is contrary to our practice for interests to be declared during questions and answers.
Finally, I remind the House that the events to which reference was made on Thursday took place in 1981. I am not aware that anything has taken place in the present Parliament which is contrary to the rules of the House governing direct declarations of interests. Those rules have not changed between the last Parliament and the present one. Comment on what took place in a previous Parliament is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit a new point of order in the light of the ruling that you have made today? You have referred to the Register of Members' Interests, but my point of order on Thursday was far more closely related to declarations of interest to the House, and specifically to the Prime Minister's decision not to declare an interest directly after my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) had put their questions but before she replied.
Paragraph 293(3) of the "Manual of Procedure" says:
"A declaration should be made where appropriate at the beginning of most oral interventions in proceedings. This covers participation in debate in the House or in standing committee and at meetings of select committees, where a Member is required to declare his interest before putting a question to a witness and before the commencement of an inquiry, in order to cover the committee's deliberative proceedings."
Then it states:
"It is not necessary to declare an interest before asking a supplementary question."
That is the basis on which I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, have made your ruling today. I put it to you, however, that if the term
"most oral interventions in proceedings"
is so specific that it excludes specific oral intervention by asking a supplementary question—in other words, it is not required to declare an interest in asking a supplementary question — it must surely include oral answers. One must differentiate between an oral answer and an oral question. An oral answer is a statement to the House of Commons. Surely it is not in order for a Minister making a statement or giving an answer to the House to claim the rights and privileges which can be attributed to an oral question.

25
I shall illustrate how I differentiate between the question and the statement by referring to the intervention of the Minister for Health on glue sniffing on 15 December 1983. He was referring to a written answer which had been referred to by some as a statement. He said:
"Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed true that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security today answered a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about glue sniffing. That was the intended statement of policy that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had in mind. I am sorry if the use of the word "statement" misled the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) into believing that it meant an oral statement, but I believe that one can find plenty of precedents for the repeated use of the word "statement" to mean written or oral statements to the House."—[Official Report, 15 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 1179.]
What I am saying is that, the moment the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box, she was making an oral statement in reply to an oral question. As such, that oral statement cannot claim the privileges that relate to an oral question.
There is another precedent. It is a question that I believe was put down orally on 3 March 1981 by the late Sir Graham Page, in which he asked the Prime Minister whether she would make a statement about Lord Diplock's first report on the interception of communications in Great Britain. She did so. She replied. Therefore she made a statement. She referred to
"Lord Diplock's first report as monitor of the arrangements for interception". — [Official Report, 3 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 64.]
I will not go into the details of the reply. All these precedents—there are many of them, and indeed, the Minister for Health refers to the precedents — clearly wished to differentiate between questions and answers. If that is the case, surely it is in order for hon. Members who feel strongly about this matter to ask you, Mr. Speaker, once again having looked at this matter from the basis of a question, to reconsider the position with a view to establishing whether it would be the same if my original point or order had related specifically to an answer or statement.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the House has never enforced the order on the declaration of interests against its own Members? There is, in fact, at least one right hon. Member who refuses to comply with the Standing Order as to the Register of Members' Interests, and the House has taken no action to enforce that order.
Is it not, moreover, the case, Mr. Speaker, that, if Members were required to declare in the register or in debate the interests of adult children, that could not be done unless the House made an order, which it has never made, requiring adult children to declare their interests to their parents? Without that, their parents could not be under an obligation to declare an interest. I should have thought that that follows as night follows day. If the House wants to extend the existing rules on declaration of interests, it should surely start by enforcing them against its own Members.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I think that it is fairly clear that a Member is not required to declare an interest on the basis upon which you have ruled, I wonder whether the House has envisaged
26
circumstances in which Members might like to seek to uphold the honour and integrity of public life by declaring their children's interests?
If I could refer it to you, Mr. Speaker, paragraph 53 of the Select Committee's report on Members' interests states:
"It will also, of course, be perfectly possible for a Member, if he or she thought it right and relevant to do so, to disclose any particular interest held by his wife or her husband or children."
In my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, where the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) goes wrong is that he does not recognise that in this case last week military sources confirmed diplomatic sources that the Prime Minister knew about the particular interest involved in this case. Therefore, I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that through you, she ought to be encouraged to make a voluntary declaration or, if she does not want to do that it might be right for the House to consider reconvening the Select Committee on Conduct of Members to inquire into what happened.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who raised the matter on Thursday, I am grateful to you for the careful consideration that you have given to these matters. I should like to ask whether you would be prepared to give further consideration to the matters that have been raised today, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Those matters are most important for guidance to hon. Members and also for refining and clarifying the precedents upon which registration and the declaration of interests should be made. We must draw a very careful distinction between the registration of interests upon which hon. Members take various views and the declaration of interests in the House during its proceedings.
I repeat the part of the 1980 edition of the "Manual of Procedure" to which my hon. Friend drew attention:
"A declaration should be made where appropriate at the beginning of most oral interventions in proceedings."
We are asking, Mr. Speaker, whether you will consider whether written replies and replies to oral questions constitute statements. If they do—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: They do.
Mr. Madden: If they do, Mr. Speaker, after you have considered those matters, it would follow that, in future, declarations of interests would appropriately be made when such statements were made to the House.
The circumstances have been made exceptionally difficult because of the refusal of the Table Office in recent days to accept questions on those matters. Hon. Members have been left with no other option but to raise them at Question Time. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Pure malice."] Therefore, we believe that if a statement relating to those matters is made by a Minister—whether it is the Prime Minister or any other Minister—a declaration of interest would be justified. I hope that you will be able to give further consideration to those matters, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ron Davies: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the evident determination of the Prime Minister not to make a statement in the House and understanding your previous ruling, would it not be of enormous benefit to the House, the Prime Minister and the country if Mr. Mark Thatcher made a statement on the matter?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling you mentioned three different reasons, the last of which was that you could not be held responsible for what happened in a previous Parliament. We all understand that. You will appreciate, however, that at the time of the case of Reginald Maudling, arising out of the Poulson affair, the bankruptcy and so on, a Select Committee dealt with the matter and reported to the House. A vote was taken in the House. That was in a different Parliament from the one that was sitting when the events took place. Some of the occurrences in the Poulson affair took place over a much longer period. Therefore, I should have thought that there were circumstances in which what happened in a previous Parliament was bound to affect the next Parliament.
One of the reasons why we consider that it is important that a statement is made is in respect of the amount of money that Mark Thatcher received.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: How does the hon. Gentleman know how much he received?
Mr. Skinner: For instance, the late Tony Crosland might have been called upon to divulge the fact that he got a silver coffee pot worth a3 few pounds. In the Reginald Maudling case, his son Martin was involved. The Select Committee referred to Martin Maudling at length, not because he had received a small amount of money, but because he was a director of OSB and ITCS. It would be helpful if we could ascertain how much Mark Thatcher received. If he received a six-figure sum, as has been suggested, I and many other hon. Members believe that a statement should be made in view of the connection between Mrs. Thatcher's lobbying and her son acting as a consultant.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are serious and sensitive issues, and I am grateful to you for your careful statement. As your statement covered three separate aspects of the matter, you will not be surprised that a number of supplementary questions have been asked and that we will want to give the matter a great deal of serious consideration. I hope that in turn you will give further consideration to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who began the supplementary questions.
In the meantime, can you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that you have made your ruling solely on the basis of the relevant resolutions and precedents of the House and that, like the rest of us, you had no access to any facts or purported facts in this case, including whether Mr. Mark Thatcher joined the Prime Minister in Oman and whether any financial consideration was involved in his relationship with the firm of Cementation Ltd.? Can you confirm also that the matters that have been raised with you involve the rules of conduct of Ministers of the Crown just as much as, if not more than, other hon. Members and that responsibility and accountability for the conduct of Ministers of the Crown lie with the Prime Minister and not with you, Mr. Speaker?
The Select Committee, which in December 1974 produced the rules upon which the declaration of Members' interests are made and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred, specifically envisaged circumstances outside the rules where
28
"It will be…possible for a Member, if he or she thought it right and relevant to do so, to disclose any particular interest held by his wife or her husband or children."
Although we will want to consider further the implications of your ruling and considerations of change in the compilation of the Register of Members' Interests, is it not plain, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution of those important questions requires that a statement be made now by the Prime Minister, and that it is right and relevant for her to do so?
Mr. Speaker: I must say to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other hon. Members who have raised points of order that I went into this matter as the House would expect me to go into it —with immense care. It is my duty to uphold the rules of the House as they are. My statement was based squarely upon the Register of Members' Interests and the nine specific classifications under which hon. Members are required to register their interests. I do not believe that there would be any merit in my making a statement beyond that. Those are the rules as they exist. I believe that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that if the House wishes to change the rules it has the remedy in its hands.
Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It can do so. It is my duty to uphold the rules as they are.
There is a distinction between the Register of Members' Interests and ministerial register. I regret that I know nothing about the latter, as I have never been a Minister. It is not for me to interpret it, nor have I any knowledge of what those interests are. I cannot go further than I have gone today.
Mr. Ioan Evans: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the matter was first raised, reference was made to The Observer article in which allegations were made against the Prime Minister, that her son was involved in financial dealings. You, and later the Leader of the House, said that there would be other opportunities for this matter to be raised in the House.
Can you advise us, Mr. Speaker, how the matter can be raised? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said, it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for the conduct of Ministers. Yet questions have been put to the Prime Minister and she has repeatedly refused to answer the allegations, which, as far as we know, may be wrong. The fact that she is not willing to deny the allegations makes everyone think that there is someting in them. Will you give us a ruling on how we can raise this matter in the House so that the Prime Minister can make a statement to clear up the position?
Mr. Speaker: It is not my function to advise hon. Members on tactics. I am sure that many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans), who has been a Member for as long as I have, know that there are numerous opportunities to raise these matters on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In making your remarks to the House you did not reply specifically to the grounds for my new point

29
of order—that there was a difference between what I submitted today and my case to you the other day, when we were referring specifically to parliamentary questions. Today's point of order relates to a parliamentary answer or perhaps a statement. Will you consider accepting my application and returning to the House in a few days with a view to commenting upon the way I have sought to differentiate between those two different parliamentary terms?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of interpretation. I shall look carefully at the hon. Member's points. On Thursday, the hon. Member asked me a different question. He is now distinguishing between what is an answer to a question and what is a parliamentary statement. As far as I know, it has never been the practice of Mr. Speaker or the House to call on hon. Members to declare an interest at Question Time, but I accept that it is occasionally done. I have heard some hon. Members say that they represent a union or that they have an interest in some type of company. The main register of interests is kept in the Register of Members' interests, the latest edition being 17 January 1983. I shall examine what the hon. Member has said, but I do not believe that I can add much to what I have already said today.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to the House if the Leader of the House, after time for consideration, were to make a statement to the House on the rules relating to ministerial conduct.
Mr. Speaker: If the Leader of the House is not prepared or anxious to do so, there is nothing I can do about it. I can go no further than I have on this matter today.

Orders of the Day

  Data Protection Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is, in fact, the second occasion within a year that the Second Reading of a Data Protection Bill has been moved in this House. I do not deny that it is a fairly formidable Bill. It deals with an intrinsically difficult subject which is further complicated by technical matters with which many of us will not be familiar. If I may say so, however, we should not be put off by that. The aims of the Bill are, I think, clear and straightforward and indeed common ground to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We do not have to be experts in computer technology, or fluent in the jargon of mainframes and minis and micros and optical character readers, to understand the implications of the Bill for the protection of the individual and the enhancement of his rights. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not allow the apparently technical nature of the subject matter to obscure the importance of the Bill as a protection both for individuals and for the business community.
  First, I should put the Bill in context. Within the last decade — indeed, within the last couple of years — technology has advanced in ways which are bewildering to the layman. Yet it is increasingly coming to have a direct effect on all of us. Developments which, until recently, were in the realms of remote scientific theory are now of clear practical application. More and more office workers operate what is known as the "electronic office". Employees are now used to their personnel departments holding staff records on computer. Hon. Members will be familiar with the facilities of the computerised information system run by the Library. Commerce, industry and the Government are performing an ever-increasing number of tasks with the use of information technology of some kind or other. Wherever we look its impact can be seen, and it is clearly here to stay.
  This is an area in which Britain is in the vanguard of technical developments and application and one in which, with demand ever increasing, there are great opportunities. Inevitably, however, with the benefits come also disadvantages and dangers. Above all, developments in information technology have revealed how easily and rapidly information can be manipulated, collated, transferred and retrieved, and that information may include sensitive personal information. It is entirely understandable, therefore, that the proliferation of the technology has led to a certain unease and that there is some anxiety that personal information is collected about us all from unknown sources, stored in data banks and used for all sorts of purposes of which we are unaware.
  Concern about the potential threat from computers is real but I must stress that the threat is still primarily a potential one. Actual instances of abuse, though not unknown, are still few and far between. In my view, the important thing is to guard against abuse in the future and eliminate the concern that might otherwise grow into a real impediment to the use of the technology.

  31
  This joint aim of protecting the citizen while actively encouraging the use of the computer has been shared by successive Governments. It was a Labour Government who set up the Lindop committee in 1976 to advise on legislation. Without that committee's acute analysis of the complexities of the problem, legislation would have been well-nigh impossible. In 1981, this Government committed themselves to legislation and followed that up with the first Data Protection Bill published in December 1982.
  It is not only in this country, of course, that concern has been felt. As long ago as 1968 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe addressed a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers expressing concern about whether, in the context of automated data banks, the European convention on the protection of human rights and the domestic law of member states provided adequate protection for personal privacy. This recommendation led to others and ultimately to the European convention on data protection, which was opened for signature in 1981 and which the the United Kingdom has signed but cannot ratify until we have our own legislation in place. The OECD has also been active in this area, producing a set of guidelines governing the protection of privacy and trans-border flows of personal data which the United Kingdom endorsed in 1981.
  This international concern adds a new dimension. Business depends more and more on the free flow of data — often personal data — between countries. This free flow of information must continue if business is to flourish. At the same time, however, the threat to the individual becomes potentially greater when data are used not only at home but in other countries and in circumstances over which the subject, and often the person passing on the information, has little control. In recognition of this, the convention and the guidelines both confirm the right of countries which have introduced data protection safeguards to restrict the flow of personal data to other countries which do not offer comparable protection.
  Ratification of the Council of Europe convention is therefore of prime importance on two grounds. First, it will reassure people in this country that when computers are used for the storage and use of personal data there are special safeguards for individual privacy which are well up to the international standard.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have been following with interest the Home Secretary's comments about protection of individual privacy, but is not the Bill dangerously deficient in protecting the individual against the ever-increasing power of the state in view of the exemptions built into the Bill freeing the Government from restrictions?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but, as he will expect, I shall have a good deal to say about the exemptions later in my speech. I was seeking first to explain the background and purposes of steps which will enable us to ratify the Council of Europe convention.
  As I said, ratification is important for two reasons. First, it will reassure people in this country that when computers are used for the storage and use of personal data there are special safeguards for individual privacy which are well up to the international standard. Secondly,
  32
  ratification will gain us membership of what one might call the European data protection club, thus ensuring a very important commercial interest —that British firms are not placed at a disadvantage in relation to firms in other European countries.
  The Bill is therefore aimed at furthering the interests of two groups: on the one hand, the individual about whom data are held, the "data subject" in the jargon, and, on the other hand, the holder of information, the "data user" in the jargon. Yet clearly the interests of the two may not always coincide. Every safeguard for the subject is a potential burden to the user. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, therefore, it will be vital to remember the need to achieve a reasonable balance, ensuring that the rights of individuals as data subjects are properly protected, without imposing unreasonable burdens on the data users who collect and process personal data.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will clarify certain specific aspects at an early stage. I apologise if he intended to deal with these matters later in his speech, but that may well not be the case.
  Many hon. Members and many members of the public have acquired credit cards. That means that details will be in a data bank somewhere. Two bits of information will be available there: first, the value of the spending and thus how wealthy the person is in general; and, secondly, whether the person is a good or a bad credit risk. Under the legislation, will it be possible for a company to pass information to a subsidiary or associated company, or indeed to a completely different company, either about the credit risk, thus preventing someone who is a bad credit risk from doing business with the other company, or about heavy spending, so that other companies can get in on the gravy train? Like Members of Parliament, many members of the public are inundated with vast piles of junk mail which we could well do without. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Brittan: I think that the answers will become clear if my hon. Friend will allow me to develop and explain what the Bill does and does not do. I should make it clear that anything that the Bill does is done by way of conferring rights on individuals and placing limitations on data users which at present do not exist. The only question is how wide the rights should be and how severe the limitations—that is to say, what the balance should be. At the moment the field is clear for the transmission of information and rights to protection against this do not exist. The principles about which my hon. Friend is concerned will become clearer as I continue. The Bill aims to strike a reasonable balance within the constraints of the convention, ratification of which must be the central target of the legislation.
  At the heart of the scheme established by the Bill lie the data protection principles, the office of the Data Protection Registrar and the public register of data users. Briefly, subject to one or two exceptions, the Bill requires all those who process personal data automatically to register as data users and to set out in the public register certain details of their operation. The role of the Registrar is then to see that they comply with the eight data protection principles which set the standards for the collection, storage and use of personal data.
  Already I have touched on two general areas of concern which have been the subject of much debate in the past and

  33
  will no doubt continue to give rise to controversy. The first point relates to the scope of the Bill, which requires those who process personal data automatically to register as data users. It does not apply to those who keep personal information only in manual form — in old-fashioned paper records. I accept that personal information stored on manual files may pose a threat to the privacy of the individual, but in the Government's view that threat is of a different order from that posed by the automatic processing of personal data.
  As I said earlier, it is the ability of computers to handle vast quantities of information, to link together separate pieces of information to build up a picture of an individual, to search for individuals with particular characteristics, and to do that and much else with amazing speed, which give rise to concern. Information held on manual files is simply not capable of such manipulation and does not give rise to the same anxiety. We need only consider the interest which is aroused the moment information previously recorded manually is put into machine-readable form to see how true that is.
  The distinction between automated and manual files has been recognised from the beginning within the Council of Europe. The 1968 recommendation to the Committee of Ministers related to the implications of modern science and technology for the right of personal privacy. The response from the Committee of Ministers showed that it was in the area of automated data banks that national legislation appeared to provide inadequate protection for individual privacy. The convention itself requires signatories to apply its provisions only to personal data which are processed automatically, although it does leave open the possibility of extending its provisions to manually processed data if any state so wishes.
  I have heard it suggested that elsewhere in Europe the practice has been not to make any distinction between data in automated and manual form—for the law to approach both in the same way—but that is a myth. Throughout Europe automated data have been seen as presenting the principal threat, and national legislation has concentrated therefore on that area, particularly when it comes to enforcement. I could, if necessary, give the House details to support that statement. The Government believe that that is especially necessary in Britain, since we need a scheme which is both practicable and effective. In our view, a system which attempted to cover manual and automatically processed data in the same way would inevitably be cumbersome and bureaucratic in the extreme. It would either be so unworkable that it would be completely ignored, or, if it were applied seriously, it would be very expensive and involve a radical upheaval which would have seriously damaging effects on business.
  On the second point of controversy, I explained that, subject to a few exceptions, the Bill will require all data users — that is those who process personal data automatically — to register. Registration has been criticised by some data users for imposing an unnecessary burden on the vast majority of those who process data in a perfectly proper and acceptable manner for quite ordinary, legitimate purposes. It has been suggested that only those who process particular types of data, or who process data for particularly sensitive purposes, should be required to register.
  First, it is remarkably difficult to separate personal information into sensitive and non-sensitive categories. Sensitivity is a subjective concept. What is mundane to
  34
  one person may be highly private to another. And as Lindop and virtually every other authority on the subject has concluded, even the apparently most unexceptionable information can take on special sensitivity if used in a new context. One's name and address may appear in a telephone directory, but that does not mean one is happy for them to be used by anybody for any purpose.
  Moreover, there are positive — indeed essential —purposes served by registration. The Bill must comply with the convention, article 8 of which provides that any person shall be entitled
  "to establish the existence of an automated personal data file, its main purposes, as well as the identity…of the controller of the file."
  Here I touch on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Registration is an obvious, and I think simple, way of meeting the requirements of that article. Any person wishing to find out whether a particular company maintains a file of personal data may do so by the simple expedient of looking up a public register, which will tell him not only of the existence of the file, but also the purpose for which the data are held. To maintain an unregistered file will be an offence.
  Sir Edward Gardner: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Will he recognise that while the Bill is warmly welcomed by business interests, and especially international business interests, in Britain, there is undoubtedly considerable anxiety, as it is believed that the scope of registration is too wide. In the words of the CBI;
  "It will affect those businesses which were never intended to be or should be the proper targets for this particular kind of legislation."
  Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. There is room for legitimate debate about the exact scope of the registration provisions. He will be aware that, compared with the legislation in its previous form, substantial change has been made exactly in the connection he mentioned to deal with some of the anxieties and to avoid unnecessary registration. If anyone considers that still further changes should be made, obviously the Government will consider them. We have looked long and hard at the necessity for registration and the limitations that can be made. The amendment has been made to deal with the sort of anxiety expressed by my hon. and learned Friend and goes a long way to meet it.
  Positive, indeed essential, purposes are served by the legislation. The Bill must comply with the convention, article 8 of which provides that any person shall be entitled to establish the existence of the file. Registration deals with that, and the person can find out what is on the file.
  As article of the convention specifically requires, among other things, that personal data shall be stored only for specified and legitimate purposes, it is especially important article 5 also provides—this is also of great significance—that data shall not be used in a way that is incompatible with the purposes for which they are held and that they must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to those purposes. Without some form of prior registration of purposes, therefore, it is difficult to see how these requirements could be met.
  Finally, registration imposes an important discipline on users. It will require them to scrutinise the uses to which they put their computers and the purposes for which they hold personal data—to check that they comply with the

  35
  general data protection principles. This in itself will do much to encourage good data protection practice and will generate a climate in which misuse of data is even rarer than it is now. It will be the first key element in the educative role which it is so important the Bill should perform. Many people believe that, on checking these matters, users will be able to reduce substantially the amount of material kept and that that in itself will be a salutory protest and a saving to those who do it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Are not the purposes so general that without guidelines the Bill will be dangerous because people will not know exactly how to specify an intention when accumulating data? For example, data collected at Swansea for the police dealing with traffic matters might then be used by the police in cases that are totally unrelated to traffic. Would not guidelines considerably solve that problem and help the data user?
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt take account of the principles set out in schedule 1. Principle 3 states:
  "Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes."
  Principle 4 states:
  "Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose or those purposes."
  Those seem to me to be quite useful guidelines. Given the necessity to register the purposes, and the necessity to comply with the principles, we are going a long way down the road. We should also bear in mind the registrar's considerable powers to intervene should he consider that the principles have not been complied with. In the first instance those powers enable him to specify the action which he thinks is necessary to ensure compliance, and in the last analysis he will be able to take an even more draconian step. That will become clearer when I deal with the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. and learned Friend may know, Barclaycard is located in Northampton. If someone wishes to find out whether he is on a file, I understand that he can go to the registrar to discover how he appeared on it and what information is held. Will that apply to operations such as Barclaycard? If so, will that not place a considerable cost on operations such as Barclaycard?
  Mr. Brittan: Yes, Barclaycard will have to register as a data user and people will be able to obtain the information—and a very good thing too, because many people are concerned about that. There must, however, be protection the other way. I do not believe that the action required of those who maintain data banks will be an excessive burden. Indeed, if we did not comply with the convention to the extent that the Bill requires, the damage to British industry would be considerable. Therefore, what we propose is a reasonable balance in view of the principle of the rights of the individual in a world in which concern about automated data has been, and is, expressed, and in view of the need to give assistance to British industry. It is difficult to see how the Bill's requirements can be met without prior registration. Registration would also have the positive benefit of imposing a discipline on users.
  36
  I wish to concentrate on the changes that have been made since the Bill was last considered. I said at the beginning that one does not need to be familiar with the language of computer technology to understand the Bill. However, one needs to be familiar with the central concepts of the Bill and the expressions used to describe them. Clause 1 therefore defines those concepts and, by doing so, in effect sets the scope of the Bill.
  A point discussed in some detail in the Committee on the Bill during the last Parliament was whether the legislation should apply to pure word processing operations—that is, operations performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents. The Government accepted that it would be right for such operations to be excluded and an appropriate provision is therefore incorporated in clause 1. I hope that those of my hon. Friends who are concerned about imposing an excessive burden on industry will accept that as an illustration of the way in which the Government have sought to prevent the application of such burdens when no useful purpose is served by imposing them.
  Having defined the central concepts, the Bill, in clause 2, introduces the data protection principles, which are set out in full, along with interpretative provisions, in schedule 1. The rest of the Bill is in essence designed to ensure that those principles are complied with.
  The agency by which compliance is achieved is the independent Data Protection Registrar, who, along with the specially constituted Data Protection Tribunal, is established under clause 3.
  That brings us to part II, which sets out the obligations imposed on data users and the powers of the registrar to ensure that the obligations are met. Clause 4 sets out the requirement for data users to register and to provide certain particulars, including descriptions of the personal data they hold, the purposes for which they hold the data, the sources from which the data are obtained, and the persons to whom the data are to be disclosed.
  Clause 5 backs that up by making it an offence to hold personal data without being registered, or to hold, use, obtain or disclose data in a manner inconsistent with the register entry.
  The procedure for applying for registration, of for the alteration of registered particulars, is set out in clauses 6 to 9, which also set out the grounds upon which applications may be refused. In the light of comments made on the previous Bill, these provisions have been amended to provide that a user shall be deemed to be registered, and an alteration shall be deemed to be made, from the date on which the application itself is made. This means that users will be able to continue with their operations pending the registrar's final decision and will thus not be faced with unacceptable delays or interruptions to their operations. I hope the House will accept that attempt to meet the concern of data users not to have excessive burdens imposed on them or disruption to their arrangements which are not for the benefit of data subjects.
  The registrar's powers to enforce the data protection principles are set out in clauses 10 to 12. The principles are necessarily cast in terms of such generality that they do not lend themselves to direct enforcement through the courts. Instead, clause 10 gives the registrar power, where he is satisfied that there has been a breach of the principles, to issue an enforcement notice specifying the steps that need to be taken to ensure compliance with the principles.

  37
  Before issuing such a notice, however, he must consider whether the breach in question has caused, or is likely to cause, any person damage or distress. Any person who fails to comply with an enforcement notice commits an offence.
  The registrar also has power, by virtue of clause 11, to issue a deregistration notice, the effect of which may be to remove all or part of an entry from the register. He can use this power only when an enforcement notice will not suffice — so clearly it is very much a weapon of last resort. Indeed, we would expect the registrar to issue enforcement or deregistration notices only rarely and when informal consultation and negotiation with the data user have failed to resolve the problem.
  The hallmark of this part of the Bill is to give the registrar sufficient flexibility to respond to any case he faces in the way that the circumstances of that case demand, rather than be tied to a particular response in predefined circumstances which in the event may turn out to be wholly indadequate to protect the subject or may be quite arbitrarily punitive for the user. Given the infinite range of cases with which he will deal, flexibility is vital for a sensible and at the same time effective data protection scheme.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Secretary of State emphasised the importance of flexibility, and so did the Lindop committee, but that committee recommended the introduction of agreed codes of practice. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman in answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), referred to the principles, he did not deal with that matter. Why has he rejected the Lindop committee's proposals for codes of practice?
  Mr. Brittan: If one were to follow that proposal literally, one would have about 50 codes of practice. I regard that as a cumbersome and burdensome way to achieve the objectives. Lindop identified about 50 general sectors which needed to be covered by codes, and it is possible that developments since then have made the position considerably more complex. Apart from that, it is important to ensure that codes are not elevated above the general principles. That is why, instead of statutory codes, we prefer to use the general principles as a single overall code of practice. In my view, that is much less cumbersome and will achieve the same objective in a more flexible and better way.
  Clause 12 also deals with the registrar's powers to issue notices— this time transfer prohibition notices, which relate to the transfer of personal data abroad.
  The remaining clauses in part II deal with a variety of matters, notably the rights of appeal to the tribunal, the registrar's power of entry, inspection and seizure —considerably refined since the original Bill— and the penalties for offences.
  This brings us then to part III, which sets out data subjects' rights and the various remedies available to them. Clause 21 introduces the important new right of subject access—that is, the right of an individual to be informed by a data user if he holds information about him and to have a copy of any relevant information. A data subject who is denied his right of access may go to the court requiring the user to grant access.
  It sometimes seems to me that those who criticise the Bill for not doing enough for data subjects have
  38
  underestimated the importance and novelty of this new right of subject access. Every individual will be entitled to access to information stored about him on computer. I may say that that entitlement is in some respects more comprehensive both than that which might have emerged from the literal implementation of the Lindop committee recommendations, and than that provided in the legislation of some of those countries which are commended to us as being in the forefront of data protection.
  Mr. Wilson: I was interested, when I read the Bill, to see the new legal right that is to be given to data subjects for right of access. However, let us take the example of a housing scheme where there is much deprivation and which for credit purposes, will probably be blacklisted, even though the people who live in those houses do not have any credit records. Would it not be virtually impossible for a person, say, on supplementary benefit or on a marginal wage, with a large family, to go to a court to get an order to see the record of an item which may refer to him? Would it not be better, at least in the first instance, for some power to be given to the registrar to instruct the data user to produce some information and then have the right of access to the court as a fallback provision if there were any problem over ascertainment of compensation or refusal to rectify the entry?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that it would make any practical difference whatever, apart from adding a further complexity. The position is that the right of the user to resist the registrar's requirement would depend on whether the Bill was being properly applied in requiring the information, in the same way as with an application direct to the court. The same issues would arise, and a data user who thought that he was entitled to deny access would refuse it to the registrar and would be entitled to do that, just as much as when the issue was raised before the court. I do not believe, therefore, that what the hon. Gentleman proposes would assist in any meaningful way.
  Clauses 22 and 23 provide a right to compensation where a data subject is damaged through inaccurate data or as a result of inadequate security leading to the destruction or disclosure of data, while clause 24 provides for the rectification or erasure of inaccurate data. This right to rectification or erasure does not depend, as it did in the previous Bill, upon damage having been caused to the subject. That again is a change made in the light of earlier debate and a change made for the benefit of the subject.
  The result is that the Bill enables the individual, first, to have access to data held about him, and, secondly, if access reveals inaccuracy, to go either to the court—or to the registrar, if he prefers — to have the data corrected. These are fundamental and significant new rights.
  Finally, in part III, clause 25 deals with technical questions of jurisdiction and procedure.
  We come now to part IV. This part deals with various exemptions, and its provisions have inevitably aroused more interest than any others. Since the predecessor to this Bill was last before the House, a number of changes have been made involving both additions to and deletions from the list of exemptions. I hope that as a result hon. Members will feel that this part of the Bill now achieves a better balance.
  I shall briefly run through the principal exemptions in this part of the Bill and mention the main changes which

  39
  have been made. First, there are the exemptions from all the operative provisions of the Bill—that is, the data which neither have to be registered nor are subject to the data protection principles, nor to the registrar's supervision.
  Such wholly exempt data are severely limited to three groups. First, there are data relating to national security, which are dealt with in clause 27. That clause was tightened up as a result of the debate in another place last year. Then there are the data covered by clause 33(1)—data which under existing law must be made public—and, by clause 31, data held for payroll and accounting purposes, provided that they are not used or disclosed save in the very limited circumstances specified in the clause. That is a further amendment since the first Bill appeared and it was inserted—again for the benefit of industry—in response to requests for exemption for certain routine and well-understood uses of personal data, particularly when held by small businesses. That is important. The final group of wholly exempt data come in clause 32—data held for domestic and other strictly limited purposes. That exemption was contained in the previous Bill, although some of the conditions in the clause have been modified.
  Those, then, are the only data wholly exempt from the Bill. All other data—including data held by the police —have to be registered, and the registrar can generally demand that they comply with the data protection principles. However, in certain circumstances specified in the rest of part IV, exemptions from particular provisions apply — notably from subject access and from the prohibitions on disclosure of data to others.
  Thus, clause 28 provides exemption from the subject access and non-disclosure provisions for certain categories of data. This clause has attracted a great deal of attention. It has even been represented by some as, in some extraordinary way, eroding individual rights and personal privacy and increasing police powers. It does none of those things and cannot possibly properly be interpreted as doing them. As I said, the Bill creates, for the first time, a general right for an individual to have access to information held about him on a computer and introduces certain controls—again for the first time—over the use of such information. It is thus a positive measure which enhances the rights of individuals and the protection afforded to them.
  Like the European convention, however, the Bill recognises that there must be certain limited exceptions to this right of access if vital functions are not to be prejudiced. Clause 28(1) therefore provides an exemption from the subject access provisions for data held for the purpose of law enforcement or for revenue purposes—but only if granting subject access would prejudice those purposes. Those exemptions are clearly permissible under the convention. Equally clearly, they are not an erosion of existing individual rights. They are a necessary limitation on the newly introduced rights of individuals in order to avoid prejudicing effective law enforcement.
  The same applies to clause 28(2), which places limits on the extent of the new prohibitions on disclosure of personal data. At present data users are at liberty, subject to any obligations of confidence or any professional or ethical restraints, to disclose personal information at will.
  40
  As a result of the Bill, however, a data user will be prevented from disclosing data unless he has registered in advance the person to whom he is making the disclosure.
  Clause 28(2) qualifies that new prohibition where the disclosure is for purposes such as crime prevention or tax collection. In those cases, the status quo is preserved. At present, data users may on occasions disclose information to, say, the police if they believe that they have a public duty to do so and if they believe that that duty outweighs any obligations they may have to the subject of the information. On other occasions they may feel that they should not pass certain information to the police. The decision, however, rests with them, and that is what clause 28(2) allows to continue to happen. It recognises that few data users are likely to foresee the need to disclose data to the police and therefore ensures that they should not be prevented from doing so if the need arises and if complying with the requirement to register in advance would prejudice law enforcement or revenue purposes.
  Clause 28(2), therefore, is merely permissive and allows data users to reach their own decisions on whether to disclose information in certain circumstances; it does not give the police any right to demand the production of information, nor does it place users under any obligation to disclose information. For a proper understanding of the balance and the civil liberties position, it is important to understand and stress that point.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: One defect of linking the rights of the data subject with the exemption provisions is that if there is unauthorised use and disclosure of data with the user's authority, there is nothing to ensure that the subject gives his authority. If data are disclosed without the authority of the subject, there is no right to compensation. There are rights under clause 24 to rectification or erasure, but there is no right to compensation.
  Mr. Brittan: If I have understood correctly the hypothetical circumstances envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the action he describes would be a criminal offence. We can examine that in Committee.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Brittan: No. I must make progress.
  Hon. Members will not expect me to pass on from clause 28 without, mentioning the amendment that was made to it in another place. It is important, because it shows the balance that the Government are seeking to maintain. The Bill originally contained an exemption in clause 28 for personal data relating to immigration control. That exemption was widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being discriminatory, and anxieties were expressed that that perception could affect good race relations. I will not repeat all the arguments. Suffice it to say that although the Government did not accept the basis on which the criticisms were made, we were persuaded that, in the interests of good race relations, to which we all attach the greatest importance, it would be right to drop the exemption. An appropriate amendment was therefore moved and accepted in another place.
  Clauses 29 and 30 deal with exemptions from the subject access provisions—and from those provisions alone—for health and social work data, for data relating to judicial appointments and for legally privileged data.

  41
  I have already dealt with clauses 31 and 32. Clause 33 brings part IV to a close with an assortment of exemptions—either from subject access or nondisclosure—in particular circumstances.
  Finally, part V contains various general provisions dealing, among other things, with the duties of the registrar, the application of the Bill to Government Departments and the police and the territorial application of the Bill.
  The Bill is designed with an eye to the future. We have tried to anticipate the ways in which personal data may be used and to provide appropriate controls and safeguards. Technology is, of course, developing all the time. That is why we have concentrated on the uses to which data may be put, rather than on the equipment which is used.
  Some have suggested that the Bill will impede progress by prolonging the use of manual records, which are outside its scope. I do not think that that will happen. The force of technological progress is so strong that it is ridiculous to believe that the Bill will stop the advance. Besides, I am sure that users will quickly realise that the benefits to be obtained from computerisation far outweigh any apparent inconvenience caused as a result of the Bill. Indeed, I believe that the Bill will, in the longer term, positively encourage the use of information technology. It will reassure the individual citizen that computers can be used without risk of abuse and so remove the fears which can at times impede the process of computerisation where it can proceed only on a voluntary basis.
  Over and above that, the Bill, by encouraging good practice in the general use and protection of personal data, will lead to more efficient and cost-effective data handling generally, which will also be of direct advantage to data users. More and more users whom we have consulted are coming to realise that data protection, if approached in a positive light, can be of real benefit to them as well as to the data subjects about whom they hold information.
  This is the fourth time in little more than a year that a Data Protection Bill has been presented for a Second Reading—twice in another place, and twice now in this House. We always foresaw that the parliamentary debate —and the extra-parliamentary debate stimulated by the introduction of legislation— would prompt us to look again at some of the provisions of the legislation as originally proposed. I think that any fair-minded person would concede that the amendments made since the original Bill first appeared a year ago are evidence both of the Government's willingness to listen and of improvements made to the Bill. It is already a better Bill than it was — and there may well be further improvements still to come. But I hope that it is now on the last lap of what has proved a longer than usual parliamentary voyage.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In one sense, the Government certainly mean what they say when they declare that they are in favour of data protection. They have taken the most strenuous steps to keep private the data that would provide Parliament with explanations of the contents of the Bill that are more adequate than those provided by the Home Secretary today.
  Before the debate, we asked the Government to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee so that hon. Members could have the opportunity to examine witnesses. Far from agreeing to that reasonable request,
  42
  the Government have refused even to move the necessary sessional order so that we could put such a proposal before the House. What do they have to hide? What data are they seeking to protect? Fortunately, the resources of civilisation are not exhausted and after the vote on Second Reading, we shall move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  Mr. Brittan: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on that procedure, will he explain why it is only now, many moons later and after considerable further consultation, that his party has suddenly conceived the idea of the Special Standing Committee procedure? Last year, the Social Democrats were the only hon. Members who asked for it.
  Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary has referred to discussions that have taken place about the Bill since it was introduced last year. Those discussions, far from elucidating matters, have obscured them and the Home Secretary did not always seem sure of the answers to the questions put by hon. Members during his speech. We wanted to give the House the opportunity of using a procedure which has not been tested for a little while, on a Bill which is almost ideally suited to it.
  We have heard great claims from the Government—we heard some again today from the Home Secretary—about their allegedly liberal motives in bringing forward the Bill. We have been told how keen the Government are to protect the privacy of the individual, and individual privacy is certainly at risk. All of us now are collections of digits on so many computers that it is beyond the scope of the citizen to keep track of them—national insurance, National Health Service, Inland Revenue, vehicle licensing, television licensing, local councils, banks, housing departments, police, gas board, electricity board, British Telecom, water authorities, airlines, credit cards, mail order organisations, and so many more that they are literally innumerable. Many of them are at liberty to invade our privacy by sharing information about us with one another. We are victims of a degrading process that turns us all into numbers.
  The Bill makes it far worse. For the purpose of legislation, we are no longer people. In the words of clause 1(4) we have become "data subjects". The Minister used that ugly piece of phraseology nine times in his speech. In the view of the Government we have ceased to be women, men or even persons. We are all data subjects now. That will mean some changes. We shall have to alter Genesis 1.27 so that it says that God created the data subject in his own image. Wordsworth will in future tell us that the child is father of the data subject. We shall learn from Robert Burns that a data subject is a data subject for a' that. In the nursery rhyme the giant will chant, "Fee, fi, foh, fum, I smell the blood of an English data subject," if a data subject has any blood. In the ditty, "Frankie and Johnnie," Johnnie will be saying, "He was her data subject, but she done him wrong." One of our most famous national mottoes will in future be: "An English data subject's accommodation unit is his national security installation." I hope the Standing Committee will strike out this dehumanising jargon wherever it occurs in the Bill.
  The principal objective of the Bill is not to protect the privacy of the data subject. As one might expect from this Government, the Bill is all about trade and money, as the White Paper on which the Bill is based admits. The White Paper says:

  43
  "without legislation firms operating in the United Kingdom may be at a disadvantage compared with those based in countries which have data protection legislation. When the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention comes into force it will confirm the right of countries with data protection legislation to refuse to allow personal income to be sent to other countries which do not have comparable safeguards. This could threaten firms with international interests operating in this country and the activities of British computer bureaux which increasingly process data for customers in many different countries. Accordingly, in order to conform with international standards of privacy protection and to avoid possible barriers to trade, the Government has decided to introduce legislation which will apply throughout the United Kingdom and will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention."
  The previous Home Secretary, Viscount Whitelaw, was refreshingly clear and open about this when on 11 April last year he moved the Second Reading of the Bill that fell with the general election. He said:
  "We must ensure that the information technology industry flourishes. And that is the purpose of the Bill."—[Official Report, 11 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 555.]
  He described that as imperative.
  Without the need to conform to the Council of Europe convention, the Government would never have introduced a data protection Bill at all, yet there are even misgivings about whether the Bill satisfies the requirements of the convention. A Special Standing Committee could have investigated that, and established it to the satisfaction of the House one way or the other. Having had to introduce the Bill, the Government have drafted it to ensure that it contains the very minimum that they can get away with. For example, article 13 of the convention calls on the Government to set up a data protection authority, and the Lindop report, which the Secretary of State praised today quite extravagantly, regarded such an authority as essential, and assigned it a number of important duties, but the Government have rejected the recommendations, and there will be no authority. Instead they are simply to appoint a registrar, and in clause 35 they deem him the designated authority for the purposes of the convention.
  Many different kinds of organisation will have to conform to the system of registration laid down by the Bill. All will be operating such a system for the first time. Some will have little or no experience of complying with central Government regulation. Again, the Lindop committee regarded legally enforceable codes of practice as an integral feature of its proposals, yet the Government have refused to provide codes of practice or an advisory committee, and I must say that I found unconvincing the Home Secretary's attempted explanation of why they had not done so. There could indeed be chaos when the legislation comes into operation because of the lack of experience of operating Bills of this kind.
  The Bill takes credit for giving citizens access to material about them that is held on file, yet, as the Minister frankly told the House today, that access is restricted to material on a computer. A great deal of personal information is not computerised, and individuals will have no right of access to it, even though article 3 of the convention enables any subscribing country to enforce access to such manually compiled information. Although the Secretary of State dismissed that matter today, it was put into the convention not idly, but to enable any willing Government to do it if they so wished. Many important files will as a result be withheld from people who would like to learn what is in them. Organisations could even be
  44
  impelled, in order to escape the legislation, to withhold, or remove, from their computers information that they would rather not disclose.
  The Government also give themselves a blank cheque to withhold any other information that they choose under clause 29(2):
  "The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the subject access provisions, or modify those provisions in relation to, personal data of such other descriptions as may be specified in the order, being information—

  (a) held by government departments or local authorities or by voluntary organisations or other bodies designated by or under the order; and

  (b) appearing to him to be held for, or acquired in the course of, carrying out social work in relation to the data subject or other individuals."

  Even when the law in theory gives individuals access to their files, it provides them with inadequate remedy when such access is illegally obstructed. Under clause 21(8) such people have to go through the whole rigmarole of a court hearing in order to obtain their rights. This will deter many who have no stomach for such a cumbersome, protracted and possibly expensive process. The Lindop committee proposed that the data protection authority which it proposed should be set up should employ inspectors to investigate complaints. That proposal, if adopted, would have provided protection through its deterrent effect, but, of course, no authority means no inspectors. Even so, under the Government's own proposals, why cannot a much simpler procedure be laid down, perhaps through the Data Protection Tribunal that is to be set up? Furthermore, an individual also has to go to court to obtain correction of inaccurate data about him, and must again do so to remedy unauthorised disclosure.
  It is in its disclosure provisions that the Bill is at its most unsatisfactory. It makes little sense to prevent us from seeing some of this material. Why, except in rare cases, may we not examine our own tax files, for example? What about our police files? We were assured by the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison):
  "Much of the information held on the Police National Computer System will be fully within the scheme. fully accessible by the Registrar and fully accessible by data subjects."
  But if such material is so innocuous that potential criminals may be told about it without concern, what is it doing on the computer in the first place?
  What about the information that will not be accessible? Such material may not be accurate. As the Lindop committee put it, criminal intelligence is
  "speculative, suppositional, hearsay and unverified, such as notes about places frequented, known associates, suspected activities."
  The police national computer holds such speculative, suppositional, hearsay and unverified information about 5 million of us. Much of that information may be wrong and could cause damage to innocent people, who will not have the chance to get it put right, when it may be passed from agency to agency, blackening their characters as it moves. This is the experience in the United States of America with FBI records.
  It is not only information about an individual in the hands of the police that may be withheld from him. The Home Secretary can withhold a great deal of other information under clause 33(2):
  "The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the subject access provisions personal data consisting of information—

  (a) the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted by or under any enactment; and

  45

  (b) which appears to him to he of such a nature that its confidentiality ought to be preserved or that the provisons prohibiting or restricting its disclosure ought for any other reason to prevail over the subject access provisions."

