Sitting of 5 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SWAVESEY BYE-WAYS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 14 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Factory Inspectors
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Employment in which areas of the work of the Factory Inspectorate the proposed new factory inspectors will be employed.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The factory inspectors to be recruited from the current competition will be allocated to the inspectorate's field organisation. During and after their initial training the new inspectors will be visiting a wide range of industrial and other undertakings to give advice on health and safety and, where necessary, to enforce health and safety law.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Will the new recruitment allow the inspectorate to achieve its previous target for inspections, which was 15 per cent. of establishments per annum?
    Mr. Gummer: The inspectorate is able to cover the ground which it wishes and feels it necessary to cover, because of the quality as well as the number of inspections. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the new computer arrangements which make this possible.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of inspectors is making the task of those who remain in office extremely difficult? May I have an assurance that the new inspectors will be allocated throughout the country, including Leicester? The three inspectors at Leicester have an impossible task in dealing with the sweat shops, and this is worrying all parts of industry in the county.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish the allocations to be made by the
    140
    Health and Safety Executive. It will continue to do so where it feels that this is necessary. The change will mean that there will be more inspectors.
    Mr. Evans: Despite the modest increase in inspectors, the levels in the field are still not up to those of 1979. Does the Minister agree that until we return to those levels the role of the inspectorate will not meet the requirements of a modern industrial society such as ours?
    Mr. Gummer: If I thought that that were so, I should be recommending and encouraging an increase in numbers. I am concerned to ensure that the inspectorate does its job properly. I am convinced that it does and I am confident that it will have the resources to do so.
    Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west midlands the so-called sweat shops are now the largest single source of new employment? If he orders the inspectorate to crack down on them, he will substantially reduce employment opportunities.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend should not be led down the confusing path taken by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who continues to confuse the work of the Wages Inspectorate with the work of the Health and Safety Executive. There is a very low incidence of risk in the circumstances that he mentioned, because of the nature of the job. Those are not my views, but those of the Health and Safety Executive. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than the executive.

    European Community (Job Creation)
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans or proposals he intends to put before his European ministerial colleagues to reduce unemployment within the European Economic Community.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I will be meeting my colleagues at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on Thursday to discuss, among other things, proposals for a medium-term programme for employment in the Community and, in particular, the support given by the social fund to young people's training and to areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State suggest to his colleagues that they adopt the scheme proposed by the European trade unions to operate a co-ordinated plan to increase expenditure on public works by 1 per cent., which, it is estimated, will improve employment over two years by between 4 million and 5 million? If not, does the right hon. Gentleman have some other scheme to put forward?
    Mr. King: I had the pleasure of listening to representatives of international trade unions when they visited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her capacity as chairman of the summit meeting. I thought that the proposal, which was not fully explained, of an infrastructural programme was the less convincing part of their presentation. I shall certainly be talking to my colleagues in the European Community about the need to continue to ensure that Europe remains competitive and that we keep inflation down and public expenditure under control so that we have a chance to create more jobs in Europe again.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not raise false hopes? Is it really the EEC's duty to concern itself with matters of employment, which are surely mainly for employers in industry and commerce and, to a lesser extent, for the Government?
    Mr. King: It is important for Europe to act in a concerted way and not in ways that might undermine the competitive efforts of individual countries. It is striking to observe how, in the past year, the Socialist Government of France have increasingly come to recognise, more effectively than the Opposition, the need for a sound financial and economic policy.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the continuous bleating by British Ministers that British workers are pricing themselves out of jobs, will the Secretary of State explain to his European colleagues and to the House why Britain has one of the highest unemployment rates, combined with one of the lowest wage economies in the whole of western Europe?
    Mr. King: I take some pleasure in the fact that we do not have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. as in Belgium, 17 per cent. as in Holland, or 15 per cent. as in Italy. The hon. Gentleman says that we have the highest unemployment rate in Europe. He would do the House a courtesy if he checked his figures first. As I said in my original answer, I shall be talking about the better use of the social fund. I take some pleasure from the fact that, to help with training schemes for young people, we are now receiving from Europe three times as much money and a far greater percentage share than the Labour party achieved when it was in government.
    Mr. Fourth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that misguided attempts arbitrarily to impose a 35-hour working week on member states of the European Community can lead only to an increase in unit costs, a lack of competitiveness by the Community vis-a-vis other economies and, ultimately, a loss of jobs?
    Mr. King: I took the opportunity—I hope that my hon. Friend will approve—of sending to my colleagues in the European Community what I believe is the whole of the academic research that has been done on this subject by the Policy Studies Institute. There is no evidence in that survey that a reduction in working time leads to increased employment. In some firms the response to shorter working time appeared to be to reduce employment as a means of obtaining some of the productivity increases needed to compensate for reductions in working time.
    Mr. Wallace: In the context of the European social and regional funds, will the Secretary of State estimate how many jobs would have been created in the past five years if the Government had properly applied the principle of additionality?
    Mr. King: The funds that we have received from Europe have been extremely helpful in sustaining higher expenditure than would otherwise have been possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that whereas when the Labour Government left office we received only 20 per cent. of the social fund, this year we shall receive 30 per cent. of the fund to provide help for a number of these important matters.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way not to get unemployment down would be to have no
    142
    truck whatsoever with some of the interventionist claptrap coming out of the Commission at the moment, such as Vredeling and the fifth directive? Will he commit himself to the House and other Europeans and say that we will have nothing to do with it? Even if he were so tempted—which I am sure he would not be—the vast majority that the Conservatives have will ensure that any such un-Conservative legislation is thrown out.
    Mr. King: I am not always given to the type of diplomatic language that my hon. Friend uses on these matters. He will be aware that I have expressed—if I may put it more forcefully — the gravest reservations about these proposals. The responses that we have received to the consultation document do nothing to change the Government's or my impression of the damage that could be caused by many of these proposals.
    Mr. John Smith: Before the Secretary of State sneers at the efforts made by trade unions and other Governments to promote policies of economic growth does he accept that the Government, after five years in office, have at no international summit or forum in the EEC advocated a policy of economic growth for this country or Europe as a whole? Since the Government have no proposals for tackling the millions of unemployed in Europe, will he adopt one of those proposals?
    Mr. King: I notice that the Opposition are so divided at the moment that they do not like to recommend any proposal, but offer us any one of several. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that point. I am not sneering at the trade union proposals. I said that the proposal for infrastructural expenditure was the least convincing part. He may know, if he saw the press release or my comments after the meeting, that the encouraging point about the meeting was the degree of agreement between the trade unions and the Governments involved, not least with the trade unions making it clear that people must accept the need for technological change if industry is to be competitive and if there are to be the maximum prospects for creating employment. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to comment on that point. I should like to endorse what they said.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest percentage rate of unemployment; and what are the numbers involved.
    Mr. Tom King: On 10 May there were 3,084,457 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. This corresponds to an unemployment rate of 12·9 per cent.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures are appalling? When will the much vaunted economic recovery which the Government constantly parade filter into areas such as Merseyside, where 150,000 people are unemployed? Does he agree that the obscene policy of naked economic forces being pursued by the Government should be abandoned in the interests of the unemployed?
    Mr. King: The House knows my views on this matter. Plainly, the present rate of unemployment is far too high. The Government have taken steps to ensure that, based on a sounder and more competitive economy, we can at last see the prospect of creating more jobs. Against that

    143
    background, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the evidence that, after three years of substantial job losses, in the final three quarters of last year there was a significant increase and about 200,000 more people are now in jobs.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm a statement that he made recently, that, if the British home industries could recapture the share of the market that they had a decade ago, about 1·25 million extra jobs would be created?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend is correct. That is the figure. One can study the various industries involved. One simple statistic is the import penetration of foreign cars. Not many years ago—certainly in the memory of hon. Members—imports of foreign cars were about 10 per cent., but they are now over 50 per cent. That tells its own story. It is only by having an efficient and competitive industry that Britain can begin to have the opportunity to create the extra jobs that are needed.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Have not successive statements by Ministers raised the false hope that unemployment would be falling steadily by this time? With the recent increase in interest rates, together with the forecasts of even higher interest rates, can we expect any drop in the level of unemployment? What can the Secretary of State say to the unemployed about their prospects now?
    Mr. King: I shall not comment on interest rates, save to say that increased interest rates will not be helpful.
    In looking at the latest unemployment figures, I was struck by an encouraging rising figure for vacancies. Yesterday, during the short time that I spent in south Wales, I noticed that each of the firms that I visited expected to increase its labour force this year. There is significant evidence, even with some time lag, of a real increase in jobs.
    Mr. Forman: When considering cost-effective measures to help the unemployed — particularly the long-term unemployed—will my right hon. Friend take early steps to expand the enterprise allowance scheme, which has proved worth while?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that scheme. I believe that it is one of the most effective of the special employment measures that we have introduced. It has been extremely successful, and we are keeping under close review whether it will be possible to increase the funding for it.
    Mr. Benn: In reality, do not the Government believe that mass unemployment is necessary to hold down wages and to boost profits? If profits are made, with the abolition of exchange control, will not many of those profits be exported, denying employment to people in Britain?
    Mr. King: My memory goes back far enough to recall a certain Minister of Technology who tried to encourage productivity in this country. It is sad to see the right hon. Gentleman having to abandon the principles for which he once stood.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Most hon. Members would accept that unmeployment is one of the great tragedies that afflict our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that disputes, such as the miners' strike — as a result of which the country is to be asked for £1·3 billion—take
    144
    place at the cost of other people's jobs, and that, unless the dispute is settled, other jobs will be lost to feed Mr. Scargill's ambitions?
    Mr. King: The dispute is a tragedy in terms of the effect that it could have, the fact that many people are losing the earnings to which they are entitled and the fact that the economy of the country is not being strengthened. I believe it is symbolic that the NCB made the first delivery against the contract that it achieved for Durham coke. It is tragic that that coke did not come from Durham.
    Mr. John Smith: It is within the memory of many hon. Members that not so long ago the Conservative party would have been deeply ashamed to preside over a situation in which 3 million people were unemployed. Will the Secretary of State answer one simple question: if the economy keeps recovering, why does unemployment keep rising?
    Mr. King: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to the real problems faced by the unemployed by trying to pretend that there is some simple wand that can be waved. The idea that this problem is faced uniquely by Conservative Governments — [Interruption.] I was challenged on the figures, so If shall repeat them, and at the same time correct one of them. The unemployment figures for the European Community are as follows. At a time when we have 12·9 per cent. unemployment, the figure for Belgium is 18·5 per cent., for the Netherlands 17·9 per cent., for Ireland 16·8 per cent. and for Italy— this is the correction—13·3 per cent.

    Open Tech
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Open Tech projects are now in being.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Open Tech programme has now expanded to 75 projects. It will offer training opportunities for 25,000 supervisors and technicians in 1984–85 and twice that number in 1985–86. It is a fine example of what the Government are doing to promote training opportunities in this important field.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend's answer shows clearly that the Open Tech has completed its pilot stages with flying colours. Will he confirm that its courses are complementary to other training initiatives taken by the Manpower Services Commission and to efforts being made by the Department of Education and Science to bring forth initiatives in training such as the pick-up scheme? What discussion is there between my hon. Friend's Department and the Department of Education and Science to ensure that there is no wasteful duplication and overlap in vocational education and training?
    Mr. Morrison: I know that my hon. Friend was present at the birth of the Open Tech, and I am grateful to him for the interest that he has taken in it so far. As he said, it has been a success. I assure him that it is intended to complement the pick-up and other schemes run by the Department of Education and Science. I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that that is the case.

    Young People (Jobs and Training)
    Mr. Haslehurstasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss new ways in which jobs and training for young people could be devised.
    Mr. Tom King: I frequently meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the progress of the commission's employment and training measures, including those which held young people.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is there not a whole host of what might be termed odd jobs which, if they were organised and aggregated, might provide a lot of real and worthwhile opportunities, especially for young people, if they were trained to meet those opportunities? Could not the MSC conduct an experiment along those lines to see whether it is possible to get a practical scheme under way?
    Mr. King: There are several ways in which the MSC tries to encourage the means by which managing agents can help to pick up individual opportunities for young people in rural areas. There is more scope for imagination in that area. I shall certainly discuss that point with the chairman of the MSC.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that the £25 allowance that is currently paid to youngsters on the youth training scheme ought to be almost £40 if it had increased in line with wages or inflation in the past five years? Why does he not admit to the House and working people outside that the real aim of the scheme is to drive down the level of wages paid to young people to play elastoplast politics and to cover up the real level of youth unemployment?
    Mr. King: The real aim of the youth training scheme is to give more than 250,000 young people—as it will be this year—the chance of a year of good training and work experience at the start of their working life. I am satisfied that that objective is being achieved. It is a training allowance, and my first concern is to ensure that all of those young people get the best training that we can obtain for them. I give the highest priority to that aim.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although many employers greatly welcome the introduction of the youth training scheme, the application forms for such schemes last year amounted to two or three pages which had to be filled in, but this year about 28 pages must be filled in? Will he reassure me that he will investigate that matter?
    Mr. King: I announced to the House that we would have a consolidation of the scheme this year. I must tell my hon. Friend that what she described is not what I had in mind. I shall look into that aspect.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Secretary of State consider constructively discussing with his Scottish Office colleagues any proposals that might come from the Highlands of Scotland for improving MSC funding to provide greater youth opportunities for training in oil rig repair and maintenance?
    Mr. King: The hon. Member knows that that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I certainly take note of what he has said.
    Mr. Lawler: Returning to the original question of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr.
    146
    Haselhurst), and given initiatives like Instant Muscle, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the enterprise allowance scheme so as to help people under 18 coming off YTS schemes to go into business on their own, given their desire to do so?
    Mr. King: The first and obvious difficulty is that people under 18 would not be able to enter into a legal contract, as required under the enterprise allowance scheme. That poses a real problem. My hon. Friend will know that the enterprise allowance scheme is extremely successful. At the moment demand is very large indeed and I do not think that we envisage extending the age category.
    Mr. Sheerman: When the Minister meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss jobs and training for young people, how will he defend his Government's action in sabotaging the European Commission proposal that everyone should have a right to two year's training? How can he do that when he knows that the chairman of the MSC is fully behind the proposal for two years' training, cashed in when the individual wants them? Why did his Government sink the European Commission proposal to give that to all people in Europe?
    Mr. King: The hon. Member knows that in Germany, for instance, the training schemes on a two-year basis are employer-led to a large extent. The difference in this country is the degree to which the Government are leading the schemes. I should like to see ways in which employers could take forward the training initiative. I think certain Opposition Members would be willing to concede that the YTS has been a remarkable success in many areas. There is now an opportunity to build with employers further schemes to improve training provision.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jim Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of people unemployed; and how many of these are over 50 years of age.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): On 5 April, the latest date for which information by age is available, out of a total of 3,107,682 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, 575,243 were aged 50 years and over.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for the figure he has just given, but is he aware that in my constituency there are two large industrial estates where the level of unemployment is 25 per cent., and that of those who are long-term unemployed a great number are over 50 years of age? An example is Mr. Williams, who came to see me on Saturday to tell me that despite being retrained on an MSC course he cannot get a job; everywhere he goes he is told, "Sony, you are too old." Does common humanity not demand that the Minister ought to increase the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for people like Mr. Williams?
    Mr. Clark: I do not think the hon. Member is entirely right about the unemployment rate in his constituency, which is actually close to the national average. What is true is that the plight of unemployed persons over 50 is tragic. Yet I do not share the hon. Member's pessimism. I believe that they constitute a reservoir of talent and

    147
    experience which will be of great value when demand picks up. As to his question about increasing supplementary benefit, as he well knows, this has been costed at £90 million. It is a matter of allocating and determining the priorities of resources. Tranches of £100 million at a time, however eloquent the special pleading, would put the general allocation of resources into disarray.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the over 50-year-olds are out of work because of restrictive practices, high rates of inflation and strikes in steel, in transport, and in various other industries, particularly engineering, over many years? Does he agree that the coal strike will also result in redundancies and that, sadly, many 50-year-olds will not enjoy the substantial benefits which the miners will enjoy if they happen to find themselves out of work as a result of their own actions?
    Mr. Clark: Yes; as my hon. Friend says, they are out of work through no fault of their own. This is what makes their plight particularly tragic.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the over 50-year-olds can apply to the community programme, will the Minister give the House an assurance that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is impressing upon the Treasury the need to ensure that next year moneys are made available for a dramatic increase in the number of places available under the community programme? Is he aware that we need many more community-based programmes next year, particularly in my constituency of Cumbria?
    Mr. Clark: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the total amount of taxpayers' money devoted to special employment measures is nearly £2 billion. However eloquent the special pleading for particular programmes, he must appreciate that allocation of funds to the programme is determined as a whole. The community programme certainly performs a very useful function, but it would not be right for me to give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that in the reservoir to which he referred many thousands of people over 50 are drowning in poverty and misery? Is he further aware that that group contains an enormous amount of skill and experience which an intelligent Government would use for the benefit of this country? Does he appreciate that those people are desperate for jobs and that it is time for a massive change of policy that would get them back to work?
    Mr. Clark: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which confirms my view that the over-50s group constitutes a substantial body of talent and experience. We hope that employers will reconsider their recruitment practices to take advantage of that group, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is one of the most valuable in the labour market.

    Job Release Scheme
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the job release scheme.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Yes, Sir. With the other special employment measures on which the Government expect to spend some £2 billion in the current financial year, the job
    148
    release scheme makes a valuable contribution both to helping the unemployed and to facilitating early retirement for people who fulfil the criteria of the scheme.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong public support for a reduction in the age at which people become eligible for the scheme and does he agree that such a reduction would be desirable?
    Mr. Clark:. The terms of the job release scheme, like those of the other special employment measures, come up for review annually. I have received a number of representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I must tell him, however, that spending on the scheme this year will be £314 million compared with an outturn of £260 million last year. We must judge the extent to which still further resources should be made available.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister not aware that the Government recently changed the scheme by reducing the qualifying age by two years so that many people who had relied on coming within the scheme were disqualified? Is he aware that the great resentment throughout the country has been reflected in representations to Members in all parts of the House and will the Government urgently consider restoring the scheme to what it was when many people looked at it with interest?
    Mr. Clark: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably recall, the Labour Government started the scheme and changed it three times in the first two years. I have already said that expenditure on the scheme has risen — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very talkative——
    Mr. Skinner rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Skinner: I thought that the Minister was giving way.
    Mr. Clark: It is possible that the hon. Gentleman is trying to solicit a compliment from the House because the Bolsover pit is the only one in North Derbyshire that is working, which reflects the rapport which the hon. Gentleman must enjoy with his constituents.
    Whenever the terms of a scheme are altered some people are bound to find themselves on just the wrong side of the eligibility limit. My sympathies go out to such people, but I cannot adapt the rules to accommodate people who fall outside the changed rules by a small margin.

    Wages Orders (Breaches)
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be in breach of the wages orders during the last available 12 months; and how many of those were prosecuted.
    Mr. Gummer: One worker or more was found to have been underpaid in 9,842 of the establishments inspected in 1983. Payment of the arrears due was secured by the inspectorate in 92 per cent. of cases. It was found necessary to prosecute two employers.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that that level of prosecution is derisory? Does not show that employers

    149
    feel no obligation to obey the law and is it not clear that abiding by the law is becoming purely a voluntary matter? Will the Minister enforce the law, and if so, when? Is he allowing the law to fall into disrepute and disuse so that he can abolish wages councils more easily?
    Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman were right in his argument, he would be right to ask those questions. Ninety four per cent. of workers whose position was investigated were found to be paid the minimum rates or higher. As those investigated were liable to be affected by underpayments and underpayment was not found in 94 per cent. of the cases, that shows that it is restricted to a few people. I remind the hon. Gentleman that arrears are paid in 92 per cent. of cases to the 6 per cent. who are underpaid. The Government certainly insist on the law being carried out.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statutorily enforced minimum wage level, many hon. Members on the Government side of the House think it absurd and ridiculous that organisations or firms with two or three employees, who know the state of the company perfectly well, should be forced to pay a wage that is above what the company can stand?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has pointed out a fact which Opposition Members would do well to remember. There is no point in driving people out of work by fixing a level of wages that employers cannot pay. That is why I have suggested to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that their job is to consider the figures and to study the facts before they shout about the success of the wages councils.

    Apprentices
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist for the rescuing of apprentices left stranded by employers going out of business; and how many apprentices have been helped by such measures in recent years.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Government support is currently available through industry training organisations to help employers recruit and complete the training of apprentices who are made redundant. About 16,500 such apprentices have been helped over the past five years.
    Mr. Montgomery: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to help apprentices who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in that unfortunate position? Can he tell us by how much the adoption grants have been increased?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that we take the plight of redundant apprentices very seriously. The maximum figure for the adoption grant has been increased from £1,500 to £2,250.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister tell us what he is doing for the apprentices who cannot work because pits are closed by the National Coal Board? Is he aware that in Yorkshire, where apprentices are not on strike and turn up and sign on for work, the Department of Employment classes them as unemployed, yet in Nottinghamshire they are classed as not unemployed? Can the Minister explain why, in one county apprentices benefit while the others do not, although the pits are only five miles apart, and why his Department refuses to do anything about it? Why is there such anomaly and maladministration?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman realises, it would be better to have no industrial action in pits throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the difficulties faced by mining apprentices would not arise if that were the case.

    Youth Training Schemes
    Mr. Blairasked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made on renewal of youth training schemes.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The renewal of appropriate youth training schemes is currently being negotiated to ensure that sufficient suitable places are available to meet the needs of eligible young people in the coming year. I am satisfied that those arrangements are progressing well.
    Mr. Blair: How will the Minister ensure that cheap labour schemes will be weeded out when the training schemes are renewed? What assurance can he give the House that the paramount criterion for renewing the scheme is the value to the young person of the training involved, rather than value to the employer and cheap labour?
    Mr. Morrison: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, this is a year of consolidation for the youth training scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the quality element of training should be of paramount importance.

    Enterprise Allowance
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Employment how long is the waiting time in the east midlands before applicants for the enterprise allowance receive their grant.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Because of the success of the scheme, the average waiting time in the east midlands, from initial inquiry to acceptance, had increased to an average of about 19 weeks. As my hon. Friend may know, I announced on 1 May that the number of places available would be increased by 60 per cent. to 1,000 a week for the next three months, and this should help to reduce waiting lists.
    Mr. Carlisle: Although this is an excellent scheme to help the unemployed start their own business, is my hon. Friend aware that the growing waiting list has caused great frustration? For that reason, the additional funds for the scheme are welcome. What impact will they have on the waiting time?
    Mr. Clark: I believe that the extra funds are already having an impact. The effect is that a further 5,000 places are being brought forward until July. However, this was an interim measure, and we continue to look closely at the possibilities for taking advantage of the scheme's popularity. I share my hon. Friend'd enthusiasm for it. I hope that neither of us will be disappointed when the decision is announced.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Berminghamasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of young people who will finish their year of youth training scheme and will not subsequently find employment.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: It is not possible at present to estimate how many youngsters will find jobs on completion of their training programme. Some 90 per cent. of those joining the youth training scheme in 1983 will not have completed their training before August this year.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that to offer a young person a place on a training programme for one year and then to cast him back on the dole queue is nothing more than an indictment on our society, and that, in reality, that is what will happen in the forthcoming period?
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his question. I agree entirely that the youth training scheme is designed to prepare youngsters for the world of work. That is precisely what it is doing. If the hon. Gentleman were to come with me and visit places round the country where the scheme operates, he would find that the youngsters would say that to him as well as to me.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be meeting President Reagan for discussions and giving a working dinner for him and ministerial colleagues at No. 10 Downing street.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the moment there are armed troops of the United States on British soil, authorised to use their arms in London? Will she always agree to any request by President Reagan? What other countries will be allowed to bring their troops here and to use their arms? Would tonight not be an ideal opportunity to discuss dual control with President Reagan, for once?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question was somewhat confused from beginning to end. He raised two points. First, we are, of course, ultimately responsible for the security of statesmen visiting London. We do not discuss security matters. Decisions are taken after full consultation and in the light of all the circumstances. I am advised that in this case no precedent was broken. With regard to cruise missiles, I have already frequently answered questions on dual key control and made the position perfectly clear. President Reagan made a statement and we have both looked at the control mechanisms and the control agreements for cruise missiles. The fact, as he has said, is that no missile could be fired from this soil without the agreement of the British Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of repeating in the House her characterisation of the smear that her Government would be forced by the EEC to impose VAT on food as absolute poppycock? Will she extend that characterisation to embrace the suggestion that her Government might remove interest relief from mortgages?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, gladly. We get this smear and scare about VAT on food at every election because the Opposition like to take attention away from any discussion of their own policies. With regard to mortgage interest relief, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. Any suggestion that we would remove mortgage interest relief is absolute poppycock.
    Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: In view of the Prime Minister's scathing remarks about the miners and the events that are taking place with the picketing of mines, does she agree that the reasons for this lie at the door of the Government? Will she bring to the attention of her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Cabinet, the fact that they are responsible for stopping 4 million people from going to work?
    The Prime Minister: Any remarks that I have made are of total condemnation of violence and intimidation. I understand that that condemnation is echoed on the Labour Benches, at least in certain parts. With regard to the merit of the dispute, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the miners have been offered pay increases higher than those the power, gas and water workers have accepted and which are 25 per cent. above the average industrial wage. This Government have poured £2 million a day in investment into the mines so that the miners may have safer and more productive pits in which to work, there have been no compulsory redundancies, and the money supplied for voluntary redundancies is the best ever. This Government have also seen to it that those industries which would like to convert from oil to coal are subsidised to do so, and they were responding well until the strike came along. The truth is that by striking the miners are losing jobs, not protecting, them.
    Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyne and Wear county council is giving £100,000 to striking miners and their families and that my county council of Durham is giving a further £25,000? Is it not outrageous that my constituents, who are already subsidising miners in high-cost pits through taxes, should now have to support through the rates miners who are idle of their own accord?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not that the councils have any money to give away, because they have only the money that they take from taxpayers. As my hon. Friend said, the National Coal Board is subsidising the National Union of Mineworkers and all who work in the mining industry to the extent of £130 per person per week.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern that American ships carrying sea-based cruise missiles will shortly be using British ports? Is she aware that this concern is based partly on the fact that such weapons are beyond verification and therefore represent a major escalation in the arms race? What assurances can

    153
    she give the House that the House and the country will be given their chance to say whether ships carrying such weapons should be allowed to call at British ports?
    The Prime Minister: We belong to the Western Alliance, and there is nothing unusual in ships carrying nuclear weapons calling at British ports — vessels carrying Polaris do it regularly.
    Mr. Churchill: On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Normandy landings, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute not only to those British, American and Canadian service men who lost their lives in the liberation of Europe but to those Czechs, Hungarians and Poles who fought at our side but who did not see their countries liberated?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to all who led the attack on the second front in Europe to free Europe. I am sure that those countries in Europe will never forget what they owe to the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned and to the whole of the British Commonwealth, all of whom made strenuous efforts to restore freedom and justice to Europe.
    Mr. Kinnock: I warmly endorse the right hon. Lady's last remarks on the occasion of this commemoration of the marvellous victory for liberty in Europe. Does the right hon. Lady recall that at yesterday's Euro-election press conference she showed that she now depends entirely on the presidency of Chancellor Kohl to be able to obtain the £457 million due to Britain and, if that is the case, does it mean that she expects no settlement at the summit at Fontainebleau?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Chancellor Kohl was the chairman of the Stuttgart conference under which the rebate was agreed in the Community. I did not depend wholly upon him and I regard this as an agreement reached by all Heads of Government, which should be honoured before the end of the year.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry. Either the Prime Minister does not understand the questions repeatedly put by myself and many others about this £457 million rebate, or she is deliberately trying to evade them. Does she not recall that it is now four and a half years since she said at the Dublin summit that she was no longer prepared to play Sister Bountiful to the European Community, that it was our money, and that a permanent and just settlement must be secured? Does she not think that it is a bit feeble to be extending the deadline yet again, for the third time in a year, relying entirely on German faith and German honour—both of which I fully respect—and is this what she means by a strong voice in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: A strong voice in Europe has already obtained refunds to this country of £2,000 million.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady is still evading the fact that she has paid net contributions of £5,000 million. By comparison with that, the rebates are starting to look a little slim.
    The Prime Minister: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman's Government not renegotiate and make provision? They did not. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot get over is that we obtained £2,000 million for this country. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to withdraw from Europe, and lose £2,000 million.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful announcement by the Government of Zimbabwe that in future journalists are to be imprisoned if they criticise the regime, unless they are able to prove the truth of their criticisms, and does she not think that Opposition Members who have not condemned that statement would spend most of their life in gaol if that were the rule here?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. and learned Friend will know, I do not comment on statements before I have seen them in full. I have not seen this in full, and therefore I shall be very careful before commenting.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Prime Minister not agree that her meeting with Mr. Botha gave succour to a hated regime and credibility to every racist, and does she not now feel tainted?
    The Prime Minister: No. I believe that it is right to talk to Heads of Government, although one fundamentally disagrees with their policies. I believe that that view has widespread support in the country.
    Mr. Wareingasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the right hon. Lady agree with me that it would be gross hypocrisy if she were to continue to hector people to obey the rule of law if the Government at the same time refuse to acknowledge the International Labour Organisation's decision that this Government are in contravention of international law in banning trade unionism among people who are staffing GCHQ, the only country in the EEC to do such a thing, which puts us in league with Chile, Turkey and other dictatorships of which she is obviously fond?
    The Prime Minister: That is not what the ILO said. I do not believe that we are in contravention of the ILO convention. What the ILO said in our view flouted convention 151, which has also been ratified by us, although not by everyone.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to think about the horrible increase in the problems of drug misuse and abuse, and particularly to consider whether it is now growing to such proportions that it is necessary to identify a specific Minister responsible for the many departmental responsibilities to tackle the problem?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's horror at any increase in the use or abuse of drugs. They are one of the scourges of our society. I believe that police responsibilities must stay with the Home Office. Health matters are adequately catered for by Health Service Ministers.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 5 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the whole country will wish to honour the memory of those who took part in the D-day landings and thus helped to liberate Europe from Nazi slavery? Would it not be

    155
    appropriate if all the countries that took part in the wartime alliance against Nazism started getting together again to stop the suicidal nuclear arms race?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to have more dialogue with countries across the European divide. The Western countries did not walk out of the nuclear disarmament talks—the Soviet Union did.

South African Prime Minister (Visit)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a brief statement about the visit of the South African Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on Saturday 2 June.
We had over five hours of discussions. I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Minister of State. The meeting was a working one, and the discussions were comprehensive and candid. They covered the problems of southern Africa as a whole, including Namibia. There was considerable discussion of the internal situation in South Africa. I made clear to Mr. Botha our desire to see peaceful solutions to all the region's problems.
On Namibia, we agreed that early independence for Namibia was desirable and should be achieved as soon as possible under peaceful conditions. We also agreed that all foreign forces should be withdrawn from the countries in southern Africa so that their peoples can settle their destinies without outside interference. The withdrawal of South African forces from Angola is an important first step in this process.
On the internal situation in South Africa, I expressed our strongly-held views on apartheid. I told Mr. Botha of my particular concern at the practice of forced removals and raised the question of the continued detention of Mr. Nelson Mandela. Mr. Botha gave me an account of his government's recent constitutional measures and of the appointment of a Cabinet committee to make proposals for the political future of the black population outside the homelands.
I believe that the South African Prime Minister now understands much more clearly where Her Majesty's Government stand on all the major issues. My talks with Mr. Botha are part of the process through which we and other western and African countries must continue to press for the sort of changes that we all want to see in southern Africa.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for responding to my request for a statement about her discussions with Prime Minister Botha.
Is the Prime Minister aware that her invitation to and reception for Mr. Botha at Chequers gave enormous satisfaction to the South African Government and to the friends of apartheid, and caused grave offence to millions of people in Britain, throughout the Commonwealth and many other parts of the world?
Is the right hon. Lady further aware that reports of her meeting with Prime Minister Botha published and broadcast in South Africa differ so radically from the reports published in Britain that they are an insult to her and to the spokespersons who made the reports on her behalf, especially since I and my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that as an individual the right hon. Lady is strong in her condemnation of the vile system of apartheid?
This is the first visit by a South African Prime Minister to Britain for 23 years. It constitutes a diplomatic coup for the South African Government. Can the right hon. Lady explain why, unlike her three Conservative predecessors in that period, she issued an invitation to Prime Minister Botha? What has changed in this Government's attitude
158
compared with the attitude taken by previous Conservative Governments? Was there any consultation with our Commonwealth partners before the Prime Minister's visit? If not, why not?
While the benefit to South Africa is obvious, can the right hon. Lady identify any compensating gains either for the cause of human rights and political freedom in South Africa, or for the cause of human rights, political freedom and self-determination in the countries of southern Africa? Will the right hon. Lady affirm that no discussion of arms supply — including the selling of the Coastguarder aircraft—took place during the meeting at Chequers? Will she take this opportunity not only publicly to affirm her detestation of and opposition to apartheid — [Interruption]—which is clearly not shared by all her hon. Friends on the Back Benches—but to tell the House what action she intends to take to back her well-advertised words of disapproval? What measures does she intend to take to stop South African dirty tricks operations from the embassy in London?
On Namibia, can the right hon. Lady reaffirm that there has been no change in the Government's opposition to any linkage between Cuban troop withdrawals from Angola and the independence of Namibia, and no change in the Government's insistence that United Nations Security Council resolution 435 must be the basis for a transition to independence in Namibia?
Will the right hon. Lady tell us—[Interruption]—as she takes these matters much more seriously than many of her Back Benchers — whether Prime Minister Botha indicated in any way whether he felt that withdrawal of South African forces from Angola was an important first step—and I emphasise "first step"—in the process.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that her decision to invite Prime Minister Botha was wrong, and remains wrong? Does she further accept that nothing was conveyed on Saturday that could not have been equally clearly and forcefully conveyed by means other than an invitation and accommodation by the Prime Minister of apartheid? Will not her invitation be seen here and elsewhere as an act of appeasement?
I hope that the right hon. Lady's future actions will demonstrate the strength of her opposition to apartheid and also that her view on Namibia is implacable so that she can prove those who think that she has been appeasing South African opinion to be absolutely wrong.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your ruling. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has called me a Fascist. I expect him to apologise and to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure who the hon. Member is——
Mr. Terlezki: The right hon. Gentleman called me a Fascist.
Mr. Kaufman: Conservative Members have been heckling my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on racialist grounds. They have been uttering Fascist noises, and I do not withdraw what I said.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a phrase that we wish to hear in the Chamber. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly withdraw the word "Fascist" on your direction, Mr. Speaker. I do not withdraw the word "racialist".
Mr. James Tinn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) say that he applied the term collectively to a number of Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker: It matters not whether it was applied to a single hon. Member or collectively. It was still out of order.
The Prime Minister: I am constantly urged by Opposition Members to have dialogue with countries whose internal policies are not ours and with whose internal policies we fundamentally disagree because they deny human rights. I do not see how they can urge me to have dialogue with the Soviet Union and not with South Africa, It is a characteristic example of double standards.
With regard to it being the first visit for 23 years, I remind the leader of the Opposition that Prime Minister Botha had an official invitation to Portugal and was received by the Socialist Prime Minister and the President and had successful talks there; that he then went to Switzerland, where he was received by the President of that country; and that today he is in Bonn, where he is being received by Chancellor Kohl. Does the right hon. Gentleman want us to be the only country which is not talking to South Africa, although it has enormous strategic importance to this country? [Interruption.] I suppose that strategic importance is of little concern to him.
No request for arms was made. As for the embassy in London, Mr. Botha and the South African Government are well aware of our view that the diplomatic rules must be upheld and embassies used specifically for that purpose.
I made clear our view that United Nations resolution 435 is the way ahead. It will be clear from what I said that we agree that it is best for all foreign troops to be withdrawn from southern Africa.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's final question is that the decision to invite the Prime Minister here and to talk to him was right.
Mr. Julian Amery: In view of the crisp intervention of the Leader of the Oppostion, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that the constitutional process might be advantaged if the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) were to return? Will she confirm that her reference to all foreign forces in southern Africa included the Cubans and Angolans?
The Prime Minister: I was so referring by the use of the phrase "all foreign troops" from southern Africa. Although we do not have a specific linkage, we believe that that withdrawal should take place in parallel with independence for Namibia.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister accept that those of us who believe that the visit was a profound mistake are nevertheless grateful that the South African Prime Minister was slipped in and out of this counry without ceremony like some undesirable package? Is she surprised—[Interruption.] I do not propose to make myself heard above a babble.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I only mentioned that David Owen went to South Africa.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) kindly to refrain from making constant interruptions from a sedentary position. They are boring the whole House.
Mr. Steel: Was the Prime Minister surprised at the outcome of the propaganda in South Africa relating to Mr. Botha's visit, or was it as she expected?
I have three questions for the right hon. Lady. First, does she intend that the United Nations timetable for Namibian independence should be kept to? Although there is reference to "early independence," may we be told whether any progress was made on that? Secondly, what answer did she get to her questions about the detention of Nelson Mandela? Thirdly, does her reference to the future of the black population outside the homelands means that she is falling for the line of setting up puppet black states within the territory of South Africa?
The Prime Minister: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I note also that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) visited South Africa when he was the Labour Foreign Secretary and, I believe, had conversations with Mr. Botha at that time.
Independence for Namibia, we say, must come under resolution 435 — that is, in a way acceptable to the international community—and I do not believe that that will occur until there is, in parallel, also the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. I have nothing further to report regarding Mr. Nelson Mandela.
As for my reference to constitutional changes—and one must recognise that there have been more such changes during the lifetime of the present Government in South Africa than under any previous Government there—a Cabinet Committee has been set up and the phrase which I used, which was
"to look at the constitutional future of the blacks outside the homelands",
is one of the terms of reference of that committee.
Mr. Terlezki: In view of President Reagan's offer to the Russians to negotiate on the non-use of conventional arms in Europe and his preparedness to halt or even to reverse the deployment of cruise missiles, does my right hon. Friend agree that the President is adopting a reassuring approach to disarmament, peace and security in Europe?
The Prime Minister: The Western Alliance has the same approach to peace with freedom and justice in Europe and wishes naturally to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union to secure peace with justice and freedom at a lower level of weaponry and, therefore, a lower level of expenditure than at present. We would very much like the Soviet Union to return to the nuclear negotiating table and to negotiate on large ballastic missile weapons and intermediate weapons.
Mr. Robert Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) relevant to the statement?
Mr. Speaker: I heard nothing irrelevant in it.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the Prime Minister is in France tomorrow, will she reflect——
Mr. David Winnick: She will not.
Mr. Rees: I shall be there and I shall reflect on the issue that I am about to raise with the right hon. Lady. Will she bear in mind that Mr. Botha spoke out during the war against the involvement of his soldiers and airmen in fighting against Germany? Indeed, he spoke out vividly in support of Hitler.
The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember also that many South Africans came and fought in the battle of Europe.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking Mr. Chernenko to come here for conversations with her? If he comes, will she discuss with him how Dr. Sakharov is getting on? Finally, will she ask Mr. Chernenko about his dirty tricks?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Not yet". However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is going to Moscow to see Mr. Gromyko in July. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising once again the position of Dr. Sakharov, who was exiled from Moscow to Gorki and is in need of medical treatment, as is his wife. That is a reminder that we have dialogue with countries which have no human rights as we understand them.
Mr. Winnick: Why does the Prime Minister not recognise that South Africa is different from other dictatorships—the Opposition deplore all dictatorships—in that it is the only system in which people are discriminated against from birth onwards because of the colour of their skin? That is why South Africa has been condemned time and time again. Will she bear in mind also that the South Africans who died in the second world war while fighting against Nazi Germany were, in the same way as all the others who fought against Hitler, fighting against a racial tyranny which today is modelled in South Africa?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many in South Africa who are working for a system in which people are not discriminated against by the colour of their skin. I am the first to say that discrimination because of the colour of one's skin is totally and utterly wrong. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is urging upon me dialogue with a country which denies to all people freedom of speech and freedom of worship, and that, too, we condemn.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend understand that the continuation of the Gleneagles agreement means that sport is discouraged with South Africa because of conditions whereby selection takes place on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin? Did she reassure Mr. Botha that if those conditions do not exist for certain sports consideration might be given to excluding those sports from the agreement? Will she take it from one who has recently returned from South Africa that the English rugby team is doing a magnificant ambassadorial job for Britain in promoting multiracial sport in that society?
The Prime Minister: I am well aware that there are people in South Africa who are promoting multiracial sport, and in some cases it exists. I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to Prime Minister Botha, that I do not see any possibility at present of revising the Gleneagles agreement.
Mr. Donald Stewart: What quid pro quo did the British Government receive from the enormous benefit that accrued from the Botha visit? Is the Prime Minister aware that a request for armaments was unnecessary, as there is abundant evidence that the armed forces of South Africa are amply sustained through the activities of the British and the Israelis?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have honoured the United Nations embargo against South Africa, and we shall continue to do so. No request for arms was made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not continue to make that accusation against the British Government.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend remember how much condemnation there was from members of the Labour Cabinet, the Labour Members on the Opposition Benches and the Labour party throughout the country when the Labour Foreign Minister went to South Africa and spoke to Mr. P. W. Botha?
The Prime Minister: There cannot have been any, because it must have been the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.
Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Prime Minister specifically raise with Mr. Botha the well-documented examples of activities by the South African security services from their embassy in London? Have all the links between British and South African security services been broken? Has the right hon. Lady given instructions that the British security services are to prevent a repetition of what has happened in the past?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the House we do not discuss security. We have frequently made it clear to the South African Government that an embassy is for diplomatic purposes only. They are well aware of that, especially since the Libyan episode.
Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that every year many thousands of seamen from Britain and other Western powers traverse the sea route around the Cape? Is it not vitally important for the well-being of those seamen that there should be an efficient air-sea rescue service of long-range aircraft, backed up by Sea King helicopters, to lift the people who become casualties at sea? Is that not outside the scope of an arms embargo? Would it not be of benefit to us all to reinforce the air-sea rescue services around the Cape?
The Prime Minister: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. South Africa is of great strategic importance to this country. She fully discharged her maritime responsibilities under international law, and we are grateful for that.
Ms. Clare Short: Did Prime Minister Botha ask the Prime Minister to close the African National Congress office in London? Will the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that that office will be free to operate throughout her term of office?
The Prime Minister: I made it clear that we cannot possibly close offices such as the ANC or the PLO, unless anyone there contravenes our law.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if general trade sanctions were imposed on South Africa, and for as long as South Africa continues to be politically ostracised, the nationalist voice in that

163
country will be raised in defence of apartheid? Is it not much better, if we are to encourage progress socially and politically in that country, to talk face to face, as my right hon. Friend has done, rather than talk back to back, as the United Nations often does?
The Prime Minister: Yes; I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the many people in South Africa who are working for the same things that we are welcome the visit to this country.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Who does the Prime Minister think obtained most advantage from the visit, Mr. Botha or herself?
The Prime Minister: I expect that we both secured advantage from the visit, but I happen to believe that we should not restrict our discussions to those with whom we agree.
Sir William van Straubenzee: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the latest argument put up against the discussions that she has been reporting on in some church and other circles—that apartheid is, and this is the word, "institutionalised" in South Africa and that it is exceptional for that reason? Is not Marxism institutionalised in the Soviet Union? Is it not——
Mr. Dave Nellist: That is not Marxism, mate.
Sir William van Straubenzee: How greatly we should miss our resident comedian. Is it not as right to talk to one regime which is abhorrent as it is to another?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him. Marxism denies freedom of speech and worship and prosecutes those people who practise either, and yet we are asked to talk to them and we do.
Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are not fooled by every cheer that comes from the Tory Benches every time that South Africa is mentioned? She let the cat out of the bag with one word in her statement. It is the strategic importance of southern Africa to big business in this country and elsewhere which matters far more than the rights of working people, black or any other colour, in that country. Why does she not admit that it is the investments of Britons in South Africa, and the profit men in the mines and elsewhere which are uppermost in her mind, not banning orders, pass laws or the detention of Nelson Mandela? That is the sugar icing on the cake.
The Prime Minister: It has been our experience that the overwhelming majority of British people like their freedom in this country to be well and truly defended, and strategic interest means something to them.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the importance of the Cape route to the freedom of the Western world, did my right hon. Friend discuss with Mr. Botha defence matters and closer co-operation in defence between our two countries?
The Prime Minister: No, we did not go into those matters. On the whole, we were discussing the position in southern Africa, but naturally one discussed the way in which South Africa discharges its maritime duties under international law.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Prime Minister aware that on these Benches —
164
[Interruption] When my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was Foreign Secretary he would have been in gross dereliction of his duty if he had not had discussions with the South African Government to try to achieve a settlement of the UDI problem in Rhodesia and the Namibian crisis which existed then. What was the reaction of the South African Prime Minister to the right hon. Lady's representations about Nelson Mandela? Has she had any discussions with President Reagan about the settlement in Namibia? Are there any proposals from the American Government on the Namibian settlement, as has been publicised in some newspapers?
The Prime Minister: With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is "No". I shall see President Reagan this evening. With regard to the earlier part of the question, as I said in one of the answers I gave before Prime Minister Botha came, South Africa was helpful to us in securing a settlement of the Zimbabwe matter, a settlement that eluded the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right. hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of showing the South African Prime Minister what we think about apartheid is to have him here and to tell him face to face? Will she look for an opportunity to go to South Africa if invited—preferably with a multiracial group—and say the same thing there? Will she also make it plain to hon. Members that, instead of just expressing their opposition to the South African Prime Minister's visit, they could have expressed as much pleasure in greeting Chief Gatsha Buthelezi when he came here two weeks ago with virtually no publicity?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has great personal experience of South African matters. I agree that it is best for us in this country to say to Prime Minister Botha and his Ministers that we do not see how one can discriminate between people on the basis of the colour of their skin, and that that is totally wrong. I believe that it is effective when we make that clear, and that it is effective when the Prime Minister travels across Europe and it is made clear to him in all the countries through which he travels.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Prime Minister honestly believe that she was able to influence Prime Minister Botha on any aspect of South African policy? If not, does the right hon. Lady not accept that the invitation to Prime Minister Botha to visit this country was an insult that the British peope could well have done without?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Was there any particular significance in my right hon. Friend's earlier reply when she said that the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia would be an important first step in the process there? Does that mean, for example, that the timetable for South African withdrawal has been brought forward? That would be very welcome.
The Prime Minister: No. II referred to the withdrawal of South African troops from Angola, which is nearly complete.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How vigorously and with how much determination did the Prime Minister press for the release of Nelson Mandela? What did Mr. Botha say in reply? Did he say that he would review the position? Did he say that he would take note of what the Prime Minister said and discuss it with his colleagues, or did he say nothing and ignore what the right hon. Lady had to say?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that they take a very different view of that case from the view that we take. I have nothing further to report, other than the fact that I raised the question of Mr. Nelson Mandela with the South African Prime Minister.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us think that she was right to talk to Mr. Botha? Will she agree that this House concentrates upon the problems of South Africa as though it was the only oppressive regime on that continent? Would not the House spend its time well if it concentrated on the problems of the black African country of Zimbabwe, where Bishop Muzorewa has been in prison because he lost the election and where people in Matabeleland have been murdered solely because they belonged to certain tribe? Apartheid is not the only murder. What goes on in the tribal system of Africa sometimes makes South Africa seem one of the more virtuous countries on that continent.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises some relevant points, and the House would do well to consider them.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there not something bogus about the hue and cry from the Opposition about the visit of Mr. Botha when not a whisper was raised against the visit of the President of Israel? In moral and physical terms, there is very little to choose between those two regimes.
The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what my hon. Friend says about the two regimes. I welcomed the President of Israel to London and had very helpful conversations with him, and I had long and interesting conversations with Mr. Botha.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Opposition talk about the homelands and South Africa, and object to the Venda nation having autonomy and independence, they are guilty of double standards? Many of the same voices call out for independence and autonomy for the Scottish nation.
The Prime Minister: I shall not involve myself in that argument at present.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word "Fascist" has just been used in connection with myself. Could the hon. Gentleman who used that word clarify what he said? If he said what my hon. Friends thought that he said, would he withdraw that word?
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were you saying earlier that to describe someone as a Fascist is unparliamentary? Is it not a fact that those who condone racial tyranny, those who find excuses to invite here the Prime Minister of a regime which is based on constitutionalised racial tyranny, and those who support
166
such measures, may well, in the view of a number of Opposition Members, be Fascists? Why should we not be allowed to say so?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need any help on this matter. Every hon. Member knows that the phrase poses dishonour — [Interruption.] The phrase has a connotation in this country which is well known, and I do not think that it should be used in the House. If the hon. Gentleman used that phrase, I ask him to withdraw it, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Did the hon. Gentleman use that phrase?
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Winnick: I shall not take into account the baying from Tory Members. We know their views about South Africa.
Mr. Speaker: That is beside the point. If the hon. Gentleman used that phrase, will he, in the light of what I have said, withdraw it? I did not hear it myself. If he used it, will he, in honour, withdraw it?
Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) exhibits all the manifestations of Fascism. I say that in all seriousness. Whatever connotations one puts on that term is another matter. The hon. Gentleman is an authoritarian. He believes in the kind of racist regime——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify the use of a word which I have just ruled is not parliamentary.
Dr. Miller: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I shall not withdraw it. In addition to the accusations which are made against him, the hon. Gentleman is an anti-Semite. That is surely the manifestation of a Fascist.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us dispose of this matter in a civilised manner. As I have already said to the House, we all know that the word Fascist has a connotation here which is not pleasing. It has a reverberation back to an anniversary which we are to celebrate tomorrow. I do not believe that the House would wish it to be used here against any hon. Member. If the hon. Gentleman used that word, will he please withdraw it? That will dispose of the matter.
Dr. Miller: My conscience will not allow me to withdraw. Of course I used the word. I have said it to the hon. Gentleman personally. I do not use the word as a mere expression. The hon. Gentleman is a very poor example of an hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member, who is an experienced Member of this House, will not——
Dr. Miller: I am a very mild man.
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Member is a very mild Member and that he has every reason to know the meaning of the word, but I hope that, as I have asked him to withdraw that word, he will now do so. He would not wish to disobey a request from me.
Dr. Miller: In view of the plea that you have made to me, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
Mr. Nellist: Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, as is recorded in Hansard, the hon. Member for Suffolk,

167
Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is the chairman of the Conservative party, accused me of being a Red Fascist. The incident was considered by the occupant of the Chair during that debate, and no request for withdrawal was made. Was that because I was one of the newest and youngest Members of the House, and it was the chairman of the Conservative party who used the phrase? Is it all right for Tories to call Labour Members Fascists but a different matter when Labour Members call Tories Fascists?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not present at the time and I do not know of the incident to which the hon. Member refers. However, I think that in future we should not use that word here.
Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to hear you say that you were not present and did not hear what took place because only 10 days ago you chose to examine the record of an incident three days after it took place. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was then told to withdraw a remark that he had made. Surely the same rule ought to apply in an even-handed way. If the incident of which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) complained has been recorded in Hansard, you are surely under an obligation to examine the record as was the case with the incident involving my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If the allegation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East referred appears in Hansard, surely you should tomorrow ask for a withdrawal of that comment.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting a lot of time. When words such as this are used, points of order must be raised at once. One cannot possibly go back into the record several weeks or months to rake over the use of such words. As I have said, I hope that we shall not hear this phrase used in the House.
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a genuine effort to be helpful may I point out that the word "Fascist", like some other words, is bandied around,
168
frequently with great passion and sincerity. It is nevertheless a matter of perception and philosophy. May I ask you whether, despite the heated exchanges, you will pause for reflection before you make a final ruling about the use of such a word, as I believe that the House would benefit if you proceeded in that way?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his conciliatory comments, but I must tell him and the House that, in relation to the discussions that we have had this afternoon, everybody knows exactly what the word was intended to mean. We all know that we do not impugn the character of any right hon. or hon. Member. That was the intention of the use of the word today, and I therefore rule that it is not a parliamentary word and hope that we shall not use it in the House.
Ms. Clare Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you most sincerely to reconsider your ruling——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I have nothing more to say on the matter. The House fully understands the point that I am making and nothing that the hon. Lady can say will help me or make me change my mind.
Ms. Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are in Britain today openly Fascist parties that call themselves Fascists and contest elections to the House. I put it to you most sincerely that you have made a dangerous ruling. It cannot be unparliamentary to use the term "Fascist", which is a serious political term, in the House when we have organised Fascist movements in Britain. I sincerely ask you to reconsider your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has made a significant point. It is perfectly true that there are Fascist parties that contest elections, but they have not been elected to the House.