  Again, some of the most important safeguards in the Bill are those which it is claimed protect citizens from disclosure of sensitive information about them.
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman made specific mention of clause 33(2). Does he agree that it appears on the face of it that this is such a wide exemption that it could apply to literally all information held by the Government under the provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911?
  Mr. Kaufman: I fear that that is the objective of the clause, and again a Special Standing Committee might have elucidated that information from the Government.
  Although, under this legislation, the Secretary of State can prevent a patient from learning what is in his or her medical file, such private medical information may be passed on to the police behind the back of the patient and even behind the back of the doctor whom the patient consulted. It is incredible that while the Secretary of State devoted quite a lot of time to clause 28, he did not so much as refer to an issue which is immensely contentious and about which all those involved in medicine, including the British Medical Association, feel very strongly.
  Under clause 1(5) the data are not held by the doctor. They are held by the registered user, presumably the health authority. The doctor will have no control over them. The medical profession rightly takes the view that it is quite unacceptable for someone other than a doctor to pass on such information, possibly against the wishes of the doctor or without the doctor even knowing. This is possible under the Bill.
  Patients often tell doctors the most intimate and private details about themselves because it is thought that that may help in their treatment. Doctor Shirley Summerskill put it very well during the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill:
  "A physician who taught me always used to say, 'Listen to what the patient is saying, he is telling you the diagnosis.' The patient tells a doctor not only about the physical complaints, but about his family and his most personal circumstances." —[Official Report, 11 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 622.]
  In future, patients may hesitate to tell and doctors may hesitate to ask, or the information, if it is provided, could be withheld from the case notes. This could have a grave effect on the patient's treatment, and the British Medical Association and other organisations involved in health treatment are right in insisting that it is essential that clause 28 be amended.
  Just as worrying, if not more so, are the provisions of clause 27 which allow any member of the Cabinet quite capriciously to set aside every one of the non-disclosure protections. The clause provides that it may be implemented in any case in which the disclosure of the data is
  "for the purpose of safeguarding national security."
  But how is "national security" to be defined? The next subsection tells us:
  "For the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that personal data are or have been disclosed for the purpose mentioned in that subsection shall be conclusive evidence of that fact."
  The Lindop committee made important recommendations to provide a check on Ministers in such circumstances. It proposed:
  46
  "A simple — and we believe satisfactory — solution to this problem would be to ensure that the DPA"—
  the data protection authority—
  "has at least one senior official with a security clearance sufficiently high for him to be able to operate in effect as a privacy consultant to the Home Office and the security services, and to work out with them the appropriate rules and safeguards for their systems."
  That is a solution which has been adopted in Sweden, apparently to everyone's satisfaction. The Swedish DIB from time to time sends a designated inspector to the security services to ensure that they comply with mutually agreed standards.
  Once again this possibility is ruled out because there is to be no data protection authority. There is to be no outside authority which has the right to say whether this power is used properly. Yet it has enormous implications. In a well-informed article in today's Financial Times, Dr. R. N. Savage, principal lecturer at Trent polytechnic, and Dr. C. Edwards, professor at the Cranfield school of management, envisage one dangerous possibility. They give as an example:
  "a stated purpose of holding data for effective industrial relations may conceal the real purpose of maintaining a blacklist of trade union members."
  Let us consider a more topical possibility. I take the example of an employee at the Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham. Let us postulate that such an employee has accepted the Government's degrading £1,000 bribe to resign from his or her trade union and has signed the repulsive form that accompanies the bribe. Among other requirements, the employee is compelled to sign this undertaking:
  "I … undertake NOT to join a trade union or to engage in its affairs or to discuss with its officials my terms of employment or conditions of service or in any other matter relating to my employment at GCHQ."
  If the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary suspects that some employee has committed the new crime of being a secret member of a trade union, the clause will allow him to obtain membership records of the relevant unions or any other data which he may regard as relevant. The pretext of national security will give the Government the chance to pry into any subject which takes their fancy.
  Where the Bill purports to be benevolent, it is often inadequate. Where it claims to be innocuous, it is often dangerous. Yet what an opportunity the Government had. Britain lags behind other countries in being without any real freedom of information legislation. Britain is woefully inadequate in its legislation to protect privacy. The Bill, as well as advancing trade, could have been a long-awaited freedom of information Bill and a much needed privacy Bill as well. In far too many ways it is a Big Brother Bill. That is why the Opposition will vote against it.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I support the principles of the Bill and believe it to be very necessary and well thought out. I am not in the habit of being seduced by what the Mail on Sunday calls the deep-pile carpet in my office much before 7.30 am, and so this morning I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), Minister of State, speaking on Radio 4. I endorse his assertion that the Bill relates to information recorded and processed by machine. Indeed, so it should. It is not the Bill's intention to deal with manually held and recorded information. Those who seek to introduce controls over manually stored information,

  47
  like those Opposition Members who seek to introduce yet another quango in the form of the data protection authority, fail to understand the Bill's purpose.
  Nevertheless, some aspects of the Bill give cause for concern, and I shall touch on some of them. The Bill was debated for many hours in the other place, and we should be grateful for the time and effort devoted there to this subject. Lord Elton defined three aims for the Bill: the protection of the individual, the protection of the community and the furtherance of commerce and trade. I do not question the need for this country to sign the European convention and to join what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has referred to as the international data club as a full member. But, as Lord Elton outlined, the Bill's first priority is the protection of the individual from the abuse of personal data.
  The scale of possible abuse is perhaps best outlined by events in America since the passing of the Privacy Act there in 1974. The following American Government Departments now hold personal information: the Treasury, the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Defence, Justice, State, Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labour, Energy and Interior, the Copyright Office, the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Personnel Management and many other federal agencies. Each of them has a direct counterpart in Britain. It is estimated that since the passing of the Privacy Act in 1974, American Government Departments on average hold 15 files for each American, exclusive of all records held privately for credit or insurance purposes, clubs and so on.
  What are personal data? In seeking a definition, the other place described it as "the hunt for the unicorn". However, the Bill's very first clause defines personal data as information
  "which relates to a living individual who can be identified from the information".
  I understand that that means that the recently bereaved — the widow, widower or children—are not afforded any protection under the Bill. That is quite wrong and is worthy of attention in Committee.
  Clause 1(7) deals with data processing, which it defines as
  "amending, augmenting, deleting or re-arranging the data or extracting the information constituting the data".
  Does "extracting" permit the copying of data? The dictionary definition suggests that it does, but if copying is permitted, information could be given or sold to another data user who is not registered under the Bill. That defeats one of the Bill's main objects, which is to deny access to personal data to those who are unauthorised to have such access. That point was left unresolved in the other place. However, I feel strongly that copying should be included in the definition, if only to avoid confusion.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says and have great sympathy with his point about copying. Could the term "copying" imply copying machine-readable data or copying by putting the file on to a printer? From my hon. Friend's study of the matter, does he believe that putting the file on a printer would take it out of the Bill's scope?
  Mr. Gale: At present the legislation is not clear. That is the precise point that I am seeking to have defined. I am
  48
  sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will touch on it in his reply. However, I strongly feel that a provision about copying should be inserted into the Bill.
  I turn to the rights of appeal, because the Bill is apparently loaded in favour of the data user and against the data subject. The data user has the right of appeal to a registrar, to a tribunal and to the courts. An aggrieved data subject may appeal to the registrar, but then he may seek redress only through the courts. The question of that procedure was raised in the other place, and Lord Elton simply reiterated the Bill's provisions. We know that the data subject has recourse to courts of law. However, Lord Elton's reply begs the question. If the tribunal is to be cheaper and simpler than the courts—which it is—why cannot the data subject take advantage of its services? No doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will respond to that point.
  The main bone of contention in the Bill is clause 27, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary mentioned. I repeat that the first aim of the Bill is to protect the individual from the abuse of mechanically-stored personal information. If the net of exemptions from the protection of the Bill is flung too wide, there will be no point in having the Bill at all. As it stands, the certificate of exemption may be signed by any Cabinet Minister, the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate. I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friends will abuse that power, but I know of no good reason for them to have it. It makes accountability to the House much more difficult to enforce. Clearly, for security purposes, there must be a certificate of exemption. But it is entirely reasonable that that power should rest only in the hands of the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, who are answerable to the House.
  I also share some of the misgivings expressed about the definition of the prevention of crime. In the United States of America legislation has used the definition "criminal law enforcement." If the words "by a statutory authority" are added to that, one has a definition which excludes the cowboy or fly-by-night detective agency, for example, which could reasonably claim to be engaged in the "prevention or detection of crime." One could also then exclude a firm of accountants which was seeking information ostensibly for the "assessment or collection of any tax or duty." However, even with that safeguard, we are authorising a level of intrusion with apparently no safeguard other than the expression of good or righteous intent. We do not permit such intrusion elsewhere.
  If I understand my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary correctly, he does not concur with my understanding of the Bill — that by exempting those engaged in the enforcement or detection of crime, or those engaged in the investigation of tax matters from the protections given in the rights of access, we are by implication providing a right of access. If I am correct, that right of access should be subject to exactly the same sort of search warrant as the authorities now require if they desire access to someone's home.
  I wish briefly to touch upon two further issues. The two-year period of grace between enactment and registration is too long. It would be possible, and quite fair to the data user, to shorten that period to one year. I also believe that the maximum penalties on conviction are far too low.
  Having said that, it is necessary for the House to have a sense of proportion about the Bill—something that has

  49
  been lacking in some of the comments from Opposition Members. Two countries which have similar legislation, and two companies in those countries, have been surveyed. It was discovered that the most frequent applicants for information were journalists testing the system. Norway and Sweden have had similar legislation in force for some time, but both countries are now revising it because they have found it to be unnecessarily complicated. I cannot help but feel that, in due course, we shall come back to the House to do the same.
  I return to the third point of the Bill, as defined in another place. The "furtherance of commerce and trade" will undoubtedly come about with the passing of the Bill, and that is entirely proper. The passage of the Bill will be eased if attention is paid to the items that I have mentioned.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I approve of the general aim of the Bill but unfortunately it is so flawed that it cannot be accepted in its present form. I have considerable doubts about the powers of enforcement available to the registrar. I fear that his discretion is so limited that he will be unable to pay attention to the changes in technology that might take place.
  As I said in a recent question to the Home Secretary, I am concerned about the rights of the data subject—if I may use such a term, despite the horror expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The problem facing someone who may be on file is that to go to court is a formidable and expensive business—unlike going to a tribunal, which is usually inexpensive. If that person lost his application at the court he would have to pay the expenses of both sides in the action. I fear that the ordinary citizen will find the Bill's provisions insufficient to protect his rights.
  If someone residing in Scotland had a complaint about a firm in England which may hold data about him, he would have to engage two sets of lawyers before the matter could be brought before a court. That is why I urge the Home Secretary to consider, at least in the first instance, allowing an application to the registrar so that the information requested can be made available. I accept the Opposition's argument that the powers of the registrar are insufficient compared with the powers which would be available to the commission or the authority which has been suggested.
  I wish to deal with the parts of the Bill which, I fear, make it a dangerous piece of legislation. In January 1984 it is of doubtful legality whether public bodies can hold certain personal data which they have not acquired as a result of statute. It is even more doubtful whether it is legal to pass on those data to other bodies. Indeed, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Inland Revenue are specifically enjoined by statute not to release any data, other than under very strictly controlled conditions. There is also a convention, referred to in the Government White Paper of 1975 "Computers: Safeguards for Privacy" that Departments will not pass such information to other Departments unless a warrant is outstanding.
  By the end of 1984 — or before then if the Bill receives Royal Assent—the House will have given the Government, and all subsequent Governments, the right to do all those things that are currently of doubtful legality. The Home Secretary may say that he is not breaching
  50
  current practices, but the Bill may hallow the current malpractices. It will be enshrined in statute that private bodies and individuals cannot use personal data in computer systems other than within the workings of the data protection principle. But clauses 27 and 28 will give the Government the right to decide whether, and to what extent, if at all, they will bring themselves and the Departments they control within the principles laid down for the remainder of the community — notwithstanding that if there is a danger, or potential danger, of abuse of personal data computer systems, it lies much more in the public than in the private sector.
  Democracy is a delicate plant which requires vigilance. We should note how the infringements of liberty developed as a result of the passing of the Defence of the Realm legislation during the first world war and the way in which it managed to stick in certain important essentials thereafter, leading to the various Official Secrets measures. Therefore, we must be careful. The Bill, with the exemptions conferred under it, is a Trojan horse by which state power can be augmented at risk to the private citizen.
  I am not criticising the Government, although I may do so stringently in other debates. The Bill will apply in its form and its exemptions to any successive Government. Therefore we must be careful about the rights that we give and those that we withhold. The Department of Health and Social Security holds files of personal data on 26 million people; the Inland Revenue on 24 million; the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea on 14 million and the various police forces probably on 20 million, most of whom have no criminal records other than some motoring misdemeanour.
  The power of the computer today is such that all of the data on individuals can be put together. On the largest of the files there are probably no more than 2,000 records belonging to people born on the same day, but by a process known as file inversion it becomes simple to correlate that data on a number of files belonging to one or more citizens. That power of correlation represents at once the strength and the danger of the computer in the hands of malign bodies.
  Although all of those files, with the exception of police files, are covered to some degree by the Bill, they can all be brought under the control of a police or security service under the auspices of clause 28(1)(a) and 28(2) if the security service believes that it is in the furtherance of the prevention of crime. That phrase could cover a multitude of aims. Although no one here would doubt the need to give the police adequate powers to ensure that criminals are caught, law enforcement, detection of crime and conviction are entirely different matters from the prevention of crime where the authorities have the power to interfere in the unexceptional and innocent lives of citizens.
  Indeed, the police may not even require that clause if its whole system, like the large machine in Curzon street, Mayfair, is exempted by one of the most junior Cabinet Ministers. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that it is strange that the right to sign exemptions is available virtually to every Cabinet Minister, however junior. There must be some restriction on that in the interests of proper control.
  If the definition of "processing" in clause 1 does not cover the copying of files and the passing of such copies to other bodies, the whole objection that could be taken

  51
  to the practice could lie outside the workings of the Bill, and therefore I, too, would like to see "copying" included in the Bill.
  It is to the principle of the measure that we should be addressing ourselves today, and the principles laid down in the explanatory and financial memorandum and described in detail in schedule 1 are such that we can agree with them. However, the fundamental question still remains whether the Bill in its present form, and given the changes made to it in another place—but, even more, given the resistance of the Government to changes to clauses 27 and 28—carries out these principles or even gives hope that, with changes, it might do so. My answer to that question is a decided no.
  The Bill may not seem to many to be a great constitutional matter. Indeed, considering the poor turnout of hon. Members—there are almost as many people in the Home Office Box as there are in the Chamber—it might be said that we are diminishing a measure of considerable importance. If I were to say that instead of passing a Data Protection Bill we were introducing legislative provision for some kind of super police authority and were giving that authority power to hold records on every facet of life of every citizen —including every member of both Houses of Parliament, every activist in every political party, every trade union leader and shop steward, every director of every limited company and public corporation, every doctor and dentist; in other words, of the whole population—the House would be up in arms.
  We must take on board the computer power that exists to correlate all the information, correct and incorrect, that exists in the files. Taking my suggestion further, if no one had any right or authority, under such a measure, to check what was going on and to examine whether it was accurate, the House would reject the Bill out of hand.
  With the exception of the national police authority, or super police force of the type that I have mentioned, this measure will do what I have otherwise described. It merely needs a certificate, signed by a Minister of the Crown, saying that such a system is required for the safeguarding of national security, and under the Bill no one need even know that such a certificate and system exist. It is by methods such as those that we can find our liberties supressed.
  It was stated in a White Paper on the subject that if there were material changes in the handling of these matters, any exemptions should be minimal. Indeed, in the Government's White Paper, "Data Protection: The Government's Proposals for Legislation," it was stated on page 6:
  "The use of certain other data relating to matters referred to…will be exempt from legislation. These exemptions will include some data needed by the police and other law enforcement agencies for the prevention and detection of crime. But the intention will be to keep exemptions from registration to the minimum that is consistent with the proper functioning of the agencies concerned. Similarly, registered data users who make information available to the authorities in connection with these matters will not be required to register such disclosures of information. To register them would tend to defeat the purpose for which they are made."
  The major exemptions contained in the Bill, which give rights to central Government which are not available to commercial and individual operators, make the measure extremely dangerous.
  52
  I am delighted to learn that the Official Opposition intend to oppose the Bill. I considered tabling a reasoned amendment against the Second Reading. My hon. Friends and I will join Labour Members in voting against the Bill, in the hope that the Minister will redraft it, even if for the third time.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I understand the hon. Gentleman's view. Has he engaged in any consultations with the Official Opposition? Can he give any information about why there has been a sudden change on the part of the Labour party? The Bill contains many changes made to meet points voiced by the Official Opposition the last time round. They did not vote against it when it was introduced in the last Parliament, yet apparently they have now suddenly come to the conclusion that they should oppose it. We would be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman could help us on that.
  Mr. Wilson: As the Minister knows, the official channels are extremely murky and it is not always possible to describe exactly what goes on in them. I must leave it to the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), to answer the Minister's question.
  I take root and branch objection to clauses 27 and 28 in particular, and we in the SNP will vote against the Bill as drafted. We have said that we approve of necessary data protection requirements—those that are needed for our adherence to the relevant international convention—and if the Government had not included dangerous exemptions in the Bill we should not be opposing it.
  Even if the Government succeed in the vote on Second Reading tonight, I hope that they will still be prepared to consider some of the points that have been made so that the damaging proposals to which I have referred may be removed. Otherwise, I fear that successive generations may regret the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Who can tell what will happen in the future? All we can do in the light of the tremendous power of data processing and computers is to include precautions in our legislation so as to make our law beneficial to society, rather than a potential enemy.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I had the pleasure on 11 April 1983 of speaking on this subject in the last Parliament. At that time a number of Opposition Members said that one needed to be highly qualified technically to participate in the debate. I said that was not necessarily true, because it was a fundamental issue that should be understood and grasped by the man in the street.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made some valuable points, and his remarks on whether complaints should be dealt with by a tribunal or a court were of particular relevance. The whole question of dealing with complaints of this nature must receive our careful attention. I suggest that having a tribunal to deal with such matters would encourage aggrieved people to take up issues at a lower tempo than would be the case if they had to go to court.
  There would be obvious disadvantages. For example, some people who delight in taking up issues of this sort might make complaints of a trivial nature, knowing that they would not face considerable costs because they could

  53
  act as their own advocates. That, I appreciate, is a danger, but if complaints could go only to court, we should find a substantial number of cases going there, possibly adding to the already heavy legal aid bill, and, as usual, the lawyers would benefit substantially. I am not in favour of that, and that is why the hon. Gentleman's suggestion appealed to me.
  The Bill is considerably improved in its new form, for a number of deficiencies have been put right. The main problem is that we are at some disadvantage compared with the international business community and we must approach the Bill with that in mind. We have received representations from the CBI, which has urged us to consider the issue as a matter of urgency. It observes that it is of overriding importance to international business interests, British industry and commerce that the United Kingdom Government should ratify the Council of Europe data protection convention at the earliest possible moment. I agree with that.
  Consequently, the Bill must be dealt with urgently. There are always excuses for putting off a proposed measure so that it can be submitted in a more perfect form; but we must get on with the Bill, even if the result is not 100 per cent. what we would have wished. There will be opportunities later to put things right.
  We should go for the minimum requirements that are set out in the convention. It would be foolish to try to be too ambitious. We must look for a free flow of business information within and across international frontiers. The advantages to be gained from the computer age would be seriously affected if that wre not so. The legislation should not impose any greater use of resources of Government or industry in achieving its objective than can possibly be helped, for the simple reason that there are excellent opportunities for slowing down the whole business process. In reply to an intervention, my right hon. and learned Friend said that it was right and proper that the business community should readily respond. He felt that in so doing it need not adversely affect the use of computer technology which we enjoy and which, I hope, will considerably aid and expand our standard of living.
  Registration is one of the most important issues to bear in mind when considering the Bill. It might be possible for a company to be established under a limited liability umbrella, to operate and to flout the law. It will be possible promptly to take action against such a company, but, before that action could be effective, the company could set up a second company to act in parallel with it and to continue to operate from that second company.
  The measures to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred cover that possibility and ensure that this will not happen. I am pleased that there is an emergency procedure to deal with such an eventually. I hope so, for I imagine that those who would be ruthless in taking advantage of technology would be up to all sorts of tricks. We must ensure that they cannot get round legislation as soon as it is introduced. There is great merit in permitting registration immediately and not requiring companies to wait a long time.
  Most of the business complaints that I receive from constituents are based on the time that they have to wait for authority or approval. This often arises following a minor change to their business name. Having submitted an application in the course of arranging finance for their business, they sometimes find that it is necessary to make a minor modification to their name or to their
  54
  memorandum and articles of association. They then often find that the entire registration process has to start afresh as a result. They become upset because, having made an investment which to them is a considerable sum, they suffer considerably while waiting for authority to come through from a Government Department. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that that would not happen as a result of this measure, and that it would he possible for a company to start up almost straight away. Nevertheless, he has wisely reserved to himself the opportunity of putting a stop to such an arrangement if it is seen to be taken advantage of by those who are especially unscrupulous.
  The advantages of proceeding with the Bill are great, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to advise me on a matter which is dear to my heart—civil defence. Over recent months I have been trying to get information from Government Departments on how they would provide adequate protection to important data in the event of hostilities.
  We all appreciate the need for the back-up facilities of large companies. Such facilities mean that if there is an emergency—for example, a fire—at their premises, they have an alternative means of recording all the information that is needed in their computer network.
  Recently someone was caught acting dishonestly because a secret device in a computer alerted a bank to what was being done by certain computer operators, who believed that, by wiping off certain evidence, they would be able successfully to transfer $7 million from an American bank to an Israeli bank, and thereby avoid detection. I understand that the case has now been heard in the courts. The computer contained a device which disclosed what was going on to the management of the bank, which was able to stop what otherwise would have been a major crime.
  I hope that Government Departments will have some effective means of protecting data. This I understand is done in certain circumstances abroad. I think that the Americans are turning their attention to this important issue. A location for the collection and protection of such information for banks would not necessarily cover major catastrophes, for example. The process is designed to provide an alternative record in other premises, on the basis that a fire in two similar buildings at the same time is unlikely. Consequently, it is unnecessary to have what amounts to military quality protection for their records. That is not necessarily the case with Government records. We must give serious consideration to how Government records are kept and where they are stored, and examine what we are doing effectively to meet such eventualities.
  The question of civil defence at the moment requires much more attention, and not only on the part of the Opposition. In the coming months the Government will need to pay much more attention to this subject in order to satisfy the population that it is being taken seriously. The question of the collection and protection of all data on this subject would be a good area in which to start. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend could advise me whether he has given any consideration to that point, and, if so, what the Government propose to do.
  The legislation will, of course, contain reference to the penalties that one is likely to suffer if one does not abide by its provisions. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there are various ways of incorporating information in a computer record in coded form. It is not

  55
  necessary to spell out everything in detail in the record. One can incorporate information in a more subtle way. Has my hon. and learned Friend given any thought to this point? For example, if one were suspicious about the credit-worthiness of a customer, it would be feasible so to arrange the display of his address, or even his initials—for instance, by placing the initials before instead of after the name — as to make that clear. The information would not be immediately apparent to anybody who received an extract from the document. There are, of course, other much more sophisticated ways of introducing coded messages into computer records. The Government should look into this matter. As soon as a Government introduce any legislation, people start working hard to find ways round it. This is one area in which people could certainly circumvent the provisions of the Bill.
  I did not clearly understand from my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks today whether any charge was to be levied upon the person seeking access to entries held about them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Yes.
  Mr. Thorne: Are there to be regulations about such charges? The matter was discussed in the previous Parliament, but I am not sure what the provisions were for limiting the size of the charge and making sure that it was fair and reasonable. People could easily be scared off if they were charged too much, but, if the charge were too low, some vexatious applicants would make a point of inquiring frivolously and making life difficult for the community. Although the institution in question — a bank, for example—might be well off, it is ultimately the customer who pays. If considerable extra charges are levied upon an insurance company, it is the insured who will ultimately have to meet the bill. Their premiums must cover all the costs, and their benefits will come out of what is left.
  One wants to ensure that the charge is fair and reasonable to the applicant, but one must also be fair to the rest of the community and to make sure that one is not over-generous to some and therefore likely to impose a heavier burden on the remainder by unnecessarily adding to the total cost.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider these matters and further advise me about the points that remain to be answered. I am sure that the Bill is right and necessary. I look forward to watching its progress towards the statute book. I do not wish to inhibit its progress, but there are certain ways in which it could be improved. I hope that the opportunity to continue to improve it will be taken in the near future.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Bill represents a tremendous loss of opportunity. It should have been a significant measure for the protection of civil liberties in an area where there is currently no such protection. However, the Bill is very incomplete and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has said, where the Bill claims to be innocuous it is in many places downright harmful. The Bill is not simply a lost opportunity in the sense that we are not grasping the nettles; it is dangerous because, once it has
  56
  been passed, we will find it far more difficult to bring in adequate legislation later on for the protection of the individual.
  Of all the reasons given for introducing the Bill, by far the most important in the mind of the Government is the need to ratify the European convention, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilson) has said. The need to protect the individual either from the use of erroneous information of from the misuse of correct information is totally ignored in the Bill. Because of the loopholes and exemptions, and indeed its totally flawed nature, the Bill does not give adequate protection even where it claims to do so.
  In many cases where the Bill fails to accept the recommendations of the Lindop committee, that failure has resulted in a weakness in the Bill. One fundamental flaw concerns the concentration on data used for automatic processing at the expense of data held on manual systems, which is totally ignored. Hon. Members on both sides have asked whether it would be possible for a database user to copy off his existing automatic processing system and so avoid the trap laid for him by the Bill. However, the situation is even worse than that. It takes no great ingenuity to offload controversial or illegal data held initially on an automatic processing system and to transmit it to someone in simple written form. Such an action would be totally outside the scope of the Bill.
  There is no reference in the Bill to manually processed systems, and that is a fundamental defect. If we were seriously discussing the need to protect the individual—I fear that we are not— against the use of erroneous information or the misuse of correct information, we would have to consider the necessity to legislate about information stored on manual systems.
  A constituent of mine has complained because he feels that his previous employer is deliberately making it difficult for him to be re-employed by giving him an unsatisfactory reference. Nothing in the Bill would allow my constituent any remedy for that.
  If we accept international practice, Great Britain will be almost unique in excluding manual sources of data. International experience suggests that most complaints result from manually kept data. If we accept that medical, school and most other records that interest us are stored manually, then one realises that the Bill omits these things. It concentrates solely on data held on automatic processing systems.
  Another fundamental weakness is that there is no statutorily defined code of conduct. Schedule 1 lays down the principles on which we hope the Bill will operate. It is clear that some of them need clarifying before they can be operated. Some are too imprecise, however well—meaning and desirable they are. What does the Bill mean when it states:
  "Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive"?
  How do we define "adequate, relevant and not excessive"? Those points need to be clarified by an independent but statutory, code of conduct. That brings us to the subject of an independent data protection authority which could act in this and other spheres in the interests of the registrar and the individual.
  Hon. Members have commented considerably about the alarming exemptions in the Bill, specifically the one contained in clause 33(2). That subsection gives the Secretary of State power to exclude any data held by the

  57
  Government from the operation of the Act. He can therefore deprive any individual of any information held by the Government. The present Government may not intend to use the Bill in that way but who knows? It is potentially disastrous to give such power to the Secretary of State. It must be unacceptable unless adequate checks on the use of that power are provided. They are not given to the registrar or his staff.
  There is little effective control over the Secretary of State should he decide to invoke national security. The Lindop committee made some specific recommendations about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, the registrar's organisation should have someone who has a level of security clearance which would allow him to vet the operation of that provision. It is not included in the Bill, and its omission represents a fundamental challenge to civil liberties. It cannot be argued that we are not eroding any present powers. If we accept that we should be improving and strengthening civil liberties within the private sector, the Minister should tell us why we should not be doing the same thing in areas of national security.
  Similar considerations apply to clause 28 which, as hon. Members have said, seems to give carte blanche to the police and the tax authorities. There is no adequate regulation to prevent them from abusing that power. I hope that when he replies the Minister will justify those powers.
  The Bill is grossly inadequate in the protection that it affords the individual and the measures that it gives him to seek protection. Hon. Members have said that fees will be a disincentive to some individuals. I note that in another place an unsuccessful attempt was made to exempt those in receipt of social security. However small the fee, it will discourage some from pursuing their rights under this legislation.
  Hon. Members have said that a multilateral tribunal would be more satisfactory than a unilateral one. It could then deal with the interests of the complainant and not solely those of the data user. If the individual has to go to court he could be faced with expense, and he will not accept that. It will be a deterrent. The data user knows that, should it be expensive to pursue the matter through the courts, people will not use the Bill to seek information or to seek to remedy the abuse of the information held by the data user. There will therefore be no effective control over the data user.
  There is almost no control over the transfer of data to a third party. The individual is left in a weak position in that respect. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that point.
  In another place, the distinction has been made between information held as a matter of intention and that held as a matter of opinion. It was argued that if the information expressed the data user's intentions, it was exempt from the law. In other words, an employer who wished to sack an unruly, militant trade unionist would say that it was his intention at some time to dismiss him because he was a Communist, a subversive, or a danger to the company or the state. The individual could not therefore discover that information. However, if those matters were expressed as an opinion, the individual would be able to discover them. That weakens the Bill's provisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has already talked about the BMA. Clause 28(2) means that there is a fundamental change in the relationship between the medical profession and the police. At the moment, the
  58
  medical profession is governed by the BMA's handbook on ethics which makes it clear that the authorisation for passing information should come from the clinician who initiates any information. Under the Bill, the initiative will pass from the initiating clinician to those who are considered to be the data users. That will almost certainly not be the relevant clinician or doctor but someone employed by the health authority. In a modern hospital it would be impractical for each clinician to register as a data user. It would frustrate the hospital's medical needs. It is necessary for the Minister to say how those problems would be overcome.
  While it may be fanciful to talk about the automatic processing of the confessional, worries similar to those expressed by the medical profession might be expressed by clergymen and others involved in religion. Even Members of Parliament could find themselves in a similar position.
  The Bill is a lost opportunity. Far from strengthening civil liberties, we are weakening them. Far from giving protection to the individual, we are eroding his position. The sole reason for the Bill is that it allows the Government to ratify the European convention.
  There are other problems. The Home Office has access to different data. There is a distinction between the Home Office being registered as a data user in its different parts or being simply a data bank. That causes considerable problems. In theory it would allow the Home Office to link up its data and the transmission of information between, for example, the immigration service and the department dealing with criminal records. There is nothing that would prevent the Home Secretary from allowing that. It seems that he has the power to be the ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not acceptable conduct without recourse to the House and certainly not to an independent person such as the registrar.
  If the Bill receives its Second reading, it will be a retrograde step. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the obvious course of voting against it. It should be defeated.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I congratulate the Government on reintroducing the Bill so early in their second term of office. I spoke in last year's Second Reading debate. I was one of several hon. Members who regretted the time that it took to bring it before the House, particularly as the computer revolution had been under way for more than two decades and we were talking about the fifth generation of computers. Therefore, we can all regard the Bill as overdue. When we take into account the fact that the Younger report on privacy was published over 12 years ago and the White Paper was published about nine years ago, we cannot blame the Government for the delay.
  I accept that there appears to be little tangible evidence of information kept in a computer in this country being misused and threatening personal privacy, but that is not so in the United States where the computer revolution is much more advanced. Abuse of the computer system in the United States is fast becoming a popular theme for Hollywood films such as "Superman III". I imagine that some hon. Members will have seen it with their children. One of the villains discovers the secret of being able to claim for himself the entire fractional statistical shortfall in entitlement to benefit of the entire nation's work force.

  59
  At least, I think that was the plot. Unusually on this occasion, my 10-year-old daughter and, even more unusually, my six-year-old son were not able to advise me otherwise. Even more frightening was the film "WarGames" in which a schoolboy discovers the secret of the nation's security and defence system and nearly sparks off world war 3.
  As has been said, it is difficult not to gain the impression that the Bill would not be before the House but for the impetus of needing to ratify the Council of Europe convention. I am one of those who represent this country in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I do not agree with all the conventions that come before us, but I accept that as member states we should abide by them. The delay in the preparation of the convention and the general election that intervened should have enabled us to benefit from the considerable number of debates in both Parliamentary Assemblies. It should also have enabled us to anticipate the consequences of the rapid development of equipment and the use of computers in our schools and colleges. I hope that has happened, although I see no reference to it in the Bill. I hope that no reference will prove necessary, otherwise we shall have missed an opportunity after that revolution in our schools and colleges.
  One opportunity that has been missed—this criticism was widespread before and has been echoed in the debate —is that we are not also legislating to protect against the abuse of manual records and computer printouts. Last year all the Dorset Members of Parliament received a circular from the Dorset branch of the National and Local Government Officers Association saying that half the complaints received by the European Data Protection Commission resulted from the abuse of manually held files. That fact is obvious. Records such as school reports, employees' references and doctors' files on patients are manual before they can go on to a computer.
  Manual records will be with us for a long time. For example, it is estimated that about 95 per cent. of personal medical information will be held as manual records for the foreseeable future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave assurances about manual records, but excluding them from the Bill may encourage data banks to revert to manual systems for more sensitive personal data. I regret that we are not using the legislation to protect the individual against unauthorised disclosure of information in manual recording systems. After all, the principle is the same.
  The Bill does not seem to protect people from being sent unsolicited material through the post simply because their names and addresses are on computer as data which may or may not have a bearing on the material that is being sent. From time to time Members of Parliament receive complaints from constituents who receive unsolicited material. I understand that the Post Office can act only when unsolicited obscene and pornographic material is sent. Although I have not received such material myself, I understand that is difficult to determine if the material is contained in plain brown wrappers.
  There should be protection against receiving unsolicited material, which can be sent to a house for several years. For example, unsolicited material is being sent to my address, not just to myself, but to all the
  60
  previous owners of my house, the first of whom moved about 15 years ago. I do not suppose that his name was held on a computer, but we must protect everyone.
  No doubt I shall be referred by my right hon. and learned Friend to the protection afforded by schedule 1, principle 5, which states:
  "Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date."
  Surely the onus should be not on the receiver of such material—the data subject—but on the sender—the data user. He should be told not to abuse such information. I make the practical suggestion that there should be a time limit on some of the personal data that are held by data users, to contain the abuse of information held on computer.
  Schedule 1, principle 5, states that data shoud be accurate. However, I question whether it would protect me from the Social Democratic party. In the previous Second Reading debate I complained that I was continuing to recieve literature from that party. I assure the House that I have never expressed any flicker of interest in or support for the Social Democratic party, although I need to know about it politically and professionally. However, three and a half years ago I received in the post my Social Democratic party membership card and a letter thanking me for my subscription, followed by regular news about the gang of four, which was fascinating. To be fair, it is more than two years since I moved from that address, so I am not now receiving my regular information about the gang of two, as it now is. However, for all I know, the information is still being sent to my old address. Data subjects such as I look to the Bill for protection from the consequences of inaccurate information held by data users such as the SDP.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that in Birmingham the Conservative party does not need a computer to send objectionable literature to firms requesting donations for its purposes, but uses the telephone directory? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of banning telephone directories on the same basis?
  Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting how much more efficient the Conservative party is than the Labour party and the SDP.
  I welcome the improvements that have been secured since the Second Reading of the first Data Protection Bill last year, especially the safeguards for data users, where powers of entry and search are exercised and which have been strengthened so that data users normally have the right to a hearing before a circuit judge before a warrant is issued. I understand that they will have the right to obtain a copy of any material siezed and that there is a requirement that warrants should be endorsed with any powers which have been exercised under them.
  Those safeguards were introduced in response to many calls about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill not only from doctors, but from priests and the press. The powers offered to police in that Bill would, it was claimed, not only allow the inspection of the non-computerised records of professional advisers and potential witnesses, but would nullify such protection as the Data Protection Bill offers to computer records. That suggests that a Bill of Rights, defining the Government's powers and the rights of citizens to appeal against their exercise, is long overdue.

  61
  The Conservative party in its manifesto commitment of 1979, on page 21, committed itself to discussing the concept of a Bill of Rights with all parties. I understand that that has yet to happen, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State the Government's plans in the context of this Bill for a Bill of Rights to protect individual freedom.
  6.32 pm

  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I strongly agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and I hope that when my Bill, which has cross-party support and seeks to incorporate the provisions of the European convention on human rights, comes before the House for Second Reading on 6 April, the hon. Gentleman will ensure that there is considerable support from the Conservative party to ensure that it passes into law.
  The Social Democrats welcome the introduction pf legislation aimed at protecting individual privacy. It is high time that we had a Data Protection Bill. The risks to individual privacy from computerised information systems have been on the national agenda at least since 1970 when Justice published its classic report "Privacy and the Law" and Mr. Brian Walden introduced the Right of Privacy Bill which Justice had drafted. That led to the appointment of the Younger committee, which reported in 1972 but was allowed only to look at the private sector. Three years later, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was Home Secretary, he published a White Paper, "Computers and Privacy", promising legislation after a further study by the Lindop committee. That committee reported in 1978. Shortly afterwards, the present Administration came into power. It was not until the end of the last Parliament, after another four years had elapsed, that the Conservative Administration at last introduced a Bill which, with some modifications, is the Bill before the House.
  It is unfortunate that, in view of the widespread anxieties that have been expressed about the Bill from a large number of quarters, the Government have not facilitated the procedure that would have enabled the Bill's provisions to be considered by a Select Committee. The Minister owes it to the House to explain the Government's opposition to that procedure. The Home Secretary was silent on the subject.
  In the 13 years since the Right of Privacy Bill was introduced by Mr. Walden, many people have changed their positions. The early confrontations between people who saw in computers the arrival of the millenium and those who feared only the advent of George Orwell's 1984 have long been resolved. Today, there is widespread agreement that computers, like motor cars, represent a technology that can confer great benefits, provided we learn to control them properly. Data protection laws have therefore become commonplace in many industrialised countries. In this country, the ostensible purposes of the Bill are supported by a remarkable alliance of disparate interests — industrialists, trade unionists, consumers, professionals and most of central and local government. Almost the only remaining doubter appears to be the Home Office — paradoxically, the Department charged with bringing the Bill before Parliament.
  The Bill's core is in the first schedule, which sets out eight splendid data protection principles. If all computerised information were to follow those principles,
  62
  1984 would be a year from which we in the United Kingdom would have nothing to fear. One might wish that the credit for those principles could be given to the Home Office, as the sponsoring Department for the Bill, but they were drafted not by the Home Office but by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Because the Council of Europe has now adopted an international convention on data protection, the present Administration has been forced finally to introduce this legislation—not because it cares greatly about the privacy of the individual but because of the pressure from industry and commerce which realise that without such legislation there would be a serious risk of having international data flows, on which they are becoming increasingly dependent, cut off.
  I found the attitude of the right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who spoke for the Labour party somewhat puzzling. He acknowledged, but appeared in Luddite fashion to resent and resist, the unanimity of industry on the belief that such provisions are needed for its benefit. That is not the whole story. It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman did not recognise the importance of ensuring international data flows.
  Whatever the Government's reasons for bringing forward the Bill, we have legislation on this subject several years after most of our trading partners and competitors in Europe have enacted theirs. The SDP will vote in favour of the Bill, but we welcome it with considerable qualifications because it is still flawed in a number of important respects.
  Computers frighten many people who do not understand how they work. In fact, how they work is irrelevant; what matters is the use to which people can put them. Unfortunately, that is not a lesson that the Home Office had learned when it drafted the Bill. The Home Office directed its measures entirely to data, rather than to what people will do with data processed in computers. The unfortunate result is that certain data, rather than uses to which those data will be put, will be exempt from the Bill's provisions. That is regrettable, but I fear that, as the Bill is drafted, it is almost irretrievable.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Vote against it.
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman says that we should vote against it. Although I consider that that is an important issue, it is more important to seek to protect international flows of information and the citizen whose privacy is at risk through the storage of information without any redress. The Bill is capable of being improved in Committee to which I hope it will shortly go, and we ought to address our minds to that purpose.
  The principal objective of the Bill is to enable this country to ratify the Council of Europe convention. That can be done only when computerised processing of personal information has been brought under the control of the law. It appears, however, that under clause 40(2) that control will not become effective until more than two years after the Bill is enacted, so for the whole of that period we shall be unable to comply with the convention. Clause 40 deprives the registrar of any powers during that period because the Government expect him to be so swamped with applications for registration as to be unable to consider any of them on its merits. That in turn is due to the extraordinary policy, with a few exceptions, of universal registration of all computerised personal information systems within six months of the appointed

  63
  day. That is clearly administrative nonsense. The Home Secretary did not mention it, so I hope that the Minister of State will turn his mind to it when he winds up.
  The Council of Europe convention does not require universal registration, let alone registration for everyone at the same time. The obvious and sensible solution would be to phase registration sector by sector and application by application in tune with the registrar's work load, and it will be appropriate to introduce proposals to that effect in Committee. Indeed, the Government have already abandoned universal registration by exempting word processing under clause 1(8) and payroll and accounts systems under clause 31.
  The registrar cannot possibly supervise compliance with the data protection principles for every one of the hundreds of thousands of applications registered with him. Fortunately, however, most of the systems fall into a small number of specific categories, the users of which are only too anxious to have agreed rules with which they would be happy to comply. The Lindop committee described such rules as codes of practice, but the Government seem to have set their face firmly against such a procedure. Like the right hon. Member for Gorton, I am baffled by the Government's obdurate opposition to the introduction of codes of practice when it is supported by the CBI, the TUC, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association, local government, the computing community and just about every other interest concerned with the processing of personal information. The Government must do better than merely referring to the general principles set out in schedule 1 as an explanation for their extraordinary and incomprehensible attitude. Codes of practice devised by the users themselves can clearly provide essential support for the legislation. That, therefore, is another subject to which we shall have to return in Committee.
  One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill, to which several hon. and right hon. Members have referred, is the effect of clause 28. Not before time, at the second Report stage in another place, the Government finally conceded that immigration control was not a legitimate category for exemption under clause 28. Nevertheless, we are left with the offensive proposition that people and institutions holding highly confidential information about individuals — I have in mind especially the health professionals — could disclose such information with impunity to the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the police while giving the public the clear impression from their entries in the register that they would never do anything of the kind. The Lindop committee rightly described this as
  "a palpable fraud on the public".
  Such a provision is wholly unacceptable. It is quite unnecessary for the prevention or detection of crime or for the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. We shall therefore make every effort in Committee to ensure that the provision does not apply to information received in confidence. When people intend to remain free to disclose such information in proper cases—I acknowledge that there may well be such cases—they should make that clear in advance.
  Of all the categories of personal information, the one that worries everyone is probably that of personal data relating to health. When people go to see their doctors they need to be able to disclose even the most intimate details
  64
  about themselves so that they can be given the right treatment in the absolute confidence that the information will never be disclosed or used for any other purpose. For that reason, the health profession voiced their strong opposition to clause 28(2) from the moment that the Bill was published and they have maintained that opposition to this day. An inter-professional working group on access to health information, composed of representatives of all the health professions under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Douglas Black, has been advising health departments on this for more than a year. I understand that the outcome is that the health departments, in collaboration with the working group, are preparing a code of guidance on access to health information. I am surprised that the Home Secretary did not mention that.
  When that code of guidance has been agreed, the Secretary of State for Social Services will be able to ensure compliance with it in the National Health Service by making appropriate directions under section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977, but the NHS is not the only holder of personal health information. It is held by many other people, including local authorities, employers and insurers. The health professions are unanimously adamant that any disclosure of personal health information must always be a matter for the health professionals concerned and never a matter for administrators or other laymen. The code of guidance will ensure that that is so within the NHS, but once such a code exists it is imperative that it should extend to all personal health information, whoever holds the information. It would be unthinkable that local authorities, employers or insurers should be allowed to make disclosures which could not be made by anyone within the NHS. That, too, will require an appropriate amendment to the Bill in Committee.
  My final point, which seems not to have been discussed in either House, relates to clause 21. Under that clause, data subjects will rightly become entitled to discover what information is held about them in various computer systems, but how will the data subject identify himself? What is to prevent a prying neighbour from finding out all that he can about other people? At the very least, it should be an offence to impersonate another person for the purpose of obtaining compulsory access to personal information. We shall suggest appropriate provisions to that effect in Committee.
  I shall not detain the House with other matters of great importance which are more appropriately dealt with at length in Committee, a number of which were touched on in earlier contributions. Notwithstanding our hope that various new clauses and amendments will be agreed to in Committee, we welcome the Bill and will do all that we can to ensure that, deprived of its present blemishes, it passes into law as soon as possible.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Almost everyone is in favour of the Bill until he or she reads the small print. It is a daunting task to design legislation for such a fast-moving technology, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has my sympathy. He is right to try and establish the principle that the citizen has a general right to know what information is held about him or her and to inspect and correct it. The question is how far to extend that, without either strangling the data processing industry or creating a vast extension of the law,

  65
  which would be impossible or expensive to administer. For instance, it has been suggested that we should create a general right to privacy. That would delay the essential protections contained in the Bill and create a new corpus of law and new criminal offences. At a time when we are having difficulty enforcing the existing criminal law, that would be a mistake.
  Opposition Members who suggested a general right to privacy were slow to undertake that task when in office. We can ill afford to delay the legislation. The data processing and information technology industries are fast-growing, international industries, which Britain is almost uniquely well-placed to exploit. We have excellent data links with the rest of the world, we are positioned both geographically and socially between Europe and America, and we speak English, which is of great advantage in designing and using software. It is vital to bring our data protection standards and laws up to the best of those prevailing abroad. The Bill attempts to tailor those requirements to suit our own laws and circumstances, and does not accept a fait accompli from the European Commission or elsewhere. The Bill gets the balance about right.
  The use and retrieval of information is undergoing a revolution comparable to the invention of printing. People in the 16th and 17th centuries were probably frightened that false and malicious information could be easily copied and distributed because of the introduction of the printing press. We coped with that revolution, probably by encouraging the benefits and discouraging the abuses created by it. We must do the same for this new means of distributing and retrieving information.
  I welcome the proposal for a named, individual registrar, an excellent precedent for which is the parliamentary ombudsman. The registrar will have more flexibility than an authority or tribunal. That is important because we must try to look ahead and legislate for developments that at present are barely thought of. I am, however, worried about the scope of the organisations that will be required to register. I ask the Minister to give the House an estimate of the numbers expected. My guess is that it is several hundred thousand.
  I understand from the Bill that hon. Members will have to register if they have in their offices a computer or word processor on which they store names and addresses or categories of constituents. Similarly, constituency associations may have to register if they hold lists of party members or electors, which are selected on subjective grounds. That is not covered by the provison whereby information is exempt if it is generally available to the public by other means.
  Moreover, if an hon. Member links his computer in his office in London with that of his constituency office, wherever that may be, will he have to register, as well as his constituency association? In other words, is the requirement to register defined by the person using the data, the siting of the computer, the siting of the data bank, or an amalgam of all three? That is important because of the potential burden on small businesses and small users. It is an industry of small businesses. That is its very strength and it cannot be overstated that what small businesses want are not Government handouts, grants, tax schemes and so on, but exemption from rules and regulations that they see as constricting and unnecessary.
  I hope that the Committee will examine carefully the possibility of giving the Secretary of State for the Home
  66
  Department power to exempt certain categories of data if practice shows that nothing is gained by their registration. That would reduce the sheer volume of registrations and relieve some data users from the necessity of extra paperwork.
  I should like the data processing industry to take the lead in removing some of its more irritating practices. For instance, it would be wise to regulate the use of mailing lists. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are used to receiving unsolicited mail, and personally, I do not find it burdensome to place such material in the wastepaper basket. But it is sometimes annoying for the public to receive multiple copies, as can happen when a company buys or uses a new mailing list and adds it to its existing data bank.
  The duplicate names are supposed to be removed by a process known as "merge and purge". That is not foolproof. Unfortunately, I am burdened with a double-barrelled name, and I frequently receive a circular or material addressed to both halves of myself. Therefore, the industry should take this opportunity to show the public that, without legislation, it can update its practices, remove some of the errors and increase public confidence.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: For many of us, this is the second time we start around the course. As the Home Secretary said, the Bill has been to the other place twice. It is fair to say that it has been improved with the passage of time. There is a long way to go, but compared with the measure that came before the House last April, one of the substantial objections—an exemption for information on immigration records—has disappeared, and other improvements have been made.
  Even though we are debating the Bill for the second time, as it relates to a subject of such fundamental importance—the right to privacy—it is sad that so few hon. Members are present. I mischievously totted up the figures and discovered that about 10 minutes ago attendance on the Government Benches was 2·5 per cent., or between 10 and 12 Conservative Members; on the official Opposition Benches it was 1 per cent. or two hon. Members, but on the alliance Benches — this I hope reflects our interest in the subject — the combined strength was four hon. Members out of 23, or 16 per cent., and at one stage it was six out of 23, or 20 per cent. Given that at times there are complaints about important matters not being subject to proper debate, it deserves to be noted that alliance Members have played their part in recognising the importance of debating this measure.
  Mr. Denis Howell: How will the hon. Gentleman vote?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman is patient for a little longer.
  The reverse side of the subject of privacy is the campaign for access to information. Alliance Members make this point today because the Conservative Government, like the last Labour Government, believe in an ad hoc approach to matters of principle.
  When I spoke on Second Reading last April I followed the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who said, as he did today—I supported him then and I do so again—that we would do a better job if we started from the beginning. If we clearly established in law the

  67
  rights of citizens, we should not be contriving formulae for trying to solve problems as they arose. That is exactly what we are doing here, because the provisions have now been drafted into legislative form as a result of White Papers and reports over the last 14 years, but primarily because we and other European countries have agreed a convention —signed by us but awaiting ratification—to allow data to be passed to and fro. That will particularly benefit British business, as we depend on technology to improve our market share in key areas both at home and abroad. Viewed pragmatically, and not from the point of view of principle, the risk is that the information may flow into Britain, but, as was said in the other place on Third Reading not long ago, it may flood into computers such as the police national computer, where it will be unseen, untouched, unobserved and unremarked on by the people to whom it refers.
  Not until we have a Bill of Rights with constitutional principles which are clear for all to see, not until we deal with the problems of the lack of access to public information, the right to privacy and abuses of information by the press—it has just been suggested that the press has always done its job properly, but we all know that that is not true—and not until we deal properly with the problem of official secrets, will we have legislation without the loopholes and defects which we have when we try to cobble legislation together in the piecemeal fashion that we are asked to do today.
  The importance of the subject that we are debating is reflected in a survey carried out by the Consumers Association in January of this year. It asked 985 people whether they believed that various bodies kept information confidential. Six per cent. believed that family doctors —at the bottom of the scale—did not keep information confidential. Nineteen per cent. believed that hospitals divulged information. For the Passport Office the figure was 20 per cent. For the Inland Revenue it was 28 per cent. One third of the people questioned believed that the police divulged confidential information. Thirty-five per cent. thought that the social security departments divulged confidential information. For the local council the figure was 37 per cent.; for trade unions it was 38 per cent.; 40 per cent. for a wonderful category called the old school; 46 per cent. for employers; 51 per cent. for the credit card companies; and 62 per cent. for the finance companies.
  It is clear that the public believe that a lot of information that should be confidential is not kept confidential. It is clear from a different question in the same survey that the number of people who are worried that information is not kept confidential is extremely high—certainly over 50 per cent. and up to 75 and 85 per cent. in certain cases. For banks the figure is 84 per cent., which may not surprise many of us.
  Although the legislation, as proposed, has been improved, we share the criticisms made in the Financial Times which last April, at the time of the Second Reading, had a heading
  "Data Protection—Many Loopholes"
  and nearly a year on prints an article in today's edition of the same paper, which has as its headline:
  "Data Protection Bill May Give Scant Protection".
  We should, of course, deal with the technological problem, but primarily we should deal with the problem of establishing once and for all a clear system which will
  68
  ensure that the data that are kept on file after file— many of which we know nothing about—on all of us, not only those on the Floor of the House, but those in the Public Gallery and those who are reporting these proceedings, can be discovered and corrected, if it is wrong, and which give us a remedy in damages if the use of data is abused. Unfortunately, the Bill does not deal satisfactorily with these issues.
  One major defect is that the definitions in the Bill are appalling. They are extremely vague. The article that I mentioned confirms that perhaps the two words that best describe the Bill are flexibility and vagueness.
  The Home Secretary said that the European convention principles are being enacted and that that should be enough. We all know that principles incorporated in conventions, agreed after much negotiation by many different states, are often models of vagueness. The convention says that the purpose of national legislation is to implement those principles—in other words, to give them bite and effectiveness. We want an accurate definition of subject, user, and the data in question. In that way we would all know what the clauses deal with. I am sure that hon. Members realise that we shall have a substantial task in Committee to improve the definitions.
  It is not clear exactly what equipment we are talking about in the Bill. The Government say that we are not talking about manual records. That we know, but in my view they should be included, and my party shares my view, for the following reasons. First, the Bill will encourage people to hold on to manual records and delay the implementation of the advantages of technology that computerisation could bring. Secondly, people know that if they retain manual records they will not be subject to registration and all the bureaucratic superstructure in the Bill. Thirdly, for that reason, there will be a substantial amount of information to which the public will not be entitled to have access. It is as simple as that. Even if the Government are determined at this stage only to do what is necessary to comply with the convention—to limit the Bill to automatic and processed data which are not kept in a manual form—I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight that the Government will seriously consider the possibility of extending protection to manually stored data, certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister could help us with another related problem? It is perfectly possible, as he will know, to create manual records from data input. In other words, from the data which the Bill covers, one can press a button and create a printout of the information that one does not want to be covered by the Bill. It then becomes a manual record and is outside the scope of the Bill. That is equally dangerous and should be equally under surveillance. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Hughes: That is correct. An advantage of the computer industry is that one can put in information, extract it, and convert it to other forms. They are not covered by the Bill. When we considered the first Bill in Committee last year, the Minister did not deal with that matter adequately. I hope that the Minister will take up my hon. Friend's invitation to pursue it, and thus answer the valid criticism of the definition clauses, whereby a large amount of material is not only not covered in the first

  69
  instance but even if converted into a form that allows it to be covered for a period, can be taken out of the scope of the Bill.
  Hon. Members may have followed the correspondence in The Times this month on the bizarre implications of the Bill. The Minister has accepted that those implications are not just possibilities, but are accurate. I have here some spent cheques. They are perfectly ordinary Williams and Glyn's bank cheques, drawn on the account of an ordinary citizen. They represent a collection of personal data about another person — not me — including information recorded in a form that can be processed by equipment operated automatically—the definition in clause 1(2)— thus being subject to the provisions of clause 5 and making me, holding the cheques, subject to the Bill's provisions, as a data user. It seems that if the Bill were in force I should have to register my use of the cheques. The Minister of State accepted that view in a letter to Mr. Sandison, which was referred to in Mr. Sandison's letter to The Times on 19 January.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's example, because he is highlighting a difficult area in the Bill. However, I doubt whether his analogy is correct, since he would not qualify as a data user because he does not have with him automatic processing equipment which is capable of processing those cheques.
  Mr. Hughes: I believe that the Minister accepts that that is not a prerequisite. I am not required to have the equipment at the moment that I have the products. Of course, it is a matter of detailed definition, but my example shows the bizarre consequences which could follow from drawing the line where the Bill draws it.
  A more substantial problem is that many hon. Members and the increasing numbers of the public who own home computers could also be covered by the Bill. If someone put on to his computer 100 names taken from the electoral register or from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the use of those names was not confined to one family, so that it would not qualify for exemption under the Bill, that home user would fall within the terms of the Bill. I ask the Government to consider carefully such problems of definition. The proposed forms of definition are entirely indadequate. A person who borrows a computer from another may also come within the provisions of the Bill while he uses the computer.
  The Committee on the Bill will have to look at the details, but serious problems of definition are posed and businesses and individuals are right to be worried about them.
  There are other substantial objections, some of which are supported by all four local authority associations,— the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Conventon of Scottish Local Authorities. Local authorities deal with an enormous number of records and are perhaps more conscious than many other bodies of the public concern. They want clear codes of practice, which the Home Secretary has so far resisted, and they agree with the recommendation of the Lindop committee that there should be an advisory committee to ensure the satisfactory working of the legislation.
  Improvements have been made in the Government's proposals for the staffing of the registrar's office, but the
  70
  number of staff will be small—I have not heard mention of a figure above 20 — and the office will not be effective for two years, which will give time for information to be shifted by those wishing to avoid compliance with the Act. Also, compared with the parallel body in Sweden, the registrar's office will have little power and is unlikely to be able to do its job properly. My party believes that, even with the best will in the world being shown by the registrar and his or her staff, the office will be no more than a facade of controls and that there will be no effective system.
  Another defect is that many of those appointed to offices under the Bill — for example, members of the tribunals and those dealing with appeals against the decisions of the registrar — will be appointees of the Home Secretary. The Department that causes most alarm to the citizen is the Home Office. It deals with the most controversial areas of information, such as police files. I ask the Home Secretary to remove from his Department and, pending the establishment of an effective Ministry of Justice, to put into the hands of the Lord Chancellor's Department control of the mechanisms for supervising the proper enforcement of the legislation.
  Other objections are shared in all parts of the House. I was surprised to receive last year a memorandum from the Society of Conservative Lawyers which included eight pages of criticism of the previous Bill. That shows that the objections are not a party political matter, though it is a matter of principle to my party that we get the legislation right.
  We are worried that individuals will not be able to correct inaccurate information. The system proposed in the Bill works from the wrong end; the duty should be on the data user to tell the data subject that information is being held. The Government's system means that if a person suspects that information is held, for example, on a file in the DHSS offices at the Elephant and Castle he will have to go on what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) calls a game of technological hunt the thimble. If that person believes that information on him is being held, he will have to look for it without quite knowing where, and he will also have to pay for the privilege at each stage of the process. Instead of people being told where information is kept, they have the responsibility of looking for it, and they may not always know where to look. That is a substantial defect in the Bill.
  By registering only data users, and not data banks, even if data users have to specify the purposes for which they intend to collect information, we will provide numerous opportunities for information to be transmitted from one computer, where it is stored for a particular purpose, to a second computer, where it may be stored for another purpose.
  The best example of that problem is information held by the police. Two sorts of information may be kept on police files. The first is facts—details of a person's convictions, age and address — and the second is intelligence—suspicions and conclusions, for example, drawn from the fact that a person had been seen leaving his house after dark on successive nights.
  As was pointed out in an article in New Society last year, the Suffolk police computer, which collects facts and intelligence, is plugged into the national police computer. I know of plans for at least eight other police forces to plug into the national computer. Our tradition of local police forces and not a national security force will be grossly

  71
  undermined unless we can be assured that data are not being transmitted without authority, justification and control from one police computer to another.
  The exemption relating to immigration matters has been removed, but three exemptions which will allow enormous scope for abuse are retained in the Bill. It is no argument for Home Office Ministers to say that they are not taking away rights but upholding them, for 10 years ago the problem at its present level did not even exist. The dangers grow apace with the growth of technology. Increased rights are therefore required for the individual to deal with the increasing opportunities that technology offers. It is not adequate to say that we are adding to the protection of human rights when we in this country lag considerably behind our colleagues in western Europe.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman referred to a Bill of Rights earlier in his speech. What part of a Bill of Rights would have assisted in easing the problem?
  Mr. Hughes: The right to respect for family life and privacy. I accept that it is a widely-drawn right. However, it has been interpreted without difficulty by the Commission and the European Court. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) knows, it is notable that this country of all countries has been the most frequent offender against the European convention on human rights, brought regularly before the Commission and found regularly by the court to be in breach. The worst offender is the Secretary of State's Department, the Home Office, which time and again has been found to be in breach and has then, as I think the lawyers will say, amended de minimis its regulations and rules. The obligations required by European conventions would allow much better access to information than provided for in the Bill. The tragedy is that we have not fully endorsed the principles established by the Council of Europe in the 1940s as a result of the abuses of information and concerns that were felt after the war.
  I have dealt with the concern that many hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches have about the lack of information to the individual when information is transferred from one data user to another. Clause 29 which deals with health and related information has the same substantial defect. Under this clause the Secretary of State by order can allow information in that category of the most confidential kind to become exempt from the Bill's provisions.
  The registration system itself may clearly be defective also. Under the present provisions, the registration system firstly applies to data users as opposed to data banks. Secondly, it is not clear that it will govern the breadth of purposes that the data user may have in mind. Worst, perhaps, the time lag permitted under the proposed legislation would allow effective registration to be reduced before the information became available to an inquiring individual. The proposed period for processing an application for registration at present is far too long for people to be able regularly to keep track of the information that is kept on them. It is not acceptable that the Bill should allow information to fall for so long outside its provisions, nor is it acceptable that in many cases where it would be proper and consistent with human rights, no provision is made for public inspection of applications. In the Bill there
  72
  is also a defence that someone tried to comply with it. That is not normally sufficient in other legislation, and it should not be sufficient here.
  You have been subjected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to listening to many criticisms of the Bill from both sides of the House in the debate. When the matter last came before the House, I said from these Benches—this view was shared by the Labour party at that time—that we would not oppose it then in the hope that the Bill would be substantially amended. That Bill has been substantially improved in several respects. All the bodies which, lobbied—the British Medical Association, the churches, the hospitals, and other bodies — have not however denied that some objections remain. They say rather and debates in the other place confirmed it — that substantial moves have been made in the right direction. As I said, it is a beginning. Our position tonight is, therefore, consistent with our position last year. I observe that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is waiting to explain how his party has changed its position. That can no doubt be explained in a moment
  We have said that if the Bill were improved we would support it, and, if it were not, we would reserve our right to vote against it. Unless more substantial improvements are made, as some have been to the Bill since it was presented a year ago, we shall reserve our right to vote against it on Third Reading. Because we believe, and I hope most hon. Members accept, that there should be data protection legislation, and that with every month that passes such legislation becomes more necessary, we will vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but we shall go into Committee with the same intentions that we had last year, namely, to seek further substantial improvements to deal with the remaining major problems.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Liberal party on the last occasion, in agreement with the Labour party, said that, unless the Bill was substantially improved, Liberal Members would vote against it on Third Reading. We disagree with him entirely in his interpretation of whether the Bill has been substantially improved — although, of course, some improvements have been made.
  Mr. Waddington: We have not yet reached Third Reading.
  Mr. Howell: I do not want to say much to the Minister at this stage except that the Bill has been introduced with the benefit of hindsight. In my experience in the House this is the first time that the benefit of hindsight has been totally usurped by the Government of the day. The Government have failed to take any account of the criticisms expressed during the passage of the Bill through the House. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Liberal party intends to vote in favour of the Bill tonight, it is a denial of the speech to which he has subjected the House.
  Mr. Hughes: It is odd, if the right hon. Gentleman's party are so strongly objecting to the Bill, that their membership in the House was for a long period two, and is now four. This suggests a token measure of opposition and not a constructive position. We shall certainly support— indeed, our names are on the Order Paper — the suggestion that, because of the detailed improvements required in the Bill, it should go to a special Select

  73
  Committee where evidence can be called. It would be inaccurate as well as ridiculous to say that, since the Bill was introduced in the last session, no substantial concessions have been made by the Government as a result of pressure not only from this place but from outside. Perhaps the only advantage of the last general election is that at least the Bill is slightly better than it was before the general election. Further substantial improvements are now required in coming months. It would be unfair, and inconsistent with what we said last time, to say last year that if there were improvements, we would support the Bill and, if there were not improvements, we would not support it, but then, on Second Reading—before what I hope will be a long and effective Committee stage — we were to oppose it. We reserve our right to oppose the Bill later. This is always a matter for judgment. We have to do the best for the individual when the Government are not of our choosing. We reserve our right to oppose the Bill unless the Government now listen to the arguments to which they have so often been deaf and which are aimed at improving what is a timid measure, conceived for the wrong reasons. Improvements, if implemented, would at least have the advantage of dealing with the inadequate situation that has existed for so long.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I listened with interest to the conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—both to the way that he expressed his conclusion and to the terms that he used. He said that the Liberal party had been consistent in this matter. It will be interesting to read the record. I do not think that his party has any right to claim consistency, save for voting consistently for increased expenditure and lower taxation at every opportunity open to it. It never faces the responsibility that any major party should face in saying that we must increase expenditure in one respect and that to do that we have to decrease it elsewhere or fail to balance the books. The record will show that the amount of increased expenditure advocated by the Liberal party would put about 20p on the standard rate of income tax — [Interruption.] That is how the Liberal party needs to face its responsibilities — [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) shouting at me. I used to run a school of 2,000 pupils, and I am accustomed to unruly, silly children. If the Liberal party does not like its arguments turned upon itself, it must not put fatuous arguments to the House.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who on personal terms is an admirable fellow, about the lack of interest in privacy among Labour Members. Only about 1 per cent. of Labour Members have been present for most of the debate so far. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that Britain has been forced to make a record number of appearances before the European Court of Human Rights. He must know that many people go through every one of our legal processes in an attempt to achieve what they want, and only then do they go to Europe. That is reasonable and acceptable. Despite that, this is the freest and best country in the world.
  Mr. Wilson: Rubbish.
  Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, why does he not go elsewhere?
  Mr. Wilson rose —
  Mr. Greenway: We have gone—
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just told me to go away because I suggested that this was not a democratic country. I remind the House that it was this Parliament in 1979 that refused to establish a Scottish assembly when the Scottish people had voted for it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) knows that that is not a point of order, and it is clear to me that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is not giving way to him.
  Mr. Greenway: No one was told to go away. I simply said that if the hon. Gentleman did not like this country and thought that it was not free, he should go elsewhere. I say it again.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the bogus point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will bear in mind that when the devolution legislation was brought before the House, there were 11 hon. Members representing the Scottish National party and that today there are only two.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I hope the hon. Member for Dundee, East has noted it.
  The Bill is a considerable step forward in protecting the individual. I am surprised that more Labour Members have not said so loud and clear. Some of them may have read Laurie Lee's marvellous book "Cider with Rosie". They will know from that that the village squire always said to any children whom he met once a year at a party, "The smallest room in the world is a mushroom, but the largest is room for improvement." There is room for improvement, and I shall have some improving suggestions to make. But the Bill is a major step forward in protecting the individual, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated.
  The attitude of the Labour party is ambiguous and inconsistent. We heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) express his fear for the individual—to point almost of nausea. We have to contrast what he and his party say and what he advocates in other areas of our law. I have in mind the principle of the closed shop which takes individuality away from a man or woman and with it all decision making in important areas of people's lives and arrogates their rights to a body over which they have little control. The same party advocates nationalisation, which again denies the individual his right to personal and individual enterprise and subjects him to direction from the state.
  Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No.
  Again, the Labour party would like to see the total municipalisation of housing.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Not all of us.
  Mr. Greenway: There are those who would not. I accept that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) would not, but many Labour Members would like to see the total municipalisation of

  75
  housing, which would give local authorities almost total control over the individual. Some Labour councils have almost achieved that. A notable example is Tower Hamlets. In that area 98 per cent. of all housing is publicly owned. Tower Hamlets is practically there. It cannot be denied that that is the direction in which sections of the Labour party wish to go.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), on behalf of the SDP, said that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee. However, I understand the Government's reluctance to accept that proposition. I was a member of the Special Standing Committee which considered the 1981 Education Bill. Most tragically, the procedure was grossly abused by the then Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Christopher Price, who clearly was in collusion with the present Leader of the Opposition. Between them they attempted to manipulate those scrutiny sessions of the Committee, to the detriment of the new device that Parliament had conceived. I have said as much to them. They know that I have this view. I say nothing that I have not said elsewhere.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to insult the Chairman of a Standing Committee and the Chairman of a Select Committee in that way? The procedures of the House ought to protect those who chair our Committees upstairs. It was my understanding that any criticism of the Chairman of any Committee had to be made in the form of a motion on the Order Paper, not by a statement in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). The distinction here is that he was referring to a former Member of the House and to a former Parliament.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to take it that although it is not possible to make allegations of the sort just made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about the Chairman of a Select Committee in this Session, it is possible to make exactly the same accusations retrospectively about a former Chairman in another Session? That seems to be quite wrong.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The point that I am making is that the gentleman referred to is not a Member of the House and that the reference was made to a former Parliament. That is the distinction that I am drawing. It would not be in order for reflections to be cast on the chairmanship of a Select Committee or Standing Committee in this Parliament and about a Member of the House.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your ruling, may I, through you, put it to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, whom I know to be a decent man, that with hindsight he ought not to have made accusations about a former colleague which he would not be able to make if that former colleague were still a Member of the House. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his words even though, of course, he is entitled to be critical.
  Mr. Greenway: Of course, I know the right hon. Member for Small Heath well and respect him. However, the procedure that the Labour party is advocating, which has been supported by the SDP spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, was abused in the previous Parliament. I say that with great respect to Christopher Price, whom I admire and respect tremendously. He is a great education man and a personal friend. Nevertheless, I have said that to his face.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: This is the last time that I shall give way.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in drawing up the list of witnesses, Christopher Price consulted the Government as well as the Opposition and that the list was agreed by both sides of the Committee? As a result of those procedures, many points were brought out in the Special Standing Committee part of the proceedings which led to amendments for which the hon. Gentleman voted and the Government supported. Therefore, there was a lot of constructive improvement to that Bill.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not say that Christopher Price did not consult fairly with Committee members. However, the Committee went wrong because of the order in which Christopher Price invited people to make their points. Hon. Members do not need me to remind them that it is tactics that count. That is how the Committee was abused. Therefore, I can understand why the Government are concerned about using that procedure again.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way again.
  The whole subject should, if possible, be considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is not for me to suggest its business, but if the Home Affairs Select Committee took it on — notwithstanding the forward provisions made by the Bill—we would have a most valuable device for inquiring into this important subject for the benefit of both Parliament and the public.
  Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way again, as I have given way several times. I want to continue my speech, as other hon. Members are waiting to speak.
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman has not given way to me.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has only recently walked into the Chamber.
  I support those who have said that there should be free access to data for those on social security. I note that such an amendment was tabled in the other place, but not accepted. I hope that the Home Office will reconsider that point. I do not understand, or quite accept, the costing set out on page V under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill."
  Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not invidious that an hon. Member should sit quietly throughout the sittings of a Special Standing Committee, of which he does not approve, and then talk disparagingly about it in the Chamber? Surely that is a false way of going about things.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that hon. Members are being sidetracked into former proceedings. It would help all hon. Members if we discussed the Bill.
  Mr. Greenway: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) will not abuse the procedures of the House in your time and mine.
  I hope that the Government will consider giving those on social security, and perhaps those on very limited means, free access to data. After all, there is a case for doing that. I also wonder whether 20 staff will be sufficient to enable the registrar to carry out his functions satisfactorily.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has frequently and valuably referred to the importance of opening school records. I largely support him in his aims. However, he goes further than I would in wanting complete openness. Last year, when we discussed a similar Bill, he was concerned — and no doubt will be now — that manual records were not included in the Bill. I share his broad concern.
  However, I am not sure that all school records should be made available to parents. Some school records, such as medical records, should be made available, but subjective assessments by teachers of a child's behaviour, his family, school work and relationships with other children should not be open to the public. They are subjective judgments by teachers and should be regarded as such and kept under wraps. Nevertheless, a teacher's official view of a child, as recorded on a report, school reference and so on should be accessible to parents and other legitimate members of the public at all times. From my long experience of education, including seven years running a school of more than 2,000 pupils, that is my view.
  There is much more to say, but other hon. Members are waiting to speak. Several hon. Members have rightly drawn the attention of the House to the need for a Bill of Rights. I would like to see a Bill that gave the individual the right to privacy, the right to decide whether or not to join a union, the right to worship, and so on. I understand the problem of entrenching such a Bill of Rights in our constitution, but such a Bill would be valuable, and I urge the Government to consider it.
  With those remarks, I welcome the Bill.
  7.47 pm
  Dr. John Marek: Like the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I shall try to be constructive, although I hope that my remarks will be based on a slightly different foundation from that of the hon. Gentleman. I was probably quite lucky not to have been a Member of Parliament in the previous Parliament when the lengthy procedural discussions referred to by the hon. Gentleman took place.
  In the wording of the Bill the Government should have demonstrated that they were abiding by the spirit and letter of the European convention, but they have not done so. However, they would have gone a long way towards doing so if they had accepted the report of the Lindop committee and, in particular, the proposal to set up a data protection authority. Paragraph 15 of the report's summary states:
  "The DPA should be an open and friendly Authority, and should seek to avoid an adversary relationship with users. It should therefore be required to conduct consultations with those
  78
  who will be affected by a draft Code, and to invite representations. It should also provide assistance, guidance and rulings, for example to users who plan a new application."
  Instead, we have a registrar and tribunal. As other hon. Members have said, in the case of court proceedings, they will act as a great deterrent to many of those who seek redress for their grievances. Conservative Members have argued that a data protection authority would be another quango. If so, so be it, but many other quangos will be set up if and when the Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties is enacted. It will be impossible to perform the functions of those metropolitan counties without recourse to a great many quangos. One quango is not necessarily evil if it can be justified, and I believe that there is justification for one in the Lindop report. A data protection authority might have only a small staff. It could use the consumer protection departments of county councils to help to keep down its costs. Yet the Government have seen fit not to accept that recommendation, which is why the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Roger Freeman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of a registrar rather than an authority is the speed with which a registrar can act? Are not we living in an age when data can be transferred quickly not only from one computer to another, but from one country to another? If the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of the Bill, would not far better protection be provided through a registrar — a single individual, albeit supported by his staff—who could act more quickly than an authority?
  Dr. Marek: I accept that it is important to act quickly, and if a registrar can do that, so be it. But that does not preclude an authority from acting quickly. I hope to illustrate later why we need more than a registrar.
  It is a matter of great concern that the Bill provides many possibilities for evasion. Hon. Members have already mentioned the possibility of changing initials— for example, either putting them in front of the name or following the name. One serious defect of the Bill is that manual records are exempt. Those wishing to set up a blacklist of employees or a list of individuals' creditworthiness could set up two different companies— one a computer bureau and the other a company operating a manual system. They could pass information to each other. I am not sure whether the Bill would prevent such a practice. The Bill is of no value unless it clearly tackles the problem of evasion in certain types of data collection.
  The Lindop committee stated:
  "However, we have defined 'handling' to cover a wide range of activities, and recommend that a user's personal data handling should come within the scope of the Act if any part of it is conducted by automatic means. Data handling bureaux should also come within the scope of the legislation."
  I shall vote against the Bill, but if it reaches its Committee stage — as it will, because of the Government's overwhelming majority—I hope that that point is given further consideration so that the Bill can be tightened as much as possible.
  I echo the deep concern expressed by many hon. Members about the confidentiality of medical records. Under clause 1(5), it is certain that health authorities will register as data users because it would be impractical for doctors, in their various disciplines, to register individually. Doctors will not then be able to control access to information that they have taken in confidence from their patients. As my right hon. Friend the Member

  79
  for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made plain, if patients believe that the information that they give to their doctors is not absolutely confidential, they will become wary before they divulge all the facts, and doctors will have greater difficulty in making a correct diagnosis. In certain cases, that difficulty may prove crucial. I hope that the Government will not put doctors in that difficult position, which will inevitably worsen standards of health.
  When information is to be made available to others, it should follow the recommendations in the British Medical Association's handbook of medical ethics:

  "(a) In all medical records, information should be regarded as held for the specific purpose of the continuing care of the patient, and should not be used, without appropriate authorisation by the responsible clinician or the consent of the patient, for any other purpose.

  (b) Access to identifiable information held in medical records should be restricted to the author and the person clinically responsible for the patient during the episode for which the data was collected (or their successor) unless specifically authorised by the clinician in the interests of the patient. Access to clinical data of previous episodes of illness should be available to the clinicians currently providing care for the patient. Access to such information should only be allowed, where practicable, with the patient's consent.

  (c) An individual should not be identifiable from data supplied for statistical or research purposes. If follow-up of the individual patient is a necessary part of the research, the patient must have previously given consent. Consent to the release of information for a medical research project must have been obtained from local ethical committee for clinical research, or in the case of the National Cancer Registry, from the Chairman of the BMA's Central Ethical Committee."

  I hope that I have made it clear that I am asking the Government urgently to consider that problem, which is of central concern to a great many people. I hope that the Bill will make absolute the confidentiality between patients and doctors, subject only to the restrictions that I cited from the BMA's handbook
  The Government are not taking into account the basic fact that technology in data processing is increasing at a tremendous speed—far more quickly than in almost any other branch of technology, engineering, physics or chemistry. What are new business techniques today will not only be antiquated tomorrow, but very antiquated. That is why we need more than a registrar. We need a data protection authority that can do more than the registrar. It would have a duty to produce codes of practice and to issue reports to the Government so that legislation could be kept up to date. No one can foresee the posititon in two or there years because technology is moving forward so quickly. Without such an authority, the legislation will not be effective. That is why I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I do not wish to speak for too long because a number of my hon. Friends are still waiting to speak.
  I was considerably shocked to hear the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorthon (Mr. Kaufman), giving the somewhat pathetic and unconvincing reasons why the Opposition intend to vote against the principle of the Bill. The Labour party ducked the issue throughout its period in government. Opposition Members are complaining that the Government do not have a perfect Bill—as though it is
  80
  easy, or even possible, to produce that at the first attempt on such a subject. If the Labour party really cared, it could have introduced a Bill not just once, but twice when it was in government.
  The Younger committee first reported on privacy in 1972. The Labour party came to power in 1974 and could have picked up that subject and legislated on it, but it ducked the issue and set up the Lindop inquiry. That reported in 1978, when the Labour party was still in office, but we did not see any sign of enthusiasm from Labour Ministers at that time for grasping this nettle. Now, when the Conservative Government grasp it and introduce a Bill, Labour Members object. It must have given the Government's business managers some pause when it was decided to introduce a Bill which clearly would be contentious apart from any party controversy, and I honour the Government for having introduced the measure.
  The Labour party says that the matter should have been referred to a Select Committee, a Special Standing Committee or some other procedure. Since 1979 — technically, since 1980 — the House has had Select Committees looking into various matters and at any time Labour Members could have suggested to relevant Committees that they might look at the subject, but I am not aware that they ever have. Why suddenly now, on the second occasion when a Bill of this kind has been before the House, do they feel it necessary to have a Select Committee to examine these matters?
  Running through the speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton was a distaste for the Bill, for no other reason than that it might help the information technology industry. Since he comes from a Manchester constituency, which contains a substantial part of that industry, I should have thought that he, like me, would have welcomed the Bill for that reason alone.
  That is not the only reason why the Bill is before us, though that is a good reason for accepting it, and it has been widely welcomed by those concerned with the rights of citizens and consumers generally. Also important is the fact that the Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data. It may not do everything that all hon. Members wish, but the fact that it will enable us to ratify that convention is an advance over the present position, and if we are talking about the principles of the Bill, as we are today, that should be welcome in all parts of the House, and I am surprised that the Labour party and SNP intend to vote against Second Reading.
  In the last Parliament I expressed concern about why the Bill incorporated the concept of a data protection registrar, because I foresaw the probability that virtually everyone who ran a computer system would be likely to have to register, and I do not think that has changed. However, I now admit to conversion because, although at that time I had not found anything in the European convention which required the appointment of a registrar, I have since discovered why that must be so if we are to adhere to that convention. In that sense I apologise to the Minister and accept that the Government were right to incorporate that provision in the Bill, although I still do not like its bureaucratic consequences.
  I am astonished that Opposition Members should oppose a measure which sets out in its first schedule the principles that we find there. For example, it states that information contained about

  81
  "personal data shall be … processed, fairly and lawfully … Personal data shall be held only for … specified and lawful purposes. Personal data … shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with … those purposes. Personal data … shall be … relevant and not excessive … Personal data shall be accurate and … kept up to date. Personal data … shall not be kept for longer than is necessary … An individual shall be entitled … to be informed … whether he … is the subject"
  of data being held, that he should have access to any such data and have data corrected or erased where appropriate. That such principles are enunciated in a statute is to be welcomed. Although there are imperfections in the Bill, it is a major step forward and the Government deserve support for introducing it.
  I have certain queries about the Bill, and I adduce them in a constructive spirit. Clause 1(3) defines personal data as
  "data consisting of information which relates to a living individual".
  Because somebody dies, remembering that other people might be concerned with his reputation or might be deemed to have characteristics relating to that person's personal characteristics and data, why should the fact of death take away the rights of the individual in regard to personal data?
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It takes away all his rights because he is dead.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman may be a legal eagle and there may be reasons why a person on death ceases to have rights; or perhaps he can transfer those rights to other persons. I do not know, but I should have thought that it could be harmful to citizens if data were revealed about a dead person, especially if those data were held on a basis of privacy.
  The same subsection refers to an
  "individual who can be identified from the information".
  Does that mean that if the data do not contain the name—or perhaps the name and address—of the person, a data user of that kind of information will not have to register? Does the existence of a code reference in the computer data enable the data user to hold off line an index enabling him to keep identification of the person separately on a manual system?
  May we also be told why
  "including any expression of opinion about the individual"
  should necessarily have to be revealed to the individual? There are times when that could be unreasonably oppressive.
  Since we debated the Bill in the last Parliament, clause 1(8) has been changed and now reads:
  "Subsection (7) above shall not be construed as applying to any operation performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents."
  I imagine that that change was made because somebody thought that it was ridiculous to have word processors brought into the Bill when it was originally intended for computing-type data. I appreciate why the provision has been aimed at reducing the number of people brought into the scope of the register, and if a machine system is genuinely only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents, I am happy that that subsection should remain. If anyone thinks that that will take a significant number of data users out of the system, I do not believe him. For example, typing pools carry out the operation that is confined to the preparing of texts for documents, a purpose for which only very few word processors are used. It is an
  82
  extraordinarily inefficient use of a word processor for it does not even approach the benefit that could be derived from such a machine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcote-Amory) referred to the position of Members of Parliament and political parties. I raised the same issue when the Bill's predecessor was debated on Second Reading in the previous Parliament. I did not receive an answer then and I hope that the issue will be clarified when my hon. and learned Friend replies. Where will Members stand who hold information about constituents who have written to them in the ordinary course of correspondence? What will be the position of political parties which keep canvass records, for example? What will be their position once the Bill is enacted?
  The universities and vice-chancellors expressed concern during the previous Parliament about the effect of the Bill on the way in which they keep some information about students in the course of their examinations. I raised the issue and the Government decided not to exempt universities. I understand why they took that view. Since then, I understand that the universities, vice-chancellors and principals have approached the subject again. They have produced a qualified exemption which might commend itself to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  The universities feel that they need to retain the confidentiality of computerised records of students' examination results, to which all students will have the right of access if the Bill is enacted in its present form. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom would like to see that which is contained in a letter that was written by the secretary general of that body to principals of universities. The letter reads:
  "Universities firmly believe that it is in the interests of both students and institutions to maintain the absolute confidentiality of 'raw' marks awarded in individual examinations as opposed to the final grading of candidates. Examination marks are expressed in many different ways and may be adjusted at various stages of the examining process. Other factors are frequently taken into account by an Examiners' Board when determining final grades such as a student's performance during the course, and in some cases marks may be adjusted at the discretion of the Board to take account of difficulties such as illness. Taken out of context, therefore, we consider that raw examination marks could be confusing to a student."
  As a result of those views, the committee of vice-chancellors and principals would like to see a provision in the Bill to exempt universities from the need to disclose examination marks until such time as the final assessment of a candidate has been completed. That is the new element which the committee is suggesting, and I hope that it will be considered further by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I think that there should be an exemption that will allow data users to disclose information in circumstances in which everyone agrees that disclosure is sensible. At present, if a data user has data on his file, he is not entitled to display them to the world. But there could be occasions when it would be desirable in the public interest, or in the interests of those on the file, to reveal them. There is no mechanism anywhere in the Bill to allow that to happen in a simple and straightforward manner. Again, that is something that should be considered.
  Where a data subject, to use the inelegant language of the Bill, seeks to exercise his rights under the Bill to obtain information which is held about him, I hope that strict criteria will be laid down to ensure that that person will

  83
  have to give proof of identity. If not, the way is wide open for a neighbour to learn about another neighbour's personal matters which are no business of his. That is an example of breach of privacy, which much of the Bill is directed towards. I welcome the Bill and I hope that it can be further improved.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on this subject and that he has substantial queries about certain parts of the Bill. As he has spoken on Second Reading and can claim the right to be a member of the Committee that considers it, may we have an assurance that when he sits in Committee he will table amendments along the lines that he has suggested and will vote in support of them?
  Mr. Henderson: If the matter were left to my personal inclinations, I should be glad to be a member of the Committee. As it happens, I am sitting in Committe on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is no problem.
  Mr. Henderson: Labour Members tell us that that Bill will be in Committee until Easter or later, so it may be rather difficult to fulfil the hon. Member's desire for me to be a member of the Committee. I understand that two or three Bills on Scottish matters are coming along behind the rating Bill. I cannot make any promise to the hon. Gentleman to help him with his problems.
  I welcome the Bill and I hope that it can be further improved. However, I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, that it might not be very long before we have to take a further look at this subject.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), certain portions of which filled me with curiosity. I agree with one area of his remarks, but am left somewhat intrigued by other areas. For example, I am intrigued about his unusual exposition of the rights of the dead. I do not want to dismiss it out of hand. I hope that he will transmit his interesting ideas to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who believes that the dead, or the political dead outside the House, have no rights whatsoever. He seems to believe that someone who has served the House as the Chairman of a Committee may be criticised with impunity. During a seemingly studiously offensive passage in his speech, I wondered whether he had expressed his criticism of Christopher Price in Committee or saved it up for expression in the House, where he can make it with the protection of immunity.
  I shared the amazement of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East at hearing the position adopted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who argued that it would be consistent and right to vote against the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) came under attack for criticising some parts of the Bill but decided that we on these Benches should support it. However, I was amazed at the position adopted by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
  I dug up the speech—perhaps that is the appropriate description—that was made by the right hon. Member
  84
  for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when the previous Bill was being discussed on 11 April 1983. He said:
  "The Bill makes an important and vital contribution to the protection that we, the data subjects, need. For all its inadequacies, the Bill establishes the principle that the private citizen has the right to know what information about him or her is being held by private companies or public agencies, the right to inspect that information, the right to correct any errors of fact that that information contains and the right to the assurance that those data, which have been necessarily and properly obtained, will not be subsequently misused.
  It is because of the legal recognition of those principles that is belatedly given by the Bill that I shall not vote against its Second Reading, nor do I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so."
  That is succinctly put.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Read on.
  Mr. Ashdown: I shall read on, although I did not wish to give too extended a quotation. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "We have in a sense, through the schedules and through the recognition of the principles in them, made some progress towards the objects of the Younger committee's report and the European embodiment of those objects in the Council of Europe legislation. — [Official Report, 11 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 560–61.]
  Those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench may be embarrassed by that detailed quotation.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Not at all.
  Mr. Ashdown: What cannot be doubted—this is the inconsistency underlying the Opposition's position—is that the Bill has been amended since the Labour party decided not to challenge it in the House of Commons. Whether the amendments are substantive may be a matter for argument, but they certainly tend in the right direction. I do not understand how the Labour party can bring itself to vote against the Bill now that it has been amended and improved in certain ways.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am not embarrassed. I am simply sad that the hon. Gentleman does not continue his quotation to the point at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it clear that, notwithstanding his welcome for any Bill on the subject, Labour Members would vote against Third Reading unless the Bill were substantially improved on fundamental matters relating to the individual citizen.
  Mr. Waddington: This is not Third Reading.
  Mr. Howell: Of course not. However, since that time there has been another Second Reading, another Committee stage in another place and another Third Reading, and now there is this debate. The Government have had almost 12 months in which to put the fundamental matters right, but they have not done so. It is no credit to alliance Members that they are prepared to accept a tawdry compromise, ignoring the fundamental principles that we wish to establish.
  Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook ended his speech by saying:
  "I hope that the Bill can be improved in Committee." — [Official Report, 11 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 567.]
  We still sustain that hope. Some of the details of the Bill may be worrying, but the principle is worth supporting.

  85
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, we see the Bill as part of a larger whole. There is a need for a Bill of Rights to protect, once and for all, the rights of the individual against depredation by the great bureaucracies, the trade union movement or the large industries. We need a Bill of Rights to enshrine the freedoms of the individual and to give him, in particular, some freedom of access to information. The Bill is only pan of that larger whole for which the Liberal party and our SDP colleagues have long striven.
  I wish to make a narrower point which I believe has worrying implications. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made a similar point. I accept that there is a need to bring in a Bill now. There is a need to limit the private use of data banks and computer technology in a way which will safeguard the rights of the individual. However, a balance must be struck. The hon. Member for Wells said that he feared that the Bill would limit overmuch the private use of data bases and new technology while not limiting sufficiently their use by the state. In my judgment, the Bill does not provide safeguards limiting the use of the state's computers.
  There has been a significant and welcome move towards the use of new technology by the organs of the state. We regard that as useful because it is cost-effective and, properly used, can result in greater personal service to the individual. Nevertheless, the state of the computer technology art is moving so fast that some of the Lindop committee's recommendations are now out of date. Indeed, if some of the recommendations in the Bill are not already out of date they soon will be.
  There has been an immense growth in the amount of information held on the state's massive computers and the computers operated by some fringe organs of the state, such as the gas and electricity boards. I recently toured my local electricity board. The computer there can list the precise usage of every unit of electricity in every household in Britain, every hour of the day. It is making available an enormous amount of information. The same is becoming true of the water authorities.
  The computers which serve the great organs of State are even more frightening. According to an answer that I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, there are 53 million names on the DHSS general index at Newcastle. The response time between feeding in a name and getting out the national insurance number is about five seconds, and since the index became operational in 1982 there have been 15 million inquiries. That represents 30 per cent. of the total data base—an enormous usage of data.
  Currently that data base is being used almost exclusively by the staff at Newcastle, but experiments are in progress to give on-line access to other DHSS centres. I am still referring to answers received from the Undersecretary of State. There are 135 terminals at present, but there is talk of expanding the system to give on-line access to the central index and to the national insurance computer—an even larger computer at Newcastle—to every local DHSS office. That would mean as many as 20,000 on-line access terminals for that massive computer — a very broad dissemination of immediate access. Although that computer works on national insurance numbers, it can convert a name and address to a national insurance number in five seconds. In other words, there are two methods of access. One can plug in either the name and address or the national insurance number.
  86
  Running alongside that, and hopefully separated from it—we shall shortly discover whether that is so—there is the police computer. I understand that it holds information about every car and some 24 or 25 million people. Access is by name and address. There are also local police computers, some of which, such as the one in Sussex, have a direct interface with the police national computer. That is another powerful system of data collection and retrieval.
  Separate from those systems — we hope — are the Inland Revenue computers. They operate on a basis of access by national insurance number. Again, there is a wide dissemination of on-line terminals. The system is powerful and effective and contains a great deal of data.
  There can be no doubt that the ingredients for the state of 1984 exist. I would not accuse the present Government, or any other Government, of maliciously intending to combine those ingredients. Our present system with its massive state computers and their data bases—if they should have an interface — has the ingredients for creating a state which would have access to people's lives in a way which I believe all right hon. and hon. Members would be opposed. It is what Lindop said might happen and stood out against.
  There are two matters that we must approach. The first is the central computer and telecom agency now — presumably because of the sale of British Telecom—called the Government's central computer agency. It has been working for the past two or three years—perhaps even 10 years—to ensure that Government systems in terms of data input, software and hardware, are standardised as far as possible. I do not mean that there can now be a machine interface, but there has been a distinct move towards standardisation. Not only do we have the ingredients, but there is a positive act of Government policy, perhaps sensible, to ensure that there is a degree of standardisation.
  It is against that background that we must investigate the safeguards that the Bill offers against that de facto interface of the state's great computers. In that respect it is deeply worrying to see how ineffective clause 28(1) and (2) are. Personal data can be exchanged if they are held for any of the following purposes:
  "(a) the prevention or detection of crime"—
  not just the detection, but the prevention of crime; in other words, if it is reasonable for someone to consider that crime might be committed, it is possible for that interchange to take place—
  "(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or
  (c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty".
  That system allows almost a free exchange of information. It is necessary only for someone to come along and say, "We believe that a crime is going to be committed," for that exchange of information between those databases to be allowed. There has been no significant advance on this matter because that provision carries forward the current practice by which the police can go to the DHSS and request information.
  The current practice is contained in a Home Office circular. In paragraphs 177 to 188 it says that the exchange of information between the DHSS and the police can take place to assist the police
  "normally orally and in confidence, in investigations of offences, other than those of a trivial nature."
  We do not know at what level that operates. It could operate at police constable to executive officer level.

  87
  Someone from the police can ask for the disclosure of information from the DHSS to the police. The circular continues:
  "In general, requests for disclosure of addresses should be made direct to the Manager."
  In general requests do not have to be.
  "The fact that assistance has been given, or information has been passed, by the Department of Health and Social Security to the police under the procedures described in paragraphs 1.79 and 1.86 above should, as far as practicable, remain confidential."
  Such information is being passed not only at a low level. The police decide whether it is a trivial offence—an extension perhaps of the principle in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that it is a matter of judgment for the police as to whether an offence is serious—but the fact of the passage of the information has to be kept confidential.
  Mr. Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He may be able to answer a query in which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State might be interested. If one's bank holds, for example, records of amounts that one borrows from or lends to the bank—sums which are liable to interest—will the Inland Revenue be allowed to key straight into that bank data source to find out what one holds? One must bear in mind that the banks are under a current obligation to report to the Inland Revenue interest paid to a customer, which will be liable to tax if it comes from a deposit account or something similar. As the hon. Gentleman understands it, can there be a direct link as at present?
  Mr. Ashdown: I am not sufficiently au fait with present practice to know whether that is the case, but it appears to be the case provided that the Inland Revenue can make the point under clause 28(1)(c) that it is for
  "the assessment or collection of any tax or duty".
  It appears to be possible for the information to be passed from the bank—a private organisation—to the state for those purposes.
  My point is rather different. I recognise that a series of problems spin from the central problem. Within the organisation of the state, the control of the exchange of information held on the state's great databases is so hopelessly inadequate as to be non-existent. The Government have not sought to take the current code of practice for this operation any further.
  It perhaps does not matter too much—my case is that it matters a great deal — that a police constable can approach the DHSS and ask for information, because at present the information that the DHSS has will be local, with perhaps names and addresses. However, that will alter radically as soon as there is on-line access to the central computer at Newcastle. Then there is a de facto capacity for interchange locally, practically untrammelled by control.
  I should like to know, perhaps in Committee, how many requests under the present system the police have made for the DHSS to hand over information and how many have been refused. I suspect that it will be few. How many disciplinary measures have been taken against DHSS officials for handing over information at an unauthorised level? We must remember that the
  88
  information is nearly always oral and that we are talking about a vast expansion of the subversion of the spirit of the Bill.
  The fact that the information is given confidentially means that we have no control over how many instances there have been. We do not know at what level the passing of information operates. Therefore, the Bill's provisions and those in the guidelines are hopelessly inadequate for the circumstances that will arise.
  Having made that point with all the force that I can, the onus must be upon me to make some constructive suggestions. The Bill could be amended in Committee in the way that we want. There should be a declaration of the number of times information has been exchanged inside and outside Government under the Bill's provisions. When the police ask for information from the DHSS, they should do so in writing rather than orally. There should be a limit to the rank at which information can be passed. The registrar should be informed of all occasions on which information is passed and report the number to Parliament. Those are the type of safeguards that we would wish to see built into the Bill.
  Above all its other recommendations, the Lindop report warned against the use of a universal personal identifier. That was almost its most important recommendation. The power of the machines is now so great and the dissemination of access to them is so wide that there is a de facto universal personal identifier coming into existence, because it is possible to access all the state computers with one piece of information — national insurance numbers which will give addresses or addresses which will give national insurance numbers. That creates the opportunity for the subversion of the spirit of the Bill and dangerously magnifies the damage that could occur as a result.
  The state's computers now provide a "Big Brother" network. The safeguards in the Bill against that danger are puny and inadequate. The most important amendment that I wish to see limits the state's power and gives the individual the protection that I know the Government seek to give under the Bill.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: I welcome the Bill, which has been introduced for the second time. I agree with those who believe that it is in a better form now than when it was first presented in 1983. However, there will be a need for amendment in a few years' time in the light of experience, because there is such rapid change in data processing and the holding of data that it is almost impossible for us in this legislature to be able to prescribe exactly what will occur.
  I should declare a past interest, in that until June last year I was involved with International Computers Ltd. on systems of the type that we might wish to control and regulate via the Bill. There is a major need to provide controls for the benefit of what in the Bill are called data subjects. On the other hand, some of the emotion generated on the Opposition Benches is a little difficult to understand. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) commented on the police holding data. He said that if certain data could be examined, they must be so mundane that it would be unnecessary to provide for that, but if they could not be examined they might be inaccurate, which was a disgrace.

  89
  It seems that there is no way in which the Government can win in their provisions for the police holding data. I believe that most people want to ensure that the police have good systems so that criminals are apprehended and crimes are prevented. The balance of provisions in the Bill is right and should ensure that criminals are inhibited, and at the same time that the individual has reasonable protection.
  One of the problems that we face in such legislation is that the number of data users and databases is increasing very quickly, with the incredible growth of the use of microcomputers in small businesses and in the home. There is a danger that the wealth of databases might inundate the registrar if we are not careful.
  Dr. Marek: I have two points to make. First, I agree that there will be a great multiplicity of databases and users, some of which may be in other countries, not even in this country. The Bill does not take that into account. Secondly, earlier there was a great hullabaloo from Members of the minor parties about how many of them were in the Chamber. However, now that they have all made their speeches most of them have gone and there is just one left.
  Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman's second point is all too true. One hears occasional noise from—
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that at present there is an attendance of 4·5 per cent. of the alliance, 0·5 per cent. of the Labour party and 2·2 per cent. of the Conservative party. I hope the hon. Gentleman will cast the mote from his own eye before attacking people.
  Mr. Wood: I cannot regard that as a major contribution to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that the Bill did not address itself to databases overseas. I think that the Bill does touch on the matter, but the Government rightly believe that if data from overseas are not brought to this country, that is not a matter for this country's legislation. However, if they are, that is a matter of concern.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: My hon. Friend was correct to say that there is reference in the Bill to cross-border data flows. It is in clauses 4 and 5. However, does he agree that there are inadequacies, in that some countries might have different practices and standards? Hon. Members have referred to signatories of the convention. They would probably have a higher standard in relation to cross-border data flows than that of non-signatories of the convention.
  Mr. Wood: Of course that is so. It is one of the reasons why I suspect that the Bill, when it is enacted, will need to be subject to review. In the light of experience there might have to be changes in the provisions, including those on the exchange of data between countries.
  An important point is that quite often there are hybrid systems for the holding of data. One keeps a certain amount of information on a computer data base and other information on manual records, which are linked to the information on the computer data base. One might need to address that matter with more care. There is no doubt that concern about speedy access and other matters led to the great pressure to introduce legislation. There could be a system on which exceedingly sensitive and possibly inaccurate data was held manually, but on which it would
  90
  be possible to get to the data quickly because there is a computer indexing system. On that indexing system there could be a skeletal amount of information about the individuals concerned. Perhaps it is too easy to say that we shall not cover the manual holding of data, because there could be further complications.
  There is a difficult line to draw in word processing. Much word processing data are held for only a short time and it might be absurd to try to register that use. However, word processing data may be held for years, and they may be indexed. If one has an effective word processing system, it should be so indexed. One may be holding data which are important and sensitive.
  Mr. Freeman: Does the hon. Friend agree with what was said by our hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who touched on the use of computers by hon. Members? It is an important point. He said that in certain circumstances the keeping of manual records would be covered by the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should consider the point about whether the political use of data on computers and even word processors should be exempted under the Bill and that it is an anomaly that hon. Members might be covered and have to register under the Bill?
  Mr. Wood: That matter merits further consideration, although I should be reluctant to exempt hon. Members because of the information they might hold.
  What matters most to the individual is the accuracy of the data and who might be interested in that data. The danger is not so much that data might be held, but that they might be inaccurate. I recall a case affecting me. It did not involve computer-held data. Aspects of the information were not of major concern or interest to the individual concerned, but the information was passed to someone else, for whom the information had a different significance. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the passing of information from one data user to another is carefully monitored.
  Under this legislation, it may be that a data user who is not sympathetic to the interests of the Bill may create two or three files which, when used in conjunction, can enable a variety of deductions to be made. In some instances the absence of information on a file about an individual may be significant. It is similar to saying, "Why did the dog not bark in the night?" A database could contain a list of all those who, in one way or another, were regarded as respectable and a list of those who were not so well regarded. There may be another file containing the names of the full string of people about whom the data user is concerned. It would be necessary simply to carry out a processing operation to demonstrate those in whom the data user is interested.
  Mr. Hayward: Is it not the case, when referring to the compatibility between word processing and computer sytems, that basic information on an individual would be held on a word processing system, whereas the sensitive information would be held on the main computing system, given that Wang and other major word processor systems are compatible with all of the major computer systems in the world and that information could, therefore, be interchangeable? Clause 1(3) therefore contains a flaw in that circumstances can be identified from the information and the information could go from a word processor into a computer system.
  Mr. Wood: That point is valid although, even without going into the question of the word processing system, it is possible to create the circumstances which I have endeavoured to show. That process contains dangers which are not easily handled, and the Bill as it stands also does not handle them well.
  A number of my queries would be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. Overall, the Bill is much to be commended. It endeavours to avoid excessive bureaucracy and interference by those who need to handle efficiently data about individuals, their accounts and so on. The Bill in its general approach provides a satisfactory compromise to protect many individuals, while it enables effective data processing to continue.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) because I too want to refer to hybrid schemes, which are one of the most worrying aspects of the Bill.
  We must judge the Bill on whether it improves the quality of life of our individual constituents and meets the demands and requirements of those who have long been campaigning for data protection legislation, without imposing too many difficulties on data users. On that count, this is a miserable and disappointing Bill. Many hon. Members have suggested that when the Bill is in Committee it may be improved. Liberal and Social Democratic Members have been arguing that on this occasion they will support the Bill but may not be so happy to do so on Third Reading.
  During the early stages of the Committee proceedings on the previous Data Protection Bill I was disappointed that it was difficult to put down amendments about points of concern because of arguments that we were widening the scope of the Bill. I do not doubt that in the next Committee even more ingenuity will be shown. I suspect that the Committee will be frustrating unless, even at this late hour, the Government are prepared to concede that there will be a Special Standing Committee on the Bill so that there may be further debate and inquiry about the areas of difficulty and the Bill's shortcomings. The Bill could then be improved.
  I do not understand why the Government are keen not to have that procedure, because if they genuinely believe that the Bill is right as it stands, it would be easy for them to call a fair share of the people who were witnesses to the earlier Committee before the Special Standing Committee to substantiate the Government's view. I suspect that the Government are reluctant to have that special procedure because they doubt whether any witnesses, whatever the selection process, would come forward to give the Bill favourable comment. The problem would be that almost every witness before the special Select Committee would be critical of the Bill.
  Mr. Hayward: Is the hon. Gentleman, in proposing a Special Standing Committee or some form of inquiry associated with a Select Committee, advocating a further delay in relation to data protection and thereby exacerbating the problem to which several hon. Members have addressed themselves—that a two-year delay in implementation is too long?
  Mr. Bennett: I am suggesting that the process should be faster. The problem is that with many pieces of
  92
  legislation our existing Standing Committee procedures do not help us to improve the legislation. Debates must be conducted around a narrow series of words amending the Bill. In the last Parliament, the device of the special Standing Committee was developed whereby there were three sessions before the commencement of the Standing Committee when evidence was given and questions asked. That was an intelligent way of speeding up the Committee proceedings because the key issues could be discussed at that stage. If the Government were prepared to listen to some of the arguments and to make changes, it was possible for them to table amendments. The result was that the Standing Committee proceedings were shortened. In the last Parliament, legislation — certainly on the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill and in several other instances—was dramatically improved because of that special procedure.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: I am worried that there will be pressures from the Government Front Bench for time to speak, so I had better proceed. I am most disappointed that the Government have not been prepared to use the Special Standing Committee procedure in this case. I hope that they do not seek to bury that procedure permanently.
  During my time as a Member of Parliament all the pressure that I have encountered from people in these matters has been for access to manual rather than computerised records. People are greatly concerned about access to school records, social security records and, more recently, the information on which housing benefit is calculated. The Government have made concessions to the medical profession about medical records, but I wish that doctors were a little more professional and did not tell colleagues that certain patients were troublesome and awkward and not welcome on their lists.
  I believe that the Bill will discourage people from changing from manual to computerised systems, because they will not want to go through the process of registration and that if they start to use computers at all they will be tempted to opt for a hybrid system in which the simple information is handled by the computer and can be supplied on request and the more complicated and delicate information is kept on a manual record so that the computer printout merely shows, by a star or some other sign, that there is a manual file. As I understand it, the individual will not have the right to check the manual file.
  Two problems arise in this connection. First, the information on the manual file may be inaccurate and the individual should have the right to have it corrected. Secondly, a user selecting names may be tempted to take only those against which no star appears so that there is no need to consult the manual file, in the knowledge that the unstarred names are perfectly safe but that manual files may contain sensitive material. Users may be tempted to assume that the starred names are best avoided, as people with whom they might not wish to deal for credit or other purposes. Reluctance to check the manual file may lead to mistakes because the very existence of the file may be taken as a black mark. It is thus extremely dangerous to encourage hybrid systems and the possibility of people jumping to conclusions in that way. If there is anything on the computer printout to show that a manual file exists, the individual must have the right to see the manual record.

  93
  The committee of vice-chancellors and the various examination boards should not be entitled to exemption simply because examination marks are kept on computers, but I hope that in Committee the Government will make provision for exemption for a limited period. At present, O-level examinations are taken in June. The papers are marked at the end of June or the beginning of July and the results are put on to computer in rough form at that point. It would be stupid to allow parents or youngsters access to that information when modifications might need to be made later to take account of marking standards and so forth before the final results were published perhaps six weeks later. The boards should not be allowed to hide the information altogether, but they should be given time so that the results are revealed only at the final stage.
  Finally — I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is getting restless — I introduced a small measure just before Christmas to deal with newspapers being delivered to people who did not want them. I shall not go into that now, save to say that I have received an enormous amount of correspondence from people who are concerned about the amount of unsolicited mail that comes through their letterboxes. The most famous example is no doubt the Reader's Digest, which must win first prize in the waste paper raffle. People want the right to know whether their names are on such lists and how the information is passed on and, preferably, the right to get off such lists.
  I hope that if the Bill is given a Third Reading, it will be drastically improved in Committee and come back in a much improved form. Otherwise, there will be demands for new legislation almost as soon as it reaches the statute book.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: The Bill represents a missed opportunity and we greatly regret that. As I said in an intervention, the measure has been reintroduced with all the benefits of hindsight, but the Government have not taken advantage of that. As the Home Secretary made clear, it has now had three Second Readings here and in another place, as well as two Committee stages and two Third Readings. It is thus possible to form a judgment on how far the Government have sought to meet the serious objections of principle that have been raised.
  When this measure last came before the House we said that we hoped that it would be substantially improved in Committee. I acknowledge that there have been improvements, but they do not deal sufficiently with the defence of the private citizen and privacy. We shall vote against Second Reading tonight because, despite the improvements, especially in response to representations made by business and the CBI, fundamental doubts remain about some provisions. Substantial objections continue to be represented to us by a collection of organisations with the greatest responsibility — including the British Medical Association, the four local authority associations, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Trades Union Congress, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the universities and, especially, the Law Society.
  For those reasons we propose that the Bill should enjoy the Special Standing Committee procedure. I am glad that most hon. Members think that that would have been a sensible way to proceed. That Committee could have called expert witnesses and heard the substantial
  94
  objections of those bodies. I can disclose to the House that, were the Government to agree to that proposal, we would not vote against Second Reading.
  It would have been perfectly logical, because expert evidence would have been available to such a Committee and the witnesses could have been cross-examined. The combination of the Government's failure to meet such substantial representations and their objection to the Special Standing Committee procedure leads us to conclude that we must vote against Second Reading.
  Many hon. Members asked why the Bill had been reintroduced so speedily after the general election. The Government have said that we must sign the convention agreed at the Council of Europe, for the good reasons given by the Home Secretary earlier — the massive national interests of trade and commerce that are involved in our signing the European convention. The Opposition acknowledge that and do not dismiss it lightly. It is of considerable importance, especially for the City and commercial institutions, that we should sign the convention as soon as possible. Nevertheless, even that does not excuse the Government's haste.
  Apart from clause 28, other improvements have been pressed on us by the CBI. The reason why it is happier about the Bill is contained in the seven points of its representation. Six out of seven points come down to the fact that the Bill makes matters easier for business and commerce—in certain respects, however, at the expense of the privacy of the individual. That is a cause of worry. For example, point 7·7 of the CBI's memorandum, advanced in favour of the Bill, states:
  "A data subject must now have suffered damage by reason of the inaccuracy of data about him before being entitled to compensation."
  That is a case of double jeopardy if ever I heard one. The CBI is saying that it is pleased that the Government have lessened the protection for the individual in that respect, because now he must show that he has suffered damage because of the inaccuracy of data before being entitled to compensation. Most reasonable people would find that unreasonable. They would think that if inaccurate information were stored about an individual, it would be a serious matter in itself, quite apart from questions of compensation and damages. Although I accept that there have been so-called improvements, I doubt whether they make the Bill substantially better.
  I acknowledge straight away that the Government have substantially improved clause 28 in that it no longer relates to information collected for the purposes of immigration control. That was of serious concern, especially in how it would have affected community relations, and on behalf of the Opposition I am pleased that it has now been removed.
  I agree with the Home Secretary that all of us, especially those who represent inner city constituencies and areas of multiracial deprivation, wish to remove anything that could cause serious grievance to the ethnic communities. In that regard, the exemption of immigration control information is a progressive move. Despite that, it would be foolish to pretend that this measure, in conjunction with other legislation already in operation, does not cause serious concern to the ethnic communities.
  For example, I presume that all passport information will be stored on a computer. As this will be a Government computer, and as it will be sensitive information, it may

  95
  well be protected for reasons of national security, and passport holders may not have easy access to it. The Home Secretary knows that some of us are already concerned about the fact that certain officials are now asking for the passports of coloured members of our community when they do not make the same demand of the white population.
  Increasingly, registrars of marriages are demanding such passports. Indeed, I have told the Birmingham registrar, both in writing and on the telephone, "You would not ask a member of my family to show his passport when he wishes to get married. Therefore, you have no right to ask a member of anyone else's family." That is an offensive practice. I have taken the matter up with the chief registrar, but I have not got very far. However, it is an example of the sort of thing that is causing growing concern.
  The same could happen with the new national insurance cards—the bit of plastic that I heard a Minister defend so enthusiastically just the other day. It would be perfectly reasonable if that piece of plastic were used only to record our national insurance numbers and would never be used for any other purpose. There is, however, a fear that it could be used for all sorts of other things.
  It would be possible for the police, the Home Office and other authorities to tap the social security computer. Indeed, they could even require, as registrars are requiring, people to produce these cards. The combination of such things taken together highlights the dangers that may arise, as well as our concern. We shall, of course, examine many of these matters in Committee, but we will be pleased if the Home Office responds to these problems in the same way that it has responded on clause 28.
  The Opposition have some fundamental objections to the basic philosophy behind the Bill. Although it purports to be concerned with the protection of stored data, essentially it deals with the rights of agencies rather than with the privacy of the individual.
  The Financial Times made that point today. That paper has been quoted several times in the debate, but I shall quote another passage. Professor Edwards and his colleague said:
  "a necessary consequence of confining the Bill to automatically processed data is that data held manually is outside the ambit of the legislation. Sensitive data can continue to be concealed from data subjects by transferring to manual processing methods. This may discourage computer usage, thus defeating an often stated policy of the Government".
  In my opinion, that is true. One of our fundamental objections to the Bill as drafted is that it excludes manual files. In my judgment, there is every reason to include such files.
  The Younger committee considered privacy. This is where the Government have missed an opportunity to link protection of individual interests in respect of privacy with data protection. I heard the Minister of State say today on the radio—and I quote his words:
  "You have to recognise that you can store or extract information in a second or two".
  That was his justification for producing the Bill and for excluding manual files. He was saying, in fact, that because one cannot get at information in a second or two, no matter how sensitive or offensive it might be to the individual, the Government should disregard it, but that when it can be extracted in a second or a fraction of a
  96
  second, Parliament should legislate. Such a position is fundamentally impossible to uphold, and I hope that the Government will think again.
  Let me give the House an interesting example. I asked a member of my staff in the House to telephone one of the largest private detective agencies in London. The agency was very frank. It said, "We have 150,000 manual files." When asked whether it proposed at any stage to put on to computers that manual information about 150,000 different people, which might be totally inaccurate or obtained by many devious means, it replied, "Most certainly not. We wouldn't dream of having this information brought within the ambit of a registrar or anyone else." The information will remain stored on manual files. That is an example of some of the worries and double standards that will operate.
  I am not surprised to find that the TUC takes much the same line. It draws attention to the misuse of manual files and the personal information that they contain, particularly in schools and hospitals, by employers and by certain social services. The TUC mentioned the fact which I hope the Minister will consider—perhaps we shall discuss it in Committee—that the European convention allows the Government to extend protection to manual files. So even if the Government, at this moment, do not think they can do it, we urge them to make use of the full possibilities of the convention at a later stage. In fact, in many other European countries, particularly Sweden and Norway, and outside Europe, in the United States, Canada and Australia, access to manual files is protected in the same way as the Government seek to protect mechanised and technological information. I do not accept the Home Secretary's view that all this would be too cumbersome, expensive and damaging to business. That was the defence that he offered earlier today about his failure to protect individuals in such circumstances.
  The Younger committee made a powerful case for the establishment of a statutory commission. That is at the heart of many of our objections. There are many ways in which the Government could have protected the individual in our society. They have chosen one—the appointment of a registrar—and disregarded all the others.
  However eminent the registrar may be, he will be overwhelmed by work. He will have a staff of only 20 and there will be hundreds of thousands of systems to be registered. He will not be able even to start to do his job. The British people are naturally inquisitive. For a start, few hon. Members will not want to know what information about us is contained on computers. We shall start asking the banks, insurance houses, hospitals and all the rest. It is nice for a person to know what information about him is being stored. There are 50 million independently minded British people. I suspect that most of them will want to know about the information that is stored on computers. The registrar will be overwhelmed.
  The Younger committee recommended in paragraph 621 the establishment of a standing commission with statutory backing. In paragraph 622, the committee said that such a commission could
  "receive complaints about invasions of privacy by the users of computerised information stores."
  The important part of Younger's recommendations about the commission was:
  "In the light of its findings it should, from time to time, make recommendations as it saw fit for legislative or other controls".