South African Prime Minister (Visit)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Cheque Book Journalism
4.12 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the declaration in any newspaper story, published as a result of payments other than to a journalist or regular contributor, for the rights to such stories, of the amount paid for those rights and the names of those to whom payment was made.
Chequebook journalism has caused many people a great deal of anxiety. Many journalists are unhappy about it and the National Union of Journalists has condemned the practice. So has the Press Council and the House on previous occasions. My Bill does not make chequebook journalism illegal but it is intended to give the public the right to know when it occurs—when sums of money are paid to people other than journalists or regular contributors in return for information that can be the basis of a news item. My Bill will reveal what goes on in an attempt to make the practice less prevalent. If newspapers are obliged to reveal when they have paid large sums of money in the circumstances described, they might well be embarrassed and therefore desist.
We do not know how often chequebook journalism takes place because, by definition, most such transactions take place in secret and the resulting stories masquerade as news items rather than stories under the name of the person from whom the information was obtained. I understand from talking to journalists in Fleet street that the practice has become so prevalent that even members of the public assume that a fairly large sum of money will be paid to them if they have a story. I shall give examples of four types of chequebook journalism, each of which is to be condemned.
The first concerns payment being made to witnesses or people who are likely to become witnesses in court proceedings. Such payments almost inevitably interfere with the course of justice. That was perceived by the Press Council as a matter of importance as long ago as 1966 when, in a declaration of principle, it said:
"No payment or offer of payment should be made by a newspaper to any person known or reasonably expected to be a witness in criminal proceedings already begun in exchange for any story or information in connection with the proceedings until they have been concluded."
There are several well publicised cases of sums being offered in such circumstances. In the Jeremy Thorpe case, payment was offered to a material witness and the amount to be paid depended on whether Jeremy Thorpe was found guilty. In the event, he was acquitted, but the principle of a witness having an interest in the outcome of the case is one that we must all deplore. More recently, in the Stephen Waldorf shooting incident, payments were made, as far as we can establish, to people who might have been witnesses in one of the series of legal actions that ensued.
The second type of chequebook journalism concerns payment to criminals or people associated with them. In January 1983 the Press Council said:
"Just as it is wrong that the evildoer should benefit from his crime so it is wrong that persons associated with the criminal should derive financial benefit from trading on that association."
That statement was provoked by the Sutcliffe, or Yorkshire Ripper, case as payments were apparently made to people associated with him in return for stories.
The third form of chequebook journalism concerns not criminal activities but payments made by newspapers in return for which they are given a monopoly on the story.
170
The most recent example concerns the birth of the quads. The story was suppressed for four days because the newspaper that had bought monopoly rights to the story did not want the news item revealed. That is an example of the public having the right to be given information and it being wrong that a newspaper should achieve a monopoly and mislead the public.
Another recent example concerns Zola Budd. I understand that one newspaper has bought the monopoly on stories on her, an athlete of considerable interest to the public. Right hon. and hon. Members who saw the first day of an athletics meeting at which Zola Budd competed will have noticed that, when she won a heat, she was immediately surrounded by what can only be called "heavies" who escorted her away so that she could talk to nobody—not even her fellow competitors. I am happy to say that that practice, to judge from the television coverage, ceased the following day. Many local newspapers strongly resent the nationals stepping in and getting a monopoly of a story, thereby denying the local newspaper the chance to publish it.
My fourth category of objection concerns what I suppose might be called sexual scandals, when a newspaper pays a significant sum of money to a person involved in a sexual scandal so that information will be revealed about the other person in the episode, presumably only when the other person is a national figure. The public should have the right to know that sums of money have been paid to an individual in return for such a story.
Equally regrettable is the fact that there are occasions when the police themselves have been the persons who have sold stories to newspapers because as a result of their privileged position they have had access to information denied to ordinary members of the public. On occasion they have sold that information to newspapers.
If I mentioned all the newspapers, or the ones I have been able to discover, that indulge in chequebook journalism I fear that none of them would report the debate because most of them would be incriminated by my speech. As I cannot be accurate, I shall desist from mentioning any of them. There is a handful that do not indulge in the practice.
The amounts of money involved may vary from a few pounds to as much as £100,000, or so it is alleged. It is the purpose of my Bill to cover amounts of money from £500 upwards.
I have tried hard to think of ways of making chequebook journalism illegal but I cannot find any easy or efficient way of doing so. Sometimes there are beneficial results, of which I shall give two brief examples. Some years ago the thalidomide scandal was revealed because of a payment by a newspaper to an individual who had inside information. More recently the publicity given to the doubtful effectiveness of the Lion breathalyser also came to light as a result of payments by a newspaper.
I repeat that it is not my intention to make chequebook journalism illegal; it is only to make it more difficult. The test seems to be that it is justified as a practice if the newspaper concerned is fully prepared to own up to what it has done, how much money it has paid and to whom the money has been paid. It is the purpose of the Bill to achieve that end.
I do not seek to interfere in contractual relationships between newspapers and people who supply information. I simply believe that it is the responsibility of the British press that such transactions, because they affect the way

171
newspaper stories are seen and received by the public, should be made public. If the House gives me permission to proceed with the Bill that will be the result of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. Tom Cox.

Cheque Book Journalism
  CHEQUE BOOK JOURNALISM (DECLARATION OF PAYMENTS FOR NEWSPAPER STORIES)
  Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the declaration in any newspaper story, published as a result of payments other than to a journalist or regular contributor, for the rights to such stories, of the amount paid for those rights and the names of those to whom payment was made: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
Orders of the Day
  Data Protection Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Data Protection Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      EXAMINATION MARKS
      '(1) Section 21 above shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section in the case of personal data consisting of marks or other information held by a data user—

      (a) for the purpose of determining the results of an academic, professional or other examination or of enabling the results of any such examination to be determined; or

      (b) in consequence of the determination of any such results.

      (2) Where the period mentioned in subsection (6) of section 21 begins before the results of the examination are announced that period shall be extended until—

      (a) the end of five months from the beginning of that period; or

      (b) the end of forty days after the date of the announcement,

      whichever is the earlier.
      (3) Where by virtue of subsection (2) above a request is complied with more than forty days after the beginning of the period mentioned in subsection (6) of section 21, the information to be supplied pursuant to the request shall be supplied both by reference to the data in question at the time when the request is received and (if different) by reference to the data as from time to time held in the period beginning when the request is received and ending when it is complied with.
      (4) For the purposes of this section the results of an examination shall be treated as announced when they are first published or (if not published) when they are first made available or communicated to the candidate in question.
      (5) In this section "examination" includes any process for determining the knowledge, intelligence, skill or ability of a candidate by reference to his performance in any test, work or other activity.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.23 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Examination scores—
      'Where personal data consist of information as to the marks awarded for any educational or professional examination, the provisions of section 21(6) of this Act shall apply as if for the reference to forty days there were substituted a reference to ninety days.'
      Mr. Waddington: I hope that in moving new clause 2 I am opening today's proceedings on a note of harmony, for there was one point on which all parties were agreed in Committee and that was on the need to make some special provision in the Bill to alleviate the administrative and practical problems which the right of subject access might otherwise present to examining bodies. All the members of the Committee, and, I suspect, many hon. Members who were not so fortunate as to take part in our deliberations, have received representations from schools examining bodies, from universities and, in many cases, from professional bodies pointing out the difficulties that they would face if they were obliged to deal with requests for access to data before the results of examinations were announced.

      173
      The schools examining boards probably face the greatest problems. As hon. Members will know, these bodies have to work to a very tight timetable to produce the results of GCE and CSE examinations by the middle of the summer so as to fit in with the timetables of further and higher educational establishments which are waiting for the results in order to decide which students to accept for courses; and, of course, the results are also wanted by prospective employers. This means that the examining boards are working at full stretch usually for two or three months in the summer, but in some cases for longer than that, since these days examinations stretch over a longer period. The first practical or oral examination for some GCE subjects may take place as early as April, although final results will not be announced until the end of August. During the intervening period the marks for each part of the various examinations taken by a candidate will be put on to a computer, combined and moderated in various ways, to ensure, for example, a common standard among markers, or to take account perhaps of the illness of a candidate.
      If examining boards had to deal with large numbers of requests for access during this period when they were marking and assessing examinations, the whole process could be disrupted, with the result that the announcement of the results might be delayed, to the disadvantage of all concerned. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accepted in Committee that this would be undesirable. I therefore undertook to bring forward on Report an amendment designed to alleviate the problem. New clause 2 honours that undertaking.
      I hope it will be thought satisfactory by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who has tabled new clause 1, which asks that subject access should not have to be granted before 90 days after the request. It will be clear to the House from what I have already said that 90 days may not be sufficient time to solve the problem faced by the boards in all cases.
      There is another point. New clause 1 covers only examination marks. Yet examining bodies will also hold other details of candidates, such as their names, schools and the papers they are taking, and, if they had to give subject access to these details within 40 days, their schedules would still be disrupted. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw new clause 1.
      New clause 2 is broadly in line with the approach adopted in an amendment tabled by the official Opposition in Committee. It applies to personal data which are held in order that the results of an examination may be determined. The data may be held by the body which actually conducts the examination or by any other body which contributes to the assessment process. If, as is sometimes the case, examination scripts are marked by the presenting school before being moderated by the examining board, the data held by the school will be covered. For the purpose of the clause, "examination", as subsection (5) makes clear, includes work which is the subject of continuous assessment, because, as I have already mentioned, the problems involved with such assessments are the same. The data in question need not be the examination data themselves. If this provision is to be of any use, it has to cover associated information. All examining bodies are likely to hold this information, and
      174
      it must be covered if the intention of the clause to prevent subject access demands from interfering with marking schedules is to be achieved.
      The new clause has the effect of extending the 40-day period of grace in cases where a request for subject access is received before the announcement of the examination results. In these circumstances, the user may delay responding to the request until 40 days after the announcement of the results, subject to a maximum total delay from the time of the request of five months. The general intention, of course, is that examining bodies should be able to put requests for access to one side until they have completed the marking process and announced the results. But I should point out that the Council of Europe convention requires that access be granted "without excessive delay". This means that we cannot provide in the Bill for an open-ended delay until results are announced. Although in most cases this will happen within two to three months, it is theoretically possible for there to be a time lag of a year or more, particularly where continuous assessments are involved.
      We therefore need to put a maximum limit on the delay, and we believe that five months is reasonable. It is longer than I originally thought would be necessary, but it is difficult to see how it could harm any examinee, and, as I have explained, in the vast majority of cases it will give the school examining boards all the help that they need. Five months is the maximum, and in the vast majority of cases the delay will not be that long. The new clause provides that access must be granted within 40 days of the announcement of the results or within five months of receipt of the request, whichever is the sooner. In most cases, 40 days after the results are announced will be the sooner.
      I hope that I have explained adequately why we have decided on precisely these terms. I am sure that the new clause will receive the general approbation of the House.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Denis Howell: With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to give a brief preliminary welcome to the general attitude taken by the Government to all that went on in Committee. I am sure that all who served on the Committee will not take it amiss if I acknowledge that. At the outset, we wondered whether the Government were hidebound and rigid. There were many interesting debates in Committee on which the Minister could not meet us then, but which he undertook to consider further. I wish to put on record our appreciation of the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman approached all the difficult matters that we discussed in Committee and of the concessions that he has made, which have considerably improved the Bill. It still does not go as far as we would wish, but that is partly because, as the Minister constantly reminded us, this data protection measure does not cover matters outside word processors, computers and so on. At some time, Parliament must consider whether we should provide for all British subjects rights of access in all circumstances to all information collected about them, as we believe should be done. This applies especially to manual files, which are not covered by the Bill, because they are not data processed, but which we believe should be covered. Nevertheless, we shall not pursue that discussion any further today.

      175
      It may be convenient if I refer at this stage to five improvements that the Government have made to the Bill as a result of our discussions in Committee. First, the erasure of inaccurate data, with the power of the Registrar to secure compliance with his requirements, constitutes a significant and welcome improvement. Secondly, the availability of damages for individuals occasioned distress by reason of inaccuracy of data held about them is a major and very welcome concession. Thirdly, on the difficult question of third party information, which we discussed in Committee, we are glad that the Government have found it possible to provide a vital extension of the rights of the individual in this regard. Fourthly, Government amendment No. 32 will place an obligation on the Registrar to investigate all complaints of substance. That, too, was requested by the Opposition in Committee and is a worthwhile advance. Fifthly, it will be the duty of the Registrar to encourage codes of practice. There was considerable discussion of this in Committee, and an excellent improvement has been made. As one of our amendments suggests, we should like this to be statutory. Nevertheless, we welcome the significant improvement made by the Government.
      For all those reasons, the Opposition are much happier about the Bill than we were on Second Reading. It makes substantial and welcome advances in the protection of the individual. Therefore, we shall support the Government in helping to get the improved Bill on to the statute book.
      One difficulty arises in relation to personal information provided by medical practitioners about patients. That will need further discussion in relation to new clause 4. We welcome the agreement that seems to have come out of discussions between the British Medical Association and the DHSS, but we regret that the protection for doctors has not been extended to the social services. We shall seek to express our regret about that at the appropriate point.
      I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for allowing me to make those introductory remarks. I now address myself to new clause 2. I believe that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who tabled new clause 1, will agree that the proper objectives expressed by all of us have been met by the Government. We have all been inundated with correspondence from the universities, the National Council for Civil Liberties, student unions and other consumer organisations. I believe that the Government have now got this difficult and complex matter about right.
      The new clause provides that the principle of access by scholars and students to this information is to be maintained, as most of us would agree that the European convention on human rights requires, but within a sensible timetable which has regard to the difficulties of universities, colleges and other examining bodies. That seems absolutely right to us. I welcome the Minister's initiative in new clause 2.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I am pleased to say at the outset that the Government's new clause 2 certainly goes part of the way to meeting the anxieties that led me to table new clause 1. I am not sure, however, that it goes as far as I believe that it should go and as I believe that a number of university vice-chancellors feel that it should go. I shall try to explain why.
      I have taken a close interest in this ever since the Bill first appeared and I tabled an amendment for consideration in Committee which was moved by my hon. Friend the
      176
      Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I followed the arguments deployed in Committee very carefully, I have had discussions with Brunel university in my constituency and have received considerable correspondence and comments on the matter from others in the academic world.
      There are very important and genuine reasons for protecting the privacy of personal examination data for a reasonable period of time. The purpose of new clause 1 is to protect the confidentiality of personal data, mainly consisting of examination marks. I realise that my draftsmanship does not match that of the Government, but the intention is clear — to protect marks and other information held by the data user for the purpose of determining results of an academic, professional or other examination, for 90 days from the date on which examination results are published. I wish to draw that point to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.
      As I understand it — I stand to be corrected — new clause 2 would protect information for only 40 days after publication of the examination results. That being the case, it is important for me to deploy the case for 90 days so that at least my right hon. and hon. Friends have the opportunity of understanding a matter that has disturbed many academics who are concerned with examination procedures.
      It is feared by many examiners that students will demand access to data and challenge them, not least because they can only win in such a situation. It is felt that delay for a reasonable period would ensure that a request for data would not be made at whim. I suggested a period of 90 days—it is a little longer than the period included by my hon. and learned Friend in his new clause—because it would be a reasonable disincentive to frivolous challenge. There is a further important point, that examiners should be able to conduct examinations without the risk of frivolous challenge to results. Some other valid points have been made.
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I have difficulty in understanding the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I do not follow his argument. I should like to know why such a challenge is frivolous. If it is frivolous, how is it less likely to be frivolous after 90 days rather than 40 days after publication of results?
      Mr. Shersby: It is thought that challenges may well be frivolous. It has been put to me by some academics that a student who is in a position to challenge his examination results has nothing to lose by so doing. Therefore, the 40 day period will encourage that type of frivolous challenge. Those students who receive disappointing results often feel that they were fair, after a period of mature reflection and discussion. Consequently, it has been put to me that 90 days is a reasonable time for people to consider whether their results are as they should be. That is why new clause 2 has been tabled. I know that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not agree with that. I have read his Committee speech in the Official Report. He is entitled to his point of view, and I must deploy the points that have been put to me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, with his customary charm. Although I welcome new clause 2 I would have been happier if the period was a little longer.
      We must also consider cases that occur when students expect to receive a first-class honours degree but, when the

      177
      final grades for the examination are considered and the correct weighting and assessment methods have been used, they receive only an upper second class. As a result of that sort of misunderstanding, which can easily occur and in which anguish is caused to students, it is felt that introducing a slightly longer period for reflection would be of assistance.
      It is also likely that the number of appeals against final grades that are made for frivolous reasons would be greatly reduced. Those students who chose to appeal after 90 days would probably be those with a serious grievance, who had thoroughly thought out the reasons for their appeal, while students who wanted to appeal on the spur of the moment, immediately after receiving their grades, would probably have had second thoughts.
      4.45 pm
      Another reason for the 90-day period is that less time would be wasted by university visitors, who might otherwise have to examine appeals made by students on a whim. More time could be spent in examining serious grievances through the usual appeal procedure.
      Another point that must be considered is the reduction in the number of appeals, which would have an important side effect. It would probably mean that examination boards would be more ready to use their discretion when making decisions on final grades. They would feel that it was less likely that their decisions would be frequently challenged. That would allow the boards to continue in their important role as moderators of examination results, in which they can make allowances for ill-health, emotional upset and other factors. The 90-day period was suggested for those reasons.
      I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to improve in new clause 2 on the 40 days, to which he referred in Committee. He has clearly made substantial improvements in other respects in new clause 2, which I warmly welcome. It is only right and proper to put on record the genuine concern felt by some universities that the 40-day period is too short. I realise that, as this is a Lords Bill, we shall not have the opportunity to consider the matter again, which is to be regretted.
      I shall be grateful if, when he replies, my hon. and learned Friend will comment on the reasons why he chose a period of 40 days and why he does not feel able to make a further improvement along the lines suggested in new clause 1.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I join the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in acknowledging that the Government have responded to a tenacious and attentive Committee by bringing forward changes on Report.
      I must comment in passing on the contrast between the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon and his words on Second Reading. He will recall that, in winding-up the debate on Second Reading, he was roaring like a lion in his opposition to it and all its works. He said that the Bill was
      "a totally inadequate protection for the individual citizen, of his 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."
      He also said that the Registrar
      178
      "will be overwhelmed with work, and will be inadequately staffed, without codes of conduct approved by Parliament."—[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 98–99.]
      That position is largely unchanged by the work of the Committee. The contrast between the right hon. Gentleman's roaring like a lion then and his bleating like a lamb this afternoon will be noted.
      Having made that point, I welcome new clause 2. It just about strikes the balance that must be struck between ensuring that information held about students is made available to them, in accordance with the terms of the convention, soon after examinations, and enabling examinations to be conducted properly and concluded without interference. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I should be interested to hear how the Minister arrived at the magic figure of 40 days and, even more, the five months from the beginning of the period. That is a little on the long side. I do not know what representations on the periods he received, and from what bodies. It would be interesting to know that, because no doubt the practicalities of what has been suggested will continue to be debated after the Bill reaches the statute book. We should like to be assured on that point.
      The Government have shown themselves to be conscious of the representations made by the vice-chancellors and of the proper concerns of students to have access to information about them. When universities, colleges of further education or other institutions of learning affected by the measure have conducted their examinations, they must be prepared to defend their judgment and decisions. It is right that students should have access to the information that is secured by the measure. Therefore, I welcome new clause 2.
      Sir Dudley Smith: I did not have the advantage of being a member of the Committee, so I should like to declare an interest. I am connected with an international banking and credit card firm that is affected by some of the provisions in the Bill. My interest goes wider than that because, as a member of this Parliament's delegation to the Council of Europe assembly, I have always supported the convention on data protection, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister referred. I have always felt that it was a specifically important project that affected all the nations of Europe, and that we needed to come into line with it.
      The new clause, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, brings in a common-sense provision. All legislation should reflect sound sense. All too often, the man in the street, and even a specialist, finds it obtuse and not sensible. It must be right to make the marking process paramount and unhindered.
      I was impressed by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). It is apparent to all of us that, in the anger or disappointment at having failed examinations, people might rush away and put in applications. My hon. Friend said that there should be a cooling-off period of 90 days rather than 40 days. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked for an explanation for that. It is a cooling-off period. People genuinely have second thoughts. I should have thought that it was in the interests not only of administrators but of students to have a period for reflection. Students would lose nothing by that if, in the longer term, they were still able to make their appeal. Therefore, I hope that my hon.

      179
      and learned Friend the Minister will reconsider the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge because his argument had a good deal of merit.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, we welcome the Government's fulfilment of the commitment that they gave in Committee. Like my right hon. Friend, I favour maximum protection of the privacy of the individual. In principle, I am also in favour of maximum access for the individual to information about him. That particularly applies to examination marks, scores or assessments. We believe that there should be as much accessibility to all kinds of information for the individual as is compatible with the privacy of other individuals. As the Minister said in moving the new clause, article 8 of the convention states that there must be access to personal information on an individual, and it must be allowed without excessive delay. Article 9 does not allow any derogation from the principles enshrined in article 8 for examination marks.
      Like my right hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who spoke long and eloquently on this issue in Committee, I do not believe that there is any reason for marks, scores or assessments of any kind—whether at O or A-level, for professional organisations' examinations or university examinations — to remain hidden from the individual on whom the assessment has been made. There is no reason for secrecy. There is nothing that any examiner should have to hide from the person whom he has been examining. I say that as an examiner at O and A-level, and university level. Neither on past occasions nor now would I be prepared to defend preventing any of the people whose papers I have marked from having access to my assessment of their work.
      A student has the right to know the value that has been apportioned by his examiner to his work. We agree that every effort should be made to make the reasons available, to allow the student to know how the marks were arrived at, to see the values attached to different parts of his work, and to enable him to see that there is a clear, rational base for the decisions made about him. This may not always have happened in the past, but the provision will ensure that in future examiners behave conscientiously and competently when they mark examination papers. There is nothing more likely to ensure that an examiner treats an examinee's script properly and conscientiously than if he knows that the examinee will have access to it and might argue about and challenge the marking afterwards. One good reason for the new clause is to ensure that examiners are kept on their toes.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said that the 40-day period during which there may be a delay between publication and access to information about examinations is too short, because there may be frivolous applications. When I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I failed to see the force of his argument, just as I fail to see it now. I cannot see how any student would be more likely to make a frivolous demand for the raw marks to be given to him after 40 days than after 90 days. He is not likely to make a frivolous demand in the first place. It is a serious and important subject. It is not frivolous to say, "I want to see how the raw scores were made and how I was assessed." If the request is serious after 40 days, it will be equally serious after 90 days.
      180
      Another reason advanced by the hon. Gentleman was that the longer period would enable students to reflect on the results. They will have received their results on publication. All that the students are asking is how results, such as a first class or upper second degree, were arrived at. They do not get that information until 40 days after publication, under the Bill. No extra period for reflection is necessary.
      There is no reason why marks should not be available The only problem is trying to ensure that, when they are made available to examinees, there is no disruption of the examining process. That was the only issue that lay between the two sides of the Committee, and it was not contentious. We made an effort to arrive at what we believed to be a sensible and practicable solution.
      There is no magic in the 90-clay or 40-day period. Given our principle of wanting to make as much information as possible available and accessible in as short a time as possible, the Government's new clause is desirable. My hon. Friends will support it and, if necessary, oppose new clause 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge.
      Mr. Waddington: I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for his generous remarks, as well as to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The Committee was useful. There were interesting debates, and some benefits flowed from them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said that he wanted a delay of 90 days from the date of publication of the results. That is not the effect of new clause 1, which he tabled. The new clause refers to the provisions of clause 21(6) of the Bill, and its effect would be to postpone the right of access to 90 days after the request for access was made, not for 90 days after the publication of the final results. In fact, our new clause 2 is more generous than his, and that is why I feel that, on reflection, he will be happy with it.
      5 pm
      I should go back to the beginning, because we seem to be forgetting how the debate began. It began with the examining boards telling us that they have a busy time in the summer of each year and would find it difficult if, while carrying out the examining process, they were bombarded by applications for access to raw scores as a result of preliminary tests that had taken place before the final examinations. Therefore, a new clause that postponed access to raw scores until after publication of the final results must meet that point, and mean that no request need be dealt with until after the examiners have got over the rush period and produced the final results. That is the reason behind the wording of our new clause.
      There is no magic in the 40 days. We have kept that period because it appears in clause 21(6) and we have merely set the clock running, as it were, from the publication of the final results rather than from the date for access.
      Likewise, there is no magic in the five-month period because, as I said earlier, the first practical or oral examinations for GCE subjects take place as early as April, and the final results do not come out until well on into the summer. That is where the five months comes from. We felt that by picking on this figure we would cover almost all eventualities without having to say that there would be no subject access until the final results were made, which would put us in peril of offending against the

      181
      convention. In all the circumstances, I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will feel that we have adopted the right course.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) drew a contrast between the words of the right hon. Member for Small Heath on Second Reading and his words today. It would be ungracious of me to follow the hon. Gentleman in that, and I shall say no more.
      Mr. Shersby: I am grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend has had to say in a typically helpful and generous speech. This matter has caused a great deal of interest and concern in the academic world, and, while I would have preferred my 90 days, I wish to reciprocate in a generous mood. Therefore, I shall not press my new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      EXEMPTION FROM THE NON-DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
      'The Secretary of State may by order withdraw modify or supplement the Provisions exempting personal data from the nondisclosure provisions for the purpose of providing additional safeguards for the data-subject in relation to personal data consisting of information as to:

      (a) Spiritual counselling or to assistance given or to be given to him

      (b) Social work or similar activities involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him or

      (c) To other activities relating to his personal welfare and involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him—

      (i) By a voluntary organisation; or

      (ii) By an individual who by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities for his personal welfare.'—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power by order to supplement the provisions of the Bill to give protection to information that has been given either as a result of spiritual counselling or social work, or of similar activities.
      It is interesting that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), in his first intervention in this debate, injected a note of contentious and adversarial politics. He drew attention to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend may roar like a lion, but I have never yet heard him bleat like a lamb. In any event, many of the points that we raised both on Second Reading and in Committee have resulted in changes to the Bill, conceded by the Government in response to the arguments advanced by the official Opposition and not those advanced by the Social Democratic party representative. He was more remarkable for his absence than his presence during our debates.
      I say that because it applies particularly to the subject that we are debating. I looked quickly through the debate in Committee that we had on social work and the protection that we are seeking for those records. The hon. Gentleman was conspicuous, not by his absence, but for the lack of any contribution to that debate, the one preceding it, or the one following it.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must know that there was only one occasion when I was not present during the debates in Committee. I was present throughout the debates, which is more than can be said about him. He was absent from the debates on many occasions and left it to his long-winded and somewhat tedious colleagues to delay proceedings into the middle of the night.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall not enter into this slanging match, but I have obviously touched upon a nerve in the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains, as anyone can see from the records, that on many of the major issues the hon. Gentleman did not make any contribution to the debate and when he did contribute, such contributions were not significant or important.
      The Government have already conceded by a later amendment that there are certain types of information about individuals that are peculiarly delicate, sensitive or confidential, and to which therefore some protection should be accorded. We understand that, after consultations with the BMA and health authorities, the Government have conceded that there shall be protection for personal information about a person's physical or mental health. We also understand that the Health Services Act will be amended to ensure that information in the Health Service shall not be disclosed to the police, tax or Customs and Excise authorities, and the Government are now extending that protection to all health information, wherever it is held.
      The Government have conceded the principle that certain types of information are confidential, delicate and sensitive. We are saying that the same protection should now also be afforded to social work information. Clearly, the Government recognise the sensitivity of information contained on social work files or given as a result of spiritual counselling. This is shown by the protection afforded to this information in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) of new clause 4 are lifted precisely from the part of that Bill which provide that where such information is contained, the police will not have the legal ability to make a search of premises to obtain that information.
      If the Government in their wisdom are saying that such information, given voluntarily by the individual in such situations, is so sensitive, important and potentially embarrassing or controversial that the police shall not be able to search for it, it would seem to us to be important that in this Bill we also say that such information may not be disclosed to the police, the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise for the purposes set out in clause 28.
      We say this because confidentiality between social workers and their clients, or between a vicar or a priest and members of his congregation, depends on the belief that that confidentiality will be respected. It depends upon their belief that they have the confidence and trust of the social worker, vicar or priest, and that the information that they give to those individuals will not be passed on to any third party. Individuals who give this kind of information under stress, usually in an emotional situation, certainly when they are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and seeking help, advice and assistance, would not look for that advice, help or assistance, and would not volunteer that information, if they were aware of the danger that it could be passed on subsequently without their knowledge, still less their consent, to a third party, which might be the police, national security authorities or anyone else.

      183
      For those reasons, we believe that the same kind of protection should be afforded to this information that the Government give to information in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and, indeed, in this Bill to health information within and outside the National Health Service.
      Leaving those arguments to one side—they were fully deployed in Committee, and the Minister is well aware of them—I wish to put certain questions to him. The Bill will give protection to health information held on an individual within and outside the National Health Service, but how will one separate health information from other information contained on social work files? The Minister will be aware that many social work files contain information about the physical and often the mental health of the individual on whom the information is held. How will one separate the health information and the social work information contained on the files in well women's clinics, which are supposed to consider all aspects of women's problems, medical and social, and whose files contain medical and social work information? How is one to separate the health information and social work information contained on the files compiled by community nurses and others? One could continue to cite examples in which there is no clear distinction on a file about an individual between information relating to his or her physical or mental health and information that relates to a social work function. It is therefore important for the professionals to have some indication from the Minister of how the problem will be dealt with when the Bill is implemented.
      We believe that information on individuals should be disclosed only to the police, if it is to be disclosed at all, in well-defined clearly stated circumstances, and only then as a consequence of a serious offence. Whether we maintain that this information should not be disclosed, or accept, perhaps reluctantly, that there may be circumstances in which it can be disclosed, there ought to he safeguards such as we seek in new clause 4.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the clause for many of the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), and particularly because, although there may be objections of a technical nature to the drafting, which I understand, and which relate to the way in which one defines the kind of relationships and confidentiality that exist in the sphere of social work, it is clear that the professional people involved are concerned about the information that they receive about the most personal details of people's lives. As a result of this provision, which I accept would enable only specifics to be divulged, it is feared that the information might not be protected in the same way that information referred to in other parts of the Bill is protected.
      The three categories set out are often interrelated. Not only do they govern the medical records that are of a wider definition in the medical context, whether psychiatric, psychological or social—in the same sense that people seek advice on matrimonial or family problems—but they relate particularly to those pieces of information that arise in what is traditionally the most protected context of all, that is, that between an individual and his or her spiritual adviser. One of the traditional understandings about privacy is that information passed on to the priest or
      184
      vicar will be treated as sacred and respected, like information passed to a doctor. Those two professions in this country have been assumed traditionally to be those able to listen, in the same way that the Samaritans organisation advertises that it listens, with the person involved knowing that the information will not be passed on.
      It is important to have people in society whose function is not necessarily to produce and immediate remedy, but to listen and respond, knowing that that process is inviolate from any efforts of the law or people who, if the Bill goes through unamended, might trespass upon information given for the benefit of, with the connivance and help of other people.
      I anticipate one problem that I do not think need prevent acceptance of the new clause. It concerns the wording of the new clause:
      "personal data consisting of information as to:
      (c) other activities relating to his personal welfare and involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him—

      (i) By a voluntary organisation; or

      (ii) By an individual who by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities."

      There are, of course, innumerable people who could claim that they have that sort of professional relationship. I can understand that the Minister might say, "We don't want to allow everyone to lay claim to that relationship." That would be a valid reluctance. Voluntary organisations that are recognised as acceptable in their sphere of counselling—the one that I have cited, the Samaritans, is one of the best known voluntary organisations, and there are many others of a more local and parochial nature—and individuals who in all kinds of walks of life are given a specific responsibility, accepted by the community as necessary to cope with the problems of individuals, should be covered by the proposed new clause, or similar words that are acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Minister, even if he thinks that there may be a better form of words, will at least say that the principle is accepted. If not, one of the traditional places where liberty, secrecy and privacy have ben safeguarded will be eroded, and a protection that has existed hitherto will no longer be available to people.
      I know that the argument is always available to Government that there is no current legislation protecting data, which, of course, we accept. This is the first assemblage of control of data. But there is always the danger that, once an edifice is set up, it is more difficult to change it. Once categories are defined, some people are included within their jurisdiction, and some fall outside them. It would be better to accept an enabling new clause that does not dictate how this will be done, but gives the Secretary of State power to act, after consultation, in the best interests of the citizens of Britain. If the objective is to protect, by legislation rather than by tradition, private information about the most private and emotional parts of people's lives as well as their physical and spiritual health, this should be done in such a way that they are reassured after the process of the Bill, and not further concerned as a result of reluctance by the Government.
      Dr. Roger Thomas: I agree with what has been said in favour of new clause 4. I agree that it is difficult to distinguish between medical and social information relating to a particular patient or problem. These days much information is gathered and fed into a

      185
      system based upon the case conference. That is not a gathering of medical people alone, but of people who are interested in a problem and in discussing it. These days that involves a wide range of people dealing with family problems, housing, education and the physical and mental well-being of individuals.
      The system that has been used in relation to psychiatric cases for many years is now used by other medical interests. The Government have demonstrated a certain amount of co-operation in relation to the confidentiality of medical information. To provide safeguards only for medical information is too narrow and could affect essential improvements in the case conference system. The advantages of the system would be decimated by too narrow an approach, and if medical information were regarded as confidential and social and other important allied information were excluded.
      We appreciate the moves in relation to medical information, but sensitive and personal information of other kinds should be included. I believe that the provision should be expanded. That would satisfy voluntary and other organisations involved in individual problems. It would be a pity if we confined protection for the individual to medical information.
      Mr. Waddington: I was surprised at the remarks by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He said that the traditional understanding is that information passed on to a priest, for example, should be treated as sacred. That is right. That is the traditional understanding. Nothing whatsoever in the Bill makes such information less sacred, impinges on the traditional understanding to which he referred, or makes it any more likely that such information will be passed on by a priest, a Samaritan or a social worker.
      We must remember what we are talking about. The Bill does not force people to disclose information. The Bill extends the present protection given to individuals by placing restrictions on the disclosure of information. From the words of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey one might have thought that the Bill had precisely the opposite intention. Let us be clear. The Bill certainly does not have any effect on the traditional understanding that information passed on in confidence should be kept confidential.
      As I expected, the Opposition's arguments rest largely on the parallel between data held by those who provide counselling services and medical data. The argument is that if the Government accept that special provision for medical data is desirable, the same criterion should apply to data communicated for counselling purposes. I would not for one moment seek to belittle or undermine the essential work carried out by those who provide the services to which the new clause relates, but there are good reasons why health data should be regarded as being in a class of their own. I need do no more than quote the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) who, in Committee, said:
      "personal health information is special, peculiar and different from anything else."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H,5 April 1984; c. 684.]
      Health data are, of course, recognised by the Council of Europe convention and, indeed, by clause 2 of the Bill, as being special. The convention places them in a category with data relating to a person's racial origin, his political
      186
      or religious beliefs and his criminal convictions, and says that such data may require special protection. This is because, as the explanatory memorandum to the convention makes clear, they are regarded as specially sensitive. The sort of data covered by this new clause are not regarded by the convention as being in the same category. Of course, health data are also different because they are relevant in so many circumstances that, sensitive and confidential though they are, the health professional cannot always retain direct control over them.
      That is the main substance of the debate that has been brought to our attention by the health professionals. If a health professional works within the National Health Service, the records will technically be the property of the health authority. If he is carrying out a routine medical check for an employer or a life assurance company, the data will, of course, be passed on to those concerned. The data subject is aware of all this, but he still has a right to expect that information about his health, which most people regard as particularly confidential and sensitive, will be properly protected. I am, to some extent, anticipating the arguments for amendment No. 3, which we shall, I hope, be discussing shortly.
      My point is that the data covered in new clause 4 are not routinely passed on as, we are told, health data are passed on. The confidential material obtained by the priest is certainly not passed on as a matter of routine. If the priest decides to breach confidentiality, that is a matter for him. The Bill has no bearing on that whatsoever. Confidential material obtained by the marriage counsellor or the social worker is not generally required for other purposes. Such professionals retain control of the information. The data subject can be confident that information about him will not be passed on indiscriminately, since he knows that he can trust the professional concerned to use his discretion fairly.
      That is why, although the categories of data mentioned in new clause 4 are culled from an earlier version of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, no special provision is needed for them in this Bill. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill deals with an entirely different situation. It deals with the powers of the police to obtain evidence, if necessary against the will of the people who have it. It is, therefore, right that special safeguards should be put in that Bill covering information which has been given to those people in special confidence. However, in this Bill we are dealing with voluntary disclosures. Subject to the Bill's restrictions on disclosures, the decision whether to disclose is left to the discretion of the counsellor, as it is at present.
      I have said that health data are different from social work data, but that needs qualifying in one respect. It is necessary to make the qualification in answer to the first question posed by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. It is, of course, likely that counsellors, whether spiritual, marital, professional or whatever, will occasionally hold information of the sensitive nature mentioned in clause 2. A social worker may, for example, hold health data. Those data will not suddenly become social work data simply because they are held by a social worker. If health data are held by a social worker, they remain health data and will be covered by the provisions that we hope shortly to insert into the Bill through another new clause. They will still be data about a person's physical or mental health and, as such, will be subject to the provisions of any order made under clause 2.

      187
      5.30 pm
      The main point, and the reason why the new clause is unnecessary, is that the Bill does nothing that could diminish the confidence that is necessary in the relationship between counsellor and client. Indeed, it helps to underpin that confidence, as the data will be subject. as they are not now, to the data protection principles and to the general restrictions on disclosure imposed by the Bill. That is something of which we should not lose sight.
      As I have said in the past, the Bill is a positive measure that introduces new safeguards, which I believe are adequate to protect the sort of data covered by the new clause. I therefore recommend that it be rejected.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am not convinced by the Minister's argument that health data are different from social services data. I do not believe that this argument can be upheld after careful scrutiny of the issue.
      Mr. Waddington: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was the proposition advanced by the Opposition during the debate on health data in Committee?
      Mr. Howell: I do not think that the Minister is correct. The BMA held a major campaign on behalf of doctors. I concede that the Government met its point—although in an odd manner — as a result of discussion with a Department that was not represented in Committee. Home Office Ministers have been carried along with the BMA's discussions on the confidentiality of medical records. I congratulate the BMA on its victory. However, I wish that it had shown a little more concern for the British Association of Social Workers. If that association had been affiliated to the BMA, the position of social workers would be as well covered as that of doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) has experience as a practising doctor. As he said, it becomes more and more difficult to divorce medical information from social information on a patient's record. Quite often, medical illnesses, such as depression and mental illness, result from some social evil or distress. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we cannot divorce the two issues.
      I am not sure whether the Minister understands the point about priests. Any priest worth his salt will, in a confessional or other relationship with his congregation, receive confidential information which, if he is to carry out his priestly duties properly, he must do something about. In cases of physical or mental illness, the priest must convey that information to a general practitioner or directly to a consultant in a hospital. That information will be put on record and will become part of the data. What the priest says will not be protected, but what the doctor says will be protected. That is illogical.
      Mr. Waddington: I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can advance that proposition. If the priest discovers medical information, that information remains medical information whether it comes from the mouth of a priest or the mouth of a doctor.
      Mr. Howell: What the priest discovers will not be medical information; it will be attitudes of mind, causes of distress and examples of unsatisfactory behaviour. He will refer those cases to a doctor for analysis, diagnosis and treatment. We cannot divorce one from the other.
      There are many examples of the problem, such as child adoption and abuse of children. I know that the Home
      188
      Office is as concerned as we all are about child battering. In those cases, information will not originate with a doctor. A doctor will be asked to give information about the extent of an abuse. He may refer the case to the police or to the social services. At that point everything becomes confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, we cannot divorce one part of the information from the other part. That is why social workers should have the same protection as doctors.
      Mr. Waddington: I must clarify one point. The right hon. Gentleman must know that an inter-professional working group came to the Home Office and asked us to take special measures on health data. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, perhaps I should tell him now that represented on that working group were people working in the various areas to which he has referred. It would be quite erroneous to give the impression that the views of those working in those areas were not considered when we discussed the matter with the inter-professional working group and decided to table the new clause that we shall discuss shortly.
      Mr. Howell: I accept that the Minister has considered these matters. Indeed, I would expect him to do so. Our complaint is that he has reached the wrong conclusion. It is as simple as that. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is valiantly trying to defend his conclusion, but it does not make sense.
      I could list a whole range of examples, such as defects in houses that can lead to health problems and the relationship of educational social services with educational health services. We cannot divorce the social services aspect from the medical aspect.
      We are delighted that the Government have gone halfway, but they have not faced the reality of life. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 208.

      Division No. 343]

      [5.38 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dormand, Jack

      Anderson, Donald

      Douglas, Dick

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dubs, Alfred

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alex

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Eastham, Ken

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Barnett, Guy

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Ewing, Harry

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

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blair, Anthony

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Buchan, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Foulkes, George

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clay, Robert

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Gould, Bryan

      Coleman, Donald

      Gourlay, Harry

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hardy, Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Craigen, J. M.

      Haynes, Frank

      Crowther, Stan

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Home Robertson, John

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

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      189

      Howells, Geraint

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Pike, Peter

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Redmond, M.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Kennedy, Charles

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Rooker, J. W.

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Lamond, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Leighton, Ronald

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Litherland, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Loyden, Edward

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Spearing, Nigel

      McKelvey, William

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      McWilliam, John

      Tinn, James

      Madden, Max

      Torney, Tom

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wainwright, R.

      Martin, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Wareing, Robert

      Maxton, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Welsh, Michael

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Winnick, David

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nellist, David

      Mr. Don Dixon and

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Roger Thomas.

      O'Neill, Martin

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fox, Marcus

      Arnold, Tom

      Freeman, Roger

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Fry, Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bottomley, Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

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

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Ground, Patrick

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Grylls, Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Budgen, Nick

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harvey, Robert

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Conway, Derek

      Hayward, Robert

      Cope, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Crouch, David

      Heddle, John

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Henderson, Barry

      Dicks, Terry

      Hickmet, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Hind, Kenneth

      Dunn, Robert

      Hirst, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Eggar, Tim

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Holt, Richard

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Hooson, Tom

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

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

      Fallon, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Favell, Anthony

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Forman, Nigel

      Irving, Charles

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      Jessel, Toby

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      190

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Key, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Ryder, Richard

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Lester, Jim

      Silvester, Fred

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Luce, Richard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Speller, Tony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spencer, Derek

      MacGregor, John

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maclean, David John

      Squire, Robin

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Major, John

      Stanley, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Stern, Michael

      Marlow, Antony

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Mather, Carol

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mellor, David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Moate, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Moore, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Tracey, Richard

      Neale, Gerrard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Waddington, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Norris, Steven

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walden, George

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Osborn, Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Ward, John

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Parris, Matthew

      Watts, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Pawsey, James

      Wheeler, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Whitney, Raymond

      Porter, Barry

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Powley, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Price, Sir David

      Woodcock, Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Mr. Ian Lang.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      SECTION IO ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
      'If the Registrar is satisfied that any person has required an individual to make a request under section 21 as a condition for entering into any agreement with him or conferring any benefit or advantage on him (hereinafter known as a "wrongful request") the Registrar may serve him with an enforcement notice under section 10 above.—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 8—Code of Practice—

      `(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to make and publish Advisory Codes of Practice for guidance to data users in order to give effect to the Data Protection Principles.

      (2) Before any such Advisory Code is made, the Registrar shall:—

      (a) Consult trade associations or other bodies representing data users.

      (b) Consult bodies representing data subjects.

      (c) Give public notice of any draft Code of Practice by inviting objections and representations.

      (d) Consider any such objections and representations.'.

      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The purpose of the clause is to attempt to deal with issues of the sort which apparently arose in Washington in the United States after the enactment of legislation similar to that which we are considering. I am told that employers in that state required of prospective employees that they furnished them with a printout from the local police computer to show that they had no criminal record of convictions. That may seem to be a reasonable request but it is my understanding that the criminal records office of Scotland Yard is concerned, given the experience of the enactment of similar legislation in Washington, that it may be overwhelmed by similar requests.
      Parliament has already laid down that an offender's previous convictions shall be expunged from the record under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which states in part that anyone's offences committed over 10 years ago shall be spent. It is clear that Parliament does not believe that a series of convictions should be held against an individual in the way in which it could be if experience in Washington were to be replicated in Britain.
      When we had a brief debate on this issue in Committee the Minister said that he was sympathetic to the purpose behind the Bill. That is to be found in column 468. The hon. and learned Gentleman then adduced arguments against our proposed amendment on the ground that the criminal and civil law were not the appropriate means to deal with the perceived nuisance. In that amendment we suggested that it should be a criminal offence to require of a person that he obtains information about his record from the police or from other organisations. We accepted in Committee that the civil law and the criminal law were probably inappropriate means of dealing with the nuisance. That is why the clause provides that the registrar shall be required to take action.
      We are saying that if an employer is requiring prospective employees to furnish him with a printout from the Metropolitan police computer, or from the computers of other police forces, which shows that there is no known criminal record held against that individual, the Registrar should he able to issue an enforcement notice under the terms of the Bill telling that employer to desist from the practice. That seems to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to be a reasonable and sensible means of dealing with what the Minister regards as a potential nuisance. He has already said that he is sympathetic to that purpose. It would be rather unfortunate if a Bill were enacted that was considered to be of benefit to individuals in protecting
      192
      their privacy and was found in certain respects to be an invasion of their privacy. The clause seems to provide a fairly easy way of dealing with this potential nuisance.
      Mr. Waddington: In explaining why I cannot recommend the new clause to the House, I do not want to imply that I see no cause for the concern that has been expressed about the potential for third parties to pressurise individuals to exercise the subject access rights that are created by the Bill. However, I cannot accept that any of the solutions so far proposed, including the new clause, provide a satisfactory answer to the problem.
      In Committee we debated an amendment which would have made it a criminal offence to make what the new clause calls "a wrongful request". I said then, in effect, that not all such requests could be considered "wrongful", and that it seemed virtually impossible to devise a statutory provision which would distinguish between those which were and those which were not. I remain of that view and I consider that the system proposed in the clause is unworkable. It is based on a misapprehension about the nature of enforcement notices, which are the means used by the Registrar to ensure that the data protection principles are observed by registered persons.
      Clause 10(1) states that an enforcement notice must specify the steps to be taken so that whatever data protection principle has been reached may be complied with. The problem is that the making of a "wrongful request" is not a breach of the data protection principles. Indeed, it could not possibly be a breach of the principles because a "wrongful request" can be made by someone who is not even a data user. So an enforcement notice under the new clause could not order its recipient to withdraw his request and not to do it again.
      It seems that the only way to remedy the problem would be for a further amendment to be made to clause 10 to provide that an enforcement notice could be served on any person whether or not registered under the Bill requiring him to take such steps as are specified to withdraw the "wrongful request". That would be odd, given the general role of the registrar to regulate and supervise registered users and bureaux, not the general public. It reveals also the fatal flaw in the idea that is expressed by the new clause. Once a request of that kind has been made, it is futile to think of it being withdrawn. The effect would be precisely the same as if the individual data subject simply refused to comply with the request in the first place, which he is already entirely at liberty to do. The device is an ingenious one but it does nothing to solve the problem or to help the data subject.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If it becomes known that a certain company is consistently and habitually requiring information of the sort to which I have referred from prospective employees—we all regard that practice as unacceptable, including the Minister — is it not reasonable to look for a means of dealing with the nuisance? Is not the most reasonable approach that he or I have found so far to say to the registrar, "You shall have power to tell that company to desist from this practice and that penalties and sanctions will follow from the inability or wilful refusal to comply with the notice?"
      Mr. Waddington: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have been saying. What happens if the company that makes the request is not a data user? The purpose of the Bill is to make data users register with

      193
      the registrar and to give the registrar supervisory powers over the user. If the person who asks a potential employee to get information from the police about his previous record, or lack of record, is not a user, how can we frame the Bill so as to give the registrar, who has no supervisory rights over a person who is not a user, the power to supervise that non-data user and to serve upon him a notice, a power which is available to the registrar only in respect of data users, to make him conform with the data principles?
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept that difficulty but I understood that we had overcome it in the drafting of the new clause. I accept that the Bill deals with data users and data subjects. It may be possible that the individual making the request is not a user but the new clause states:
      "If the Registrar is satisfied that any person"—
      not necessarily a data user or a data subject. Is that not a means of overcoming the difficulty to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded? I ask that question in all humility because I am neither a parliamentary draftsman nor a lawyer.
      Mr. Waddington: It could be a means of doing so but it would be an odd way in which to proceed. If it were adopted, many more amendments would have to made to the Bill than the one which is sought in the new clause. I cannot imagine a more radical alteration to the Bill than the one which has the effect of giving the registrar powers over data users as defined in the Bill and over many others as well. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the Bill is concerned with the setting up of a registration system that will be supervised by a registrar. It is about data users being subject to disciplines that are overseen by the registrar. That is why I said earlier that I cannot accept that that is the way in which we should proceed, given the fact that we are dealing with a Data Protection Bill and a registration system.
      Even if by some extraordinary mechanism we could give the registrar powers over non-data users as defined in the Bill, we would still be faced with the problem of deciding when the registrar should be able to use his enforcement powers. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill's structure depends upon the registrar having power to serve an enforcement notice to demand compliance with the data protection principles. The type of conduct to which reference is made in the new clause is certainly not in breach of those principles.
      6 pm
      The new clause would mean asking the registrar not only to exercise powers against people who are not data users but to use an enforcement notice for a purpose that differs entirely from the purpose for which the enforcement notice was devised — to make a person conform with the data protection principles.
      Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I know, for example, of inquirers who illegally obtain information on car numbers or owners from the police. This power would spread to vast sections of the community.
      Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not persuaded that we will find a worthwhile definition of a "wrongful request". There are, undoubtedly,
      194
      circumstances in which a data subject might legitimately want to comply with a request by a potential employer to provide certain information. My case rests not on that point but on the impossibility of dealing with the mischief that, undoubtedly, can sometimes exist with the use of the type of mechanism that has been proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I am not saying that there cannot be a mischief. I am saying merely that we have not yet found a means of coping with it.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in the new clause. It adverts to a subject that we debated in Committee.
      The Minister, in his concluding remarks, recognised that there is a mischief with which the Bill does not deal. In a sense, it is a new problem arising from the fact that the data subject will now have access to information about himself that he would not necessarily otherwise have had. By empowering him to obtain information about himself, he could be put in the embarrassing position of having information extracted from him that he was reluctant to reveal. He might be subject to pressure to reveal information about which formerly he could have said, with his hand on his heart, "I am sorry; I cannot let you have that information." The new clause is designed to deal with that mischief.
      I accept what the Minister has said about the appropriateness of the new clause. It widens the powers of the registrar beyond the scope of his duties. The problems in defining "wrongful request" are real. This should not be the end of the matter. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to consider how best to deal with the problem. If we enact the Bill as it stands, improper pressure may be brought to bear upon a data subject to disclose information that it would be undesirable for him to disclose. The Bill is designed largely to protect the data subject, and clause 21 sets out the new protections provided. I fear that, probably inadvertently, we are exposing the data subject to a danger that did not exist previously.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not wish to pursue or press this issue. I am grateful for the support of the Hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Given the fact that there seems to be unanimity on both sides of the House on the importance of this issue, that we agree that there is a potential problem and that it is difficult to find appropriate solutions, I press the Minister to consider this matter yet again in the hope that he or his officials will come up with a suitable remedy that can be added to the Bill during its passage through the other place. I understand the difficulty with which the Minister is confronted, and I ask him to consider the matter without any commitment. In those circumstances, I should be happy to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Waddington: It is not realistic, after the trouble to which we have gone to find a solution to this problem, to say that, before the Bill completes its progress through Parliament, we shall try to find yet another form of words to meet the objections put forward by hon. Members. Having recognised that there is a potential mischief, we must keep the operation of the Bill under close supervision. If it turns out that there is an abuse of the type suggested by hon. Members, it may be possible by means other than legislation to cope with it. The hon. Member

      195
      for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) may be thinking about administrative means by which potential employers who abuse the rights given under the Bill would not receive the advantages for which they had hoped.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. It is a gracious and important concession. On the clear understanding that there is no specific commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 6

      NATIONAL SECURITY
      '1. For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Deputy Registrar (exempt systems) in this Act referred to as the Deputy Registrar.
      2. The duties of the Deputy Registrar shall consist of:—

      (a) Monitoring disclosures made under Clause 28 herein.