  97
  I entirely agree with that. The whole point of having a commission is that it should start the work and, as it gains experience, it should report to Parliament and advise us on the changes that we should make for the protection of individuals as well as computer agencies. The registrar will do no such thing.
  There ought to be inspectors. Surely one of the points of establishing an authority is to have inspectors visiting various institutions, as do the inspectors to whom we have given statutory backing in many other areas, including the NHS and the Office of Fair Trading.
  It is a serious deficiency that the Government have not agreed to provide codes of conduct. The Minister of State says that the Government do not want codes of conduct, because there would have to be more than 50 of them. That merely means that more than 50 are needed. The Home Secretary ought to note that the Office of Fair Trading has more than 100 codes on fair trading. Why cannot we ask the OFT to regard data protection as fair trading and to develop its work in that area? At least we should then be getting somewhere near the type of authority that we need.
  The Lindop committee, which followed on from the work of the Younger committee, also examined minimum standards and alternatives. One amendment that was defeated in another place provided that if we could not have a statutory authority with inspectors, we should at least have an advisory committee.
  There ought to be at least an ombudsman, someone who signs the Official Secrets Act and can investigate on behalf of the individual. I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion. The Fabians made a proposal recently, when talking about official information, for a director of information. I am much attracted to the concept, which would give the individual some sense of satisfaction and guarantee. If an ombudsman or a director of information who had signed the Official Secrets Act were appointed, a citizen could go to him and say, "I would like you to investigate on my behalf to make sure that no improper, inaccurate information is stored about me." He would not have to disclose the nature of the information to the citizen. The fact that an independent person examined, analysed and checked the information would in my view be a considerable guarantee for citizens of this country. No such provision exists in this country. We are to have only a registrar, who will uphold the eight principles supported, I understand, by both sides of the House.
  Schedule 1, incorporating the eight principles, is the most attractive part of the Bill. However, I am bound to point out — I hope that the Home Secretary, as a barrister, will not mind my saying it — that all the members of the tribunal that will listen to the complaints and appeals from the decisions of the registrar will have to be barristers, advocates or solicitors. I do not know why that is so. Two barristers are dealing with the Bill before the House. I wish that they would put their prejudices a little on one side. I know they have moved some way since the previous Bill was considered by the House. They have now agreed that the interests of the various parties shall be reflected in the appointment of members to the tribunal. I cannot for the life of me understand why the good English jury principle of having people of intelligence and common sense to represent business, commerce and other aspects of our national life cannot be followed.
  I turn now to some of the areas of concern of most of the responsible organisations. My own trade union, APEX — the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical
  98
  and Computer Staff—has given the matter a great deal of attention. Most of its experience has found its way into the TUC's papers, so I shall not spend long on the detail. APEX believes that a public registrar is no substitute for a proper data protection agency. APEX and the TUC make the interesting point that, because the Bill is so inadequate on employee rights and protection, they will now urge all negotiators to establish formal agreements with employers on data protection, especially as it concerns payroll staff and pensions, and indeed, all areas on which there is doubt. That will mean a growth in negotiations. This is inescapable since there is no other means to achieve the objective. APEX and the TUC are particularly concerned about clause 31, and the failure to protect payroll information on pensions and financial accounts.
  The BMA has been mentioned, and here the Government have got themselves into an extraordinary mess. The Younger committee said:
  Information should be regarded as held for a specific purpose and not be used without appropriate authorisation for other purposes."
  The Lindop committee said that the decision of the Government to allow very private and confidential health information obtained from hospital or health authority records to be transferred without the knowledge of the doctor concerned to the social services department and used to the detriment of his patients was
  "a fraud on the public."
  It is a fraud, and it is a major aspect of the Bill that we shall have to take up in Committee.
  I envisage the possibility of a difficult social security case, perhaps involving a young girl in care, where a doctor has confidential information and it is transferred to the social services department without his knowledge and possibly used in association with police computers, to the great detriment of that girl or her family.
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils have written to me on behalf of the four local authority associations expressing their great concern about the failure to protect the privacy of information especially in respect of schools, social services, planning and health. The National Council for Civil Liberties and many other bodies have taken the same view.
  Most important of all in terms of personal information is the ability to purchase mailing lists. This is becoming a very serious matter. The potential for blackmail is considerable. Anyone can buy the names and addresses on mailing lists of subscribers to all sorts of periodicals which most of us may not wish to read, and they could be used for wrong purposes. Examples which I have and which I shall explain in more detail in Committee also show abuses involving credit cards, credit information and debts which have proved to be totally inaccurate. I know of a case in which 40 people were summoned to appear in court in respect of their alleged bad debts because someone had bought the bad debts of the Littlewoods mail order business. They were all innocent. They had paid what they owed but the man whom they had paid had gone off with the money. Littlewoods did not know that but sold what it thought were its bad debts, to the detriment of all those concerned.
  The Bill offers us a registrar who will be overwhelmed with work and will be inadequately staffed, without codes of conduct approved by Parliament. It is a totally inadequate protection for the individual citizen, of his

  99
  privacy, of his right to know what information is held about him and of his right to be told when such information is being transferred to others. We have heard no adequate justification from the Government of their failure to meet these worries. For that reason I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with his enthusiastic supporters fluctuating wildly from five and three, sprang a surprise on us. He announced suddenly that it was the Opposition's intention to vote against Second Reading of the Bill. We heard a lot of fire and thunder from the right hon. Gentleman, but not one word of explanation of this extraordinary decision.
  Many arguments were advanced on Second Reading last time. Others were raised in Committee, resulting in various changes being made to this Bill, which is somewhat different from the Bill which was given an unopposed Second Reading last April. No explanation of the Opposition's decision has been forthcoming. It is just one of those extraordinary volte faces similar to the Opposition's volte face over the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The arguments have not changed. One can only assume that the explanation is that the Labour party has changed.
  It is sad that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) should feel obliged to humiliate himself by going along with such arrant nonsense. The arguments that he advanced were arguments for putting down a reasoned amendment. He said that he approved of a measure directed to these problems, and then pinpointed various matters in the Bill with which he did not agree while mentioning others with which he did.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained the basic aims of the Bill. They are to protect British business interests by enabling us to ratify the European convention on data protection and to protect individuals from the possible misuse of personal information held about them on computers. Ratification of the convention is of great importance if British firms are not to lose out in the increasingly sophisticated world market place. Only by ratifying can we demonstrate to other countries that if data are passed to the United Kingdom, they will be protected in accordance with internationally accepted standards. The very fact that we are putting ourselves in a position to ratify and are therefore meeting the European standard should serve to reassure individuals in this country that their personal data are adequately protected by the scheme that the Bill establishes.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton gave us an extraordinary offering on that point. In a most scornful fashion he said that the Bill was all about trade and money. However, it is also all about jobs, and the right hon. Gentleman should have the sense to realise that. I must stress that the Lindop committee did not find any evidence of the widescale misuse of personal information, and we do not believe that the position has altered to any great extent in the intervening years. Nevertheless, the potential for misuse exists, and there is concern about the storage
  100
  on computers of information about individuals, and the way in which such information might be used. The best way to allay that public unease is to bring the whole matter into the open.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned about jobs, why is the registrar's staff of 20 so exceptionally small? Would not it be a good idea to provide him with more staff, who could then make a significant contribution?
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the way to cure unemployment is to recruit unnecessary people to public bodies, his opinions are more extraordinary than I imagined.
  The register will reveal just who is processing personal data, what for, and where they get the data from. It will be the means by which individuals, through the right of subject access, will be able to find out whether any particular data user is processing information about them. We make no apologies for coming close to universal registration. In clause 31 we have exempted data for payroll and accountancy purposes, which are data that subjects know will be held as a matter of course, and there is also the exemption in clause 32. But it is very nearly universal registration, and it will be beneficial because the public will be made aware of the extent of the computerisation of personal information, and users will have to think about the sort of personal information that they hold, why they hold it and whether they need all of it. We have already heard of data users who expect a large-scale thinning out of their computer files under the stimulus of registration.
  Registration is the best way of complying with the obligation in article 8 of the convention, which states that every person shall be enabled
  "to establish the existence of an automated personal data file, its main purposes, as well as the identity and habitual residence or principal place of business of the controller of the file."
  The alternative put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was quite horrific. He said that it was bureaucratic and complicated to have universal registration, and that everyone who operated a computer in Britain would have to give personal notice of the fact that he had information on his file about an individual. If I have got it wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me what his alternative to registration is.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Today I have repeated a point that I regularly made in Committee—that the definition is so wide and vague that it encompasses many categories of use, yet is so inadequate that it does not provide protection. It is a matter of definition according to the machinery and items of equipment. In Committee we discussed that at length. It is clearly a matter for further investigation. No hon. Member from these Benches has suggested universal registration. Clearly, such registration is not in the interests of business, in particular.
  Mr. Waddington: I simply cannot follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He was reverting to the definition in clause 1. If he does not like universal registration, he must make clear what he does want, and that must meet the obligations imposed under article 8 if we are to ratify the convention.
  We make no apology for the fact that the Bill does not deal with manual data. It would be extraordinary if it did.

  101
  The White Paper pointed out that a special threat to privacy was posed by the rapid growth in the use of computers, with their ability to process and link at high speed information about individuals. Of course, information remains information in whatever form it is held or processed, and if it is incorrect or misleading, or used in certain ways, the subject of the information may be at risk. But the extent of that risk is greatly increased when information is recorded on computers because computers make the handling, the retrieval, the transfer and the use of information so much quicker and easier. I must tell the right hon. Member for Small Heath that that is the point that I was encapsulating in my remarks on Radio 4 this morning.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) forcefully pointed out that a name can be extracted from the vast amount of information on the DHSS computer in five seconds. It is because people are concerned about the threat to privacy through the sophisticated new instruments that we are embarking on this legislation. It is on a different scale from the storage of manual information. That point has come over clearly in the debate.
  With the press of a button an organisation can call up all the information which it has about an individual and which it may have collected from many different sources for many different purposes. If that same information were stored manually, it would be scattered around on separate files and in different parts of the organisation, making it very much more difficult to produce a composite picture of the subject. It is that tremendous capacity of computers to store vast quantities of information and to handle that information or to transfer it to a remote location, possibly on the other side of the world, within seconds or even fractions of a second, that worries people. It is that concern that the Bill is designed to meet, and that the convention was mainly concerned about.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has conceded the difference between machine-held data and manually held data. Why has he not established different constraints on the passage of information between Government Departments from those that already apply to manual data? For example, the police and DHSS liaison predicted in the Bill is the same as that which currently exists for the passage of manual data information. No additional safeguards are provided.
  Mr. Waddington: There are numerous safeguards. The police, the DHSS and everybody else will have to register those to whom they intend to disclose information. That is the star point. It is legitimate to criticise the exemptions as being too wide, but it is not legitimate to argue that the Bill does not mark a step forward and produce safeguards that did not exist previously. To listen to Opposition Members one would think that we were taking away the rights of the individual, when, in fact, we are providing new rights.
  The question of manual data was also touched on by the right hon. Member for Gorton, who poured scorn on the fact that it was not covered by the Bill. He mentioned the European experience. I shall say a word or two about that, because one of the purposes of the exercise is to ratify the convention. There are no sanctions in Swedish law on manual data. The law applies only to automatic processing. In Austria, the powers of the data protection authority apply only to automatically processed data. In
  102
  Luxembourg, the law also applies only to automatically processed data. Denmark has two separate Acts for the private and public sectors, and the public sector Act applies only to electronically processed data. In Germany and Norway, manual data are for the most part not covered, but in France—it is the only case—manual data are covered.
  I come to the exemptions and, in particular, the provisions of clause 28 which, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath pointed out—I was glad that he paid tribute to us in this regard, if in no others—no longer contain an exemption for personal data held for the purpose of the control of immigration.
  It is sometimes said that police data are exempt from the Bill. That is not so. The police, like everyone else, must register, and the data that they hold will be subject to the data protection principles and the registrar's supervision. Clause 28(1) simply says that where data are held for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime or for apprehending or prosecuting offenders, subject access may be denied if, but only if, granting access would be likely to prejudice those purposes.
  This is not, therefore, a complete exemption from subject access for all data held by the police covering, for instance, even a man's record, but a limited exemption for data the disclosure of which to the subject would prejudice the law enforcement activities in which the police are engaged and which, I am sure hon. Members will agree, are vital to the well-being of society.
  Furthermore, the exemption from the non-disclosure provisions in clause 28(2) does not take away from individuals any protection that they now have. It maintains the status quo, allowing a person, not compelling him, to pass on information to the police if he wishes to do so. I emphasise that. It would be odd indeed if we were to finish up legislating to punish a man for co-operating with the police. It is entirely a matter for him. If the police claim exemption under clause 28 and come to him for information, it is up to him whether he gives that information.
  I shall not dwell on the Special Standing Committee point made by the right hon. Member for Gorton, except to say that he did not ask for such a step on the last occasion. Indeed, no Labour Member asked for that last time, though there would have been a better case for it at that time. Since then there has been even more consultation and debate. We have debated the measure for no fewer than 78 hours. I can hardly think of a Bill that has been the subject of more consultation and resulted in more delegations coming to the Home Office and speaking to Ministers.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton was scornful of my right hon. and learned Friend, saying that he had referred to people as "data subjects" on no fewer than nine occasions. That phrase occurs in article 2 of the convention, so it is hardly surprising that it has been imported into this legislation, one of the two objects of the exercise being to ratify the convention. Again, it was difficult to see what the right hon. Gentleman was getting at.
  Mr. Kaufman: Has the Minister no feeling for our language? The fact that the European convention employs it does not mean that the British Government, the custodian of the Queen's English, should use hideous jargon such as that.
  Mr. Waddington: Come off it. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be no authority in accordance with article 13. He then went on, with a complete non sequitur, to say that therefore there would not be any inspectors to follow up complaints. Then he went on to concede that our intention was to make the registrar the authority. It is therefore difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman can contend that there will not be any inspectors to follow up complaints when the registrar will be just as able as an authority to employ staff to investigate breaches of the principles.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton said that the Government were asking for a blank cheque under clause 29(2), which relates to an application for subject access to information about mental health or social work. Most of us recognise that distress might well be caused to individuals if they have unfettered access to what their social workers have to say about them. That is well recognised by those who work in that area. Discussions are taking place to ascertain how best regulations might be introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with that matter.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton said that clause 21 would make a person go to court to get a remedy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill enables a person to go to the registrar. If he tries to get subject access and is denied it, he will be able to go to the registrar to complain that the principles in the Bill are not being observed. The registrar will then be able to serve an enforcement notice on those concerned. If they do not comply with the notice, the registrar will be able to go so far as to serve a deregistration notice.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Bill is that there has to be the procedure which he has described before the individual can obtain knowledge of the information? If he or she were told what was there, the likelihood is that it would be monitored by the data subject far more effectively. The process which the Minister has described will take considerable time before enforcement takes place.
  Mr. Waddington: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. The best way of enabling an individual to discover whether information is held about him is by the system of universal registration, the system which he is attacking.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton asked, "Why cannot we inspect our own tax files and our own police files?" We shall be able to do so unless the user brings himself within the exemption in clause 28(2). Information held about a person on a police file which amounts only to his criminal record will not come within the exemption in clause 28(2), as he will see if he reads that provision.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton addressed himself to the national security exemption. Clause 27 has been toughened up since the Bill's predecessor was introduced in the previous Parliament. An exemption is allowed by the convention. Most European countries, except for Sweden and France, have wholly exempted national security data. It is well precedented that matters of national security should be left to the certificate of a Minister. That is because only Ministers can be in a position to determine when national security needs to be safeguarded, taking
  104
  their decision in the light of all the circumstances of the case on the advice available to them. Neither the courts nor the registrar would be able to make that judgment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that a subject would not be able to go to the tribunal. I remind my hon. Friend that a subject cannot be adversely affected by the registrar's actions. The registrar will be there to act on the subject's behalf, and it is to him that the person will turn for assistance. If he is not satisfied with the action taken by the registrar, he may go to court as a last resort for an order for subject access or for the erasure of any inaccurate data. I remind the House that the tribunal will have a person on it to represent the interests of the data subject. That provision appears in clause 3(5)(b).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North referred to clause 27 and said that the exemption for national security should be signed only by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. That change would not really make very much difference. It certainly would not meet the point made by the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that the Bill would enshrine in statute the right of Government Departments to pass on information. It will do nothing of the sort. It will enshrine in statute for the first time the right of an individual to interrogate a Government Department to find out whether it is holding information about him and, if so, what that information comprises.
  There is no complete exemption in the Bill for the prevention or detection of crime. Indeed, the police, like other data users, will have to register. We may have made that part of the Bill tougher than it had to be to comply with article 9 of the convention.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) was anxious that the scheme should not impose too heavy a burden on industry. We are confident that it will not do so. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the scheme may cost about £650,000. If that is about right, and if the number of people who have to register is very much lower than has been forecast by some Opposition Members, it should be possible to cover costs with a registration fee as low as £10.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South mentioned the need to duplicate information in the interests of civil defence. It is common practice in the private sector for users to have a computer available on a separate site which is able to take over if there should be a failure in the main system. Within the Government it is the practice for there to be mutual back-up arrangements whereby individual Government users provide emergency facilities for other users.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the use of codes. He suggested that it would be possible in a computer entry to show whether a man was creditworthy by placing his initials either before or after his surname. However, in clause 21(1) states that if a code is used on a computer, a subject who asks for access must not just be told that there is an asterisk against his name. He must be told what the asterisk connotes. The data subject would have to be told why in some cases the initials appeared in front of the name and, in other cases, after it.
  My hon. Friend said that the Bill would allow the transmission of information from one branch of the Home Office to another. If, as is likely, the Home Office continues to have a number of computers, and the entry for each computer states that the intention is to transmit

  105
  information to the other computers, that will be perfectly proper. The subject will know what is happening, which is the object of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) talked about the transfer of information to a third party. That brings us to the kernel of the Bill. Anyone can transfer information to a third party so long as, in his registration particulars, he has said that he intends to do so. If he has not done so, he will be liable to penalties under clause 5.
  The hon. Gentleman wondered why expressions of intention were not included in the Bill. They are not included because it is considered that expressions of intention are more personal to the user than to the subject. Opinions, on the other hand, are clearly—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Waddington: I am afraid that I cannot give way. I have only two minutes left.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said that the Bill did not protect people from being sent unsolicited material. That is undoubtedly true. The Bill does not set out to do that. I can only assure my hon. Friend that the Younger committee found that many people liked being sent unsolicited material. We did not aim to deal with that mischief by the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman need not be surprised to see that it is not contained in it.
  We have debated an important subject which has aroused considerable interest in the country. I am sure that the Committee will be happy and profitable, because we are dealing with important matters which concern us all.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 104.

  Division No. 146]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Arnold, Tom

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Baldry, Anthony

  Coombs, Simon

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cope, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Patrick

  Benyon, William

  Couchman, James

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Denshore

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dunn, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Brinton, Tim

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Favell, Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Fox, Marcus

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Budgen, Nick

  Freeman, Roger

  106

  Gale, Roger

  Major, John

  Galley, Roy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Good lad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marlow, Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mather, Carol

  Gregory, Conal

  Maude, Francis

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ground, Patrick

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mellor, David

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Harris, David

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Harvey, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moate, Roger

  Hayes, J.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hayward, Robert

  Moore, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Henderson, Barry

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Mudd, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hirst, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Newton, Tony

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howard, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Norris, Steven

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Howells, Geraint

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Jackson, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Powley, John

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Renton, Tim

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knowles, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Lang, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Latham, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Spence, John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lester, Jim

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lilley, Peter

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lord, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Thurnham, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Waddington, David

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, John

  Maclean, David John.

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Whitney, Raymond

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Wiggin, Jerry

  107

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woodcock, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Sainsbury and

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Alton, David

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Barron, Kevin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Lamond, James

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Blair, Anthony

  Leighton, Ronald

  Boyes, Roland

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Buchan, Norman

  Loyden, Edward

  Caborn, Richard

  McCartney, Hugh

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McKelvey, William

  Clay, Robert

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Madden, Max

  Cohen, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbett, Robin

  Maxton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Michie, William

  Cowans, Harry

  Nellist, David

  Craigen, J. M.

  Park, George

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

  Pike, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dewar, Donald

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Radice, Giles

  Douglas, Dick

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Robertson, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Rogers, Allan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Forrester, John

  Snape, Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  George, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gould, Bryan

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Tinn, James

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Wareing, Robert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Welsh, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Haynes, Frank

  Wilson, Gordon

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Winnick, David

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made—[Mr. Michael Cocks]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee:—
  The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 215.

  Division No. 147]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barron, Kevin

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Blair, Anthony

  Clay, Robert

  Boyes, Roland

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  108

  Cohen, Harry

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Loyden, Edward

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cowans, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Craigen, J. M.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

  Madden, Max

  Deakins, Eric

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dormand, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Michie, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Nellist, David

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Park, George

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Parry, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pike, Peter

  Forrester, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foster, Derek

  Prescott, John

  George, Bruce

  Radice, Giles

  Gould, Bryan

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Robertson, George

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Rogers, Allan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Snape, Peter

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Soley, Clive

  Home Robertson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Howells, Geraint

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Wareing, Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Welsh, Michael

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wilson, Gordon

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Lamond, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Leighton, Ronald

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Alexander, Richard

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baldry, Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon

  Benyon, William

  Cope, John

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dover, Denshore

  Bottom ley, Peter

  Dunn, Robert

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

  Brinton, Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Favell, Anthony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fletcher, Alexander

  109

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Fox, Marcus

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  MacGregor, John

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Galley, Roy

  Maclean, David John.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Major, John

  Gow, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, Harry

  Maples, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Marlow, Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Ground, Patrick

  Mather, Carol

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Maude, Francis

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Merchant, Piers

  Harris, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Harvey, Robert

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hayes, J.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hayward, Robert

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moate, Roger

  Henderson, Barry

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hickmet, Richard

  Moore, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hirst, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Mudd, David

  Holt, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howard, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Normanton, Tom

  Hunter, Andrew

  Norris, Steven

  Jackson, Robert

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Key, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Powley, John

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Knowles, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Knox, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rldsdale, Sir Julian

  Lester, Jim

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lightbown, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lilley, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lord, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  110

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waddington, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spence, John

  Watson, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Woodcock, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  Data Protection Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]

    DATA PROTECTION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Data Protection Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

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

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

    (i) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments towards the expenses of the Registrar;

    (ii) any sums required by the Secretary of State for the payment of remuneration and allowances to members of the Tribunal established by that Act and for defraying its expenses;

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

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

    WAYS AND MEANS

      Data Protection
      That any Act resulting from the Data Protection Bill [Lords] may—

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

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

  Orpington Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed., That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am obliged once again to draw the attention of the House to the accident and emergency services at Orpington hospital, because the threat of closure, which I foreshadowed in debates on 11 February 1982 and 17 March 1983, has become a reality. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security has had the opportunity to read the record of those debates, as well as that of a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) on 22 December 1983 about the closure of the Lennard hospital, Bromley, because if he has he will be aware of the background to this problem.
  Orpington hospital was built during the first world war, when Orpington was but a small Kentish village, by the Canadian army to serve as its military hospital. It was composed of Nissen huts, and other buildings in temporary materials, many of which have survived to this day. Over the years, Orpington has grown, and the hospital has grown and modernised with it. Standing on a 31-acre site, the hospital provides all the major services with over 400 beds. It has been designated in development plans as a district general hospital, serving the needs of the southern part of the London borough of Bromley and the Sevenoaks area of Kent. The first phase of its redevelopment as a district general hospital, consisting of a large modern ward block and nurses' quarters, has been completed. Its catchment area is that with the greatest growth rate on this fringe of south-east London, and the proximity of the M25 motorway, which will encompass the catchment area, is almost certain to increase the need for and the value of its services when the local Swanley to Sevenoaks sector of that motorway is finished.
  Unfortunately, the great hopes which local people have for their hospital are seriously threatened, and the degree of patient care which we formerly enjoyed has been seriously diminished for what appear to me to be purely bureaucratic reasons.
  For administrative convenience, Orpington and its hospital come within the London borough of Bromley and the Bromley health district, with which the borough is conterminous. It was not always so. The district health authority, which is of course supposed to cater for the needs of the whole district, is responsible for a number of hospitals, of which the major ones are located in Bromley town, Beckenham and Farnborough, as well as Orpington. The Lennard hospital, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne spoke on 22 December 1983, is a small hospital catering for elderly people, and is not far from Farnborough.
  Beckenham hospital is within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), whom I am glad to see present at this debate, and who I know, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, would like to make a brief contribution to it. Bromley hospital is on a comparatively small site in Bromley town, in the constutiency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, five or more miles away from Orpington. It has 157 beds and, like Orpington, provides a full range
  112
  of services, including full accident and emergency services. Like Orpington hospital, it is expected to develop into a full district general hospital.
  In recent years, we in the south-east have been deprived of our fair share of resources allocated to the NHS because of the operation of the formula devised by the resource allocation working party, whereby those areas considered to be better off in terms of medical resources are deliberately deprived of funds so that they can go to areas deficient in those resources. The formula has also been applied locally within the region covered by the South-East Thames health authority.
  In addition, even more recently, we in the Bromley district have been subjected to the so-called Health Service cuts. In short, Bromley district has been called on to make cuts of £2 million to £3 million in its current expenditure estimate of over £41 million per annum.
  It is fair to say that the Bromley district authority has had a difficult task to perform. Whatever savings it proposed, it was bound to run into local criticism. However, I have to say that it has made a mess of its task and has ended up with a series of economies which have been condemned by the local community health council and the local hospitals' medical advisory committee, as well as by public opinion in the areas concerned. The proposed economies total £2·4 million and cover almost every service and hospital in the district. In its desire to be fair, the authority seems to have ensured that almost everyone suffers and that the maximum offence is caused.
  My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the London borough of Bromley may have their own criticisms of the authority and its proposals. I am naturally most concerned about matters in my constituency and the effect of the authority's plans on the development of Orpington hospital. I do not challenge certain changes affecting the hospital wards—Orpington has already suffered many cuts in local health services—but I find appalling and incomprehensible the main decision that the hospital's accident and emergency services should be restricted to daytime hours only—from 8 am to 8 pm.
  As the record of earlier debates shows, I have laboured long and hard against previous attempts to restrict those services. Last year, I organised a petition with more than 7,000 signatures against an earlier proposal to cut the services.
  The changes made by the authority in September on a temporay basis, including the closure at night of the emergency services, have been put forward as the basis for permanent changes. In accordance with the correct procedure, a consultation document has been issued and comments have been invited by 24 April.
  The proposed changes are numerous and involve varying amounts of savings. The permanent restriction on the opening of Orpington's accident and emergency services will, according to the document, save £71,000. Some people believe that the savings will be much less, possibly less than £50,000 per annum. That is out of total savings of £2·4 million and a current budget of £40 million or more. In that context, a saving of up to £71,000 is infinitesimal. Yet, at one stroke, the authority has demonstrated its complete lack of judgment in these matters.
  The actual amount involved, after taking account of the extra cost of transporting patients by ambulance to Bromley and other hospitals and the extra pressure on facilities in those hospitals, will probably be less than

  113
  £50,000 per annum. There were options before the authority which were viable in the opinion of its medical advisers and which did not involve the closure of the unit at Orpington, yet the authority chose to adopt this option, with its wide-ranging effects, rather than any other. It did so, I understand, only by the narrowest of majorities after a tied vote, in preference to an option favoured by the community health council and the medical advisory committee.
  The closure of the casualty department and the accident and emergency service at Orpington hospital overnight has had serious consequences for my constituents and, indeed, for those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), many of whom are affected by these changes and cuts. First, they cannot arrange to have their accidents and emergencies during office hours. There is hardship and suffering involved in the extra delay that is being caused by the need to travel further—five or six miles—to Bromley hospital. A number of cases have been reported already in the Orpington Times recently. These include a citizen who suffered an accident in the grounds of the hospital shortly after 8 pm and who was turned away from the casualty department. In such cases, I believe that there has been risk to life.
  Secondly, it is patently absurd that a thriving hospital, in which millions of pounds have already been spent on extension and modernisation as a district general hospital, should so abruptly be deprived of what is the recognised badge and qualification for that status, a full-time accident and emergency service. The implications for the morale and quality of the medical staff at the hospital are serious. Many of my constituents are wondering whether the hospital will, indeed, develop into the district general hospital that the area needs or whether it will remain at the mercy of anonymous members of a committee balancing a myriad in interests at the expense of long-term public needs.
  Thirdly, the decision calls into question the suitability of committees of this kind to make decisions for which they appear to lack judgment and experience. None of those who blithely voted for Orpington citizens to be deprived of their casualty service overnight, seem to have distinguished between such a step and, for example, the centralisation of maternity services or the location of a geriatric centre. These are all matters of importance, but the need for a full casualty service is a much more important and, politically and emotionally, a more sensitive matter than administrative convenience. For that single item to be included in the authority's programme, involving a minute proportion of the total savings, yet, for my constituents, dwarfing almost every other item in significance and importance, the authority's judgment deserves to be condemned.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in reply to the debate on 22 December 1983:
  "I make it crystal clear that where proposals are referred to Ministers, they will not—I stress the word 'not'—agree to any closure or any change of use unless it is clearly demonstrated to be in the best interests of local health services and the communities they serve. I am "happy to give that assurance." —[Official Report, 22 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 606.]
  These proposals as a whole, if not withdrawn, are almost certain to come before him as a result of the view taken of them by the Bromley community health council. When they do, living up to the high standard that he has set
  114
  himself, my hon. Friend will make sure, I trust, that the full-time accident and emergency service at Orpington hospital will be restored.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has the agreement of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the Minister to intervene.
  10.40 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and to the Minister for the opportunity to add a few words to the debate.
  I support my hon. Friend's complaints about the closure at night of the accident and emergency service department at Orpington hospital. I share his belief that the saving that will be made is considerably less than £50,000 a year out of a total local hospital budget of more than £40 million. I believe that the saving will be less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of our local hospital budget. I know from experience in my constituency that the psychological impact of night-time closure can be considerable on a large number of people.
  I also share my hon. Friend's reservations and criticisms of the South East Thames regional health authority. Whether the Government have allocated it enough money from the National Health Service budget for the coming year is a matter of doubt and argument, but there can be no doubt that the South East Thames region has squeezed the Bromley health authority very severely in the year to come and, while there is a standstill allocation in funds to the region as a whole, we face a cut of 5 per cent. in our hospital service.
  I do not share my hon. Friend's criticism of the Bromley health authority's answer to this problem. There are some—I am glad that my hon. Friend handled this matter tactfully—who have argued that the best way of tackling this squeeze is to cut all inpatient services at Beckenham hospital. I note that in May 1983—a mere nine months ago—the Bromley health authority, in its district bed strategy for the next 10 years, said:
  "Bromley Health Authority has as a long term objective the provision of 60 per cent. of hospital services in the North of the District, in line with the distribution of population."
  That policy was sensible and widely supported when it was published. It would make no sense now, less than nine months later, to close Beckenham hospital, which is the only hospital in the northern half of the district. I believe that the health authority was right when it sought to make the bulk of the cuts in the southern half of our area.
  I note that a few days ago the Minister replied to an Adjournment debate on health provision in the Medway area—part of the South East Thames region where there is a substantial shortage of hospital beds. Later this week my hon. Friend will be replying to a debate on the maternity services in Thanet, where there is also a shortage of proper accommodation.
  We in the Bromley area — in Orpington and Beckenham—are being squeezed to help Medway and the Isle of Thanet, but it will be years before the people in Medway and Thanet see the benefits of this policy, while the people of Bromley are immediately aware of the cuts that they face.
  The difficult problem of reallocating the NHS budget on an equitable basis requires sensitive handling. In recent months my constituents have become increasingly alarmed

  115
  and doubtful about whether we are receiving the careful and sensitive handling that we deserve. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend the Minister that in the months to come my constituents will look to him to defend our hospital and the hospital services in the area which have served us so well in the past.
  10.44 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has raised an important subject which has drawn four times more Conservative Members to the Chamber than is usual for an Adjournment debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington managed to secure a debate on a subject which is important for him and his constituents. It concerns the temporary closure at night of the accident and emergency department of Orpington hospital. Bromley health authority proposes to make that temporary measure permanent. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) made his voice heard tonight. He picked on some more general aspects of health policy for the whole of the South-East Thames region, and I hope that he will forgive me if I am unable to answer any or all of his points, as I have only 10 minutes in which to speak.
  This debate on the hospital in Orpington is evidence of the assiduous and long-standing interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has taken in it. My hon. Friend has made clear the depths of his concern, and I shall do what I can to reassure him. However, it will not surprise him to hear that I do not think that it would be proper for me to intervene at this stage. I am sure my hon. Friends will understand that only too well. It is a curious task for a Minister to reply to an Adjournment debate on a proposed closure of all or some constituent part of a hospital before a decision has been taken.
  Although my hon. Friends can reasonably and properly pray in aid the interests of their constituents and make points that are vital to their areas—just as I would do if I were in their shoes—it is difficult for a Minister to do anything other than remain politically neutral, to explain some general principles affecting the case, and at all costs to give no clear indication of any decision that might be taken by Ministers later. After all, they are sitting in a quasi-judicial position on the case, which may or may not go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for determination.
  Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington will appreciate that, if I say anything that reflects the views of the Bromley district health authority, I am seeking only to put on the record the other side of the story. I am not for one second suggesting that my colleagues or I agree with any part of those views. The decisions to which my hon. Friend referred were made because of an urgent need to bring the authority's level of spending within its cash limit. Temporary closures for urgent financial reasons are properly matters for district health authorities. The Department gives very strict guidance to health authorities on such occasions. The guidance stresses that where there is any prospect of a temporary closure being made permanent, consultation under the established procedures must take place as soon as possible.
  116
  Bromley health authority has proposed that all the temporary closures which it recently decided upon should become permanent and, in accordance with our guidance, on 19 January it published a consultation document fully explaining its proposals and the reasons for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has, indeed, already referred to that document. I am advised that the need to decide on such urgent, temporary measures arose for two main reasons. First, nursing costs in Bromley are well above the average costs for the South-East Thames region. Budgets for 1983–84 were set by the authority nearer the regional average, but it has become clear in the course of the financial year that the required reductions were not being made. A forecast of net overspending of £400,000 by the end of this financial year has been made. Secondly, the expenditure changes announced in July 1983 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer resulted in a decision by the South-East Thames regional health authority to reduce Bromley health authority's revenue allocation by £455,000. The combination of those reductions with the projected overspending on nursing has undoubtedly created a difficult situation for the Bromley health authority members, and above all, its chairman.
  The authority decided to take those temporary measures, and has begun consultations with a view to making them permanent. However, I should like to look not at the overall Bromley district health authority strategy—although my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham quite properly, in the interests of his constituents, began to lead us down that path—but at the important and emotive issue of the accident and emergency provision between 8 pm and 8 am at Orpington hospital.
  The immediate reasons for the closure of the accident and emergency department were the financial factors that I have already outlined. Permanent closure between 8 am and 8 pm is estimated by the local authority to save £71,000 in a full year. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington disputed that figure in his excellent speech. His unease about the financial calculations was also reflected in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. However, that matter must be resolved by the district health authority. That is the sort of fact that Ministers take into account when recommendations are made at any stage in a proposed closure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said that the savings are small, as they are, in relation to the authority's total budget. But the authority might argue that the amount is not small in relation to the few people who are treated in the hospital overnight. One reason for the closure given in the consultation document was that few people use that department at night. I again stress that, in my difficult position, I am simply relating what I have been advised and am not praying it in aid of any future decision.
  Bromley health authority has examined data on patients in 1982, which showed that, over a period of three months, on average only 10 patients per day needed treatment in the night hours, and of those, only one needed admission to the hospital between 8 pm and 8 am. I cite those figures despite the one worrying case outlined by my hon. Friend of an accident that took place in the hospital grounds.
  The authority has been monitoring accident cases at night since the temporary closure on 10 October, both at the Bromley hospital and with neighbouring districts. Although this is still a fairly early stage, I understand that there have been relatively few cases. Thus far, there is no evidence that the accident and emergency department at

  117
  Bromley hospital is being put under any great stress at night. Equally, because of the small number of patients that have been transferred from one hospital to the other, the transport costs have been relatively limited.
  One general principle here is the important issue of what constitutes a district general hospital such as Orpington. A 24-hour accident and emergency service is not, and never has been, an essential qualification for a hospital to be called a district general hospital. The lack of that service certainly does not imply a diminution of the standing of the hospital. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that with the opening of the Canada wing—a new, expensive and extremely well-equipped block, with 276 beds for both acute and geriatric patients—the standing of Orpington hospital has been recognised.
  It is not for me to judge the merits of the proposal at this stage, but simply to point out the authority's
  118
  arguments. My hon. Friend has already eloquently and forcefully stated the counter-arguments, enforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. The community health council and the district health authority must now address themselves to the problems.
  I assure my hon. Friends that we will weigh all the questions and arguments most carefully, as we always do when such decisions are taken. Our minds are not made up. Indeed, the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself are open. No options are closed. Certainly no guarantee has been given to the district health authority that simply because it has proposed a temporary closure it will be made permanent. I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Engineering Foundry Industry
  Engineering Foundry Industry
  Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor
  Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor
  Anthracite Coal
  Anthracite Coal
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Britoil
  Britoil
  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Electricity Generation (Coal Use)
  Electricity Generation (Coal Use)
  Electricity Supplies
  Electricity Supplies
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Windmill Project, Orkney
  Windmill Project, Orkney
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Membership
  Membership
  Strangers' Bar
  Strangers' Bar
HOME DEPARTMENT
  General Election (Fraud)
  General Election (Fraud)
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Warrington (Disturbances)
  Warrington (Disturbances)
  Conspiracy to Defraud
  Conspiracy to Defraud
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Overseas Visitors (Refusal of Entry)
  Overseas Visitors (Refusal of Entry)
  Drug Offences (Wolverhampton)
  Drug Offences (Wolverhampton)
  NHS Management Courses (Police Attendance)
  NHS Management Courses (Police Attendance)
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  London-Birmingham Railway (Exhibition)
  London-Birmingham Railway (Exhibition)
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  A607 (Speed Limit)
  A607 (Speed Limit)
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Oil Tankers (Recommended Routes)
  Oil Tankers (Recommended Routes)
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
  M25
  M25
  Trunk Roads (London)
  Trunk Roads (London)
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Poisonous Cargo (North Sea)
  Poisonous Cargo (North Sea)
  Road Tolls
  Road Tolls
  Street Works
  Street Works
PRIME MINISTER
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Mrs. Pollard (Attributability Certificate)
  Mrs. Pollard (Attributability Certificate)
  Dieter Gerhardt
  Dieter Gerhardt
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Educational Brochure (Cost)
  Educational Brochure (Cost)
  Anglo-American Relationship
  Anglo-American Relationship
  Civil Servants (Political Decisions)
  Civil Servants (Political Decisions)
  International Scientific Organisations
  International Scientific Organisations
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Ministers' Interests
  Ministers' Interests
  Mr. Mark Thatcher
  Mr. Mark Thatcher
  Oman
  Oman
CIVIL SERVICE
  Permanent Secretaries
  Permanent Secretaries
  Equal Opportunity Policy
  Equal Opportunity Policy
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Staff Reductions
  Staff Reductions
THE ARTS
  British Library
  British Library
  Public Libraries Act 1964
  Public Libraries Act 1964
  School Library Service
  School Library Service
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Public Libraries
  Public Libraries
  Library and Information Services Council
  Library and Information Services Council
  Provincial Orchestras
  Provincial Orchestras
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  The Campaigners
  The Campaigners
  School Day
  School Day
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Educational Equipment
  Educational Equipment
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Stern Group
  Stern Group
  Newcastle upon Tyne (Magistrates)
  Newcastle upon Tyne (Magistrates)
  Mr. Dennis Kelly
  Mr. Dennis Kelly
WALES
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Vanguard Schemes
  Vanguard Schemes
  Welsh Housing Aid
  Welsh Housing Aid
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Ancient Monuments (Brown Report)
  Ancient Monuments (Brown Report)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Transport Costs
  Transport Costs
  Factory Space
  Factory Space
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Social Security (Frauds)
  Social Security (Frauds)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Claimant Statitics
  Claimant Statitics
  Crop Spraying
  Crop Spraying
  Unemployed Persons (Interview Costs)
  Unemployed Persons (Interview Costs)
  Unemployed Persons (Voluntary Work)
  Unemployed Persons (Voluntary Work)
  Parental Leave
  Parental Leave
  Burnley
  Burnley
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Recruitment Premiums
  Recruitment Premiums
  Voluntary Organisations (Training Programmes)
  Voluntary Organisations (Training Programmes)
  Schools Career Advisory Service
  Schools Career Advisory Service
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
DEFENCE
  Sea Eagle
  Sea Eagle
  Clelands Yard, Tyneside
  Clelands Yard, Tyneside
  Trident
  Trident
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Sapper David Mead
  Sapper David Mead
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Plastic Naval Minehunter Ships
  Plastic Naval Minehunter Ships
  HMS Invincible
  HMS Invincible
  Captain John Belt and Sergeant Roger Jones
  Captain John Belt and Sergeant Roger Jones
  Naval Commanders (Newspaper Interviews)
  Naval Commanders (Newspaper Interviews)
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Royal Air Force (Trainer Aircraft)
  Royal Air Force (Trainer Aircraft)
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  CS Gas (Animal Deaths)
  CS Gas (Animal Deaths)
  Research (Animal Deaths)
  Research (Animal Deaths)
  Chilwell Ordnance Depot
  Chilwell Ordnance Depot
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Design Performance
  Design Performance
  Computer Programmes (Copyright)
  Computer Programmes (Copyright)
  Lovelock Report
  Lovelock Report
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Latin America
  Latin America
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Furniture Imports
  Furniture Imports
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  United States (Trade Controls)
  United States (Trade Controls)
  North of England
  North of England
  Kidneys
  Kidneys
  A320 Airbus
  A320 Airbus
  Computers
  Computers
  European Community Steel Council
  European Community Steel Council
  Minerals Technology (Study)
  Minerals Technology (Study)
  China
  China
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic and Industrial Progress
  Economic and Industrial Progress
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  PAYE (Computerisation)
  PAYE (Computerisation)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Registry of Friendly Societies
  Registry of Friendly Societies
  Hotels
  Hotels
  Revenue
  Revenue
  Pipe Tobacco (Duty)
  Pipe Tobacco (Duty)
  Index-Linked Pensions
  Index-Linked Pensions
  Privatisation (Share Prices)
  Privatisation (Share Prices)
  Value Added Tax (Hotels and Restaurants)
  Value Added Tax (Hotels and Restaurants)
  Overseas Investment ("Distributor" Status)
  Overseas Investment ("Distributor" Status)
  Civil Servants (Subsistence Allowances)
  Civil Servants (Subsistence Allowances)
  Scott Lithgow (Closure)
  Scott Lithgow (Closure)
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Tax Relief (Overseas Absence)
  Tax Relief (Overseas Absence)
  Fair Wages Resolution
  Fair Wages Resolution
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Unemployment (Wales)
  Unemployment (Wales)
SCOTLAND
  Salmon (Tagging)
  Salmon (Tagging)
  Lewis Stokfisk Ltd.
  Lewis Stokfisk Ltd.
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Police and Fire Services (Radio Equipment)
  Police and Fire Services (Radio Equipment)
  Scott Lithgow
  Scott Lithgow
  Blizzard Damage
  Blizzard Damage
  Snow Clearing
  Snow Clearing
  Carstairs Hospital (Asbestos)
  Carstairs Hospital (Asbestos)
  Schools (Rates)
  Schools (Rates)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Theft
  Theft
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  International Rugby Matches
  International Rugby Matches
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Groundwork North-West (Exhibition)
  Groundwork North-West (Exhibition)
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Listed Building Control
  Listed Building Control
  MV England
  MV England
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Blisworth Tunnel
  Blisworth Tunnel
  Canals
  Canals
  Avon Aqueduct and Braunston Tunnel
  Avon Aqueduct and Braunston Tunnel
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Local Authorities (Overspenders)
  Local Authorities (Overspenders)
  Uplands Policy
  Uplands Policy
  Housing Booklets
  Housing Booklets
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Helsinki Final Act
  Helsinki Final Act
  SECURITY IN EUROPE: PRINCIPLES GUIDING RELATIONS BETWEEN PARTICIPATING STATES: CONFIDENCE- BUILDING MEASURES AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT (BASKET I)
  SECURITY IN EUROPE: PRINCIPLES GUIDING RELATIONS BETWEEN PARTICIPATING STATES: CONFIDENCE- BUILDING MEASURES AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT (BASKET I)
  CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY-BUILDING MEASURES
  CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY-BUILDING MEASURES
  CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS, OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BASKET III)
  CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS, OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BASKET III)
  CO-OPERATION IN HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER FIELDS" (BASKET III)
  CO-OPERATION IN HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER FIELDS" (BASKET III)
  CO-OPERATION AND EXCHANGE IN THE FIELD OF CULTURE AND EDUCATION
  CO-OPERATION AND EXCHANGE IN THE FIELD OF CULTURE AND EDUCATION
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  International Red Cross
  International Red Cross
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animal Quarantine
  Animal Quarantine
  Drainage Boards
  Drainage Boards
  Faroe Islands
  Faroe Islands
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Herring Fishing
  Herring Fishing
  North Sea (Weedkiller)
  North Sea (Weedkiller)
  Carrots
  Carrots
  Bread and Flour
  Bread and Flour
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Care
  Health Care
  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
  Contraceptives
  Contraceptives
  Medical Care Responsibility
  Medical Care Responsibility
  NHS Staff (Yorkshire)
  NHS Staff (Yorkshire)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Local Offices (National Computer)
  Local Offices (National Computer)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Messenger Newspapers Dispute (Injuries)
  Messenger Newspapers Dispute (Injuries)
  Merseyside County Council (Take-up Campaign)
  Merseyside County Council (Take-up Campaign)
  NHS (Medical Staff)
  NHS (Medical Staff)
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  NHS Training Course (Police Attendance)
  NHS Training Course (Police Attendance)
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Patients (Money)
  Patients (Money)
  Congenitally Disabled Persons (Benefit)
  Congenitally Disabled Persons (Benefit)
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  War Pensioners (Mobility Supplement)
  War Pensioners (Mobility Supplement)
  Health and Social Security Bill
  Health and Social Security Bill
  European Community (Wages and Pensions)
  European Community (Wages and Pensions)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Mental Health Commission
  Mental Health Commission
  Benzo-diazepine
  Benzo-diazepine
  Prescriptions (Statistics)
  Prescriptions (Statistics)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

BAe.146 Aircraft: Development Costs
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm that there were no costs to public funds for the development and production of the BAe. 146 civil aircraft following the creation of British Aerospace.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the facts are as follows—the Government's approval for full-scale development of the BAe. 146 Aircraft was announced on 10th July 1978. Subsequently the Government advanced £33 million of public dividend capital to British Aerospace in December 1979 and a loan of £22 million from the National Loans Fund in March 1980. These sums, as well as money available from internal resources, were in support of British Aerospace's overall financing needs, which included of course the development costs of the BAe. 146. The costs of BAe entry to the airbus consortium were the subject of a separate grant of £50 million in March 1979.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Is he aware that the purpose of the Question was to set the record straight, in view of the more than somewhat misleading Answer given in the other place? First, is it not surprising that he now quotes the sum of £33 million whereas in that place they mentioned a sum of £100 million? Is it not more correct to say that there was absolutely no cost to public funds of the 146 aircraft? Is it not right that the public dividend capital was for the general operations of the corporation, it was more than covered by the assets, and on it a proper dividend was paid each year?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the reply given in another place, which I have in front of me, was entirely accurate. So far as the rest of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I realise that these are matters of some controversy; but, with respect, they arise directly out of decisions taken by the Labour Government and announced by Mr. Kaufman—who was the Minister then responsible—on 10th July 1978. If the noble Lord reads Mr. Kaufman's statement, which appears in col. 1103 of Hansard for that date, he will find that the link between the development cost of the HS. 146 (as it was then known), and the further finance from the National Loans Fund and advances of public dividend capital was made in that statement.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord can refer to as many statements as he likes; but the fact still remains that there was no cost directly occasioned by the 146. If the question had been asked, "What was the cost to the public purse of the 125–700 series and 800 series, of the development of the 748, of the A.300, the A.310 and the Jetstream?" would the noble Lord have referred in each case to this amount of public dividend capital? Would he have tried to get away with that?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, neither I nor the Government that I represent have any primary responsibility for these matters. They arise directly from decisions taken by the then Administration, and I can do no more than inform the noble Lord what the facts are and what statements were made when those decisions were announced to the House.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord give me an assurance that when the Conservative Central Office next compile an amount of money which they say has been handed over to public enterprise they will not include these figures quoted in the other place or the figures quoted by him as cost to the Treasury?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am not prepared to give the noble Lord any such assurance. I started by saying that this is a matter of some controversy, and therefore I have deliberately confined myself to a statement of the facts. It is open to anybody who is interested to place whatever interpretation on those facts that they wish.
Lord Beswick: Finally, my Lords, on this question, would it not also have been relevant to say that when British Aerospace was given away—or half of British Aerospace was given away—to private enterprise—
A noble Lord: Sold!
Lord Beswick:—given away to private enterprise, there was £256 million of reserves in the kitty, which more than covered those figures the noble Lord is now talking about?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord is now pursuing quite a separate matter. The Question relates to the development costs of the BAe. 146 civil aircraft, and I have done my best to answer the Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord quite rightly says that there has been much controversy over this issue. Is he not aware that the controversy has been about whether the facts he relates are really the facts? That is what it is about.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the facts are not in dispute at all. What I have said follows precisely what Mr. Kaufman himself said in 1978. I can do no better than that.

British Aerospace: Grant
2.43 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what date the £50 million grant to British Aerospace, made following their decision to join Airbus Industrie, was converted to public dividend capital.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the grant of £50 million was converted into public dividend capital with effect from 31st December 1979. This was done for what were essentially technical reasons. The public dividend capital was subsequently extinguished so that in effect the £50 million reverted to the status of a grant.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. However, there was no mention in the reply on 12th December to the fact that the £50 million had been converted into public dividend capital on which a dividend was paid. May I ask the noble Lord whether it would not have been better in the original Answer in the other place, and in his own Answer, if he had quoted from the memorandum of the Department of Industry of March 1982?
This states:
"Unlike other Governments in the programme, Her Majesty's Government has not provided finances specifically for the development costs for its national manufacturers' participation in individual Airbus projects."
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. So far as the Answer given in another place is concerned, it was a precise and correct answer to the Question that was asked.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, it might have been correct up to a point but is it not misleading to suggest that a grant is a grant when in fact it is later converted into public dividend capital?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I think it would be most inappropriate that we should refer in such terms to replies or statements made in another place. As regards the £50 million grant, the money was paid to British Aerospace and remained with British Aerospace. It was designated under different titles over a period of time. It was first described as a grant; it was then described as public dividend capital, and the public dividend capital description was then extinguished. But none of that alters the fact that, first, it was £50 million and, secondly, it remained in the possession of British Aerospace. I do not think that those facts are in dispute. Nor can I see any grounds on which they should give rise to anxieties or doubts.

Disarmament Programme: Consideration by UN
2.47 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the United Nations Committee on Disarmament at Geneva has reached a decision on the comprehensive disarmament programme referred to it by the second UN Special Session on Disarmament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Committee on Disarmament has been unable to conclude its consideration of the comprehensive programme of disarmament since this ambitious programme does not appear to enjoy the necessary support at present. The 38th United Nations General Assembly (1983) decided by consensus that the committee should renew its work on this subject when it considers it would be propitious to do so.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that the delay is due to the wide range of subjects in the proposed comprehensive disarmament programme; that the separate subjects have been referred to working groups in the committee at Geneva; and that there have been differences in those working groups which have caused delays? Does she agree that it is also due to the fact that the American and British Governments opposed the proposal for setting up a working committee on nuclear weapons? Did not the United Nations also say that the committee should make recommendations at the General Assembly next year? Will the Government give priority to this subject and see that the comprehensive disarmament programme is considered without undue delay?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the British view is that we believe in a practical step-by-step approach to disarmament rather that in wide-ranging declaratory programmes such as the one which is implicit in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. But if further development of the comprehensive programme seems to offer a practical means of advancing disarmament, the United Kingdom will join others in supporting it. On the noble Lord's supplementary question as to whether it was the Western powers which might be accused of being responsible for the lack of progress, it was evident from the discussions in the Committee on Disarmament during 1983, and from recent United Nations General Assembly debates, that many delegations had reservations about the programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that all constructive measures and steps towards disarmament should be supported by Her Majesty's Government? Will she state whether or not Her Majesty's Government were in any way responsible for the suspension of these United Nations talks? On the general question of disarmament, to which she has just referred, would she clarify the apparent misunderstanding which arose during Question Time last week in connection with the Stockholm talks and the START and INF talks at Geneva? She appeared at that stage to give the impression that any progress on START and INF were dependent on progress at Stockholm. This is a subject

449
which is of interest to Members in all parts of the House. Would she be good enough now to make it abundantly clear that START and INF can make clear progress notwithstanding what happens at Stockholm?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I have made the position of the British Government on this debate in the United Nations quite clear by saying that we believe in a step-by-step approach to disarmament rather than in these general declaratory statements. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, will know, we are deeply committed to the search for disarmament. We are, of course, closely associated through NATO with American attempts to reduce strategic and intermediate-range missiles and we have participated in the Vienna talks on balanced conventional force reductions. On the noble Lord's last point about the Stockholm conference, I looked again at what I have said. I am sorry that there should be any misunderstanding on the point, but, of course, we would hope that, while the negotiations which may arise from the Stockholm conference go on, that in no way precludes or prevents other negotiations from continuing at the same time.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the best chance of obtaining a real reduction of armaments by international agreement will come when the burden of expenditure on defence becomes unendurable; and that this will happen to the Soviet Union sooner than it happens to the United States or to the countries of Western Europe? Meanwhile, does the noble Baroness realise that the best hope of avoiding a third world war is the achievement and maintenance of parity between NATO and the Soviet Union, both in nuclear and in conventional weapons, which are interdependent?
May I finally ask the noble Baroness whether she realises that the vast majority of the British people have not forgotten what happened in the 1930s and 1940s and are determined that it shall never happen again; and that this accounts primarily for the heavy defeat of the Labour Party at the last election? Can she give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not let them down?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the three points that the noble Lord has raised, I am sure that he is right to draw attention to the importance of the cost of nuclear arms to the United States, to the Soviet Union and to ourselves, as well as to the importance of maintaining our proper level of defences; and, of course, it is for this reason that as a Government we have supported the deployment of cruise, at the same time saying that we shall continue our negotiations. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the lessons to be drawn from the 1930s and 1940s.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposal for a comprehensive disarmament programme is supported by all the parties in opposition in the British Parliament with the exception of the Ulster Unionists? Will she, therefore, seek at the United Nations General Assembly to expedite the consideration of the proposal before 1986, as is now proposed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about the strongly held feelings of the opposition parties in the United Kingdom; but, as I have indicated, our view as a Government is that it is better, and more likely to achieve results, to have a step-by-step programme on disarmament negotiations. I have indicated some of the negotiations in which we are currently taking part, rather than these very broad principles which in fact do not have the support of many countries in the United Nations for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned the MBFR talks in Vienna, may I ask her whether she can confirm that all the NATO countries are in full agreement on the questions of data and verification?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on MBFR, we have participated in the Vienna talks, which we expect to be resumed shortly, once the Russians, of course, agree to return to the negotiating table. We are playing our full part in these.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it would reinforce belief in the Government's commitment to disarmament if they were to take an initiative in the matter?
Baroness Young: My Lords, again we believe that the best way to get disarmament is through the various talks that are going on. Reference has already been made to the decisions coming out of the Stockholm conference. As I have already indicated, we are associated through NATO with American attempts to reduce arms—both strategic and intermediate-range missiles—and we are involved in the talks on MBFR. In a whole range of ways the British Government are either supporting talks or actively taking part in them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that from time to time she herself has acknowledged the horrendous threat to mankind that nuclear weapons pose; and that, although step-by-step negotiation is all right, it seems to the majority of people that the steps are going backwards? We are abolishing nothing. Is she aware that the reason for that seems to be the recalcitrance of, on the one hand, the USSR and, on the other, the United States of America; and, with their vast experience, the British Government could try to bring those two together, both in Geneva and in the United Nations, so that they can start with some semblance of agreement which could lead to the steps going forwards and not backwards?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated, we remain committed to seeking a balanced and verifiable agreement in MBFR. The first stage of the CDE complements what is happening in MBFR. May I say that NATO cannot be accused of stimulating a new arms race. In October 1983 NATO defence Ministers announced reductions of 2,000 nuclear warheads in Europe, following reductions of 1,000 in 1980.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, with reference particularly to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is the noble Baroness aware that I was one of the generation who at least for two minutes every year between the wars in silence said to themselves that this must never, never happen again—and it did happen again? Now it is 40 years since it happened again, and the difficult question as to whether more armaments make war more likely or less likely has ceased to be one which has any electoral relevance at all.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has drawn attention to an important point. The fact is that since 1945 we have had the longest period of peace in Europe this century, and there is no doubt at all that the NATO alliance is one reason for it.

Housing: Fire Hazard
2.58 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which provisions of the Housing (Houses in Multiple Occupation) Bill of 1979 have been enacted in other legislation; which have been brought into operation; and what further steps they propose to take.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Housing Act 1980 made special grant available for providing means of escape from fire and made the grant mandatory if work is necessary for compliance with a relevant local authority notice. These provisions have been in operation since 1980. In addition, the Government made an order under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980 in respect of means of escape from fire from houses in multiple occupation and are currently reviewing the scope of that order. We also hope to be able to publish a code of guidance on fire safety in houses in multiple occupation this year, after consultation with all the relevant interests.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but because of the situation may I urge the Government to move faster? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government's own fire statistics covering 1978 to 1981 show that 550 people living in multiple occupation died from fire or through its effects, and that those figures also show that people living in multiple occupation are nine times more at risk than people living in ordinary accommodation? Could I therefore urge the Minister, if there are any proposals in the pipeline, to ask the Secretary of State to speed them up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord about the hazards of fire, especially in houses in multiple occupation. But the normal mechanism for dealing with hazards from fire is the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which is currently under review, and I would hope that one of my noble friends will be able to announce the results of the review before too long.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the standard of houses in multiple occupation, certainly in inner city areas, continues to deteriorate due to a lack of resources available to local authorities, while the numbers and the needs of people who require such accommodation increase? Will the noble Lord try to persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to look at two simple proposals which were in the 1979 Bill referred to by my noble friend? The first is the need for local authorities to inspect on a two-year cycle all houses in multiple occupation in their areas. The second proposal is the need for a more simplified procedure of enforcement on landlords and others who do not keep up standards.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has raised two points. On the second point I would say that since the noble Lord introduced his Bill and the second Bill came under the consideration of another place, both local authority associations and the Government have looked at the proposal and have come to the conclusion that it would be too dirigiste and too costly to implement. With regard to the noble Lord's other point, I do not think that it is a question of the amount of money that local authorities have for the purpose; it is the way in which they themselves choose to spend it, which is of course their prerogative.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that those people who live in houses in multiple occupation are among the most vulnerable in our society, not merely because of the conditions, but also because of the danger? Will the Minister also acknowledge that one of the prime and great benefits of the new legislation, which had support in all parts of this House and in another place, was to change the basis from a discretionary one to a statutory one? No matter how quickly the consultation is taking place, it must be speeded up, and no matter how much local authorities are willing to implement the legislation, what are needed are powers of enforcement. What we do not want to see are dreadful cases of fires in houses in multiple occupation, such as we have seen in recent years.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already commented on the question of fires and have given an assurance that the matter will be reported to the House as soon as may be. With regard to the occupants of houses in multiple occupation, yes, my Lords, by definition they must be some of the most disadvantaged members of society. So far as the structure of a building goes, local authorities already have very wide powers. The question at issue is whether they should be compulsory powers, or whether these wide powers should be left to the discretion of the local authorities themselves to use as appropriate. The Government's view is that the latter course is right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his answers so far, may I press him on the last point mentioned? After the local authorities and the other bodies involved submit their findings and the Government come forward with proposals, will consideration be given as a matter of urgency to making the powers mandatory and not optional, since so far only 17 local authorities in the whole of England and Wales have taken out control orders?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall take the point on board and of course pass it to my right honourable friend. But the answers that I have given so far make me rather doubt that the outcome will be quite as the noble Lord would wish.

French Ban on Imports of Meat
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question that is to be given in another place on the French ban on imports of meat.

Recreational Gardening Bill [H.L.]
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to allotment gardens and to confirm that allotment gardening has the status of a recreation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Bill read a first time; and to be printed.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Science and Technology Committee: Membership
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Lockwood be appointed to the Select Committee on Science and Technology in place of the Baroness Jeger.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Most of the Bill will be familiar to your Lordships. It is the Bill which came before this House last spring, but was lost at the Dissolution. It extends the right to buy in important new respects; it gives secure tenants valuable new rights; and it introduces a new system of building control.
I shall speak first about Part I of the Bill dealing with the right to buy and tenants' rights. There is certainly no need for me to stress the remarkable success of the Government's right to buy policies. The figures speak for themselves. Between April 1979 and September
454
1983 some 640,000 tenants in Great Britain bought their homes either under the right to buy or under voluntary sales schemes. The rate of sales is still high. Last September, in England alone, there were some 130,000 applications to buy in the pipeline.
The Government received a massive endorsement of their right to buy policies at the last general election, and the continuing level of sales is very encouraging. Nevertheless, there are still tenants who are unnecessarily denied the right to buy, and there are points in the legislation which have caused unnecessary difficulties for tenants seeking to buy. This Bill will give more tenants the opportunity they seek and remove difficulties which others face.
As I have said, the Bill also deals with tenants' rights. May I remind your Lordships that it was this Government who first introduced the tenants' charter in 1980. This Bill will introduce important new rights, most notably the right to repair.
I shall deal very briefly with the provisions which were in the Bill when it came before your Lordships' House last year and which were then endorsed by your Lordships. Clause 1 extends the right to buy to secure tenants whose landlord does not own the freehold of their dwelling, and who are consequently excluded under the present rules. We estimate that this provision will benefit some 50,000 secure tenants of public sector leasehold property. Clause 2 will extend the right to buy to disabled tenants whose homes have been adapted for their use. This is a welcome change, which my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox initiated last Session.
Clause 3 and Schedule 2 will reduce the qualifying period from three to two years, and increase the maximum discount from 50 to 60 per cent. Tenancies of other public sector bodies will in future count towards right to buy entitlements. Clauses 9 to 11 will give my right honourable friend new powers to assist tenants seeking to exercise their right to buy. Clauses 12 to 17 introduce the new right to shared ownership for tenants who cannot afford to buy outright.
There are other interesting measures which we shall no doubt want to consider in Committee. But for the sake of brevity I now turn to three new provisions introduced since the Bill was last before your Lordships' House. The first is the extension of security of tenure and the right to buy to certain county council tenants. County councils are not housing authorities, and the majority of their lettings are associated with some non-housing functions: accommodation provided for police officers, wardens' and caretakers' housing, and dwellings let on a short-term basis on land held pending development. Counties were excluded from the 1980 legislation for this reason: it would clearly not be appropriate to extend the right to buy to such "operational" tenancies. However, experience since 1980 suggests that there are also a considerable number of county council tenants in dwellings which are no longer required for strictly operational purposes. It is not easy to defend a situation where these tenants are denied security and the right to buy simply because their landlord happens to be a county rather than a district council.
In order to protect councils' interests in housing used for operational purposes, we are proposing to

455
refine the categories of tenancy excluded from security of tenure and the right to buy under the 1980 legislation. The House may want to explore the detail of these changes at Committee stage. Our aim has been to protect from sale those dwellings which are clearly needed by councils in some operational context.
The Bill also proposes changes to the current restrictions on the sale of elderly persons' dwellings. As these will be of particular interest to your Lordships, I should like to say a few words about them. What we are talking about here are not sheltered dwellings—those provided in groups with special facilities, such as a resident warden. That type of accommodation will continue to be excluded from the right to buy. We are talking about bungalows, flats, and so on, which have been provided for elderly people as part of the general housing stock.
The present rule—in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act—is that if the right to buy is to be denied in an individual case the landlord must apply to my right honourable friend, who must make a determination excluding the dwelling from the right to buy if it satisfies a "design" and a "letting" test. This provision was inserted after much discussion, both here and in another place, during the passage of the 1980 Bill.
I should like to give some brief details of how that provision has operated. At the end of November 1983, 2,470 applications had been made in England and Wales under paragraph 5. Of these, some 763 were either out of time or were subsequently withdrawn, and 103 were still under consideration. Of the remainder, 1,448 were rejected as not fulfilling the necessary criteria. The result is that in only 156 cases in some three-and-a-half years has the Secretary of State been satisfied that the paragraph 5 test is met, and the dwelling should be excluded from the right to buy. I might add that it has cost my department some £150,000 a year to administer this provision.
Those figures show that something is clearly wrong. Some of your Lordships may be inclined to suggest that the reason for the very low level of successful applications is a determination on the part of my right honourable friend to interpret (or some might say, perhaps, to misinterpret) paragraph 5 in such a way as to minimise exclusions from the right to buy. There is no evidence to support such a view. Local authorities have access to the best legal advice in matters of this kind. If, in any of the 1,448 cases rejected, they had felt there were good grounds for challenging the Secretary of State's decision, I am sure they would have done so. Yet there has not been a single challenge of a paragraph 5 decision in the courts since 1980.
I believe that the real difficulty is of a different kind. It is that paragraph 5 requires us to make distinctions where none or virtually none really exists. It requires us to identify dwellings "designed or specially adapted" for the elderly. The assumption is that such dwellings can be distinguished from others by the presence of special, and clearly identifiable, physical features. But in fact that is simply not the case. Many bungalows and ground-floor flats are perfectly suitable for the elderly and equally suitable for other categories of tenant, such as childless couples and single people of
456
working age. What one is really talking about is a wide range of small dwelling units which have few distinctive features other than their size.
To go further than that and to try to identify features of special design or adaptation has led us into the most unrewarding inquiries about such details as the locks on bathroom doors, the height of windowsills and working surfaces, the presence of grab-rails in the toilets, and so on. It is absurd that the decision whether or not an elderly tenant has the right to buy should turn on the presence or absence of such features. Yet there is no more objective basis for the decision and, I would argue, no way of refining the present rule in order to produce a more satisfactory test of what constitutes an elderly person's dwelling.
This in itself would be formidable case for change. But there are other reasons, too. We have good evidence that paragraph 5 is misunderstood by many elderly tenants, who are consequently discouraged from exercising their right to buy under the Act even when they do have the right to buy. Even worse, we believe that some local authorities are quite deliberately using paragraph 5 as a basis for unlawfully denying tenants the right to buy, without reference to the Secretary of State. That is a serious allegation. But the statistics show that the vast bulk of applications received under paragraph 5 have been submitted by about one-third of the authorities administering the right to buy. Roughly one-third of authorities have submitted four or less applications, and the remaining third have submitted no applications at all. This dearth or absence of applications from some two-thirds of authorities cannot reasonably be explained away on the grounds that they are all willing sellers of elderly persons' accommodation, or that they have no elderly tenants, or that none of their elderly tenants wants to buy. The only plausible explanation is that there is a widespread practice of denying the right to buy to elderly tenants without following the procedures laid down by Parliament.
We propose, therefore, to repeal paragraph 5. Elderly tenants will in future have the same rights to buy their home as other eligible tenants. However, we are not insensitive to the concerns on this matter, especially as expressed in the past by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and others in your Lordships' House. Consequently, we are proposing that, provided the dwelling meets a simplified design and letting test, landlords will be given the right to impose a pre-emption covenant that will enable them to buy back the dwelling if it is resold within 21 years.
Your Lordships will recall that the Government made a similar proposal when the 1980 Bill was before this House, following a suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. It was overtaken by the discussions which produced what is now paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, but I believe experience since 1980 clearly shows that our first thoughts would have provided a better solution than what finally emerged. There is one important difference in our present proposals. Whereas in 1980 we envisaged that the pre-emption right would run for only 10 years, I say again that we now propose that it should run for 21 years.
We believe that this new provision will have great practical benefits. First, it will end the quite extraordinary

457
detailed consideration which has had to be given to individual cases under paragraph 5. That will be a relief both to my department and, I am sure, to the landlord local authorities. Secondly, it will end considerable uncertainty as to whether elderly tenants have the right to buy. In future, it will be quite clear that tenants of non-sheltered housing do have that right if they qualify under the normal rules. I apologise for dealing with this provision at some length. I do so because I know that it is of special interest in your Lordships' House. It is, indeed, an important change which will be welcomed by many elderly people, who have felt they were unfairly denied the right to buy.
This Bill does not contain a clause that would give the tenants of charitable housing associations the right to buy the home they live in, much as I myself, frankly, would have liked to have included it. Your Lordships will, however, be aware of the proposals for a new home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations announced on 21st December. This scheme, in outline, would offer the chance of home ownership to tenants of charitable dwellings provided with housing association grant through a purchase on the open market with a discount similar to what they would have had under the right to buy. For every tenant who was able to take advantage of the scheme, a charitable dwelling would be vacated and become available for re-letting to a person or a family with acute housing needs in line with the objects of the charitable landlord. The scheme would require amendments to the existing powers to pay housing association grant and we propose to bring forward such amendments when the Bill reaches Committee stage in this House. I hope your Lordships will feel able to give them your full support. I can also assure your Lordships that we will not be seeking to reintroduce the old Clause 2 in any form.
I now turn to the proposals strengthening the tenants charter. As your Lordships will recall, this Government have been much concerned about tenants' rights. This Bill adds significantly to the rights now enjoyed by tenants as a direct result of the provisions of the 1980 Housing Act. The principal new provisions in the Bill, as it now stands, are known as the right to repair and the right to information about heating charges. However, before saying more about them, I should like to refer to a further proposed right which is not yet in the Bill. Your Lordships may already be aware that the Department of the Environment issued a consultation letter late last year, with proposals for a tenants' right to exchange their homes. Following consideration of the comments received, the Government intend coming forward with an amendment during Commitee for your Lordships' consideration.
Let me now deal with the right to repair. Clause 25 will empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce a scheme by regulations. Last autumn the department consulted a wide range of bodies representing tenants' and landlords' interests on the Government's preliminary proposals on what the regulations might contain. The responses to that consultation are now being considered. There have been many helpful comments and views expressed not simply by those consulted, but by those in another place. I cannot say
458
when decisions arising from the consultation will be ready; indeed, your Lordships may welcome the opportunity to make your own views known and for them to be taken on board before final decisions are made. In any case, the Government have already expressed their readiness to provide a suitable opportunity for comment on draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament.
I turn now to the other new right contained in the Bill which will be of benefit to more than 200,000 secure tenants. Clause 26 will give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment an enabling power to introduce certain requirements by regulation. The regulations would oblige local authorities and new town development corporations who supply heat to secure tenants to adopt such methods of determining heating charges as will ensure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each tenant is now much more reasonable. The regulations may also provide that tenants could require their supplying authorities to furnish information about costs and charges relating to the provision of heat, and to provide access to the accounts and other supporting documentation. My right honourable friend proposes to issue a consultation paper on the form of the regulations and the timing of their introduction. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these new rights, including the right to exchange, will be widely welcomed by tenants who will thereby have the opportunity to exercise greater control over their homes.
I turn briefly now to Parts II and III of the Bill, which deal with building control. The provisions in the Bill are based on the proposals contained in Command Paper 8179, The Future of Building Control in England and Wales, issued in February 1981, on which there has already been extensive consultation. We are not suggesting that the present system of building control fails to produce safe buildings; indeed, its record is good. But there have been persistent criticisms that the system is unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic, while the building regulations themselves are difficult to understand, constricting and inflexible.
The provisions in the Bill therefore have two main objectives. The first is to enable the construction industry and building professions to achieve greater self-regulation through a system of independent private certification of compliance with the building regulations. This will be a new option available to builders and developers, as an alternative to the existing system of local authority control which, I would stress, will remain available for those who wish to use it.
The Bill sets out a legal framework enabling approved inspectors to supervise building work and to give to the local authority and to the developer a certificate that he has carried out his statutory duties and that he is satisfied that the work meets the requirements of the building regulations. An inspector will have to show, except in the case of certain minor works, that he has no other professional or financial interest in the work; he will also have to produce evidence of satisfactory insurance cover in relation to any work which he supervises. Inspectors will be approved by the Secretary of State or by bodies

459
designated by him, and it will be possible to restrict approval to particular types of building, depending on professional qualification and experience.
The second objective of this part of the Bill is to make it possible to rewrite the building regulations in a quite different form. A major criticism of the present regulations has been that they attempt to convey a mass of technical detail within the constraints of a legal instrument. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State, or a body designated by him with parliamentary approval, to approve documents from any source which provide practical guidance on how to comply with the building regulations. As these documents will be outside the statutory instrument, it will be possible to write them in clear technical style, using diagrams and so on, so that they will be of most practical value to the user of the regulations. Updating them will be simple, and a much greater use of British standard codes of practice and Agrément certificates will be possible. The regulations themselves will be expressed as clear, short, functional requirements. We have consulted extensively on these proposals and they have been widely welcomed. Initially, all the approved documents will be produced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who is seeking, through consultation, to involve a wide spectrum of users in their preparation.
Our proposals for private certification have also been the subject of extensive and detailed consultation. The leading professional institutions are actively co-operating with the department in considering criteria and procedures for approving inspectors; we are continuing our discussions with the insurance industry—which includes the National House-Building Council—on the kind of schemes which the Secretary of State might approve. There will be a further round of informal consultation on the draft regulations relating to the certification system and on the main building regulations, and there will be formal consultation before these new regulations are made.
It is worth emphasising again that these regulations, when they are made, will not compel anyone to adopt private certification. No architect or engineer will be obliged to offer the service if he does not want to do so; no building owner will be obliged to seek out a private inspector to supervise his site if he does not want to do so. The local authority system will continue in operation, and those who find it satisfactory will be free to continue to use it. We are merely widening the choice, and encouraging efficiency by introducing the possibility of competition. In short, we believe that our proposals for private certification will give developers and building owners flexibility, efficiency and convenience.
Most of the contents of this Bill have been endorsed by your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. The changes in the Bill are on issues on which we have received many representations, including those raised in your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will give it a smooth and speedy passage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear exposition of the Bill. The noble Lord has saved me the trouble and time of having to go through it clause by clause. After all, we have been here before because the Bill was going through this House when the General Election was called. I am also very conscious of the number of speakers who have their names down to speak today and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who will be speaking very soon.
As regards building control, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton will deal with Part II of the Bill when he winds up for the Opposition. My main concern today is with the alterations imposed on this Bill compared with the first version, which was so rudely interrupted last summer. The trouble with the Government is that if a Bill falls due to some extraneous circumstance, one can be sure that when it comes back it will be even worse. The main changes, and the most contentious, are in the right to buy provisions for the elderly, adapted houses for the disabled in Clause 2 and then the plan for tenants of charitable housing associations, which has yet to be discussed anywhere. In fact, what the Minister has said today are the first words that we have heard on this subject in either House of Parliament.
Let me begin with the elderly. I must confess I was very surprised—because it is not really like the Minister—that he trivialised this issue to such a degree and dealt with it, I thought, extremely lightly and, as I shall show, quite incorrectly. During the passage of the Housing Act 1980, from this Bench I moved an amendment to exempt accommodation which was specially designed for and used by elderly people from being automatically sold under the right to buy legislation. At that point only sheltered housing was exempt. The House accepted the amendment by a considerable majority, which was supported by many noble Lords opposite led by the late Lord Amory, who had great local government and Treasury experience and even greater compassion. He and other noble Lords opposite were quite clear about the importance of reserving the stock of houses for old people; they did not think it was the same as any old house anywhere. They were aware of the importance of having to plan the development of houses for old people, so that they would be near the shops and the buses, and be properly designed. That was accepted.
Three years later, when the first Housing and Building Control Bill reached this House, no attempt had been made to overturn our previous decision, which incidentally was acclaimed by people of all and no political allegiance—local authorities of all parties and voluntary bodies throughout the country. So far, so good. However, on 21st December, 1983, in another place the Government introduced a new clause into the current Housing and Building Control Bill to remove this power of exemption, except for sheltered housing. As it appeared only two days before the Report stage and Third Reading, although opposed by the Opposition and Alliance and although disquiet was expressed by some prominent Tory Back-Benchers, who abstained, there was no effective opportunity for consultation or public debate, as there was in 1980.

461
The purpose of the successful 1980 amendment was to ensure that property designed for and in the habit of being used by old people did not leave the pool of available accommodation, which was—and still is—in short supply, particularly in rural areas. According to Age Concern, in many places the waiting time for such dwellings is over two years or even longer, and the demand is so great that many elderly never have the opportunity to move in.
The new clause will allow local authorities to reacquire the dwelling on first disposal within 21 years of the right to buy sale. Indeed, this idea was tossed around in 1980, but after careful consideration many of us, including Age Concern and many other organisations, concluded that financial constraints would make it unlikely that local authorities would be able to buy back these properties at market value. Today pressures on local authority finance are even more acute than they were in 1980, and the thought of losing anything up to 200,000 specially designed homes is even more disturbing.
The way in which the Minister disposed of the grab rails and the other toilet facilities, and the importance of ground floor accommodation, quite frankly, shocked me—I was quite amazed. The market value of these homes will also be lost by inheritance where younger relatives, who will often help with the purchase, will live in them or use them for renting as an investment. This change is engendering formidable opposition. Age Concern is firmly opposed and deeply worried. In its submission to the Government, the Association of District Councils says that:
"the loss of these dwellings from the Local Authorities' stock will inevitably result, in many cases, in their future occupation by younger people to the disadvantage of the elderly as a group".
I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would be speaking in this debate, and that he would be supporting his association; but I see that he is not. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities point out that old people's accommodation is used by many people over the years since tenants usually move in only at a late stage in their lives, and that ownership would not necessarily be an advantage for them.
The National Housing and Town Planning Council says that repairing obligations would fall on an elderly purchaser even though he or she may be unable to maintain the property adequately. The right to buy back is a nominal safeguard and the houses will be "effectively lost for ever for those in need". If money were made available for repurchase, other capital schemes could not be undertaken; but, as the Institute of Housing point out, there is no indication in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the Government will make extra resources available. During the passage of the 1980 Act and after our amendment, which was perfectly clear, had gone to the other place the Secretary of State in another place ensured that all appeals against exemption would be referred to him; and 93 per cent. of the submissions for exemption by local authorities were turned down. It is no good the Minister saying that that is not what the Secretary of State intended. He told me himself that that was exactly what he intended. He said so and I am quite sure that he would not deny it now.
However, as the number of submissions was low, that is an even stronger reason, and not a weaker
462
reason, for not scrapping the existing arrangements, but to bring decisions more in line with the spirit of what was agreed in this House during the passage of the 1980 Act. I think it shows that the majority of old people in these houses have not exercised any wish to buy them; they are quite satisfied with their present situation.
The increase in the number of elderly and very old due to advances in medical science provides additional reasons why this proposal should be strongly resisted. This is not a party political issue, but a question of reality. In 1980 this House recognised that the pre-eminent right of the elderly was the right to decent housing and the opportunity to lead an independent life. The difference between living in a house that has been specially designed for use by the elderly and living somewhere else can make all the difference between being housebound and being able to be an independent person standing on one's own feet or having one's own car. We have a duty to reassert that position during the passage of this Bill, for what has happened shows a staggering disregard and contempt for this House as a serious and hardworking revising Chamber—a Chamber which has a very high proportion of men and women of great expertise, experience and independence of mind.
As The Times leader said on 23rd December:
"There remains doubt over whether the Government has thought through the consequences of declaring that accommodation for the elderly belongs to the general stock. One consequence must surely be a reluctance on the part of councils to continue what in many areas has been good work in building imaginative units useful for elderly occupants, but not to be classified as 'sheltered' (that is, where a warden is resident) and so exempt from purchase. Another would be the loss of dwellings containing specialised equipment if, as Mr. Gow said he intended, elderly tenants buy and are succeeded by able-bodied inheritors. For councils then to purchase these dwellings would involve a substantial loss of public money and an unwarranted capital gift to undeserving beneficiaries of the tenant's estate.
The Housing and Building Control Bill has not had a happy provenance. Before the election the House of Lords threw out a key clause on the right of tenants of charitable housing associations. Since then the Government has slipped in important changes at obscure stages. Now it goes to the Lords again, and again it deserves a thorough examination. The duties and responsibilities of local authorities to provide housing for the elderly are of long standing. It is a role in which Mr. Gow himself has encouraged them. There are strong reasons for public finance and social need for the Lords to consider very carefully this week's amendment extending an otherwise sound principle to a special and vulnerable group".
I think that that says it all.
Now may I turn to the disabled. The proposals for extending the right to buy properties especially adapted for the disabled are different from the proposals for the elderly persons' accommodation, because they cover houses adapted for the disabled but not purpose-built. Clearly there are those who feel that the present procedure discriminates against disabled tenants, or tenants with disabled relatives. It does, and I understand how they feel. But the acid test is whether this proposal is in the interests of disabled people both now and in the future rather than of those currently in specially adapted houses.
Unfortunately, I have no doubt that the wider interests of the disabled require us to oppose this extension of the right to buy. Let me explain why. The Government argue that adaptations are often of a minor nature. That is true. But I am not talking about

463
the exclusion of tenants from the right to buy because of a ramp or a couple of handrails which have been added costing perhaps a comparatively small amount of money. Our concern is where thousands of pounds have been spent to make properties fit for the disabled which would then be bought and eventually sold to those who have no disablement problem.
The National Housing and Town Planning Council have collected a number of random samples of such large-scale expenditure. May I quote just one which comes from Aylesbury Vale District Council in Buckinghamshire. A downstairs bedroom and bathroom with toilet facilities were provided, together with central heating, a carport and widened doors for wheelchair access. The accommodation was for a 19 year-old man who had suffered a spinal injury in a motor accident. Permanently paralysed from the waist down, he is restricted to a wheelchair. He and his mother are the sole occupants of the two-bedroomed house built around the late 1950s. Too small to afford any extra accommodation with the existing structure, an extension was obviously necessary. The cost was in the region of £15,000. Although specifically adapted for this disabled man, it is now suitable for another person in a wheelchair or a family with one member chairbound. There are other similar examples I could quote.
The housing and construction statistics show that in England, for the financial years 1980 to 1982, total adaptations were 19,100, while purpose-built houses—that is, what is known as wheelchair accommodation—were 790. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation estimate that 10 per cent. of adaptations are major; that is to say, there would be a ratio of three major adaptations to one purpose-built dwelling. The ratio of adaptations is on the increase, and in 1982–83 adaptations were 13,700 compared with 290 purpose-built, which would bring a ratio of nearly 5 to 1.
I would also point out that there is a long waiting list for purpose-built houses. Remove these houses from the pool and the chances are that they will eventually be sold to the able-bodied, and they cannot easily be replaced since it takes three houses or more sold to build one new house. I am not now talking about extra adaptations. If there were not a desperate housing shortage then, once the right to buy has been given to other tenants, the elderly and disabled should naturally have the same right but unfortunately that is not the housing situation now, nor will it be in the foreseeable future. Properties substantially adapted will sell easily because most of the adaptations involve extensions, heating and installing extra lavatories and bathrooms. Anyone not disabled could live comfortably with these adaptations because they have generous standards of space and a high level of facilities. For example, if you take out a dialysis machine you have an extra room. Such a house would sell easily on the open market.
What I believe is required is not necessarily the deletion of this paragraph but an amendment which will exclude major, expensive adaptations from the right to buy so that these dwellings continue to be used by disabled people and by future generations of the disabled when they become empty. In this House we
464
have to take a rather wider and longer-term view, and think of what is happening now and will happen in the future, and understand it in the context of the present housing situation.
Now I turn to the charity housing situation. Less than a year ago Members of this House rejected by a majority of two to one a Government proposal to extend the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. It was an amendment which was all-party. This proposal had been vehemently opposed by the National Federation of Housing Associations and all those bodies which represent housing organisations.
While the Government accepted their defeat and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who was the Minister at the time, agreed not to reintroduce it here or in another place, I am afraid they never give up. The idea now is to compensate tenants for the loss of the right to buy. It appears that in this House we shall be presented with an amendment to the Bill that will give some housing association tenants cash equivalent to the discount they would have received under the right to buy. The proposal was not considered in another place but was set out in a Written Answer and in a press release just before Christmas. No precise proposals were provided, and I am sorry that the Minister has done little to rectify those today except to say that an amendment is going to come before us.
The grant for housing association tenants is to come out of housing association grant, and at least 100,000 tenants are eligible. Virtually everyone in London would get a minimum of £10,000 as a discount, and many will have the maximum £25,000; so many people will naturally apply for this. Why not? One cannot blame them. It will probably not only eat up the monies for shared ownership (which already exists and is fairer and cheaper for the housing associations) but could even extend to the fair rent apportionment.
The advantages of housing association tenants over council tenants will be enormous in terms of mobility, and even greater over normal open-market, first-time buyers. The effect will be to put up prices at the bottom end of the market. Someone who qualifies for the full £25,000 handout will be able to purchase outside London and actually pay less in mortgage repayments than the fair rent he was paying as a tenant. This will have the further effect of creating an enormous demand for housing association tenancies, and we may see trading taking place for these tenancies. Families, perhaps overcrowded in their present house, could be moved from council accommodation and use their resident qualification as council tenants to claim immediately the cash discount. In theory the same house could be used by council tenants to claim these handouts every day of the year. You would certainly have there a very mobile population.
This extra money will not be channelled into new house building but will simply be sloshing around the property market, artificially inflating prices. Yet Government funding for housing associations is to be cut next year by 8 per cent. as a result of public expenditure reductions, when after the Chancellor's statement last autumn £500 million was taken out of housing. The National Federation is anxious that the sums available for producing new homes—both through rehabilitating old property and through

465
construction of sheltered housing, hostels, et cetera—should not be diminished in order to make grants to the more affluent tenants. "We are optimistic that Ministers will give assurances on this score", they say. Well, are they going to? Would the Minister, when he replies, like to answer that? Is more money becoming available? If so, is it then coming off, as it seems to me it will have to, the general housing budget? This would be disgraceful, the number of houses in the public sector being at the moment lamentably low anyhow. But we still do not know about this.
There are many other matters which need to be taken up and which I am sure will be by other speakers and in Committee. For example, the tenant's right to repairs. While there is much to be said for the principle, the details are the real guts of the scheme, and it is those details which will be made by regulation. Although there has been a consultation paper issued and the responses have come in, we have not yet seen the draft regulations. I would remind the House that the housing benefit scheme was enshrined in regulations—and what a disaster that has proved! It is not good enough to do this without giving Parliament a chance to consider it before legislation goes through. I hope that the Minister will enable us to discuss this at Committee stage.
Finally, nothing in this Bill will reduce unemployment in the construction industry. Nothing will add more houses to our lamentably low stock. In fact, the stocks will be further depleted if the Bill goes through unamended. Nothing will help to improve housing in this essential part of our infrastructure, as was so eloquently spelled out by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in the debate on infrastructure on 18th January, at columns 155–6. The only area where the Government have unfortunately achieved a record is in homelessness. Local authorities had to house over 70,000 homeless households last year—the highest ever level recorded in England.
In the past this House has shown compassion and a realistic approach to the problems of age, disability and poverty. The House of Lords now has the responsibility, once again—and it all rests now with us because of the huge majority in the Commons and the way legislation is whisked through there—to show that it is alive, vigorous and in fighting mood, and will not be treated by the Government as though it is legislatively defunct.

French Ban on Imports of Meat
3.51 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of Statement a reply being given by my honourable friend the Minister of State to a Private Notice Question being asked in another place on imports of meat into France. The Answer was as follows:
"We understand that the French Government yesterday restricted the number of points of entry through which fresh pigmeat and all live animals may be imported into France. I immediately expressed our concern direct to the French Minister of Agriculture when I met him last Friday that nothing should be done to impede the normal flow
466
of trade and sought clarification of precisely what was entailed. He agreed that our officials should meet to discuss the detail and this meeting will take place this afternoon".
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, that is a very brief and well put Answer to the Question, but there are a few matters that I hope the noble Lord will convey to his honourable friend the Minister that should be questioned. I should first like to say that any country has the right to be cautious about foot and mouth disease, but the veterinary committee which met in the middle of last week, and no doubt on very good advice, allowed the exports from Holland to start again which the French have accepted. Most of us have only the press reports, which are suggesting—I wonder whether the noble Lord could confirm this—that the inspectors are being concentrated on a smaller number of points of entry to give better control and not having to spread over the previous number. We have to remember that Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome allows individual countries different health standards for entry.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can find out or can tell us whether the lamb we are exporting is cheaper on the Continent than French lamb? I cannot imagine that that is so, but I know that farmers in Wales and Scotland—I do not know why I put Wales before Scotland, but probably from respect for my noble friend sitting behind me—are worried about the situation because they have a thin enough time in agriculture as it is, and I hope that in this connection something can be done. However, I wonder whether the Minister can confirm—the French have made this point—whether the protection of our lorries would be easier for the police if there were fewer ports of entry. Whether this is a glib excuse I do not know, but it is a point.
Further, I should like to ask whether there is any word of the Commission's request to the French for clarification. I believe that this question was asked on Friday or Saturday, and I wonder whether the French have replied. The Prime Minister had long meetings with President Mitterrand last week, and I wonder whether she raised the question and what reply she was given.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Answer to this Private Notice Question of which, as the result of the new arrangements, none of us in this House had any foreknowledge before the Statement was made by the Minister. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say, therefore, that I do not propose to ask any further questions of detail which have been so ably put already, especially having regard to the fact that the meeting is to take place and has not already taken place. I am, and I suspect many of your Lordships are, more concerned with this as evidence of the falling away of attitudes of liberality in trade negotiations which is taking place in the United States, France and this country and which should surely be a matter of great concern. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he will not consider whether we should not somewhat change our attitude which is not all that praiseworthy in relation to liberality of trade? Should we change the

467
emphasis in our attitude and appeal to the French similarly lest we go further downhill in respect of restriction of trade practices, which would damage this country more than any other country in the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses to this brief Answer. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that the French Government, so I understand, have said that their objective is to have a smaller number of points of entry to deploy the French veterinary services to greater effect. I am afraid I cannot say by how much the French intend to restrict the number of points of entry. I do not have that information.
So far as the comparison of lamb prices is concerned, it is a fact that British lamb is cheaper than French lamb as our production costs are lower, but the clawback of the variable premium raises the export price. Nevertheless, we have a significant trade with France in lamb. If I may underline the point, we have free trade within the Community.
To answer the last point which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, put to me, I am not aware of ways in which the United Kingdom Government have in any way been in dereliction of Community rules in free trade within the Community. I am not saying that in this case the French Government have either, but we are looking carefully at how this matter develops.
The last point I should like to answer is that, so far as action by the Commission is concerned, my understanding is that the Commission will be waiting for more information before it takes a view. Although I have no information about whether there was talk on this matter between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the French President, I should like to underline the point that when my honourable friend the Minister of State met the French Minister of Agriculture in Berlin over the weekend, my honourable friend, as the original answer said, strongly put the point,
"that nothing should be done to impede the normal flow of trade and sought clarification of precisely what was entailed".
That brings me back to my original point. A meeting is going on at precisely this moment. I trust that as a result of that we shall have some more information.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the fact that in this country we all honour free trade in Europe. But quite often the French at certain times of the year, mostly in the autumn, close down the import of lamb. I know this because it happened to me. When that happens it is very frustrating. This has happened several times, and I wonder whether this also will be discussed, because it is in fact quite wrong. How they get away with it I really do not understand, but they do. I think that this new proposal of limiting the ports where lamb can be imported might have something to do with their trying to cut down the amount of imports because fewer ports might enable them to import less. I wonder whether the Minister realises that these things happen, although, strictly speaking, they are not supposed to.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said, but I think I ought
468
to emphasise that the original Answer makes clear that, although we have very little detailed information, we understand that the French action is intended to apply to fresh pigmeat and all live animals, but not to affect beef or sheepmeat in this case.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, on the question of British lamb being cheaper than French lamb, I notice from the press report that the French Minister of Agriculture told a delegation of French farmers of the Government's determination to achieve an immediate removal of MCAs. Would that not exacerbate the situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not want to be unhelpful to the noble Lord, but I think that if we get on to MCAs we are really going so wide of the original Question that we are almost on to another subject. I accept that, to the noble Lord, it is a very important subject, but I think that on this occasion it is going a little wide.

Housing and Building Control Bill
4.3 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to offer my thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for the very clear way in which he gave details of the Bill. I should like also to apologise to the House that I am a very inadequate substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, who should have been leading from these Benches on the Bill, but he is unwell. I am sure that the whole House will hope, as much as I do, that he will be here in his place for the later stages of the Bill.
We believe that we must retain the right to buy legislation and we should like to see some changes in it, but not those which are proposed in this Bill. We think that the present blanket arrangements ought to be more flexible but that local authorities, and particularly those in housing stress areas, if they can produce evidence that sales would adversely affect the housing position in their areas, should be able to seek a suspension of the right to buy for a limited period.
There will always be a substantial number of people who require rented accommodation. We would like to see an increased supply of rented houses from sources perhaps attracting institutional finance. We believe that the principle of Clause 1 relating to tenants of leasehold properties is right, but we also believe that there may be practical problems associated with those provisions. We welcome the right of county council tenants in the non-operational houses to be able to buy their houses. We also cautiously welcome the shared-ownership lease principle which brings the possibility of owning their own home within the grasp of some lower income families. However, we see difficulties in administration in housing departments, especially in the field of service charges. So we welcome the aim to limit the extent of service charges to what is reasonable and to provide a basic right to full information about these service charges. What we should like to know is: who will decide what is a reasonable charge and who will settle what is a reasonable standard of work?