      (b) Producing an annual report specifying the number of disclosures, the category of data disclosed, the number of data subjects to whom the disclosures related, the category of persons to whom they were disclosed and the purposes for which they were disclosed and the report of the Committee thereon shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

      (c) Applying the subject access provisions of Part III of this Act to personal data exempted from subject access in Part IV of this Act after representations received from a data subject.

      (d) Disclosing that personal data to the data subject for the purposes of compensation or rectification and erasure.

      3. Any person who discloses personal data of a description to which Clause 28(3) applies for any of the purposes mentioned in Clause 28(1) shall, not more than four months after disclosing them, make a return to the Deputy Registrar in such form as the Secretary' of State may by order prescribe.'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 40, in clause 28, page 22, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a disclosure made by or on behalf of a data user who—

      (a) allows the person to whom the disclosure is made direct access to all or some of the personal data held by him; or

      (b) regularly or habitually makes such disclosures; or

      (c) at the time of applying for registration under Part H of this Act intended to make such disclosures but failed to include a sufficient indication to that effect in the information furnished to the Registrar in connection with his application for registration; or

      (d) at any time after becoming a registered data user formed such an intention but failed within a reasonable time to apply to the Registrar for an appropriate alteration of the particulars included in the entry relating to him, or to make an appropriate fresh application for registration.'.

      Mr. Howell: It is important to have a short, although vital, discussion on national security as it affects data information. The purpose of the new clause and amendment No. 40 should be debated to express that importance. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will agree that some protection is needed for citizens who are aggrieved about information kept about them in terms of national security. I understand the Government's approach to national security matters and the belief that that information should not be available to data subjects, even though it is of great concern to them.
      I recall the Jan Martin case, which was a difficult case and caused great distress to and imposed penalties on a
      196
      person who was later proved lo be innocent. Information about that lady, based entirely on false identification, was kept in the files of the special branch. That information said that she was a potential security risk. For 10 years, she was unable to obtain work, and suffered great hardship and distress. That information would not have come to light but for the fact that her family had a connection with the police service and were able over a long period to burrow into the matter, persisting in their work because of the knowledge that Jan Martin was innocent and was not, as suspected, a member of the Bader-Meinhof gang. It was put right finally, but it raises a real issue. We discussed the point in Committee.
      The new clause is in accordance with an idea that I floated in Committee. I asked the Minister whether he would kindly consider it. The proposal is that there should be someone —in Committee I described him as a national security or data protection ombudsman—who was of impeccable reputation, with all the necessary security clearance, who would carry the confidence of the Minister and the House. We define him as the "Deputy Registrar (exempt systems)".
      At the request of a person who thought that inaccurate information was being recorded and used against him the deputy registrar would have the right to study all the confidential, classified information so that he could say to the aggrieved person, "I have looked at the information against you, and I can assure you that there is no information kept here that is injurious to your interests," or, alternatively, he may say, "I have looked at the information. It seems to me to be relevant, and that is all you need to know."
      Such a procedure would create confidence in the system. It seems to be a vacuum in the Bill with which we should deal. We should not just interest ourselves in the new clause with the security of the state. Information about personal affairs could be held in social security records which might be disclosed to the police. I am thinking now of alleged social security fraud cases. They would be exempt.
      Most hon. Members receive an increasing number of complaints from constituents about information being held which has led to investigations of alleged social security frauds. Cohabiting causes some anxiety in some of the complaints that I have received. Some ladies who may be divorced or adrift from their partners take new partners or "visitors". Although they are doing something entirely acceptable they find themselves being investigated because someone has alleged that they are living on the earnings of some man. If there is a factual basis for such allegations no one would object to the inquiries being made, but we do not know and cannot find the original information. I have had to go to the DHSS office which serves my constituency on at least four or five occasions over the past 12 months to discover the allegation that has caused an offensive inquiry. When such an investigation takes place there is not just an inquiry of the poor, unfortunate lady, but her relatives are visited and asked what they know about her and her life style. Neighbours are visited and all kinds of inquiries are made which can be distressing and damaging.
      The matter must be considered. The data subject—if that is the phrase we must use to describe people in such distress—is entitled to know what information is held

      197
      about him, and such information should not be covered by an exemption on the grounds of national security or availability to the police.
      We are asking that such information disclosed to the police should be made available to a person such as the deputy registrar, a man of impeccable standing, whom in new clause 6 we are asking should have access to the information on behalf of the aggrieved person so that he can satisfy him that his fears are unfounded or tell him that there is some substance in the information, which requires further investigation.
      I am sure that the Minister will recognise the problem. He did so in Committee although he could not move towards meeting us on it. I trust that on further reflection he will think it right to include the new clause, or something like it, in the Bill even at this late stage. The Jan Martin type of case needs protection.
      6.15 pm
      Sir Dudley Smith: I have a certain amount of sympathy for what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said. As he is aware, I fully support the measure, but the old maxim, know your enemies, is paramount here. It surely is the basis of any democracy that national security must be preserved and, even if there is a rare mistake, however regrettable and reprehensible, we cannot make the changes that he suggests just because such a mistake happens.
      All kinds of data are kept in the cause of national security, most of which it would be wholly undesirable to disclose to the individual or to third parties. It is necessary to keep it for the maintenance of peace and the nation's well-being. I suggest that it is not the issue that causes most, if any, worry to the individual. The matter that causes anxiety relates to professional secrecy. As has been said in previous debates, people are extremely sensitive about medical records, and their relationship with doctors, banks, accountants, solicitors or any professional person. They want to have the relationship respected. Although I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at, I do not believe that it will be in the national interest to pursue the point and I hope that my hon. and learned friend will reject it.
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The heading for this new clause is "National security", as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said. While I am happy that the new clause should be discussed with amendment No. 40, our amendment is not related to national security but to whether the exemption from non-disclosure procedures in clause 28(3) can be overriden.
      I accept that new clause 8 and amendment No. 40 are complementary in a sense because one provides a back-up for the other. New clause 8 provides a mechanism by which we can consider disclosures between Government authorities and Government data bases, or private data bases and Government data bases, after the event, whereas amendment No. 40 provides some safeguard before the event.
      The purpose of the new clause and the amendment is to provide a basic control and scrutiny of the passing of information about individuals between the state's computers and from private data bases to state data bases. The power and comprehensiveness of the state's
      198
      computers have grown to a frightening extent. They are now capable of interlinking with each other in a way which provides the mechanism, if not the reality, of the big brother state.
      Further development of the state's computer system is now in hand or planned. It amounts to a quantum leap forward in their power and capacity for linkage. The current control of the exchange of information on the individual between the state's data bases is almost non-existent. These technical changes have, even with the present state of development, increased the power of the state massively, to the individual's cost. Clause 28, so far from addressing itself to the danger, amounts to little more than a charter for the petty bureaucrat to have access to, and peddle in, personal details to which he has no right. It may even constitute a framework within which an unscrupulous Government could bring about the so-called 1984 state.
      In due course I shall describe the main elements of the present state computer systems, and the links between them. As I said on Second Reading, one of the key recommendations of the Lindop report was that it was highly undesirable to have what Lindop referred to as a universal personal identifier. That would be a single personal identifier to be held by all the State's computers. The use of a single reference number would give access to all the information held by the State. Lindop said that the universal personal identifier was something that at all costs we should strive against. He also said that there was a safeguard for the individual in his position as against the state in a certain fractionalisation of the state's computers, so that there was no single massive system connecting the computer systems of the DHSS, the police, the Inland Revenue, the driver and vehicle licensing centre and the Customs and Excise. Some separation would be an essential safeguard. We should bear in mind those two recommendations by Lindop.
      I do not wish to bore the House or to detain it for too long, but I must go into some detail about the nature of the state's present computer systems. First, there are the police computers. I fully accept, as my hon. Friends will accept, that there is an essential need for the organs of the State to have high-technology equipment of the greatest efficiency. That will not necessarily lead to less personal contact. By taking the drudgery out of work, such equipment may make possible more personal contact. We are not opposed to the use of computers by the organs of the state.
      I was not a member of the Committee on this Bill—I was a member of another Committee at that time—but I understand that it was said in Committee that the police computer is very powerful. It was revealed in Committee that there are 13 million vehicle owners on the computer, some 50,000 wanted persons and some 6 million criminal records. There is a terminal in every main police station in the country — that is 600 on the 1980 figure, and there may well be more than that now. Access to the computer is by input of name and date of birth or of car registration number.
      As well as that computer system, and running in parallel with it—indeed, there are indications that the two systems may be linked in some ways — there are various constabulary computers on which is kept not just information but intelligence—some might call it gossip rather than intelligence. There is some evidence that these computers are indeed linked to the police national

      199
      computer in certain cases. There is some evidence that there is the capacity to pass information between the constabulary police computer and the national computers.
      That massive computer system runs alongside—it is almost linked to—the DVLC computer system. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if I am wrong, but I am informed that a daily tape is passed from the DVLC to the police national computer, providing an update. There is some degree of interoperability between the two computer systems.
      I also understand from a recent article in New Scientist that cameras have recently been placed by the M1, on an experimental basis, whose task is to record into the computers the registration numbers of vehicles using the MI. That is a pilot scheme, but it extends the use of computers out into the roads of Britain. It is possible to identify vehicle registration numbers and, within a matter of seconds, identify the car owner.
      Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman's information is somewhat out of date. For some years now the police have been able to follow cars, telephone headquarters and, via the computer, obtain information about those cars within a few minutes. Many criminals have been caught in that way.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am well aware of that. However, there is now the capacity for that to be done not by police officers but remotely, by cameras. There is a fundamental difference. A camera operated by remote control is taking down every car number —not just the numbers of selected cars — and feeding it into the police national computer. That must disturb the hon. Gentleman as much as it disturbs me.
      There is a massive computer system in the hands of the police, and no doubt that is right and proper. It contains the names and addresses of about half the population, and has a growing capacity to trace the location of any individual.
      The second massive state computer system belongs to the DHSS. There are seven or eight computers, including those which can trace the location not just of adults but—in order to deal with child benefit—also of children. The biggest of the computers is the departmental general index. It holds some 53 million records, according to the answer to a parliamentary question which I asked recently. Essentially, it is a population register of the whole of Britain. According to the answer to that parliamentary question, one can either feed in the national insurance number and be given — with a response time of five seconds—the name and date of birth of the subject, or one can feed in the name and date of birth and be given the national insurance number.
      The departmental index is kept at Newcastle upon Tyne, and there are 140 terminals there through which access to it can be obtained. The system is therefore limited at present. However, the 1982 Green Paper "Social Security Operational Strategy" proposes that there should ultimately be 20,000 terminals giving immediate access to the index—one in every DHSS office in the country, giving access to every junior clerk. This system will combine all the previous computers within a single system — the departmental central register, the child benefit register, and the others. One will be able to feed in either name and date of birth or the national insurance number. The national insurance number will give access to the file on the subject.
      200
      Under clause 28(3), although the person who makes the suggestion will not have access, it will be possible to transfer the information to an officer of the law. Presumably that will mean a police constable or perhaps a Customs and Excise officer, who is also an officer of the law. Access will be made available to assist in the apprehension or prosecution of an offender or to prevent the prosecution of an offence. There will be 20,000 DHSS terminals and 600 PNC terminals. Any ordinary police constable will be able to tell a DHSS clerk that he has reason to believe that an offence is about to be committed at point X and to request that information should be provided.
      At the moment that is done manually and there are certain safeguards, but in future there will be the possibility of that link at the ordinary level between a junior police constable and a DHSS clerk. In five seconds, the whole file on the massive proposed system will be available. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
      I should like to measure what is in the Bill against the current practice for the passage of such information. On 7 December 1983 I asked, in a parliamentary question, whether it had been decided to go ahead with the installation of this massive new computer system. I was told, "No, not yet." However, we must recognise that there is evidence to suggest that steps have been taken to go ahead with the computer with 20,000 terminals. I do not accept some of the more sinister interpretations put on the introduction of the plastic national insurance card, but it will enable the process to be more mechanical. Its introduction must show a commitment to the new and massive computer system. I am not arguing against its use, but such massive power available at junior levels requires some safeguards to ensure that information is not too readily accessible to those who should not have it.
      6.30 pm
      I understand that there are two separate Inland Revenue computer systems—the PAYE system on the employed and another on the self-employed. The former covers anybody with a job and anybody with a pension. I am told that it has been decided to build a national network so that the entire PAYE payroll in Britain is put on one computer. In a pilot scheme in the west midlands, 651,000 people are covered and there are 375 terminals. That represents one terminal for 1,700 people. That is an extraordinary density of terminals. I understand that the system is to be installed for the whole of Britain by 1988. Surveys have already been conducted in Inland Revenue offices to decide where the terminals should go. I also understand that large firms that employ more than 500 people have been visited by the Inland Revenue to discuss how the information can best be put on the new sytem.
      Mr. Timothy Wood: I have been fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's description of various computer systems and, on the whole, have been encouraged rather than dismayed by them. However, I cannot understand how amendment No. 40, to which I think he is speaking, will allay his fears.
      Mr. Ashdown: I warned the House that I intended to examine all of the state's computer systems so that it can see the size of the threat. Amendment No. 40 provides a minimalist capacity to register an intention so that we

      201
      would be able to scrutinise what is happening and where. We are discussing provisions that would bring the process out into the open.
      It is planned that there will be 20,000 terminals in the PAYE system—one for every clerical officer, not one for every office or outstation. It is being set up with data from the DHSS. It is important to recognise that cross-operability is already being built up between the Inland Revenue system and the DHSS system. That is frightening. A parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) in March 1982 confirmed that the Inland Revenue is already using data provided by the DHSS to set up its files. I understand that the pilot scheme allows an Inland Revenue operative to key in a national insurance number and, automatically, the entire DHSS file is loaded on to the Inland Revenue file. If, when the computer system is set up, a member of the public goes to an Indland Revenue office wishing to make an inquiry and does not know his national insurance number or gives the wrong one, the Inland Revenue will have to get access to his file by passing through the DHSS computer.
      Employers pass on end-of-year details on their employees separately through the DHSS and the Inland Revenue. In future, such details will be sent only to the DHSS which will then pass the entire file on to the Inland Revenue. The information will include the employee's current private address. We are not certain why the address is suddenly being required as I understand that it has never had to be provided before. Previously, the DHSS has maintained addresses that are largely out of date except for those who receive benefit. Under the new system, 53 million addresses will be painlessly and accurately updated with the other information. I remind the House that such information is available to quite junior law enforcement officers if they suspect the commission of an offence or wish to prevent an offence. If, for example, someone is suspected of committing an offence—say allowing his dog to foul a footpath—a police constable will be able, under the Bill, to go to the Inland Revenue and get the necessary information.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am five years out of touch with these matters but I find it offensive that a policeman should be able to do that. I suspect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he prove it?
      Mr. Ashdown: What I have argued is set out clearly in the Bill. Clause 28(3) says:
      "Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provision in any case in which—
      (a) the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above".
      Subsection (1) says:
      "Personal data held for any of the following purposes—

      (a) The prevention or detention of crime;

      (b) The apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

      The Bill is quite clear. It is perfectly possible for a police constable who wants to prevent a crime or apprehend an offender to get access to information.
      Mr. Richard Hickmet: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me and, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) by advising the House what amendment No. 40 means? I have read it time and again without success and have waited for a definition.
      Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I apologise if I am taking a long time, but I have a lot to say and intend to say it because there is a great threat here. Conservative Members might be better advised to pin their ears back and listen because there are some serious problems that have not so far been identified concerning what is happening with the state's computers and what the Bill will do to provide safeguards.
      Mr. Hickmet: Perhaps I might advise the hon. Gentleman that it was on clause 28 that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East voted against the Government, so the hon. Gentleman should not start hectoring us. I would like to know what amendment No. 40 means, since, because of the use of the English and the construction employed in its drafting, I simply do not understand it.
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall explain what it means in good time.
      It is worrying that the Inland Revenue and DHSS files are linked to the extent of being just one file. That is of great concern. Not only are 20,000 DHSS computer terminals planned around the country but there will be a further 20,000 Inland Revenue terminals. Therefore, there will be a total of 40,000 terminals at which the information can be obtained.
      Essentially, there will be access through a single, de facto, universal, personal identifier of a national insurance number to information about the total population of Britain. The following information will be available on the computer for every individual—name, address, date of birth, family details, income, occupation, children's details, with whom they live, wife or husband, and whether they are working, who their employer is, the job, and how much is earned. All that information is readily obtainable by a police constable who wishes to go along to the local DHSS clerk because he may wish to prevent a crime. There is more to come.
      We must add to that the second Inland Revenue computer which deals with schedule D, in other words the self-employed. The House will be interested to know that there are two computers dealing with schedule D, one at Shipley in Yorkshire and the other at Cumbernauld in Scotland. According to a reply to a parliamentary question that I asked on 13 March these two computers became operational in January. They contain a complete index of all the self-employed, 4·2 million, and whether they are paying tax. The time to get a response to an inquiry will be only two or three seconds. Those computers currently provide the name and address of the person, the tax reference number, whether that person is paying tax and how much is being paid.
      That is not too bad because there is only a payments system, which merely indicates how much tax is owed. However, I understand that those computers are to be revised and updated. At present the clerk does a taxation calculation and merely loads into the computer the sum owed. After the changes those computers will hold the tax calculation which the clerk has done. At this point it will parallel precisely the PAYE system with full personal details, what the business is and the profits. Again, these details will be available if there is a suspicion that a crime is about to take place, or has taken place or in regard to the prosecution or detection of an offender.

      203
      To all that must be added the Customs and Excise computer about which I still have parliamentary questions to be answered. That computer carries full details from the driver and vehicle licensing centre. Again there is a wide dissemination of terminals. Presumably Customs and Excise officers are law enforcement officers since the collection of taxes is covered in the Bill.
      The interoperability and the capacity to pass information on suspicion that a crime has been committed are unchecked in the legislation. What then is the current practice upon which the Government are depending? Current practice for the passing of information between the DHSS or another organ of the state and the police is contained in a Home Office circular on crime and kindred matters, paragraphs 177–188. The DHSS is told to exchange information with the police "orally and in confidence". In other words, currently there is no record or check. A police constable may turn up at a DHSS office and ask for information. That information will not be recorded as it is passed over. It will be given orally and in confidence.
      The Home Office circular does not give a ruling about the level at which the information may be passed. It could be done at the most junior level by a police constable or a customs officer approaching a DHSS or Inland Revenue clerk.
      Sir Dudley Smith rose——
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way when I have finished this part. The circular says— [Interruption]. I have not finished. There is more to come. This is a very serious subject and I intend to complete it however much hon. Members may seek to interrupt.
      Mr. Denis Howell: We are trying to make progress and we gave the hon. Member the facility of discussing this amendment with ours. He started by indicating that he would make a short speech. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for 25 minutes. I hope I am not here when he makes a long speech.
      Mr. Ashdown: I made no commitment to a short speech. I have a lot to say and I intend to go through with it. I will get through it faster if right hon. and hon. Members do not interrupt.
      Sir Dudley Smith rose——
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
      The Home Office circular says:
      "In general, requests for addresses should be made direct to manager".
      Since the information is passed over orally and in confidence who is to know whether the request has been made through the manager? The circular continues:
      "The fact that assistance has been given or information has been passed by the DHSS to the police … should as far as practical, remain confidential".
      There is a complete lack of scrutiny. I hope the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), who, I think, is reading the report of the Committee, is paying attention. I make the point to him that one of the important parts of clause 6 is that where information is passed to the police it will at least be recorded. Furthermore, amendment No. 40 requires that a statement is made at the point of registration that the person who is passing the information expects to pass it or, according to
      204
      a later amendment, that it has become common practice to pass it. Both proposals merely seek to highlight for the public the passsage of the information.
      Sir Dudley Smith rose——
      Mr. Ashdown: I have given way to a lot of interventions and I should like to come to a close. The Home Office circular may be adequate for the current passing of information between the DHSS or the Inland Revenue and the police, but it cannot be adequate when there will be access by the clerk to a massive amount of information on practically every person in Britain.
      The Government have argued time and time again that they do not wish the provisions and safeguards of the Bill to be extended to manual information because there is a quantum difference between manual information and data-processed information; the data-processed information is available more readily and faster. The Government cannot have it both ways. Because they will increase enormously the power of access they cannot say they must not also increase commensurately the safeguards.
      Sir Dudley Smith: Interesting though it is, I do not want to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech. He has beer going at quite a pace and has been giving a lot of facts and figures. One point was challenged by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at the moment, if someone is involved in an accident or a minor offence, a policeman who wants to know, legitimately, whether that person is the owner of the vehicle can put the car number through the computer and at the same time get a printout of all details about the man, including whether he is self-employed, salaried, paying tax and so on?
      Mr. Ashdown: No.
      Sir Dudley Smith: That is the impression the hon. Member has given.
      Mr. Ashdown: If that was the impression he got, either the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully or I may have imperfectly described it. It is possible for a police constable to go to a DHSS office and say, "I suspect that an offence was being committed. Will you please give me the total information you have?" The Bill will allow him to do that. Indeed, current Home Office law allows it. He can say, "I should like information on this person." There is nothing in the Bill or in current Home Office practice to stop that. He does not get that information automatically at the time, but he can certainly request it.
      Mr. Steve Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ashdown: I think that this ought to be the last intervention as the whole House seems keen that I should bring my remarks to a close.
      Mr. Norris: None can be keener than Ito see the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to their long-awaited close, but he touches on a particular difficulty with the often misunderstood idea that the Bill will somehow allow a police constable to do things that he was not previously permitted to do. That fundamental misunderstanding has run through all that the hon. Gentleman has been saying for the past half hour. The Bill confers no such rights.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am not making that claim. I am saying that there is a quantum difference involved. The

      205
      Government themselves have said that the Bill does not cover manually held data because there is a quantum difference between the safeguards needed for data which can be transferred only in fairly small amounts, with some difficulty and quite slowly and the safeguards needed for data protection. The hon. Gentleman nods, so I assume that he takes that point.
      The growth of the state computers and their capacity to interlink will allow more massive and easier transfer of data than ever before. That is why the existing safeguards are inadequate and new safeguards are required. My point is not that the Bill gives powers that were not allowed before but that it will permit damage that was never possible before because it deals not with manual data but with automatically processed data.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Everyone accepts that at present this information is uncontrolled and without the law. Amendment No. 40 would limit the exceptions provided for when the Bill is passed. The Bill restricts certain areas but not this one. The state has enormous powers and will continue to have them if nothing is done to limit them.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the point. I have sought bluntly to point out the nature and scale of the problem and of the threat that has grown up under our noses as computer systems have become interlinked, easier to use and more widely disseminated. That is why further safeguards are needed.
      Finally, it is important to understand not just the scope of data holding by the state at present but the way in which it has been developed. There has been very scant regard to the necessity of data protection. I understand that the new systems will require codeword access, but that is not a very sophisticated safeguard. Any firm using the new data processing equipment for a payroll system is required to log in every key stroke when seeking to extract information, but I understand that no such audit trail is required by the DHSS or Inland Revenue system.
      The scale and nature of data processing by state computers has grown massively and must be controlled. New clause 6 and amendment No. 40 together go some way towards that end. The Labour proposal tries to bring the interchange of information out into the public arena so that it can be assessed. One will then know how many exchanges have taken place and presumably questions can be asked in the House about the nature of those exchanges. Our amendment would require firms to include the possibility of the transfer of that data being registered in their initial application or afterwards if it is proved that they carry out that kind of operation.
      The power of the state computers has increased, is increasing and, if the Government have their way, will shortly further increase by a quantum leap into a dangerously expanded capacity for universal data holding and access. They are now capable of linking up to form a fabulous big brother machine with access to more than 40,000 places throughout the country and with a response time measured in seconds from the inquiry to the production of full personal details on practically every person in the land. In short, the mechanism for the big brother state is either with us already or about to arrive. I do not accuse the Government of trying to create such
      206
      a state. The Minister may not even realise the potential of what is happening. It is possible that no one realises it. Like the rary, the system is just growing and growing.
      The Bill does nothing to safeguard the individual against that potential which massively shifts the balance of power between state and individual in favour of the state. We have, as it were, a de facto universal personal identifier of the very kind that Lindop warned against. The amendments are at best minimalist and fall far short of what many of us want—a proper system with tighter control of the exchange of information between the state's data bases. The new clause and the amendment provide only for a process of registration and scrutiny and for the recording of instances when state computers exchange personal information or the state organ demands such information from private data bases.
      I hope that the Minister will accept at least one, if not both, of the proposals. I should make it clear at this point that if new clause 6 is not carried we shall probably press for a Division on amendment No. 40.
      Mr. Waddington: I have listened with great attention to all that has been said by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I think that the whole House will agree that very little of it had any bearing on amendment No. 40, which in turn has very little to do with new clause 6. I have thus had to make some rapid adjustments to my notes so as to do justice to the points made by all hon. Members who have spoken. I am sure that the House wishes me to deal with the terms of each proposal.
      New clause 6 seeks to establish a deputy registrar with certain duties relating to data which are exempt both from subject access and from the non-disclosure provisions. I shall deal first with subject access as that was the burden of the new clause that we discussed in Committee. It is suggested that the deputy registrar should have two specific duties. As I tried to explain in Committee, however, I do not see either adding significantly to the armoury already at the disposal of the registrar.
      7 pm
      First, the deputy registrar has a duty to apply the subject access provisions to data that are exempt from subject access. I do not think that that will gain any prizes for clear drafting. Does it mean that the deputy registrar must be given access to data on request, although it is covered by the subject access exemption, or that he can, as it were, override the exemption in a particular case to enable a data subject to have access, despite the likelihood of prejudice to, say, the detection of crime? I do not know.
      Although either interpretation is possible — and therefore to include it in the Bill would lead to all kinds of trouble—I divine that the Opposition mean that the new clause has the former effect. If it has the former effect the registrar can do that already. If a data subject, in the words of the new clause, makes representations to him, saying that he is worried about, say, the accuracy of data being held by the police about him and he cannot get access to the data because they are covered by clause 28(1), there is no barrier to the registrar becoming involved. Just because data are exempt from subject access does not mean that they are exempt from the application of the other principles. That is why references to "exempt systems" are so dangerously misleading. The nub of the matter is that if data are inaccurate, the registrar can act to remedy the inaccuracy regardless of whether a subject access exemption applies.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does all that the Minister says apply with equal force to files that are held by the national security services?
      Mr. Waddington: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although new clause 6 is headed "National Security", it has nothing to do with it. The new clause refers to clause 28, and we shall no doubt deal with national security in due course. I shall not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman to talk about national security when he has admitted that that is not what the new clause is about.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Minister has further confirmed the scepticism in my rhetorical question. Is that so?
      Mr. Waddington: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman has put his name to a new clause that does not deal with national security, but sets up a deputy registrar who, according to the new clause, has no powers in relation to national security. In those circumstances, it is no use the hon. Gentleman inviting me to tell him now why national security is exempted from the scheme of the Bill. New clause 6 does not make any difference to that exemption. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise that. His new clause deals only with clause 28, which does not deal with national security.
      What of the duties given to the deputy registrar in respect of data that are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions? Any user who discloses data to a person who is not registered as a recipient of that data and who, therefore, avails himself of clause 28(3) shall notify the disclosure to the registrar. The registrar must then produce a statistical report on those disclosures for Parliament. That part of the new clause takes us on to different ground. It is familiar. The question of notifying the disclosures was also discussed in Committee. It was then presented in a form that was riddled with defects. The form has changed, but the defects remain.
      The requirement to notify disclosures is placed on users without sanctions if they do not conform. No matter. The substance of the argument is whether there is a real advantage in establishing a new regime of form filling in connection with the disclosures. Put briefly, I believe that it would be an unmitigated nuisance to the law enforcement agencies, which have enough on their hands. It would greatly burden the registrar's office. It would be able to make little of the returns that are sent there, without exhaustive accompanying explanation or investigation. It would be of no benefit to data subjects.
      Let us assume that the registrar receives many returns from data users, showing that they made disclosures to police forces for crime prevention purposes in respect of one or 100 individuals in a particular category. How will that assist the registrar? He is as likely to hear of abuse of the non-disclosure exemptions without the proposed new bureaucracy as he is with it. When he hears of abuse, he is fully empowered to investigate it.
      New clause 6 is, in a sense, two amendments rolled into one. For that reason I have taken time to reply to it. However, I see little merit in either of its parts. The registrar already has ample powers in the areas that the Opposition are concerned about. He can apply the other principles to data that are exempt from subject access. He can consider such data on behalf of a data subject to ensure that users are not in breach of the principles. That includes checking for accuracy.
      208
      The registrar has the power to satisfy himself that the exemptions are not being abused. Indeed, he can even prosecute if data are disclosed to a person who is not registered as a recipient, where the conditions of the non-disclosure exemptions are not satisfied. The new clause is not acceptable. It is so defective in its drafting as to be totally flawed on that account alone.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I waited until the Minister reached a logical conclusion on new clause 6 before asking questions. The new clause deals with those files that are exempted from the subject access provisions. Clause 29 enables the Secretary of State to make orders specifying areas where access is restricted. As I understand it, the Minister and his Department are already in consultation with many organisations, including the British Medical Association, about areas where subject access will be restricted to health or medical information. I wonder whether this is the opportunity for the Minister to throw light on the nature of those consultations and what he has in mind, including his perception of the areas in which subject access will be restricted under clause 29.
      Mr. Waddington: I am sure that a later amendment on the Notice Paper refers to that matter. In those circumstances, I would not be serving the interests of the House to be diverted into a different realm. It will be more convenient to the House for me to deal with amendment No. 40, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The hon. Gentleman gave many fanciful examples of how the police can and do obtain information from various Government organisations — for example the DHSS. I must make it plain that if a police constable approaches the DHSS for information in connection with an offence, the exemption from the non-disclosure provisions could be claimed only where disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating an offence. The information requested must be relevant to the alleged offence. It is difficult to believe that DHSS information would be relevant to a parking offence. In any case, the prejudice test must be met. We must consider the reality of the situation.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to define the circumstances in which prejudice tests, under clause 28(3), are not met. Although the amendment sets out four sets of circumstances, there is a common thread running through them all. The hon. Gentleman is really saying that where a disclosure for one of the specified purposes is planned or envisaged in advance, it cannot benefit from the exemption in clause 28(3). That is what he was saying, although it took him a long time to do so. To imply that where the user knows that he will be making disclosures for the specified purposes, the exemption is unnecessary as he can, and should, register the police, Customs and Excise or Inland Revenue as recipients of his data, is to miss the point of the exemption. It is true that the exemption is designed to allow one-off disclosures, whose need had not been foreseen, to be made without breach of the non-disclosure provisions. The hon. Gentleman obviously accepts that that is right, because his amendment would allow such disclosures to retain the benefit of clause 28(3). However, that is not the only justification for clause 28(3).
      Let us take the case of a data user who is an employer and who had decided that in certain cirumcstances he would be prepared to disclose data about his employees to

      209
      the police—for example, if they are investigating a particularly serious offence or an offence which, although not serious, is particularly prevalent in the area and about which he feels strongly. Although he might be prepared to disclose data to the police, he might at the same time feel that it would be unreasonable if, in order to do so, he had to state in his registration particulars, to be public knowledge available for his own employees to read, "I shall give the police information about my employees if they ask for information about an offence of this, that or the other nature." If we were to say that such a user had to declare in his register entry an intention to disclose data for the specified purposes in clause 28, that might be enough to tip the balance and to make him decide that, in the interests of good relations with his staff, he would not make the disclosures. The police might thus be prevented from gaining valuable information, the lack of which might seriously prejudice their investigations.
      It will be clear from that example that foreknowledge that disclosures may be made does not necessarily imply that they can safely be described in a public register without any possibility of prejudice. Public knowledge that disclosures might take or have taken place might itself be suffcient to prejudice law enforcement or revenue purposes either by discouraging users who would otherwise be prepared to co-operate with the police from passing on valuable information or by alerting possible suspects.
      Mr. Ashdown: I recognise that the Minister is scratching around to find an argument for not accepting my amendment, but the clear conclusion is that he is perfectly happy with the way that things are. Is he happy that, with the immense new power that will be in people's hands to have access to information, the current system for controlling it, which is practically non-existent, will be sufficient to provide safeguards for the individual in the situation into which we are now moving?
      Mr. Waddington: The Government are not satisfied with the existing protection for the individual's privacy. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the Bill. The Government are equally satisfied that——
      Mr. Ashdown rose——
      Mr. Waddington: I shall not give way just now.
      The Government are equally satisfied that there have to be special exemptions from the access and disclosure provisions in the interests of the detection and prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is, I understand, directed to those exemption provisions. He talked for a long time; I shall talk for a shorter time. We are talking about one simple matter—how extensive the exemption provisions should be to protect society from wrongdoers. If the hon. Gentleman had addressed his remarks to that narrow issue, the past three quarters of an hour might have been profitable.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I am extremely interested to hear him say that the Government are dissatisfied with the present situation with regard to disclosure, for example, between the police and the Department of Health and Social Security. Will he tell me how the Bill in any way alters
      210
      the current situation? The Minister said that he was dissatisfied, and that the Bill had been introduced to try to correct the situation, but in this instance it does not provide a further safeguard in any way, unless the Minister can tell me otherwise.
      Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I did not say that I was dissatisfied with present practice with regard to disclosure by the DHSS. I was asked specifically whether I was satisfied with the present situation. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the protection of individuals. I replied that the Government would not have introduced the Bill had they not believed that it was necessary to increase the right of the individual to privacy. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that I was accepting his argument that there was something wrong with the present amount of disclosure by the DHSS. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the provisions in the Bill that allow exemption from the non-disclosure provisions.
      Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has now claimed that the Bill increases safeguards for the individual in this instance. Will he tell me how and where?
      Mr. Waddington: Again, the hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. When I replied to him, I was not referring to this particular instance. I replied, in perfectly clear terms, that one of the objects of the Bill was to increase the privacy of the individual, but at the same time there had to be exemption provisions to safeguard society from wrongdoers. That is precisely why clause 28 is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the exemption provisions in clause 28 should be weakened. He believes that they are too potent and that we are giving too much scope to the law enforcement agencies. I do not accept that that is correct. Most of us in the House, throughout our deliberations on the Bill, have recognised that there have to be exemptions to allow the law enforcement agencies to do their work. That is why clause 28 exists. What the hon. Gentleman asks for in his amendment would impinge greatly on the force of those exemptions, which are so necessary.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I should like to confirm that our interpretation of the new clause, as being related to some extent to national security, is correct and that the Minister is incorrect. Paragraph (c) states:
      "Applying the subject access provisions of Part III of this Act to personal data exempted from subject access in Part IV of this Act".
      We are applying the duties of the deputy registrar to personal data exempted from subject access in part IV. Clause 27 states:
      "Personal data are exempt from the provisions of Part II of this Act … for the purpose of safeguarding national security."
      Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because data concerning national security are not exempt from the subject access provisions of the Act. They are exempt from the Act, full stop.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In that case there is greater force in what we are saying, and we are right in attempting to ensure that the systems and files, whether they are enumerated in clause 28 or do not come within the remit of the Bill, are subject to scrutiny such as that laid down in new clause 6.

      211
      We are concerned that there is a whole range of files containing highly personal, sensitive and confidential information on individuals, to which, under the Bill, those people will have no access. Clause 28 states:
      "Personal data held for any of the following purposes—

      (a) the prevention or detection of crime;

      (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

      (c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty, are exempt from the subject access provisions".

      That is to say that the Minister or I, or any of our constituents, will have no entitlement to know what information is contained on any file that is covered by any one of those three areas. They are massive areas. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said in his grandiloquent tour de force, anything can be hidden under the umbrella of
      "the prevention or detection of crime".
      Mr. Ashdown rose——
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall not give way.
      That covers the most serious to the most trivial of offences which the hon. Gentleman described. All those offences are beyond the remit of the individual on whom the information is held.
      The Bill goes further than that. Under clause 29, the Secretary of State is given power to prevent an individual from having access to files about him, even if they contain information about his physical or mental health, or to any information
      "held by government departments or local authorities or by voluntary organisations or other bodies designated by or under the order".
      Therefore, in a whole range of areas, the individual would not have access to information on files.
      I am sorry that the Minister was unable to respond to my perfectly reasonable request for information about the regulations under clause 29, on which he is presently consulting. The reason that the Minister could not respond was that he had not reached that page in his brief. Presumably that is the page that he is reading now. It is important to know what exemptions the Government propose should be applied under clause 29 when the Bill becomes law. It is a reasonable request and it should have been well within the Minister's ability to give that information.
      In any event, the Bill clearly states that there are areas to which the data subject will not have access, and there may be a massive range of other areas where the Secretary of State will issue orders not allowing an individual to have access to information about him. Yet those are the areas where there have been abuses. In Committee we heard of cases where information contained in police or national security files was inaccurate, in some cases mischievous, and in many cases highly damaging to the individual. If the individual, or a deputy registrar on his behalf, had access to that information, mistakes could have been corrected and damage to the individual prevented. Yet the Minister refuses to answer even that reasonable request.
      We accept that there are some files held by the police or the security services to which the individual should not have access, but we do not accept—nor did the Lindop committee — that those files should be beyond all scrutiny and completely uncheckable. We ask that someone with security clearance, such as a deputy registrar, on behalf of the individual, should be able to examine files that we accept the individual should not see.
      212
      We want such a safeguard because we know the damage that can be caused to the individual if inaccurate or mischievous information is contained in those files.
      We are extremely upset that the Minister could not, either in Committee or today, give an assurance that the safeguards will be provided. In the absence of such an assurance, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause 6 and amendment No. 40.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 187.

      Division No. 344]

      ]7.22 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Anderson, Donald

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ashton, Joe

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Lamond, James

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Litherland, Robert

      Barron, Kevin

      Loyden, Edward

      Bell, Stuart

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      McKelvey, William

      Blair, Anthony

      Maclennan, Robert

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Buchan, Norman

      McWilliam, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Madden, Max

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Clay, Robert

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Coleman, Donald

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Conlan, Bernard

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Corbett, Robin

      Nellist, David

      Cowans, Harry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Crowther, Stan

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Pike, Peter

      Dormand, Jack

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Redmond, M.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Eadie, Alex

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Eastham, Ken

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ewing, Harry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fatchett, Derek

      Spearing, Nigel

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Flannery, Martin

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Forrester, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Foulkes, George

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Freud, Clement

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      George, Bruce

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Tinn, James

      Gourlay, Harry

      Torney, Tom

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Wareing, Robert

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Welsh, Michael

      Haynes, Frank

      Wilson, Gordon

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Winnick, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mr. Don Dixon and

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Batiste, Spencer

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      213

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Maclean, David John.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Major, John

      Conway, Derek

      Malone, Gerald

      Cope, John

      Mather, Carol

      Crouch, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dicks, Terry

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Durant, Tony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Eggar, Tim

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Fallon, Michael

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Favell, Anthony

      Moate, Roger

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Forth, Eric

      Moore, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Fox, Marcus

      Mudd, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Murphy, Christopher

      Freeman, Roger

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Neubert, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Norris, Steven

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Onslow, Cranley

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Osborn, Sir John

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Ground, Patrick

      Parris, Matthew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Porter, Barry

      Harris, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Harvey, Robert

      Powley, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hayes, J.

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hayward, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Heddle, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hickmet, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hirst, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Holt, Richard

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hooson, Tom

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

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

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Silvester, Fred

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Sims, Roger

      Hunter, Andrew

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Irving, Charles

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jessel, Toby

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Speller, Tony

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Spencer, Derek

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Knowles, Michael

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Lightbown, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lilley, Peter

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Luce, Richard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Waddington, David

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Walden, George

      MacGregor, John

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Waller, Gary

      214

      Ward, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wardle, C, (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Watson, John

      Woodcock, Michael

      Watts, John

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitfield, John

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mr. Donald Thompson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 8

      CODE OF PRACTICE
      '(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to make and publish Advisory Codes of Practice for guidance to data users in order to give effect to the Data Protection Principles.
      (2) Before any such Advisory Code is made, the registrar shall:—

      (a) Consult trade associations or other bodies representing data users.

      (b) Consult bodies representing data subjects.

      (c) Give public notice of any draft Code of Practice by inviting objections and representations.

      (d) Consider any such objections and representations.'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 33, in clause 35, page 27, line 40, at end insert—
      '(3) It shall be the duty of the Registrar, where he considers it appropriate to do so, to encourage trade associations or other bodies representing data users to prepare, and to disseminate to their members, codes of practice for guidance in complying with the data protection principles.'.
      Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 33, at end insert
      ', and upon request to express his views on the conformity of such codes of practice with the data protection principles.'.
      Mr. Howell: New clause 8 was tabled before we realised that the Government were going to respond with their own amendment. I have already acknowledged that, although I regret that the Government's amendment does not make codes of practice a statutory obligation, it requires the registrar to take initiatives to bring about codes of practice. Therefore, I think that it would not be right for me to take up any more time.
      I do not know whether this has ever been done in one speech from the Dispatch Box, but, if what I am saying is correct — and the Minister nods his head — in the course of moving the new clause, I will withdraw it in order that we can make progress.
      We very much welcome what the Government have done, although we wish that they had made this a statutory obligation. It would be churlish to proceed with moving new clause 8 in the light of the concessions that we have already gained from the Government on this matter.
      Does the Minister nod his head?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In order to have a tidy arrangement and an orderly debate, it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman were to move the new clause, and to withdraw it after the debate, if he wishes to do so.
      Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for what he has said. I shall not detain the House long in explaining Government amendment No. 33.

      215
      We had some interesting debates on the matter in Committee. There is nothing in the Bill, as cast, to prevent users from producing voluntary codes of practice. The Bill, as drafted, allows them to consult a registrar, and clause 35 makes it clear that the registrar can advise on such matters.
      Although there may be no need for any statutory provision to underpin this, I acknowledge the strength of feeling on the matter, and the general desire for the position to be spelt out clearly on the face of the Bill as an encouragement to the registrar and to data users. It was for this reason that I made the undertaking in Committee to consider sympathetically the substantive issues involved, and to come forward with a suitable amendment.
      In drawing up our proposals, we have had regard to the precedent provided by section 124 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 commended to us by, among others, the Consumers Association, which imposes a duty on the Director General of Fair Trading to encourage others to draw up codes of practice. I understand that some 19 codes of practice have been drawn up under this legislation, and that they are generally regarded as valuable and as serving a useful purpose. The codes drawn up under the Fair Trading Act have no legal standing, and there is no statutory provision for them to be referred to in legal proceedings. These aspects are important and relevant in the context of the Bill.
      As I indicated earlier, the principles must be paramount, and must determine what may or may not be done. I am afraid that there is no way in which codes of practice can be regarded as the standard yardstick in the context of the Bill. Therefore, they cannot properly be given any express evidential value or implicit seal of approval.
      I believe that amendment No. 33 goes as far as it can in giving statutory recognition to the value of codes of practice without falling foul of the objections that I voiced in Committee. By imposing a duty on the registrar to encourage representative organisations to formulate and disseminate codes of practice, we have made it clear, in so far as is not already apparent, that he has a positive part to play in this process.
      I believe that it would be undesirable and inappropriate for the registrar to be responsible for producing codes of practice, as would have been required under new clause 8, or for approving any particular codes as being in conformity with the principles.
      I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Small Heath will agree to withdraw new clause 8 in favour of amendment No. 33, which honours the undertaking given in Committee.
      Mr. Maclennan: Amendment (a) builds upon Government amendment No. 33, and would impose a duty upon the registrar to give his views about whether codes of practice drawn up not by him but by others, would be in conformity with the data protection principles. Such a proposal could not impart any firm legal definitions, or amount to a statement of whether the codes were in conformity with the data protection principles from an evidential point of view.
      I took it from what the Minister said at the end of his remarks that he was not favourably disposed towards the purposes of amendment (a). In practice, whether or not this is a statutory obligation—and it may be debatable whether it should be—it must be part of the registrar's
      216
      function to advise those who seek his expert opinion whether such codes of practice fulfil the purposes that they are intended to fulfil. That would be analogous to the important role of the Director General of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act.
      It would be sensible if the expertise of the registrar could be made available to those who seek to conform to the Bill's provisions. It would not impose a huge practical burden and would ease the task of those endeavouring to draw up codes of practice. The Bill would be enhanced if such duties were accepted by the registrar. I agree that it may not be desirable to encapsulate that duty in statutory form, but it would be encouraging if it were normal for the registrar to give advice and help when needed.
      Mr. Waddington: I did not mention amendment (a) because I was not sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would press it. There is a serious objection to the proposal in that amendment which would elevate the guidelines to a status above the principles. Clearly that would not do. The principles must be paramount and most people accept that. It cannot be right to say that compliance with a code of practice would be deemed to amount to compliance with the principles since no code could ever guarantee to cover all eventualities. What would be the position of the registrar if he knew that a principle had been breached, but a user was able to demonstrate that he, had complied with a code of practice which said nothing about the particular circumstances which had arisen? Any provision which prevented him from acting in such cases must be wrong.
      The same is true of any provision which required the registrar to certify codes of practice. I recognise that amendment (a) does not refer to certification as such, but there is a danger that by singling out this particular aspect of the registrar's powers to give advice — covered generally in clause 35(2)—it will be taken to mean that codes have the registrar's stamp of approval.
      As I have already said the registrar's position would be extremely awkward if, after having said that in his view a user complying with a code would be complying with the principles, it then turned out that a breach of the principles had nevertheless occurred. Users would surely have cause to complain if the registrar then took action when they would have assumed that compliance with a code in effect guaranteed them immunity.
      We have to make up our minds whether codes of practice or the principles are supreme. We have decided that the registrar should seek observance of the principles because the principles are supreme. That is a complete answer to the amendment to our amendment.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of amendment No. 33 and its relationship to new clause 8. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Maclennan rose——
      Mr. Waddington: On a point or order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is trying to catch your eye because we have not yet disposed of his amendment to the Government amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That amendment will be dealt with later. the new clause has been withdrawn and in due course I shall invite the Minister to move amendment No. 33 formally.

    Clause 2

      THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
      '(5) An order under subsection (3) above modifying the third data protection principle may, to such extent as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, exclude or modify in relation to that principle any exemption from the non-disclosure provisions which is contained in Part IV of this Act; and the exemptions from those provisions contained in that Part shall accordingly have effect subject to any order made by virtue of this subsection.'.
      The words "health data" do not appear in the amendment, but they are what the amendment is about. Health data — that is, information about a person's physical or mental health—fall into what we all regard as a particularly sensitive category of personal data. Earlier I quoted the words used by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). He recognised that such data fall into a "special, peculiar and different" category. He said that personal health information was
      "potentially perhaps more embarrassing and it may also be more damaging."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 5 April 1984; c. 684.]
      Both the Council of Europe convention on data protection and the Bill itself already recognise that certain categories of data are of such a nature that they may require special protection. These categories of data include health data as well as data about a person's racial origin, his political opinions or religious beliefs and his criminal convictions.
      Data about a person's physical or mental health have given rise to most concern. The health professionals, represented by an inter-professional working group chaired by Sir Douglas Black, have argued strongly that it is particularly important that special safeguards should be introduced to regulate the circumstances in which health data may be disclosed without the consent of a patient. They are concerned that without special safeguards the confidence and trust which exist between a patient and the health professional treating him will be seriously undermined. We understand that concern. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that the patients should be able to confide in health professionals secure in the knowledge that the information which they give will be properly safeguarded and will not be passed to all and sundry. Arrangements already exist within the National Health Service to ensure the protection of medical confidentiality.
      The fundamental principle is that health data are not disclosed without the consent of a patient except in certain limited circumstances—for example, where disclosure is made for the purpose of preventing a risk to public health, or where the information is sought by the police in connection with the investigation of an offence. In these cases, special arrangements exist which require the disclosure to be authorised by the responsible professional.
      The Bill, of course, does not undermine these existing arrangements, but the health professionals have argued that the Bill gives us the opportunity to put the informal arrangements on to a statutory footing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services agreed earlier this year to consider a direction to health authorities under the National Health Service Act
      218
      1977 requiring them to comply with a code of guidance. Such a code is being prepared in consultation with the inter-professional working group. It will embody the existing arrangements which I have just mentioned. But, of course, a direction made under the National Health Service Act can apply only within the National Health Service. To ensure that similar arrangements may be made outside the NHS, wherever health data are held, I move this amendment.
      As I have said, the Bill, following the Council of Europe convention, already recognises that health data are in a special category. Clause 2 therefore provides a power for the Secretary of State to make an order modifying or supplementing the data protection principles to provide additional safeguards in relation to such data. This power would, therefore, allow an order to be made modifying the third principle as it applies to health data and imposing certain restrictions on disclosures of such data. But that alone would not be enough to meet the concerns of the health professionals since the Bill is constructed in such a way that the exemptions which it provides from the non-disclosure provisions would, in effect, take precedence over any such order under clause 2.
      In other words, even though an order might say that to ensure compliance with the third principle a user must obtain the consent of a health professional before disclosing data to, say, the police, a user who had not registered the police as a recipient of data could nevertheless disclose the data without first obtaining a professional's consent, because clause 28(2) provides an exemption from any of the registrar's powers to enforce the third principle, whether or not that principle has been modified. It is, therefore, to overcome that difficulty that I move the amendment.
      Quite simply, the amendment ensures that any order modifying the third principle may also modify the application of any of the exemptions from the non-disclosure provisions. If the amendment is accepted, we will have available to us the means of regulating the disclosure of health data. It is the Government's intention that that power should be used to impose upon data users who hold personal health data restrictions on the circumstances under which they may disclose such data. It will be necessary to conduct detailed consultations before the precise contents of such an order can be settled, but clearly it will follow very closely the code of guidance being prepared by the Department of Health and Social Security in consultation with the health professions. It may, however, be necessary to make some modifications to take account of the different circumstances that prevail in areas outside the National Health Service. The fundamental principles embodied in the code are, however, likely to be applicable in all situations. In particular, provision will be made to ensure that health data are not disclosed to the police except in cases where the seriousness of the offence in question is such that the public interest must prevail over the subject's right to confidentiality. It goes without saying, of course, that there will be close liaison with the health professionals during preparation of an order.
      As I have already said, the whole issue has given rise to some rather extravagant and misleading claims. The Bill, which introduces entirely new safeguards for the protection of personal data, has been represented in some quarters as in some way diminishing the rights of data subjects by reducing the protection afforded to data about

      219
      their physical or mental health. That is nonsense. There is no way in which the Bill could ever have had that effect. Its whole purpose and effect is to improve the rights of data subjects, and I believe that it will achieve that purpose. We are, however, taking the opportunity of the Bill to provide that health data, because of their very special nature, are given even greater protection than other less sensitive categories of data. I hope that on that basis the House will welcome the amendment.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I found the Minister's speech remarkable. His interesting dissertion implied that he was about to make a concession that he and his colleagues think wholly unnecessary. He said that information about mental or physical health was adequately protected and that all the fears that have been expressed were unfounded — but, nevertheless, he was taking the opportunity to write the amendment into the Bill.
      Mr. Waddington: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the story—which he must have heard — was that in some way the Bill would detract from the existing protection for citizens on the confidentiality of their medical information. That is nonsense. However, that is no reason why we should not listen to representations by the health professionals, who asked us to increase the protection presently given on health data. That is what we are doing. The Bill does not detract from the existing protection, but we are taking the opportunity to increase that protection. I am sure that that will please the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Howell: It pleases me enormously. If that is what the Minister thinks he is doing, I support it. However, it is not what the entire medical profession thought would happen — which is why it mounted an extraordinary lobby and made representations to both Ministers and Opposition spokesmen day in and day out. While the extraordinary discussions were taking place between the BMA and the DHSS, every now and again we heard bits of gossip or gained pieces of information which we put together. However, this is a genial occasion, so I shall not take issue with the Minister, and I know that he does not wish to take issue with me. We are sorry that the same considerations have not been applied to the social services as have been applied to the medical profession. However, we welcome the amendment.
      I wish to make one point which the Minister may think frivolous, but it is not. I am concerned about the jargon used in the amendment. No ordinary citizen reading the amendment could possibly understand it. It states:
      "An order under subsection (3) above modifying the third data protection principle may, to such extent as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, exclude or modify in relation to that principle any exemption from the non-disclosure provisions which is contained in Part IV of this Act; and the exemptions from those provisions contained in that Part shall accordingly have effect subject to any order made by virtue of this subsection.'."
      Any ordinary citizen buying a copy of the Act or reading it in the library will not have the faintest notion that it has anything to do with protecting health data. Indeed, the Minister conceded that in his remarks. I do not blame him for the jargon but why on earth cannot we write in plain English exactly what we are doing, which is protecting information about patients in the possession of doctors that should not be disclosed improperly? That is what we are doing, so why the devil cannot we say so in plain English?
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      THE REGISTRAR AND THE TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 2, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 5 and insert
      'be—(a) persons to represent the interests of data users;'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
      'and
      (c) persons representing those employed in data using industries.'.
      and Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
      Mr. Waddington: The Government amendments grouped together honour an undertaking given in Committee to consider a number of points that had been raised concerning the composition of the Data Protection Tribunal, and to come forward with a suitable formulation to redress the imbalances that had been drawn to Mr. attention.
      Two points have been made. First, it was argued that representatives of data users could, in some circumstances, outnumber those representing the interests of data subjects. Secondly, it was put to us that user interests might, in fact, go unrepresented since the technical experts provided for in the Bill were under no duty—indeed; may not be qualified—to put forward the user's point of view. On the face of it, those two points may seem contradictory, but in fact they both have some validity.
      I shall rehearse briefly the history of this part of clause 3 and schedule 3. Our original intention was to provide for an entirely neutral tribunal with no sectoral interests being represented. However, since the tribunal would undoubtedly be hearing some cases of a rather technical nature, it seemed appropriate that some technical expertise should be made available to it. We provided that half of the members of a duly constituted tribunal, apart from the chairman, should be technical experts chosen from the pool of people appointed under clause 3(5)(a). Those experts, however, soon came to be regarded by some as representatives of the data user. It was, therefore, suggested that data subjects should in all equity also be specifically represented. On reflection, I think that we accepted this argument a little too readily and took powers to enable the Secretary of State to appoint a certain number of people to represent the interests of the data subjects and for at least one to serve on each duly constituted tribunal. In doing that we now see that we introduced an element of partiality into what was hitherto an entirely neutral tribunal and that there is an argument, in fairness, for saying that the interests of data users should be specifically represented.
      Of course, technical experts might in some cases have been able to double as representatives of data users. but the two are not necessarily synonymous. We therefore now accept that it would be more sensible to make specific provision for an equal number of representatives of data users and of data subjects. That is what these amendments seek to do.
      8 pm
      In making these changes, we lose the pool of computer experts. As I said, these have come to be identified by some as representing the interests of users. Their continued presence might, therefore, be seen as a

      221
      complicating factor. Moreover, if we had retained a provision for computer experts to be represented on every duly constituted tribunal, it would have meant that the tribunal would always have had to have had at least five members, whereas three is generally regarded as the optimum number in most cases.
      I am afraid, therefore, that the loss of the expert members seems an inevitable but acceptable casualty of the amendment. This does not mean that technical expertise will not be available to the tribunal, but simply that such expertise will be provided by expert witnesses called before the tribunal under the rules of procedure to be made under paragraph 4 of schedule 3.
      I hope that what I have said helps to reassure Opposition Members—whose amendment to clause 3 seems to be aimed at the same point — who clearly feel that the interests of data users should be specifically represented. As I explained, the Government accept that view, and our amendment will achieve that result. It is not clear whether, by tabling their amendment, they were seeking to ensure that the pool of technical experts would be retained, as their amendment would simply add an additional category of tribunal members, rather than substituting data user representatives for technical experts. I hope that what I have said will be enough to explain why we do not believe that that would be the right approach. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to say at once that we find the amendment acceptable. I accept that the wording of the Government amendment is superior to ours, which is as it should be, and for that reason we will not press our amendment No. 5.
      The Minister must now find representatives of data users and data subjects. From where will he find them? May we be told how he intends to approach this task? May we be assured that the various parties concerned with data subjects—consumers and others—will be able to submit nominations to the Minister? In other words, how wide will the net be cast before the Minister reaches his judgment?
      Mr. Waddington: We shall gladly accept advice from interested bodies. If those bodies furnish us with names, those names will certainly be considered.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      PROHIBITION OF UNREGISTERED HOLDING ETC. OF PERSONAL DATA
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) A servant or agent of a person to whom subsection (2) above applies shall, as respects personal data held by that person, be subject to the same restrictions on the use, disclosure or transfer of the data as those to which that person is subject under paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of that subsection and, as respects personal data to be held by that person, to the same restrictions as those to which he is subject under paragraph (c) of that subsection.'.
      This amendment was not foreshadowed in our Committee proceedings. Indeed, the point that it addresses was not raised directly. However, even when a point is not directly raised, it sometimes happens that something else
      222
      that is said triggers off a train of thought. That is what happened here, and that train of thought led to the amendment.
      As presently drafted, clause 5(3) makes it clear that a servant or agent of a registered person can be prosecuted for any of the offences listed in subsection (2)(c), (d) and (e). Thus, if he knowingly or recklessly obtains data from a unregistered source, or discloses or transfers data to a person or country not described in the register, he commits an offence.
      However, clause 5(2)(b), which says that data must not be held or used other than for a registered purpose, is not covered in this respect. The reason for that is clear so far as the "holding" of data is concerned. As hon. Members will know, "holding" has a precise meaning in terms of the Bill and implies the notion of ultimate control over data. Only a data user can, in terms of the Bill, "hold" data. As a result, only a data user can reasonably be held liable for holding data for an unregistered use of data, and it is clearly possible for the servant or agent of a registered person to use personal data held by that person for an unregistered purpose. That gap in the Bill had to be closed, and we have closed it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 43, leave out from 'user' to end of line 2 on page 10 and insert—
      '(a) to rectify or erase the data and any other data held by him and containing an expression of opinion which appears to the Registrar to be based on the inaccurate data; or
      (b) in the case of such data as are mentioned in subsection (2) of section 22 below, either to take the steps mentioned in paragraph (a) above or to take such steps as are specified in the notice for securing compliance with the requirements specified in that subsection and, if the Registrar thinks fit, for supplementing the data with such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the Registrar may approve.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
      Mr. Waddington: This group of amendments deals with the rectification and erasure of inaccurate personal data. This is one of the more intricate parts of the Bill, but, because the amendments improve the rights of data subjects at no great cost to scrupulous data users, no apology is required for bringing them forward.
      As the Bill stands, data which the user has received, either from the subject or from a third party, are treated differently from other data in terms of their accuracy. Many data users receive large amounts of data either from the data subject himself or from third parties. Obviously, users have an interest in ensuring that the data which they hold are accurate, but equally obviously they cannot, realistically, be expected to verify every item of information which they receive from someone else; they must take certain things on trust.
      For this reason, we have taken the view — a view which, I think the House will agree, is generally reasonable—that users should not be held responsible for the accuracy of such data, provided that they take

      223
      certain precautions designed to safeguard the interests of the subject. Thus, the Bill in clause 22, says that a user will not be obliged to pay compensation to a data subject who suffers damage as a result of inaccurate "received" data, now will a user be liable to a court order for rectification or erasure of such data provided that he has marked the data to indicate their status and, in effect, to indicate that he is not vouching for their accuracy.
      In addition, if the subject has disputed the accuracy of the data, the user must, if he does not accept what the subject tells him, include in the data an indication of the dispute if he wishes to benefit from this special protection. In other words, the user is afforded a certain immunity, but, in return, he must ensure a certain degree of protection for the subject by making sure that anyone else looking at the data knows their true status and will treat them with suitable caution.
      All of this is entirely sensible so far as clause 22 and compensation for inaccuracy are concerned. But we have, on reflection, come to the view that it may not be so sensible so far as clause 24 and rectification and erasure are concerned. While I remain convinced that, provided he has taken all the appropriate precautions, a user should not be made to pay for the shortcomings of others and be held liable to pay compensation if "received" data prove to be inaccurate, I confess that the arguments against making him liable to a court order for rectification or erasure do not seem convincing.
      Generally speaking, if data can be shown to be inaccurate, most data users will be only too happy to correct them. After all, it is in their interest to do so. But there may be cases where a user, for whatever reason, decides to ignore a data subject who tells him that data which he is holding are inaccurate; perhaps he thinks that the data subject has a good reason for wishing to deceive him. In these cases, as the Bill stands, if the user marks the data properly, there is nothing that the data subject can do to have his claim validated and to have the date rectified or erased.
      I accept that that is hard to justify, and I do not believe that data users would be seriously inconvenienced or could reasonably object if a court were to be given power to adjudicate in such cases and to order rectification or erasure of any data which were shown to be inaccurate. Indeed, those data users whom we have consulted share this view. They agree that the situation is not likely to arise often, but that, when it does, there is no good reason why a court should not be able to intervene.
      The amendments to clause 24 seek to achieve that result. They provide, in effect, that the powers that the court already has in respect of "unmarked" inaccurate data shall apply equally to "marked" data which are shown to be inaccurate. In other words, the court may order rectification or erasure of marked data or the addition of a corrective statement, whichever appears in the circumstances to be the most appropriate response. I hope that the House will feel this to be a valuable increase in the rights of the individual.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: We welcome these clarifying and drafting amendments. As the Minister will readily accept, one of the most repeated complaints in Committee, and so far in today's proceedings, related to the damage and/or distress that can be caused to individuals by inaccurate or misleading information contained in files about them. We have constantly stressed the need to strengthen the ability
      224
      of an individual to have access to such information, to be able to challenge it, to obtain compensation for any damage or distress that that information may have occasioned, and to be able to correct, rectify or erase it.
      We accept that a data user may be an innocent recipient of information which is misleading, inaccurate or mischievous, and we do not necessarily blame him for that. We accept that many users will accept information in good faith believing it to be accurate. The person. supplying the information may be doing so in the belief that it is accurate. However, we know, too, that on many occasions such belief is unfounded and that the individual. when challenging the information about him, cart demonstrate its inaccuracy.
      In those circumstances there is no reason why the data subject, the individual who has been wronged, should not have the opportunity to be able to correct the information or to have it erased. When we debated this issue in Committee, we did not believe it to be a sufficient safeguard that there should be a tag alongside the information stating that the subject had denied its authenticity or accuracy.
      The Minister has done what we asked him to do in Committee, and for that we are grateful. We shall support the amendment.
      Mr. Norris: I add my thanks to those of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to my hon. and learned Friend. I welcome the amendment so far as it goes. However, we are still a long way short of what many of us regard as an important part of the provisions of a proper data protection Bill, which is an audit trail that would allow someone about whom information had been wrongly collated and/or disseminated to have that data rectified and erased in respect of the original data user. It is obviously highly desirable that we should have amendment No. 7 to facilitate that process. In addition, the subject of the information should have the right to say, "You have got something wrong about me. You put it on a file and in the registration particulars that are with the registrar you have suggested those to whom you will transmit the information. May I know from you to whom you have transmitted the information? Even better, will you please tell those to whom you have disseminated the information that you got it wrong? Will you convey to them the same corrections that you have been required to make by the application of the clause?"
      I do not want to speak at length on this issue because we still have a considerable portion of the Bill to discuss. I welcome the amendment but I wish to underline that it does not go the whole way towards providing a satisfactory audit trail. There will be a serious loophole in our ability to provide proper protection for individuals against data banks for as long as that trail does not exist.
      8.15 pm
      My hon. and learned Friend said in Committee that part of the problem is the technical inability of computer systems to be able to record to 'whom information is being disseminated. The logging principle is extremely expensive and some have told me that it can double the cost of a computer system if provision is made to log to whom one has disseminated pieces of information. Be that as it may, I cannot comprehend why it is possible to transmit the information with such speed and facility while it is not possible to issue equally speedy and efficiently

      225
      produced corrections to data which have been proved to be inadequate and in respect of which the amendment will apply.
      I hope that the Minister will have some words of encouragement. I hope, too, that he and his officials will continue to examine all possible avenues open to them and to those within the computer industry to ensure that, if and when possible, we have a proper audit trail for data subjects, which is a vital requirement of a proper data protection Bill.
      Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) has invited me to go down an interesting path but one which is not foreshadowed in the amendment. I shall bear in mind what he has said. We had many debates in Committee on audit trails and logging and I do not think that I would be serving the interests of the House if I were now to re-open them.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19

      PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 16, line 17, leave out from ' 1982)' to end of line 18.
      No. 11, in page 16, line 22, leave out from '1982)' to end of line 23.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 22

      COMPENSATION FOR INACCURACY
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 18, line 33, leave out from 'compensation' to end of line 34 and insert
      'from the data user for that damage and for any distress which the individual has suffered by reason of the inaccuracy.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
      Mr. Waddington: Clauses 22 and 23 create important civil remedies for the data subject; they entitle him to compensation for any damage he may have suffered as a result of inaccuracy in personal data or as the result of the loss or unauthorised disclosure of data. In Committee and in Committee on the Bill's predecessor it was argued that the individual should also be compensated if he suffers distress in these circumstances, and in view of the strength of feeling expressed in Committee I undertook to reconsider the matter.
      I have accordingly given careful thought to the question and have consulted the Lord Chancellor. The upshot is that I do not think that it would be right to make distress a totally separate ground for compensation. As the Lord Chancellor explained in another place, and as I reiterated in Committee, the difficulty lies in trying to quantify distress quite apart from any objective measurement of damage, and in the danger of encouraging purely speculative litigation. Let us suppose, for instance, that clause 22 were amended to allow compensation for distress only. Anyone who received a computerised standard letter in which his name was wrongly spelt would be able to claim that the error had caused him untold mental anguish and to institute legal proceedings. Equally anybody receiving a gas bill for £1 million rather than for
      226
      £10—even though the bill was mainfestly mistaken and there was no material damage ever in prospect—could resort to litigation and seek compensation for the distress caused to him. No doubt we could trust to the good sense of the courts to prevent the plaintiff from hitting the jackpot. None the less, I cannot see that we would be improving either this Bill or the law generally by allowing such an action to get off the ground in the first place, as we would if we founded a right to compensation upon distress alone. We want to discourage users from holding inaccurate data but we do not want to give birth to a litigant's charter by encouraging speculative actions.
      I think that the approach which I am proposing in these amendments will go a long way towards meeting the concern that was expressed in Committee. The amendments have the effect that when a person has suffered damage in the circumstances covered by clauses 22 and 23 he will be entitled, in addition to compensation for the damage, to compensation for any distress which he has suffered. This arrangement, as I understand it, is in line with the general position in civil law in which distress independent of damage is not a ground for compensation but distress may be taken into account where compensation for damage is awarded. Under the clauses as amended, therefore, the plaintiff would still have to show that he had sustained damage. We see this basic condition as being essential if the wholly speculative action to which I referred earlier is to be excluded. None the less, the amendments take full account of the real feeling in Committee that, where damage is sustained, it will often be appropriate to look beyond the damage to the distress suffered as well when fixing the amount of compensation to be awarded.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome the major concession that the Minister has made to the points that were advanced in Committee by me, my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and, in spite of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet). Unfortunately, in Committee the Minister poured scorn on the notion that there could be a legal concept of distress or compensation for distress. The Minister nods his head, but if he were to look at the record he would see clearly the pit he dug for himself on that occasion.
      The important point that needs to be made is one that the Minister accepted and that the National Consumer Council made repeatedly in its representations to me, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and, I believe, to Conservative Members — that information about individuals, if inaccurate, could cause a great deal of mental anguish, psychological disturbance and distress. There should therefore, be compensation for distress that has occurred, even though there cannot be shown to be in any material sense damage arising to a person because of inaccurate information held about and passed on about an individual.
      Unfortunately, I did not catch everything that the Minister said when speaking to the amendment. I assumed, on my reading of the amendment, that a separate concept of distress would be introduced into the Bill for the purposes of paying compensation—a concept that is already contained in other parts of the Bill, as we pointed out in Committee. The Minister said, I believe, that

      227
      distress will not remain in itself a reason for the payment of compensation. That is not my reading of amendment No. 18, which inserts at the end of clause 23
      "for that damage and for any distress".
      The amendment does not say that it must be damage and distress. The amendment suggests damage or distress. I say that not as a lawyer familiar with the interpretation of the law, but as a layman who believes that he understands plain English. As a layman understanding plain English, on reading the Bill I would think that if I had been distressed but not damaged by information held about me and were seeking compensation I would read
      "for that damage and for any distress."
      as meaning that I could obtain compensation for distress. I should like the Minister to clarify that point.
      Mr. Hickmet: I did not in Committee oppose the concept of damages for distress. The point I was trying to make was that the Bill provided for damages for distress. That point has been clarified. I welcome that clarity, as does the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman has not only dug a pit for himself but has put the noose around his neck. He was wrong in Committee. The Bill does not provide damages for distress, and that is why the amendment was moved.
      We welcome the concession to the arguments that we put forward in Committee but we would like the Minister's further clarification of the points that I have made.
      Mr. Norris: I regret to say that, for once, I find myself in certain difficulties. First, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who normally can elucidate precisely the meaning of each amendment tabled by the Government or the Opposition, has on this occasion manifestly failed to read the amendment accurately. Secondly, I regret to say that the remedy that, on a superficial reading, I thought would be available because of the amendment is not available. The argument advanced in Committee — it was wholly right and I actively supported it—was that the Bill covered areas in which the concept of genuine distress, such as should give rise in all equity to compensation, could arise even though there was no actual financial, property or other damage which normally might have involved an order for compensation.
      My initial reaction on seeing an amendment that included the words
      "for that damage and for any distress"
      was to say, "That is very good. The Government have conceded the point and have introduced the concept of distress. This is a great move forward in the Bill." That is not, however, what is being offered. I read that amendment, as I am required to do, as applying to page 19, line 33, which means that the person who suffers damage because of the inaccuracy of the data shall be entitled to compensation from the data user for that damage. The person will be eligible for some compensation for distress only because of the inaccuracy.
      The Minister has used as his argument that it is difficult to define meaningful distress the point that it may be distressing to receive an over-large gas bill, to see a name spelt wrongly, and so on. I understand that it is difficult to define distress. The Minister went on to say that, therefore, damages may be paid for distress only when a person has already proved that he has suffered a financial
      228
      or property loss or suffered in another respect for which he would normally gain compensation. It seems to those of us who supported the idea of introducing a remedy for distress that that was precisely the point that we were trying to make. There are occasions when real distress is caused to data subjects above and beyond the trivial examples to which the Minister referred. I hope that the Minister will point out that, sadly, he is not offering any substantial concession. Will the new remedies available to the data subjects differ substantially from the remedies that were available previously? We have left untouched the one area in which we could have made progress — compensation for distress.
      Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) is right on the law and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is, for once, wrong. There is no doubt about the effect of the amendment. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North did not give due weight to the fact that the second line of clause 22 includes the words "who suffers damage". Before the words in the amendment are activated there must be proof of damage. There can be no doubt about what we are offering to the House. I do not pretend that the measure goes as far as the hon. Gentleman might wish or as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East now says that he would wish.
      The Lord Chancellor's view is that any action for distress, independent of damage, could lead to speculative litigation in which it would be difficult for the courts to assess compensation on a realistic basis. It is true that race relations and equal opportunities legislation creates civil remedies for hurt feelings, but, as was explained in Committee, there is no real parallel with the civil remedies in this Bill. In those circumstances, it was concluded that it would be reasonable to allow compensation for distress where damage had been suffered. That approach is entirely consistent with the general position in tort. Normally, distress alone cannot found an action in tort. In many cases, once the plaintiff can show that he has sustained damage, he may be allowed compensation for any distress that he has suffered.
      8.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) talked about that matter in Committee. He suggested that the decision in Jarvis v. Swan Tours had the effect of establishing that entitlement to compensation for damage included an entitlement to compensation for any distress caused without any specific reference to distress being necessary. That decision is relevant only in a case in which there is a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Jarvis case involved a client and a tour operator. There is unlikely to be such a contractual arrangement in the majority of cases brought under clauses 22 and 23 and, in any case, the Bill, by referring at several points to damage or distress, makes it clear that the two concepts are to be regarded as separate.
      I understand that the amendment does not go as far as many hon. Members would like, but half a loaf is better than no bread. This is the amendment before the House. Considerable thought was given to it before it was tabled. I am afraid that, at this late stage of the Bill, it is a case of taking or leaving it.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) was right and I was wrong. I, therefore, take

      229
      back 50 per cent. of my welcome for the amendment. Nevertheless, it is a welcome amendment. It provides compensation for distress even if the distress has to be coupled with damage.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23

      COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 19, line 21, leave out 'for that damage'.
      No. 18, in page 19, line 22, at end insert
      'for that damage and for any distress which the individual has suffered by reason of the loss, destruction, disclosure or access.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 24

      RECTIFICATION AND ERASURE
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 19, line 31, leave out
      `Subject to subsection (2) below'.
      No. 20, in page 19, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) Subsection (1) above applies whether or not the data accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party but where the data accurately record such information, then—

      (a) if the requirements mentioned in section 22(2) above have been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under subsection (1) above, make an order requiring the data to be supplemented by such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the court may approve; and

      (b) if all or any of those requirements have not been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under that subsection, make such order as it thinks fit for securing compliance with those requirements with or without a further order requiring the data to be supplemented by such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 28

      CRIME AND TAXATION
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 22, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
      '(a) The disclosure is for the detection of a serious arrestable offence or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and'.
      As the Bill now stands the disclosure of personal information is allowed for the prevention or detection of crime without there being any indication at all of how serious the crime may be. Personal information of a highly confidential and important nature can be passed to the police, to the Customs and Excise, and to the Inland Revenue for the reasons specified in clause 28 if it be for

      "(a) the prevention or detection of crime;

      (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

      (c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty."

      If we are to allow personal information that individuals may regard as highly confidential, which they have volunteered spontaneously to a social worker, priest or other professional person in the belief that that information would be held in confidence and would not be given to any other person, to be disclosed to the organisations that I
      230
      have just mentioned for the purposes set out in clause 28, the Opposition submit that it must be in relation to a serious crime.
      As it stands, any trivial crime or action that could be construed as falling within the definition of clause 28 would allow information to be passed. I do not wish to go over the debates and the ground that we have already covered in Committee but we were trying—we were then supported by the hon. Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) — to ensure that major erosions of individual civil liberties and major invasions of individual privacy could be made only for good and acceptable reasons.
      All of us who spoke acknowledged that a fine line had to be drawn, and a balance had to be struck between the police need to obtain information and to be able to detect, apprehend, prosecute and convict offenders, and to retain as much individual liberty and privacy as possible. All of us on the Opposition Benches, as much as Conservative Members, want to see the police successful and effective and to have the ability to catch criminals. We want the police to have the resources and machinery necessary to carry out that function effectively on behalf of all of us and our constituents. I, my right hon. and hon. Friends, as much as anyone in the House, wish to see the rule of law upheld and our streets safe for our constituents. We wish to see criminals detected and imprisoned but there is also a need to ensure that individual privacy is maintained and protected.
      We believe that an acceptable balance between the needs of an effective and successful police force, and the demands for individual liberty and privacy was found in the amendment that we debated then and the one that we are now discussing, which says that information can be disclosed if it is
      "for the detection of a serious arrestable offence or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
      That definition of a serious arrestable offence is contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, shot through with anomalies, flaws and holes though it is. As I said when I was on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill Committee for a short time, it is nevertheless a concept that the Government have accepted, that they clearly have faith in and which, in later amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, they have tightened.
      A serious arrestable offence is the concept that triggers many of the police powers contained within the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill-—he powers to stop and search, to set up road checks or to carry out a search of individuals or premises. If it is thought necessary in those circumstances for those powers to be activated only when a serious arrestable offence has been or is alleged to have been committed, it seems to us to be equally reasonable to ask that disclosure of personal information for the reasons specified in clause 28 should be allowed only in respect of a serious arrestable offence.
      As always, we are trying to be reasonable and to do the Government's work for them. We are trying to ensure that the Government's policy and thinking are consistent, and to include in this Bill the sensible provisions already contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
      Mr. Waddington: We had a protracted debate in Committee on whether crime prevention should be included in the exemption provision in clause 28. I said then, and I say now, that it is artificial to draw a distinction

      231
      between those two functions. It would be wrong to exclude crime prevention from the exemption provision. The more important point in the amendment is the matter of a serious arrestable offence.
      We have been told that the intention is to adopt a definition used in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I do not want to go through the definition in detail, but it might preclude from the exemptions certain crimes which, in my opinion, should be covered — for example, persistent, non-accidental injuries to children, or petty thieving.
      I know that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill establishes that a loss can be defined as serious if
      "having regard to all the circumstances, it is serious for the person who suffers it."
      Are we saying that someone who has a fetish for collecting articles from a washing line should be able to escape detection? In many respects, he is utterly harmless; but such a prowler can engender a great deal of alarm, annoyance and unease in a neighbourhood. Just because we have provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill for the exercise of certain powers to be made provisional upon the commission, or likely commission, of a serious criminal offence, there is no reason to carry that concept into a Bill which does a different job in a different context.
      I cannot accept that, because a definition appears in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, it ought to appear in this Bill. We are not considering what powers there should be in the hands of the police to obtain property from someone against his will. We are considering the circumstances in which a person should be able, if he so wishes—and only if he so wishes—to give information to the police. We are not compelling people to disclose information. We are merely trying to leave the door open to them to do so if they wish. There is no question of giving the police power to gain access to information which the holder wishes to withhold.
      There have been fears that sensitive medical data could be disclosed in connection with trivial offences. I hope that those fears have been allayed by today's debate. For the rest, we must leave it to the individual user to decide whether or not he thinks that he has a public duty to make a disclosure in order to avoid prejudicing the detection of a crime. We should hesitate to make things even more difficult by leaving the data user—not, as in the other context, a police officer — to work out whether an offence is serious or not in accordance with the somewhat complex definition in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The constable on the street has to work out, before he can make use of many of the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, whether or not what is at issue is a serious arrestable offence. The Minister's second point is not substantial.
      Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it would be appropriate to leave to the good sense of the data user the decision whether to pass on information to the police? We accept that the Bill allows the data user to disclose information to the police. It does not compel him, but it helps to disclose information by exempting him, as it were, from the non-disclosure provisions and penalties. Clearly the data user is encouraged to help the police and to provide information. So why is he left to use good sense when, in the guidance provided by the DHSS for its own officers, the question is not left to the good sense of the
      232
      officers, but clear and specific guidelines are given—they were quoted in Committee — about the circumstances in which information may be disclosed to the police? The DHSS says that information shall be disclosed only where a serious arrestable offence has been, or is thought to have been, committed, and to some extent it defines a serious offence.
      If that is appropriate in those circumstances, clearly it would be reasonable and appropriate in these circumstances not to leave the question to the good sense of the data user—in which case a multiplicity of different practices would result—but to provide guidelines in the legislation.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Waddington: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any data user or body of data users from laying down their own rules and deciding what practice they should follow. That is no argument for laying down in the utmost detail the precise circumstances in which a person should or should not disclose information to the police.
      The hon. Gentleman's example of the police officer is unhelpful. If it is difficult for the police officer to decide whether the offence that he is investigating is a serious arrestable offence, surely it is impossible to expect a civilian with no experience of such matters to make that distinction? We are talking about an exemption which applies not only to the activities of police officers, but to every citizen. It is wholly unrealistic to say that the individual citizen must ask himself, "I wonder whether this is a serious arrestable offence within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? By gosh, if I reveal this information to the police and it turns out not to be a serious arrestable offence under that Bill, I shall be committing an offence under the Data Protection Bill. It would be midsummer madness to take that road.
      Mr. Hickmet: Is my hon. and learned Friend's objection to the amendment based on the inclusion of the word "serious"? If the word "serious" did not appear in the amendment, would his objection disappear? the concept of an arrestable offence is well known.
      Mr. Waddington: These are deep waters. I am not asked to debate what might or might not be acceptable. I am asked to address my mind to the present amendment, which is clearly not acceptable.
      We went to considerable trouble to decide what exemptions should be set out in the Bill in order to ensure that society was protected against wrongdoers and that the prevention and detection of crime were not impeded. Earlier, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that he did not recognise that clause 28 limited the powers of the police far more than was necessary in order to comply with the European convention. It is sometimes forgotten that, in the interests of the individual, the powers are limited beyond that point.
      We have struck a reasonable balance. We have more than conformed to the requirements of the convention, but we have been careful to see that we do not impede the legitimate needs of society to protect itself.
      Mr. Ashdown: The Minister and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) rightly agree that there is a need to ensure that the police can operate efficiently. However, there is a commensurate need to protect the

      233
      individual from the power of the state. A balance needs to be struck at an appropriate level. Many hon. Members regard the level in the Bill as inappropriate.
      Mr. Waddington: It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he regards the balance as inappropriate. We think that it is appropriate. We have taken great pains to try to arrive at a proper balance between the interests of the data user and the subject and between the interests of society and the data subject. It is difficult to achieve precisely the right balance, but we feel that we have done so, and we are sure that the amendment would upset that balance in an absurd and destructive way.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 22, line 30, at end insert—
      '(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a disclosure made by or on behalf of a data user who—

      (a) allows the person to whom the disclosure is made direct access to all or some of the personal data held by him; or

      (b) regularly or habitually makes such disclosures; or

      (c) at the time of applying for registration under Part II of this Act intended to make such disclosures but failed to include a sufficient indication to that effect in the information furnished to the Registrar in connection with his application for registration; or

      (d) at any time after becoming a registered data user formed such an intention but failed within a reasonable time to apply to the Registrar for an appropriate alteration of the particulars included in the entry relating to him, or to make an appropriate fresh application for registration.'.—[Mr. Ashdown.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 174.

      Division No. 345]

      [8.48 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Beith, A. J.

      Kirkwood, Archibald

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

      Loyden, Edward

      Bidwell, Sydney

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bruce, Malcolm

      McWilliam, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Madden, Max

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Maxton, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Clay, Robert

      Nellist, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dixon, Donald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Eadie, Alex

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Eastham, Ken

      Spearing, Nigel

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Ewing, Harry

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      George, Bruce

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Gould, Bryan

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Home Robertson, John

      Mr. Paddy Ashdown and

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Mr. James Wallace.

      Howells, Geraint

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Tom

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Batiste, Spencer

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Budgen, Nick

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      234

      Cash, William

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Cope, John

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Dicks, Terry

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Durant, Tony

      Moore, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Fallon, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Favell, Anthony

      Murphy, Christopher

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Newton, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      Norris, Steven

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Freeman, Roger

      Osborn, Sir John

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Gow, Ian

      Parris, Matthew

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Greenway, Harry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Ground, Patrick

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Powley, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Harris, David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Harvey, Robert

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hayes, J.

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hayward, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Heddle, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Henderson, Barry

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hind, Kenneth

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hirst, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Holt, Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Hooson, Tom

      Sims, Roger

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

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Speller, Tony

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Spencer, Derek

      Jessel, Toby

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Key, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Stern, Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Knowles, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lang, Ian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lester, Jim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Lilley, Peter

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Luce, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Waddington, David

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Walden, George

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Maclean, David John

      Waller, Gary

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Ward, John

      Major, John

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Malone, Gerald

      Watts, John

      Marlow, Antony

      Whitfield, John

      Mather, Carol

      Whitney, Raymond

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Wolfson, Mark

      235

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woodcock, Michael

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 32

      PAYROLLS AND ACCOUNTS
      9 pm
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 23, line 39, leave out from 'user' to end of line 6 on page 24 and insert—
      'only for one or more of the following purposes—

      (a) calculating amounts payable by way of remuneration or pensions in respect of service in any employment or office or making payments of, or of sums deducted from, such remuneration or pensions; or

      (b) keeping accounts relating to any business or other activity carried on by the data user or keeping records of purchases, sales or other transactions for the purpose of ensuring that the requisite payments are made by or to him in respect of those transactions or for the purpose of making financial or management forecasts to assist him in the conduct of any such business or activity,'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House we will discuss with this Government amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31.
      Mr. Waddington: These amendments do not raise any major issue. They are none the less important if clause 32 is to be effective in exempting small-scale data users from the scope of the Bill, provided the data which they hold are used only for the relatively harmless purposes specified. The amendments are designed to ensure that the conditions attached to the exemption are not unnecessarily restrictive but that at the same time they do not go too far in allowing data which should rightly be covered by the Bill to slip through the net. I hope the House will accept the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 24, line 11, leave out 'that for which they are held or' and insert
      'the purpose or purposes for which they are held and are not'.
      No. 30, in page 24, line 16, leave out 'for the purpose' and insert
      'only for one or more of the purposes'.
      No. 31, in page 24, line 33, leave out 'either' and insert `any'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 35

      GENERAL DUTIES OF REGISTRAR
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 27, line 34, at end insert—
      '(2) The Registrar may consider any complaint that any of the data protection principles or any provision of this Act has been or is being contravened and shall do so if the complaint appears to him to raise a matter of substance and to have been made without undue delay by a person directly affected; and where the Registrar considers any such complaint he shall notify the complainant of the result of his consideration and of any action which he proposes to take.'.
      This amendment is a consequence of an undertaking which was given in Committee to consider sympathetically the introduction of a statutory provision on complaints. At previous stages of the Bill we had reservations about placing the registrar under a duty in this
      236
      respect. We feared that he might find himself with no choice but to spend valuable time and resources pursuing complaints of little substance, when he would be serving both data subjects and data users much better by concentrating on other matters
      Of course we have always seen it as essential that the registrar should spend a good deal of his time investigating complaints. The whole Bill is structured to enable him to do that because complaints will be his major source of information about breaches of the data protection principles. We worried about obliging him to pursue complaints, feeling that we might be forcing him to tie up his resources in what might sometimes prove to be unproductive work, but the Committee clearly felt that there should be some reference in the Bill to the registrar's function of considering complaints. I think that we have reached a reasonable formulation, which clearly points to the importance of him looking into complaints made by individual data subjects.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Minister. I want to express our appreciation. This is a matter of some importance, which we debated in Committee. It seemed to us important that the registrar should act when he is satisfied that a complaint is a matter of substance. We regard this as a considerable improvement in the Bill. On behalf of the Opposition I express appreciation that the Minister has met us on this matter.
      Mr. Maclennan: I too am extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. It is most satisfactory that at this stage, after the Bill has been debated, I think, four times, these amendments are coming forward from the Government, fluttering down like leaves in the autumn. We are only too delighted to have played some part in concentrating the Government's mind and bringing about this satisfactory change of heart.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 27, line 40, at end insert—
      '(3) It shall be the duty of the Registrar, where he considers it appropriate to do so, to encourage trade associations or other bodies representing data users to prepare, and to disseminate to their members, codes of practice for guidance in complying with the data protection principles.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Clause 41

      COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 32, line 3, leave out from 'above' to end of line 6.
      This is a happy note on which to end our debates on Report. Here again, we are extending the rights of the data subject with regard to old data. I am sure that the amendment will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 32, line 11, leave out 'as aforesaid' and insert
      'by the data user in question since before the end of that period.'.
      No. 37, in page 32, line 16, leave out from 'above' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Waddington.]

    Schedule 3

      APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 38, line 35, leave out from second 'of' to end of line 43 and insert—

      '(a) the chairman or a deputy chairman (who shall preside); and

      (b) an equal number of the members appointed respectively in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3(5) of this Act.'.

      No. 39, in page 39, leave out lines 4 to 11.—[Mr. Waddington.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      9.4 pm
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: We recognise that both in Committee and on Report the Government made useful and significant amendments to meet major concerns expressed by Members in all parts of the House, including reservations expressed by Conservative Members. We welcome that and the fact that the Committee stage was conducted with a good deal of co-operation and understanding. Nevertheless, although amendments have been made to deal with a number of worries, one central issue remains which will make it impossible for the alliance to support Third Reading. The House will be pleased to know that as I spoke at some length on this earlier today I shall not need to repeat the details of the argument about the threat to civil liberty contained in clause 28, so no time has been wasted.
      The central basis for our opposition to the Bill is the potential that it has to damage the individual in relation to the capacity of the state to gather information about the individual and to share it among the organs of the state. As I said earlier, the computers and computer organisations serving the state are growing in a manner that is not generally recognised in the House and may even not be clearly understood by those proposing it.
      Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman complained earlier that I made a long speech. I recognise that it was indeed a long speech, but it was made far longer than it need have been by all the interventions. I do not intend to make a long speech on this occasion, but I will give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
      The central case for our opposition to the Bill lies in clause 28(3). That is the single, central point of opposition, but it is a massive one. It allows the passing of private, personal information which can now be gathered and stored more effectively and retrieved more quickly from points right across all the Departments of state. The Bill does absolutely nothing to protect the rights of the individual in that regard.
      The Government have made the case time and again we need a Bill to protect data that is automatically held, not data that is stored manually. New protections are required. We agree with the Government's aim of protecting the individual because of the automated nature of currently held data. Yet the safeguards that the Government have built into the Bill do not differ from those covering the exchange of manually recorded information between the organs of the State.
      The guidelines laid down by the Home Office to allow the police to interrogate, based on private information, are
      238
      inadequate. However, not much damage can be done, because such information is manual; there is a fundamental difference between that and the damage that can be done through the exchange of information between the organs of the state. Therefore, we need a new set of safeguards, which are not contained in the Bill or in the Home Office circulars.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I regard this as an astonishing speech. On Second Reading the Liberal party and the SDP voted for the Bill. We are now asked to accept, after all the improvements that the Government have made—I have acknowledged them—that the Bill is worse than before. I shall quote the hon. Gentleman's conclusion to his speech on behalf of the alliance. He said:
      "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 them were touched on … 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."—[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 64.]
      In the light of that attitude, the hon. Gentleman's speech is lamentable.
      Mr. Ashdown: I hear the right hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that the key words in that speech were "deprived of its present blemishes". I shall read to the hon. Gentleman in return the words of a Labour Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He said:
      "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".
      How has the Bill altered that statement? The right hon. Gentleman summed up his opposition on Second Reading. He said:
      "Where the Bill purports to be benevolent, it is often inadequate".
      In our judgment, it remains inadequate.
      "Where it claims to be innocuous, it is often dangerous."
      Because of clause 28, it remains 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."—[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 42–6.]
      What has changed in the Bill? Merely some minor details on the fringes. None of the fears of the Labour Front Bench spokesmen on Second Reading have been assuaged. Our central argument against the Bill is our opposition to clause 28. Labour spokesmen have spoken with concern about the clause. The Labour party has given away its opposition to the Bill and to other legislation on major issues for the sake of some puny fringe amendments.
      The central issue of the Bill is in clause 28(3). There is no doubt that the present development of computers held by the State represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the individual and the State. Such computers are capable of linking together to form what I term a "Big Brother" organisation. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, although the computers form that sort of framework. We strike against that.
      Mr. Norris rose——
      Mr. Ashdown: I see that the hon. Member for Oxford, East wishes to intervene. I am about to close my remarks.
      Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he will take note of the fact that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) voted in favour of amendments to clause 28 which, unhappily, were not carried in Committee. Yet does he not accept, as we do—it is patently obvious to anyone who has bothered to read the Bill—that we are significantly better off on Third Reading, although not as well off as we would like in an ideal world? Is not that a simple and logical justification for supporting the Bill on Third Reading, especially in view of the improvements made in Committee? Is it not blatant hypocrisy to oppose the Bill on Third Reading?
      Mr. Ashdown: I recognise fully that the hon. Gentleman made such interventions in Committee and, extremely effectively, in today's debate.
      The hon. Gentleman will argue that nevertheless this Bill is better than no Bill at all. He must accept that I disagree profoundly with him. Perhaps clause 28(3), which the hon. Gentleman voted against, is a matter of fringe importance to him, but, in the view of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is of fundamental principle. Unless we can address that problem, damage could be done in the future because of the inadequate system of safeguards provided by the Bill. That matter concerns us and is a sufficient reason for voting against Third Reading.
      The hon. Gentleman argues, perhaps with justification, that the Bill has improved. We further depart from his view on that point. We believe that by codifying the current system and setting up a wholly inadequate system, that fact itself will make it more difficult to make the changes that I suspect the hon. Gentleman would wish, which I too would wish. On that ground, we believe, on this fundamental issue of principle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were the Liberal amendments?"] Labour Members have seen our amendments. We tabled amendments and voted on them. We tabled our amendments in minimalist terms. They were not what we wanted, and did not go as far as we wished, but at least they were some sort of safeguard, and moving in the right direction. Those amendments were rejected. Had they been accepted by the Government, we would have reconsidered our position.
      The central issue is this. In Britain there is now the potential for the interlinking of a massive system of computers, which may act as a major threat to the individual and alter the balance between the individual and the state. The Bill not only does nothing towards addressing that problem, but in codifying the current practices, which are hopelessly inadequate for automatic processed data, it will make matters not better, but worse. On that ground, my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
      9.17 pm
      Mr. Denis Howell: We have just listened to double talk in a speech of synthetic indignation such as has rarely been the lot of hon. Members to have to listen to. It came from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who told us that he would divide the House against the Bill on Third Reading because it is a matter of fundamental principle. He said that the fundamental principle was expressed by his party in minimalist terms, whatever that means. I do not know how one can express fundamental opposition to
      240
      a Bill in minimalist terms. It is beyond my comprehension, unless the minimalist terms are intended to refer to the number of people that the alliance get into the Division Lobby. [Interruption.] I should like to tell the assembled ranks of Liberals that for long periods today there has not been a single soul on their Benches.
      If there is a fundamental objection to the Bill, it should have been expressed on Second Reading. Even the newest hon. Members know that on Second Reading the decision on principle is taken. Far from doing that, their spokesman welcomed the Bill. If there are fundamental objections to the Bill, they should have been expressed by fundamental amendments that we could have debated and voted on today, but they did not appear on the amendment paper.
      Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howell: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman spent 40 minutes earlier this evening talking trash, and I do not see why he should have 40 seconds in the middle of my intelligent contribution. If there are fundamental objections to the Bill, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who attended the Committee proceedings assiduously, should have voted against clause stand part on almost every occasion in Committee, but, of course, he never did so.
      Although manual files were not included and there are other deficiencies in the Bill the Government have gone a long way to meeting many of the points put in Committee and it would be reprehensible not to acknowledge the improvements made in the Bill. What the hon. Member for Yeovil is trying to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "He voted for the Bill on Second Reading."] That had not escaped my attention. The Leader of the Liberal party also voted for it.
      Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howell: I have no intention of giving way. The hon. Gentleman berated us for 40 minutes and has already over-indulged himself. What he is trying to do, on behalf of his colleagues, is to write into the folklore of Britain the belief that our people will not be adequately protected as a result of our procedures. He is trying to create a myth that Liberal and SDP Members are the only ones who stand up for the rights and privileges of our people. That is absolute bosh and baloney, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so.
      9.22 pm
      Mr. Waddington: We had a pleasant, knowledgeable and profitable Committee stage and at no time during our deliberations in Committee did we hear drivel of the sort that we heard tonight from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It was unsavoury drivel for the reason mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Although it was obvious that until now the alliance was perfectly content with the Bill, the great parade by the hon. Member for Yeovil a few moments ago was designed to catch the headlines — [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Hon. Members do not know that we had to put up with 45 minutes of nonsense from the hon. Gentleman earlier this evening. It was a great charade to try to pretend that the Liberal party had never supported the Bill, had opposed it throughout and is now the only guardian of individual liberty in the country. The truth is

      241
      that until the hon. Gentleman rose and uttered that drivel, every action of the alliance was in support of the Bill, and we saw that in Committee from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
      The hon. Member for Yeovil had the sheer effrontery to say that the Bill has the capacity to cause considerable damage to the individual——
      Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Waddington: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman must hear a few home truths now. He said that the Bill has the capacity to cause considerable damage to the individual, but he knows perfectly well that the Bill in no way detracts from the present rights of the individual, nor does it allow anyone to disclose information that he cannot disclose at present. He said that the Bill has the capacity to do considerable damage to the individual, yet he knows full well that in no way does the Bill take away from any individual the right to access to information that he has at present. The worst that can be said of the Bill is that it does not go far enough. One can accept that sort of sensible argument. One cannot accept the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
      The hon. Member has the impudence to harp on the effect of clause 28(2). It seems to have escaped his notice that, even when one comes to the case for data protection, or for the prevention of crime, those data are under the general supervision of the registrar. He has omitted entirely to mention that at any stage, yet he pretends that the Bill does nothing to help the individual even in that area where he says that the protection is indequate. If he had bothered to study the Bill, he would have found that the Bill provides new safeguards for the individual.
      I will not dwell on the matter any longer. This has been a painful incident, because it is painful to see a Member of the House making a fool of himself, as the hon. Member for Yeovil has.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 174, Noes, 10.

      Division No. 346]

      [9.26 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Arnold, Tom

      Forth, Eric

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Marcus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Franks, Cecil

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Bright, Graham

      Freeman, Roger

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Budgen, Nick

      Gow, Ian

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, Harry

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Ground, Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cope, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Dicks, Terry

      Harris, David

      Durant, Tony

      Harvey, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Fallon, Michael

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Favell, Anthony

      Hayes, J.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Hayhoe, Barney

      242

      Hayward, Robert

      Parris, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Heddle, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Henderson, Barry

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Hickmet, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Powley, John

      Hirst, Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Holt, Richard

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Home Robertson, John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Hooson, Tom

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

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

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Knowles, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knox, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Speller, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Spencer, Derek

      Lester, Jim

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lightbown, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lilley, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Luce, Richard

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Terlezki, Stefan

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Maclean, David John

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Malone, Gerald

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mather, Carol

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Viggers, Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Waddington, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Walden, George

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Waller, Gary

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Ward, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Moore, John

      Watts, John

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Whitfield, John

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mudd, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wolfson, Mark

      Newton, Tony

      Wood, Timothy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Woodcock, Michael

      Norris, Steven

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Osborn, Sir John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Mr. Ian Lang and

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Mr. John Major.

      NOES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Wallace, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Mr. Alan Beith and

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SAFETY
      `The Secretary of State shall set up an advisory committee to examine and report on the safety of fishermen in vessels operating in the areas specified in this Act.'.—[Dr. Godman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.36 pm
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The three main issues with which the Bill is concerned are, first, the repeal of restrictions on trawling and sailing inside the three-mile limit, secondly, the need to improve the protection afforded to static gear fishermen and, thirdly, the need to increase the protection of nursery grounds and juvenile fish. I believe that there should be a fourth objective — the safety of the fishermen operating in those waters.
      The first three objectives are laudable, and will be supported by all those concerned with the well-being of the crews of our fishing vessels and the Scottish fishing industry as a whole. It is my hope that new clause 2, if accepted, will help to focus attention on the safety needs of both crews and vessels operating in those areas specified in the Bill.
      I remind the House that article 9 of the recent Council regulation concerning the restructuring and modernisation of EEC fishing fleets emphasises the need for greater safety measures for fishermen. Another article in that regulation spells out the need to structure decisions around integrated safety principles.
      I anticipate that the Secretary of State would ensure that the composition of the proposed advisory committee would be such that the majority of its members would be representatives of fishermen's associations concerned with both static and mobile gear vessels. In addition, the Secretary of State could invite nominations for the remaining positions from such bodies as he considered appropriate. Currently, there is no Scottish organisation specifically concerned with fishing vessel safety—that is dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry on a United Kingdom-wide basis.
      There is a fishing industry safety group. It meets twice a year and its 35 members include departmental officials, representatives of various fishermen's organisations, vessel builders and trade unions. The unions now play only a small part, since the demise of the distant water sector of the fleet, though the Transport and General Workers' Union still has a representative on the committee.
      Given the existence of that safety group, some may question the need for what might be termed a Scottish inshore fishing safety group. In my view, the safety of fishermen should be uppermost in our minds when we legislate for the catching sector of the industry. While I have considerable respect for its members, the fishing industry safety group is too large and unwieldly to deal with specific areas of fishing vessels safety, the safety of fishermen, problems relating to certain methods of fishing and various other activities.
      A Scottish committee comprised, in the main, of experienced fishermen could examine more realistically
      244
      the problems faced by fishermen as they go about their work. No one can deny that those employed in the catching sector face many dangers in the alien environment in which they work.
      In a written reply on 22 March last I was told by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport that while there were no separate Scottish figures for the deaths of fishermen, for the period 1979 to 1982, 60 Scottish registered vessels of 12m and above were lost. Given that Scotland has 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet and that during that period a total of 118 vessels were lost, Scottish losses were marginally below those for the United Kingdom as a whole. Nevertheless, they were depressingly high.
      The Scotsman of 9 February published a list of 10 Scottish vessels that had been lost. The article highlighted the problems faced by Scottish fishermen. The vessels dealt with were lost in the period September 1977 to June 1983. Among those listed was the Arcadia of Inverness, in which five men were lost. In all, 62 men were lost on the 10 vessels listed. The statistics point to an increase in the number of vessels lost.
      Not all the vessels were lost in the waters specified in the Bill, but some of them were, and not a month goes by when we do not hear of a vessel being in danger around our shores. The Scotsman article began:
      "In spite of all the official efforts to make the fishing industry less dangerous, the safety battle is not being won."
      9.45 pm
      A medical-geographer at Dundee university, Mark Riley, is of the opinion that risks to fishing vessels have increased in recent years. In an article that was published in the Journal of Navigation, he wrote about his research findings as follows:
      "At a time when the fishing industry is transfixed by the rapidity of economic decline and its very existence frequently appears threatened, it is not surprising that preoccupation with matters financial has attenuated and in some respects has eclipsed the relevance and implications of the alarming trend in vessel losses."
      He continued:
      "In the light of present knowledge, effective remedial action ought to be implemented forthwith, since the current risks of loss or casualty are about twice a high overall as those with which Holland-Martin and his committee colleagues were concerned and over which they expressed surprise and deep concern."
      That is a reference to the Committee of Inquiry which considered trawler safety, which was set up in 1969 following the loss of three Hull trawlers within a few days.
      I am given to understand that officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are somewhat sceptical about the statistical methodology employed by Mr. Riley in his study. I, too, have my reservations about his research methodology, but, putting those reservations to one side, his research findings should be of concern to all.
      Hitherto, safety measures in the sea fishing sector have concentrated overwhelmingly on the safety of the vessel and, when this was endangered, on the survival of the crew. Despite Mr. Riley's serious and justifiable reservations, some progress has been made in the past 20 years, although a great deal still needs to be done. However, the concentration on the fundamental aspects of the safety of vessels and crews has tended to obscure the fact that a fishing vessel is at one and the same time a work place where many accidents occur which could be avoided if appropriate preventive measures were adopted by skippers and crews.