469
The 1980 Housing Act provided a charter for tenants but not for tenants in the private sector; nor have private tenants the right to buy. Have the Government given consideration to extend this right to buy possibly to residents of flats in our large cities? Many of the private tenants in flats in our huge conurbations would welcome the opportunity to buy. Many of them are frustrated and furious over the lack of maintenance and services which should be provided by the landlords. Why should not private tenants have the same rights as council tenants? And why, in this Bill, cannot the Leasehold Reform Act be applied to this type of flat? Surely that is something which ought to appeal to a Government which professes to believe in a property-owning democracy.
We also feel concern about the procedures covering building control, the inspection and certification. We feel that the Government have to make out a very much stronger case for allowing builders to have their own inspectors and for the local authorities to have no right to challenge the inspector's decision. We cannot see the approved inspector having the same independence as the present building control officers. Builders will be able to hire and fire inspectors at will without giving any reasons, and this could allow the less conscientious builders to shop around for the less conscientious inspectors. Why are the Government happy to keep the enforcement of building regulations within local government in Scotland and yet not to have them for the rest of us? If this system of privatisation of the building surveyor's work is to go ahead, steps must surely be taken to ensure that any private surveyor can demonstrate that he carries a liability insurance and that that insurance will still be available if and when a defect occurs, even if it is some years later.
We also believe that Clause 25 concerning the right to repair could prove to be controversial. The man in the street, just looking at it, may say: "O.K., if the local authorities are tardy in dealing with complaints and repairs, then why not?" But we should take account of the anxieties of local authorities by anticipating the problems. They will be concerned about the work involved in inspection before and after. They will need staff and time to check that the bills that are presented are adequate. The timescale will have to be a reasonable one, and perhaps for routine repairs we can say something like two to three weeks. But there are the larger problems of authorities, who, because of Government cuts, do not have the money for improvements or repairs. There is the additional anxiety that if the tenant carries out his own improvements and does not employ a sub-contractor he may endanger the actual structure by partly removing load-bearing walls and other things.
By all means give the tenants the right to call in an outside contractor from an approved list when the repairs have not been carried out by the council within the agreed specified time and let the bill be passed on in full to the council. But that differs somewhat from the Government's present proposal, which to us smacks of an attempt to get the repairs done on the cheap by the tenant. The authorities must be able to defend their standards and to provide the budget.
This also affects the second-generation new towns, where housing stock is being prepared for hand-over to
470
the local councils. That is the case in my own new town of Peterborough, where it is hoped that the city council will become the agency for the development corporation later this year. When this Act is law, the city will be responsible to the development corporation for the carrying out of this Act. The development corporation staff will be transferred to the city council, but, until it is wound up, the development corporation will enforce the standards of maintenance, the timescale for the repairs, and so on, and they will provide the money.
Many other speakers will be talking about the effect of this Bill on charitable housing—on housing for the disabled and for the elderly. I share their deep concern and I believe that the charitable housing associations should be allowed to remain true to their objectives and to fulfil their duties to those in severe housing need in the years to come.
If the Government are allowed to go ahead with the suggested cash hand-outs to tenants of housing associations, it will only create bitterness and ill-feeling if a small section of the population can get a substantial direct cash payment to help pay the down payment on a new house on the open market, while other would-be owners have to work and scrimp and save, often for years, to raise the deposit; while private tenants have no right to buy and while council tenants can buy only the house they rent and cannot choose on the open market.
At the same time, housing association tenants in pre-1904 accommodation will receive nothing, while those in post-1904 accommodation can take the cash. If a sizeable proportion of these tenants exercised their right to buy on the open market, then, as the noble Baroness said, there could be an enormous impact on house prices and that could be followed by another inflationary period. This Bill is intended to help those who are now more fortunate, at the expense of those who are now in need and those who will be in need in the future.
As a national vice-chairman of PHAB, I am a known supporter of disabled persons' rights and, in principle, I believe that disabled tenants should have the same rights as other tenants. However, if they buy houses specially adapted for disabled persons and their families, such houses will be lost for other disabled persons in need. Local authorities often spend £10,000 or £15,000, as the noble Baroness said, to adapt properties, and they will then have to decide whether it is in the interests of the disabled as a whole to adapt individual houses. Many local authorities may be forced to decide that money should be spent on sheltered housing only where the right to buy does not apply, and thus ensure that such accommodation is available for disabled persons in perpetuity. I believe that this part of the Bill needs much more consideration.
During the Year of the Disabled, my own city council pioneered a system of grants allowing cash to be given for adaptations to houses under private construction by people with members of their family suffering from a disability—not council houses, but privately built for persons with some disability. But now the Department of the Environment has ruled that the Peterborough City Council is acting beyond its

471
powers and plans to withhold the Government funds for those grants. I should have thought that what the city council in Peterborough was doing was a sensible use of money, spending it as an improvement grant, as it were, in advance, when houses are being built.
We believe most strongly that councils should reinvest in housing the maximum possible proportion of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses; that they should maximise capital expenditure on council housing—for new building where it is needed, for rehabilitation, for improvements and for repairs. But nothing in this Bill will improve the lot of the existing tenants, or improve their houses or the amenities on their estates; nor will it help to reduce housing waiting lists. I hope that, like those of us on these Benches, other Members of your Lordships' House will accept the challenge thrown down by the noble Baroness.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I rise with natural diffidence to address the House for the first time and, in craving the indulgence of your Lordships, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her kind and courteous preparatory reference. I think your Lordships will acquit me of any undue or unseemly haste in making this maiden speech. I thought perhaps I should atone for my precipitance in the other House, of which, with the passage of the years and the conventions of that place, had I continued in membership I should today be the venerable Father. Instead, I am here, choosing, no doubt, the better part. Indeed, there may be those of your Lordships who think that the best—possibly the sole—justification for my presence here is to leave that position in that other House open to the right honourable gentleman who fills it now with such distinction.
In that House, I regret to say that I made my maiden speech in the debate on the Address in the first Session of my first Parliament. Very shortly thereafter, for reasons now lost in the mists of time, I thought I should speak in the debate on the Industrial Injuries Bill. When the debate had started and progressed a little, Mr. Speaker Clifton-Brown—the kindest of men—called me up to his Chair and said "I am going next to call three Members from the Government Benches and then you. They will all be maiden speeches, so it will fall to you to convey to them the congratulations of the House". I obeyed his instructions as best I could.
This somewhat bizarre position had an added piquancy, because one of the three Members had, in fact, just deprived my father of his seat in Parliament at the election. What those three gentlemen felt at that somewhat unpropitious start is mercifully unknown to me. It may well be that they would have felt inclined to echo Vergil:
"Non-tali auxilis nec defensoribus istis".
But it at least shows the resilience of our parliamentary institutions that, in spite of that less than propitious start, they continued to give good service to the House.
Now I start again, after all these years, with all the natural anxieties and apprehensions of one in such a position. But I take comfort from this. After years of
472
seeking to satisfy my constituents, I am encouraged by Augustine Birrell's description of the House of Lords:
"The House of Lords represent no one but themselves and they enjoy the unqualified confidence of all their constituents."
I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief and modest contribution on the Second Reading of this Bill, which has been moved in such clear and cogent terms by my noble friend the Minister. As your Lordships know, this Bill belongs to the species dichotomic of legislation. It is concerned with two broadly unrelated and separate subjects. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I propose to confine my observations to one part only, the second, dealing with the improvement, extension and simplification of the system of building inspection.
As the House knows, inspection and approval of buildings is currently and traditionally in the domain of local authorities administering the building regulations under the jurisdiction of the Public Health Acts. The purpose of this Bill, as has been indicated, is to extend this jurisdiction and provide an alternative, not for ideological or for doctrinaire reasons, but for solid reasons of practical advantage to consumers and builders alike. This element of privatisation—that is the mot juste—is not a commercial matter of profit-making and, indeed, it does not replace the local authority machinery for those still wanting to use it. What it does do is to make it possible to opt for inspection and certification by an approved inspector drawn from outside the local authority ambit. The effect is, as it were, to put the mechanism of the building regulations into suspense and to provide a prima facie case of compliance, putting the onus of proof on any authority seeking to allege non-compliance with the building regulations, despite the approval of the approved inspector.
This will have very considerable advantages in a practical sense: speed, simplification, uniformity and a concentration of inspection and attention on those features and facets which experience has shown to be the main areas of weakness and potential danger. The inevitable lack of uniformity in local authority procedures is a prime cause of weakness, delay, confusion and expense—inevitably so as there are 380 local authorities, and building regulations become increasingly complex. Thus, a builder on a national scale using, say, 30 house types—a not improbable figure—has to submit each house type each time it is used to each individual authority; and the comments, queries and amendments made on those plans may, and in practice do, differ greatly between one authority and another.
This Bill provides the opportunity to improve all this when the detailed mechanism is spelt out in the subsequent regulations following enactment of the Bill. It will then be open to those with the requisite qualifications and experience to apply for the status of approved inspector. No stampede, I believe—no doubt my noble friend will confirm this—is expected and it is probable that only the National House Building Council will apply. My noble friend referred briefly to the National House Building Council. I do not know how familiar your Lordships are with its work. It is a non-profit distributing insurance company and standards body, recognised under statute. The chairman is appointed by the Secretary of

473
State for the Environment, although it receives no public funds. Other council members are nominated by bodies closely associated with housebuilding, including consumer interests.
Here I should declare an interest—not an interest in the technical sense, since I have no financial involvement in the matter. I was, however, for some years the unpaid chairman of the council, appointed by successive Secretaries of State of different political persuasions, illustrating thereby the agreeably ecumenical nature of the council. I have been interested in the work of the council since its origins half a century ago. It was in fact the brainchild of my father, conceived as a means of curing jerrybuilding and improving the standards of housebuilding. Today the council's scheme, based on compliance with a minimum standards specification, inspection to ensure that compliance, and certification of compliance, covers over 99 per cent. of private housebuilding in the United Kingdom. It is very difficult to obtain a building society mortgage for a house not covered by the scheme. The operation of the council, as one, or perhaps the sole, approved inspector, can bring great benefits to house purchasers and housebuilders alike. I can respectfully assure the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that happily her apprehensions will prove to be unfounded, as she, I am sure, will be the first to rejoice to see.
This Bill, which makes possible the benefits of simplification, uniformity and speed, coupled with effective prescription and enforcement, marks a further stage in ensuring high standards in the vitally important matter of the housing of the people. As such, it deserves to and should (and will, I am sure) receive a warm welcome on all sides.
I hope the House will forgive me if I end on a personal note. To the cause of housing and its improvement my father devoted a large part of his working life in many capacities: as city engineer of Edinburgh, as Director of Housing in Whitehall, as a Member of Parliament and in the counsels of the building industry. I like to think that he would have rejoiced that my maiden speech in this House, however deficient in expression and presentation, was directed to a measure which is designed to promote the amelioration of the housing of the people and which marks a further and notable stage in that praiseworthy endeavour. I thank noble Lords sincerely for their indulgence.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on his maiden speech in this House. We have been listening to each other and disagreeing with each other for about half a century—in what here is commonly called "another place" and in another place yet, the Oxford Union. No doubt we shall continue to do so—I cannot say for another half century but for some time, I trust, to come. Those of us who heard the moving and well-informed speech which the noble Lord made on the building control clauses of the Bill will feel that he is going to be a real asset to us. We shall look forward to his further contributions to our debates.
474
The noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him, since I want to speak on the other part of the Bill, in particular on housing for the elderly and the disabled. If the House will forgive my saying so, I have a special interest and reason for doing so. The local authority in the part of London which used to be my constituency have built a great many blocks of houses. They have built one block of sheltered accommodation which they have been kind enough to name after me. Whether as a pure honour or possibly with the suggestion that the time is coming when that will be the most suitable kind of accommodation for me I cannot say for certain. At any rate, it is a very gratifying addition to the amenities of the neighbourhood. Its lease, I am glad to say, cannot be touched by the Bill, even in its present form, because it is sheltered accommodation, originally built as such. The last thing that the tenants want to do is to buy the accommodation. What they want, and what they have, is good accommodation that is well cared for and kept in order and repair, and good service. It is a great comfort to think that that will remain both for them and for similarly elderly and disabled people for as long as the buildings themselves shall stand.
But what is happening about other aspects of the treatment of the elderly and the disabled in this Bill? The Bill has altered a little since we first saw it. In the reign of King George III there was a witty and spiteful courtier who kept a diary in which, among other things, he recorded his judgment on one of the ladies of the court. He said that in his opinion the first bloom of her ugliness was beginning to wear off. We are not able, I am afraid, to say even that of this Bill. With the passage of time it has grown less attractive. In particular, we find that buildings which are indisputably suited for the use of elderly people but which were not originally so built and were subsequently adapted are now to be subjected to the right to buy. Similarly, accommodation that is not what is called sheltered accommodation but which was undoubtedly intended and regularly used for elderly people is now to come, almost universally and without exception, into the field of the right to buy. Whether that is a good thing or not ought surely to depend on what is the situation with regard to numbers of persons wanting accommodation of that kind and the amount of accommodation available.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lady Birk, pointed out, we are still very short of accommodation of that kind. There seems no immediate prospect of that shortage being reduced, and this appears to be the view of every impartial, disinterested body that has studied the matter. I have never felt one need be dogmatic about whether or not tenants ought to have a right to buy. What we ought to ask is: what is the need for rented accommodation? If there is a great need for rented accommodation, that is an argument against extending the right to buy. We have here a case where there is a real shortage of accommodation for disabled and elderly people. It is not, therefore, on general grounds desirable to extend the right to buy.
For what happens, after all, when the right to buy is exercised by an elderly person? One cannot say it happens in every case, but in general who is going to be the beneficiary? Not the elderly person, who for the reasons I have mentioned does not particularly want

475
the right to buy, but the elderly person's heir, who quite possibly is the same person as he who put up the money to enable the purchase to be made in the first place. When the elderly person is obliging enough to die, the heir is in a very strong financial position. It is he who is the beneficiary of this transaction, not the tenant. That is the kind of liberty, advantage, that this Bill and legislation like it is conferring on people.
The other effect is that side by side with this financial advantage to somebody who did not need it at all, and in no sense deserved it, the supply of accommodation available for elderly persons is reduced. We are told that there is some mitigation in all this in the right of the local authority to buy the property back under certain circumstances and after a certain time, but to do it at a great financial disadvantage. Having in the first place had to sell it at a considerable discount, it has the right to buy it back in a situation most unfavourable to the purchasing local authority, and in a situation where local authorities are at their wits' end to find money for any necessary purposes, let alone unnecessary purchases of the kind actually created by this legislation.
What has happened is that the Government have succeeded in producing legislation which has the remarkable characteristic of being both unjust and popular. It is popular with certain persons who benefit from it, the heir of the elderly person and one or two others. They are identifiable persons; they have names; you can say they are Mr. So-and-so. Mrs. Somebody-else. It is those on whom advantages are conferred. Who are the losers? They are the elderly people whose chance of getting decent and suitable accommodation has been once more further postponed. They are real people. We cannot say precisely who they are.
When a house owned or tenant-occupied by an elderly person is sold the elderly person's heir gains. An elderly person who might have succeeded that tenant loses by having her chance of decent accommodation postponed. But we cannot give her a name; she will be one of a great many; she is nevertheless a real person. But you cannot work up the same indignation for her. You can say proudly, "Look, here are all these people on whom we are conferring the right to buy; they are actual, real people whose names we know". All the time you are creating a group of people, equally real, but not identifiable, to whom you have done a very serious injustice. It seems to me that legislation of this kind might well get a prize for ingenuity, but it does not deserve a prize for either justice or compassion.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I think we are very fortunate in having the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in this House just in time to be able to take part in this debate. Probably nobody in either House of Parliament, if I may say so, knows more than he does about building construction and the rules relating to it. He has a hereditary interest in this subject. He did not mention that it was he himself, I think, who persuaded Mr. Crossman to make inspection by the National House Building Council compulsory for building societies. He deserves great congratulations and is
476
owed a great debt by many people who have houses well constructed and built. I hope he is right in saying that this delegated inspection will be handed to the National House Building Council, but I am bound to say that it is not exactly what the Bill says.
I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said: that there seems to be a wide range of people who might be brought into this task. If there are, I would suggest we shall need something like a national inspection council, which is in the electricity industry, who would supervise the inspectors. I do not know whether this is desirable, but it is one of the possibilities. Who will make inspection of the inspectors?
This is a complicated Bill and I notice at the outset that it will mean an increase of staff of the Ministry of the Environment, of local government, and, I suspect, of housing associations because its operation will be very complicated. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for fulfilling his promise not to bring in that rather distasteful Clause 2. But he tells us he has something else in store for us. I do not think, from gossip I have heard, that it has any great defects, but I think we shall have to look at it very carefully.
There was one word that the noble Lord the Minister used which rather worried me. He spoke of people who could not afford "outright" purchase. I do not know exactly what that word means. One must ask the question: if you cannot buy a house can you maintain it? We are I think greatly indebted to what is the most satisfactory part of housing, and that is owner-occupation. That is the ambition of the vast majority of people in this country, which has grown up from the grass roots through the building societies over a period of 200 years. No Government have really done much about it; it is an indigenous thing which has grown up in the people of this country.
People want owner-occupation for two reasons: they want it because they want security, and they want pride of ownership. You will not get that unless two other requirements are fulfilled. The first is the ability to maintain the property, and it is a doubtful thing whether this liability—and it is quite a big liability—is going to be enjoyed by and give security to people who cannot afford it. If you cannot afford it, I am afraid I must say quite bluntly that you would do much better to have a rented property. This is the problem. I am not altogether happy about whether people can be bribed too far to indulge in the liability of a house if they have not got the means. This is an old argument. I have been supporting owner-occupation for a couple of decades with all the strength I have, and I am so glad now to see that this is a common desire among all parties, which it was not at one time. It is a great step forward. However, I am a little worried as to whether or not this is going a little too far.
There is of course the other of the two points—the first being the inability to pay for the maintenance—and that is the title. It is a very dangerous proposal mooted today that the conveyance of properties should be undertaken by people who hold less than the standard qualifications. It is no good saying that if one does use such people and then takes out insurance, that that is a complete answer. If one has to move out of one's house, insurance is a very

477
poor alternative, no matter what it is. I suggest that this is an issue which will come before the House and will need to be examined.
I should like to give an example of the encouragements that are given—and I have this from one who knows. One can have a house valued at £30,000 and a discount of 60 per cent. One is then left with £12,000. With shared ownership one only has to pay £6,000. That is a pretty good bribe to get on with, and it goes very far. What worries me is that it leaves the position open to what I call scrimshanking. The situation will require very careful examination. I have no doubt that it will be controlled to some extent by regulations, but we must look at this aspect very closely indeed.
One other point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was the issue of tenants doing their own repairs. It is a good thing for tenants to do their own repairs if they are responsible people. But they should inform the local authority, or whoever is the owner, of what they are proposing to do. I say that for one reason, if for no other: a row between tenant and landlord is a very bad thing and the tenant should tell the landlord, whether it be the local authority or others, what he intends to do. It may be that he will do the work badly, and there is always the possibility that he may even damage the house.
There are many speakers in the debate tonight and I shall not say more. It is a complicated Bill and it is easy to make a Second Reading speech on it. However, it will be jolly hard work in Committee and we shall find it to be an exacting task. The Bill presses forward with owner-occupation, which is absolutely right, but I do hope that the Government will not overdo it.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I should like to start by also congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on his maiden speech. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, it is indeed a very happy fact that he has joined us at this particular moment. I shall have to listen to him very carefully because I must admit that I do not like Part II of the Bill one little bit. However, I will keep an open mind and I will listen to him, and if I am persuaded, then well and good; but at the moment I am very critical.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady Birk and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for their excellent speeches, and for expressing so exceedingly well many of the things that I want to say. However, I shall try to be brief because there is a long list of speakers and I do not want to be repetitive. Nevertheless, on Clause 7 (which refers to the sale of old people's dwellings) I am afraid that I must take time to have my say; but I shall try not to be too long.
I am very troubled about some aspects of the Bill and I look at it in the context of what is going on nationally. Since 1979, when Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister, this nation has been moved very consciously and deliberately to the Right. We are now two nations, and one sees this said now in the press. It is not a situation that I find good. It is very troubling. We are a nation of the "haves", and although I am not grumbling at this, because I say this as I see it, the Government are doing their utmost to improve the
478
position of the "haves" and increase the number of the "haves". It is the declared intention of the Government to deal with the tax situation and to help the "haves" who have mortgage relief and a number of other benefits; but I shall not go into detail. Their position is being improved.
Then we have the "have nots" and it is, unhappily, a very considerable proportion of our nation. Their position is deteriorating and that is the problem. They have cuts in their benefits. Pensions for the majority of old people are not enough. The disadvantaged live in the worst housing. It is cold and damp housing; and they simply do not have enough money to heat the housing properly so they become ill. Those are the people who I call the "have nots" and who must have—and need—local authority and housing association housing—which I call public housing. As has been said, the homeless list is growing and it is heartbreaking and disgraceful. These are the people whose lot is deteriorating. That must be borne in mind when we consider the Bill clause by clause.
The most important issues arise on the housing section. These are important social issues. As a result of the measures now before us, many more people will have the right to buy. The 60 per cent. discount, raised from 50 per cent., will, I am certain, increase the number of people who will be able to buy. Therefore, we shall have a large new body of people who will be able to buy. I consider that those who have already bought and those who, happily for them, will buy will be moved into the upper bracket—the "haves". They will have a valuable asset that, year by year, will increase in value. Good luck to them. It is a good thing for them and, incidentally, for the Government because it certainly is a vote catcher. It is good for people and is helpful. I am not against it, and never have been; but as I see it, a major dis-benefit will be added to the "have nots" if Clause 7, relating to the sale of old people's dwellings, is implemented. I shall endeavour to show a little more extensively than have my colleagues how big will be the effect of the sale of those particular dwellings.
They were built in order to meet a very pressing need. They were built during the 'sixties and 'seventies, and are still being built where the money is available. They were built not only to meet the needs of the elderly, although that was a prime purpose, but for people who need to have ground floor accommodation and for whom bungalows are so very suitable. They were built in the countryside and they were built in London. Many were built at the seaside along the South Coast in agreement with the local authorities. They were built in the country so that people who have no ties in London could move out and be nicely housed. They are an enormously valuable asset, not only for those who move into them.
People move to these dwellings from two-bedroomed, three-bedroomed or even four-bedroomed local authority dwellings. The children have left home, and the people remaining in that accommodation are elderly. A couple might be living there, one of them dies and the other may be left living alone in a big house. The rates are expensive; and they cannot afford to heat the house. There they are, stuck there. It was not until we built this special accommodation for those elderly people that they could move.

479
They are always marked on the plan as OPDs—old persons' dwellings. The moment that these people moved out of their houses we had vacancies for others on the waiting list. That really moved the whole housing situation. The provision of old persons' dwellings has continued to help the situation. It was not a one-off move.
There is another factor in this. A family may move into a house when a couple are in their twenties and stay for 20 to 30 years. That has always been the Government's point. They say over and over again to the local authorities, "What are you grumbling about when a person buys a house? The people will stay in that house anyway and there will not be a vacancy". It has been a point in favour of selling, that the local authority would not be able to use the letting again quickly.
But the situation is different when people are moved to an old person's dwelling. I am advised that the expectancy for the length of the tenancy is between five and seven years, and not 20 to 30. There is a fairly rapid turnover; so the authority can all the time help those who need the houses which are being vacated when others go to the old persons' dwellings. They play an absolutely vital part in the housing of our people who cannot afford to buy and who need rented housing. We should not sell these bungalows. It is up to the Government to come forward with ideas if they can think of any other way to help them. Otherwise, in the interests of this nation as a whole we have to say, no. We just have to: there is no other answer.
In his helpful opening speech the Minister told us that the present clause is unsatisfactory. When it came in front of us we knew that it was unsatisfactory but we hoped that the Government would try to make it work since really it was of their devising at that point. But, as my noble friend Lady Birk said, they never intended to make it work. I shall not weary the House with the matter now, but we can quote instances which have been given by the Government of things that have been turned down and which are quite disgraceful on the part of the Government. I cannot use any other word. We shall come to the matters in due course.
I should like again to make the point that has been made, I think, by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. If the Government let elderly people buy the bungalows, it is not for their owner-occupation at that end of their life. That is nonsense. It is for their heirs. Why on earth should we hurt the "have nots" and damage the housing situation in order to give the heirs a great bonus? I see no sense in that whatsoever. It is just a piece of nonsensical dogma on the part of the Government.
We are really back on the issue that we were dealing with nearly 12 months ago. I hope that the House will weigh the matter exceedingly carefully and come to the conclusion that it came to last time: that these dwellings simply must not be sold. I have my eye on the time. I shall say no more about the housing section of the Bill, which has been wonderfully dealt with by my noble friends. But make no mistake, we shall come to the detail at the Committee stage. So no more of that.
480
I have said my little bit about the building control section of the Bill. I do not think we should change from the present position; I think it works exceptionally well. The building surveyors employed by local government are experienced and wonderfully well qualified. In my view, the proposal can only weaken control and make for difficulties. I pray that that will not happen if the measure goes through, but I fear that it will. I just do not like it. Truly, the only purpose that I have been able to think of for the Government being determined to bring in the measure is that it will allow the Prime Minister, when she addresses the Tory Party Conference in October, to add another line to the things that have been privatised. I do not find that a sufficient reason to support the measure.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on his elegant and able maiden speech. I do so with all the more pleasure because a great many years ago my family owned land in the village from which his title derives.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, with his customary consideration and attention to detail, has laid before us today what can best be described, albeit unoriginally, as a curate's egg of a Bill. Certainly it contains a few palatable and even tasty morsels, but much of it (especially the first few spoonfuls) is, frankly, tainted. I have Clause I particularly in mind.
Back in 1966 and 1967 the Conservative Opposition rightly condemned in the strongest possible terms the confiscatory aspects of the Leasehold Reform Bill, then on its way through Parliament. As a matter of interest, the Liberal Party was equally vehement in its condemnation, as were several moderate members of the Labour Party—in private, if not in public. Nothing has changed over the past 17 years. Principles that were valid then remain every bit as valid today; yet here we have a Conservative Government actually extending the sweep of that legislation and building upon it. This is not the first occasion: a few minor extensions were made in 1980. But the present extensions are more drastic in effect.
It is ironic that one week from today we shall be returning to our deliberations on the Agricultural Holdings Bill. During the Committee stage of that Bill some of us sought to rectify the indirectly confiscatory consequences of the three-generation-succession provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976—provisions which had rightly been vigorously condemned by the Conservative Opposition at that time. But the Government successfully opposed our recent attempt, taking the view that the Labour Government's statutory interference with freely-entered-into contractual agreements—wrongheaded though it was, and a mere seven years' old though it was—must now remain sacrosanct for all time, since to restore the pre-1976 status quo would allegedly be retrospective. If our proposals before Christmas were really retrospective, what is proposed in Clause 1 of this Bill must be doubly or trebly retrospective. The Government really cannot have it both ways. What is morally right for the Agricultural

481
Holdings Bill must equally be morally right for the Housing and Building Control Bill.
Quite apart from the element of confiscation (or ultimate confiscation, to be more precise) without compensation, Clause 1 as it stands will indirectly harm charities such as the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, will thereby reduce the amount of land they make available to housing associations and will thereby worsen the overall housing shortage. It will also put a virtual stop to hitherto mutually beneficial partnerships between private developers and local authorities whereby flats and houses have been provided on advantageous terms by the developer as a quid pro quo for receiving permission to erect shops and offices.
Clause 2, which extends the right to buy to a high proportion of houses adapted for elderly or disabled people, is objectionable on different grounds; and many of these have already been covered. It will of course dry up over a period the availability of such houses. The pre-emption provision of Clause 7 will not help much here, as there can be very few local authorities which will be able to afford to buy back at full market value houses which they have sold at a large discount.
Clause 3 is also objectionable. A majority of the public indeed accepts, and always has accepted and supported, the right to buy principle, as even the Labour Party has now come round to conceding. But, against that, an equally large majority, I would guess, objects to discounts as high as 60 per cent. at the taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense.
Now the Government claim that Clauses 2 and 3 will be of enormous benefit to elderly people. But like the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, I suspect that, on the contrary, it will not be so much the elderly who will benefit, as their heirs and successors. Many of these heirs and successors will be relatively well-off and even affluent—not, of course, all of them, but some of them—and it is they who will profit from the involuntary generosity of taxpayers and ratepayers.
The shared ownership leases proposed in Clauses 12 to 17 inclusive seem very reasonable in theory, but one has grave doubts about how they will work out in practice. For one thing, they will impose a financial burden upon local authorities. The rents coming in will be only half, three-eighths, one quarter, or one eighth as large as the rents which previously came in, yet the costs of administration of each housing unit will be no smaller; and the responsibility for repairs and maintenance may be difficult to monitor and to apportion.
There may also be rather more serious long-term problems as regards maintenance; and here I echo the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. People whose income is insufficient to enable them to meet mortgage repayments on the full value of the house or flat that they wish to buy are, by definition, unlikely to be able to afford to maintain their property properly over the long term. As most of us know to our cost, property maintenance is an extremely expensive business. I am talking not about painting or decorating—most people can manage that well enough—but about major structural repairs, involving roofs, chimneys, dry rot, and so on, where do-it-yourself skills are normally of
482
little use. As a supporter of the freedom of the individual, I am suspicious of phrases such as, "the nation's housing stock", and I believe that ultimately people who own their own houses unencumbered have the right to allow them to fall into disrepair, if they so chose. But it is a rather different matter where public funds are concerned.
Last, but by no means least, on the debit side we have the extraordinary proposal, which the Government hope to insert at Committee stage, to make grants of up to £25,000 each to 100,000 housing association tenants. If I may say so, I consider that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, dealt extremely ably with the objections to this proposal. It seems to me an act of extreme folly.
But, as I said at the outset, the Bill is good in parts. Many people, in both this House and another place, opposed the whole concept of selling off local authority and housing association houses and flats. But, now that Parliament and the public have decisively approved the general principle, surely we must all agree that it is quite wrong for unfortunate would-be purchasers in certain parts of the country to be obstructed, and even bullied, by some politically motivated local authorities. That is why one heartily welcomes paragraph 4 of Schedule 10, for example, which obliges local authorities to act within eight weeks, instead of endlessly prevaricating.
Clauses 9 to 11 and Clause 18, among others, will also protect purchasers who are simply trying to exercise the rights which Parliament granted them in 1980. The service charge provisions and numerous other small proposals of that kind are also to be commended. I wholeheartily welcome all that is good in the Bill, but earnestly hope that the substantial part which is not good will be deftly sliced away in Committee.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, to say that I am deeply concerned about certain aspects of the Bill is to put it very mildly, but I think that if I were to express my true feelings, they would be unprintable—and I must bear in mind that what I have to say will be recorded in Hansard. This afternoon my noble friends have enumerated many points and arguments that were put forward when we previously discussed the Bill. Those points are as relevant today as they were when we discussed them prior to the general election; in fact, they may since have become even more relevant, as unemployment has gradually but surely increased.
I was quite surprised to hear what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said about the selling of council properties. He gave some statistics, though he did not say which local authorities were holding back and not selling. I see that the Minister now nods and indicates that he may have the details. One presupposes that once again those local authorities with inner city problems will be castigated.
My personal opinion and my experience differ very greatly from the points which the noble Lord enumerated. I am still very active in the area of Birmingham which I represented on Birmingham City Council and in the other place. It is a central area, a

483
corner of Birmingham enclosed by the two main railway lines which intercept the city, and what was the gas works, as well as inner city factory development.
I am privileged over the Christmas period to be invited to many old-age pensioners' parties in the area—Darby and Joan clubs. What happens when I go there? More often than not—and it was the same this year—people say (they always call me by my Christian name), "Oh! Doris, can you help my sister? She is desperate to get a bungalow. She is desperate to get somewhere to live. She has not been so well since her husband died, and she is now 72". That is still the kind of remark that people make.
Many times when I was the chairman of the housing committee in Birmingham not only councillors pleaded to me for bungalows for old people; Members of Parliament from all political parties wrote pleading letters, asking to see me, saying such things as, "Please give this old lady some accommodation"., To whom will they plead in the future? Those very people who will be putting up their hands or moving into voting lobbies will not be able to appeal to anybody on the grounds that Mrs. Brown is desperate for accommodation, because if the legislation goes through many of the properties will be lost for ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to fittings in houses and spoke quite casually about the level of a certain shelf, for instance. Those of us who have been involved in housing affairs for a very long time know of the problems in that regard in properties that are built for old people. Again, I speak from experience. When we were approving housing designs we ensured that kitchen fitments did not go right up to the ceiling because otherwise elderly people would have stood on old chairs or step ladders and fallen. We made sure that cupboards were fitted at a level at which they could be easily opened and closed without people having to stand on high stools. We pointed out that when people reached 70 or 75 they did not want to grovel on their hands and knees to get things out of a bottom cupboard; they wanted cupboards at a level to which they could easily bend.
All kinds of consideration went into providing these dwellings. For the deaf, special lighting was fitted so that when someone rang the front door bell a light flashed continuously to make sure that they knew. A great deal of thought was devoted to the design of these properties. To state casually that these fittings amounted simply to a handrail for the toilet or the bath, or a shelf somewhere else, is quite wrong. It shows that those who framed the legislation to get rid of these properties do not understand the provision that has been made within them.
I am aware, again in the city from which I come, that there has been difficulty in letting one- or two-bedroomed flats, mainly in 15-storey and 20 storey blocks. Due to the tremendous pressure for elderly people's accommodation, there is now a policy in two or three parts of the city of making flats available in multi-storey blocks. The flats are equipped with entry phones which means that they are not open to the public. One floor has been converted to provide communal facilities for those who wish to use them and a warden is attached to two of the blocks of flats.
484
Will these properties also be included in the "for sale" proposals? If so, it will mean a recurrence of the vandalism that was a problem in the open flats before the introduction of entry phones and the security system.
Another question that arises is: what happens to those bungalows—I speak again with experience—that have been built around some of the old people's residential homes? It was felt that occasions arise when certain people would need temporary accommodation in an old people's home, perhaps for a week or two when they have flu. It was therefore decided to group some old people's bungalows around residential homes. Will these also be included in the "for sale" proposals? These elderly people have the opportunity to use the facilities of the residential accommodation although living in their own homes.
There is also a scheme, which I know very well, under which bungalows have been provided for 30 years to tenants, many of whom are now quite elderly. There is no provision for wardens on site but the social services department provides what are called patrolling wardens, who live in adjacent properties. They are paid by the social services department and operate on a six-hour shift. There are four such wardens on duty throughout the day. It is, I suppose, what might be called a part-time warden scheme. Are those bungalows to come under the "for sale" provisions?
These are issues that have not been thought through because the Government do not understand the various schemes that operate up and down the country. We are being asked to revert to a very bad practice. I feel sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, agrees with me on the importance of elderly people having the opportunity to stay in their own homes within a sheltered scheme or in a bungalow, a flat, or whatever the accommodation is. That is good social practice and avoids having to place them in an elderly person's dwelling. What will happen—I am sure that the Minister will find this to be so—is that in trying to balance housing, as the Government attempt to cut public expenditure, the burden will fall on the social services. In the long run it is the social services which will have to provide more accommodation in their homes. Local authorities will not build bungalows or make other provision if they are to lose the property after a certain time. I shall not discuss the placing and the siting of these dwellings. My noble friend Lady Birk has demonstrated clearly the great amount of thought devoted to the matter.
I was interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, had to say. It is important for the House to pay serious attention to his point of view. It was a view that he expressed clearly in the last debate. It is a human expression. As he says—the Government should remember this—there are all kinds of families whose housing needs will never be met in the private sector. It is important for all of us to recognise that. There is no need to explain to your Lordships that, for a variety of reasons, home ownership is not realistic for certain categories of people. It has nothing to do with their being spendthrift, lazy or idle.
None of us needs to have explained to us that there are reasons why home ownership, with all its

485
responsibilities, is not realistic for some people. Those who cannot afford to buy in the initial stages will be the elderly whom it is hoped can be rehoused in some more suitable accommodation later. Let us not forget that public housing is still the main provider for people on low incomes. It has to be remembered that about 50 per cent. of those living in what we call public housing receive housing benefits. This shows clearly the category of people we have to consider as well as those who are going to buy.
I intend to be brief, but I wish to touch upon one point concerning housing association tenants. We shall have one line of people queueing up for their £25,000 maximum housing grant. We shall have another big queue for the £1,000 if they opt out of joining a trade union. We shall have another kiosk with a sign hanging above it, "Housing benefit—no money today for you". That is, I think, what the noble Baroness was saying. We are reaching the stage when money seems to be flowing ad lib to certain people while being taken away from those who are much more urgently in need of it. Yet one can imagine the reaction if the leader of the GLC had stated that he intended to give up to £25,000 to anyone who would move out of their house. Those on the Government Benches would have been jumping up and down claiming that this was simply throwing money around. Would it not have been quite feasible, however, if, when there was criticism of the cheap fares policy, he had said, "Queue up for your £5,000 and £10,000 and get the car of your choice"? It is the same argument. It is strange to find the Government telling us to cut back on public expenditure but throwing money around in this manner like a man with no arms.
I have read extensively what has been stated by Government Ministers. It was interesting to read the remarks of Mr. Patrick Jenkin when he spoke at the Housing Consultative Council. He said:
"I see no future for the public sector in providing general needs housing in the future".
So he writes off all those who cannot afford anything. People will have to stand on their own two feet—and if they do not have two feet it is a bit unfortunate. He goes on to say:
"The only housing that the public sector should be providing in the future is housing for the disabled and the elderly".
There appears to be a contradiction between what he says and what the Bill purports to say. It will give me the greatest of pleasure, along with my noble friends, to challenge the Government in Committee on certain aspects of the Bill, which I find completely despicable.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Broxbourne on a very interesting and excellent speech of the calibre we were all accustomed to hearing in the other House. I am sure that my noble friend will feel younger by coming to this House and I hope that it will give him a new lease of life. We can do with his words of wisdom in future debates.
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister who has very kindly shown his concern regarding housing associations. He did something which I thought was excellent and which more Ministers
486
should do—namely, he actually came down to see one of the housing associations, and that may have helped to bring about the much better provisions now in the Bill. I am very grateful to him and so are the people in the housing associations. However, in future the housing associations will have to be much more careful in the choosing of their tenants, because obviously, if they can afford to pay for and buy their accommodation from the housing associations, then they are not in real need. So we shall have to be much more careful as regards choosing the persons who are in real need.
I am rather worried about the funds required to make grants to individual tenants to help them to purchase their properties. Will those funds be drawn from the scarce resources which are available to the housing associations? I gather that Government funding is to be cut by 8 per cent. as a result of the public expenditure reductions and that the housing associations are anxious to continue producing new houses; to carry out the refurbishing of old properties and the construction of sheltered housing, hostels and so on. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that they are all very urgently needed.
Of course money from voluntary sources is becoming more difficult to obtain and that may mean that far less accommodation will be available from the housing associations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk as regards Clauses 23 and 24 and the right to repair. Undertaking repairs is a very difficult job. It is difficult to get an estimate. In fact, there needs to be more than one estimate. I should like to know who will decide between the estimates. Will there be a list of people who can go round and ensure that the qualifications are correct? For example, will the local councils keep a list of the cost of replacing or mending a doormat or a window? Will we have some idea of the amount of money that they intend to pay? The local authorities must have some statistics as regards the cost of repairing houses—whether it be the roof, the windows, the doors and so on—which could be given to the tenants who want to have the repair money and who may be able to get better estimates and keep within reasonable bounds.
There are many different building regulations and I suggest that the environmental officers, who used to be called the health officers, should be called in if there is any dispute. They are really knowledgeable. They will know the state of the property and they can visualise what needs to be done. I hope that they will be brought into this matter. Perhaps the noble Minister will compile a list of statistics so that we may know the number of people who, in a year, ask for the right to buy. Then we shall have a good understanding in perhaps two years' time of the necessity for this type of handing out of money, which I am rather doubtful about as regards many people. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said a little while ago—and I am putting this in my own words—a son may help his mother to buy a house. When she dies, he may sell it for considerably more money than was originally allocated. I want to find out whether the money will be genuinely used for the people concerned.
My noble friend the Minister may be interested to know something about rural areas. Since I left Devonport and went to my real home in Wiltshire I

487
have been concerned about the people living there. The sources of housing are bad and more council houses have been sold in rural areas than in the towns. Little or no new building of council houses or housing association accommodation has been commenced. For example, when small cottages in the village where I live become vacant they are nearly always bought by people not from the village. There was a cottage occupied by two old bachelors, one of whom used to be the chap who came and pumped our bath water and the water for our house before we had main drainage. He had a wooden leg and his name was, rather appropriately, Mr. Bath! He and his brother lived in that cottage quite happily and it was rented from the Ministry of Defence. They both unfortunately died. The property was put on the market and sold for £43,000. Nobody in the village had a chance of buying it. The same happened with the Post Office. The Post Office was run by two old ladies and when they died it was bought by weekenders from London for a rather cheaper price—about £20,000—because it was not in good repair, but those people (and I have checked this) spent £10,000 on doing it up and thus the property was put out of the range of any local people.
There are very few charitable association schemes in rural areas. But recently there has been one such scheme set up which I should like to mention. It concerns the Kennet District Council which now has 26 flatlets for old people and two for disabled people. There are a warden and staff, but the old people are completely independent; it is as if they were living in their own homes. That is the type of organisation that we want to help. There are a great number of such buildings for richer people—the people who can pay £40,000 and £50,000 for their house. Those buildings are very nice and very often they are in the grounds of an old mansion. But this is one of the first schemes that I have found to help the lower income groups.
It is absolutely essential—and here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher—to keep people in their own milieu as much as possible, among their elderly friends, so that they need not go into homes. When I was a Member of Parliament one of the worst things was visiting people in old people's homes and seeing them all sitting around the room and looking at the television or just gossiping. The more we can give them privacy, the better.
We have arranged a system in our village whereby everyone who cannot get out has a telephone. They ring up the village shop on Thursday and they have their goods delivered on Friday. Everyone gives them a chance of living in their own home, and the eldest is 94.
Clause 19 tidies up the Section 19 rural safeguards provided in the 1980 Act, but it does not tighten up the definition of "local", and that is very important. Clause 6 allows the discharge of properties from some restrictive covenants, but it does not appear to affect the covenants in Clause 52 agreements which apply equally to tenant and owner. I hope to bring that matter to the attention of my noble friend in Committee.
In view of the fact that the housing corporation expressed great interest in the Edinburgh Report,
488
which was published in 1981, I hope that the Government will consider some of the suggestions in the report, and that in Committee we shall be concerned about the rural population as well as those in our great cities.
5.32 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should like to share the concern which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has just expressed at the effect of this Bill on old people's housing in rural areas. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on the ease and charm with which he delivered his maiden speech.
I want to confine my remarks to the effects of the Bill on handicapped people, although I am also concerned as to where the money is to come from, which is to be made available to tenants of charitable housing associations. I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter which he wrote to my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox giving the Government's views on the handicapped.
I am sure we would all agree that in principle it is right that handicapped people should have the same right to buy as able-bodied people. However, in fact, the Government have excluded purpose-built housing for the handicapped from the right to buy provisions. I believe that they have rightly done so, and they have done it in order that this housing may be available for future generations of disabled people. If it is right to exclude purpose-built housing, what about what one might call "purpose-rebuilt" housing? As an example, I am thinking of a block of flats which was built just after the war, which is being refurbished at present; one or two of the flats may have all their walls taken out and be completely redesigned so as to make them suitable for those with wheelchairs. Another example could be a council house estate where, again, the houses are being refurbished. There may be one or two three-bedroomed houses which are made into two-bedroomed houses so as to give bigger kitchens, bigger bathrooms, bigger living rooms, and so on. Such housing is really being purpose-rebuilt, and I just wonder whether the right to buy should apply in these cases.
Turning to the adaptations to existing council houses, in his letter the Minister tells the noble Baroness that the average cost of these improvements and adaptations in 1981–82 was £770, which of course is a low figure. I do not think that anyone would suggest that expenditure of that kind should exclude the right to buy. However, this average figure masks very considerable sums spent on a much smaller number of individual houses. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, quoted one at Aylesbury in the sum of £15,000, although I must admit that the figure I have for that house is slightly less—£13,675. There was another at Haddenham where £15,300 was spent on adaptations, another at Swinton, where the figure was £6,390, and another at Whiston where the estimate was £14,000 plus fees. These adaptations all included the provision of an additional ground-floor bedroom, and bathroom or shower facilities.
Such houses are always likely to be in short supply because they involve councils in spending large amounts of money for the benefit of a single family. If

489
I am right in thinking that they will always be in short supply, are they not, in fact, a valuable national asset which should be kept for the benefit of future generations of disabled people?
We all very much hope that we shall have no more wars—I certainly fervently hope so—but if we do have wars, may not these houses be needed for disabled people in the future? I hope that the Government will think again on this matter and, if they are unable to do so, I shall bring forward an amendment at the Committee stage.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I have to blame a really punishing cold for having to say to my noble friend the Minister and to your Lordships that I regret that I shall be unable to stay throughout this debate. However, I am particularly anxious to refer to what I consider to be the very gratifying interpretation of Part I, Clause 2, in subsection (2)(a), which means that public sector dwelling-houses adapted for use by disabled persons will now be brought within the scope of the right to buy. As did my noble friend Lord Ingleby, I shall confine myself to this area. However, before I do so, I should like to offer my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on his typically informative maiden speech.
Consider how this very idea, which has not yet been rearranged, can work at present. For instance, if a member of a household either suffers a stroke or is badly injured in an accident, he or she is admitted to hospital and there is taught how best to regain the maximum independence within his or her reduced capacity. Once full advantage has been gained from treatment and tuition the patient is ready for home, and I do not believe anyone would deny that to be going home gives everyone a tremendous boost.
With clever counselling from the occupational therapist, adaptations should have been made in the home to capitalise on those recovered abilities. Maybe it is just a set of those grab rails, which have been rather talked down today; they may be found to be an essential element. Other requirements may, for instance, be a short ramp for a wheelchair, special taps with longer handles, a draining board that slopes one way, or an intercom to operate the front door. Let me assure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that there are these very wide varieties of small adaptations. Particularly if the disability is in the arms and hands, adaptations of that sort are essentially individual. It is by no means certain that what is prescribed for one individual need necessarily be the best for another. Yet numbers of small but extremely important changes can help enormously.
For 50 years I could never boil a kettle. That may not sound tremendously important but it was to me. That was because I could not lift a kettle. Now I can boil a kettle by means of an adapted tripod kettle stand which allows me to tip instead of to lift. So you will realise just what vital importance I attach to such small rearrangements.
There is another factor. It is quite natural for the majority of these normal human beings returned home with substantial disability, yet with no less than normal intellect, to worry about the extra burden that
490
they are putting on their families, whether through cost or care. It is quite right that we should worry, and I count myself among them. However, it is even more right that the wisest families do all they can to reduce the obstacles and make light of the situation. In that way they give invaluable help towards the psychological readjustment of their disabled kinsman.
Under the present ruling, in a street where all the other tenants of public sector dwelling houses have the right to buy, and where it is found that to purchase is sound housekeeping and good policy, the household which has a disabled person is denied that right to buy. What, I ask you, does that unfortunate person feel about it? He does not have to be unusually sensitive to feel that this is adding insult to injury, and to realise that because his family are harbouring him he will be costing them substantial financial sacrifice. This ruling is clearly discriminatory and all who are against discrimination against disabled people must be seized by this wrong. Examples of discrimination have been sought, and I suggest that here is a clear and good example.
Therefore, may I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on taking up and acting upon points made on this subject during the debate last spring? Not only has he removed a flagrant injustice but there is good reason to hope that the capital receipt from the sale of one adapted dwelling may be used to pay for numbers of those small, but important, adaptations in the homes of other families with a disabled member. Ask any disabled person whether they would like to go into accommodation that has been adapted for another person rather than have their own home adapted, probably with only small adaptations. I am truly surprised that this really rather shoddy suggestion should have been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. What is being suggested by my noble friend the Minister is, in my view, really effective help for disabled people and their families. As such, we really should not underrate it.
5.42 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, far too often governments seem to produce legislation which may superficially appear reasonable but which has potentially disastrous side effects. Somehow, and I do not know how or why, they continue blinkered and regardless of all warnings; and proposed changes to avoid the unfortunate side effects are ignored. I am afraid that this Bill and the 1980 Act are almost classic cases in point, and this is well illustrated by the two defeats the Government suffered here in the 1980 Act.
Today I propose to deal only with Clause 2 of the Bill. Once one accepts the principle of selling off local government housing stock the issues I raise today are entirely pragmatic and should have no party connotations. In passing on, however, I must say that there are several other issues which come under the same category, in particular the provisions for building control. One of their side effects is to give almost a charter for dishonesty, and this at the expense of the consumer. I hope that those concerned saw Friday night's ITV programme and will have taken this to heart.
Turning now to Clause 2, it extends the right to buy where a dwelling-house is adapted to use by physically

491
disabled persons, or is particularly suitable for occupation by people of pensionable age. The first is of course in principle admirable, the argument being: why should disabled people have a further disadvantage? However, in the interests of such persons as a group the proposed legislation is, in my view, a potential disaster.
To save time I shall state the reasons for this view under numerical headings. First, local councils' stock of suitably adapted dwellings is limited, and there is almost none available on the open market. There are in fact long waiting lists for such council houses. When these houses appear on the open market some of the adaptations, made at considerable cost, are quite attractive to the ordinary buyer. It follows, secondly, that few of these properties will be bought by those who need them, particularly as handicapped people are, for obvious reasons, unlikely to be able to afford as much as other buyers on the open market.
Thirdly, councils will find it difficult to buy other suitable properties which may need a ramp access and should be near shops for those confined to a wheelchair, and it is not easy to find suitable locations. Fourthly, with the present cutbacks on local government spending it would be unrealistic to suppose that councils will give priority to replacing housing stock for the disabled, because the cost of adaptation is considerable. Fifthly, there is a real need for this sort of rented accommodation, which is seldom available in the public sector.
The Government may argue that the sale of the property and re-provision by local authorities will increase the number of adapted houses. At best it is only likely to do so in the short term, and this presupposes that the local authority does in fact replace the specially adapted house. In any case, a 90 per cent. grant is available for a disabled buyer on the open market to adapt a house if he can buy one. The priority must be for rented accommodation for those who are not in a position to buy.
The second matter concerns old-age pensioners. The provisions of the Bill are even less justified and more open to abuse than for disabled people. People buy houses as soon as they can in early life, partly because it may give them a good investment but primarily because it ensures that they will be able to afford a roof over their heads all their lives whether or not they have to move somewhere else. This primary consideration does not apply to the old-age pensioner. Why buy when the next step may well be an old people's home or, unfortunately, a geriatric ward?
The average tenancy of these types of houses, I understand, is only five years. So who benefits? The heirs, of course—and at the expense of other old people. My goodness, what an investment for the heirs! Up to 60 per cent. non-repayable grant, and a mortgage on top of that. The heirs cannot go wrong if they can raise just a little capital. But once again, what are the side effects? First, a loss of this sort of specialised accommodation, not easily replaceable because of location, suitability, and much else, including the right sort of ambience for old people, which is also extremely important. Such properties are scarce in the open market, and correspondingly high priced.
492
Secondly, will councils go on providing this sort of wasting asset with the cost of so doing? Who, one asks, is going to provide the cost of grants for purchase which might amount to thousands of millions of pounds? Do not let us be na00EF;ve, the Treasury in the end will not honour this commitment. It will eventually have to come out of the housing grant. Please, please, I ask the Minister, not to go on talking about the provisions of "buy-back". For all practical purposes it is almost a useless provision; the Minister must know this, just as well as I do, without arguing the point.
I am left with the thought that this Government sometimes pursue policies which I should have thought could only have been espoused by the most extreme of their political opponents. For goodness sake! let us think first about the national interest and the interests of its members before that of doctrine and dogma. I hope therefore on a non-party basis that the House will join with amendments to oppose some of the Bill's disastrous provisions.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, anxieties about the Bill have now come from all sides of the House. I shall try to avoid too much repetition, but there are one or two points I should like to make. First, there is a provision in Clause 1 which gives the right to buy to tenants where the landlord does not own the freehold. Little has been said about this except by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. There are many occasions where housing associations have built on land leased from charities. This happens most often in cathedral and university cities, where much of the land belongs to the Church, to the university or to colleges, all of which are charities. These bodies need to preserve ownership of the land for their long-term use and so would not sell to developers or lease in circumstances where leasehold enfranchisement would jeopardise their future plans. It has often been possible in the past for housing associations to obtain long leases from them on favourable terms because of the protection they could offer. This has encouraged a supply of badly-needed rented accommodation in many city centres.
The effect of the new proposal has already caused the withdrawal of one site in Cambridge which was under discussion with a housing association, and other decisions have been made to exclude the future leasing of sites to housing associations. No doubt other cities are similarly affected.
I will read one paragraph from a letter from the chairman of the Cambridge Federation of Housing Associations. He said:
"Clause 1 threatens not only to dry up the only or main source of sites for new developments in many areas at a time when the rented housing stock of Housing Associations is to be reduced by sales to tenants already endowed with the Right to Buy; it also threatens to erode the ability and right of charitable landlords to manage their real estate in their best interests. It is useless to argue that housing stock lost through sales to tenants can be replaced with more HAG and the proceeds from those sales, if there are no sites to be had for love or money. In city centres where land values are high, this is one more blow against the preservation of their residential character".
There is a very strong case to be made for excluding from the right to buy those housing association leasehold developments where the freehold is a charity, or, at the very least, for not applying the

493
legislation retrospectively—a point which Lord Monson made.
Secondly, although it has been discussed by many speakers, I must return again to the sale of houses or flats converted for use by disabled people. Unless more exclusions are made than are proposed in the Bill, or unless the cost of the more expensive conversions is refundable—this is an alternative which has not yet been discussed—and the Government insist on disposing of largely converted premises, can they guarantee that money will be forthcoming to replace them? The local authority could perhaps replace them, provided the sites were available, but if either the exclusion or the replacement of money is not available, the outlook for a large number of disabled people is very bleak.
It is generally accepted that it is better for people with disabling complaints to be helped to remain in the community—better for the disabled and cheaper for the taxpayer—than to give them institutional care, as my noble friend Lady Birk so ably said. The present provisions of the Bill will allow a leakage of adapted houses back into the general housing stock with little prospect of replacement. Some better formula must be found so that houses with considerable adaptations, such as those with dialysis units, remain available for those who need them. It is hard to suggest this kind of discrimination against already disadvantaged people, but I believe there are many who would be prepared to accept this situation in the interests of their fellow sufferers.
Part II is rather the Cinderella of the Bill. Here I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on his maiden speech. It is indeed useful to have someone who puts this as his first interest. It is disappointing to find that none of the objections raised last year appears to have been met. The need for the privatisation of building control is still unexplained. One can but put questions to the Minister once more and hope that this time some clearer answers will be forthcoming. The present system is well tried and has not failed in its aim to maintain agreed standards of health and safety. The regulations need overhaul, and this is being done.
Building control officers are responsible to the local authority and therefore to the public. Officers may come and go, as may building and construction firms, but the local authority is always there. Its account-ability is continuing and absolute. No matter how long a time has passed, a dissatisfied member of the public can know that any breach of regulations which has escaped a local authority inspector can be the subject of compensation from the authority. This perfectly satisfactory system is now to be undermined. We must ask the Minister why. Who has expressed dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements? We have been told that there has been dissatisfaction, but we have not been told who expressed it. What examples of local authority negligence persuaded the Government that local accountability and control were to be overthrown? Why are the changes to apply only in England and Wales, and not in Scotland and Northern Ireland? What special difficulties have arisen in England and Wales?
Now let us look at what is being proposed. There will be a list of "approved inspectors". This list will be
494
of persons approved by the Secretary of State or by a body designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose. Does it mean by and from that body? To whom will it be responsible? Once appointed, who will monitor the standards and decide when that appointment shall cease and by what method? I repeat the words of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who asked the same question: who will inspect the inspectors?
In a local authority the building control officers are part of a team and are constantly under the scrutiny of their colleagues and chief officers. Any falling away of standards would be dealt with within the organisation without a break in the level of service. A change of inspector would not disturb the continuity of inspection, and full information on completed sections would be in the hands of the authority. The proposal in the Bill is that where an approved inspector fails to complete the job the local authority has a duty to step in and take over, and must eventually take responsibility for the final certificate even though large parts of the construction were not overseen by the authority and could have been hidden from view by the time it was obliged to intervene. Furthermore, where breaches were suspected, or even known, before the approved inspector departed, the authority will have no power to intervene or to enforce. It is not clear whether the plans deposited at the time of the initial notice will be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an informed take-over by the local authority. Can the Minister comment on that?
If there is widespread use of private inspectors, how is the local authority to maintain its level of staff to cope with the rescue role? Will the Government adopt an understanding attitude to the peaks and troughs in the workload, or will there be accusations of inefficiency if productivity levels waver?
There is another point on that aspect—a point which I remember making in my maiden speech about a year ago in this House. It is this. The long-term effect of the constant attack on local authorities by this Government that is going on at the moment is discouraging people of quality from coming forward and going into local authority service. There is no doubt that we are building up trouble for ourselves for the future. So far the building control aspect of the local authority work has been excluded from this particular evil, but now it, too, will be subject to the same difficulties as every other aspect of local authority work. I wonder whether the Government have really thought out the effects of what they are doing.
What of the eventual cover for the citizen, when work has been completed by private inspectors and is subsequently found to be defective? The local authority is responsible for satisfying itself at the outset that insurance cover is adequate. We seem to have very little information about insurance proposals or about the reactions of the insurance industry to them. The Minister for Housing and Construction in another place said in Committee:
"If there is no satisfactory insurance there will be no approved inspectors. It is as simple as that."
But what is "satisfactory insurance"? This is another aspect the Minister has been very slow to discuss.
The provisions of the Bill seem to be founded on hope. Is insurance cover likely to be found to replace