      245
      An important part could be played by an advisory committee of the sort that is suggested in the clause. Such a committee could advise on the application of the principle of integrated safety and on all forms of decision making on fishing activities. Much more attention could be paid by way of such a committee's deliberations to safety measures in all decisions on the design and construction of vessels, the design and operation of equipment and the organisation of work and working methods. Similarly, emphasis could be placed on the ease and speed of use of design-manufactured tools and the health of crews which handle them.
      Fishermen who are active in the areas covered by this proposed legislation would benefit from the work of a committee concerned with their safety. I believe that much more needs to be done, but I am well aware that some people disagree with that view. For example, one representative of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation recently said:
      "Over the years, we have been saddened and perplexed on the occasions when vessels are lost without apparent explanation. In the wake of Holland-Martin, everyone became very safety-conscious and there have been a tremendous number of strides forward with the Scottish fleet being more modern than the rest of the UK."
      He added:
      "Frankly, I do not think that there is any more that we can do."
      I hope that that cri de coeur is not echoed tonight. I believe that Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have genuine and sincere concern for fishermen and their well-being. The clause goes some way to acknowledge and outline the magnitude of the problems surrounding the safety of fishermen.
      Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I oppose the motion because it is unnecessary. I should like to correct the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the safety of fishermen, not the Department of Trade and Industry.
      An examination of the figures since 1973 shows that, on average, only three vessels a year have been lost. In the past year, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of fishing vessels and people lost at sea, many of them because of accidents.
      The hon. Gentleman overstated the need for the new clause. Fishermen put great store on their safety. The excellent HM Coastguard service is available to fishermen. We do not have the same problems as occurred in previous years. Practically all fishing vessels now carry radar systems allowing them to be contacted and to have contact with the shore. It is not necessary to have an additional committee on safety. Vessels are regularly inspected under the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport. Safety matters are watched by fishermen's organisations, the safety committee, which comprises various organisations, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and other bodies. I believe that there are sufficient safety powers in respect of the vessels that go to sea.
      In the light of what has happened in the past, fishermen are safety conscious. The type of vessels and the superior equipment used should negate the need for any additional safety committee. There are adequate provisions in the Bill to ensure that the safety of fishermen is secured whenever they are at sea.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: I support the new clause. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) under-rated the horrific figures of deaths at sea in recent years. Fishing has been reported in the press as a more dangerous occupation than some occupations that are better known as dangerous. This measure is called for because of the recent withdrawal of the training schemes. Training applies not only on vessels but when dealing with accidents on board, fires at sea, and so on. Although this matter has been transferred in Scotland to another authority, fishermen feel that the useful work that was being done at a low cost — about £40,000 a year—should have been maintained because over a period it would have led to greater safety in the fleet. In the absence of the training courses, the measure is well called for. The new clause could be a useful addition to the Bill.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the new clause, as it is a valuable measure. I am surprised at the arguments used by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I understand what he said about the importance that fishermen attach to safety and their interest in maintaining it, but the hon. Gentleman did not put forward any substantive arguments against establishing an advisory committee. Most concerned fishermen consider many facets of safety at sea—the rapidly changing design of fishing vessels, the need for expert advice and the need to consider international experience, which fishermen might not readily have at their disposal.
      I should have thought that the statutory establishment of an advisory committee on safety, with the remit to consider many matters, including safety on board and the adequacy of training practices, would be welcome to the fishing industry and of considerable benefit.
      I understand that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan may not wish to establish a fifth wheel on a coach but no such comprehensively active body exists, and although inspectors and the coastguards exist, a body of men and women is needed to pool information and advise——
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: Another quango.
      Mr. Maclennan: As the hon. Gentleman said, another quango which would be interested in the safety of the fishermen upon whom the public depend for an important part of their food, is not a quango which anyone would seriously argue has no merit. The hon. Gentleman should not fling around such words as if they were pejorative. The body would have a function which would justify its existence and which I think the Secretary of State, in the discharge of his statutory responsibilities, would find helpful.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has raised the subject of fishermen's safety. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), that well-known fishing constituency, suggest that there was something bad about quangos whose responsibility would be unable to protect fishermen's safety at sea.
      Opposition Members are right to be interested in this matter because one of the educational institutions which has done a great deal of research, education and training to protect the safety of fishermen at sea is the Leith

      247
      nautical college. One of the many reorganisations that the Government are carrying out in education to save money has been the reorganisation of navigational training in Scotland. Leith nautical college has suffered from the cuts. It has given great service to fishermen from my part of the world and many others.
      When I first read new clause 2 I was not sure that it was entirely appropriate, because the most dangerous waters that British and Scottish fishermen fish are probably not the inshore fishing areas. I then remembered an incident which happened not far from my constituency. The skipper of a fishing vessel was having a good day's fishing. He was fishing for sprats and they were plentiful in those waters on that day. One must remember that there are no Plimsoll lines on fishing vessels so there is no law to say how far one can load a fishing vessel. He fished and fished until the boat sunk. That might sound like a biblical parable, but it happened. When there are people who are prepared to go to such excesses, perhaps there is a need for extra safety measures. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously.
      Mr. Soames rose——
      Mr. Home Robertson: I am not giving way. I have finished my speech.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): This has been a useful debate, if only to highlight the interest that both sides of the House have in the safety of fishermen. I am not sure that setting up a committee is the best way to do something concrete to help fishermen's safety. The little speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) illustrated the fact that, unless someone from the committee of inquiry sails in every fishing boat, there is not much to be done about a fisherman who overloads his boat with fish. That is almost the opposite of what happened to St. Peter. He fished all night and caught nothing.
      Fishing is a hazardous occupation, but knowing that does not absolve us from trying to make it less hazardous. However, the Bill is concerned with the regulation of fishing in a limited area—in waters close to our shores. It is not a suitable vehicle for dealing with issues of safety.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lang.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. MacKay: Any inquiry set up as a result of the new clause would be limited in its scope, relating only to those waters within the six-mile limit, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) recognised. Recent research by Dundee university into the safety of the United Kingdom fishing industry has cast doubts on the safety record of the industry. The preliminary conclusion of that report is that fishing has become more hazardous. However, I understand that that conclusion has been challenged vehemently by the Scottish fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) made that point.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has suggested that the research shows a need for another general inquiry into the subject. The Secretary of
      248
      State for Transport, who is responsible for the safety of all seafarers, including fishermen, is in the course of replying to the proposal made to him. That being so, and because the research is highly technical — testing inferences statistically is seldom simple — not much would be gained by setting up a committee such as is envisaged in the new clause.
      I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport to some of the points made today about safety at sea and ask him to take them into consideration. However, I do not believe that, even though Opposition Members are acting on the best of motives, they have proved that such a committee would save the life of one fisherman or prevent one vessel from foundering.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan has said, the safety of fishermen is very largely in their own hands. They must be careful in everything they do—in how they navigate and how they fish. They do not have to be told that the sea is a cruel mistress and that one mistake can be lethal. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary and would be out of place in the Bill.
      Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: As the Minister says, the scope of the Bill is limited. It was more limited before this debate, and the presence of many hon. Members in the Chamber is evidence of the extension of the scope of the Bill and the willingness of the Government to extend its scope to cover species of fish hitherto not within its compass.
      However, it would be remiss of the House, when debating fishing in any context, not to take account of safety. I was disappointed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), although I know that he is mindful of the difficulties and dangers under which many of his constituents earn their living. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was very fair when he summed up the evidence. He questioned some of the methodology applied by the Dundee study of safety. However, when we deal with an industry as dangerous as fishing, it is not inappropriate for the House to consider the question of safety. The limited scope of the inshore fishing industry in Scotland does not preclude the possibility of specialist consideration. It does not matter when one is six miles from the Scottish shore or 60 miles; if the water is deep enough, one can drown. One's distance from the shore is academic.
      We know that the Government are always loth to burden themselves with yet another source of advice when they think they are well served by existing committees. The Opposition recognise the value of the committees that advise the Government, but the industry involves many Scots who could well do with being reminded of the importance of safety. I am not in any way denigrating the care and attention of skippers and their crews, but it is important that the importance of safety be hammered home again and again. We are aware that another committee might not save too many lives but the evidence of the Health and Safety Executive on land is that the more people are reminded of the need for safety, the safer employment becomes.
      I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will not push the new clause to a Division—I leave that to him.
      Mr. McQuarrie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the joint committee of representatives of the fishing

      249
      industry and operators of oil rigs in the North sea, which meets regularly and discusses safety at sea, is adequate and that a new one is not necessary?
      Mr. O'Neill: There are Scottish fishermen other than those who operate from the east coast. Such fishermen might not be involved in that committee. Fishing is a dangerous occupation and accidents are possible, even with the highest safety standards. It does no harm constantly to remind crews and skippers of the dangers. This brief debate will be read closely by the industry because it has been watching the Bill's progress. We felt it appropriate to raise the issue of safety once again. We realise that there is little enthusiasm among Conservative Members for it now and are disapponted by that. This is a modest proposal that is concerned with only a limited area of activity in the fishing industry. It could be a testing ground for specialised advisory committees on safety throughout the United Kingdom's waters. We do not envisage a massive bureaucracy or quango because the people who would be called upon to participate in such a committee give their time freely with the same commitment that they give to their other worthwhile activities in regard to the fishing industry.
      We regret that the Minister has not seen fit to set up the advisory committee. We have put down markers and are sure that, in other debates that we shall have on the fishing industry, safety will arise. We shall remind the Minister, although not in terms of, "We told you so", that this evening he threw aside an opportunity.
      Dr. Godman: I readily accept that this legislation is not perhaps the best vehicle for a continuing examination of fishing vessel safety. However, in reply to some of the ill-considered remarks delivered from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who I suspect is here to discuss salmon and who shows little or no concern for the safety of fishermen, may I say that this issue is very important.
      I should like to quote from the answer I had from the Minister of State, Department of Transport. These are his words, not mine, and they may go some way to answering the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie):
      "I greatly regret that during the four year period 1979 to 1982, 60 vessels of 12 m in length and over registered in Scottish ports were lost." —[Official Report, 22 March, 1984; Vol. 56, c. 551.]
      It is a major problem. I reject totally what the Minister said about having to leave this to the skippers and crews involved. I have personal experience of this industry, coming from a fishing family. I lost an uncle when a freak wave hit the wheelhouse of his trawler some years ago. Therefore, I have experience of the need for greater safety measures.
      Having said that, in no way would I denigrate the members of fishermen's associations either in Scotland or south of the border. As with all maritime industries there is a need for continuing surveillance of safety measures from the very design of the vessel to the working methods. I hoped to draw attention to that by raising those issues.
      With that in mind and given the comments made by the Minister that he would bring some of my remarks to the attention of his colleague, the Minister at the Department of Transport, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL
      `Concurrent with the publication of an order under section 1, the Secretary of State shall publish, in such form as he considers appropriate, any scientific and technical material considered by him prior to making the said order: [Mr. Wallace.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      One of the intentions of the Bill is that the Secretary of State should lay before the House orders designating areas in which certain fishing activities will be restricted. It is no secret that one kind of restricted area will be nursery grounds for breeding fish. It is accepted that in the interests of conservation certain grounds should be set apart for this purpose.
      The fishing industry is concerned that the reasons for setting apart certain grounds are well founded on the basis of scientific and other technical evidence. For example, the industry wishes to be sure that it is necessary to close the grounds for the entire year rather than for part of the year. I am also aware of the representations made to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). If one looks at the electoral map one sees that there is only a small stretch of coastline in his constituency. However, it is Aberdeen bay, which in some of the discussion documents is one of the designated areas. A point of controversy in that area is that skippers think that by using a larger mesh size it might be possible to continue fishing. That could be discussed properly if the scientific evidence was made available.
      The new clause would provide that scientific evidence should be made available at the same time as publication of the order so that the House could judge whether the Secretary of State had made the order with a good weight of scientific evidence behind him. That would be a statutory duty lying on the Secretary of State. It would be preferable if the evidence were made available to the fishing industry beforehand.
      We welcome very much the concession made by the Government, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) showed when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. An amendment was brought forward in Committee to formalise the consultation procedures. Obviously the consultation procedures will have much more meaning if those whom the Secretary of State is consulting are properly briefed and know exactly the areas of discussion.
      Proper consultation can take place only if the scientific material is made available. Only this week, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation again asked for some of the scientific data on which the draft proposals for nursery areas were based but had little success in getting the information out of the Scottish Office. The federation believes that, if it is to have meaningful consultations with the Secretary of State, information of that kind must be made available to it. That is the purpose of the new clause.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish briefly to add my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I think that it is fair to say that all hon. Members who have been lobbied by the fishing industry through deputations, delegations, correspondence and so on across the whole spectrum of this measure have been left in no doubt about the genuine frustration that has built up in the industry as a result of what it perceives—correctly, I believe—as the difficulty of obtaining information from the Government. That problem will be compounded when the Bill becomes law if orders brought forward by the Secretary of State are deficient through the lack of any built-in guarantee that the relevant information will be made available to the industry. On that basis, we wholeheartedly support the new clause.
      The scientific and technical material to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland referred would be of practical use to the industry and to Members of Parliament who could then be briefed by experts in the industry before considering the Government's proposals. It would also be an important gesture of confidence by the Government in the industry if the Ministry were willing to publish the evidence on which orders were based and to make it freely available to the industry for its reaction.
      For those sound and pragmatic reasons, we support the new clause and hope that the Minister will react positively and favourably to it.
      Mr. Hugh Brown: I am provoked into taking part in the discussion by the somewhat cynical opportunism of the two hon. Members who have just spoken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will listen for a moment, he may benefit from a wee bit of advice. That is part of his problem. He knows all of the answers before he has been in the House a year.
      I am surprised that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has not made representations to anyone else. I should be interested to know who made those representations, and whether it was done officially on behalf of the whole organisation, or of a local body.
      Mr. McQuarrie: It was the Shetland fishermen.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) can make his own speech later.
      My only justification for speaking at this point in the debate is my five years of responsibility at the Scottish Office. I listened to fishermen but never knew them to support scientific evidence unless it was in their favour. The only evidence that would be acceptable would allow them to catch more than the scientists recommend. I beg younger hon. Members—I know that I am getting old and may sound a bit patronising—not to jump to every fly that flies across the scene as if it would gain them popularity. It will not. A lot of hard bargaining is involved when it comes to scientific evidence. I shall give an example of that later.
      I am a minority in my own party in my attitude to the EEC. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will agree with me, at least on that point. The
      252
      scientific evidence that is put forward by Danish scientists differs sometimes from that of British ones. To whom should we listen? Let us have courage and confidence in the integrity of our scientific advisers. What possible motive can a professional scientist have for recommending lower catches?
      Dr. Godman: Is it not true that orders in relation to catches must earn the approval of the European Commission before being implemented? If that were so, would not the Government have in their possession the sort of technical and scientific documentation that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he moved the new clause.
      Mr. Brown: I was being ambiguous. The hon. Gentleman thinks that I am on his side, although I am not. I was merely pointing out that scientific evidence is a difficult area, and cannot be evaluated by laymen. That dilemma faces people in many walks of life. It is not that scientists are always right. They most certainly are not. Nevertheless, the best analysis that a fisherman can make is "I think that there are plenty of herring in the North sea because I saw some or heard some or caught fish that I should not have been catching."
      We all know that sometimes there is substance in that approach and some justification for it. I merely suggest that it is wrong to write into the Bill a provision to the effect that all scientific evidence should be made available. I am not aware that there is an embargo on access to that information, or that the fishermen's organisations are prevented from employing scientific advisers. I am not aware that there has been a conflict of scientific advice on a pragmatic basis.
      I can say, based on my experience, that sometimes Governments hide behind scientific advice because they want to get a better deal for their national fishermen.
      Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
      Mr. Brown: I may be quite right, but it is a different proposition from arguing about an inshore Bill, which would make scientific advice available as if there was a plot between the Government and scientists to deny a living to Scottish fishermen. As I have said, this is a piece of cynical opportunism on the part of Alliance Members. I am not aware of representations being made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I was not going to take part in the debate, but I must rise to that bait. It is very easy to make the sort of speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) has just made. If he represented a constituency such as East Lothian —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend had to deal with fishermen for a number of years in his capacity as Scottish Office Minister responsible for fisheries. My hon. Friend must know that many fishermen are deeply sceptical about some of the so-called hard and fast scientific evidence on which decisions are made. I take his point that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who moved the new clause, is a bit of a chancer. We know that. He is a member of a party of chancers. We must expect this sort of thing from them.
      However, there is a little substance in the point that has been raised. If decisions that affect the livelihood of fishermen are taken on the grounds of scientific evidence, it would be useful for all concerned to see the scientific

      253
      evidence and for it to be debated sensibly between the parties concerned. That is not always possible. The most recent example affecting fishermen in my area was the ban on sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth. That was imposed, admittedly not by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, but by Europe. On the strength of that, scientific evidence should be at least debatable.
      The Minister, my hon. Friend and the fishermen know that there is a problem. It is fair to raise it, but there is not much to be gained from passing the new clause.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not know why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) made such a meal of this. It would be an innovation if everything that we did in the House were the result of someone lobbying us. I believe that the new clause is a reasonable request. I agree that there can be a conflict with regard to scientific evidence. In negotiations, fishermen might say that they do not accept a measure, but they know that it must be made.
      When the Secretary of State makes such an order, it is reasonable for him to give the facts that led him to that conclusion. Such an explanation is due to the fishermen. There does not have to be an argument. The order will have been passed by that stage, and the Secretary of State will simply tell the fishermen the grounds for his conclusion. New clause 4 is a reasonable request.
      Mr. Maclennan: The new clause is moved in a spirit of total seriousness, despite what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said. His remarks were disappointing. He is a man for whom I have great personal respect, who does not usually indulge in attributing bad motives to hon. Members making a serious case. It is a serious case.
      The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the fishing industry is not always united in its approach to the division of the seas and has not shown a wholly united approach to the Bill. However, the context of the new clause is that we in Parliament are giving the Secretary of State vast powers that he has not had hitherto in this form. In exercising those powers, he will be able, after consulting whatever bodies he considers appropriate, to make regulatory arrangements that could exclude certain vessels from certain areas or include others. Those are difficult judgments, but Parliament has a part to play, and the hon. Gentleman should not overlook that. It will fall to the House to decide whether the Secretary of State's proposal should be given effect and whether the order should be passed. In making those decisions, the House of Commons has the right to be informed about the Secretary of State's basis of thinking. It should be better informed than it often is when it has to consider those matters.
      We tabled the new clause not as a jeu d'esprit, nor to test the Minister's attitude, but because we believe in open government. We believe that when the Secretary of State puts forward proposals for Parliament to ratify, it is right that the considerations that he has had in mind and the advice that he has been given should be fully and frankly displayed. The most important advice that will influence his judgment will be the scientific and technical advice that we suggest he should publish. That is something that the whole House should regard as appropriate, not as a matter for partisan division or debate.
      254
      I do not know what representations the hon. Member for Provan has received on this or any other matters in the Bill, but I have received dozens of letters from organisations and individuals who are worried about the purpose of the Bill.
      Mr. McQuarrie: Did the hon. Gentleman receive representations on this matter from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or the Scottish fishermen's organisation?
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: I received letters from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and, furthermore, I discussed this matter with several of its members, as I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman has. The federation is sceptical about some of the scientific advice given to the Scottish Office. It does not believe that it is wholly satisfactory to proceed on the basis of the fiat of the Secretary of State, unsupported by evidence.
      The hon. Member for Provan argued fairly that fishermen seek to turn evidence to their advantage; that is human nature. We are here not to safeguard the partisan interests of one section of the fishing industry but to look after the welfare of the entire industry, and we can do that best if we are well informed. That is why I ask the House to support the new clause.
      Mr. John MacKay: Perhaps I could dip a gentle toe into the dispute on the Opposition Benches and tell the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that, in my experience of the fishing industry, although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) may have no fishing in his constituency, since he was at the Scottish Office he has been highly regarded by Scottish fishermen. I was about to add, in a spirit of reasonable compromise, that if I leave my minor role in the fishing industry similarly highly regarded by the fishermen, I shall be well satisfied.
      The hon. Member for Provan was right to tell members of the Alliance, whose new clause this is, that it would be naive to believe that the publication of scientific evidence would be accepted by the fishermen as the end of the argument. I suspect that it will be accepted as the beginning of the argument, not the end.
      Of course, the Government want a full and informed debate about the orders to be made under the Bill. The movers of the new clause have not thought out the timetable of the consultation process, the discussion with the industry and then an order coming before the House. We want a well-informed debate during consultation with fishermen, because we recognise the importance of measures made under the Bill to the daily lives and earnings of fishermen. That is why we have already introduced the statutory requirement for consultation before the orders are made. In that consultation exercise, the first thing the fishermen will wish to know is why the Secretary of State wants to make the order. Therefore, the Secretary of State must explain his reasons, and those reasons will include the scientific and technical factors.
      Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware of the representations that have been made to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland during the past week by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to have that scientific information on nursery areas? If he is not aware of that, will he do his utmost to ensure that the information is made available to the federation as soon as possible?
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman can take it that, in the discussions which will take place about that and other matters, the scientists and officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will explore with the fishermen the scientific evidence on which they based their conclusions on nursery areas. But that will not be the only factor to be taken into account; we must also consider the economic condition of the fishermen, the social structure of the areas, the marketing position for different species and sizes of fish, and the structure of the fleet, if we are talking about vessels and gear restrictions. I am not sure that all these can be comprehended under the heading of technical, but they would certainly feature in the Secretary of State's explanation to the industry.
      We considered the phrase
      "publish, in such form as he considers appropriate."
      The main source of advice will be the Department's servants, whether they be administrators, scientists or fishery officers and inspectors. The synthesis of that advice will be available during the consultation process to the fishing industry and, therefore, to the representatives of the fishing industry. Why seek to go to the length of a formal requirement to publish when the essential thinking behind an order will already be well known to the industry? If the order is prayed against, there will be a debate in the House in which the Minister will have to come to the Dispatch Box to defend and argue the case for the order and for whatever restriction he seeks under that order.
      If I may deal with the Community, there is a precedent for the way in which I am suggesting that we should go about this. I am never very sure whether the Alliance is totally committed to the Community or whether occasionally it wants to snipe at it when it thinks that an odd vote is to be gained in Community elections.
      Mr. O'Neill: The Minister should not believe that of the Alliance.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman says that I should not believe such a thing of the Alliance, and I will take his advice and try to put the best possible light on the way that I sometimes read critical reports from Alliance candidates about certain items emanating from the European Community. On the other hand, we are told that that is the only party fully in favour of the Common Market.
      In the Community field, the main scientific advice for fisheries management is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES. Its reports are not published, but it is no secret that the Government, and other Governments in the Community, make the industry aware of the contents of the reports so that the fishermen's views can be taken into account before decisions are finally taken. That is only right. I cannot imagine that a similar procedure will not apply in the case of an order made under the Bill.
      I assure hon. Members, as I have done in Committee and on Second Reading, that the reasons for making an order will be fully explained and, because of the breadth of inputs and the confidentiality of some of the advice, and the practicability and expense of publication, I repeat that I regret that I have to ask the House to oppose the new clause. I hope that on reflection, especially on the time-table of how the orders will come about, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will withdraw it.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that the Alliance is supposed to be in support of the Community yet it
      256
      sometimes takes objections to what emanates from it. His apparent misuse of logic would suggest that, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, we should welcome with open arms everything that the Government propose. The logic applied in that shows the lack of logic applied to the rest of the argument put forward from the Alliance Benches. It was not done with any sense of opportunism. Indeed, one is surprised at the amount of trouble that the new clause, which is designed to be helpful, has stirred up.
      The Minister referred to the timetable. If he had listened to what I said, rather than replying with reference to his brief, he would have learnt that I made it equally clear that, while this information could be made available only at the time when the order was published and, therefore, would be of use during the parliamentary debate on it, if the order were prayed against, I considered that that was a statutory duty that should lie on the Secretary of State, and it would be more than helpful if that information were made available on a voluntary basis during the consultation period. It was never thought that any such information, if it were made available, would be the be-all and end-all of any argument. Indeed, as the Minister said, it might well be the start of the argument. Fishermen's associations may come up with their own independent surveys and scientific information.
      We believe that any consultation can be on an informed basis only. We agree with the Minister that this will not be the only factor that will lie behind an order that the Secretary of State makes, but it will be an important one. We believe that such a debate can take place properly only if that information is available.
      Therefore, I do not wish to withdraw the new clause, and I will be happy to put it to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 13, Noes, 131.

      Division No. 347]

      [10.40 pm

      AYES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Freud, Clement

      Wallace, James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maclennan, Robert

      Mr. A. J. Beith and

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Mr. Charles Kennedy.

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Freeman, Roger

      Amess, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Arnold, Tom

      Gow, Ian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bright, Graham

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Budgen, Nick

      Harris, David

      Butcher, John

      Harvey, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Conway, Derek

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Cope, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Dover, Den

      Hayes, J.

      Durant, Tony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Eggar, Tim

      Hayward, Robert

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Henderson, Barry

      Fallon, Michael

      Hickmet, Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Hind, Kenneth

      Fox, Marcus

      Hirst, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Hooson, Tom

      257

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knox, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Jim

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Spencer, Derek

      Lilley, Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Stern, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Maclean, David John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Major, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Malone, Gerald

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Mather, Carol

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Waddington, David

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Moore, John

      Walden, George

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Waller, Gary

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Needham, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Neubert, Michael

      Watts, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitfield, John

      Norris, Steven

      Whitney, Raymond

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wolfson, Mark

      Osborn, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Page, John (Harrow W)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Powley, John

      Mr. Ian Lang.

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      GENERAL POWER TO PROHIBIT SEA FISHING IN SPECIFIED AREAS
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'area' to end of line 10 and insert 'within Scottish inshore waters'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): We will also take Government amendments Nos. 6 and 9.
      Mr. MacKay: These are drafting amendments to improve the wording of clauses 1 and 2 and to clarify what are the waters covered by the Bill. Hon. Members will appreciate that the powers in clauses 1 and 2 are intended to cover the same area of sea —that is, the sea adjacent to the Scottish coast and within the six-mile limit—within which United Kingdom fishing vessels have exclusive access under the common fisheries policy.
      By removing the appropriate words in each of those clauses and replacing them by a reference to "Scottish inshore waters," which term is then defined in clause 9, we hope to simplify the wording and remove the possibility of legal debate in the future on the compatibility of the two clauses.
      258
      Hon. Members who were present during the Committee proceedings will recall my explanation that the definition in clause 1 extended inland as far as the high water mark and included bays, estuaries, sea lochs, harbours and so forth. We have taken the opportunity in tabling these amendments to make this clear by specifically referring to the mean high water mark in the definition. I understand that this mark is usually shown on the charts covering coastal areas.
      Mr. O'Neill: Will these changes deal with the problems that were highlighted in Committee in respect of the Solway firth, where, because of the shifting sands, the high water mark can change? Or are such problems to be the subject of negotiation between the DAF and the MAFF in an effort to achieve a proper management scheme for the area? I appreciate that it is a difficult matter, and it may be one of those loose ends that will have to be left to be resolved on an ad hoc basis as and when needs arise.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that this series of amendments would add clarity. If the hon. Gentleman considers this to be clarity, he will have to learn to do better. For example, amendment No. 9 says:
      "'Scottish inshore waters' means the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland"—
      so far, so good—
      "and to the landward of a limit of six miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides."
      That is a roundabout way of saying "the area six miles from the baseline." I suppose that his intentions are right, but the hon. Gentleman should try to do better in future.
      Mr. MacKay: The problem raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the Solway firth results from the moving border between Scotland and England which is defined by the bed of the river, and this series of amendments will not do anything to improve that position. Any agreement covering the Solway will have to be arrived at between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England.
      While, therefore, they will not do anything about that difficulty, I hope that the amendment will resolve some of the other difficulties, and if the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not understand the way in which the provision must be worded, I can only assure him that it makes the position crystal clear to anybody who understands the terminology.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, at end insert
      `and appoint representative committees of management to report to him on the operation of the orders'.
      The amendment is part of a debate which has continued since the Bill was introduced in another place. That debate has taken a variety of forms, but it has been concerned primarily with ensuring that there is adequate consultation with fishermen before orders are presented to the House. The new orders should be the subject of discussion by the interested parties. We are endeavouring in the amendment to give the Minister the right to appoint representative committees of management to report to him on the operation of the orders. This would be appropriate in some areas, but we are not seeking to impose an obligation upon him.

      259
      This is an opportunity formally to sustain and maintain a dialogue with the fishing industry. The dialogue takes place anyway, but we think that it would be useful for Ministers to have an opportunity to hear what the industry is thinking on a month-to-month and a year-to-year basis on the working of the orders.
      We have been led to believe that the arrangements will in the main exist for some time. It would not be the most desirable form of review to say that after five years there will be a brief consultative process and that that will be the basis upon which amendments will be made. We would consider it far more satisfactory for the appropriate representatives of the industry to be called in at an earlier stage and for there to be some formalisation of what we would expect to be the normal procedure.
      If the Minister says that he anticipates that consultations will continue after the orders are made, that may well go some way to satisfying us. At present we are unclear about the Minister's intentions once an order has been laid and has obtained the approval of the House. There may be instances when a dialogue between those most affected and the Ministry would be for the assistance of all concerned.
      Mr. John MacKay: The Government do not feel that the amendment is necessary or that it is likely to add materially to our efforts to create a just and equitable inshore fisheries regime. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the industry before orders are made. A committee of the sort envisaged by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would appear to have no real function to perform. I have no doubt that the industry will make representations to the Secretary of State, and will continue to make representations, even if it has representation on the committee that is envisaged. It would be fully entitled to take that course.
      More importantly, if the amendment were accepted, the Secretary of State would be faced with the task of servicing and funding such committees, determining their terms of reference and appointing their membership. It is the last function that would probably cause most of the problems. Inevitably the Secretary of State would be accused of giving too much representation or too little to a certain section of the industry. It is quite likely that he would be accused of both faults at the same time. Unless he created a huge and fairly unwieldy body which contained representatives of every conceivable type of interest in the industry, he would still have to consider representations from those who felt themselves insufficiently powerful within the committee. Anything that can be gained from setting up such a series of quangos can equally well be gained from a less formal approach.
      We have declared our complete willingness to listen to all representations. We have said that we welcome the formation of ad hoc groupings of the industry in a particular area. We shall listen with great care to what those groups have to say. It is, however, best for the fishermen to be left to come together rather than to have an advice-giving structure imposed on them by the Government.
      11 pm
      It is significant that, although the amendment gives the committees the function of monitoring the operation of the orders and reporting to the Secretary of State on them, they are given the title of committees of management. In terms of the amendment, they will have nothing to manage. I
      260
      said repeatedly in Committee, and I am happy to say it again, that, even after the orders are made, the Government will not be turning away the fishing industry if it wants to make representations about the workings of the orders. That would be contrary to the experience that everyone — from the point of view of either the Department or the industry — has about the continued dialogue that occurs between the industry and the Department. There is probably no other Department that has such close and continuing consultation with the industry for which it is responsible as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in its relationship with the fishing industry.
      I hope that, if the hon. Member for Clackmannan can accept my assurance that after the orders are passed there will be no slammed doors to the industry if it wishes to talk to the Department or Ministers involved, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Minister for his assurance that there will be continuing dialogue. He perceives the likelihood of considerable difficulties in deciding who should be on the committees. I sympathise with him in that task, but it is not an insuperable one. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 20 and insert—
      '(2) Orders under this section may prohibit, within the specified sea area, all or any, or a combination of the following—

      (a) all fishing for sea fish;

      (b) fishing for a specified description of sea fish;

      (c) fishing by a specified method;

      (d) fishing from a specified description of fishing boat; and they may—

      (e) specify the period during which any prohibition is to apply;

      (f) make exceptions to any prohibition contained in the order.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 7.
      Mr. MacKay: The amendment seeks to replace subsection (2) of clause 1 with a new subsection which has been redrafted in the light of the comments made in Committee. I hope that the new wording expresses clearly the possible scope of any order made under this clause in a way that will be helpful to all those concerned with the legislation. The amendment does not give the Secretary of State any new powers but merely restates the powers which we believe he would have had even if the subsection had remained unamended. It provides that orders may be made prohibiting fishing for all sea fish, for specified descriptions of fish, by any specified method, by any specified description of fishing boat — we had an interesting debate on that matter — or by any combination of those. It provides also that the prohibitions may apply on a seasonal basis and that exceptions may be made to them—for example, to allow for scientific research.
      As I have said, the subsection has been redrafted to take account of our discussions in Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it represents a considerable improvement on the drafting of the clause.
      The effect of amendment No. 7 is to allow the Secretary of State, when considering banning the carriage of any net,

      261
      to make an exclusion so that a fishing boat can be detailed to do scientific research using the net which would otherwise be banned. Our experience in the industry over the years shows that that type of provision of power for the Secretary of State can be useful.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 6, after `shall', insert
      ',unless the order provides otherwise,'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 8 and 10.
      Mr. MacKay: These are purely drafting amendments which simplify the wording of clauses 1 and 2. They delete the subsections which provide that the orders made under the clauses will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and replace them with a single subsection in clause 9 to the same effect. There is no substantive change to the Bill, and I commend the amendments to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      POWER TO PROHIBIT THE CARRIAGE OF SPECIFIED TYPES OF NET
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 13, leave out from 'area' to first 'of' in line 16 and insert 'within Scottish inshore waters,'.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
      ; and such an order may make exceptions to any prohibition contained therein'.
      No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19. —[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 5

      POWERS OF SEA-FISHERY OFFICERS
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 29, at end insert
      `after obtaining a warrant from the Sheriff or a Justice of the Peace.'.
      Clause 5 confers upon sea fishery officers wide powers of search, which would not be available to police officers conducting a murder investigation. Although we have considerable reservations about the extent of the powers, we recognise that in many cases other subsections are necessary because they deal with events that take place at sea.
      The amendment relates to powers exercised by officers under clause 5(7) and provides that before they search premises they should have obtained a search warrant from a sheriff or justice of the peace.
      At common law, no one can have his premises searched unless he has been lawfully arrested. Search without a warrant will be permitted only in cases of urgency. There are few statutory exceptions to that — for example, section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides that a search warrant may be issued to search the premises for dangerous drugs of a person who has not been arrested or charged.
      262
      There are few cases where statute allows a search without a warrant. An example would be the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967. Invariably, they relate to cases where the police are looking for stolen goods. We do not believe that the powers given to sea fishery officers under this subsection relate to stolen goods. They relate to the examination of documents which should be kept. If the officers have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed, they can take that evidence to a sheriff or justice of the peace and obtain a warrant before the premises are searched.
      We believe that the powers that are granted are wide. At common law, in cases of urgency the courts would look leniently at a search which had been done without a warrant. We believe that the amendment is a safeguard which the House should be keen to see maintained.
      Mr. McQuarrie: I oppose the amendment, because the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that sea fishery officers would be searching premises for documents.
      On Second Reading I referred to the poaching of salmon in an area from Fraserburgh to Cairnbulg in my constituency. Over the course of two days, 2,000 salmon were poached with the use of speedboats and taken to private dwellings. If a warrant had to be obtained from a justice of the peace, the fish could have been removed from the house and taken away by car. When the sea fishery officers entered the house, there would be no fish.
      Line 30 on page 4 refers to "any such document". If I had poached 2,000 fish, I would be selling them and would require invoices. It would not be done by word of mouth, so there would be documents in the house to the effect that the house owner was invoicing fish.
      I am thinking not about the sale of one poached salmon but about the sale of 10 or 20 salmon to a hotel or some other organisation. The fishery officer must have the protection that he requires and be able to enter the house and look for the documents. That is why the amendment should be rejected.
      Mr. John MacKay: First of all, we are not introducing with this clause any new powers or giving more rein to the enforcement authorities than they already have at present in relation to other fisheries offences. The wording of the clause is an exact repetition of that found in section 15(2) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and, so far as I am aware, the powers conferred on British sea fishery officers have been exercised with tact and understanding and have caused no complaint.
      To continue to allow the exercise of those powers under United Kingdom and, indeed, EEC fisheries legislation but to restrict their use under this Bill would create an anomalous situation which would be hard to justify not only to those who support the proper enforcement of the law in fishery matters but to those who wish to see full backing for measures designed to conserve fish stocks.
      While I recognise that the misgivings of the hon. member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are sincerely voiced, we should look at what is actually in the clause, and — perhaps more important — what is not. First, the powers of entry, production, search and detention of documents may not be applied to a dwelling-house. That is explicitly prohibited, although I know that there is a feeling that some illegal activity, particularly poaching, is centred on residences rather than business

      263
      premises. Secondly, any entry to premises has to be made at a reasonable time and, on top of all that, the BSFO has to have reason to suspect that an offence has been committed before he can search premises or seize and detain any document.
      The amendment as drafted would still allow the BSFO to enter premises and to require the production of documents. Only after that stage would he be required to obtain a warrant to search, but it is only after that initial stage that he may have reason to search. If the amendment was accepted, we would give the BSFO powers enough to make him suspicious but withhold the power to enable him to follow up those suspicions. If he has to break off to go away and obtain a warrant from a sheriff or justice of the peace, is it likely that the evidence will still be there when he gets back? If the existence of a relevant document were denied, under the proposed alteration that denial could never be gainsaid.
      As I have mentioned, the power has been in existence for some time without causing complaint. There are remedies available should it ever be abused, although I doubt whether they would be needed. Fisheries inspectors are as much part of the fishing community as fishermen themselves and have to live within it. They therefore know how to carry out their duties with tact and circumspection where necessary, but they need backing to discover and prove offences when necessary. There is no point in passing Acts of Parliament and giving fishery officers certain powers if we deny them the fundamental power of accumulating the evidence.
      Mr. McQuarrie: Subsection (7) of clause 5 uses the words
      "other than a dwelling-house".
      I, too, used the word "dwelling-house", but garages or huts could also be involved. No one would keep 2,000 salmon in his house, because they would stink. The Bill refers only to a dwelling-house. It does not refer to the garages or huts that might be nearby. It is the house that is excluded, not the adjoining garages or huts.
      Mr. MacKay: I know that my hon. Friend was one of those who mentioned illegal activities in dwelling-houses on Second Reading and was keen that we should give fishery officers powers. I accept his point about the garage and the outhouses. I am not a lawyer, and the best thing is for me to give him a definition of a dwelling-house later today or by letter.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Wallace: I have listened to the Minister. I do not accept that just because something is provided in other legislation it is right in this Bill. His reply does not come as a surprise, as his right hon. and noble Friend gave a similar reply to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Grimond in another place. As my right hon. and noble Friend said, it is no use arguing with Ailsa Craig, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
      '"Scottish inshore waters" means the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland and to the landward of a limit of six miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides.'.
      No. 10, in page 6, line 15, at end insert—
      264
      `(2) Orders under section 1 or 2 of this Act shall be made by Statutory Instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]

    Schedule 1

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 5, after 'section 32', insert—
      '(a).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12 to 16.
      Mr. MacKay: Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 15 are technical drafting amendments that are aimed at tidying the statute book, especially section 32 of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. Schedule 1 already contains a reference to that section, the purpose of which is to replace references to the Fishery Board with references to the Secretary of State. However, section 32 of the 1886 Act also contains references to the officers of the board and, for consistency, they should also be removed.
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 16 are simply further consequential amendments, the need for which came to light after the Committee stage and which I believe should be added to the Bill. The first part of amendment No. 13 inserts a reference to the Bill into section 374 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. It provides that in any legal proceedings taken under the Bill, the details of ownership of a fishing boat as recorded in the fishing boats register will be taken as conclusive evidence of the ownership of the fishing boat. Since the vast majority of Scottish fishing boats are recorded in the register, such a provision will be of assistance to the enforcement authorities. The second part of the amendment and amendment No. 16 replace references in sections 4 and 6 of the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act 1934 to the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1889, which is being repealed in this Bill, with references to orders under the Bill. This will maintain the present requirement on trawlers to have their fishing gear inboard while in an area in which trawling is prohibited.
      Amendment No. 14 is a simple drafting amendment which repeals sections 4 and 11 of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1885.
      I hope that the House will accept these straightforward amendments which tidy up the statute book.
      Mr. Maclennan: I congratulate the Minister on underlining the relevance of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. I am sure that Mr. Gladstone would have been delighted to think that this measure of the third Government that he formed and which enjoyed the support of my predecessor, Dr. Clarke, would be subject to amendment 98 years later.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 7, line 7, leave out `and' and insert';

      (b) for the words "Secretary for Scotland" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State";

      (c) the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board" shall be omitted

      (d) for the words "Chairman and Secretary of the Fishery Board" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State"; and

      (e).'.

      No. 13, in page 7, line 8, at end insert—
      'Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c.60)
      In section 374, after the words "Fishery Limits Act 1976" there shall be inserted the words "Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984".
      Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act 1934 (c.18)
      In section 4(1) for the words "section six of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act 1889 or of any byelaw for the time being in force" there shall be substituted the words "an order under section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984".
      In section 6—

      (a)the definition of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts" is repealed; and

      (b) in the definition of "illegal trawling"—

      (i) for the words "section six of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act 1889 or of any byelaw for the time being in force" there shall be substituted the words "an order under section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

      (ii) the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition are repealed.'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 8, line 28, column 3, leave out 'Section 4' and insert 'Sections 4 and 11'.
      No. 15, in page 8, line 29, at end insert—

      '49 & 50 Crofters Holdings Vict. c. 29. (Scotland) Act 1886

      In section 32, the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board".'.

      No. 16, in page 8, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
      'In section 6, the definition of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts", and in the definition of "illegal trawling" the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition.'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]
      11.18 pm
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a most interesting debate today and in Committee, and I shall not delay the House long in asking for a Third Reading of the Bill. It is a measure of considerable importance to Scottish fishermen and the Scottish fishing industry. It is intended to modernise and simplify the existing body of legislation governing fishing in Scottish inshore waters. In summary, it provides for the Secretary of State, after due consultation, to regulate, by order, fishing within the six-mile limit. Such orders can prohibit all fishing, fishing for particular species, by particular methods, from specified descriptions of fishing boat or any combination of these.
      Especially welcome to many fishermen is the fact that the Bill removes the three-mile limit which has been the cause of a great deal of heart-searching, a little prosecution and some fines in the Scottish fishing industry for many years. It gives powers to British sea fishery officers to enforce the new regulatons and provides for the recovery of fines. The Bill also seeks to tidy up the statute book, as we have just been doing, by removing much of the dead wood amongst the fisheries legislation which has accumulated over the years.
      Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have tabled amendments to provide formally for consultation with appropriate bodies before any order is made. Such orders will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have also taken the opportunity to add some additional
      266
      provisions which will be of benefit in combating the salmon poacher. These are a power to restrict the carriage of specified types of net, with monofilament nets being our main concern, and to allow water bailiffs to enforce any orders made under the Bill relating to fishing for salmon.
      One of the key elements in the Bill is that it is a general enabling measure which will allow the Secretary of State to respond flexibly to the changing needs and circumstances of the fishing industry, both now and in the future. The Bill has been generally welcomed by both sides of the House, and I am grateful to all the hon. Members involved in its consideration for the constructive attitude they have taken to it. I believe it will prove to be a useful and valuable measure, and I commend it to the House.
      11.22 pm
      Mr. O'Neill: This has been a useful exercise. Those of us who participated in Committee found that there was a fair measure of give and take between the two sides. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) can speak for himself, but I think everyone sought to get the Bill into a form which would be acceptable to the industry. The discussion in Committee resulted in general agreement. The Bill now includes opportunities for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny which did not exist before. There are also provisions to deal with salmon poaching which were not available prior to this stage.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has recognised throughout that he should not regard the general enabling provisions as a light responsibility. I hope that his successors and the Secretary of State will take the same view. If those provisions are handled wrongly they could provide an opportunity for almost draconian action. If the Minister's successors handle the matter with the same sensitivity as he has displayed throughout the consideration of the Bill we can be reasonably hopeful. It is not often that I find myself being complimentary to the Minister. He invariably makes an unholy mess of his responsibility in other matters. Here he has shown a degree of flexibility and sensitivity which I only wish he would exercise in regard to the Health Service and other subjects.
      My hon. Friends and I recognise that much out-of-date legislation has been replaced by provisions for flexible regimes in various parts of Scotland which will involve, we hope, all sectors of the fishing industry. As a result, the fishing industry should be more effective and safer. At the end of the day we hope that the industry will be able to provide fish at prices the people can afford and of a quality and in quantities that they wish to buy.
      11.24 pm
      Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene briefly to say something about salmon conservation, which the amendment made in Committee—now clause 2 of the Bill—opens up. It is an important subject in which interest should be shared throughout the whole of the United Kingdom as salmon conservation and the fight against poaching cannot be isolated within the boundaries of Scotland. I hope that that will not be regarded as a contentious comment.
      I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me for saying that, although the clause is most welcome in itself, one or two of the arguments that he adduced in its favour in Committee went a little far.