495
the open-ended commitment of the local authority, or are members of the public expected to accept yet another cut in their expectations of service and protection? These questions are not mere rhetoric: they must be answered.
Perhaps at this stage I could make clear that we are not attacking responsible members of the building and construction industry, of which there are a large number. In fact, they are the major part of the industry. But it is in that industry that the public have suffered most from fly-by-night firms—cowboy firms, as they are sometimes called—and therefore it is in that industry that we have to exercise the greatest care in maintaining public protection. I hope that this time round we will get the answers from the Minister.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise to speak because I share the concern of the associations and other bodies of people who are unhappy about certain provisions of the Housing and Building Control Bill. I should like to confine my comments to two points. First, however, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord Broxbourne on his excellent maiden speech and also thank the Minister for the very regular and nice way that he always presents a Bill for which he has responsibility.
The first point concerns the introduction of the new clause in the Bill, removing the power of the Secretary of State to exempt buildings specifically designed for elderly people from the right to buy legislation. As has already been said, in 1980 this House, during its deliberations on the Housing Bill, voted to allow local authorities the right to apply to the Secretary of State for such exemptions. It seems that Her Majesty's Government are going back on this point by reintroducing the clause which will remove this power of exemption.
Secondly, it is disturbing that it is proposed to remove this power of exception in relation to houses specifically adapted for the disabled. Surely there is a strong argument for saying that if there is the right to buy rented accommodation in this sphere there will be less accommodation available for the elderly and for the disabled. There is still a desperate shortage of suitable housing for old people, and this shortage will be even more severe if housing such as old people's bungalows is sold off and in effect lost for ever to those in need. There is little chance that local authorities will be able to find sufficient funds to be able to buy them back at the full market price.
The same argument applies to housing for the disabled. In principle, it is undeniable that disabled tenants should have the same right as other tenants to buy their houses at the appropriate discount, but the local authorities are less likely to spend money adapting and providing houses for the disabled if they know that such houses will not be pernmanently at their disposal for those who need them most.
There are those in need of this special sort of accommodation who may not wish to purchase their own for different reasons. They may feel unable to be fully responsible for their property or they may be unable to find the funds, even with assistance. Moreover, many people feel that, if possible, feasible
496
or practical, it is good for people with special needs to be in housing accommodation with the more able or at least to be near to one another. The interests of such people would not be served if suitably adapted local authority housing were not available. I quote a comment from RADAR:
"The current proposals ignore one increasingly important way in which housing for disabled people can be provided. It can be possible to create housing for disabled people within an existing building as part of a housing rehabilitation or estate improvement scheme."
My Lords, I quote again:
"We believe that paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 1, Part 1 of the 1980 Act should remain and be extended by the words 'or disabled persons'."
For such reasons as those outlined above, I do ask Her Majesty's Government to give most careful thought to any legislation which would reverse the decisions made in this House in 1980; and for that reason I will be prepared to put my backing behind many amendments which I see will retain what many here have said they believe ought to be retained, and which will improve this Bill.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is very much the kind of Housing Bill with which we have become all too familiar in 1980 and in the last year. It comes from a Government which in one year greatly increased the tax relief on mortgage interest and at the same time proposed to reduce housing benefits. They have thus shown they favour the richer people at the expense of poorer people, as they did once before in 1979.
It seems also that the Government, perhaps at the instigation of the Treasury, imagined that housing benefit could be consolidated, with no more staff and with very little training. What has been the result? Great chaos, much hardship and vastly increased rent arrears. This Bill comes from a Government which I believe has real difficulties in co-ordinating its vast conglomerate departments of the environment and of health and social services.
Another example of the lack of co-ordination between these two Ministries is to be found among the voluntary (so-called Part III) homes for the elderly. These provide residential care; they relieve ordinary housing, sheltered housing and the geriatric wards of hospitals. They perform a vital function, as was clearly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on 18th January at cols. 1104 and 1105 of Hansard. Upwards of 20,000 people live in these voluntary homes and the Department of Health and Social Security say that they have no funds for urgent major repairs, for replacements or for improvements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, when replying to my Starred Question on 19th January, suggested that the voluntary bodies raised their own money; or else that they approached the Hayward Foundation. It is a very conservative estimate that some £5 million a year is needed, if these homes are to be properly repaired and equipped and if they are to have decent staff quarters attached to them. Such a sum is beyond the means of voluntary societies and it is a fact that the Hayward Foundation has no money to pay out this year, in spite of having provided very generous help in previous years. Meanwhile, what

497
happens elsewhere? The Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds—quite rightly—on providing new sheltered housing and they spend tens of millions of pounds on new caring hostels. Both these forms of provision benefit the elderly, and some of them benefit the frail elderly. But I should like to ask: why can there not be the very minimum of inter-departmental co-operation, so that the existing old people in existing homes can have a new roof, a new lift or a new boiler when they need one? Will the noble Lord the Minister please make sure that consultation takes place between his department, the housing corporation and the DHSS on this point?
I think it worthwhile examining this Bill in the light of the really urgent housing needs of the country. On the supply side, there are many public sector houses now standing empty. In October, 1982, my friend and former colleague, Mr. Anthony Fletcher, produced this pamphlet which is called, "Homes Wasted". I should like to ask: what has happened since the publication of that pamphlet, which was warmly welcomed by the then Minister of Housing and by the whole of the national press?
In 1981, there were approximately 120,000 public sector houses standing vacant. The worst case quoted in the pamphlet was of four houses in Bristol which stood vacant for 23 years; and, what is more, they were listed buildings. We have known other cases of premature demolition, long before redevelopment takes place. Way back in the early 1970s, housing associations showed conclusively that good and effective temporary use could be made of such buildings when they had six to 12 months' life still left in them, and in many cases rather more than that. I ask today: when will the public sector learn what has been done and what they could be doing now?
I come now to the demand side. We know the best estimate is that there are some 170,000 homeless people at the moment in England and Wales. This increasing agony will be debated in detail on 8th February on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. Suffice it to say for the moment that there are far too many families put into bed and breakfast accommodation and that the numbers of single homeless are rising, spurred on by unemployment and by the closing of big, old hostels before small, new hostels have been completed and made ready.
This Bill comes at a time when many tower blocks and system-built flats and maisonettes are becoming unlettable. They are getting into this condition partly because of design faults, vandalism and bad housing management. I myself stayed in 1982 at a post-war, well-built estate in north Edinburgh where 50 per cent. of the houses were boarded up, because they were unlettable. Why was this so? It was because for years and years the local authority had directed all their families with problems into that one estate. On Tyneside, Merseyside and elsewhere, some intelligent thought has been given to this problem and we have seen blocks that would otherwise have been demolished being brought hack into use or, in some cases, sold to young couples and people on the housing waiting list.
This Bill is irrelevant to the question of empty homes, homelessness and housing management. It is equally irrelevant to the large and rising number of
498
elderly owner-occupiers, many of them living in poverty. In theory, there are three systems whereby they can get help to keep their houses in good condition and to bring in those special modifications and adaptations which will enable them to go on living where they are now. That is the theory, but it just does not work out in practice.
Elderly people find the greatest difficulty in coping with officialdom and, as has been said before tonight, they also find difficulty in coping with builders and tradesmen who might do the necessary work. Therefore, these people suffer while their houses deteriorate. Fortunately, housing associations and voluntary bodies—in South Wales, in Tyneside, in London and in some other places—have done experiments which show clearly that if you have a tailor-made organisation these problems can be overcome. I urge the Government to make sure that this proven work is now extended to the whole country and that funds are made available for it.
One of the systems for helping people to stay where they are is improvement grants, and perhaps I may briefly mention the situation in my own district in Somerset. All applications have been frozen and there is a queue of 830 people seeking improvement grants. If these grants were approved straight away, the whole of the housing investment programme allocation for the next financial year would be absorbed on this one single item. This Bill gives no indication of how this kind of mess is to be resolved, and it also gives no indication of how the Government see the future housing improvement programme for the whole country operating; I wish that it did.
Perhaps I may turn to housing associations and their programmes. We have seen that they are capable in one year of producing 40,000 renovated or new houses. This has been cut back very sharply to 20,000 for the current year and just over 18,000 for the coming year. It could be 50,000 if there were continuity of funds and positive encouragement. If this happened, the housing association movement would be beginning to replace the rapidly dwindling number of private landlords. It would be providing a real choice of accommodation for those who are not able to buy and who are obliged to rent. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister tonight, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady Vickers, for an assurance that housing association output will not be made to suffer still further, as a result of the proposed grants to tenants of charitable associations buying on the open market. Of course, it would be better still if the Minister could say that, at least within a measurable time, housing associations will be enabled to operate at full capacity.
As to the details of this Bill, a lot has already been said and I simply urge your Lordships to amend the extension of the right to buy to certain elderly and physically handicapped tenants. I say this not because of any lack of sympathy for these people but solely because. as many speakers have already pointed out, every existing rented unit is so desperately needed. The figures confirm it. As has rightly been said, pre-emption is no safeguard if houses are to be sold at a discount and repurchased at open market value. As to Clause 25, I ask the Government to consider very

499
carefully the comments made by the Institute of Housing about landlords' repairs.
Viewing the realities of the situation, we are entitled to ask that the Government shall have a change of heart about their housing policy. There is such a need to reconcile these major departments, which do not seem to see eye to eye. There is such a need for real leadership to be given to the local authorities and to other public bodies so that every single house that is capable of use is put into use. History shows that circulars are of very little effect. In the last 10 or 15 years we have had several of them. Leadership means very much more than paper, as Mr. Harold Macmillan showed in his day. We need a new vision to disentangle housing subsidies from individual and family income support. We need caring attitudes so that some of the proceeds, at least, of the North Sea and of the sale of other public and national assets can be channelled into long lasting houses, for the benefit of the people as a whole.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, first may I congratulate my fellow Back-Bencher, Lord Broxbourne, on his skilful and witty speech. May I also thank my noble friend the Minister for his very clear exposition of the Bill.
I have two questions to ask and two comments to make. First, may I ask my noble friend the Minister what is to happen to those tenants, in particular elderly tenants, who buy their accommodation—their council houses, for instance—and then find that the cement has deteriorated? I cannot explain it because I do not understand building construction. However, I understand that Orlitt and Howard houses are now showing signs of deterioration because of the cement that was used in their construction. If it is not possible for my noble friend the Minister to let me know the answer to that question at the end of the debate, perhaps he will be good enough to let me know it in writing.
I understand that if people have bought their houses they are not entitled to ask their local authority for help. Therefore, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether any help will be forthcoming for people who have bought their houses and who now find that they are deteriorating? In my area there is an enormous number of these houses. To put each house right will cost up to £10,000. No elderly person who has bought his accommodation will be able to afford that amount of money.
Secondly, may I ask my noble friend the Minister about the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme which was introduced in 1983? I understand that various housing associations think that this is a splendid scheme. One housing association has told me that over 50 families have been helped, but that 140 applications have had to be rejected because of lack of finance. They believe that the scheme is splendid and that if it could come into being it would greatly help the elderly in particular.
I feel like a person who has been cast up on a lonely shore, because I know that what I am about to say will be disagreed with entirely by everybody who sits on the
500
Benches opposite and by many of those who sit on my side of the House. Throughout the debate, with one exception, nobody has mentioned the feelings of the elderly and what they think. Nobody has said what it is that the elderly want. Surely we are here to cater for what people need and want themselves. During our last debate I said that the elderly had the right to buy, should they so wish. I was in a minority, but because of that all the letters from elderly people who want to buy came to me. One delightful old lady asked me in her letter: who do the House of Lords think they are? Why should the elderly not have the right to buy? The point to remember is that the elderly do not have to buy. They are not forced to buy. They are not pressurised into buying. They buy only if they can and wish to buy.
My second point relates to maintenance. I agree absolutely with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the cost of maintenance is very high. If a chimney or roof is damaged it is very expensive to repair. But we should not underrate the elderly. Last week I visited an 83 year-old lady who lives in a cottage. Her relatives had suggested to her that she should buy her cottage, but she said that she had been to the builders and had found out how much it would cost if the roof or the ceilings had to be repaired. She said that she would never be able to afford it and therefore would not buy her cottage. People are not forced to buy. Many of the people we are referring to have a very real knowledge of costs.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness stated that people like to remain in their own home. This is partly because they want to remain in the place that they know, surrounded by the things and the people they know—perhaps with the tree outside the window which has always flapped against it. We hope that people can and will stay as long as possible in their own homes, perhaps for ever. If people have the right to buy their council houses, it will result in a mixed population. Elderly people like to live among the middle-aged and the young. As many of us who have had to work with the elderly and the young know, there is a great bond between the elderly and children. Therefore, so far as is possible and practicable—I underline that point—I do not believe that we ought to put the elderly together. As far as possible we ought to leave them where they are. If the elderly want to buy, a younger population will gradually build up around them, which is all to the good.
It is perfectly true that if the elderly are spread among the population there will be no warden to care for them or someone upon whom they can call. However, I believe that we should develop neighbourliness. Neighbours should care for the elderly in their midst. I speak with feeling. I went away on one occasion, forgetting to cancel the milk. So there were three milk bottles on my doorstep, and the police were informed by the neighbours that I was probably lying dead in the house. The police came and looked through the windows, rang my office and found out that I was away. This shows that there are great feelings of neighbourliness. I believe that they should be developed.
Therefore, for the sake of the feelings of the elderly I support the fact that they have the right to buy, however administratively difficult this may be. I

501
believe that in the long term, from the point of view of the happiness of our people, this is a way to help the elderly. It does not preclude them from going into old people's homes; it does not preclude them from going into sheltered accommodation; it does not force them to buy their properties, but it gives them an opportunity to do so should they so wish.
My other point is to support very much Clause 7, which empowers a landlord to impose a 21-year pre-emption clause. I think that this is a great step forward, and that it will be of great help to many of the elderly and to the housing situation.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne on a quite unusually brilliant maiden speech, even by the standards of your Lordships' House. This House needs expertise on the building industry, and we certainly had it in my noble friend's maiden speech. His future contributions will be very much in demand.
This is certainly a very far-reaching Bill, and is one which I think is generally to be welcomed. But it has a number of matters which need to be very closely examined in Committee. Clause 2 is undoubtedly an example. Of course, I think by common consent of all parties, we are desirous of having a property-owning democracy. The larger the number of people who own their own houses, the smaller the burden on the local authority. That is fine in an ideal world, but we are not quite living in an ideal world at the present time. As my noble friend Lady Faithful] said in her usual very well informed speech on these matters, no elderly person—indeed, nobody—has any obligation to buy their own house.
The question of availability must be taken into account, and also the price of the house which the tenant is going to buy and the amount of subsidy that is going to be given for the purpose of buying the house, bearing in mind that there are a number of people who inevitably have to live in rented accommodation because of the high cost of housing today. Of course, the high cost of housing is not confined to this country. One has only to go to Scandinavia, as I have done on several occasions, to see what the price of property is there. If one takes an area like Leatherhead where I live, there are there a number of research organisations and other such places, which means that there is what one might call a floating population, often young people, who are transferred to other parts of the country and who therefore, will inevitably have to have rented accommodation. Very often they are not in a position to have anything other than rented accommodation. So while I support the spirit of Clause 2, I think there are certain matters which will need to be looked into at Committee stage, particularly on this aspect.
Reference has been made to accommodation which is under the aegis of charitable trusts. I must say that I am not happy that it is left to this House to produce an amendment, since this matter was not discussed in the other place, as I understand it, having been decisively rejected when the Bill came to your Lordships' House last time. We await with interest to see what amendment my noble friend the Minister
502
produces. There are two organisations in the Leatherhead area in which I have a particularly good friend who is concerned with such a charitable trust. I have been in contact with them about this particular matter. I think it is very important that tenants who are living in accommodation where charitable trusts are involved should have as much security as possible. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, whatever amendment he seeks to bring forward in the forthcoming stages of the Bill, will bear this in mind. I think we must await further comment on this until we see what comes.
The only other reference I want to make—and I shall seek to say something more in Committee—is to Clause 48, regarding insurance. The word "adequate" can be used in all kinds of senses, but it is a notoriously vague word. There is a real danger in this clause, I declare an interest here, although not directly concerned with this Bill, in that I am a consultant for a firm of Lloyd's brokers, although, as I say, I am not directly concerned with insurance of this kind. There is always the danger that the party involved may seek to claim substantially more than those who assess the claim put forward. Therefore, this needs looking into very carefully.
Quite clearly this is a Bill which will need the very closest scrutiny in Committee. I think the main criticism of the Bill is that it is too widely drawn. To put two such widely diverse subjects in the Bill inevitably makes the Bill subject to criticism. It would have been better in a way to have two separate Bills. This is, like so much legislation, an overloaded Bill, even though in principle I believe it is welcome. I think the whole House will have a major responsibility when it comes to Committee stage.
6.39 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I apreciate that at this late hour, and with further business to follow, any contribution which I may make to this Second Reading debate must be made extremely brief, and this I shall proceed to do. The noble Lord the Minister will no doubt be relieved to hear that I have no intention of entering the lists of the various protagonists of the relative merits and disadvantages of the proposals in respect of rights to buy and their consequences. But like our excellent maiden speaker this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, although without his great wealth of experience and personal knowledge, I shall confine my observations to Parts II and III of the Bill, and in particular Clauses 46 and 47.
The noble Minister, in introducing the Bill, clearly explained the new optional system of approved inspectors. Of particular interest to me is the introduction of approved documents which will be able to give clear practical guidance without being constrained and rendered totally unintelligible by the tortuously convoluted jargon believed necessary in documents intended for full legal interpretation. Such a move cannot be anything but beneficial and helpful to the industry.
However, that brings me to the one point on which I seek assurance from the Minister this evening as I

503
know that the proposal is already causing some apprehension in sections of the industry. Although the Minister referred to the wide consultation which has already taken place, and remembering the consultation procedures normally employed before the formulation of statutory regulations, we must bear in mind that these new approved documents will not have statutory standing; and while I am sure that there is no intention to ignore the advice and guidance available from the industry, it could be that with the passage of time or through inadvertence this might not be done in regard to these documents. It is with that background that I seek the assurance that such consultation shall be mandatory and that some provision be made in the Bill to this effect.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin at once by saying to my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, welcome; echoing the word which has been used more than once from all parts of the House. I learned of his eminence in the field of planning long before I entered the other place. I am absolutely certain that what he said today gives us a good guide to the value of the contributions that he will be making on many occasions in the future. I look forward to hearing him many times.
It was on 23rd November 1982 that I wound up the debate on Second Reading of this Bill in another place, so if I say that I sense I have been here before I think your Lordships will understand what I mean. Little has changed; little, that is, other than changes which have suited the Government. The Bill was conceived in haste and born out of prejudice and a breathtaking ignorance of how local government functions. Throughout the past long 16 months, consultation has been reduced to a farce. Whenever professional bodies have demurred at proposals, they have been overruled. Whenever the will of Parliament has been expressed contrary to the views of Government, the time of Ministers and civil servants has been spent on finding ways of thwarting the will of Parliament. Examples of this have been given by my noble friend Lady Birk who made a powerful and effective opening speech. In my view it was a demolition job. I can well understand her anger because she played a leading part, with others on all Benches in your Lordships' House, in defeating the Government more than once when the Bill was before the House last year. She is fully entitled to treat any statement by Ministers in these debates with suspicion. After all, if they can so easily rat on their pledges once, why not again?
The true authoritarian face of this Government, shown in a series of assaults on the democratic and libertarian base of our constitution, was never more starkly shown than in the contempt it has scarcely hidden in ramming this Bill once more through Parliament. We will do nothing to aid its passage. To the extent that we have hindered it from becoming law before now we are both proud and satisfied.
One thing is crystal clear. This Government do not like to lose. If they lose, as they did in the Housing Act 1980, they come back in 1983. If they lose with clauses in this Bill the first time round, they return to the issue a second time round. The Government are due to be
504
taught a lesson. There are issues of principle, as well as of sound practical sense in housing management, which cry out for rejection. My noble friend, Lady Fisher of Rednal, with her great experience and her current grass roots contacts, told us exactly what she thought of certain parts of the Bill. In using the word "despicable" I think she told us that there were other words she had in mind but which modesty forbade her to use. I think I know the words she has in mind and I echo them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, gave us devastating illustrations of the effect of certain parts of the Bill on communities that she knows very well indeed. In Committee we shall look for support from those who still care for those in desperate housing need and who put giving the needy a decent home before and above squandering a public asset in this dreadful way. It was the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, from the Benches of the SDP, who asked where was all this largess to come from as far as the private tenant is concerned. When the landlord is a public body it is apparently considered that it has money to burn and assets to give away. With a private landlord somehow or other the Government believe they have a mission to protect them.
My noble friend Lady Birk and others have amply demonstrated the blemishes in Part I. First is the attack on the ability of councils and housing associations to adequately house the elderly in future. My noble friend Lady Denington from her long experience in housing gave a powerful condemnation of the Government's intentions in that respect. Secondly, there is the callous manner in which councils and associations will be deprived of anything like an adequate number of homes to accommodate the disabled. Here we had the comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who movingly urged the Government to think again. I think that is the right expression—to "think again". He said that if the Government will not think again on the right lines, he will be coming forward with an amendment in Committee to force them to do so. I can certainly say to him, on behalf of these Benches, that we will be behind him and we hope to have a victory over the Government at that time.
The third blemish is the immoral and disgraceful intention of the Government to bribe tenants of housing associations to buy on the open market with housing association monies, creating social discord and forcing up house prices to those millions without these tax-free gifts. The Minister tells us that he was leaving Clause 2 alone but this intention, in my view, will castrate what Clause 2 stood for previously.
I carefully noted that the first person to use the word "bribe" in this debate was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. He posed the question: how was it possible for someone with the prospect of owning a house worth £30,000, who need only put forward £6,000 on a shared ownership scheme, not to do it? How is it that certain categories of tenants are singled out by the Government in order to receive perhaps as much as £25,000 of public money to do that? The fourth blemish is to encourage councils to renege on their obligations to repair houses with the so-called right to repair which, in our view, will turn out to be a cowboys' charter.

505
This House, Parliament and the country has grown to recognise the determination of this Government to strip the public sector of any role in the economic and social life of our people. In many cases we would be talking of denationalisation and returning to private hands an industry's assets forfeited by them through mismanagement and exploitation. No such excuse can be advanced in the case of privatising building control. Charges are levelled in other cases of privatisation—that the public will has been thwarted; inefficiency; undemocratic; non-accountability—but none of these reasons can even remotely be levelled at the operation of a public service which has served ratepayers, builders, architects and communities faithfully and well.
My noble friend Lady Nicol made a powerful attack on this part of the Bill. She asked many questions. Those questions will be asked again and again in Committee. Over the past 15 months there has been a miserable history of those questions not being answered. In my view, public building control has been dedicated to the maintenance of standards of safety, health, welfare and energy conservation in relation to both the occupants of buildings and the general public. Building control has ensured that the regulations have been enforced with complete impartiality and under democratic control. Of crucial importance is the fact that the whole fabric of the service has been wholly independent of any person wishing to construct or alter buildings. That will not be the case any more.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Nicol. Let me make it plain that I am not in the business of smear or innuendo. Individual derelictions of duty and lapses from standards can happen in public servants as well as in the private service. Our charge is that not a shred of evidence to justify such fundamental changes has been produced, and that the danger flowing from incestuous relationships between the professional bodies, or individuals, and builders and developers is real and can act to the detriment of the health and safety of the public, whatever it may do for the private purse. Dogma, as much as driving the public sector out of business, is the real purpose of this part of the Bill.
This part of the Bill is virtually friendless. I do not mean the ancillary legislation or the building regulations. These are the cornerstones of good building control. It is not only right but welcomed by all involved that after almost 20 years the regulations will be brought up to date to meet the needs of the 1980s and 1990s. But making building regulations sensible and relevant does not require such massive upheaval, disturbance, cost and delay.
When I say that this part of the Bill is virtually friendless, I refer to the principle of private certification, which radically alters the present, satisfactory basis of protecting the public. When I spoke in another place on Second Reading on 23rd November 1982, I listed the organisations which had then told me they were hostile to the principle of private certification: the Consumers' Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Federation of Master Builders, the Institute of Building Control Officers, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors,
506
the Institute of Professional Civil Servants—we shall hear about that institute again—and the Association of District Secretaries. We know that this Government are fully capable of deceiving themselves. Mandate interpretation has been developed to a tine art by the Prime Minister and her Ministers, and none more so than her environment Ministers.
Dissatisfaction with the system in operation—often due to reduced staff levels forced on councils by Government cries for economies—is seized upon as an excuse to weaken an element of public service. Constantly over the past 15 months Ministers have ignored advice and pleadings from professional bodies concerned at what they see as reckless and dangerous proposals hiding behind a colossal battery of powers, hidden from public gaze in prescribed form. There are more than 50 references in Part II of the Bill to prescribed powers—prescribed references, grounds, conditions, notice, fees, information, forms and periods. The prescribed powers leave it all to the Secretary of State in order for these matters to dodge the close scrutiny of Parliament.
I referred to the unease of people outside. The consultations have brought the Government no solace, comfort or relief. Let me quote what the Royal Institute of British Architects only this month told me when I was preparing for the debate:
"We remain of the belief that the option of obtaining a view from the private sector will not be viable until there is certainty in the law regarding a cut-off point under the Limitation Acts. We have previously stated that we would not recommend our members to undertake certification work until the law was satisfactorily reformed, and that remains the position".
That was the institute's position 18 months ago and is still the position now. In a conversation with representatives of the British Insurance Association earlier today it was confirmed to me that that is precisely their position as of today.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors states:
"We regret to see that the Approved Documents do not fulfil their expectations. The reform of the regulations was based on the concept of freeing them from the restraints inherent in Statutory Instruments so that they could be expressed in plain language, include the use of diagrams and colour and—essentially—would give practical guidance. Our view is that, in many cases the drafts fail on all counts.… There are many errors, omissions and overlaps but, as we have been informed that detailed comments on these are reaching you by another channel, we have not dwelt on them".
Another letter that the Royal Institution has sent to the ubiquitous Mr. Watson in Room 101 at the Department of the Environment states:
"We would particularly like to draw attention to the Bill's proposals for the private certification of building control. The consultation paper on this from the DoE was sent to over 200 representative bodies but only a small proportion of them welcomed the idea. The Institution, together with most other professional bodies, remains opposed to private certification in principle".
That situation has not altered.
I think that we have a foretaste of what will eventually emerge. It will be a Bill that the Government believe will serve a purpose but it will be friendless among the people who will have the very difficult job of putting the legislation into practice. A major plank in this Bill and across the whole spectrum of this Government's policies is a dogmatic assertion that the wonder ingredient, choice, is both needed, desirable and, in the case of building control, essential.

507
The Government have persisted in trying to have it both ways. They have argued that the new redrafted building regulations will reduce the number of different interpretations, yet the intention is to provide a more flexible approach within a technical field. The tragedy is that we are invited to jettison a system wherein more than 400 individul local authorities, with some variation to take account of local aspects, operate a common approach. A system of approved inspectors and private certification can lead only to an even wider range of interpretation, with the distinct possiblity of hundreds of independent architects and surveying practices all giving their own interpretations, in addition to those from local authority building inspectors.
In Committee we shall return to the crucial question of the independence of the approved inspector. Not for the first time shall we be trying to insist on that independence being written into primary legislation. We think that it is quite disgraceful that Ministers continue to reject all attempts at separating, clearly and legislatively, the association and conflict which could be present between builder and certifier. Again I am grateful to the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, for having raised the need to have a council or another body which will have the prime responsibility of ensuring that those who are to be designated approved inspectors go through certain procedures and have certain qualifications and are then able to see that that work is supervised, monitored and carried out.
In our view, the local authorities can satisfy all the recommendations and needs in this field. The Government proposals will introduce a system which is totally contrary to the current enforcement rule, replacing it with a grace and favour relationship. We on these Benches share the views of the majority who are utterly opposed to that.
In essence, we are being invited to abandon a system designed to prevent tragedy and disaster through rigorous inspection, independently and democratically accountable, for one of self-certification, backed up by insurance cover and a fall-back of relying on council building inspectors getting the developer and the public out of trouble when all else fails. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who gave us his observations from his deep experience and knowledge. He told us of the unease felt in certain quarters—I assume particularly in the insurance world—at the difficulties being encountered in reaching a proper formula. Knowing this Government, whether or not a proper formula is reached, we shall be faced with a mess and eventually someone will have to get them out of it.
I would also draw attention to the comments made by my good friend Lady Nicol about Ministers stating in other places, "Until we get agreement, there will be no progress made with the Bill". Therefore we are faced with the prospect of waiting for agreement which may never come, and all the turmoil and all the difficulties which have been envisaged by various organisations will have been experienced to no avail.
Hitherto the public has had the benefit of guaranteed protection, rather than compensation, for the consequences of building faults coming to light at a later date. Despite consultations with the insurance
508
industry, agreement on a basis for an insurance cover in accordance with this Bill is not yet to hand. The Minister has repeatedly said that agreement will be reached, and if it is not, the Bill will not proceed. We may yet see the assumption that industry will underwrite ministerial folly send the Bill crashing to the ground, and we on this side would say "Amen" to that.
In Committee we shall accept the opportunity to put forward the views of the ignored, the views of the homeless, the views of the disadvantaged. We shall bring to Committee evidence from those people that the Bill is wrong, its effect and consequences grave, not just for those directly affected, but in terms of the prospects for housing our people and for morale in local government, as well as for the peace of mind of all who occupy buildings.
The Bill is unwanted, and it will damage the present constructive relationships between Government, the construction industry, and the consumer. If we can improve it in any way, we will, though nothing said by the Minister today gives us any confidence that he will listen now when he has been deaf so often before. But we on these Benches intend to test his capacity to listen. We are in good voice, and we intend to be heard.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when winding up a debate that has lasted for several hours the problem is always how to cover everything that everyone has said. If one does not cover everything, there is always the concern that one has done less than justice to speakers who have really thought carefully about what they have said. I can only ask noble Lords to bear with me as they always do and I shall do the best that I can. If I do not deal with all the points tonight, I shall certainly go through the speeches and try to respond in writing to those matters that require reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will not be surprised if I do not respond too much to him in writing. I would prefer to say to him now what I want to say. He said (and I quote him) that we have "a breathtaking ignorance of how local government functions". May I say to the noble Lord that I need no lessons from him or anyone else in your Lordships' House on how local government functions. I shall put my record of service in local government alongside the noble Lord's any time he wishes.
The noble Lord said (and I again quote him): "We shall do nothing to aid the passage of the Bill". This is the 24th Bill that I have introduced into your Lordships' House, and I have spoken to, I think, almost 5,000 amendments to various Bills. I would say that with one or two noble exceptions, I have no great remembrance of action taken by noble Lords opposite to aid the passage of any of those Bills.
The noble Lord said that the Government are due to be taught a lesson. That is not the kind of arrogance with which I have ever wished to speak in your Lordships' House, and knowing, as I do, a little about the noble Lord opposite, I know that that is not his way, either. I should like to hope that it was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps he will tell me privately afterwards whether that was so.

509
I should like to mention five of his observations, which I noted as he made them. He referred to the right to repair as "a cowboy's charter". All I would say is that when tenants are on the receiving end of that right, they may not see it quite like that. For 20 years I have been involved in the public housing sector at a fairly high level, and I know that one of the greatest concerns regarding the tenants has been how on earth the repairs are to be done as quickly as they would wish. In housing that is as great an issue as any other, including rents, and so anything that can be done to help the repairs situation must be an enormous plus. I am sure that during all the years that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was in another place he said a lot about housing. I used to read of his utterances, and I wonder how often, when he had the chance, he tried to influence a Bill that would provide a right to repair. That did not happen.
I want to refer to some of the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who I agree made an excellent contribution to the debate. The fact that I could disagree with just about everything that she said is nothing new: it is, I may say, par for the course in your Lordships' House. Of the 24 Bills that I have mentioned, I think the noble Baroness and myself have been involved in interchange on about 15 of them, and so I know her style and the way in which she approaches Bills that I have to introduce.
At this point I want to mention the right to buy aspect of the whole issue, since it seems that we are going over the 1980 Act all over again. Noble Lords opposite fought us every single inch of the way on the right to buy. They have declared their intention to continue to fight us every inch of the way now. All I can do is refer them to the 640,000 tenants and the million (and who knows how many more) now living in their own homes who in 1979 endorsed our commitment, and who re-endorsed it in a massive way in June of last year. They very much like the right to buy. No one makes anybody buy, and no one has to buy. But the right is there.
Today we have heard horror stories about what will happen if the right to buy is extended. The same kind of stories were trotted out during the debates in 1980, and doubtless they will be trotted out again in Committee. If the noble Baroness wishes to intervene, I shall be glad to give way.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to intervene if it is a convenient moment for the Minister, though he seems to be in full flight. What we are discussing this evening—and he should concentrate his mind on it—is the right to buy houses that have been designed for the elderly and the disabled. It is no good the noble Lord going back on all the old stuff and trying to "tart it up" in a general way. That will not do, either. Will the noble Lord answer the points on what I have just mentioned?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I did not tell the noble Baroness what she should say in her speech, and she must not tell me what I should say. I did not seek to prescribe the parameters within which she should make her references to housing, and I would say to her: please do not tell me what I should say. I would point out that it was the noble Baroness who very much
510
broadened the discussion—and I shall quote her word for word. She broadened the debate very much, and so she should not mind too much if I respond to some of the points that she made.
We talk about a house specially designed for the elederly, but I do not know of a house specially designed for the elderly. In 20 years I have not seen a house specially designed for the elderly. If we are talking of one-bedroomed and two-bedroomed accommodation, that is one thing; but houses are not designed specially for the elderly. There may well be houses—if the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, says that there are such houses, I shall now give way for her to define exactly a house built specially for the elderly.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, it would be in the interests of the House if I were to wait until we deal with the amendments to the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I make no comment as to that, except to mention, as I have said, that I am not without some experience of housing, including housing for the elderly.
We are talking about an issue which concerns many people. It is right that they should have this opportunity. Why should they not have the opportunity? Why should they be discriminated against? Why should they be disadvantaged simply because they are elderly? We are told that within a certain number of years they will pass on. We are told that they may live for only five or seven years. We are told that their heirs will then have the advantage. But we are talking of people who will have lived 20, 30 or more years in the same house. Why is it so wrong that those people who have lived there, who have virtually paid for the house over the years, should then be able to commit the wicked sin of being able to pass over the property to their heirs?
What greater consolation could there be to elderly people living out the rest of their years in a house that they now own than the prospect of being able to pass that on to their children who, in most cases—or, at least, in many cases—will actually be living in the same house anyway? I am not persuaded very much by that side of the argument. I look forward, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, remarked, to discussing the nuts and bolts in Committe. I assure the noble Baroness that I will cross swords with her again, as I have done in the past, with varying results on both sides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referring to charity housing, said that many will apply. Good! I hope that they will apply. The noble Baroness said that this would give them an advantage over council tenants. I invite your Lordships to think for a moment of those people who are living in charitable housing association accommodation. There has been reference to them I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington—but, if not, by someone else—as the affluent people. Who are these affluent people living in charitable housing association accommodation? What is this section of the community to which we are so concerned to give an advantage? Again, it will be people who will be taken out because we all agree that Clause 2 should not go on from last time. When they move out, accommodation becomes available to the charitable housing

511
association to relet to someone else—a point which I am constantly told is a major factor. Here you have it, on the one hand. At the same time, you have the tenant, who has paid for many years, at last in home ownership. That is excellent.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord in relation to that matter—the question was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and also I think by someone else—how this is going to be paid for. Will more funds be given to the housing associations? Can we be told when we shall see the amendments? Will we have prior notice of them? This is of interest to everyone who has spoken.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will contain herself, I shall come to that point when I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I shall be specific.
I should dearly love to spend the whole of the time on the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. However, time is pressing, and I have to cover other points, too. I should like to complete my observations on her remarks by referring to what she said about the Government's only record being in homelessness. Let me just remind her that no Government have ever achieved the record of this Government in a whole string of measures taken in housing. I would never have believed that any Government of any complexion could have come forward with so many imaginative schemes to help people in housing than this Government have done in the almost five years that I have been privileged to be a member.
If the noble Baroness wants a list it would take me perhaps 10 minutes. I shall touch upon improvement grants alone. In this area, the Government's record is second to none. In 1969, 60,000 improvement grants were paid with the introduction of modern home improvement policy under the Housing Act of that year. In 1973, when a Conservative Government were in office, that figure had risen to 166,000. By 1979—you know who had been in office during the intervening time—grant approvals had fallen to 59,000. This Government have reversed that trend. The number of grants paid has risen from 70,000 in 1979–80 to 130,000 in 1982–83. They should approach 200,000 this year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, they have been chopped.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the Opposition talk about them being chopped. They tell me about these cuts that have resulted in an increase in real terms in expenditure of 4 per cent. They talk about that as a cut. It is only a cut beyond what they would have liked spending to be. It is not a cut in real facts and figures. The figure for improvement grants is expected to be from about £650 million to £700 million in 1983–84. The noble Baroness talks about records. I could give her a long list of other things that make records.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave me one cause for concern at the beginning of her remarks when she said that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was unwell. I hope that it is nothing serious and that it will
512
not prevent the noble Lord being here perhaps at later stages.
Baroness Stedman: So do I, my Lords.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can understand that. The noble Baroness made many useful points which I shall consider carefully and respond to her. The noble Baroness said that the Bill would help better-off members of the community. I do not know what is the definition of a better-off member of the community. If it is someone living in a charitable housing association dwelling, it would not come within my definition; but I am willing to hear the arguments.
I should like to join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne who made a witty, interesting and moving speech. I look forward eagerly to hearing my noble friend many times in your Lordships' House. That will be a pleasure. I am sure, for all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, referred to the need for rented accommodation, not the right to buy. I would only say to the noble Lord—a glance at Hansard will show. I am sure, that I have been saying it word for word—what I have argued for nearly 20 years. When you sell a council dwelling to an existing occupier, the fact that he continues to occupy it as the owner whereas previously he was a tenant, in no way makes that dwelling more or less available to rent. It only becomes so when the tenant moves out or makes a sale. In the case of the dwellings that we are discussing here—we are talking of a 21 year exemption on the disabled and others, to which I shall return—it is a debate in itself for another occasion.
Whenever my noble friend Lord Selkirk speaks, I am always full of trepidation because of his great knowledge of the building society movement and everything that goes with it. I have always the hope that he is in agreement with what we are doing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he is not.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think, on this occasion, that it is about even. My noble friend said that he liked quite a lot of what we proposed. He asked, "Can you maintain a house if you buy it especially where there is shared ownership?" I can only say that the record so far is pretty good. If you asked the 640,000 people who have bought their own homes and who previously were tenants, you may find an odd situation; but, in the main, it is not so. My noble friend made the point specifically about shared ownership. I hope that I am right in saying that about 20,000 people so far have bought on that basis. I am confident—and in fact I venture to suggest—that that form of house purchase will become a major factor in the buying of houses in the future.
We have to take carefully the other points made by my noble friend. I assure him, although he is not in his place at the moment, that I shall be in touch with him about every point that he has raised. I shall want to pursue them not least in the interests, as always, of getting things right. We are not playing a game. We are not juggling around. Despite what one or two noble Lords opposite may have said, this is not about dogma. It is about doing things better. We shall have to take careful note of what was said by my noble

513
friend, by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. I assure them that we will.
I seem always to cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Denington when it comes to housing Bills. I think that I have covered the theology of what I believe and why it is so different to what she believes as regards these sales. I have great respect for the sincerity and devotion of the noble Baroness to this particular issue; and, whatever may be said in the heat of any debates that we may have, I shall not lose that respect at all. But the fact is that I made the point earlier about heirs. I feel as equally passionately as she does, and the noble Baroness knows that. I think that we are going to have to disagree in a very big way about this whole matter. We shall wait until we get to Committee and then we shall talk it through.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I would point out to noble Lords in this House that my major point was the effect on the disadvantaged, on the "have nots" of this nation. In all that he has said in the 18 minutes during which he has been speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has not shown any awareness whatever that there is a submerged section of the population of this country.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness felt that that was the way in which to respond to what I had just said. I have spent most of my life in the kind of surroundings to which the noble Baroness refers, and with the greatest respect to her—and she knows that I have respect for her in a very big way—I do not need any lessons from her as to what people need and the extent to which one has to care for them. I take no lessons at all on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked if I would name authorities which had not submitted applications. Yes, of course I will name authorities. The noble Baroness knows me well enough to know that I come with my homework done. At the last count Gateshead Metropolitan District Council had received 4,227 applications under the right to buy, and it had made 64 applications to the Secretary of State for exemption under paragraph 5; West Oxfordshire District Council had received 1,270 right to buy applications, and had made 48 paragraph 5 applications; Chesterfield, on the other hand—and we shall be hearing more of that soon—which had received 3,708 right to buy applications, and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, with 7,304 applications, had neither of them made a single application to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5. May I say with some shame that Leeds City Council, despite a total of 6,033 right to buy applications, made only four paragraph 5 applications to the Secretary of State.
How does one explain the contrast illustrated by those figures? As I have said, if authorities are really willing sellers there is an entirely satisfactory explanation. But none of the last three authorities I have named could possibly be described as a willing seller. What is the explanation? Could it be that there are no elderly persons' dwellings in their areas? I know differently about Leeds. Could it be that no elderly tenants have applied to exercise their right to buy—not one? Of could it be that perhaps there are no elderly tenants at all in Chesterfield, Leeds and Barking and Dagenham? I think I need say no more.
Baroness Fisher of Rednall: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am being very good in giving way. I have been going for 21 minutes.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I shall be very brief. As regards those people living in elderly persons' bungalows, does the noble Lord have statistics concerning those who are living on supplementary benefit and who therefore cannot even consider purchase?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, nothing will ever convince me that every one of those people to whom the noble Baroness refers is living on supplementary benefit. But the noble Baroness very nicely brings me to the next point when she asks whether I know that 50 per cent. of the people in public housing are receiving benefits. Yes; but that means that 50 per cent. are not receiving benefits, and if 50 per cent. are not receiving benefits we are beginning to talk of great numbers of people—hundreds of thousands of people—and no one can tell me that three or four out of those thousands really comprise a case at all, because they do not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said, that all rented single-person accommodation has gone; it is (and I quote) "lost for ever". If she will read Hansard she will find it there. I make no further comment on this matter, because it advances us not to do so.
My noble friend Lady Vickers raised the question of first talking to local authorities before carrying out repairs. I understand what she is saying, We have a long way to go yet before we get this part all sorted out, and I look forward to discussing it with her. My noble friend asked us to keep statistics of how many people apply to buy, I will discuss that with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and see what might be done.
My noble friend Lord Ingleby was concerned about the buildings that are adapted for the disabled. We shall have to go into that matter in more depth than time allows us tonight. Clearly my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox takes a different view. But it is a difference that we had last time round, and we shall have to sit down together and see where we can get with the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised quite a list of matters and I have long answers here that have come to me from he will know where. But it would perhaps be better if I write to the noble Lord and he can then take up the matter. I am sure that he will not mind if I do that. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox is not present, but I appreciated her support. I make no comment on what she said, but we shall also be returning to that matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about two defeats. That is not bad when one considers the several thousand on which we have "had a go". I do not relish even one defeat, and I think that we may do even better next time; but we shall see. The noble Viscount referred—and I wish he had not done so—to "a charter for dishonesty" at the expense of the consumer. I hope that the noble Viscount does not

515
really feel that when he reads it himself. He says that he does. In that case, I shall have to say that I do not agree with that any more than I agree with his other description of what he called a potential disaster. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was telling me about this potential disaster when we dealt with the 1980 Bill. There is no potential disaster; there is no disaster. Some of us would say that there is great success; but we shall have to differ about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised the matter of insurance. The noble Baroness always seems to indicate that I do not cover the points that she makes. The noble Baroness did not say that, but that was what was said on her behalf by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I do not think that the noble Baroness feels quite like that about it. However, the new system is based not on compensation but on avoiding defects, as is the present system. Nevertheless, building defects may occasionally occur under certification, as they do now. Our prime concern as regards insurance is with the protection of the owner and subsequent owners of buildings which are certified. Unlike a local authority, the approved inspector may not always be there to be sued. The Bill makes it possible for the Secretary of State to approve particular insurance schemes and also to make regulations setting out minimum requirements for insurance policies.
We consider that the schemes such as that which the National House Building Council have said they will provide in the event of their being approved as inspectors would give the owner of a certified house adequate protection. The NHBC's proposed scheme would give owners a 10-year warranty against defects caused by non-compliance with the building regulations, and a 15-year cover against damage resulting from negligence in carrying out their functions under the Bill. We think that the advantage of the defects warranty—which, incidentally, the local authority does not provide—more than outweighs the uncertainty of redress where damage due to negligence occurs after 15 years or more.
I shall give more chapter and verse if the noble Baroness would like it. The noble Baroness knows from past experience of being on Bills with me that I always try to do that. I shall go into the matter in great depth with her if she wishes me to do so. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a point with me towards the end of his speech when he was referring to this whole area, as did my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. This is a technical and complex area and I think that I shall have to give chapter and verse as well as taking heed of what has been said. I seriously mean to do just that, so that by the time we come to the next stage of the Bill your Lordships will feel, if nothing else, that we are dealing with the nuts and bolts of the matter.
I heard what my noble friend Lord Milverton said. I would merely say to him that he made the same points when we were debating the right to buy. We generally agree, but we did not agree on that occasion and I suspect that we do not agree now on the same points. But I will respect his view in the same way as I hope he will respect mine.
516
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made some points to which I assured the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I would respond. One related to concern about where the money will come from to give to the tenants of the charitable housing associations. The answer is as follows. The resources for this scheme will have come out of the housing corporations' approved development programmes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Ah!
Lord Bellwin: Hold it, my Lords! I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that in settling the figure for the housing corporations' ADPs for 1984–85, which provides for a gross programme of £687 million, we have taken fully into account the resources that will be required for this scheme. We shall also take this into account when setting the programme for future years. That is the position. It is a fact, and there it is.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we shall return!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sure you will. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also made a very fair plea for consultation about major repairs to old people's homes between the housing corporations, the DHSS and the DoE. The present position is that expenditure on sheltered housing schemes and on caring services stems from the separate statutory responsibilities of housing authorities. A major restructuring of the existing machinery at every level would actually be required if some kind of omnibus financial support were to be attempted. If it is to that that the noble Lord alludes, then I do not think it will happen. But if he is concerned to ensure greater collaboration and joint working in joint-purpose schemes where caring and housing combine, then I think I would go along with him, and I shall gladly do whatever I can to try to influence that. However, perhaps it is something that we should take up outside today's debate, and I shall be glad to pursue it with him.
I was deeply grateful—as I always am—to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for her support. I think I owe it to her to say just a few words about the Orlitt and Howard houses, which I know have troubled her for some time. We recognise the problems which such purchasers face. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing announced the Government's proposals for dealing with them in November last year. We propose to introduce early legislation to provide a scheme of assistance to private owners of houses sold by the public sector and since found to be defective or potentially defective. This will be on lines which are broadly similar to those of the scheme for owners of Airey houses which are already in existence.
The essential feature of the proposals will be a right to assistance. This will arise where the Secretary of State determines that houses of a particular category built by a public body should fall within the scheme because he is satisfied that, as a result of their design or construction, they suffer from, or can be expected to suffer from, structural defects not discoverable by normal survey at the time they were sold and which have resulted in a substantial loss of value in real terms as compared with the value at the time of purchase. Again, I shall be glad to elaborate on that if necessary.