      267
      Although it is useful to have power in the Bill to ban the carrying of monofilament gill nets, he was perhaps a little carried away when he told the Committee:
      "The Bill gives us an opportunity to do something about the huge growth in salmon poaching. Anyone who looks at the statistics on salmon caught in the past decade or so will see the continual decline, especially in spring fishing."
      He then said that the clause would go a long way towards stopping the use of monofilament nets
      "and to bring back the runs of salmon which are so important both to the legitimate netsmen and to angling interests." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 8 May 1984; c. 67–70.]
      I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that the major threat and the major cause of the decline in salmon numbers off the east coast of Scotland is much less likely to be the use of monofilament nets, which has been illegal in Scotland for many years, than the activities south of the border of what is known as the north-east drift net fishery. I appreciate that that is not my hon. Friend's responsibility, but I hope that he has had the chance to read the minutes of the recent meeting between the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and representatives of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, at which the association no doubt stressed once again the change in character of the north-east drift net fishery since 1959 when it was a fairly simple, traditional hemp net fishery with an average annual catch of about 2,200 salmon and grilse.
      Since then, it has developed through successive stages of nylon drift nets, the issue of more licences, the change to monofilament and now the issue of large numbers of licence endorsements to the point when the catch for the last season for which figures should shortly be available will be about 70,000 fish for Northumbria alone, if that is an accurate declaration of the actual catch. In fact, understatement or underestimate of the catch probably means that the whole fishery accounted for 140,000 fish in the 1983 season, and I believe that research carried out by the two Ministries has established that 94 per cent. of those fish were bound for Scottish waters.
      The toll being taken by the north-east drift net fishery cannot be sustained indefinitely. The decline to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in Committee is difficult to measure, but the annual average catches in the east and north-east of Scotland have undeniably declined in the past eight years by about 20,000 fish while the number of fish taken in the north-east has increased substantially —probably by the same number of salmon not caught in Scotland, if I may so put it. That cannot be allowed to continue. If the Minister has not seen the figures, I am sure that those prepared by Mr. Ian Mitchell, managing director of the Tay salmon fisheries, will convince him of the seriousness of the situation, not least in the threat that it presents to employment in Scotland.
      The threat to employment is difficult to measure, but it is undeniable. Hon. Members will have seen reports about the impact of declining salmon stocks on the tourist industry in Scotland. I believe that the district salmon fishery boards have been extremely conservative in calculating that for every job gained in the north-east of England two are lost in Scotland. That must be the absolute minimum. The Sunday Times colour supplement recently contained the following statement in an article about the Tay fishery:
      "A survey carried out in 1982 showed that visiting salmon anglers generate about £140 million annually for the Scottish tourist industry. Equally important, it showed that salmon
      268
      angling provides direct support for 30,000 jobs—more than 30 per cent. of the total employment support generated by the entire Scottish tourist industry — while the commercial netting industry provides no more than 1,500 jobs in seasonal and part-time employment."
      That article was written to set the rodsmen and the netsmen against each other in Scotland. We should not see it as a controversy between rod and netting interests, any more than I want to present it as a conflict between Scottish and English fishermen. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the point that the subject is so important that it must be considered on a national basis. Sectarian interests are not involved.
      The Atlantic Salmon Trust Ltd., about which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) probably knows nothing, as well as the Salmon and Trout Association and the British Field Sports Society, would agree that the priority must be to conserve salmon stocks nationally, a policy which requires national action. I hope that I can carry my hon. Friend with me in supporting a national tagging scheme, which is urgently required. That would cut off salmon poachers from their markets for stolen fish. If that were achieved, it would make a contribution. I hope and believe that that subject is being considered urgently by Ministers in the Scottish Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      Some of the evidence that I have suggests that the Scottish Office shows some reluctance and has made heavy weather of the practicability of introducing a salmon tagging scheme in Scotland, especially because of the absence of a rod licence system north of the border. That can be overcome. If the Minister studies the 1951 Act, he will find that Scottish salmon fishery proprietors are the most appropriate people to undertake tagging. They already submit returns and are supposed to give written permission to anyone who wishes to fish in their waters. It would not be difficult to introduce a system in which they helped to operate tagging.
      The fish farmers seem to find peculiar difficulties in relation to such a scheme. I do not think that we should be susceptible to their objections, which should be overcome. If they are lucky, grants should be available to overcome problems. Subsidies in that direction are not unknown.
      I refer to a phrase in a letter from Lord Gray of Contin in reply to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), in which Lord Gray referred to a "cost effective scheme". If all that matters is the cost, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that the tagging scheme, like the other measures that we want to see introduced, is a conservation measure rather than one of revenue raising. I hope that the finances will not be such a Government preoccupation that they will use them as an argument for doing nothing.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is raising a number of propositions. I agree with some of them. Many hon. Members may wish to debate them later at length. However, neither the salmon tending scheme nor the restrictions on the netting of fish at sea is in the Bill. They cannot be debated at Third Reading. I am worried that, if the hon. Gentleman proceeds with his arguments, those hon. Members who wish to debate the Bill more fully will be precluded from doing so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is correct in saying that matters raised in Third Reading debates must be related to the Bill. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is going a little wide. I am sure that he will relate his remarks directly to the Bill.
      Mr. Onslow: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed cannot see the connection between what I have been saying and the contents of the Bill. When the Minister introduces a clause on the basis that it will bring back the salmon runs, end the long decline and make a major contribution to the fight against the huge growth in poaching, it is open to us, and right, to test those assumptions.
      I believe that the Minister will agree on reflection that something like a salmon tagging scheme would make a much greater contribution to the conservation of salmon stocks than the relevant part of the Bill. I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to draw that comparison, but I shall not dwell on it as I do not wish to detain the House too long.
      A great many other things need to be done. I shall not go through the list of them as it would infuriate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, although they might be new to him. Poaching is not the only problem. We want effective action against poaching, which bites on a national scale. Powers to enforce the ban against monofilament nets in a relatively small area where problems exist are welcome, but they do not go far enough. I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a great deal more to be done.
      11.36 pm
      Mr. Donald Stewart: I said in Committee that, although I welcomed the Bill—I still think that it is a useful measure, and the tidying up of the legislation was long overdue—my caveat was that it had been hijacked to some extent by the salmon lobby. The speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) proves that.
      I regret that the Government have abolished the three-mile limit, but I concede that sections of the fishing industry are happy to see it go. With regard to salmon, I supported the idea of some protection for the method of fishing by nets on fixed stakes, which went on without detriment to salmon catchers for hundreds of years, but then the salmon lobby got the bailiffs' powers tightened up.
      Monofilament nets are also referred to in the Bill. Many fishermen have invested much money in monofilament nets, which have no connection with salmon fishing. They have been used to fish for cod, ling, tusk, haddock and whiting, and recently for crayfish, because they are weighted on the bottom, and they have nothing to do with fishing for salmon.
      Many of those fishermen have thousands of pounds at stake, much of it funded by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If they were caught by a blanket banning of monofilament nets, there would be a shout of rage and a great loss to fishermen throughout the country. I hope that there will be no precipitate action along those lines under clause 1, on fishing by a specified method.
      It is deplorable that the netting of salmon is going on, but many of the estates that are complaining about it are netting on a large scale. They are not allowing the fish to be caught by anglers, and they are the people who are
      270
      shouting about poaching. I shall not go into the salmon question as that is not what the Bill is about; it is about inshore fishing. I know, before someone corrects me, that a salmon is a fish that goes to sea, but that was not the main subject of the Bill. I am sorry that so much of it has been taken up by the salmon lobby.
      I welcome the Bill. It was debated in a good spirit.
      11.38 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I make no apology for being part of the salmon lobby. The river Tay is the largest salmon river in the country, probably the most prolific at the best of times. Most of the fishing beats are in my constituency. It is probably true to say that all the rod fishing beats are in my constituency. Therefore, throughout the Bill's consideration I expressed a constituency interest.
      I welcome the measures in the Bill to deal with aspects of salmon poaching. It was right that they were included. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) felt that that was wrong. After all, the fish never know the difference, which part of the river they are in and whether it is the net of a landed gentleman or the rod — as it often is in my constituency — of someone from the mining villages. Many of those people fish in my constituency, and long may they continue to do so. I hope that at the moment they are not doing more fishing than work.
      I shall not discuss the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall put my argument simply and say that I support everything that my hon. Friend said, because we cannot look on the Tay or any other river in isolation. We must consider salmon as a national asset, and many jobs in my constituency depend upon them. If the Tay were to lose its fish, there would be as many squeals heard from my constituency as there have been about the problems at Bathgate. Those who come to the Tay to fish, and who stay in hotels in the area, are the main source of income for many of my constituents. Therefore, I must take an interest in anything that puts their jobs at risk.
      I would welcome some form of salmon tagging and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister — who has a special interest in one fishing beat in my constituency, although I believe that his sons catch many more fish than he does—will continue to enjoy the delights of north Tayside. I hope that Opposition Members will not regard this measure as an attack on one sort of fishing. We are looking for a balance, because if not enough fish go up our rivers there will not be enough fish in the sea. Unless we nurture our stocks, and unless the fish continue to return to spawn, in future there will be no fishing for anyone.
      The right hon. Member for Western Isles was correct to say that some landed proprietors net fish as well as allow others to fish on parts of their rivers, and they, too, are interested in achieving a balance. I met them last week, and they drew my attention to the fact that they wanted to ensure that everyone could get out of the rivers what the rivers previously provided in abundance. We should be fools if we allowed stocks to die and no longer to be available to our children and our children's children.
      11.42 pm
      Mr. Wallace: I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that some measures in the

      271
      Bill are designed to attack the poaching of salmon. They are important and welcome measures, but the point of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was that, when the Bill was published, most of the debate centred on clause 1, which gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to make orders to restrict fishing in specified areas. Perhaps most of the major arguments will come in later debates, on whether areas should or should not be designated. When we debated the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee we believed that, since such wide powers were being given to the Secretary of State, we had to build in safeguards. It should be recorded that the Minister has accommodated many of the suggestions made on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
      We especially welcome the statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult interested groups. Until now, the Scottish Office has been prepared to consult, but it is as well to legislate for that lest any future Secretary of State is not so well disposed to consultation. Equally, we welcome the clarification of the negative procedure in the amendments we debated earlier this evening, so that there will now be an opportunity to debate orders laid by the Secretary of State.
      The Minister said a great deal in Committee, although it does not appear in the Bill, about local management agreements. The industry still believes that many regulations could better be made by the local people coming to an agreement. There would be no need for orders. Having read one of the Committee reports, I understood the Minister to say that, if an ad hoc committee came up with such an agreement, there would be no need for such an order. If that is the case, the industry would welcome it if the Minister made that clear when he replies to the debate.
      Mr. Kennedy: Would my hon. Friend concur with the impression that I received in my part of the Highlands that the effect of the Bill has been to encourage a degree of agreement, co-operation and unanimity of opinion within the industry that did not exist previously?
      Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It would appear that the Bill has focused the minds of a number of people, and agreement has been found where, prior to the Bill being presented, people thought that agreement was impossible. That is a good omen for the future. If the Secretary of State would be prepared to encourage such voluntary agreements, that would be welcomed by the industry.
      In the circumstances, we would not wish to divide the House on the Bill, and we welcome its Third Reading.
      11.47 pm
      Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): To a person uninitiated in the fishing world, it might seem odd that the Member for St. Ives, who represents the far south-west of the United Kingdom, should have the temerity to intervene on Third Reading of the Bill. However, any Opposition Members who express that view do not know much about the fishing industry. If they did, they would realise that there is often an affinity of interest and, dare I say it, on some occasions a conflict of interest between the fishing industries of Cornwall and those of Scotland.
      The progress of the Bill is being watched with interest in Cornwall as presenting a way forward. What interests
      272
      me particularly, and the reason why I rise, is the concept behind the Bill of what constitutes an inshore fishery. I am delighted to see here the Minister of State who, despite his Scottish name, represents so well the fishing industry south of the border.
      Not for the first time, there is a marked difference in approach between fishing and the regulation of fishing north of the border and that south of the border, particularly with regard to what constitutes an inshore fishery. The case has long been put forward by the sea fisheries committees, particularly in Cornwall and Devon, that their jurisdiction should be extended from three miles to six miles. I support that claim wholeheartedly. In following the passage of the Bill in this House and through another place, I see enshrined in it the concept that an inshore fishery extends up to six miles. That concept has been welcomed by the Government and the Scottish Office —particularly the Under-Secretary— which I welcome.
      Greater protection should be afforded to inshore fishermen. It is an irony that, if our good friends from Scotland come to Cornwall, they can fish up to a three-mile limit, whereas the one or two boats that go north from Cornwall to Scotland may find themselves precluded from fishing inside a six-mile limit. The irony and possible unfairness may be compounded by the fact that, because of the workings of the Hague agreement— a matter I have long since challenged, and in which I understand the present leader of the Social Democratic party had a hand —the territorial limits of the south-west are six miles, whereas in Scotland the territorial limits are in the main 12 miles.
      I wish the Bill godspeed. I hope that it is a success. I should like to see some of its concepts, particularly on what constitutes an inshore fishery, extended.
      Mr. Maclennan: Why has the hon. Gentleman been so unsuccessful in persuading his English colleagues in the Government to follow the example of his Scottish colleagues?
      Mr. Harris: I do not want to score party points. The Hague agreement was negotiated when the hon. Gentleman's leader was at the Foreign Office. The Hague agreement cannot be undone. This is not the occasion to rake over history, although I should be happy to debate the issue with any SDP Member some other time.
      I wish the Bill well. In the far south-west of Cornwall, we shall watch its implementation with interest.
      11.51 pm
      Mr. McQuarrie: I took part in the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, and on Third Reading I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but I should like him to consider some details. Will he have consultations with the Scottish fishermen's organisation, the federation and the White Fish Association? They have expressed severe reservations about designated static gear areas because they would seriously affect the Atlantic fleet.
      I congratulate the Minister on amendment No. 3 because it widens the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will not delay orders, particularly in respect of areas where it is proposed to designate salmon fishing only to those with a licence. Delay will not help to check the enormous amount of poaching in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will raise those matters with the Secretary of State. I welcome the Bill.
      11.52 pm
      Mr. Soames: I make no apology for speaking, because I am a keen salmon fisherman, conservationist and lover of Scotland, its countryside and sports. I am reluctant to speak when I see the lairds' party so well represented by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
      I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on this important step forward. He is keen to ensure that the problems are dealt with satisfactorily. I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
      I emphasise two important points. First, when talking about inshore fishing, it is worthwhile considering taking steps to give powers to the relevant authorities to prevent the netting of salmon after a prolonged drought in the river and sea estuaries. An enormous congregation of salmon builds up. The river runs down and the salmon cannot smell the fresh water. They come in on the tide and are taken by the nets and those left go out on the tide. That process is repeated again and again and enormous numbers of salmon are taken, to the detriment of angling interests. I urge Ministers to take steps to ensure that something is done about that in England and in Scotland.
      Largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and hon. Members on both sides of the House, steps are being taken to attempt to solve the serious problem of salmon conservation. The industry for sporting salmon fishing, off both shore and river, is important to the Scottish economy. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to promote a close liaison between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Department in Scotland. I know that there are difficult problems to be overcome and that strides have been made, but I do not detect the spirit of urgency needed.
      The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) feels strongly about employment in Scotland. I have the privilege of having been invited to fish on a number of the great Scottish rivers—something that I enjoy and look forward to from year to year. I know of beats on Scottish rivers where men have been employed for generations as river keepers and ghillies, and generally involved in the industry. Those people will not be replaced, because the level of stock is falling dramatically. Some temporary work may be available in the summer with let rods, but the jobs will disappear unless the salmon come back. It is important to the interests of the Highlands and Scotland as a whole that the jobs are preserved and enhanced and that the Scottish economy is expanded. There is great opportunity for further expansion of this leisure industry in Scotland.
      I apologise for detaining the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, the greatest priority must be to conserve the salmon stocks.
      11.57 pm
      Mr. Charles Morrison: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other hon. Members, I am deeply concerned about the future of salmon. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food listening to the debate. Like Oliver Twist, I ask for more.
      I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland on introducing the Bill and steering it through the House. It is a major
      274
      step in the right direction. However, I hope that the Scottish Office will not feel that the Bill is merely an academic exercise. It is of the utmost importance that the powers contained in clauses 1 and 2 should be used. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage and liaise with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that it will take helpful action on salmon fishing and netting in England. If there is no action to prevent interception netting on the north-east fishery——
      Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yet again issues are being raised about fisheries in England, which English Members might feel entitled to debate at some length. I am tempted to make a speech. The Bill is confined to Scotland, and I would be out of order in seeking to explain how, for example, many rigorous conservation methods are followed in England to preserve the salmon fisheries. We are constantly being drawn into the debate by Conservative Members who continually refer to the position in England.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The early clauses of the Bill are fairly wide. I have not heard anything out of order.
      Mr. Morrison: I was making the point that if the powers in the Bill were not fully used, if a scheme was not introduced soon to control the interception netting on the north-east fisheries, and if a tagging scheme was not introduced, many of the intended effects of the Bill would be stultified.
      Despite this measure, salmon will remain an endangered species. There is a race taking place now between the reduction of salmon stocks by netting, wherever that is occurring, and the efforts of salmon farmers to replace salmon as a food available for anyone in Britain who wishes to purchase it. Unfortunately, the race is being lost by the salmon, but it is also a loss in terms of the recreation of many people throughout the United Kingdom, for employment in Scotland and for the Scottish tourist trade. I hope, therefore, that legislation will be introduced shortly to deal with that issue and that it will have effect in England as well as in Scotland.
      12.1 am
      Mr. Home Robertson: I have already welcomed the main provisions of the Bill, which, as several hon. Members have pointed out, has been generally welcomed by the Scottish fishing industry.
      I would not have delayed the House at this hour had it not been for the incredibly patronising remarks of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). When speaking about the natives of Scotland, he did not go quite so far as to say that some of his best friends were Scots, but I still have the impression that he would not like his daughter to marry one.
      Mr. Soames: I am married to a Scot. I understand the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman, as a major landowner in Scotland, in appreciating the interests of those who enjoy Scotland and the Scottish people. He would be wrong to interpret my remarks as being patronising on in any way derogatory. I said at the outset that I spoke as a Member of the Parliament of the whole United Kingdom.
      Mr. Home Robertson: It is clear that I touched a raw nerve in the hon. Gentleman, and, while I understand what he said in his closing remarks, he should appreciate that many of us feel that it would be more appropriate if specifically Scottish legislation such as this were dealt

      275
      with by a Scottish parliament. There is not much justification for hon. Members such as he to speak or vote on internal Scottish affairs which are already devolved to the Scottish Office.
      I suppose that we should have known what to expect when the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), for Crawley and others come into the Chamber at this hour when a Bill dealing with Scottish fishers was being debated. It must be said that some interests have been poaching the resources of Scotland for a long time, and it might he suggested that some Conservative Members who have spoken tonight might have spoken on behalf of those interests.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that my hon. Friends and others should stop coming to Scotland and thereby further affect the job opportunities of those who work on the Scottish rivers.
      Mr. Home Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute or two, he will ascertain exactly what I wish to suggest. I agree with the principle that is being discussed, which involves the need for conservation of stocks of salmon and trout, for example. There are jobs involved in their conservation and it is part of the economy, whether it is netting in certain areas or the operation of the tourist industry. It is a fact that the stocks of these fish are diminishing at an alarming rate and that they have been doing so for a number of years. Something must be done about that.
      The Minister would argue that something has been done about it in the Bill and I think that there is broad support for what he is suggesting. However, as I explained in Committee, I think that something far more radical is required. A completely new approach must be taken to the management of freshwater fisheries in Scotland and to the ownership of those fisheries. Those who represent the proprietors of lucrative salmon fishing rights are protesting too much in this debate.
      Clause 7 gives additional powers to river fishery boards in Scotland, which control fisheries offshore as well as in the rivers. I shall cite one of the boards which borders on the waters adjacent to my constituency. The river Tweed commissioners' council includes no fewer than 38 riparian owners, including a representative of the Crown Estate Commissioners, two dukes, one marquis, one earl, two viscounts, a lord, the son of a lord, a knight, a major-general and three other retired officers. I have no doubt that they are all splendid people——
      Mr. Soames: In what capacity does the hon. Gentleman serve as a Tweed commissioner?
      Mr. Home Robertson: I serve as a commissioner because I was elected by the Berwickshire district council, to which I was elected before I came to this place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get too excited about that.
      I have no doubt that the commissioners are extremely worthy but they should not be surprised that a body that is so heavily loaded in favour of one set of vested interests does not command universal respect or support from those who fish offshore or of the many who fish on the rivers. Until there is a radical review of the ownership and control of these rights we shall continue to have problems. The law which entrenches the rights of vested interests has fallen into disrepute and it will not serve an especially
      276
      useful purpose to build more and more on to discredited 19th century legislation and to add to the powers of existing vested interests. I am glad to have the opportunity to put that point on the record and perhaps to balance some of the arguments which have been advanced by Conservative Members.
      I repeat that I welcome the generality of the Bill. I welcome especially the useful concession which the Minister made in Committee when he let the Fisheries Act 1705 remain on the statute book. At one stage that Queen Anne Act, which guaranteed some of the basic rights of Scottish fishermen, was to be swept aside in a great tidying-up operation to be mounted under schedule 2. I am glad that in Committee the Minister accepted the amendment which prevented that from happening. That showed some useful spirit in Committee and elsewhere. I am sorry that some Conservative Members have taken this opportunity to raise certain issues involving salmon fisheries in Scotland.
      12.9 am
      Mr. Beith: I presume that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and other hon. Members sought to suggest that, in giving the Bill a Third Reading, we should reflect that it will not be effective because some provisions in England were not associated with it or made part of it. I sought to argue that they could not be made part of it because the Bill, in the way it is drafted, is confined to Scotland. Those hon. Members cannot be allowed to go unchallenged in suggesting that the Bill's effectiveness will be undermined because of the ineffectiveness of the operation of controls on salmon fisheries in England, especially in the north-east. To say that would be to imply, as the hon. Member for Devizes and other hon. Members clearly did, that, for example, the Northumbrian water authority exercises no control in its areas over the netting of salmon at sea, whereas in fact, it has an extremely rigorous licensing system, enumerating in immense detail the number of boats who can fish in them, who they are by name and the seasons in which they can fish. Those provisions are rigorously enforced.
      As a Member of Parliament representing many of the fishermen involved, I have come across, as no doubt have many other hon. Members, the problems that arise when that rigorous enforcement takes place. The constituents of many hon. Members are affected including those of the Home Secretary. They seek salmon in a strictly regulated. way. I venture to suggest to Ministers that much can be learned from the operation of the scheme used by the Northumbrian water authority, which is looked at enviously by the former constituents of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who used to represent Berwickshire. That area is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Those constituents wish that they were party to such a scheme.
      In making that comment, the Conservative Members who identify themselves with the salmon lobby are implicitly attacking the Tweed commissioners, to whom the hon. Member for East Lothian referred. Those commissioners are responsible for the enforcement of controls in the Tweed river, the Tweed estuary and the Tweed box, which is a widely defined area of sea, outside the Tweed estuary. There is a long-established salmon netting system in that area which goes back many generations and requires control and enforcement.

      277
      Conservative Members might be suggesting that the Tweed commissioners are falling down in their job in carrying out enforcement in that area. If so, they should be more specific, not least because I and some of my hon. Friends are meeting the commissioners in a week or so. If Conservative Members wish to present more detailed criticisms, they should make them available to us.
      We must remember what, curiously, was properly pointed out by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—there must be a balance between the groups of people involved. In striking a balance, we must pay particular regard to those who fish salmon not for their entertainment or amusement but to earn their daily bread to make a living.
      Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the figures carefully, he would have realised that many more people are dependent on rod fishing for their livelihoods than on net fishing. All the hotels, the people who work in them and in the other services provided, and those who come into the area are dependent on that fishing. I am talking about hundreds of jobs in some very small areas and, in total, thousands of jobs. I doubt whether the number of those involved in the netting industry comes anywhere near those figures.
      Mr. Beith: I am well aware of how the statistics are constructed. If the statistics for those earning a living from catching fish, are constructed on the same basis, the same consequences follow. Once those who are involved in the associated trades are brought in, the statistics arise in the same way. Those who fish for a living for salmon at sea and in the rivers of Northumberland, county Durham and north Yorkshire are providers of income, not only for their families but for the shops and trades that are ancillary to the fishing industry. Exactly the same network of economic dependence arises in the fishing industry as arises in the leisure industry which is so important in Scotland.
      Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman twice rose on a point of order in relation to comments made by my hon. Friends. He has just mentioned Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire, which my knowledge of geography tells me are in England. Is the hon. Gentleman drifting slightly from the content of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill? He should concentrate his remarks on Third Reading rather than on the English areas.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will leave that matter to me.
      Mr. Beith: I was responding to an intervention at the time. In my other remarks I was responding to remarks by Conservative Members about why, in proceeding to Third Reading, we should have regard to whether the Bill would be rendered ineffective, partially or wholly, by what went on on the other side of the border.
      I do not know why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is becoming so excited, because I am paying him a compliment. He was right when he said that a balance must be struck between the groups of people involved. I am laying stress upon the fact that a great many of the people involved earn their living from fishing.
      It may be difficult for Conservative Members to understand, but sitting on the Opposition Benches we hear
      278
      hon. Member after hon. Member speaking for rod fishing and those of us who are interested in those who go to sea in the rough North sea in small open boats to make their living from fishing become a little sick and tired of the parade of those who talk about the rights of the landowners and the rod fishermen. There is a proper leisure fishing industry in Scotland and England. It is not solely in Scotland. It is part of the balance that we must strike when we work out how to conserve salmon stocks to ensure that they are available to those in all the different categories who have fished legitimately for many generations. We shall not achieve satisfactory results if we try to tag on — that is not a direct allusion to salmon tagging —desultory discussion on aspects of salmon fishing in a Bill which is necessarily confined to many other aspects of Scottish inshore fishing.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Can the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that his constituents will be allowed to go to sea in open boats to catch salmon with the protection of the law while other people in Scotland, under the Bill, will be prosecuted if they carry a net that looks as if it might be capable of being used to catch salmon? Does he think that something should be done about that?
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman knows that the differences that he described existed for the whole period that he represented Berwick and East Lothian during part of which a Labour Government were in power. Neither then nor more recently has he persuaded them to change the law in Scotland.
      For many years in England there has been a licensed, regulated and controlled salmon fishery off the north-east coast. That is part of the balance, but there are many other aspects which must be considered. They must be discussed on another occasion and must not be attached to a Bill which for the moment seems to be in danger of being hijacked by interests going far wider than those that the Bill was designed to meet.
      12.18 am
      Mr. Maclennan: It is rather odd that the Third Reading has been dominated by representatives of rod fishing from Crawley to Devizes. It would be a pity if that were the way that the Bill left the Floor of the House.
      The Bill is of great importance to many communities which are not blessed with salmon. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is right to say that there are a number of people whose livelihoods depend upon salmon fishing, the number of people in remote communities whose livelihoods depend upon sea fishing for white fish, pelagic stock, creel fishing and static gear fishing is infinitely greater. The House should not lose sight of that.
      The debate has been stimulated by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends and that is a reflection of an inherent imbalance in the Bill. It makes sensible provisions for salmon fishing and poaching. Clause 3 makes proposals for salmon fishing that we cannot debate tonight in relation to sea fishing. Those proposals — which are the substance of the matter, and which gave rise to considerable debate when it became known, following the recommendations of the committee on the regulation of inshore fisheries, that the Government intended to legislate—have not yet been given the full benefit of consideration by Parliament.

      279
      As the Minister may acknowledge, the fishing industry was very concerned about the Bill and remains somewhat unsure of how the Government will use the substantial powers that they are taking to regulate the industry. It is true that the industry recognises that the Government have to have those regulatory powers, but the question how they intend to use them remains somewhat mysterious.
      I am slightly anxious about the fact that, when the Government have made up their mind how to move, following the consultations which are now to be part of the statutory process—and we welcome that amendment to the Bill—the House of Commons, if it wishes to debate the matter, will be able to proceed only by means of a negative resolution.
      Crucial decisions are involved for some fragile communities. Let us take the part of Scotland to which the mind of the hon. Member for Crawley no doubt turns when he debates these subjects. In north-west Sutherland there are genuine conflicts between different groups whose interests are exceedingly difficult to reconcile. There are those who depend upon static gear catches of shellfish and there are the pelagic men who, in the same first three months of the year, are moving around in the inshore waters and sweeping away the static gear, often at night, when it will be untraceable afterwards. Those legitimate interests must be reconciled. The conflict of interests in the use of the water will present a judgment of Solomon to any Secretary of State who has to exercise the powers, but the reconciliation of such difficulties is very much more important to the economies of those fragile areas than some of the other matters alluded to by hon. Members representing landlocked constituencies south of the Border.
      Parliament should consider the specific proposals that the Government have in mind to enact, and the House of Commons should have a real opportunity to discuss them. Although the provisions are subject only to the negative procedure, it is desirable that a good deal of time should be allowed for consideration of the proposals that the Minister may make.
      Finally, I ask the Minister two questions. When does he intend to bring forward his first orders, and how much time will he allow us for discussing them?
      Mr. John MacKay: This by-catch of a Third Reading debate has been most interesting. I shall speak as briefly as I can while answering the points raised, and shall divide my remarks into two parts: first, the question of salmon and, secondly, the static gear reserves and related matters.
      I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Crawley (Mr. Soames), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the Government are well aware of the problems connected with salmon, not only in Scotland but also on both sides of the north Atlantic. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent rural constituencies are well aware of the importance of salmon to the economy of many fragile areas from the point of view of angling and tourism and of the legitimate salmon netsman. I remind the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that many of them do some salmon fishing in the summer months to balance out the livelihood that they make from creel fishing in the winter. The salmon is important to many areas of Scotland.
      280
      We have had some debate on netting off the English coast. We also heard from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I noticed that, accidentally or because of the hour, it was handy for him that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) were safely absent from the Chamber at the time as otherwise we might have had an even longer debate. That might have been interesting. I am sure that it has been noted that ray hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been here throughout Third Reading and heard the arguments that have been advanced.
      Mr. Beith: I am sure that the Minister will withdraw any criticism he might have intended of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, as he must be aware that the Committee on the Finance Bill is still sitting.
      Mr. MacKay: Of course I accept that the Finance Bill is more important to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire than the parts of this Bill that affect salmon. I hope that my criticism was just a little tail wagging of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and their hon. Friend from the other side of the border.
      As I have said, my hon. Friend the Minister has been here throughout this debate. He has recently met representatives of the Scottish salmon interests and has received written representations from the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, underlining the points that the Scottish salmon interests have made. I know of the difficulties involved and that officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been asked to consider the effects of the north-east fishery and to examine all of the arguments. I shall leave the matter there as it concerns my hon. Friend more than me.
      Everyone knows that tagging originated from an outline scheme of the salmon sales group in England and Wales. Although it might be easy to implement that proposal in England and Wales, it cannot be implemented quite as directly in Scotland where we have problems. For example, there are no regional water authorities or rod licences. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office has asked his Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to prepare outline schemes for how a tagging and licensing scheme might operate in Scotland. We have received written comments from several interests and had discussions. There is general support and sympathy for the idea of salmon tagging if some of the difficulties can be overcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned some of the difficulties that the salmon farming industry foresees if it is forced to tag.
      I know that my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that Ministries in Scotland and England are treating the matter seriously and are examining ways in which to resolve some of the difficulties. Any salmon tagging scheme must be cost effective in the broadest sense. It would be most unfortunate if we ended up with a tagging scheme that caused much bureaucracy and administration and did not prevent poaching. Any scheme must be watertight in that regard.
      Mr. Onslow: I put it to my hon. Friend that some of the claims he made about the banning of the carriage of monofilament nets would probably not have quite the

      281
      impact on the stocks in Scottish rivers that he suggested and that he should bear in mind the impact of the north-east drift net fishery. I should like to hear what he thinks the impact of that fishery is on Scottish salmon fishing.
      Mr. MacKay: That is one of the factors which the officials of my hon. Friend's Department will have to bear in mind. I understand the argument my hon. Friend makes about the rivers on the east coast. I have seen the figures which show that large numbers of fish caught in English waters are heading for Scottish waters. To be parochial for a moment, I think that the banning of the carriage of salmon nylon monofilament nets will have a considerable advantage for the rivers of the west coast. I may no longer need to think about going to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to catch fish, which over the last two or three years I have found was a fairly fruitless journey.
      The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) took part in the debate, not for the first time beginning by telling us that he had not meant to speak and then going on to make that abundantly obvious.
      I assure those hon. Members who mentioned the sea fish part of the Bill that I shall take note of the points they made in Committee about the importance of this legislation. Coming as I do from a constituency which has a longer coastline than that of France, with very many fishermen of both types—static gear men and active fishermen — I know the importance of this kind of legislation. There is a great welcome from many fishermen in my constituency and elsewhere for the final abolition of the three mile limit.
      I point out to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), as we have said time and again, that if local
      282
      fishermen can come to us with an agreement for their area which we think—and this is important—will hold up I do not think we will be going down the road of orders. That should not be necessary if we can consult with them and be satisfied that they can agree.
      But I caution him to listen to the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who highlighted the fact that on many parts of the Scottish coast there are real conflicts which it may not be possible to resolve by local agreements. In such cases I believe the Secretary of State has a duty to come to the House, after discussion with fishermen, with orders that will try to resolve some of the conflicts that have taken place in the waters off our coast and to make sure that those people whose livelihood is put at risk by the conflicts have the chance to fish and make a living in these fragile rural communities.
      I look forward to the orders. I shall not predict when they will come. Once the Bill has completed its passage and received the Royal Assent, we can move on from the consultations which we are already engaged in with the fishing industry to the point where we can bring forward orders. I look forward to the orders when I am sure we will have more stimulating debates on this subject.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, in respect of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [Lords], the Registered Homes Bill [Lords], and the Dentists Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, New Clauses, and New Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  12.33 am
  Mr. Dave Nellist: We shall debate for half an hour this evening the strike of the National Union of Mineworkers—a strike that has been the inspiration to the whole of the labour movement not just in Britain but internationally. It has resulted in several thousands of pounds being collected by trades councils and trade unions in both the north and the south of Ireland and solidarity from workers' organisations in many European countries, and I have no doubt that it will provide inspiration in the next few days when the 70,000 members of the National Union of Mineworkers in South Africa begin their strike struggle for decent wages.
  This is the longest, bitterest, most important strike to take place in this country for 58 years and its implications are far reaching. When victory comes in the next few weeks it will give heart to millions of working people by showing that the Government can be taken on and beaten. The Government have not been able to inflict a defeat. At first, the Prime Minister hoped that the dispute would be an industrial Falklands in which she could renovate her tattered image, demoralise the miners and other working people and their organisations and pave the way for futher attacks. That now will not happen.
  On numerous occasions in the past 13 weeks the Government said that they were not involved and that they would not intervene. Except on one occasion, they have refused to justify in debate in the House their reasons for causing the strike. I use those words deliberately because the Government have prepared for precisely this strike for a long time. They have aided and given succour to those at the top of the police organisations—the Association of Chief Police Officers—who have been waiting 12 years for revenge for Saltley gates.
  The 13th floor of New Scotland Yard has been taken over for the National Reporting Centre and the largest police operation this century has been mounted against the miners and their families. Tens of thousands of police have been travelling up and down the country using Boeing 737s and stopping workers and pickets in cars and buses at road blocks. For example, just a few days ago a miner from Warwickshire was stopped on the way home from Yorkshire. His tyres, and his insurance, tax and other documents were checked and he was given a slip to hand in at the police station to produce his other documents within the requisite five days. The top of the slip was marked "(CHECK) (MINER)". In my area and in others up and down the country the police have files and maps with pins to mark the homes of picket organisers. It has been the largest police operation this century and the largest operation against industrial action.
  The number of arrests has been massive. Up to 31 May there were 2,764 arrests in England and Wales and 518 in Scotland—3,282 workers arrested for trying to defend their right to a job. That must be the largest number of arrests in an industrial dispute at least since the mid-1920s. Until yesterday the Government had refused to give details of the offences with which those people were being charged. When I finally received the parliamentary answer, the reason became clear because in my view 80 per cent. of them were for spurious reasons. The aim was
  284
  simply to prevent the organisers of the picket action from effectively organising the strike. The 1,208 charges for breach of the peace, 806 for obstruction of a police constable and 348 for obstruction of the highway add up to more than 80 per cent. of the charges. The object was clearly to remove those people from active picket duty.
  The bail conditions imposed then sought to prevent miners from attending marches, rallies, meetings or any picketing area other than their own place of work and in some cases even their own pit. Trial dates were set months ahead for July and August to stop those workers being active in the strike. It is reminiscent of the banning orders in South Africa — an attempt to place the picket organisers under effective house arrest. The massive police presence makes it clear that the Prime Minister used her recent meeting with Botha from South Africa to gain some tips to add to the banning orders and pass laws in British industrial legislation.
  There are two kinds of law in British society. First, there are the largely self-imposed laws which we all uphold such as not running down a child on a zebra crossing or taking an axe to the next-door neighbour. Those are the kinds of laws that keep society in check and which every worker would obey. Then there are the class laws against working people which the Government sought to strengthen in 1980 and 1982 and which are sought to be administered by ex-Tory councillors now lords chief justices and enforced by a police force that has received a 119·6 per cent. pay rise in the past five years while young workers on youth training schemes have had a 50 per cent. cut in real take-home allowances in the same period.
  The second area of the Government's preparation is to starve miners and their families back to work. They are experiencing real hardship and privation in my area and others because of the Government's activities. What a contrast it is when tonight, as on every night in this place, banquets are given downstairs for 50 or 60 people, while the families of striking miners have £15 a week taken from their strike pay and the food parcels given to them by sympathetic workers are deemed against their supplementary benefit. Their holiday pay has been removed from their pay this year. That will not work. The labour movement will make sure that miners' families are not forced to return to work because of the Government's policies of starvation.
  The third area of preparation by the Government is in relation to coal stocks. Before the 1972 dispute, the then Tory Government doubled stocks at the pitheads and power stations. Between February 1981, when the south Wales miners in particular came out against closures and redundancies, and the present dispute the Government have carried out the same tactic. They have doubled the stocks at pitheads and power stations. Stocks rose to 58 million tonnes at the beginning of the overtime ban in November. Eight million tonnes were removed by the overtime ban and 24 million tonnes have been removed during the strike. There are only about 20 million tonnes of coal left.
  The Government and the Prime Minister have attempted a cover up by refusing to answer questions about coal stocks. We have heard all of the statements about how many months the miners could stay on strike. They could stay out until Christmas if they wished, as it would not make an iota of difference. I remind the Minister who will be replying to the debate that his predecessors introduced

  285
  a three-day working week in 1974, when coal stocks reached 14·7 million tonnes. Coal stocks will be at that level in only a few weeks. That is why the National Coal Board is backing off and why British Rail has been told to settle its dispute with ASLEF and the NUR. That is why the negotiations are taking place.
  The Government have tried to use oil to replace coal for the coal-fired power stations. Oil-fired power stations usually produce 7 per cent. of this country's electricity. Now they are producing 34 per cent. We have bought oil on the spot market in Amsterdam that is worth £200 million or more. That is a criminal waste of money in trying to beat the strike. Oil-fired power stations are operating far in excess of their manufacturers' specification. The repair and maintenance schedules for this summer and later will be severely hampered by the actions of the CEGB and the Government. The Government have stored up real problems in electricity generation for the coming months.
  The Government have deliberately prepared for and provoked this virtual lock-out of NUM members. The preparations for the strike are well known. Five years ago the present Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), wrote a pamphlet, commonly referred to as the report bearing his name, on how to deal with strikes and how to tackle the organised working class. The section dealing with the mine workers says:
  "Build up coal stocks, particularly at power stations; make contingency plans for the import of coal; encourage hauliers to recruit non-union drivers; introduce dual coal oil firing in all power stations; cut off the money supply to strikers and make the union finance them; establish a large, mobile squad of police to deal with picketing."
  Each of those preparations has been undertaken by the Government. Let us not hear any rubbish about the Government not preparing to tackle a strike.
  The Government transferred Mr. MacGregor from the steel industry to the coal board after he had cut 85,000 jobs. That was a preparation. His withdrawal from the negotiations is a sign that the dispute is being won. When hon. Members and workers outside call Mr. MacGregor a butcher and the angel of death—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] It is not rubbish. I used to work for Leyland. He was on the board of directors and during his tenure of office 34,000 jobs went. When losses at British Steel are added to what he hopes to get away with at the NCB, his nine-year tenure in nationalised industries will have caused the loss of 200,000 jobs in Britain. He has received £250,000 in the past eight or nine years, and when he gets out of the industry he will pick up another £2·5 million in indirect fees. That is the preparation for the dispute.
  I refer to the real costs inflicted on the country by the Government's actions. The Secretary of State for Energy said yesterday that £197 million had been added to the NCB's operating costs. That is rubbish. The true cost of the strike so far is £2,200 million. More has been spent in three months to break the NUM than the Government have spent in the past three years on investing in the industry. When one adds together the lost production, the cost of the police, the cost of oil and of stocks, and the interest charges on those stocks, it comes to over £2,000 million to be spent on breaking the union and trying to break the strike.
  286
  The strike is not just about 20 pits and 20,000 jobs. Reducing coal production to 97 million tonnes takes coal production in Britain back not five, 10 or 15 years, but to 1864. Some 120 years of the history of the coal industry will be sacrificed and a whole generation of miners will be wiped out by the Government's actions.
  Last summer, Norman Siddall, the previous ruler of the NCB, admitted that the plan over the next couple of years was to sack 65,000 miners. When Arthur Scargill said that, he was called a liar. Since 1979, the Government have closed 46 pits and sacked 40,000 people from the industry. The real aim is to prepare the way for new technology, for the introduction of new seams in areas such as Selby, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire. There will be a reorganisation of the industry. The replacement of some 25 million tonnes with new capacity is mentioned in NCB documents. That means that 70 pits have to go and nearly 100,000 jobs are at risk. To do that, the NUM must be broken.
  The Minister should add up the costs if one sacks 100,000 workers and another 85,000 jobs are lost in ancillary industries. How many hundreds or thousands of millions of pounds will it cost the country in redundancy pay, dole and supplementary benefit, lost tax and national insurance? The costs of the Government's action are horrendous.
  The next layer of plans is the privatisation of pits such as the one where my brother-in-law works, at Selby. As with oil and gas, privatisation is the Government's real target. No pit is safe. I hope that that is one of the lessons that will be transmitted to the misguided few — the "minor irritants"— in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire who continue to work while the vast majority are on strike. Their jobs and the jobs of their sons and daughters will be at risk if the NCB wins the dispute. It has admitted that in Nottinghamshire, by 1987, new technology will replace 44 per cent. of existing pit jobs. That means that more than 15,000 jobs are at risk.
  The Government have tried yet another con. They told us that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but transfers. They are trying to create a generation of industrial gypsies, moving from pit to pit as the Government decide what pit is unprofitable and should be closed. What will the Minister tell the miners of Kent when the next redundancies hit that area? The nearest pits to Kent are in France. Will the Minister buy the boats for the miners' daily travel to France?
  The Government are creating the grave diggers of their own system. They are politicising a new generation of young workers, particularly tens of thousands of young women who are fully behind the men in the mining industry. There were 58 million tonnes of coal at the pithead for power stations at the beginning of the dispute, in November last year. Those young workers can read in the papers of 50,000 pensioners dying of hypothermia during the winter, who had not enough food or fuel to keep up their body temperatures. They will realise what a crazy system capitalism is that builds up coal stocks and condemns pensioners to long and lingering deaths. That is poverty and desperation amid the production of plenty.
  The miners are supposed to be unproductive, but they have increased productivity in recent years while the Tory Government killed off 20 per cent. of industry. That killing off of a fifth of industry has meant fewer factories, less steel, fewer cars and houses, and therefore less, in capitalist terms, need for coal. Capitalism means that

  287
  workers produce too much for that system to distribute, while 5 million workers live on the dole and are denied decent living standards.
  This strike will be won. The miners won in 1972, 1974 and in 1981, and they will win in 1984. But many workers in and outside the industry—especially miners—are beginning to ask whether they must return in another three or four years to take on another Government who decide to close pits and sacrifice jobs. The answer, under a capitalist system, is yes. The Government have already turned Britain from what used to be called the workshop of the world into the warehouse of the world. The boom that we are told is happening at present—it could be more accurately called a boomlet, because there are still 4·5 million people on the dole—is disappearing, and in the next few months we shall head into another recession when the Government and their system will destroy more industrial capacity and factories, and will therefore call for less coal, steel and other goods to be produced in Britain.
  When that happens, the jobs of workers will again be under threat and they will have to struggle and fight to preserve those jobs. They will have to struggle while we have nationalised industries where workers have no say, and where instead of workers and their organisations being in the majority we have vicious capitalist bosses such as MacGregor and Edwardes running nationalised industries. Through this lock-out the Government have created a new generation of trade unionists and Socialists, who have taken this dispute from the defensive and who have begun to argue for a restructuring of the industry by shortening the working week to four days and 30 hours, by retiring miners at 55 or earlier and giving their jobs to school leavers, by public ownership of the suppliers such as Dowty, Babcock and the others, by the cancellation of the debt charges by which the Government are screwing £400 million out of the industry this year, by the public ownership of banks, and by real worker control over nationalised industries.
  The miners will go back in a few weeks' time with their heads held high, and the ramifications of this strike will lead directly to the sacking of MacGregor and to the replacement of the Prime Minister as the leader of the Tory party. I look forward to a replacement of capitalism by Socialism — to a system based not on profit, but on need, and to a system that guarantees jobs, homes, and free health, education and transport—for a Tory system cannot guarantee those things. The struggle has been immensely strengthened by bringing into industrial and political activity an entire new generation of young workers. The grave diggers of the Minister's system have been created by the folly of his Government's actions.
  12.53 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House, which is well filled with Members on both sides, and my hon. Friends are here in significant numbers, has just listened to an extraordinary oration by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I cannot claim that he was consistent as to what he wished me to answer, but as usual he made several unwarranted assertions, hyperbolic statements and accusations against the Government, my hon. Friends, the chairman of the National Coal Board and against the general activities of the day.
  It would be right to make one or two observations on some things that the hon. Gentleman has said recently. I
  288
  observe that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), newly reappointed to the Front Bench to look after coal matters, and to whom I give an genuine welcome, is sitting in silence listening to the hon. Member, and well he might.
  What the hon. Member has ignored is the essential part that the coal industry is to play in the economic development of the country. What the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to set at nought is the amount of investment and the amount of taxpayers' money that has been poured in by successive Administrations, including this one, in the support of that long eluded objective to see a profitable and effective coal industry developed in Britain.
  May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he has ignored? The investment in terms of per employee per year is £2,917 or, if he wishes, £71 per week for every man on colliery books. May I remind him of the fact, which he has ignored, that the total amount of grants that taxpayers are putting into the industry is £4,600 per employee per annum or, if he wishes, £112 per week for every man on colliery books? May I remind him of the fact, which he has ignored, that the deficit grant alone, which removes so much of the coal board's losses incurred on many of its activities, is £3,545 per employee per annum or, if he wishes, £86 per week per man on colliery books? The total, including the redundant mineworkers payments scheme, is currently per employee per annum £5,381 or, if he wishes, £131 per man per week on colliery books.
  I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for this gross intervention in the industry to which he has been alluding. It is a gross intervention by the Government and by their predecessors in seeking to support the industry about which he has been talking in such an insidiously absurd way for the last 25 minutes.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he must look rationally at the problem with which the industry is now grappling. He has ignored, for example, the fact that there are 50,000 persons or more working in the coal industry today. He has ignored the fact that the right to work is one of the most cherished rights that many persons supporting the party of which he is a member have sought to establish over the years, and the right to work has been established at significant costs in many areas of the coalfields, not just in Nottinghamshire, but in Derbyshire, in Staffordshire, in Lancashire and certainly in Warwickshire.
  The hon. Gentleman must recognise that within the coal industry there is a major dispute, and a position in which the National Union of Mineworkers, for the first time in the memory, I suspect, of the hon. Member for Midlothian, has not conducted a ballot prior to engaging in strike action. The consequence of that is that there is a major division within the National Union of Mineworkers unknown in the history of recent industrial relations in the coal industry.
  I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, when all the problems have been resolved of this immediate difficulty, the coal industry will remain happily a rational industry, led by members in the National Coal Board who have the industry's future at heart. I am certain that the vast majority of those working in the coal industry will equally be fully rational about the crucial importance of the job that they do. They recognise, in area after area of the coal industry, that it is necessary to harness change if one wants progress. They also recognise how vitally important it is to look for future investment in pits from which there can be extracted coal at prices that the public and, indeed, the industrial consumer are willing to pay. They equally

  289
  recognise that, on the average cost of industrial coal in Britain of £46 per tonne, and the world cost, which is substantially lower than that, there is a major gap to be closed. I am convinced that the vast majority of the
  290
  industry is happy to bend to the task of closing that gap to demonstrate that there is a long-term viable future for British mining and for British miners.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Treasury Officials (Industrial and Commercial Experience)
  Treasury Officials (Industrial and Commercial Experience)
THE ARTS
  National Federation of Music Societies
  National Federation of Music Societies
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Sittings of the House (Cost)
  Sittings of the House (Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles (VAT)
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles (VAT)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Retirement Benefit
  Retirement Benefit
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Motor Cyclists' Test Fees (VAT)
  Motor Cyclists' Test Fees (VAT)
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Ortoli Facility
  Ortoli Facility
  EC Budget (Rebate)
  EC Budget (Rebate)
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Intra American Development Bank
  Intra American Development Bank
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Officers (Instructions)
  Immigration Officers (Instructions)
  Criminal Offences (Incitement)
  Criminal Offences (Incitement)
  Prisons (Video Players-Recorders)
  Prisons (Video Players-Recorders)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Immigration
  Immigration
ENVIRONMENT
  Time Shares
  Time Shares
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  International Garden Festival
  International Garden Festival
  Housing Authorities
  Housing Authorities
TRANSPORT
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  M1 (Repair Programme)
  M1 (Repair Programme)
  Roads (Lighting)
  Roads (Lighting)
  Motor Cars (Insurance Write-offs)
  Motor Cars (Insurance Write-offs)
  Airports Policy (Scotland)
  Airports Policy (Scotland)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Cycle Schemes
  Cycle Schemes
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council
  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council
  Local Authority Services (Contracting Out)
  Local Authority Services (Contracting Out)
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Gaelic Language and Culture
  Gaelic Language and Culture
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fowl Pest (Cumbria)
  Fowl Pest (Cumbria)
  Cows (Export)
  Cows (Export)
  Embassies (Moscow and Paris)
  Embassies (Moscow and Paris)
  Suckler Cows Premiums
  Suckler Cows Premiums
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Special Entry Vouchers
  Special Entry Vouchers
  Embassy (Washington)
  Embassy (Washington)
  Hong Kong Delegation
  Hong Kong Delegation
  South Africa
  South Africa
Defence
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Questions
  Questions
  United States Personnel
  United States Personnel
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
ENERGY
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Nuclear Establishments
  Nuclear Establishments
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Kailuan Mining Complex
  Kailuan Mining Complex
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Telecommunications Equipment (Approval)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Approval)
  Textile Production
  Textile Production
  GATT
  GATT
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
  English Industrial Estates Corporation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Radiation Leaks (Health Responsibilities)
  Radiation Leaks (Health Responsibilities)
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Non-ambulance Transport
  Non-ambulance Transport
  Doctors (Allowances)
  Doctors (Allowances)
  NHS Staff (Premature Retirement)
  NHS Staff (Premature Retirement)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Statutory Sick Pay
  Statutory Sick Pay
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Children (Contraceptives)
  Children (Contraceptives)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  General Practitioners (Contraceptive Treatment)
  General Practitioners (Contraceptive Treatment)
  Attendance Allowance (Claim Form)
  Attendance Allowance (Claim Form)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Inter American Development Bank
  Inter American Development Bank
WALES
  A44 (Improvement)
  A44 (Improvement)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
EMPLOYMENT
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Employment Acts 1980 and 1982
  Employment Acts 1980 and 1982
  European Standing Employment Committee
  European Standing Employment Committee
  Information Technology (Retraining)
  Information Technology (Retraining)
  Special Training and Employment Measures
  Special Training and Employment Measures
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Training Courses (Technical Content)
  Training Courses (Technical Content)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Disabled Workers
  Disabled Workers
  Long-term Unemployment
  Long-term Unemployment
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Employment Service
  Employment Service
  Essential Services (Right to Strike)
  Essential Services (Right to Strike)
  Vredeling Proposals
  Vredeling Proposals
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Lincoln
  Lincoln
  Lambeth
  Lambeth
  Easington
  Easington
  EC Regional and Social Funds
  EC Regional and Social Funds
  Special Employment Programmes
  Special Employment Programmes
  Building and Construction Industry
  Building and Construction Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Employment Act 1982
  Employment Act 1982
  Training for Jobs
  Training for Jobs
  Unemployment Forecasts
  Unemployment Forecasts
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Working Week
  Working Week
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  18 to 25-year-olds
  18 to 25-year-olds

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

NHS Hospitals: Nurses' Accommodation
Baroness Vickers: 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 consideration is being given to the selling of nurses' accommodation throughout the NHS hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we are considering a Rayner scrutiny report which examined the way in which the NHS uses its large stock of accommodation for all types of staff. We plan to publish the report shortly and to consult upon it.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will be kind enough to consider turning some of these homes into flats which could be rented by nurses who want to live their individual lives after working their shifts? Also, such flats would be very convenient for them, since when they have to go home on dark nights they sometimes need protection, especially in certain areas in London.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern about people travelling home late at night in London, and especially young girls, but I think it is important to remember that only a relatively small proportion of nurses use health authority accommodation. I think that what my noble friend suggests is primarily a matter for the local health authorities, and I am sure they will note her views.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might be sensible and worthwhile to acquaint with the situation at regional level the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which looks after the interests of nurses, so that there can be a joint endeavour on what the noble Baroness has in mind, to everybody's advantage?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that will all form part of the consultation process.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has had this particular Rayner report before him now for several weeks? Why, therefore, has it not been published? I have asked the Minister questions such as this on similar occasions. When documents are prepared, why can they not be
486
published so that the House, the public, and the professions themselves can discuss the issues? May I ask the noble Lord for three assurances on the subject itself? First, will students in training not be denied accommodation in nurses' homes? Secondly, will provision be made for temporary accommodation which may be required for nurses who need to move in because of an emergency? Thirdly, will the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State not take a decision without consultation with all involved, unlike what happened with the Griffiths Report on management?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I thought that I had answered most of those questions in the first place. The report will be published, probably later this month; it is for my right honourable friend to decide precisely when, and the noble Lord will be aware of that. So far as students in training and temporary accommodation are concerned, these are all matters that will be taken into account in the consultative process.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that those nurses and trainee nurses who use this accommodation will not be forced onto the open market? Does he agree that at the present moment the cost of special accommodation for nurses is between £38 and £110 a week in central London, and that if they go onto the open market, they will have to pay upwards of £40 a week? Will the Government bear that in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, there is no question of anybody being suddenly turned out onto the streets. We shall consult on what should be the health service's policy on accommodation for staff. If it is decided to reduce the existing stock, the reduction will of course be achieved over a period of years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the need for nurses' accommodation differs very much indeed throughout the country? Is he aware that in some of our districts up in Yorkshire we rent accommodation for nurses from local authorities?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware of what the noble Baroness says about Yorkshire, but certainly it is true that the needs differ throughout the country.

Gatwick Airport: Runway Facilities
2.41 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg 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 what estimates have been made of the cost to operators at Gatwick Airport incurred as a result of delays caused by the temporary non-availability of the single runway; whether they are satisfied that these costs will not be increased by the expected development of future traffic, and whether they will give an assurance that the facilities of the proposed

487
emergency runway will be available to make the fullest contribution towards the reduction of delays and costs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, information on the costs which arise from the temporary non-availability of the single runway at Gatwick Airport is not available. However, the majority of closures are for planned maintenance, and operators are given adequate notice in these cases to make alternative arrangements so as to minimise or avoid any extra costs. Under the terms of the planning consent for the emergency, runway, on which work has now commenced, it can be used only when the single runway is non-operational. The British Airports Authority intends to make maximum use of it at such times.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether it would not be advisable to obtain a closer estimate of the cost involved? Is it not a fact that the enormous investment at Gatwick, by both the airports authority and the operators, will be absolutely stultified if that one runway is not available for periods of an hour or half an hour? In those circumstances, is it not preferable—indeed, essential—to make certain that that taxiway is developed into an alternative runway which can be more fully available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the planning consent, to which I referred, did not provide for the taxiway to be developed for use as a full runway as the noble Lord is asking. Indeed, I think that there would be considerable physical difficulties in doing that because, as the noble Lord will recall, the taxiway is quite close to the existing main runway, and in any event there are certain topographical difficulties in the area which I think would prevent a full runway being constructed for the purpose that the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I make it clear to the noble Lord that I am not asking for the taxiway to be a main alternative runway? I am asking for it to be more readily available, not simply in crude emergencies, but in order to supplement the main runway on occasions. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will look into the question of costs even more closely, because, as traffic develops, this one runway just will not be able to accommodate the 25 million passengers expected each year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of whether or not a single runway can accommodate 25 million passengers is one about which some of your Lordships have asked me on a number of occasions. The Government remain of the view that the single runway will be able to handle 25 million passengers a year by the time we reach the mid-1990s, because we expect that by then the average load of the aircraft using the runway will have significantly increased. So we remain of the view that our estimates in that particular area are appropriate. We also remain of the view that a second runway would cause very considerable
488
difficulties of a kind that I have previously described. That is why we decided that we should not proceed on that basis.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, reverting to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said about the taxiway being more readily available, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that an airline told me recently that in one year it had cost them half a million pounds for delayed landings when the main runway was in use? Secondly, may I ask him whether he recalls that on 23rd May he told the House that the taxiway—and mention is made of facilities in the Question—could not be used in adverse weather conditions, and neither could it take fully laden public transport? Therefore, does he understand that we are not impressed with the facilities that he talks about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I accept that the emergency runway which is now being constructed will not be available for use in the most adverse conditions. If the noble Baroness would like me to go into detail on that point perhaps it would be appropriate for me to write to her on it. However, the runway will be equipped with a range of lights so that it will be possible to use it at night, provided that the weather is not particularly adverse.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that under the terms of the planning consent the emergency runway can be used whenever the main runway is not operational. Are there any restrictions at all in that regard, are there any special procedures that must be gone through, or will it be automatic procedure?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the emergency runway will come into use automatically if for any reason the main runway is not available.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I greatly respect his aviation background? In the light of that background may I ask him to look again at the question of the increased size of aircraft which he says will be operating in the mid-1990s? Will he take into account the present sales of the 146, the 737/300, and the A.320, which will mean that the average size of aircraft will be nothing like the size that has been built into the calculation to which he referred?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is a question of not only the size of the aeroplane being used, but also the load factor and how many seats of a particular aeroplane are occupied. I should not wish to bore the House or the noble Lord with the detailed arithmetic involved, but perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with the particulars of the arithmetic.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in regard to the first part of my noble friend's Question, is the noble Lord aware that there are available conventional accounting techniques which enable the figure asked for by my noble friend to be determined with a fair degree of approximation? Will the noble Lord have another look into this matter, with a view to providing the House with approximate information?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, there are a number of accounting techniques which can be applied to these considerations, but they have to take into account, and make, a number of assumptions which may or may not be valid in five or 10 years' time. Therefore, I am not sure whether a broad brush calculation made now—no doubt it could be made—would be helpful to either the noble Lord or the House.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that the House would not be bored by the detail, since it is the detail which determines the substance of the answer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, but I must say that when I made those remarks I heard some appreciative groans from behind me.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, frequently information is proffered by Government Ministers in the form of a letter written to the noble Lord who has put the particular question. Since there may be a wider circle of noble Lords who are interested in the answer to the question may I ask the Minister whether he would consider it useful to have in this House a procedure whereby the information offered by a Minister could be circulated in the Official Report, rather than contained in a private document which is accessible to only one Member? Will the noble Lord undertake to see that that suggestion is considered through the usual channels?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord suggests that is a matter for the usual channels. I normally undertake to write a letter in that way when I imagine that the information is of interest only to a particular noble Lord or noble Baroness. But if, for example, the noble Lord would like me to give the information in answer to a Question for Written Answer, I should be very happy to do so.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether, provided he obtains the permission of the two persons to whom he is to address his correspondence, there is any objection to a copy of each letter being placed in the Library?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is the normal procedure, but if that is the wish of the House and of those who are to receive the letter, I should be very happy to do it.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the Minister is being good enough to write to me further about the adverse weather conditions, would he be able to have inquiries made as to the costs and the delays which are occurring to airlines because there is only this one, single runway at Gatwick, or does he think that might be too dangerous a course to pursue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it may be possible to produce some figures of that kind, but I am not sure whether they would be very reliable ones. The noble Baroness may
490
be reassured to know that last year, apart from planned closures, the runway at Gatwick was not available for only 53 minutes.

Air Transport Licensing Policy
2.50 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 whether they will give an assurance that the current process of consultation and decision-making with regard to the future regulation of civil air transport will not be finalised simply to enable an early marketing of the shares of British Airways, and whether they will consider the advantages of postponing the sale of these shares.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the review currently being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority is a thorough study of the implications of privatising British Airways for competition and the sound development of the British airline industry. The Government expect changes, if any, in air transport licensing policy arising out of the review to be decided well in advance of privatisation and there should therefore be no need to delay it on that account.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that I share the view that the present process of consultation is absolutely admirable? However, in view of the complexity of the issues involved, is it not essential that adequate time be given for the decision-making process? In particular, will he bear in mind that there is a growing feeling that the proposed sale of British Airways could well be delayed to give the potential investing public a better opportunity of assessing the significance of the recently announced quantum leap in profits?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the investing public will of course have a full opportunity to consider the merits of the proposals that are put before them when the documents are issued in due course. It is, of course, important that potential investors are aware of the sort of competitive environment in which British Airways will be operating. That will be made clear to them at the same time.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that before the privatisation of British Airways takes place, following the conclusion of the review, there will be a parliamentary debate on the issue and not just a Statement in either House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of debate on these matters would not be one for me. I feel sure, however, that what the noble Lord says will be heard by the usual channels who sit in your Lordships' House. It is perhaps worth saying that the proposal to privatise British Airways is one that has been well known to your Lordships for a long time. Indeed, it was I who had the honour some two years ago of

491
taking through your Lordships' House the Bill that made provision for this step.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how channels sit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, comfortably.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, would it not be to the great advantage of a large number of the staff of British Airways and also the conduct of foreign airline negotiations about British Airways if we could have the earliest possible privatisation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with the assertion that he makes. I believe that the privatisation of British Airways would be very much in the interests both of the staff and of the company itself.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord when he studies this matter further, also consider telling the House and the country what benefits are supposed to flow to the British taxpayer as a result of this ridiculous transaction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that now is the occasion to consider again the merits of privatisation of British Airways. They have been discussed at great length in your Lordships' House, not least during the passage of the Bill to which I have referred.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how many airlines of other countries which were in public ownership have been subsequently privatised?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not got that figure in my head. But is fair to say, I think, that a large number of major world airlines are not in public hands.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say what degree of consultation takes place, and whether this will continue, with the staff associations, which are numerous, involved in British Airways?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the staff of British Airways have, of course, been kept fully informed of the Government's plans as they have developed. It is perhaps worth adding that they will be given a chance to participate in the privatisation when the time comes.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the need to look at the published facts about the value of British Airways position. If it is a fact that a company makes special provision, writes down its assets by some 350 million in one year and then, in the following year, brings back some of those provisions and increases the value of some of its aircraft by no less than 100 million, does that not mean that there is bound to be an unfair reflection on the past efforts of the staff of British Airways as compared with the present administration?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I think that the important factor to remember is that in recent months and years, British Airways has remarkably improved its position as a major airline. I think that, when the time comes to offer shares to the public, there will be a warm welcome for them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that there cannot be anything special in allowing the staff of British Airways to participate? I would assume—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—that anyone on this island can participate in the privatisation that is going on. There is nothing special about saying that the staff can. Or was it in the Government's mind that they should not be able to? Will the converse view be considered when those trade unions and staff associations are opposed to the privatisation of what they consider to be a national rather than a private asset?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has. I think, misunderstood my earlier remark. The arrangements for the staff to which I referred will be advantageous, not just the ordinary ability to buy shares on the open market.
Lord Beswick: My Lords. is the noble Lord aware that many people will be especially pleased that he referred to the previous efforts of those responsible for British Airways, including people like Mr. Roy Watts, who has been displaced? Will he bear in mind that the figures recently published appear to accord more credit to the efforts of Saatchi and Saatchi and the accountants than the airline operators?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord underestimates the very remarkable improvement that has occurred in the fortunes of British Airways as a result not only of the efforts of previous members of the staff but particularly of the new chairman, my noble friend Lord King.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the fact that most major airlines are back in profit and have greatly improved their results, will the noble Lord say by how much British Airways has outperformed other major airlines in the same field?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, again, I have not got comparative figures at my fingertips. But the improvement that British Airways has achieved in recent years, as I have already said, has been quite remarkable. Off the top of my head, I would think that it has outstripped a good many other airlines.

The Homeless: Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to prevent the misuse of public funds by commercial landlords letting accommodation to homeless people.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the role of the supplementary benefit scheme in supporting homeless people in board and lodging accommodation is to pay sufficient benefit to enable the claimant to meet the charge for the accommodation of his or her choice, subject to a locally determined limit which ensures that payment is restricted to a reasonable level for the area concerned.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he not agree that the DHSS should give some guidance to its local offices on the standards that bed and breakfast accommodation should attain? Is there any prospect of this guidance being given? If so, will the DHSS review the results? Can the Minister also say whether there are any plans for producing a leaflet for claimants showing them what are their rights in respect of bed and breakfast accommodation? Have the DHSS any plans for not giving claimants vouchers for accommodation that they reckon to be substandard?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, responsibilities in the matter are split between local authorities on the one hand and the Department of Health and Social Security on the other. Local authorities have wide powers under the Housing Acts to require improvements in standards of board and lodging accommodation. The Department of Health and Social Security plans to remind supplementary benefit staff that they should inform the local authority of any establishment that they visit where there seems to them to be cause for concern. I note the noble Baroness's point about leaflets; but so far as the issue of vouchers is concerned, it is for the benefit claimant to find his own accommodation. If the landlord insists on the issue of a voucher before he will accept him as a resident, then a voucher will be issued whatever the standard of the accommodation.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it is true to say that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done a survey into the whole position with regard to social security? Can this matter not he looked at with more care than has been shown in the past?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that this particular matter will form part of my right honourable friend's survey.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the costs of keeping people in bed and breakfast accommodation are far higher than the revenue cost of building new homes, which is really the only economic and humane way of reducing the enormous number of homeless people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that the picture is as black as the noble Baroness points out. This Government have a record of selling council houses to those who need them, which has been a highly popular move; the noble Baroness will be well aware of that. Local authorities are beginning to build, particularly sheltered houses. Furthermore, there are a great many joint schemes, in conjunction with the DHSS, which are also beginning.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, despite his answers, the prospects under this Government of adequate housing for the homeless are being reduced quite dramatically from the point of view of accommodation and also social security payments? When are the Government going to bring in measures to reverse this trend?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I know that some landlords make excessively high charges and this is something which we must draw to the attention of the local authorities when these matters arise. But, as I said just now in answer to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, this Government have done a great deal and are continuing to develop means of improving the housing situation throughout the country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he himself touched on the vital point, and it is right and proper that he did so? What annoys many people is this. Private organisations which own sub-standard housing accommodation and let it to the very poor in point of fact are drawing social security but getting very poor people to go and fetch it for them.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what point the noble Lord makes; but, as I said, in the cases where excessive charges have been made by landlords every step that can be taken to bring it to the attention of the local authority is being taken.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that despite the responsibility which the local authorities have for inspecting the premises, it is only the DHSS, who hand out the vouchers, and the social security people who are capable of knowing if a house containing 20 rooms is housing 60 or 80 people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it does not apply just to the DHSS; it also applies to the local authorities. That is why, in answer to an earlier supplementary, I said that when the supplementary benefit officers go round and look at the accommodation they will draw to the attention of the authority standards which are not satisfactory.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister if he is aware that I have been informed that during the past two years a considerable amount has been done in helping the single homeless to find homes? Indeed, since Rowton Houses were closed many other much more suitable premises have been taken over and are now being used by local authorities and the DHSS. Is he aware of that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her helpful supplementary question.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that where unfurnished accommodation is available and the claimant has no furniture a single payment out of public funds for furniture is better than putting that claimant into furnished accommodation, which very often is bed and breakfast and is going to cost a great deal more than a single furniture payment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware of the situation with single payments; but I can say to the noble Baroness that this is a question to be decided jointly between the local authorities, who provide the houses, and the supplementary benefit authorities.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the visit of the South African Prime Minister.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Rates Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Cycle Tracks Bill will be taken.

Building Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords. I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments concerning building and buildings and related matters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Road Traffic Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Crawshaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Urban Parishes Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Dangerous Vessels Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Rates Bill
3.9 p.m
Report received
Clause 2 [Designation of authorities]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert ("before and approved by the House of Commons in the preceding financial year and on such report having been approved as aforesaid the Secretary of State shall serve").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be helpful to the House if I indicated clearly what it is that we are seeking to delete and also the significance of the words that we intend to insert. Clause 2 deals with the designtion of authorities, and as the House is already aware from the happenings at the Committee stage, this is a very significant stage in the process. Clause 2(1) states:
"The authority or authorities in whose case a maximum is to be prescribed under section 1 above for any financial year shall be designated by the Secretary of State in a report laid".
Then we delete the next two lines:
"before the House of Commons in the preceding financial year; and on laying any such report the Secretary of State shall serve".
The significance is that what we seek to do here is to indicate not merely that the reports shall be laid before the House but that they shall also be approved. The House will be aware that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, sought to persuade your Lordships that this was a sensible thing to do when he moved an amendment remarkably similar to this one. However, there is a significant difference, because in Committee we were proposing that the legislation should be laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
We took very much to heart the words of the Minister who on more than one occasion made reference to the other place. We took the view that one of the Minister's objections—and I do not know whether he is prepared to agree to this—was that the report had to be laid before and approved by' both Houses. What we are doing—and certainly this is considered reasonable by those outside the House—is probing to see whether we can make some progress in this respect. We bear in mind that there is a relationship between both Houses, and not for a moment do we want to take away any of the sovereignty of both Houses or the eminence of the other place in respect of primary legislation. We are seeking in this amendment to see whether we can make some progress in at least having the orders not merely laid, but approved by the House of Commons.
We are very concerned at our continued inability to secure from the Minister a more precise definition of the principles which are constantly being referred to. We shall be coming in later amendments to the importance of the principles, the application of the principles, the classes to which the principles can be applied and what we consider to be the remarkable flexibility which the Minister is showing at this stage as regards the extension of the use of principles in the designation order. We hope that the Minister will be

497
able to tell us that he can see a glimmer of hope in adding some more authority to the ways in which the other place will be able to discharge its functions.
When we sought to do that in Committee, the Minister in rejecting our suggestion that the report should be approved in both places, said:
"This does not mean, of course—and here we are touching on the point debated in the last amendment—that we believe the Secretary of State should be immune from parliamentary scrutiny of his actions under the legislation. But parliamentary supervision is not exercised solely through the requirement to have all Executive decisions endorsed by way of subordinate legislation …I am referring to the parliamentary Question, to the adjournment debate, to the facility which the Opposition have to bring matters before the other place, and, more recently, to the detailed scrutiny possible through the mechanism of the Select Committees. These are not negligible devices".—[Official Report, 26/4/84; col. 222.]
We would agree with the noble Minister that the procedures which he outlined and which he pointed out were available in order to have these matters raised and discussed are not negligible devices. We are seeking to make the approval of the report which designates an authority, more than merely something which can be raised in an adjournment debate, or in a parliamentary Question or discussed in a Select Committee. We believe that there is stature and status outside the parliamentary arithmetic which will govern these matters at the end of the day. We believe that any authority which is the subject of a report and which in effect is going to be designated with all that that implies is worthy of being treated as a major piece of parliamentary business.
The Bill is full of important and vital triggers. The first trigger is designation. At present the Bill lays down a very limited number of matters which the Minister will take into account when he designates. First, the authority should be spending more than £10 million. Those which are spending below £10 million are excluded. Secondly, the authority should be spending above its GRE. Thirdly, the authority's expenditure should appear to the Secretary of State:
"to be excessive having regard to general economic conditions".
"Appear", "excessive", and "general economic conditions" are all judgments by the Secretary of State and only by the Secretary of State. According to the Bill, once he decides that an authority falls within those parameters he alone will decide that it shall be designated.
On the basis of criteria 1 and 2—that is, spending above 10 million and spending above the GRE—the Corporation of the City of London is a prime candidate for rate capping. In 1983–84 it planned to spend 229.72 per cent. above GRE. In 1984–85 it is planning to spend 246.95 per cent. above GRE compared with its neighbouring borough of Hackney which is planning to spend 79.16 per cent. When the Minister has repeatedly told us about the 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. overspenders, he never brought in the Corporation of the City of London. Islington, which has been mentioned, is planning to spend at the outrageously high level of 49.86 per cent.!
What we are saying to the Minister is that when he talks about "excessive" and about general principles, he must be very careful indeed. We believe that parliamentary scrutiny should be such that it ought to be possible to satisfy everyone outside that they have had a fair crack of the whip. We know that the
498
Minister will have good arguments. In fact, I am prepared to believe that he had good grounds for initiating this legislative move in the first instance. We are not, in this amendment, arguing against the basis of the legislation. We are saying that once the Minister has decided that an authority by its own actions—and it will defend its own actions—has caused itself to be designated, then before that designation proceeds, the designation in the report ought to be subject to the approval of the House. I very much hope that the Minister will have something helpful to say to the handful of authorities that we are told are likely to be caught in the designation trap. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the reasoning behind the amendment in some detail. I agree with him that it is an important matter and I will try to respond in the same way. I certainly agree that the changes from the original amendment do make it a little better. But the problem, so far as we are concerned, is that they do not remove the fundamental objection to it. Let me try to explain why.
The amendment proposes what we think is an unnecessary and over-cumbersome procedure which would require Parliament to consider an affirmative order about detailed decisions every year, whether or not there was a desire in the other place for a debate. I am aware that there may have been some confusion about the procedures we are proposing for designating authorities under the selective scheme. That is why I think I ought properly to take a moment to make the position quite clear.
Where there is a significant difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and a selected authority about the level of its rate limit, Parliament must decide. We have provided in Clause 4 for an affirmative order procedure where the Minister and the authority cannot agree. We do not accept, however, that every step on the way to a final decision about rate levels should be subject to reference back and formal procedures in Parliament. The intervening judgments which lead up to the setting of rate limits and the various decisions which have to be taken are for the Secretary of State. Naturally, Parliament will hold him to account for what he does, as with any other legislation. But this can be done through the usual channels of accountability without requiring Parliament to take the decisions itself.
For that reason, we have not provided a formal parliamentary procedure for the approval of the designation of authorities under the selective scheme. We have thought very carefully about this one—particularly in view of the strong feelings which were expressed by your Lordships in Committee. However, after reconsidering all the issues, we have remained persuaded that the report setting out the principles for designation and the names of selected authorities should not be subject to a vote in the other place before they come into effect. Instead in Clause 2(1) we have proposed that a report be laid before the House of Commons.
We have also undertaken to send a copy of the report to every authority named in it. In this way the decisions of the Secretary of State and the basis on

499
which the decisions have been taken will be set out publicly in a formal document. I have explained before why it is appropriate for the report to be placed only before the other place, which has responsibility for questions of public finance. However, the report will, of course, also be available to read and consider for such of your Lordships as follow these matters.
When it is published it will be for the House of Commons to consider the report and to take up matters in it with Ministers in whatever way they believe to be appropriate in the circumstances. There are many ways in which Ministers are held accountable in the other place, and it is by no means the case that a formal debate required by statute is the best way. For example, Members of that place may write or bring deputations from the authorities concerned to see Ministers to explain their case. They may ask Parliamentary Questions or use an Adjournment Debate. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, with his great experience of another place, is particularly knowledgeable in these matters.
If the feeling in the other place was that there was a need for a more general debate of the principles on which the Secretary of State had acted, then that House has procedures for ensuring that that is achieved. The Environment Select Committee could determine that it would investigate the report and call for Ministers and officials to give evidence. The Opposition can always ensure a debate in the Commons through the use of one of their Supply days, or by asking the Government to make time available. As I said in Committee, if there was a genuine desire for a debate in the Commons and there was a danger that this could not otherwise be arranged, no doubt the Government, operating through the usual channels, would consider sympathetically a request for assistance.
All these ways of holding the Secretary of State to account will be available when the report designating authorities is published. But they will also be available throughout the course of the rate limitation procedures whenever the Secretry of State has been given authority to make judgments and take decisions. Of course, the Secretary of State is also accountable in the courts for any unlawful exercise of his power. At various stages it has been suggested that the Bill should provide that the Secretary of State may only use his powers reasonably. We have made it clear that this is a principle enshrined in British justice and requires no specific reference in statute. It is a further safeguard on the selective scheme.
Finally, I should like to mention those additional provisions which have been written into the face of the Bill which enhance accountability. These provisions cover the special circumstances where detailed parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. The first I have already mentioned. It is the requirement for rate limits to be approved by the other place in cases where the Secretary of State and the authority could not agree. Two other provisions relate to the fundamentals of the selective scheme rather than to detailed implementation. First, there is the requirement to put any increase in the £10 million exemption in an order before the Commons. Secondly, there is the power to
500
provide for areas where the rate or precept is not levied as a uniform rate in the pound. The Secretary of State may only make arrangements for how maxima for rates and precepts are to be calculated in these areas by putting his proposals before the other place in a statutory instrument subject to negative resolution.
These three statutory procedures, and the requirement to lay a report designating authorities before the other place, provide strong checks on the use of the Secretary of State's powers. In addition, there are the many other avenues by which the Secretary of State can be held to account in the other place. When all these are considered together, I believe that we need have no fear about the ability of Parliament to scrutinise, and to ensure that rate limitation is operated fairly.
I believe that this amendment goes too far in burdening Parliament with the details of rate limitation. For this reason I cannot advise my noble friends to accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall begin by acknowledging what the Minister has said today and at previous stages—that there is ample opportunity for an aggrieved authority to make its case by bringing deputations to the Minister or, at the derogation stage, by seeking to argue and thus convince the Minister. But in this amendment we are not concerned with seeking to convince the Minister. I am satisfied that if the Minister has taken a stand and has listened very carefully to the leaders and the chief executives of councils who come to London to argue their case, and if he still sticks to his brief (which he is entitled to do), a debate in the House will not change his mind.
The Minister may ask, "What is the point of having a debate which must be subject to the report being approved?" The purpose of the approval is to bring these matters into the drama, into the spotlight, into the centre. It may be that, from the point of view of disseminating to the public what happens here, we hold the parliamentary arena at a higher level than the Minister. Hundreds of thousands of people will be affected by this who will never hear the details of what happens in Marsham Street, who will never hear the details of what happens in Committee Room 19 or Committee Room 20 upstairs, but who will listen to a report of "Today in Parliament" or "The Week in Westminster" and who will hear their Members of Parliament and the Minister arguing about why their rates are higher or lower, or about what has caused them to be penalised or not, as the case may be.
The Minister referred to the burden on the parliamentary timetable. If the Minister seeks to relieve the parliamentary timetable of spending possibly 20 hours of parliamentary time on these suggested 12 or 15 designated authorities, that would be one way of lightening the burden. The Minister asked why we should write into the Bill the obligation that the report be approved. The Minister said that there may be no wish in the other place to take advantage of this, but that if it is written in, it must be done. I can tell the Minister that the representatives of any authority which is designated will not hesitate to use the opportunity if they are able to do so. The Minister will appreciate that, with the fluctuations in

501
parliamentary fortunes and with the legislation drawn as it is—and we shall come to other amendments which have even greater significance—we are not talking about a permanent situation; we are talking about a situation in which, in political terms, the shoe can be on the other foot whenever there is a change of political control.
On this side of the House we are disappointed that, after all the arguments, the authorities will be sent a report in a formal way. That is a big deal! When the authorities realise the anguish that will flow from the decisions, they will want their people to understand not merely that they fought the case behind closed doors, but that their representatives fought the case to the best of their ability on the Floor of Parliament. We are very dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. We do not intend to withdraw the amendment. We propose to have it negatived, and have the opportunity of bringing it forward again.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will be pleased that he is resisting this amendment, because Parliament has several functions? It is its function to produce good legislation in as much detail of the right sort as possible. But it also has the job of preserving the parliamentary system itself. I believe that, if the sort of extension suggested by the amendment is brought in, we shall overburden Parliament. Parliament will get to the point where it will not be able to do all the things statutorily put upon its shoulders. This is an example of where it is right that Members of Parliament in both Houses should do the job they were intended to do.
The noble Lord who has just expressed his disappointment about the fact that this amendment is not acceptable said that people in the various areas would like to know that these things had been examined. He rather suggested that it was more important that somebody should have a good report on "Today in Parliament" than that the Members of Parliament, whether behind closed doors or not, should be doing their job. Members of Parliament are the watchdogs who make certain that the points of view of their constituents are taken properly into account, and are not to give a good show on the radio report of what has gone on in Parliament. Because of the fact that it is on their heads to do it, they are more likely to do it effectively and at the same time not waste the time of Parliament by deliberately instigating debates which take up time merely to get a showing on the radio report of what has gone on in Parliament that day.
Those who have had some experience of the way that Parliament works know that, however eminent a Minister may be, if a Minister does something that is fundamentally wrong and ought to be criticised, it is criticised. There is the Adjournment Debate, and Question Time, and, as my noble friend said, in the last resort the courts themselves can be brought in under those sort of circumstances, and they are an adequate safeguard and a proper safeguard. But, if we make every application of every detail a statutory requirement, then the parliamentary system, as it is working today, will not be able to work.
We have to have some confidence in the people who reach the position of being Ministers of the Crown. If
502
we work on the basis that every Minister of the Crown of whatever party he may represent is a potential rogue, or somebody who wants to cover up things that ought not to be covered up, then we are criticising the system under which we live. Generally speaking I think that, with the people who are elected to Parliament and who, because of their skill, eventually come into government, the fact that the Bill lays down that they have to make this disclosure is all the safeguard that is necessary, bearing in mind all the other ways open to Parliament to see that the searchlight is put upon the matter.
I support my noble friend in resisting this amendment. The damage it could do to the system as a whole by overburdening it in the jobs that it has to do is far greater than any danger that could accrue from a full disclosure not having been made through being approved eventually by the House every year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I merely explain that the amendment is not friendless? It is brought to this House by the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. To the extent that this House will pay respect to the consultation procedure, those bodies have been consulted on what they would like to see happen. If Members on the other side reject the advice that they have been tendered, that is up to them.
So far as the use of "Today in Parliament" is concerned, I wanted to point out that, whereas we are well advised and informed on these matters and do not need to rely on such a device, there are millions of people who will understand better what happens in this place by virtue of the radio. We have had a good debate, and we shall be asking to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

South African Prime Minister's Visit
3.34 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the visit of the South African Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister on Saturday, 2nd June; The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a brief Statement about the visit of the South African Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on Saturday, 2nd June.
"We had over five hours of discussions. I was accompanied by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister of State. The meeting was a working one, and the discussions were comprehensive and candid. They covered the problems of Southern Africa as a whole, including Namibia. There was considerable discussion of the internal situation in South Africa. I made clear to Mr. Botha our desire to see peaceful solutions to all the region's problems.

503
"On Namibia, we agreed that early independence for Namibia was desirable and should be achieved as soon as possible under peaceful conditions. We also agreed that all foreign forces should be withdrawn from the countries in Southern Africa so that their peoples can settle their destinies without outside interference. The withdrawal of South African forces from Angola is an important first step in this process.
"On the internal situation in South Africa, I expressed our strongly-held views on apartheid. I told Mr. Botha of my particular concern at the practice of forced removals and raised the question of the continued detention of Mr. Nelson Mandela. Mr. Botha gave me an account of his Government's recent constitutional measures and of the appointment of a Cabinet Committee to make proposals for the political future of the black population outside the homelands.
"I believe that the South African Prime Minister now understands much more clearly where Her Majesty's Government stand on all the major issues. My talks with Mr. Botha are part of the process through which we and other Western and African countries must continue to press for the sort of changes we all want to see in Southern Africa."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. While we had doubts about the wisdom of this particular invitation, we are glad that the Prime Minister was able to raise most of the points which cause us acute concern in this country. May we assume that during the part of the discussion which dealt with the internal affairs of South Africa the Prime Minister stressed our unconditional opposition to apartheid?
We welcome what the Prime Minister has said about Namibia. Can the Leader of the House say whether any timetable has been agreed, and when free elections under United Nations' Resolution 435 will take place? The Prime Minister referred to South African troops but not. I note, to Cuban troops. Can the noble Viscount say whether the withdrawal of Cuban troops is still a sticking point?
We warmly support the Prime Minister's plea on behalf of Nelson Mandela, in regard to his long, and totally indefensible, detention. We noted what the Prime Minister has said about the homelands. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Prime Minister made representations regarding Mr. Botha's policy of uprooting black Africans from their villages, and in particular the case of the villagers who claim that their land was given to them by Kind Edward VII in 1904? As I understand it, this village is in the Eastern Transvaal. Is it not the case that the villagers have already petitioned Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister? Can the noble Viscount say whether that specific case was discussed with other equally objectionable cases? Furthermore, and finally, can the noble Viscount confirm whether the Prime Minister made plain that the African National Congress headquarters will, in fact, remain in this country?
Baroness SeearLords, we on these Benches would also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. As I think the House is aware we, too, were not happy when this invitation was issued. We should like to know whether the Government feel that the publicity which Mr. Botha is already extracting from this visit is being sufficiently countered by international publicity covering the statements made by the Prime Minister, so that the impression is not given that in fact Mr. Botha was received with less criticism than appears to have been the case from the Statement that has been made. Surely this is a matter of international publicity of considerable importance.
We are glad, since this visit did take place, that it was handled in a relatively low-key way, and that there was no impression of feting Mr. Botha when he came to this country. I should like also to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we are glad that the Prime Minister raised forcefully the questions of apartheid, of Namibia, of forced removal, and of Mr. Nelson Mandela. One wonders, listening to the Statement, how much of a meeting of minds there was and what response came from Mr. Botha, or whether the Prime Minister's protests about apartheid were met with a completely blank response. One wonders whether any of the other issues that she raised appeared to extract any concessions whatsoever or any adjustment at all of Mr. Botha's point of view, particularly the question of Namibia. That is surely one of the most outstanding political questions of the time.
One is merely told that early independence is desirable and should be achieved as soon as possible under peaceful conditions; but is there any evidence that the speeding up of the solution to the question of Namibia is likely to take place or has been helped in any way by this visit? We would agree that the visit has been successful, if there is any evidence that any change is likely to take place as a result of it.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the questions they have raised. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the Prime Minister felt that it was important that she was able to raise the various points of criticism that this country had of the regime in South Africa; that she was able to explain in person to Mr. Botha our very strong opposition to apartheid. This she most certainly did in the strongest terms.
So far as Namibia is concerned, I have to tell the noble Lord that, as I understand it, there was no clear understanding about a timetable. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it very clear that she could not accept that a settlement in Namibia should be formally linked to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, although she recognised the political necessity of dealing with this particular problem. I do not think there is any evidence that has been given to me that substantial progress was made on that matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for what he said regarding Nelson Mandela. The Prime Minister pressed Mr. Botha very hard on this point and expressed the very great concern that there was in this country. She also said that his release would be an important gesture of national reconciliation, and I

505
think that was something which should have been stressed. The Prime Minister raised the question of those people who claimed that they had their land from Edward VIIth in Kwa Ngema. She pressed that matter very strongly also.
To turn to the ANC, she made it very clear that as long as the ANC were acting within the law of this country and were pursuing their ways within the law, that was something which they were entitled to do in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also raised the question of the expressions of opinion on apartheid, and I am grateful for that. I believe that the way in which the visit was handled and the publicity attached to it—the really strong views this country had—should have got across both to Mr. Botha and indeed to a wide audience. I know there are those who do not take that view. The Government believed it was right that views should be put in a dialogue to Mr. Botha and be put strongly, as they were. The noble Baroness said she was glad it was done in a low-key manner. That was certainly the case. I think it will be seen to have been the case.
On the question of any response, I understand that Mr. Botha explained his constitutional proposals to the Prime Minister. As I understand it, she took note of those matters without accepting that they went as far as she or anyone in this country would necessarily wish; but she heard what he had to say on that particular point. Regarding speeding up the settlement of Namibia, clearly this was an important part of the efforts of all the different countries in Europe which Mr. Botha has visited. The Prime Minister did her best. We shall have to see what effect all that will have had on Mr. Botha in this particular process.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many people in this country who welcome the fact that a discussion has taken place between our right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Botha, and believe that nothing but good can come from that? Is it not in general a good thing to have discussions at the highest level with the Head of Governments with whose policies one disagrees?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. There is no doubt that the Government believe that a dialogue of this sort with people in the world with whom we disagree is right and is important. Those who seek to suggest that such a dialogue should not take place will find it very difficult when they choose between where a dialogue should take place and where it should not. That is a problem they have that we do not, because we believe such a dialogue is right. I do not think anyone in this country—or indeed in this House—would doubt that the Prime Minister would express her views with the utmost force. I understand she most certainly did, and if that is right I do not doubt (for many of us will have had a similar experience from time to time) that Mr. Botha was left in absolutely no doubt as to what she felt.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House whether the Prime Minister made any representations to Mr. Botha regarding the
506
release of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and other political prisoners? Can he say whether the confidence expressed on his side of the House that everybody agrees that this was a good visit, would be endorsed by the millions of Africans in South Africa? Can he further say in a continuation of a question which I asked before the recess whether any discussion was held about the position of the African National Congress in this country and its right to pursue its championing of the African cause just as any other emigré organisation?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sure the House will understand if I repeat to the noble Lord what I think I have already answered to other noble Lords. As he did not hear it, it is perhaps important that I should do so. On the first point, the Prime Minister expressed considerable concern at Mr. Mandela's continued detention. As I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, she pointed out to Mr. Botha that Mr. Mandela's release would be an important gesture of national reconciliation, and I am sure the noble Lord would endorse that.
As to the question of the ANC, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I also made it perfectly clear that all the people in the United Kingdom are entitled to the protection of United Kingdom law. Members of the ANC are free to engage in political activities provided that they do not break the law. That position was made perfectly clear to Mr. Botha.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say whether before the invitation was issued to Mr. Botha the Government carried out consultations with our Commonwealth partners? If not, was there not a considerable risk of damaging our relations with those partners?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give information of the particular consultations that took place before this invitation was issued. It was given on the authority of the Prime Minister and the British Government, and it was on that basis that it proceeded. I believe that it will be seen in retrospect, despite the many doubts that were expressed beforehand, that a dialogue of this sort did on this occasion have value, and I hope it will be seen to have some effect, although we cannot yet see how much.

Rates Bill
3.49 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, lines 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of each financial year by an order made by statutory instrument increase the amount specified in subsection (2)(a) above by not less than the increase (or decrease the amount specified in subsection (2)(a) above by not more than the decrease) in the sum of total expenditure (as defined by section 56(8) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980) used as the basis of expenditure guidance to local authorities between the financial year in which authorities are to be designated and the sum of total expenditure used on the basis of expenditure guidance in the previous year, calculating the resulting figure to the nearest £00,000.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to that part of Clause 2 which one can describe as the £10 million threshold. It is very advantageous to the Association of District Councils—whose president I have the honour to be—in that it exempts some 320 of the total of 333 members from the operation of this part of the Act, and for that they are grateful.
When I moved a similar amendment on this point at Committee stage, my noble friend on the Front Bench chided me with behaving like Oliver in that, having been given an exemption of such value, I was coming back for more. But I was not doing that. In moving the previous amendment (at column 245 of the first day of the Committee stage) and now in moving this one I am seeking to ensure that what has been offered does not become less with the passage of time.
My noble friend went on—I was grateful for this—to accept the principle of the amendment that I then moved. He accepted the fact that, having established the threshold and measured it in terms of £ 10 million, that measure should be kept up to date from time to time to keep pace with changes in the value of money. However, he then went on to criticise my previous amendment for using as a measure the retail price index which he thought—I see with some justification—to be unsuitable for measuring the kind of finance with which we are concerned in the Bill. He also said that my amendment, as then drafted, introduced too great a precision for the purposes for which it was required.
In the light of all that I withdrew the amendment at the time. I am now returning with a further amendment which I hope is an improvement on my previous amendment, in that it uses a measure which is appropriate for the kind of finance we are talking about. As your Lordships will see, at the end the amendment makes clear that no excessive precision is sought.
I now hope that my noble friend will see that I am not behaving like Oliver and that he will feel that my amendment is appropriate in all circumstances and he will be able to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I recognise that this amendment responds to the criticisms, which I made at the Committee stage, of the proposal routinely to increase the amount which authorities must spend in order to be eligible for selection by reference to the retail price index. We have not disguised the fact that the proposal to exclude small authorities has been based on the desire to avoid the considerable effort required to rate limit a large number of authorities whose spending does not significantly contribute to the problem of overspending. We have provided for the cut-off level to be increased and we have accepted that it would be necessary from time to time to uprate the £10 million figure.
I understand the concern which exists that there was, however, no guarantee that this uprating would take place. I am glad to say, therefore, that I can accept the principle set out in this amendment, because it provides an acceptable basis for uprating as well as reassurance for a very large number of small authorities. However, I am concerned that the drafting
508
of the amendment is not without problems. First it assumes that we shall be setting expenditure guidance for local authorities in every year. That is not an assumption I should want to make. Indeed, we have said that we hope to move eventually to a position where it will be possible to do away with targets.
Secondly, as I understand the amendment, the timing is not right. Without going into the details too widely, I am glad to say that I can, and do, accept the principle of the amendment, but not the detailed drafting. If my noble friend would be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I would undertake to come back at Third Reading with an improved version for the House to consider. I hope that this will be acceptable.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I had intended to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and support his amendment, and that would have been at slightly more length than I shall now speak. But wisely I waited to hear what the Minister had to say and since he is taking it back, he has the support of my noble friends and myself.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and in view of his acceptance of the principle and his undertaking to produce yet a further amendment, though to be drafted by the Government, I am delighted to be able to withdraw my own amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("and") to ("those") in line 1 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("authorities") to end of line.
Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
Clause 2 provides the mechanism and the language used in designating authorities. These amendments seek to ensure that the principles used to designate authorities are the same for all authorities.
At the Committee stage on 26th April the Minister said, at col. 248:
"In other words, to meet technical differences between the different classes we might need to use different principles. Different principles would ensure the same, equal treatment. I believe that this is the only circumstance in which we could use different principles without facing challenge in the courts."
From previous debates we know that when we are talking about principles that can literally mean anything. We have had arguments about whether we are talking about criteria or bases, and really it depends upon who interprets the principles as to precisely what the effect of them will be.
So far the Government have used 11 different combinations of criteria to determine the principles that will be used. We must bear in mind the small number of authorities in some of these classes. I remind the House that in Clause 2(5) the classes referred to are:
"councils of metropolitan counties;…councils of non-metropolitan counties;…councils of metropolitan districts;…

509
councils of non-metropolitan districts;…councils of inner London boroughs; and …councils of outer London boroughs."
There are only six metropolitan counties and only 12 inner London boroughs, excluding the City of London. The City of London, the GLC, and the ILEA are each in a class of one, and so special principles could apply to each individually.
We are strongly suspicious of the ability, not necessarily the intention, of a Minister, if he so wished, to use this terminology in order to be vindictive or punitive, or to treat unfairly authorities which, in our view, will already be in enough trouble with the problems they will have if they are to be subject to the procedures.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that all authorities are treated carefully. One only has to look at the principles for different classes which are needed to cope with the different mix of functions and the difference involving pay and price changes, in terms of economic conditions, to see the limitations which can apply. But there is a way out, because at col. 248 the Minister went on to say:
"There are precedents for providing for principles to apply separately to separate classes of authority. The multipliers set for block grant are a good example."
That is the example that the Minister chose to use. But the Local Government Finance Act 1982 provides that in issuing expenditure guidance targets the Secretary of State shall act in accordance with the principles applicable to all authorities. I want to put to the Minister and to the Government the point that the designation of authorities for rate limitation is of equal gravity to, or greater gravity than, the mechanisms which are used for determining the block grant. The precedent to be followed is that in the 1982 Act of principles applicable to all authorities, and not the criteria which the Minister is using. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that these amendments were considered at the end of the first day in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, withdrew them and promised to come back at a later stage—which he now does. Both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, spoke forcibly on the amendments. However, if my reading of Hansard is right, it was the nature of the principles by which local authorities would be designated which most concerned them. Although it is at the heart of the amendment, the question of whether these principles should be common to all authorities or capable of application differently to different classes of authority was, I think, secondary. I will return to that later because I ought to say a little more about the principles themselves.
I should say first of all that the various phrases we have used—"the criteria for selection", "the principles", "the basis of designation"—all amount readily to the same thing. I know that Lord Graham was concerned that these different phrases could confuse our interpretation of the meaning behind them, and so I shall stick with the word "principles". One charge which was levelled was that the "principles" used to designate authorities for rate limitation could be concocted arbitrarily to suit the
510
Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McClusky, in particular, suggested this. He did not say that it would be done but that it could be done; and has returned to the point in correspondence with me. In fact, the principles of designation cannot be plucked from the air; they must give flesh to the provision in Clause 2(2)(b) that the spending of designated authorities must,
"be excessive having regard to general economic conditions".
It is clear to me that the principles must be an expression in concrete terms of what excessive expenditure means.
My right honourable friend produced in another place a table exemplifying various principles which could have been applied to local authority expenditure in 1983–84. Each of these sets of principles included a comparison with an authority's grant-related expenditure assessment. We have said from the outset that GRE would be an important indicator. In the exemplification, the GRE principle was grouped with others—for example, percentage over target, percentage increase in current expenditure, percentage rate increase and so on. Until now we have not been able to be more specific about which principles we would use. Indeed, we have said that the principles might well vary from year to year depending on the economic circumstances against which excessive expenditure would be judged. But, as my right honourable friend has made clear in another place, we can say now that we expect comparisions and expenditure against GRE and against target to play a very important part in our selection decisions.
My Lords, I am anxious to help the House in this by explaining precisely what we mean by "principles". I hope I have dispelled the notion that the principles could be arbitrary—picking out authorities by political colour, the part of country, or whatever. But, in turning to the amendment which is before us, I should like to refer to the need for fairness in applying these principles. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, summed up this point well when he spoke in Committee of the need for "equal treatment before the law". It is certainly our intention that the expenditure of every authority should be judged fairly. Indeed, it is precisely because in some circumstances an across-the-board comparison of spending might be unfair to a particular class of authority, that we are taking the power which this amendment seeks to remove.
I do not believe that we shall need to make different comparisons between different classes of authority this year. However, it remains the case that different classes of authority perform a different mix of functions. Their costs may, in some circumstances, be affected to different extents by differences in the planned level of provision for different services. Equally, they could be affected differently by changes in pay and prices because of different ratios of manpower to running costs and different pay settlements.
There was, I think, some misunderstanding in Committee about these different pay and price indices. They are not principles by which we would designate authorities; they are facts which might justify rather higher expenditure by one type of authority than by another. As a result, it could conceivably be neccessary

511
to vary the principles between classes in order to arrive at similar treatment overall of the different classes. In other words to meet technical differences between the different classes, we might need to use different principles. Different principles would then ensure equal treatment.
I also mentioned before that there are precedents for providing for principles to apply separately to separate classes of authority. The multipliers set for block grant are the main example. A change in the discount of rateable value allowed for the block grant of London authorities would affect rate poundages, so that comparisons of rate increases over a period of years could be distorted. It would be our intention to operate, so far as possible, on generally applicable criteria. But I still cannot agree that the Secretary of State should be restricted in that way.
My Lords, I have gone to some trouble to try to clarify this point. It sounds very complex when saying it, and I shall understand if there are noble Lords who perhaps feel that it is not all that clear. What we are seeking to do here is to make quite clear that the Bill allows for what we are seeking to achieve. I take the point that the noble Lord made—that "your intentions may be honourable, but perhaps some other Minister or set of Ministers might be able so to use it as to disadvantage a particular authority or authorities". That, I understand, is the main concern in this amendment. I really do not believe that that is so, for the reasons I have given and which I shall not repeat. It is important that the principles be understood. The intention for using them in the way suggested, I think, will lead us to the conclusions that are necessary for this to be an equitable basis which all will be able to understand at the end of the day.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I must confess that the noble Lord the Minister has not allayed my anxieties in this regard. I do not have a copy of the correspondence that we have exchanged, but, as I recall it, from the examples that he was able to give me from the courts I was able to instance the normal situation in which a mother says to her child, "James, don't do that!"; James replies, "Why not?"; and mother replies, "Because I say so". Then the "because I say so" in terms of the authority in the courts is a self-justifying proposition which qualifies the name of principle. That is what the Secretary of State means in this Bill by the word "principle"—"you will do it because I say so".
The noble Lord advances the highly illogical proposition which is that sometimes the same principles can produce different results so we will apply different principles and thus produce the same results. That is not a logical proposition and it is one of which the Minister ought to be ashamed. Furthermore, the words "having regard to" have been interpreted in the courts both in England and in Scotland as meaning simply this: that a Minister who has to have regard to something must have regard to it. My Lords, I shall shortly be travelling to Heathrow. I shall have regard to the bus timetables; but I shall travel by Tube.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this has been a useful exercise. The Minister persists in saying that we need to be quite clear as to what we mean by "principle" and what the principles are. What we are saying is that there is no better way of being quite clear than by writing them into the face of the Bill. The Minister persists in allowing himself, the Secretary of State, alone, to determine the principles. Clause 2(4) says:
"The power to designate an authority shall be exercised in accordance with principles determined by the Secretary of State …".
What we are saying is that, in a matter which is of such momentous import to the authorities concerned, we ought to expect there to be more on the face of the Bill than that. The Minister has pointed out that he certainly does not intend to be punitive or to be unfair.
The Minister will of course be aware that, with regard to the authorities which have received the greatest stricture, it is from his side of the House that there have come such adjectives as "Marxist", clearly indicating what noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber have in mind when they want to be quite pointed in a general criticism of, and attack on, authorities which they believe are ones that are going to be dealt with. It is quite unfair on authorities that the impact of the legislation, which will be so detrimental and devastating, will be in accordance with what the Minister determines to be excessive and in accordance with the general economic conditions and his interpretation of them.
I believe that we have gone as far as we can. Authorities and councillors outside will have to be content to await the event so as to see whether the way in which the Bill will work turns out to be as the Minister says or as they fear. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, Amendment No. 4. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("for all authorities falling within that class") and insert ("either for all authorities falling within that class or for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under this section in the previous financial year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to link it with Amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 13: Clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out ("for all authorities falling within that class") and insert ("either for all authorities falling within that class or for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under section 2 above in the previous financial year.").
This amendment raises an identical point in relation to expenditure levels.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to allow separate criteria to be applied to the selection of authorities for rate limitation if those authorities have been selected for limitation in the previous year. The necessity for this amendment arises from the way in which we have said we wish to make selections for rate limitation.
We have always said that the purpose of the scheme will be to identify those high spending authorities which are not responding to the calls which have been made for restraint in spending. We have therefore proposed to look at authorities' expenditure in relation to their grant related expenditure assessment as the best available basis for assessing expenditure which is excessive compared to other similar authorities.
We shall also be looking for some measure of how authorities are responding to the need for economies. In the first year at least, as I have indicated, we expect to have regard to performance against expenditure targets. We are not yet in a position to say precisely how we shall set out the criteria, but in the other place my right honourable friend gave some illustrative samples of selection criteria. One of those would have selected authorities spending more than 20 per cent. over GRE and more than 2 per cent. over their target.
For the purposes of explaining this amendment I should like to refer to this example. The problem which the amendment addresses is that in the second year of the selective limitation scheme authorities which were limited in the first year would have had their expenditure effectively limited by their rate or precept limit. In general, I would expect those authorities to be constrained to spend very close to their expenditure targets. So, if it was desired to use the same selection criteria in year two as in the first year, many of the authorities previously selected might escape selection because it appeared they had met the criteria of having shown restraint in their spending. A moment's thought shows how contrary to common sense that would be.
Those authorities may well remain high spenders compared with other authorities, on the GRE test, and be capable of making substantial further economies. The expenditure target, after all, is directed only at the expenditure of a single year; and since the performance in relation to target results directly from the rate limit, it reflects no credit on the authority and says nothing about their attitude to spending in the future. There would be no sensible grounds for not selecting authorities in those circumstances.
I anticipate, of course, the criticism that, as a result of the amendment, it might be possible to continue selecting authorities even if there was no longer any reason to do so when their situation is compared with that of other local authorities. I have to say that is not our approach. We shall want to release authorities from rate limitation as soon as it is appropriate to do so. One way in which we might reach such a view would be if the authority concerned had established a spending level which no longer put it among the high spenders.
Otherwise, we should look for evidence that there had been a fundamental change in the authorities' spending behaviour. That might mean establishing criteria for selection which required previously selected authorities to have reduced their rates to levels more typical of other authorities in their class, or to have made specified reductions in manpower which would be evidence of fairly long-term expenditure reductions.
The effect of authorities' rate limits would be to compel them to spend at, or about, the expenditure
514
level set for them. We do not want to give authorities credit for that, but if authorities are able to go further and realise savings more quickly, that could be valid evidence of a change of attitude by them. In the example I used earlier, if authorities generally were to be selected for exceeding their target by 2 per cent. or more and expenditure levels would generally take selected authorities below that 2 per cent. figure, it might be appropriate to set the alternative criteria for those authorities that they should not have exceeded their targets at all.
I cannot be firm about this. We do not know how events will develop in the first year. One problem we must bear in mind is that it is often possible for authorities, by simple accounting devices, to make short-term improvements in their apparent expenditure performance. We should want to be sure that any alternative criteria did not give scope for manipulations of that kind. It may be that the evidence of more than one year might he required. But I can be firm about our intentions not to keep authorities in rate limitation longer than it is necessary so to do.
I now turn to Amendment No. 13, which is similar in origin to the previous one. It recognises that if an authority has already been selected for rate limitation, then for the purposes of further rate limitation action it is effectively in a different class from an authority which has not.
In this case we are concerned that authorities which are selected for rate limitation in more than one year will enter the later year with a history of already having made some economies. It may be that those authorities will find it more difficult to achieve further savings than will authorities selected for rate limitation for the first time. The search for economies may become harder—perhaps not immediately but later. We could of course rely on the redetermination procedures to respond to difficulties faced by authorities which have already had to make significant savings. But if this could be a more general problem, as we believe it could, it is sensible to make some provision for the matter to be dealt with so far as possible in the principles for the initial determination.
We have considered very carefully whether it would be possible to avoid making these amendments; we have concluded that we should not. The amendments provide for a genuine area of difficulty and it is proper that some provision should be made. On that basis I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this is quite a complicated and very worrying amendment. The first point I must make is that it is very late in the day for the Government to have put down amendments of this nature to a Bill which has only 19 clauses. We saw it for the first time only yesterday and its Report stage is today. It is really very difficult to deal with it at such short notice.
The Government seem more and more to be approaching the Bill in the manner of somebody who, with one lock on a door, then puts a bolt on the door, then puts on another lock and another bolt, and then a screw lock in order to get double security. It really is