517
As to the DIY shared ownership scheme, I would say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it has been a success. Its future is now being considered. No decision has been reached, but I promise that her words in its favour will be taken into account in our thinking.
My noble friend Lord Auckland made a thoughtful speech, and I can only promise to write to him because his speech also took up the kind of technical matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I noted very carefully what the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said: that the industry is concerned and that the new approved documents will not have statutory standing or, if you prefer, mandatory consultation. I want to come back to him on that because, clearly he has raised an important point and I know that he will allow me to do so.
I have much more to say. but I have gone on for quite long enough. We shall return to this matter again and again. This is the second time round for this Bill and, with one or two exceptions—in fact, I think that they are major proposals—I hope that it will not have the stormy passage that some have intimated it might have. Certainly I expect a great deal of support from my noble friends behind me. I have no doubt at all about that. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether we shall have Notes on Clauses? He is always very helpful on such matters. Also, when will the amendment on charitable housing associations be ready?—because I do not think it would be fair if it were to be bounced on this House just before the Committee stage.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am glad to confirm that Notes on Clauses are available now—at least, I think they are. If they are not, they will be made available without delay. As to the amendment, I shall try to ensure that it goes down in plenty of time for consideration.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983
7.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 19th December last, be approved. Like the regulations made in 1979, which they would replace, these regulations provide in detail for the conduct of elections to the European Parliament, and they do so by applying relevant provisions of existing legislation, with or without modifications. They do not differ very much in substance from the previous regulations: the majority of the amendments simply reflect the consolidation of electoral legislation which was effected by the Representation of the People Act 1983. Although the references are different, the provisions being applied are the same. There are, however, some minor changes of substance which I should briefly draw to your Lordships' attention.
518
First, there are those changes which have been made in the main legislation since 1979 and which need to be incorporated in the new regulations. One of these has to do with the disqualification of certain convicted prisoners; another with the voting rights of voluntary mental patients; and there are also various increases in the level of fees and fines.
The most significant change concerns the election timetable. To take account of the fact that Saturday is no longer a working day for election staff, that day is now disregarded for the purpose of computing the election and absent voting timetables at parliamentary and local government elections. The same consideration applies to the timetable for the European Parliament election. The result of this is that the timetable is extended. The effect is especially marked this year in relation to the day on which the notice of the election is published. It means that publication must occur not later than the 25th day before polling day. The exclusion both of Saturdays and Sundays and of the days before and after the two public holidays in May, means that that last day for publication falls on 2nd May—that is, more than six weeks before the poll.
All the changes that I have mentioned so far result from changes in the Representation of the People Act and Regulations 1983. I now turn to those amendments which are specific to the European Parliament elections. First, the provision governing broadcasting during elections has been modified so that the period for which the election is deemed to be pending—and broadcasting restricted—is extended from five weeks to six weeks. This reflects the extension in the timetable to which I have already referred.
Secondly, the provision postponing an election in the event of a candidate's death has been amended so as to extend the period of postponement from 28 to 45 working days. The object of this change is to allow more time for a new candidate to be selected. The time allowed by the regulations is equivalent to that provided for in the 1983 Act in respect of a parliamentary election.
Lastly, the regulations prescribe increases in the limits on certain expenses to take account of the changes in the value of money since 1979. The general limit on candidates' expenses is raised from £5,000 plus 2 pence per elector to £8,000 plus 3½pence per elector. The maximum payment an agent may make without obtaining a bill or receipt is raised from £12 to £20, and that which may be incurred without authorisation from £3 to £5.
These regulations have been made after consultation with the political parties, local authority associations and electoral registration officers' representatives. They have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has determined that the special attention of your Lordships' House does not require to be drawn to them, and my Lords, I therefore commend them to your Lordships for acceptance.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for outlining these regulations. I was going to ask about consultation with the political parties because I had noticed the reference by the Under-Secretary of State when the other place discussed the regulations last week. The Minister has said that there has been consultation with political parties, local authority associations, et cetera. If I am wrong, I shall apologise; but only this morning I was assured that there had been no consultation with the political party with which I am closely associated. It is important that regulations of this kind should be the question of consultation.
I wish to raise two particular points. I agree with what the Minister has said about the exclusion of Saturdays, particularly in the light of the previous legislation. I agree that we must have consistency for all elections for the exclusion of Saturdays. But why no change in the timetable? We now have that the last date for the publication of the notice of the elections will be on 2nd May this year, and the local elections polling day is on 3rd May, the day after. We have the polling date fixed for the European elections on 14th June.
This means a six weeks' campaign. One of my colleagues said, "Heaven forbid"! Why not take the opportunity to shorten the period of the timetable, still excluding Saturdays according to legislation that has been passed, because Saturdays may not be working days for local government officials but I think the Minister realises that they are working days for election workers. It makes no difference at all to the amount of work carried through. Therefore, while still excluding Saturdays we could quite easily have shortened the timetable so that it would have continued at five weeks as previously. Even at this late stage I would hope that there might be consultations with the political parties to bring an amended regulation on that one point only.
I realise that one must not bring in extraneous matters, and I only deal with the regulation, but the other point affects the timetable. The boundary commissions are expected to present their recommendations on European constituency boundaries, the Minister said in the other place, by the end of March, and there would be need for parliamentary approval. At the time when consideration has to be given by the constituency political organisations to any revised European constituency boundaries, they will be heavily engaged in local election campaigns.
As they may have to deal with the whole question of revision of their selections, and so on, that seems to be an unnecessary position and we ought to try to avoid it. It is still connected with the timetable. I know that one has no jurisdiction over the boundary commissions; but it is imperative that the boundary commissions should be urged to give their recommendations as quickly as possible, and if possible before the end of March, so as not to conflict with the local election campaigns in which all political parties in many areas of the country will be engaged this year.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton,
520
for explaining the regulations. We realise that they are purely technical regulations, and therefore we do not propose on this occasion to quarrel with the sentence which sticks in our gullet:
"Such elections will be conducted in accordance with the simple majority system of election.".
We shall defer that to another occasion.
However, I should like to ask the noble Lord two specific questions. With some interest I heard him talk about the voluntary mental patients. Can he confirm to us that they will now be treated in exactly the same way as they will for Westminster elections under the new arrangements which have been made for them? Secondly, on the limits of expenses, I see that the increase is from £5,000 to £8,000. Can he tell me on what basis this has been computed? My interest is clear in that the effect on parties who are unable to claim anything from Europe in advance of the election is quite considerable in that those who have already had considerable advanced funding will of course be able to spend more on the election. Can the noble Lord tell me the basis of the computation of that figure?
7.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for the gratitude of both noble Lords who have spoken to this Motion, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in that he did not follow his honourable friend in another place by dilating at great length on the virtues of one form of election and another. He quite properly deferred it to another occasion, when I shall be happy to join issue with him on it.
As to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, first raised, and his principal question, which was in relation to the timetable and whether there had been consultation about it, I am happy to say that not only was his own party approached in a letter of 16th June, but I have the answer of satisfaction given by his party dated 4th July. If the consultation did not embrace the issue about which the noble Lord is concerned, I shall hasten to add a rider to what I have just said; but I understand that it did.
On the question of the basis of the computation of the election expenses, they do not actually reflect what I thought they were going to reflect; but your Lordships will be aware that European constituencies are a great deal larger than parliamentary constituencies for the United Kingdom Parliament, and that therefore the expenses are greater. I understand that they have also reflected—and I now can reconcile what I mistakenly thought they earlier reflected with what they do reflect—approximately 64 per cent. inflation from June 1979 to June 1984.
The provisions for voluntary mental patients in these elections will be the same as those for the Westminster elections, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me to direct your Lordships' attention. I think that we both discussed these during the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill many happy days ago. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had something else in mind, and I do not think I have replied to it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he deal with the question I raised on the boundary commissions and their reports?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I regret that I am not exactly seized of the noble Lord's question, but I think I am probably seized of the answer. It is expected that the result of the boundary commissioners' reflections will enable the machinery for the election to be put in place, and that is on the assumption that those final conclusions are available by the end of March. There are intervening stages. Your Lordships will recollect that the Scottish commissioners recommended changes in December, and there is no problem about them; but that the English commissioners recommended changes on the 26th of this month.
There is a period, I think bound by statute, of a month to elapse before they can finally deal with any further public comment made on them. That brings us to the 26th February, or thereabouts. At present it is thought that they will be able to stay within this timetable. If there are further reflections to be considered, it is still just possible for them to deal with a yet further recommendation. I am not aware of' anything due to come in from Wales. That is the extent to which I can reassure the noble Lord, because he will understand that the commissioners are not dependent upon, or directed by, my right honourable friend. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nuclear Weapons
7.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the latest scientific view that nuclear war might well terminate the human race, they will advocate an agreement on no first use of nuclear weapons between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and seek the withdrawal of all battlefield nuclear weapons on both sides.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It has been suggested to me that in view of the extraordinary absence of interest in this most vital of all subjects on the Government Back-Benches I should withdraw the Question for another occasion. I do not intend to do so because we have represented here the Cross-Benches; the Alliance is represented; our own Back-Benchers are the most representative of all; and our own Front Bench is fully represented as well. I am happy to welcome to the Chamber, even if the Government side of the House is without Peers, the right reverend Prelate. That, on this most vital of subject s is a welcome sight.
It is perhaps particularly unfortunate that there is such an absence of attendance on the Government side, because this Question is intended to try to cross some bridges and to stretch out to see if we can discover some common ground on which we can all join in the search for peace. I hope that one of the results of this debate may be that, if the Government will not initiate a debate themselves—I welcome the attendance of a single Government Back-Bencher now—perhaps the Opposition will make an official
522
debate on this subject. It might possibly be the subject of one of our new five-hour debates.
This Question is intended to be constructive. It is an attempt to discover points of possible agreement. The urge to do so is the same as that which is sweeping the American and Soviet people at this time. The discovery now beginning to be widely accepted is that nuclear weapons are much more dangerous even than had been thought; the realisation that even a minor nuclear exchange could result in the extinction of life in the northern hemisphere if not on earth itself. This realisation has caused people to start to say, "Is there no way in which we can all get together to try to bring this thing to an end?" This Question is a minor step in that direction.
There is a growing conviction that, unless the spread of nuclear weaponry can be halted and brought under control, all our plans and hopes for the future are meaningless; that children brought into the world today can have no expectation of any life worth living and would be best born dead. Almost everyone throughout the world claims to be looking for peace in his own way, but all the time the weapons proliferate. Attitudes range from the pacifists on my side to the "Star Wars" fanatics on the other. I believe that the time has come for us all to settle for something less than we want in the long term to secure a short-term agreement.
I suggest that by common consent there are far too many nuclear weapons in the world for the health of mankind and that our first attempt should be to secure a nuclear freeze. If we could stop overkill and yet more overkill, if we could achieve an intermediate aim—that it is enough for both sides to be able to kill everyone on the other side, say, twice over; there is no need to be able to do it eight or ten times over—then we could save millions of dollars and roubles and be safer and not less safe at the end of the process.
Some of us would want to go further—right down to nil. I should like this country to be rid of nuclear weapons altogether, but I know it will not happen in the lifetime of this Government. So for the present I am content to suggest a course of action which this Government might conceivably embrace, rather than to propose what I know, however mistaken they may be, would be unacceptable to them. If I say, "Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons", I know that my noble friend Lord Soper will immediately agree with me, but who else? Millions outside this House, but precious few inside it, even if they were present, to be converted by my poor eloquence, but as they are not here, I can only hope that the cold words of Hansard will be read by some who are not present tonight and that they may perhaps think on these things.
On the other hand, if, instead of saying, much as I might wish to do, "Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons", I say, "Nuclear weapons are dangerous"; "They are not proper weapons of war"; "They must be reduced"; I am using the words of Lord Mountbatten, of Field Marshal Lord Carver, of distinguished Soviet and American generals and admirals and perhaps even of some Members of our Conservative Government—certainly of many Conservatives inside and outside Parliament.
An agreement to be rid of nuclear weapons altogether may be a distant aim, but an agreement to halt their growth with a view to gradual reduction ought to be immediately possible. This must be accompanied by the abandonment of increasing sophistication. A reduction which consists of withdrawing 100 old weapons in favour of 10 new ones, each 50 times more lethal than those withdrawn, is no reduction at all, although both sides have boasted of such so-called reductions. On the contrary, whichever side does it and whatever they may claim, increasing sophistication, so far from bringing security nearer, makes the possibility of nuclear war the more likely.
This Question explores two possibilities—only two. First, a no first use agreement—I hope that tonight we shall have some clarification of the Government's position on this, as my noble friend will explore when he participates in the debate from our Front Bench. The Government's position on this does not seem to be entirely clear and I hope that we shall have some clarification. The idea of a no first use agreement does not eliminate danger; it is simply a proposal to reduce danger. It is only a first step, but if we do not take such steps, if we continue to confine ourselves to talking peace while multiplying weapons, we are bound to end in disaster. We must negotiate real reductions and real withdrawals—verifiable reductions and withdrawals.
It is time that this country took an initiative and said that we are ready to reach a no first use agreement with the Soviet Union in respect of all nuclear weapons under our command or on our soil. Is that too difficult? Are the Government willing to try? I look forward to hearing from them. Are they ready to move in that direction? From some things that the Foreign Secretary has said it seems to me almost that they were. I should like to hear tonight—I am sure we all should—precisely what is their position on this matter.
I also hope that the Government may be prepared to say that British forces in Germany will abandon all battlefield nuclear weapons. They are particularly dangerous because they are in the front line, as it were, and we should only have to say that to have initiated a safer situation. The argument in favour of first use of nuclear weapons is that the Russians have a massive conventional preponderance. It is not true. NATO has more manpower and much more reliable manpower.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Lord looked up his facts, he would be confirming and not shaking his head. NATO has more manpower, and much more reliable manpower, than the Warsaw Pact. Above all, the Soviet army in Europe could only rely on its allies in a defensive war. There is no chance of East Germany invading West Germany and the Soviet Union would not dream of trying to do so, because the East Germans, the Poles, the Hungarians and the Czechs would be most uncertain allies in an aggressive war, and the Russians might easily find themselves in an Afghanistan situation. This is not to say that the Warsaw Pact countries would not effectively defend their own borders. It is time Mr. Shultz was contradicted. Europeans will not tolerate having
524
Americans interfere with their boundaries, and if they were to try it they would find that they, too, had allies who could not be relied upon to fight on their side. So the two super-powers must recognise the limits of their authority. At present it must be said that the Soviet Union seems to be more realistic on this point than the multi-voiced Government of the United States.
All this talk of holding off conventional war by first use of nuclear weapons is nonsense. There can be no conventional war between the super-powers because the ballistic missiles are there in the background and the constant threat of total destruction is always present. The real danger lies in the loose use of the word "deterrent". In reality there can be no such thing as an offensive deterrent. The real deterrent is a shield and not a sword. American admirals testifying before Congress committees recently are now using the word "deterrent" to mean fighting a nuclear war: "counter-force" it is called. And General Davis, who commands the United States Army Air Force, described mutually assured destruction and deterrence as synonymous. That was the policy: it is no longer the policy because he says it was abandoned two years ago in favour of "counterforce", or war fighting with nuclear weapons, which again he says is synonymous. That is what the head of the United States Army Air Force now says is United States policy. It is no use the noble Lord prating about our relying on deterrence when people who are in command of the so-called deterrent are using the word in an entirely different sense from that in which the noble Lord uses it. As Caspar Weinberger, the American Secretary of State, said—he also uses the word "deterrent" to mean a nuclear attack—and I will quote him, if I may:
"If you have achieved the ability to take out their missiles you have achieved a degree of deterrence."
So, while I have no doubt that the noble Lord means something defensive by the use of the word "deterrence" the Americans mean no such thing; and they are the people with their fingers on the trigger. And the Soviet Union knows that.
So the situation is very dangerous. The Russians are being forced towards a launch-on-warning policy and if they once adopt it, that will be that, because there is no certainty on either side and mistakes have been made and, unhappily, will be made in the future. It is time to act for peace, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the Question will answer it with that in view.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I propose to make what I call a model speech of four minutes, expressing therefore in tabloid form the general thesis I have been developing over many years now. President Reagan says that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought. He forbore to say this in 1981, and his language almost led one to suppose the opposite. But assuming that this apparent change of heart really represents the view of the Republican Administration, what follows? It follows logically that if by any chance we have to fight, we cannot fight with nuclear weapons. That is presumably what it means. If so, although we need not make any declaration to that effect, we must at least act on the assumption that we should not have first recourse to such weapons even if

525
we were in danger of defeat, because if we did we should only be more absolutely and finally defeated.
So to avoid the possibility of defeat in a war which, even if unlikely, is, as things now are, obviously possible, we must strengthen our non-nuclear defences as recommended the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself—our strategic nuclear weapons being retained as a deterrent to the use of any nuclear weapons by the adversary. By "we", I mean members of the Atlantic Alliance acting collectively, since the European members of the Alliance could not defend themselves successfully alone in a war with the Warsaw Pact forces.
All that the Atlantic Alliance consequently really needs in the way of nuclear weapons is the assured and evident capacity (mainly submarine) to inflict entirely unacceptable damage on the adversary in reply to an admittedly unlikely nuclear first strike on his part. What exactly that capacity should be is for the Alliance itself to determine, but it would certainly be much less than the present enormous nuclear build-up.
We could, for instance, without any real danger now unilaterally withdraw our so-called "tactical" nukes from Germany, no doubt suggesting that the Russians should do the same on their side of the line and perhaps shortly "freeze" the number of deployed Pershing IIs and cruise missiles. We could also, without any danger, abandon the MX (as recommended by the Democratic Party in the United States) and the Trident projects while, if thought necessary, increasing the deterrent contained in the United States submarines, devoting the money so saved to a strengthening of our conventional armaments.
If we adopted this broad policy, START and the INF talks, and even the negotiations on MBFR in Vienna, might gradually but successfully wither away. For the Russians could have as many nuclear weapons as they liked. It would not matter because, given our own power, they could not possibly use them. In other words, we should abandon the whole idea of a "balance". In the nuclear game, equality is an absurdity and superiority is an even greater nonsense. In modern conditions this largely applies to the conventional game as well, provided always that we have the sense, the will and the intelligence to provide ourselves, at no very great expense, with the latest modern arms and technical devices.
There is admittedly a danger logically that, owing to our improvidence in not re-arming conventionally before now, the Russians might risk a war, or one might happen accidentally before we have taken the necessary precautions. But this is unlikely for many reasons and, anyhow, if it does occur we can only defend ourselves, conventionally, to the best of our ability. It is the only thing we can do. In practice, short of a collective death wish, we should have no other choice.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I should first like to thank my noble friend for raising again this incomparably important issue, and I should like to say how much I admire his persistent efforts to make this matter of the termination of the human race a matter from which
526
there can be no escape from thought and to which there must be some responding action. It is for that reason that I am all the more grateful for the prelude to the questions which he asks in this debate.
There is no doubt at all that we are presented with an unprecedented threat. We of the Christian faith ought not to be so much surprised at this apocalyptic reference, for it has been part and parcel of a good deal of the Christian heritage. As your Lordships know, it is embedded very firmly in the records of the Book of Genesis, where, in chapters 6 and 7, there is a dress rehearsal of the termination of the human race, though, mercifully, there was no first night. This was an apocalyptic consideration, but it has a radical difference from the contemplation of this terminal condition today, and it is worthwhile explaining something of that difference.
The story of the Flood, whatever may be the impressions that people have of its strict validity, is one which stems from certain beliefs in the activity of God, who explicitly says in the sixth chapter of Genesis that everything living that he has made he will destroy. The actual job was a very inferior and a very difficult one to carry out, because even those who endeavoured to turn this myth into some kind of explicit description found themselves facing impossibilities. The intention to destroy everything in the Flood still left the marine world unimpaired, and there was nothing said about the insect world, which must have been a comfort to those who were in the Ark.
But in order to recognise the difficulty of facing a terminal condition today, it is imperative to recognise in the first instance that we have statistical and exact information as to what it will be like. There are not a few atolls in the Pacific where the first stage of such a complete holocaust has already been experimented with, and the evidence is incontrovertible. It is that backcloth, and not the backcloth of some intervention of the Almighty in putting an end to his creative activity, that I believe justifies the sort of debate in which we are now involved. I could say, as a parson who stood in many a pulpit trying to convert timber, that I am a little daunted by the prospect of trying to convert dimpled leather in your Lordships' House. But I shall do my best because I am an evangelist, and I make no apology for saying that I believe there is no middle course that I can take, except to face and to confront what is implied in this Question.
Let me say immediately how gratified I have been at the measured way in which my noble friend has presented a case for some progress, and I would thank God if that were possible. Therefore, I heartily support his intention so to move as to create less of the tension which now prevails, and to use such measures as he advocates as, if you like, the bellwethers of subsequent and more impressive measures whereby this haunting and dreadful prospect of World War Three can be avoided.
I turn, therefore, to the way in which these particular measures, if they are to be expressed in fact, can be undertaken. But I should be unfair to my own convictions if I did not remind myself, and dare to remind this House, on the question of a no first strike, that it depended on a time lag of something like 20

527
minutes between the emission of one instrument of attack and the retort of a similar instrument on the other side, but it has now been reduced to three minutes. It seems to me that that gap will probably close almost entirely, so that there will be practically no opportunity of calculating whether you will use a first strike or act simultaneously in response to the strike which you anticipate from the other side.
Furthermore, though it is imperative that we should endeavour to provide some basis upon which there can be further consultation on the viability of battlefield weapons, yet I have a suspicion at the back of my mind that any reduction of nuclear 'weapons on the battlefields of Europe might well result in a greater threat from the superior non-nuclear weapons that are now in the possession of the other side.
I say these things because the whole problem is beset with innumerable and complex difficulties. What I want to add is that I believe there is ample opportunity at this moment for a new kind of approach. I do not believe that the multilateral approach will do. After all, multi-lateralism is an aspiration; it is not a programme. Multi-lateralism is what happens when certain conditions have been fulfilled. I press upon your Lordships the uncomfortable truth that multilateralism depends on malice, and not on co-operation. It works because it assumes that we dare not interpret the situation in terms of unilateral action, because the response from the other side will be a malevolent one.
In fact, it is impossible to consider the whole programme of multilateral disarmament except on the basis that you cannot trust the other side, and I hope your Lordships will agree that the one hopeful thing about such a speech as we have just listened to from my noble friend is that it indicates the imperative need for a new approach to the whole question of how you reduce the tension and how you persuade people that perhaps an action which you take unilaterally may not find a response merely in the vicious counter-attack and the occupational opportunity that follow those who are prepared to abandon their own positions.
I am a unilateralist because, theoretically as well as pragmatically, I believe that we can radically change the present situation only when a risk is taken for peace, as hitherto all risks for peace have been regarded as subservient to the risks of war and to the belief that deterrence is the only effective opportunity that we possess of preventing the holocaust which we fear. I know that the whole question of unilateralism is a difficult one, and I am by no means of the conviction that at the moment this country is prepared for unilateral action.
But that should not deter me, and I think it should not deter this House, from considering that, after the melancholy story of the various programmes that have been advocated and the various treaties that have been signed but not implemented over the last 30 years, on the principle that multilateral action is the only method whereby we can disarm effectively and peacefully there is ample evidence today that the situation, far from improving, is very much worse. And with every new piece of mechanism for destruc-
528
tion there is the increased probability of a mistake; and the irretrievable nature of many of those conditions should give everybody pause for the most serious and concentrated thought.
It is against that background that I make no apology for concluding with my own strengthened conviction that it is impossible to treat this question of mass violence as if, by the elimination of certain of its methods, we shall proceed to an elimination of its basic nature. I am a pacifist and I shall state my attitude to pacifism. I have done so before and I do not intend to ask your Lordships to listen for very long to the declaration again of my own faith. But here is that faith in simple terms. I appeal to my prelatorial friends to bear with me as I endeavour to sketch what, for me, is the imperative Christian message that lies behind the pacifist case which I adopt.
The Christian Church was born out of the pentecostal experience. The pentecostal experience was the granting to a group of willing but very largely unworthy (or, indeed, totally unworthy) and very largely unprepared Christians of the ability to embark upon the programme which they had learned from Jesus in the spirit in which he had taught them. Historically, the early Christian Church was a pacifist Church. There is no contention about that. If indeed it be argued that the early Christians made a mistake in not embracing the pacifism which they did in fact embrace, I find that to be theologically impossible to reconcile with the pentecostal gift. I do not believe that the early Church made a mistake. I believe that in its opposition to pacifism the Christian Church has been making a mistake ever since. I say that, I hope, humbly but I say it with conviction, though I do not for one moment imagine that at this moment I may be able to change the minds of many people.
Yet alongside my belief that we ought to embrace every opportunity set forth in this brief debate by my noble friend, it becomes in my judgment increasingly imperative that we should look once again at the basic nature of what we profess to be the faith of this country. We should recognise that the first country, the first community, which is prepared totally to renounce the arbitrament of violence may be the one community which can break the vicious circle in which we are now imprisoned.
I make that conviction known, and I thank your Lordships for the kindness with which you receive it. I hope that this particular Motion will set a great many wheels moving and that it will be a further attempt to create a new disposition to look for peace, perhaps in quarters where hitherto we have not dared to look for it, and to see it against the sombre backcloth that if we are to survive we have not very much time.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I regret that I am speaking when my name is not on the distributed list. Some mistake took place. I did give notice just after 10 o'clock this morning that I wished to speak. I do not criticise the Chief Whip's Office. All of us who have experience of it are amazed by its efficiency.
I want to applaud my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for initiating this debate. Sometimes irritation is expressed that so frequently he raises the issue of

529
nuclear weapons. I believe that a future historian, if he lives, will describe his efforts as alert realism. Today there are two great dangers in the world: first, the danger of a nuclear war which could destroy all mankind and, second, the fact that 30 million people, 17 million of them children, die every year in the world from hunger or medical neglect. In continually raising the issue my noble friend is bringing before this House the most important issue that there is in the world today.
If a disease broke out in the world that threatened all life, all governments would co-operate to seek to end it. Any nation which was first in doing so would be generally praised. The nuclear weapon is a disease, just as real as any disastrous germ could be. But there is this difference. The disease would occur against the intentions of man. The nuclear weapon is being created by man's decision and by governments' determination. It has been said more than once today, and perhaps it will be repeated tonight, that the nuclear build-up by the two super-powers on each side has been an instrument for peace. I cannot imagine any argument which so destroys the very purpose of peace as that argument. How can an argument of deterrence by fear and by terror possibly be an instrument for bringing about peace in the world?
Just for a moment I want to look at what has happened during the last 40 years. I admit at once that the fact that the nuclear weapon is so destructive may have affected the thinking of both the Soviet Union and the United States of America, in that they have not resorted to war during the last 40 years. Forty years is a short period of time in history. What has happened during those 40 years? The nuclear weapon has become far more destructive than it was at the beginning. I have referred to this fact on previous occasions. Two or three years ago the United Nations decided to ask 12 of the leading experts in the world to report on nuclear weapons. They reported that a nuclear weapon has now been developed which is 4,000 times as deadly as the weapon which fell on Hiroshima. It means that one such bomb could destroy the whole population of Greater London. During these 40 years, therefore, instead of being an instrument for peace, the weapons of destruction have become more and more deadly.
But not only that. The danger of a nuclear war has become greater. The theory that a target can be reached with precision has led to the view, particularly in the United States of America, that a nuclear war might be fought and might be directed at only military targets. Even so, millions would be killed. But anyone who has any knowledge, anyone who has made any study of war must realise that, although a war can begin with limited objects, it does not end there. The Second World War began with the object of attacking only military targets. It led to the death of millions of civilians—London, Plymouth, Coventry in this country; Hamburg, Dresden and finally Hiroshima, with the deaths of 200,000 people.
Therefore, my Lords, I ask the Government to think very carefully about their view that the build-up of nuclear weapons on each side can possibly be a deterrent to war and an instrument of peace. I am begging the Government to make this issue, which is the most urgent issue in the world, a priority in their
530
thinking. They are satisfied because for nine years now there have been bilateral discussions about this. Oh, what little progress has been made! We now have an opportunity at the Stockholm Conference, with some slight thaw in the tension between the two great superpowers really to take the initiative for decisive steps.
We have the fact that less than six years ago all the governments of the world, including the United States and the Soviet Union and this country, agreed that what was necessary was a comprehensive disarmament programme. That programme was prepared, ending nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in two periods of five years; with reduction progressively of conventional weapons during that period, followed by an indefinite period moving towards complete and general disarmament, and all the time with the cost of military expenditure being diverted to ending poverty in the world. That proposal is still being considered by a United Nations Committee in Geneva. The General Assembly of the United Nations last December urged a renewal of urgency in preparing that proposal. It is not, alas, to be considered until the renewed Special Session of the United Nations in 1986, except that next year the United Nations General Assembly is again to consider the issue.
I want to appeal to the Government, realising the danger to mankind that nuclear weapons pose, to give this their first thought when they are thinking about international affairs. Unless governments begin to do so, by accident, by regional wars developing into world wars, by this belief that the first use of nuclear weapons can be effective against conventional weapons a real danger is posed, and I am asking the Government to give this matter priority, to rethink their attitude towards it, so that there may be hope at last that we may find some end to the danger of nuclear war in the world.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for having missed the first minute or two of his speech. My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's Motion there can be no disagreement. I believe the nuclear weapon is probably the most horrific thing of all time and there is no one in your Lordships' House, in the other place or anywhere else who would contest that view. I believe that my noble friends on this side of the House regard nuclear war with as much horror and abhorrence as do those on other sides of the House. I yield to no one in my admiration for the persistence and sincerity of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who I know had a distinguished record in the last war; and of those of his noble friends, notably the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who has spent 90 years-plus in putting forward the views and the principles to which he adheres with the greatest of sincerity.
But there is, alas, another side to the coin. Those of us who have been in the services—I did eight years' national service in the Territorial Army well before nuclear weapons were properly developed—will take the view that of course everything ought to be done to concur with the Motion which the noble Lord has put down. However, we have to look for a few moments at the record of the Soviet Union. At the United Nations

531
politicians from this country of all parties have sought as far as is humanly possible to do just what, or as near as possible, is suggested in the Motion. My noble friend Lord Home and other Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers, and indeed my right honourable friend Sir Geoffrey Howe in Stockholm, have been doing just this. But the record of the Soviet Union does have to be examined. At the recent Geneva Conference in December the delegates walked out of the talks on limiting intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe. Mr. Andropov and Mr. Gromyko have been challenged many times on their own views of this, on the whole concept of nuclear weapons, and there is certainly no guarantee, so far as I am aware, from the Soviet Union that they would agree to the terms and the principles of the Motion as set down.
Mention was made of Western Germany. What about Eastern Germany? What is happening there? Do we know what is happening in Leipzig and in Dresden and elsewhere—what manoeuvres are taking place with Soviet troops and troops from the satellite countries? It grieves one to have to make this observation, but I believe that we have to face facts. Similarly, in this country we have a right—anyone has a right—to demonstrate peacefully against nuclear weapons. Alas, in Czechoslovakia recently a proclamation has been made that any citizen demonstrating peacefully against nuclear weapons is liable to imprisonment. Having visited Czechoslovakia and Romania, there are many people who live in those countries who would not share that view. There is no democratic assembly to make it possible for them to have this privilege, as we have in this country and, indeed, in the United States, Scandinavia and elsewhere.
The SALT talks in Helsinki—a city I have visited twice; a very beautiful city and an ideal city for talks of this kind—had a measure of encouragement. Of course, we look to the Stockholm conference. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, rightly said, and there is certainly no disagreement with him here, we look to the Stockholm conference for some shaft of light. But this whole issue is like a cricket match with a very good fast bowler but no batsman. It is superficial and, indeed, counter-productive to think that this admirable Motion can be achieved unless the Soviet Union and its satellites themselves show some kind of co-operation. We have had co-operation from this country and, I believe, in large measure from the United States. The challenge now is at Stockholm and the onus upon the Soviet Union to play its part on the field.
8.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I shall be glad if your Lordships will allow me a brief intervention before we hear the measured response from the Front Bench of the Opposition and from the Government Front Bench. I have only two comments to make. The first is to say that I am so glad the noble Lord and my Christian friend Lord Soper spoke in such clear and measured terms from the Christian pacifist view. I thank God that in these islands of ours freedom, justice and open parliamentary democracy mean that not only citizens generally but Christians in
532
particular can agree to disagree without rancour and without fear—as we saw in the recent debate in the General Synod of the Church of England when 100 people stood to take the unilateralist view and 360 people stood to take the multilateral view of recognisable step-by-step disarmament and less armament. But it was within the common purpose of that body of the Church to seek a way forward for peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was very temperate in his phrase that he looks for agreement to reduce and halt growth. I believe that this is a feeling in which all of us believe. It is I think always good to hear speeches in your Lordships' House as balanced and as steady as we have heard tonight because I believe that there is a firm national commitment to peace. The difference is the way in which we should seek to find that peace.
My second comment is particularly about the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, which refers to the termination of the human race. Therefore, I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke in apocalyptic terms, because I believe that the Church of Christ has a responsibility not to be complacent but to proclaim the fact that when Our Lord said,
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it",
he was taking the long view and that the Church will be here when Our Lord comes again in power and great glory. I believe that there is strong theological hope in the fact that the human race will not be terminated, that Our Lord will come again and that it is the Christian Church's duty, whatever view about pacifism or not pacifism it takes, to lift the people's thoughts and minds to the hope of God's long-term plan for his world with the hints that one day there will be new heavens and a new earth where dwells righteousness. The task of every nation is to seek to work towards righteousness, freedom, justice and peace.
In that setting I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench have to say because I believe that in our nation today the seriousness of this issue is so deeply understood that no longer do we speak as though one side or the other is only interested in peace. I believe that peace is a concern which the nations of the world have and for which the Church and country pray. It is a peace we look for which is a peace concerning justice and freedom. For those reasons I believe that tonight's debate is of major importance as we look forward together to seeking the way forward for our world.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having put my name on the list for this debate. I was unable to do so as it is less than two hours since I landed at Heathrow and I was not sure that I would be here for the debate. I also apologise to my, noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for arriving a few minutes after he started his speech.
I wish to make only one short point. It seems to me, in taking up the theme which the right reverend Prelate has just enunciated, that there is one

533
dimension missing from this debate; that is, the historical dimension. I think all historians would agree that tracing history from its beginnings we have been able to see a whole set of species which have disappeared from the earth, going back to the dinosaurs and Neanderthal man. They disappeared for one common reason: they were unable to adapt themselves to the new environment in which they found themselves. I suggest that that is the core of the issue which we are facing tonight.
This planet has seen developed since the end of the second world war a new environment in which many of the old nostrums of both the Christian Church and all other institutions of mankind have become quite anachronistic and in which we have not yet found the substitute to meet the threat which is contained in the words of this Motion: the termination of the human race.
I do not believe that any thoughtful man or woman would deny that the termination of the human race is a possibility today. Those who argue the multilateral case and say that since the war deterrence has prevented a new nuclear war, neglect the fact—which has been pointed out particularly by my noble friend Lord Brockway—that the destructive power of nuclear weapons has increased tremendously over that 40 years and is still increasing. What is more—and perhaps in some ways it is even more threatening—nuclear armaments of a much smaller nature are now becoming available to small groups and to individuals. In the 40 years since the end of the war, although, fortunately, we have not seen the nuclear holocaust that some people predicted, nevertheless, we have seen an ever-increasing menace to mankind in the growth and in the use of nuclear power.
I suggest that mankind has also been trying—and I think that the right reverend Prelate would agree—for hundreds of years, certainly since the Middle Ages, to find those institutions which can prevent the destructive impulses and forces within the human race from eliminating human kind, as is stated in the Question. We have not yet succeeded, but surely it is our responsibility to continue to seek new means. Referring hack to Her Majesty's Christmas speech, may I say to the right reverend Prelate that I very much doubt whether the accent that he put on nationalism and on the responsibility of the nation and the nation state is likely to be one of the means by which mankind is able to safeguard itself from the risk of final elimination because of its inability to meet the conditions of the new environment.
For some years it was my privilege to work with Jacob Bronowski—in fact right up to a few months before his death. As your Lordships know, he was one of the scientists who particpated in the various processes which resulted in the creation of the atomic bomb. To the end, he very much regretted that. He devoted the years after the war to using his power to try to undo the dangers that he had been partially responsible for creating. It is now our job to carry on that work, and it is the job of the Government. Surely, in addition to what is asked in the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, it is a major responsibility of the British Government not just to take an initiative such as that which is suggested
534
here—and with which I wholeheartedly agree—but to educate the British people in the dangers that are facing them as members of the human race.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the population of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in general are human beings. They have no more wish to see the destruction of the human race than we have here or in any other Western country. They are just as clear sighted about the danger to humanity—not just to the Soviet Union, the philosophy of communism or Eastern Europe—and the continuation of the human race. I suggest to the noble Lord who is to wind up for the Government that it would be a great deal more constructive and would represent a much greater contribution to the future of humanity if, instead of creating units to combat the propaganda of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Government accepted their responsibility to open the eyes of the British public to the dangers that they and the entire human race are facing, and took this first step of giving a lead both to NATO and the Warsaw Pact in achieving a pledge which could be a first stepping stone to a general recognition throughout the world that it is the human race that is under attack and not any one nation or collection of nations.
8.56 p.m.
Lord MacLeod of Fuinary: My Lords, I also intend to be brief. I speak as a minister of the Church of Scotland and on behalf of nearly 400 ministers who have in writing declared themselves unilateralists. I am perfectly certain that I also speak in the name of at least an equal number of clergy of the Church of England who are in this position. Thirdly, I speak for the literally millions of people who are demonstrating and demonstrating—and if one adds all the demonstrations together one realises that millions are demonstrating in this country—simply so that the Government of our country may make a statement which is definitely our own statement and not just a silent acceptance of what the President of the United States says on all these issues, which we know to be terrifyingly more difficult than what is being said by the Russians.
I just want to say this—and I am surprised that it has not been said already. The essence of the proposition that is before us is that the Government should say that we shall never be the first, and that all other nuclear-holding countries should never be the first, to use nuclear weapons. It is interesting to remember that in the parallel organisation to NATO on the side of Russia something like four years ago precisely that was said, asking that nations should sign a document to the effect that they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. That was received with complete silence by America. In 1983, the year that has just gone out, again the Russians made the statement that they thought we should all sign a document to say that we should never be the first to use nuclear weapons, and again no word came from the United States of America and no differing word came from here.
Now we have the possibility in this proposal of making a first step, and we know that the Russians or the people on the Russian side will agree with us. Let us at least start with the idea that none of us will be the

535
first to use nuclear weapons. This is a great opportunity and a great moment. It is surely for our Government to say this, and the matter is being prosecuted by the way it is being put forward here. It is not the final solution, but it is by far the most important first step towards a final solution that has been before us, and we know that the Russians are for it. That is my first point.
My second point is this. Innumerable discussions take place in people's houses about what we should do about nuclear war, and especially in Christian houses the conversation so often ends by someone saying that, after all, the issue is that the East or the Russians are atheists and our country is Christian, and if that is so, however terrible may be the use of nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to stand back because, after all, we might have to fight, and it would be a fight for Christianity and the continuance of Christianity over and against atheism. My second point is that I do not think enough people realise that under no circumstances can we make that witness.
For the sake of brevity, let us suppose that if a war came it would not annihilate the entire human race. Let us suppose that it is possible that one side might conceivably win and that our side might win. Let us just suppose that we had our win; and let us suppose that we won because one of our submarines—or some of the larger submarines that are now being made—could go to a position not far from the Russian border, surface from beneath the water and in 10 minutes deliver six different instruments of nuclear warfare on six different towns in Russia, and then submerge again under water. Let us suppose that after 10 minutes those instruments of nuclear warfare killed, in each of those six different cities in Russia, about 100,000 people, putting it at its lowest. In other words, we might win because they would give in due to the fact that in one day we had killed off, say, 600,000 women and children—leaving out the army altogether.
In that event, what would really be the situation if we so won the war? Do your Lordships suppose that there is one single young Russian who is such a damn fool as even to contemplate the thought of what Christianity is about if he knows that what Christianity is about is killing 600,000 women and children in the course of one day in six different cities? I am telling your Lordships that there is no chance or possibility of winning for Christianity, because if you won for Christianity by reason of nuclear war you would end by simply having the most astonishing understanding of what Christianity is about—killing off women and children by the hundred thousand.
It is for that reason that I plead and hope that the Government may take seriously the possibility that we should say—America being silent on the issue—"Yes, we agree; let us all sign up that we shall never be the first to use it". We shall then have taken one great step. If our Government were to take that step, they would be surprised at the number of people at these innumerable processions and protest meetings, and the number of clergy, who would say, "At last Britain is speaking in terms of the truth".
9.3 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for having raised this matter. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to read out my noble friend's Question, which is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the latest scientific view that nuclear war might well terminate the human race, they will advocate an agreement on no first use of nuclear weapons between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and seek the withdrawal of all battlefield nuclear weapons on both sides."
The key word there is "agreement", because my noble friend, who, with others, has sincerely advocated unilateral action in some ways is now putting forward this view of agreement on all sides. I think that this is a very good sign, and indeed several speeches of noble Lords here tonight have shown a certain relaxation from previously known situations. One of the most distressing aspects of the nuclear debate in the last year or two has been people taking sides and condemning others, without always accepting the sincerity of those who differ on matters of grave concern.
Let us consider the statement which the Foreign Secretary made in the other place on 24th January on the Stockholm Disarmament Conference. During the exchanges following the Statement there were various contributions which give new hope. For instance, Dr. David Owen, the leader of the SDP, suggested that, in order to add to confidence in the future, NATO might propose in Stockholm,
"a corridor in which we will withdraw battlefield nuclear weapons, which would be the best confidence-building measure that could be taken".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/84: col. 771.]
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has tonight made a suggestion about the absurdity of parity in weapons, and indeed this point has been made several times.
With the disarmament conference in Stockholm—the CDE—in session, and with other talks pending, the subject is important. As reported at col. 769 of the Official Report, the Foreign Secretary said, on 24th January, that the aim of the Government,
"is to lower tension and reduce the risk of war by finding practical ways of improving mutual confidence and trust".
My noble friend's Question might be said to be in that direction.
The Foreign Secretary helpfully detailed a number of proposals of the Government aimed to improve stability and promote confidence between the major powers. That is of course very desirable. My right honourable friend Mr. Denis Healey called the Foreign Secretary's Statement a "depressing account", and said that it formed a startling contrast to the Government's claim that deploying cruise and Pershing would get the Soviets talking and making concessions, whereas of course we know that they have left the conference table.
The Foreign Secretary went on to suggest that we could move to further stages of negotiation providing for the restriction of military activities and the reduction in force levels. Here again that could be said to be in accord with some of the comments made tonight by my noble friend, and indeed other noble Lords, who want a de-escalation of the situation.
It is true that the Soviets have been building up their nuclear forces, and so indeed have all powers. The

537
surplus of longer-range international nuclear forces held by the Soviets was claimed by the Foreign Secretary to overshadow that of the United States by five to one. He stressed that it was of the utmost importance to press ahead with negotiations that we are trying to get under way. It would be helpful if the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply tonight would give us a little more information about the next stages of the Stockholm talks.
All of us want to end escalation and proliferation of nuclear weapons; but pending agreement, the major powers go on adding to the stockpiles and to the dangers, causing the participants to leave the conference table. The Foreign Secretary said that the five-to-one imbalance of weapons is in favour of the Warsaw Pact. The Government have sought parity when they know it is impossible to get parity. How on earth can we say that we have to increase our stockpile when it is five to one in favour of the Soviets, if those are the figures? Who in his senses would claim that, even if we doubled our stockpile, we should be safer for it and sleep more soundly in our beds? So why seek parity?
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, if I quote him correctly, said that equality is an absurdity. This view has been put forward by many people including our Churches. The right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Norwich suggested that we look again at some of our attitudes. People of all parties in the Churches have expressed grave concern about nuclear policy. They may not all agree but the concern is there and deep down. It would pay all of us to re-read some of those debates in order to know about the concern of our Churches and others on these important matters.
There is bound to be a stage when the West has a level of weapons, nuclear and conventional, and when the Soviets can be deterred by lesser forces strategically placed. According to the International Herald Tribune of 28th September, General Rogers, of the United States, NATO's supreme military commander has said that the West European forces could not last much longer than seven to 10 days against a full scale assault from the East. Faced with the prospect of a complete rout, he would be forced to ask permission to use nuclear weapons in the early stages of battle.
It is the fear of many of us that the amount of spending on the nuclear means that we shall be starved of conventional capability. I must be fair and say that General Rogers did not advocate that NATO adopt a "no first use" doctrine in nuclear weapons. He wants to keep that risk uppermost in the minds of the Soviet military planners.
However, that is rather strange when our Foreign Secretary made the comment—I should like the Minister to say more about this—on 24th January:
"NATO has repeatedly said that it will never use any weapons, nuclear or conventional, except in response to attack.
That appears to be "no first use". Perhaps the Minister tonight can clarify that. It appears to be "no first use". I read it carefully because the Foreign Secretary was trying to clarify an earlier sentence. He added:
"A similar obligation is entered into by each member of the United Nations, and we believe that that is the right position".[Official Report, Commons 24/1/84; col. 775.]
538
It looks therefore as though we shall not be the first to use nuclear weapons except in reply to an attack. It is, however, the cost in terms of resources of money spent on the nuclear capability that leaves us undefended by conventional weapons. One wonders whether we can have both. This question has been posed by noble Lords on both sides in previous debates as well as by Members of another place. One or two previous Conservative Defence Ministers have queried whether we can afford Trident and the conventional role. That is another aspect. One fears a situation in which we may be forced into a nuclear posture at a very early date. The Government insist that we shall use conventional weapons with the nuclear capability as last resort, when, as I say, General Rogers seems to say otherwise.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that if we are forced into a nuclear posture, it means committing suicide?
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. That is the point I am making. One wonders whether we can afford both. An increasing number of people are coming to the conclusion that, with our technology and our designers and with the more much more lethal effect of conventional weapons, we are in a situation where the conventional role should be a sufficient deterrent. It is important to note that my noble friend in his Question tonight talks about agreement on all sides. It is not a matter of us doing it and not the others. He is asking the Government for an initiative. This is important if we are to avoid escalation which could lead to a holocaust. So our nuclear commitment is forcing us to spend more on nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional, and many noble Lords and Members of the other place seem to be of that opinion. The fact is that we have the conventional weapons which should have sufficient deterrence. If one could get agreement on that, it would be to the advantage of both sides. The height of the nuclear threshold depends on our conventional resources, and tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold of an all-out nuclear war, which is the point that the noble Lord has been making.
The Government say that the issue is between those who believe in one-sided disarmament and those who do not. It is really between those who believe in all powers using the selectivity of the conventional role and those who believe in the blanket nuclear extermination where a so-called victor would inherit widespread devastation. The Stockholm talks provide a new opportunity for new initiatives, not least by the Government. I do not doubt that the Government will be considering what leadership they can show in that respect. I believe that the United States pre-election period, when our United States allies have other preoccupations, provides us with a period when we can rethink our policies to a relevance which can replace despair with new hope. I hope that our Prime Minister seizes this opportunity to fill this possible vacuum which may be with us until those elections take place.
I do not wish to be too pessimistic, but one cannot be too optimistic about the present position. All debates concerning defence concern life or death

539
issues. From time to time Parliament rightly seeks Government Statements on national and international incidents and calamities because there is always a day after. If the greatest catastrophe which can befall mankind occurs—a nuclear catastrophe—there will be no Statement the day after, not even a "Today" or "Yesterday in Parliament"—only a deathly silence; and—if I may say so in the presence of the right reverend Prelate—a deathly silence made more terrible as we all stand to account for our stewardship in judgment before our Creator.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has drawn our attention to a particular facet of a subject which he ensures is discussed very regularly in your Lordships' House—that is, nuclear defence and arms control policy. I make no complaint of that.
However, I should like at the outset to dispel one myth. It is often maintained by opponents of the Government's nuclear defence policy that those who stand against gestures of unilateral disarmament somehow stand in favour of fighting a nuclear war. I believe I speak for every noble Lord when I say that I abhor the idea of a nuclear war and I believe just as strongly as does the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that it would be cataclysmic. We do not need any convincing of the horrors of war. We do not believe, as successive British Governments have not believed, that we are moving towards the brink of a nuclear war with all its horrors. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, refers to the latest scientific view upon the effects of nuclear war. There is always room for speculation about the horrors of such a war, but I should like to stress that it is NATO's aim to continue to prevent any war, nuclear or conventional, between East and West. Where we differ from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is over the method to achieve this common aim.
Your Lordships have discussed on many occasions the foundation of British defence policy—that is, the strategy of deterrence which we follow by maintaining nuclear and conventional arms. The most important principle of this strategy is that any aggressor should be convinced that he stands to suffer losses greater than any gain he could possibly hope to achieve. Our emphasis is upon influencing the calculations of the potential aggressor. NATO is a purely defensive alliance. The NATO Heads of Government made this abundantly clear in the declaration issued at the time of their summit in Bonn in 1982 when they declared that no NATO weapons, conventional or nuclear, would ever be used except in response to attack—and that I think answers the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, about the words of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary the other day. This pledge has been repeated and renewed at successive ministerial meetings since the summit in Bonn, most recently in the Declaration of Brussels made by NATO's Foreign Ministers on 9th December 1983. They declared, quite simply:
"None of our weapons will ever be used except in response to attack".
I cannot stress this point too strongly: we threaten no one.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I just want to clarify this point. In other words, is he saying that in the event of a conventional attack nuclear weapons would be used?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, conceivably, but not necessarily. As part of our efforts to ensure that the strategy of deterrence continues to be effective, we have to consider how to deter the Warsaw Pact from any temptation to take advantage of its superiority in conventional forces in Europe. I do not propose to burden your Lordships with a long string of figures, but the overall trend is clear. As the International Institute for Strategic Studies has noted recently, the conventional balance over the last 20 years has slowly but steadily moved in favour of the East. At the same time we have largely lost the technology edge whereby quality would substitute for quantity.
In the judgment of the institute, one cannot necessarily conclude that NATO would suffer defeat in conventional war, nor that the Warsaw Pact would see its advantage as being sufficient to risk an attack; but there has been sufficient danger in the trend to require remedies. We must be ready and able to resist atttack, or pressure based on the threat of the use of force. Our belief, shared by other allied governments, is that our efforts to deter any possible use of the East's conventional superiority would be hindered rather than helped by a declaration that NATO would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. We must instead seek to maximise the uncertainty in the minds of any who might contemplate an attack upon us—uncertainty about our response.
Our overriding concern is to do nothing that would make war more rather than less likely. We believe that for NATO to agree to a declaration of the no first use of nuclear weapons would increase rather than diminish the threat of a Soviet conventional attack upon the West. The knowledge that we might have to resort to nuclear weapons to defend overselves should be an additional deterrent to the Soviet leaders. There is no question, as is often wrongly alleged, of NATO automatically meeting a major conventional attack with nuclear weapons. The fact that NATO has not made a declaration of no first use in no way commits us to using nuclear weapons in any given circumstance.
But to renounce that option in all circumstances would be to diminish uncertainty in the mind of a potential adversary and thus simplify his calculations of the risks, if he were to be tempted into an attack. Paradoxically, therefore, a no first use declaration would in our view increase the risk of war. In judging the effectiveness of our strategy, including our refusal to make such a declaration, I take comfort from the conclusion reached by the IISS to which I referred earlier. They believe that the consequences for an aggressor would be unpredictable and the risks, particularly of nuclear escalation, incalculable. This conclusion is heartening and, I believe, a vindication of the present policy. But let us repeat that we already have a no first use policy: no first use of any weapons.
I turn to the call by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for the withdrawal of short range or so-called battlefield nuclear weapons. Between 1979 and

541
October 1983 NATO governments conducted an extensive study into the requirements for short and intermediate range nuclear forces in Europe. Their premise was that NATO should hold no more nuclear weapons than the minimum required for effective deterrence—a point referred to by several noble Lords this evening. The outcome of that study was a decision taken by NATO Defence Ministers to withdraw a further 1,400 warheads from Europe during the next several years in addition to the 1,000 warheads withdrawn in 1980. The effect will be to take the level of nuclear weapons in Europe to its lowest point for 20 years. This reduction will not be affected by any deployment of longer-range INF, since one warhead will be removed for each Pershing II or ground-launched cruise missile warhead actually deployed. The effect of all this is that, even if the planned LRINF deployment is implemented in full, five warheads will be withdrawn for every new one introduced. But that is not to say that we discounted the short range nuclear weapons in terms of their value as a deterrent. On the contrary, we believe that they continue to play an important role as part of the spectrum of response available to NATO.
I should like, however, to suggest to your Lordships that there is some danger of our accepting a further myth when we look at the figures of nuclear weapons, whether those held in Europe or the total figures of the super powers. The myth to which I refer is that which states that arms cause wars. As Professor Michael Howard noted in a lecture he gave early last year, if we are to look for threats to peace we should not look in the first place at armaments as such. We must look rather for those elements in international society who have the greatest incentive, and the greatest ability, to disturb the existing order. The greater that ability and the less the capacity of the defenders of the status quo to deter them, the more precarious peace is likely to be. The difficulties of judging the intentions of the Soviet Union are very great, but we can measure their actions. Some of these do not reassure us. I suggest to your Lordships that our response should be to ensure that no Soviet leadership could be in a position to doubt that the West might use any means at its disposal in the event of an attack. As long as there are no doubts on this score we shall maintain the present peace.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way again? Why does he imagine that uncertainty in the Soviet mind is something which should be encouraged whereas in our own mind what we seek is certainty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, because if the Soviet Union is faced with uncertainty, then surely it will think twice and perhaps long before it is so foolish as to launch an attack upon us. Indeed I hope, and indeed I believe, that in the end they will discard that option.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, it is not a question necessarily of an attack by the Soviet Union. War may happen by mistake. It is quite possible.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt right that a war could conceivably happen by mistake. That is why we go to such lengths to see that
542
that cannot and will not happen. Several noble Lords referred to the conference on disarmament in Europe which has recently opened in Stockholm. I was asked about the British Government's position in regard to that conference. Time is getting late and maybe the best way I can reply to that request is to place in your Lordships' Library a copy of the speech which was delivered there by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It runs to several pages. I have a copy in front of me, but I shall place a copy in the Library for your Lordships to study as you think fit.
NATO's deterrent strategy may not be an attractive way of keeping the peace but it has been shown to work over the last four decades. To abandon our security system now in favour of some alternatives which would be quite unproven would be immensely dangerous. NATO is a defensive alliance whose aim is the prevention of war and the preservation of peace with freedom. The course advocated by the noble Lord would not contribute to the achievement of that aim.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I say that we appreciate his co-operation in putting that statement in the Library on the matters that he mentioned. Would the noble Lord clarify, for the Government's sake and ours, his reply on not accepting on first use? Does this mean that we may use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack? If so, does not this confirm the alleged comment by General Rogers that we may have to go nuclear after a few days? I think it would be useful if he would clarify that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe I was asked that question at an earlier moment during my remarks. Yes, the answer is that we might conceivably use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack, but not necessarily so.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS
  LABORATORY ANIMALS: EXERCISE
  LABORATORY ANIMALS: EXERCISE
  PRISONS: INSTRUCTIONS ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
  PRISONS: INSTRUCTIONS ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
  PRISONS: TYPING COURSES
  PRISONS: TYPING COURSES
  PRISON WORKSHOPS: FACTORIES ACTS
  PRISON WORKSHOPS: FACTORIES ACTS
  DOGS AND PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK
  DOGS AND PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK
  SATELLITE DATA: US POLICY
  SATELLITE DATA: US POLICY