515
an extension of the braces and belt principle. The substance of the amendment is extremely disturbing because, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, the Government can designate authorities only in accordance with principles. I do not think I can improve on what my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey has said about the principles as incorporated in the Bill. But these principles, such as they are, must be the same for all authorities falling within the six classes specified in Clause 2(5). Therefore separate principles may apply to the GLC, the ILEA, the City of London, and the Isles of Scilly. Thus it is possible, as the Bill is presently drafted, without this amendment, for there to be 10 different sets of principles used in determining whether or not authorities should be designated. The principles themselves, as we are all by now well aware, are not defined on the face of the Bill, and experience with the rate support grant has shown that "principles" can be a term used to encompass almost anything.
As the Bill is presently drafted the Secretary of State has a very wide discretion in selecting authorities for rate limitation. But the Government appear now not to be satisfied with the wide discretion which the Bill presently gives, and are therefore asking Parliament to approve a doubling in the number of different sets of principles to be used in designating authorities by class. This amendment says that principles should be set by class, or within each class, by whether or not the authority has been designated in the previous year. Six sets of principles by class will therefore become twelve sets of principles by class and by whether or not the authority was previously designated. Adding to those 12 sets of principles the principles to be used for the GLC and so on, the result becomes 16 different sets of principles to be used for designation.
My Lords, the mind boggles. It is really almost impossible to see how this could be worked out, apart from the main—I was going to say "principle" but I feel that that is a word that we cannot use any more, like the word "gay" in the old sense.
The Government's main argument in favour of this amendment, as I understand it, is that it would not be fair for an authority to be excluded from designation by virtue only of the previous year's designation having brought about its expenditure reductions. Therefore, different principles will be needed for those authorities which have been designated in the previous year.
The Government's argument, I submit, is flawed in several respects. First, the criterion of whether or not an authority has been designed is not the one to adopt for this purpose. Designation is only the first step in the process. It might well be that an authority had convinced a Secretary of State of the merits of its case under the redetermination procedure, or it could be that expenditure reductions had been made voluntarily. Designation per se should not give the Secretary of State any right to treat the authority differently from other authorities in a future year.
Rate limitation, the only stage at which parliamentary approval is necessary for the Government to act, should be the criterion; and it is not. There would be a stronger case for saying that if
516
the authority has reduced its expenditure by virtue of a rate limitation order then perhaps it should be subject to different principles to determine designation in the next year. Secondly, it does not seem to be a very strong argument to say that somehow a forced expenditure reduction does not count for the purposes of determination of good or bad behaviour. It still counts so far as reduced service levels are concerned.
Thirdly, one year's expenditure reductions are not likely to have changed an authority's expenditure so much that it is no longer, in the eyes of the Secretary of State—and I quote—
"excessive, having regard to general economic conditions.".
If one year's expenditure cuts can change an authority from being "excessive" to complying, then either very large expenditure reductions would have been imposed that would create massive damage upon local services or the Secretary of State would be using selective rate limitation against authorities which are only marginally overspending.
I think probably the most worrying aspect of this amendment is that it opens up the possibility of authorities being on a permanent hit-list. Designation in the first year could lead to them always being designated, no matter what their spending record, because the principles can now be set each year to ensure that that happens. I would add that it also adds to the confrontational aspect of this whole Bill.
If I may turn very briefly to Amendment No. 13, which is linked with this and, as the Minister said, is similar, in that it envisages special treatment for authorities which have been designated in the previous year, I should like to ask the Minister what factors the Government will take into account in fixing an expenditure limit. On 30th April last, at col. 338, he said this:
"Each [authority] will be asked to make similar savings—although allowances may be made for differences in the services provided by different classes of authority. It would be wrong to depart from the fairly applied principles in setting the expenditure levels.".
On the same day, this time at col. 350, he said:
"As I have said, it is also important that the expenditure level set should reflect fully the expenditure to be financed in the coming year."
There seems nothing here to justify different reductions to previously designated authorities. The Minister dealt with an earlier amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and he has taken that back and reconsidered it. I suggest, going by the timing when this was put down, that he should now think of taking back his own amendment and having another look at it. I am quite serious about this, because I really think the effects of this could be much wider and much more dangerous than perhaps the Minister himself realises.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I shall not go over the ground that the noble Baroness has so ably covered but we are really not at all happy with the Government's Amendments Nos. 4 and 13. This one, so far as I can see, would allow any authority which has been designated for ratecapping in one year to be ratecapped in the next year even though it had behaved as the Government would wish. The amendment would make it possible simply to

517
redesignate all ratecapped authorities year after year without any effort.
When we turn to the question of principles, it seems to me we are entering the realm of total chaos. The numbers so far bandied about this afternoon have been 10, 11, 12—I think somebody mentioned 16. I submit that this kind of amendment shows that the Government still have not found a workable scheme of rate limitation and are simply weaving the mesh of an all-purpose net based on a multiplicity of principles which, by definition, are not principles at all but simply expedients.
I find it quite genuinely difficult to accept the noble Lord's explanations on the matter of principles. I heard fall from his lips the extraordinary statement that.
"different principles will ensure equal treatment."
That may be acceptable in politics but I cannot conceive that any philosopher would accept it. Would J. S. Mill have accepted it? Would Kant have accepted it? It is a most extraordinary statement to fall from the lips of a Government Minister on the Front Bench. Unless some better explanation is forthcoming, we on these Benches cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would advise the noble Lord to study carefully the whole of what I said when talking about principles, because whether he considers it an extraordinary statement or not, in the context of what I said it makes very good sense and perhaps he will have a better appreciation of that when he reads the whole of what I have said. I am the first to acknowledge that it is not easy to take on board: it is not easy, and I would say that to the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness makes fair comments in what she has said. I have to fall back, as I did before, on the fact that there are still matters as regards the selection criteria and so on—call them principles if you like—that as yet are not resolved, for the reasons which have been given. We said all along that that would be so. The example which I used for illustration was only an example. When I talked of 20 per cent., 2 per cent., targets, and so on, that was only an example to illustrate a particular point. But I understand the concern.
I cannot, nor do I want to, take back this amendment but what I will do is to study carefully all that the noble Baroness has said. It is, as she very fairly put it, something which has come to her and to the House at very short notice. I think it proper that perhaps another opportunity to look closely at it should be given. I am quite happy about that. Clearly I cannot say today that I will take back the amendment, but I do acknowledge what she has said and I confirm my willingness to look to make sure that we are completely satisfied. I cannot hold this up now and I want to see that the amendment goes forward, but I will give an assurance that if, as a result of what transpires, based on what the noble Baroness has said, we should be less than completely happy about this, then at the last stage I would want to look at it again. But for the time being I must ask your Lordships to accept the amendment as it is.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, by leave, I should like to welcome the Minister's statement that if he considers
518
that an amendment is necessary he will bring one back at Third Reading. Before Third Reading, perhaps we shall be able to discuss the matter, so that if the Minister feels unable to do so I can put down an amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Expenditure levels]:
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 21, after ("expenditure") insert ("except any expenditure incurred by a designated authority on charities registered in accordance with the Charities Act 1960").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment means that voluntary organisations registered with the Charity Commission would be outside local authority rate capping. In moving the amendment, I am only too well aware that it may appear to cut across the principles which underlie the Bill: the first is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to curtail local authority expenditure, thus bringing down the rates which are a heavy burden upon so many. Secondly, the Minister repeatedly said at Second Reading that local authorities should be responsible for the allocation of their resources. Thirdly, if there were more efficient and, in some cases, less extravagant management, the Government believe that more money would be available for essential services. I believe that the amendment complies in part with these principles.
First, perhaps I may deal with expenditure. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said that the work of the voluntary sector was cost-effective. Let me take some examples. In Birmingham, there are 250 volunteers, seven full-time staff and seven part-time staff running an outstanding citizens advice bureaux service. Between 1982 and 1983 the number of inquiries increased by 60 per cent. Any local authority which either withdrew its grant or tried to do that work would find itself in financial difficulties.
Let me take a different example. Leicester City Council is likely to be rate capped. In a report on the immediate effects of reducing the council's expenditure to the Government's grant related expenditure assessment, consideration is being given,
"To [abolishing] certain miscellaneous grants aimed at providing services to the community, law centres, citizens advice bureaux, community service volunteers, and reduction of grants provided for hostels [in the city] by 50 per cent.".
Let me take another authority which is also likely to be rate capped—Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The social services committee has a good track record of working with and funding local charities—some 60 in all. Substantial cuts have already been made. For example, there has been a 10 per cent. cut in the grant to the local council for the disabled, a 9.6 per cent. cut in the grant to the local NSPCC and a 9.4 per cent. cut in the grant to the local family service unit. Further cuts to these and other organisations will threaten their very existence.
Let me turn to the Greater London area. There are, for instance, 99 citizens advice bureaux, staffed by 300

519
staff and 675 volunteers. The total number of inquiries was 1,083—a 4 per cent. increase on the previous year. The majority of funding for local bureaux comes from local authorities. There is a very real anomaly here. Following an inquiry, it was recommended that a grant of £1 million should be made by the Government to the headquarters of the Citizens Advice Bureaux. If, therefore, local authorities were to cut their grants to local CAB offices while the Government were giving a grant to the central office, there would be a disparity of approach.
I turn to choice. I suggest that not only should local authorities have a choice as to what they should do. The community—that is, the clients—should also have a choice. To take one example, the London Borough of Merton withdrew its grant to the family service unit. Some vulnerable clients seek help from local authorities while others seek help from voluntary organisations. Of the families being supported and helped by the family service unit in Merton, 12 have not sought the help of the local social services department. These are vulnerable families. Should the families break up and the children come into care, the expenditure burden on the local authority would be heavy.
Various families are dealt with by a movement called the ATD. It supports very vulnerable families who would not go to a statutory body. It is a matter of style and ethics. Who are we to say that they should not have a choice when seeking help? In some areas where there is likely to be rate capping, consideration has been given to cutting the grant to the NSPCC.
What does the amendment mean? It means that voluntary organisations can be considered for grant over and above rate capping, but a grant would be made only to those charities which are registered with the Charity Commission. As your Lordships know, the Charity Commission do not register any charity which uses its funds for political ends. I have a list of grants made by the Greater London Council to voluntary organisations. Of the 140 organisations, only two are registered with the Charity Commission. It has been said that the amendment would cut out some good and valuable voluntary organisations. The answer is that such organisations should seek to be registered with the Charity Commission.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who generously gave much of his time to me last week. He listened to the arguments with sympathy and very real understanding. When he replies I believe that he may well be prepared to take back this amendment for reconsideration. If he does so, I shall not press the amendment—at any rate, not at this stage. When my noble friend the Minister replies I am sure he will show that he is appreciative of the spendid tradition in this country of the partnership between the statutory and the voluntary sector. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first I most warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for the way in which she moved the amendment. It is an admirable refinement of an amendment which I moved in Committee. The amendment which I moved deserved to be defeated because it was drawn
520
too wide. On 30th April, in winding up roughly an hour's debate on the subject, I said:
"I can give an assurance…that at Report stage…it will be possible to bring back an amendment which will make it absolutely clear what it is that we are talking about".—[Official Report, 30/4/84; col. 367.]
This is such an amendment. I said that because there were some doubts cast. I myself mentioned (in col. 355) organisations such as the Spastics Society and MENCAP, and I might also have cited the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Dr. Barnardo's, the National Children's Home, or the Children's Society. All are service providers doing jobs on behalf of not only their own members, but also often local authorities in the communities they serve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, with her usual perception, politely said about the amendment I moved at Committee stage:
"I find it is very dangerous because it has been presented in such a charming and eloquent way"—
and I want to thank her very much for those kind words. But she went on to say—
"yet it completely conceals the hidden pitfalls which really alarm me".—[Official Report, 30/4/84; col. 361.]
She went on to speak about the GLC and grants to anti-police bodies, extremist political groups, "gays" and lesbians. I can assure the noble Baroness and the whole House that I am not a lesbian and I am not "gay". I give no particular support to any of the organisations she listed. But it was perfectly clear—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, repeated this point—that my amendment was drawn too wide. This is the great advantage of having a Committee stage and a Report stage. The present amendment is drawn as narrowly as it can be. It specifies registered charities, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, it would exclude all those organisations which worried the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to satisfy her.
The case for this amendment is an overwhelming one. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is right, and that the Minister will look most sympathetically upon it. He must know that deep anxiety is felt not only among the voluntary organisations themselves—not those concerned with "gays" and lesbians, but the others to which I have referred—but also in the community and in the local authorities which help the voluntary organisations do their work.
I have received a stack of letters and I am sure that the Minister must have done so, too. I received the latest of them only this morning. It came from the London Churches Group. I have not before referred particularly to churches. The London Churches Group represents the Baptist Church, The Church Army, the Church of England, the Jewish community, the Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, the Society of Friends, et cetera. They say how deeply worried they are by the effect that this legislation might have on the work they do. In particular they say:
"Borough councils on their own will be unable, even if they are willing, to shoulder important community responsibilities at the moment carried"—

521
that is, in this case—
"by the GLC. Our experience has shown that the boroughs have a poor record of dealing with groups such as ethnic minorities and with those in particular and desperate need, such as the homeless".
This is a simple amendment. I believe it will appeal to noble Lords and noble Baronesses in all parts of the House. It would be appalling if this Parliament were to take action which significantly weakened the magnificent work done by charitable, service-providing organisations at a community level to meet the needs of the most deprived in the community. I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment for two reasons. The first is that the first amendment, as has been mentioned, was so widely drawn. It used the phrase, "non profit-making organisations". That has now been refined down to specific bodies registered with the Charities Commission, and that is a very good qualification.
It should be made clear also that this amendment would in no way inhibit the freedom of local authorities to make their own decisions as to those organisations to which they will give their money. I would caution the charities against thinking that this provision would immediately provide them with a large volume of additional funds, because there is no way of knowing whether that will be so. But the amendment will remove the discouragement that would otherwise exist in the Rates Bill and which would almost he enough to prevent any authority from giving to a charity because of the fear that it would lose the right to its own expenditure. It is a good amendment in that sense.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I would say that though he quoted me, I do not believe that I did refer to "gays" and lesbians as he has done, several times. I thought that in my comments I did not detail the type of organisation; and today the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has explained how two bodies would have been registered charities.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the noble Baroness refers to column 362 of the Official Report for 30th April, she will find that I was quoting directly from her words.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In that case, my Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I must re-read the comments in question, but I thought that I had been less specific than that. In any event, I support this amendment as I believe it would give local authorities the option to support the charities and, through the use of charitable associations of the type which my noble friend has mentioned, to multiply the benefit of the money that is made available, in having work done by a great number of volunteers. This is in itself a very cost-effective way of operating, especially in the social services.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the principle of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—and in my case, for one particular reason. The list of proposed and actual cuts made by local
522
authorities to charitable grants had a very familiar ring. We have seen this whenever cuts have been mentioned for many years now. We have seen it on the part of departmental officials. We have seen it on the part of doctors and administrators in the health service. Above all, we have seen it from officials of local government bodies. Whenever there is any talk of cuts and any kind of squeeze is put on them, they invariably respond by recommending cuts in the most popular, sensitive and vulnerable services. As my noble friend has said, in this case they have invariably started with certain grants to charities which are performing useful work which local authorities would otherwise have to do themselves.
Because it has been so narrowly and skilfully drawn, this amendment, or something like it, could make it possible to prevent that kind of response. Otherwise, whenever any pressure is put on local authorities they will invariably, for propaganda and political purposes, go for the most sensitive and popular services, which in many cases involve charitable grants. This is perhaps the best of all reasons for protecting such grants by an amendment of this kind.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, having spent a large part of my life working with voluntary organisations, I should like to support this amendment very strongly. The amount of money saved by ratepayers through the work done by voluntary organisations must run into millions of pounds. It would be crazy for anyone to think that economies can be made by cutting down on the grants made to voluntary organisations, because the local authorities would then have to provide goodness knows how many more services to make up for the loss of those previously provided by voluntary organisations for nothing, or for very little money.
It would be most short-sighted and very unfortunate if we lost the good feeling we have in this country—more than in any other country in the world. The voluntary organisations play an enormous part in the community, in bringing people together, in making new friendships, and in creating new interests. It would be a thousand pities if that were to be interfered with, and I hope that the Minister will agree that this is one of the aspects we must stick to. It is most important that we do nothing to break down the co-operation between local authorities and voluntary organisations.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward at Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has enlarged on the most important of them and I only want to point out that this amendment would in no way restrain local authorities from looking at charities with an eagle eye and supporting those which are genuinely giving a service to the community and ensuring that they are still aided. I strongly recommend this amendment.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the degree of unanimity on this amendment is so unusual and so total that it is with great trepidation that I even ask the Minister questions. I clearly misunderstood the amendment in terms in the same way that the amendment of the

523
noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was clearly misunderstood when we discussed this matter in Committee. I am puzzled. In the arguments which I hear the sincerity is beyond question. No one in this House or in most other places would question the good work done by most of these charities most of the time, some quite outstandingly so. But, while I can understand, and share in, the sincerity of approach to this matter and the concern, for the life of me I cannot understand the logic. This is where I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would enlighten me so that I can join the unanimity and avoid even the faintest suspicion of a jarring note.
It seems to me that, if the purpose of the legislation is to control local authority expenditure, you cannot logically say that certain types of expenditure are sacrosanct. It is not impossible for charities to be profligate any more than it is impossible for anybody else to be profligate. As I thought I understood the legislation—and I stress again that I clearly do not understand it properly—the local authority is still entitled to make grants to charities if it so wishes. It can do so by cutting back in other areas of waste, which is the whole basic purpose of the legislation.
I can totally understand the argument against the legislation. It is very controversial legislation. The opposing arguments to that legislation are perfectly understandable and easily followed. But I cannot understand how one can accept the legislation and then argue this particular amendment. At the end of the day it is for local authorities to run their affairs within the legislation in such a way as to enable them to do that which is necessary by avoiding expenditure which is unnecessary. To suggest that there are certain areas which should be exempt, however good the purpose—because one comes back to the point which I made in Committee—and argue that everything which is desirable is affordable is economic nonsense. That is true of every housewife. She is perfectly aware that she cannot afford to do everything that is worth doing.
What I should like the noble Lord to do is to remove this sense of not belonging which I now suffer from in this gathering—well, I think that I have ceased belonging to part of this House for quite some time past—and to clear my mind of some of these misunderstandings so that I can be taken along the paths of righteousness and shown the truth. As I say, at the moment I understand the sincerity totally, but the logic bewilders me equally totally.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, my name appears on the amendment and I want to say just one or two words. It is very good to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, now gives the amendment her blessing. It is rather sad that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has not felt that he can join the rest of us. I do not know whether what I am going to say will help him to belong, but that is what I should like to do.
As I see it, the problem is as follows. The problem of registered charities providing valuable back-up to the social services will stem partly from this Bill and partly from the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs, because the two interact. After 1974, the then Government encouraged the voluntary services to
524
organise on a county basis. The present Government have encouraged the expansion of the voluntary sector, too. But, given the cuts in public expenditure and the rate capping proposed in this Bill, it is most unlikely that district councils will be able to take over the funding of voluntary sector bodies. The effect of the Bill as it stands will be to restrict the capacity of metropolitan district councils, for example, to take up the demands which will be made on them when and if the MCCs are abolished. There are really only two answers to this in my submission. One is to make more central Government money available to charities, and the other is the one proposed in this amendment, which is to exempt local authority contributions to registered charities from rate capping.
It is interesting to note that at a recent voluntary sector organisation conference held in the Grand Committee Room of the House of Commons on 14th March it was a Conservative MP, Mr. Lawler, who said that it was quite wrong that a local authority should be penalised for expenditure on something which eventually saves central Government money—that is the point which I am trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—for example, the taking over of the care of long-stay patients, thus enabling the closure of an old and uneconomic hospital. We all know that voluntary sector activities on behalf of local authorities in this field are of the greatest importance. There are of course many other activities which are important, too, but this is simply one instance that I give. The point that I am trying to make is that this type of expenditure, undertaken by local authorities through voluntary organisations, is very often directed at the long-term aim of saving central Government money in other departments; for example, the NHS. On those grounds and on many others, we on these Benches most certainly support this amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am sorry; I shall not keep the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for more than one moment. I am no financial expert, but surely is not the logic of the amendment just this? Local authorities will have to pay for the various services that the charitable organisations are providing. They will have to pay for most of them because most of them are essential to a civilised society, and they will have to pay a great deal more than they would be giving in the way of a grant. I think that that should surely settle the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Marsh as to the logic of the thing. If you are paying less than you would otherwise, then you are saving.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I, too, begin by saying that of course the Government support the work done by voluntary bodies. I think that we show that in a very practical way. We fund a large number of voluntary bodies to the extent of £ 150 million a year. There can be no question about it. The amount of Government funding has shown the great, not willingness, but wish that we have for them to continue to extend their activities. But it cannot in any logic be said that all voluntary organisations are equally worthy. We have to consider the kind of voluntary organisations that we are talking about. My noble friend Lady Faithfull talked of the registered charities. So far as this Bill is concerned I think that that is a category about which we have to think carefully.

525
I very much want to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It is absolutely apposite to this legislation. But the fact is that I am not without sympathy for the amendment. I say right now that I would propose to take it away and consider what we might come up with at the final stage. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Either you believe that local authorities have the right to decide what they spend their money on or you do not believe that. By taking any particular item out in any way, you are deciding at a central point the priorities for authorities' spending.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned Leicester, which says that it will have to cut by 50 per cent. its aid to certain charities. It is a very good example. In fact Leicester spent 28 per cent. over GRE and 5 per cent. over its target, so it must be in the range of possible selectees. I do not say that it is, because the final criteria have not been set, but it is that kind of authority.
By definition, the fact that we are talking of high spending authorities shows they have scope to decide, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, so properly said, on what they spend. Why when making the great case which we all make—and I join in making it—on behalf of the charities and the voluntary bodies do we have to assume that the authorities will say that the first thing they will decide to reduce is not what it costs them to operate, they will not look at anything on that, but the first thing will be that they will reduce their spending on the voluntary sector? That is what is being said. Because I know the local authorities concerned, I do not happen to believe that when the chips are down that will be their decision. I do not think it will. But I fully understand why, at this stage, they say that this is what they might very well have to do and that is a reality of it.
I think my noble friend Lady Faithfull, as always, makes a powerful case. We discussed this together in some detail. I am concerned for her concerns. She makes a case as well as anybody ever does, especially on this subject. I wanted to say what I have just said because it applies not just to this amendment but to very many others that may well come before your Lordships' House in the next month or two. The fact is that the local authorities are themselves the ones who must decide on what they spend. The fact is if we are talking about high spenders, by definition they have the most room of all. There are other authorities providing the same support for the voluntary sectors, who are not high spenders, who do manage their affairs in certain ways. If we have to go over again the opportunities that exist for some of these authorities who will have to explain why they provide certain services at a cost one, two, three or four times that of like authorities, I must say again that this is where we should be looking when we are talking about the ability to provide services, whether in relation to voluntary bodies or any other.
Having said all that, I think my noble friend makes a good case in many ways. I accept the concern. I said that I would undertake to take this away to see if we could bring back an amendment that would perhaps go, if not all the way then at any rate perhaps some of the way. I cannot make a promise, and that is the way of it, as your Lordships know. But I am certainly sufficiently impressed and I want to look at some way
526
of finding answers. However, as I sit down I say—perhaps for the third time, because at Report stage we do not stand up again and repeat ourselves—that the point I have been making about the opportunities for certain local authorities themselves is a very, very valid one indeed. I hope, if it does nothing else, it will at least have explained to some extent to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, how come we are following the two paths which do seem to meet at one point.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply. We take note of what he says. Indeed, I think I referred to the principles behind the Bill when I introduced this amendment. May I turn to what I might term our rejected and deprived peer, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I am glad he has the Minister to support him because I fear he has nobody else to do so, and as an ex-Director of Social Services I really feel I ought to offer him care.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, if I might say so to the noble Baroness, I am grateful for her concern but after the first 20 years or so one gets used to it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, yes, May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that I am, as an ex-Director of Social Services and as a member of the Conservative Party, anxious to cut back and for local authorities to keep within a reasonable expenditure. But I would like to take up a point made by my noble friend Lady Elliot: it is cost-effective to support the voluntary organisations. I think this is the point that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has missed out. It is not only financially cost-effect. We are not a completely materialistic world and there are other qualities of life and living which voluntary organisations, in partnership with local authorities, can engender in our society. We would be a poorer country if we had not got the ethics and the ways of the voluntary organisations. Good as the local authorities are, voluntary organisations are able to do things of an innovatory nature which the local authorities cannot. Obviously the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, does not wish to be accepted into care, and therefore I withdraw the offer.
My noble friend the Minister has said that he will take this away and think about it. We will consider carefully what he has to say at the next stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 21, after ("expenditure") insert ("excepting any expenditure incurred by a designated authority on the Urban Programme").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said about his reluctance that central Government should make any exemptions under this Bill, that it is really a matter for local authorities to decide on their own priorities, perhaps it might appear rather difficult for me to move this amendment at all compellingly, as it strives to make an exemption in favour of the Urban Programme. However, in extenuation of what I seek to do, I would

527
like to point out to the House and to the noble Lord that there are, of course, various areas of local authority expenditure which are already, under existing legislation, exempted from penalty. I refer to police pay and to partnership authorities and in addition to these there are activities which are funded to a very large extent by central Government and therefore may be assumed to have the approval and firm support of central Government. In these cases, the central Government contribution is usually a great deal larger than the local authority contribution, but the local authority contribution is equally vital.
In the case of the Urban Programme, as I am sure your Lordships will all be aware, this is run by the Department of the Environment and it brings central and local government, private and voluntary organisations and local people together to combat social, environmental and economic deprivation in urban areas. In the case of this scheme, the DoE contribute 75 per cent. of the costs of the Urban Programme projects and the local authorities the other 25 per cent.
Many of the inner city authorities which are likely to have their rates capped are among those which the DoE have singled out as being particularly deprived and which have made imaginative and effective use of Urban Programme funding. As the Bill stands, projects at risk include Project Full Employ in Brixton and the Play and Learn project in Sheffield; both aim at ethnic minorities and were recently praised by the DoE in their recent publication, Tackling Racial Disadvantage. Project Full Employ helps young people prepare for and find employment, while Play and Learn draws in West Indian mothers who are deterred from sending their children to established pre-school play groups. Other projects in danger are the Brent Kids' Scrap Bank and North Tyneside's Key Enterprises Workshop, which provides therapeutic employment for mentally ill people, as well as many other projects which the Government have encouraged voluntary and statutory agencies to undertake. In addition, the Urban Programme has encouraged co-operation over inner city policy. This co-operation is unlikely to continue if rate capping blocks the authorities' power to contribute.
I do not think I will go into any more detail at this stage about the Urban Programme, but I think I must really reiterate the point with which I started, which is that if we are talking about exemptions from the rate-capping provisions under this Bill, surely the prime candidates for such exemptions must be those activities and programmes the value of which is clearly already recognised by central Government and which are very largely supported by them. I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, if he would not agree that it would be a tragedy if some of these things which are really beginning to get off the ground and make some headway against the terrible problems confronted by inner cities should fall through lack of the local authority contribution. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has made an excellent case. I shall be extremely brief because he has employed all the arguments that I would have used. This initiative was
528
started nearly 20 years ago when I was deeply involved as a Minister at the Home Office. It has been supported by successive governments. If the local authority is unable to pay its 25 per cent., the project simply falls apart. As this is a project initiated by government, it would be a tragedy if that possibility was even contemplated. I therefore warmly support—my name is on the list—the amendment that has been moved.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to intervene at this moment. Obviously, the whole of this area impinges on the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Bellwin, on the last amendment. I must confess that I had some sympathy with the case that they put forward believing, as I do, wholeheartedly in the giving of as much freedom as possible to local authorities. However, on this amendment, it seems to me that the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Ennals, have a strong case for putting forward the idea that there should be a special exemption from this general principle.
I repeat that I have sympathy with the principle that the Government are putting forward. It seems to me that there are moments when Parliament is entitled to say that there is a whole area of expenditure that is the province of local government, that it may not spend more than a certain amount but within that amount it has freedom to choose how the money is spent—or not necessarily complete freedom but very large freedom. That is the case, I take it, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Bellwin and Lord Marsh. It seems to me, however, that Parliament also has the right to say that there are certain specific areas of activity which should not be liable to this, which fall outside the area that we hand over to local government and which we keep in an area that is joint local government-central government. It is therefore subject to a completely different set of rules.
I suggest that the immense priorities that are involved in the urban programme and the need to relieve the poverty and the growing deterioration of our inner cities fall into that category. If the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was intending—I do not imply that he necessarily was—to produce the same arguments for this amendment as for the last, I do not think that it will do. This is a different case and a much more powerful one. It is a case that the Government should accept.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is a different case. I do not agree that it is a more powerful one—quite the opposite. I happen to know a great deal about the urban programme. It is one of my departmental functions. I respectfully suggest that I have been more involved in the past five years with individual schemes of the voluntary sector than most people one might meet walking around the streets, if I may put it that way. I had anticipated that once I had indicated a willingness to consider further the concerns of my noble friend Lady Faithfull about support for registered charities that I should immediately be pressed to look at other cases. This is one of four areas due for discussion on amendments today. One we have dealt with. Another is MENCAP, which is an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord

529
Ennals. There is the amendment now before the House dealing with the urban programme. Another refers to the probation service.
I say here and now, although not to pre-empt any discussion that might take place, that in the case of MENCAP, which is also a registered charity, I shall take exactly the same approach as I did to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, comes to the amendment, he will know that he does not have to press the case very hard because that is what I propose to do.
However, in the case of the urban programme, and also the amendment that pertains to the probation service, it is my intention, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, rightly presumes, to fall back upon the arguments that I used previously. I consider that argument a very fundamental one. The noble Lord will have recognised I hope the fervour with which I made my case. I believe passionately that in all this the priority of spending must be the local authority priority especially in this case when, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, fairly stated, we are talking of a 25 per cent. contribution. Government put up 75 per cent. of the cost; the local authority 25 per cent. only.
I simply do not believe that, having worked so closely over the past five years with almost every authority within the urban programme to which this percentage pertains, they will decide that this is not a priority for them and that they will say that they are unwilling. I remind your Lordships that it is only those authorities that come to be selected. It is not all authorities. It will not be the case that all the authorities that receive funds under the urban programme are those which will necessarily be selected. Far from it—very far from it, come to that.
At the end of the day, they have to decide what is their priority. They have to decide whether there are not ways in which they can find resources by doing things another way. Are we really saying, my Lords, that these authorities, the high spenders, have no possibility of doing what others can do, that they will be so wicked as to say, "We will show them by cutting the deserving voluntary bodies to whom we only pay 25 per cent. rather than that we will look to see why we cannot do things like other people". At least, that is the case for those affected by the amendment. It is a very sad reflection on the opinion that some may have of local authorities. It is not mine. I am still satisfied that, at the end of the day, they will do it that way.
However, it would defeat the whole object of the exercise and the whole object of what we are seeking to do if we were to specify a series of exemptions for local authorities. For us to decide here the priorities for them would be quite wrong. I cannot accept the amendment. I shall accept that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the reason I have given, to the extent that I shall want to take it away and see what I can come back with, hoping that it will be satisfactory. For the others, it would be wrong. It breaks a fundamental lying behind the whole Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Attlee, E.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bernstein, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blyton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCluskey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mayhew, L.

Caradon, L.

Milford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Northfield, L.

Chitnis, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Raglan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Diamond, L.

Rhodes, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Foot, L.

Stamp, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hale, L.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hanworth, V.

Walston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Willis, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hunt, L.

Jacobson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jacques, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Chelwood, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cockfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Avon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bathurst, E.

Cox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Daventry, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V.

Broxbourne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Caccia, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Digby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Eccles, V.

Chelmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

531

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Ferrier, L

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Glanusk, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Grantchester, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Porritt, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Portland, D.

Gridley, L.

Radnor, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Renwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richardson, L.

Hanson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hayter, L.

Rodney, L.

Hemphill, L.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hertford, M.

Saint Brides, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holderness, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Ingrow, L.

Sandys, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sempill, Ly.

Kintore, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Somers, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strathspey, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teynham, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Tranmire, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Vaizey, L.

Marsh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Vickers, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Merrivale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mersey, V.

Wise, L.

Milverton, L.

Wynford, L.

Molson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 21, after ("expenditure") insert ("excepting any expenditure incurred by a designated authority on the Probation Service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has the same general sense and purpose as the two previous amendments and it occurs at the same point in the Bill. Its purpose is to make an exception—I should like to have the attention of the Minister—to the general effect of rate capping on certain vital services. I propose to deploy the arguments in support of this amendment, notwithstanding the logical spanner handed to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and wielded by the Minister with such passion that he went some way to pre-empt this amendment. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, I take mild exception to that. Under those circumstances it is difficult to press on. I can only say that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beaumont for producing what I thought was a very telling argument. The voting on the last amendment gives me some cause for encouragement.
Noble Lords will have noticed that this amendment is not only in my name;it has support and sponsorship from all quarters of your Lordships' House. It relates specifically to the vital role of the probation service in our criminal justice system and the provision of social services which are linked with, and essential to, its tasks within that system. It is our contention that its work must not be restricted by its being required to bear the penalty of rate capping imposed on the expenditure of a local authority designated under the terms of this Bill.
Perhaps I should explain to those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the funding of the probation service that the expenditure is met in two parts, with 20 per cent. being met by the local authority and the remaining 80 per cent. coming from central Government under the rate support grant settlement, with the exception of certain items which are funded 100 per cent. by central government. One example is the cost of seconded probation officers in our prisons, and another example is probation hostels.
If the probation service is not specifically excluded from the consequences of rate capping, it can be taken as virtually certain that their estimates will suffer a share of the cuts made in a designated local authority estimate—indeed, county treasurers will insist upon it—during the negotiations preceding approval by the local area committee. I have very good reason to be aware of the stringencies imposed upon several probation services at the present time, with which I make no quarrel. But the addition of rate capping could make the situation in those designated authorities very serious indeed.
The responsibilities of the probation service have been considerably increased following the Criminal Justice Act. The Home Secretary—and I should like to stress the part of the Home Secretary in this argument—has emphasised the importance of the service in avoiding resort to custodial measures wherever possible. He has recently defined the objectives and priorities for the service and announced a 3 per cent. growth in staffing during this financial year to meet these commitments which include supervision of very many more offenders in the community following his decision to lower the threshold for parole. Your Lordships will remember that we had a recent debate on that subject. My forecast is that it will be the resources to meet those commitments which will be denied or severely restricted by rate capping. I am referring to premises; to transport and fuel; to equipment of very many different kinds for day centers; to community service orders; to intermediate treatment schemes, and lastly—but perhaps not least—statutory support for volunteers engaged in supporting the probation service in carrying out its tasks.
It simply does not make sense to make it possible for a designated local authority to shortchange its probation service to the detriment of law and order, and all the less so because those areas upon which rate capping is likely to be imposed by designation are those very areas of greatest social need where the problems of delinquency and crime loom largest. They are the very areas where the work of the probation service is of the most vital importance, the very areas where volunteer support for the service and making

533
provision for the cost of that support is most needed for intermediate treatment schemes, for example, with which I have a great deal to do. That support would be the very first casualty of cuts in probation budgets in designated authority areas. That is just one example of the social harm that would be inflicted if this amendment were not agreed to.
It is worth remembering that this service is part of our law and order system. Unlike the police service, its finances are not safeguarded—those of the police service are safeguarded under the Police Act 1964 and the Local Government Finance Act 1982—and it is very important that they should be safeguarded. We must remember that the central government contribution is 80 per cent. in most cases and 100 per cent. in others and that should not be touched or affected in working out agreed local budgets by county treasurers and local finance and general purposes committees. I cannot help feeling that this amendment is of a different order—if my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock will forgive me for saying so—from even that which concerns the urban programme. Law and order is not a local matter; it is a matter of national concern, and for that reason I hope that the amendment will command support in all quarters of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment but in a slightly different way from that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, Managerially, the funding of the probation service is, to put it mildly, a muddle. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, the local authority pays 20 per cent. and the Home Office pays 80 per cent. Meanwhile, the local authority has no jurisdiction—and rightly so—over the probation service. In many areas there is a local authority representative on the magistrates' committee, which is the committee which controls, helps and guides the probation officers. Therefore, there is no sense of accountability from the point of view of the local authority to the probation service.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I very much fear that, as there is no accountability and as managerially the local authority has no say in the way in which the probation service is run, it is possible that it may well cut that 20 per cent. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong for the probation service to be cut. But let us suppose for argument's sake that the local authority does cut by 20 per cent. What will the Home Office do? Will the Home Office agree—in fact it has no option but to agree—if the local authority cuts by 20 per cent.? What will the Home Office do if the probation service is not able to carry out the duties which were laid down and brought out by the Home Office only a very short time ago? Will not the Home Office be in a very serious dilemma?
I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who we all respect and know as a former head of the Home Office. I know that were he here he would be speaking along the same lines as I am speaking, because he feels that managerially the probation service needs to be looked at, and looked at again. I would ask my noble friend the Minister whether it is not possible to take this opportunity to put the probation service on a proper footing such as that of the police, not necessarily by the 20 per cent.
534
being paid by the local authority, but by the Home Office. I end by asking—as I did earlier—what would the Home Office do if the local authorities cut by 20 per cent. and the probation service was unable to meet its responsibilities as laid down in the paper which the Home Office has just issued?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is a common thread running through this and one or two previous amendments, and it is a rather curious thread in view of the general attitude of noble Lords opposite as defenders and supporters of local government. It is the clear implication of all these amendments that a local authority, if it is ratecapped, will immediately concentrate the reduction of its expenditure on these particularly worthwhile areas.
It may be that there are local authorities which, in a wholly cynical way, would decide to continue their many extravagances. Indeed, there is hardly a local authority in the country which does not have extravagances that it could well cut and should cut. But to the suggestion that these local authorities would prefer, as a matter of deliberate policy, to cut the worthy objects mentioned in these amendments, I can only say that if that view of local government mentality is right, it knocks a good deal of the glamour off the appeal to protect local democracy. I hope and believe it also means that local authorities who behave like that will be out on their neck after the next local government elections, because it would be outrageous behaviour and behaviour which I do not think the electors would be prepared to support.
Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that if we move—and I think that we are bound to do so—under this Bill to control local government expenditure, then to take out of the area that is controlled various worthy causes in the fear (and it is no more than the fear) that local authorities, or some of them, will act so irresponsibly as to cause them to cut this rather than their other manifold expenditures, would seem to indicate that we are conveying from this House a very severe stricture and a very severe criticism on the whole operation of local government in this country. In other words, these amendments suggest a lack of confidence in local authorities and a lack of confidence in their desire to do the right thing. Noble Lords who take that view may turn out to be right, but I think we should allow this matter to be put to the test. I do not go along with my noble friend Lady Faithfull in the belief that every penny spent on the probation service is sacred. I am sure that there could be some economies there, too.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I sympathise with the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that he does not want to interfere with local government decisions as to what they should spend their money on. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just referred to several worthy objects. That may be so, but surely there is a difference here. The probation service represents the law of the land and surely that is something that overrides local borders altogether. I should have said that in this particular instance there is something that local government opinions or decisions should not be allowed to influence. I hope that the Government will decide to accept the amendment.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will make amends for making a decision in respect of this amendment before he had heard the arguments. I believe that the best way to do that—and I say this with great kindness—would be for him to take back this amendment, as he has taken back Amendment No. 7, and have another look at it. It is quite clear that anyone who supports this amendment to the point of saying that the probation service must suffer along with other organisations clearly does not know the structure of the probation service and the contribution that it is making to the people of this country.
We have a Home Secretary who, in his statement of priorities and objectives, has made it perfectly clear what he wants to see the probation service do. The noble Baroness knows that local authorities will be tempted; she said that as they had no authority, they could well cut their contribution to the probation service by the whole of the 20 per cent. that they give, and some of us know that there are local authorities which will do so. It is no good we, as a society, grumbling, moaning and complaining about the crimes being committed by young people in the community unless we provide this service to help them overcome their anti-social behaviour.
My noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned community service orders. If ever anything has been successful in the treatment of young delinquents it has been the community service order. These young delinquents could well suffer—and the noble Lord the Minister knows that this is right—if fewer community service orders are made. They are the one thing that stands out as a success. My noble friend Lord Hunt has said all that needs to be said, and I shall not take up any more time other than to ask the Minister to take back this amendment and see whether the Home Office would welcome this happening to the probation service. I do not think it would for one moment. The Home Office is much more likely to say that such expenditure ought to be exempt in view of the fact that local authorities contribute only 20 per cent. as it is.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, first, I ought to put one or two matters straight; but before doing so, I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he objected to my having referred to this amendment and enveloping it with the others. I certainly apologise. I think that everyone would agree that the four amendments cover the same general ground. My enthusiasm carried me away. Certainly, the noble Lord's point is valid and I accept it, and I apologise unreservedly to him.
However, here we are talking of a service, and there there is no question about its desirability. Until I came to your Lordships' House I was an active magistrate for 15 years, so I know better than most the value of the probation service. There is no question at all but that the Government are whole-heartedly in favour of the work that it does, and they understand what it does. There is no argument at all about that. In many ways, we have shown firm evidence of our support for the service, and we stand by that. But, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull reminded us, the Home Office
536
provides 80 per cent. of the cost of running the probation service. So we are talking here of 20 per cent. which the local authority provides. All else apart, it means that for every ₣1 which a local authority would want to save, it would have to cut ₣5. If it decided that this service was such a low priority that it would do away with it rather than anything else, it would have to find ₣5 for every ₣1 that it wanted to save. However, it goes further than that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a very simple question. Let us suppose that a local authority decided that it would not pay the 20 per cent. Would the Home Office pay 100 per cent., or would it allow a local authority to do without the probation service altogether?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is the very point to which I was about to come. This is a matter which is very much misunderstood. The fact is that in this case a local authority cannot unilaterally decide to cut the probation service budget. It cannot do that. The budget is a matter for the local authority to agree with the probation committee, which is a statutory committee of magistrates, and the authority may only appeal to the Home Secretary if it is then dissatisfied with the decision. This is one particular area that falls almost outside all that we are talking about. It is only inside it to the extent of 20 per cent.; but, as I have been reminded, it is a fact that a local authority cannot act unilaterally in that way, even as regards the 20 per cent. of spending. I wonder whether your Lordships know that that is so, because all else apart it is very relevant.
I return to my earlier point of the degree of central intervention that it is felt proper to make. It is in no way to do with the desirability of this service, which we wholeheartedly support. The fact is that central government do not want to be entangled even deeper in local affairs. We think that the results of rate limitation will not be the kind of cuts set out here, but the saving of the cost of operating by this small number of from 12 to 20 authorities throughout the whole of the country. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that they would tend to be those authorities where the probation service is most active; but it is a small number of authorities. I do not think that we need this amendment to protect the probation service—not least because of the points I have made, especially about the practical way in which it works and in which its function is directed through the magistrates' courts.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, briefly, I should like to ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter, bearing in mind the probation services which are being run by the metropolitan counties. I have great knowledge of the West Midlands, where the probation service is now a West Midlands county service. There is grave concern not only that rate capping will apply to the probation services but, with the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the services will have another serious concern. We cannot do anything about that through the ballot box, with all due respect to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because we know that we shall have a paving Bill soon

537
which will do away with a vote regarding the metropolitan counties. If the Minister is not accepting the amendment, I would ask him to consider the serious concern that is felt in the metropolitan counties regarding the probation services.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House—and we must remind ourselves that we are on Report stage—in fact that will not need to be a concern. We shall come to that when we debate the paving Bill, but the same funds and grants which would at present go to the metropolitan counties for the provisions of services at that time will go to the district authorities, who will then have the same ability to decide whether that is what they want to decide as a priority. But I would come back in the case of the probation service to the point I made a moment ago, that in this one particular function the authority is not entirely as free as some might think it ought to be.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, while the authority is not free, in practice it has a great deal of influence. When the local authority has to economise, it circulates the spending committees and tells them they have to economise. Since the probation committee is a spending committee it would come under that pressure. What we are trying to do is to take it away from that pressure for the reasons which have been given.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, we have had a useful debate on this amendment, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. I should like to preface any brief remarks that I have to make by thanking the Minister for his fulsome apology, which I gratefully accept. It must have been that logical spanner which it must have been tempting to wield to bash amendments in all directions, past and present.
It is clear from the tenor of the interventions made that there is a lot of support for this amendment. I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He includes, embraces, this amendment concerning the probation service with "other worthy causes". I think that that is the understatement of the century. This is an essential element in our law and order system in which the Home Secretary has a vitally responsible role to play, which he does by laying down the priorities and by contributing largely from the Home Office to the costs of that service; in some cases 100 per cent. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for making that point for me, but I make it again.
I agree with my noble friend opposite—if I may call her so—Lady Faithfull, that the funding of the service is illogical and in that sense in a muddle. Of course it perhaps does not strictly affect this amendment. I should like to comment on the Minister's reference to the appeal that is open to the probation committee—composed, as he says, of magistrates, an independent committee—to the Home Secretary if they cannot get agreement on the budget drawn up between the committee and the finance committee of the local authority.
I should like the Minister to tell me, if he can, of any single instance within the span of this and the last Government where such an appeal has been upheld by the Home Secretary. I believe there to be no such
538
instance. It is almost axiomatic that an appeal, in the circumstances of present financial stringency, for the probation committee's budget to be larger than the local finance committee wishes would undoubtedly be turned down by the Home Secretary. Therefore, I have no confidence in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggests that from this side there is lack of confidence in the discretionary good sense of local authorities. I would rather say that our concern in this amendment stems from our deep concern about law and order. That is the whole point of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me? If the noble Lord's concern stems from a deep concern about law and order, is he saying that he has no confidence that the local authorities concerned would have a similar concern?
Lord Hunt: My Lords, under severe pressure, as has been said for me, they may well make cuts which are detrimental to law and order in areas of great social need, which has to do with the background of the rate-capping designation. I think there is nothing more for me to do—and I have a duty to do it—except divide the House on this amendment.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fitt, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Foot, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Attlee, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Auckland, L.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Banks, L.

Grimond, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blyton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hooson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Caradon, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt, L. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, Bp.

Jacobson, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Jacques, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Collison, L.

Kagan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B.

Kinross, Ly.

De Freyne, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Loudoun, C.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Faithfull, B.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

539

Milford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Molloy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mulley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Raglan, L.

Walston, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rhodes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, Bp.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Willis, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winstanley, L.

Serota, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Stallard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bathurst, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bellwin, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Bestead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bolton, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Caccia, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Middleton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Daventry, V.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Radnor, E.

De La Warr, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Richardson, L.

Eccles, V.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrier, L.

Romney, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stamp, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hanson, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trenchard, V.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaizey, L.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Ingrow, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kintore, E.

Windlesham, 1.

Lane-Fox, B.

Wise, l.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 25, after ("State") insert ("and embodied in an order made by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 substantially returns to the issues we had earlier concerning the new attempt to obtain some kind of parliamentary approval in respect of the orders. At Committee stage the series of amendments were related to approval in both Houses. This is another attempt concerning approval which is being sought for only the House of Commons. The Minister has been at pains more than once, and in many of the debates, to indicate the principles that the Government have in mind, and yet has refused to have them written on the face of the Bill. We are still puzzled as to why the Minister, having used certain words about having confidence in local government, is unwilling to have that tested on the floor of the Commons whereby, quite clearly, with parliamentary arithmetic being what it is, there is little danger of the Government of the day having their will overturned: but there would be the opportunity of having these matters debated, if not at length because that is a question of negotiation. I very much hope that the Minister may have some kind words to say concerning this.
The Minister has more than once talked in terms of delay or the difficulty and the burdensome nature of these amendments in another place. I simply want to say to the Minister that it is much better to get it right than to get it quickly. Even if we are talking in terms of 10 or 12 authorities, a maximum of perhaps 20 hours of parliamentary time, we think that that is a small price in order to justify these matters outside the House. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to Amendment No. 42 which was negatived in Committee. The only change that has been made is that the amendment no longer requires the approval of this House to the principles on which expenditure levels are set but only the approval of the other place. It would have been objectionable to involve this House in matters which are the privilege of another place, but that was not the main ground on which I opposed the earlier amendment in Committee. There were other reasons. One was practical; the other a matter of principle.
I made a fairly long statement on an earlier amendment about the desirability of involving Parliament in the many decisions leading up to the final process of rate limitation, and I do not want to detain your Lordships with a repetition of that statement. The essence of it was that it is wrong to provide for detailed statutory scrutiny of these decisions. The Secretary of State must be held to account in the usual way for what he does.
I believe it would be particularly inappropriate to require the other place to become involved at this

541
stage. We are proposing that authorities should have their expenditure levels determined according to general principles. The principles will have been chosen on an objective basis, and in our view the right time for Parliament to be involved in the process is when there is disagreement over the rate limit proposed to be set.
What is more, the expenditure levels will not be the last word. The amendment asks for parliamentary endorsement of them. But the expenditure levels will be open to discussion with authorities through the derogation procedure. They could be changed by agreement between the Secretary of State and the local authority concerned. Only after this stage comes the calculation of a rate limit. If that is not agreed it will then have to come to Parliament. That is the right stage for the other place to consider an order.
If I may, I turn to practicality—and may I remind your Lordships of the severe timetable problem? Selection of authorities and thereafter the determination of expenditure levels will depend crucially on the budgets for the relevant rate limitation year. My department does not receive these till May, and they have to be checked. The selection process itself is bound to take a little time. But it is very important that authorities should know of their selection and proposed expenditure level before the holiday season if the derogation procedure is to have sufficient time to allow for it. To impose a need for a parliamentary debate would cause timing difficulties, giving the local authorities less time than we should like for them to make their case. I do not believe this amendment is justified and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am far from satisfied because the Minister again pleads shortage of time. The timetable is made by the Minister. He points out quite rightly that in the earlier part of the year there are certain deadlines to be met, but frankly I believe that the timetable is not one that cannot be adapted. The Minister also makes great play about the time-honoured way in which the Secretary of State has always had powers of this kind. There have previously been no powers of this kind. We are treading new ground in respect of the sovereignty of Parliament over local government. I am not arguing about the order or the hierarchy or, ultimately, who has the right to lay down that local government, if not an instrument of Parliament, is certainly inferior when the parliamentary process is superior in respect of many of these matters. When the Minister and the Government are breaking new ground they should be prepared to consider a new device. We are far from satisfied. We shall consult others outside, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 25, after ("State") insert ("which shall include a Statement exempting from calculation any expenditure on social services to those groups which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services shall define from time to time as priority groups, but which shall include people with mental disorder, as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and elderly people over 75").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it would be for the benefit of the House if I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 19:
Amendment No. 15: Page 4, line 10, after ("requirements") insert ("including the expenditure on priority groups as set out in subsection (9) below.").
Amendment No. 19: Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
(" (9) The Secretary of State shall exempt from calculations all expenditure by a local authority on social services to the priority groups, including services provided by registered charities as its agents. The local authority shall raise the rate as agreed with the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above and in addition a rate at the local authority's own discretion to cover its expenditure on the priority groups.").
These amendments go together. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for having said in advance that he would take this amendment away and see whether at Third Reading he could come up with something which embodied the principle, even though the words were different. Therefore, that means that I do not need to make a speech. I sense that if I were to make a speech it is always possible that I might say something with which he disagreed. Therefore, I shall say nothing with which he can disagree, except to make one simple request.
He has said that he will bring back something which deals with the problems of people with mental disorders and elderly people over the age of 75. If he were prepared to consult me, I should be delighted to have the opportunity of an exchange with him so that we do not need to have any argument when we reach Third Reading. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the news that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, had to give us. On the same grounds I will say extremely little, although there is one point I should like to make seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Care in the community, which is the real objective of this series of amendments, is a policy which has been promoted by successive Governments, as we very well know, since 1959. The priority groups mentioned in this group of amendments are those chosen for this purpose and singled out in the Care in the Community document of 1981. They are the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly. The document is well known. The objective is praiseworthy. I think we all agree with it and it was originally thought that there would be some overall savings. This was one of the objectives.
In the long run this is likely to be the case, but what is increasingly emerging in this transfer from the old long stay hospitals back to the community is that, in the short run and before the old hospitals can be fully closed and while new community facilities are being built or converted, in the world outside almost inevitably there will be an increase in cost. This is something that we have to face: to get this more humanitarian, more acceptable provision for these people off the ground and to make long-term savings in the old National Health Service stock there is bound to be some increase in costs in the intervening period. It is not only I who make that point but the National Association of Health Authorities has been into the matter carefully and has made it also.

543
Joint finance has helped and that is why we proposed at Committee a string of amendments exempting joint finance arrangements. The Government did not like that, but in 1983 the health and social services and social security adjudications legislation eased the joint finance conditions by extending the tapers and by admitting voluntary organisations to the joint consultative committees. All that was fine; it was a progressive step in itself in that Act, but all this will be lost, it will be useless, if local authorities are reluctant to come forward for fear of rate capping when the tapering period is over. Voluntary organisations will be unable to come forward if they have to go out of business.
That is the essence of the case. The Government themselves have backed this policy which has support in all parts of the country and in all parts of your Lordships' House. It is simply a question of trying to reconcile two different arms or strands of the Govenment's policy. On the one hand, the Government want to go ahead with care in the community, and on the other hand certain byproducts of this Bill are likely to inhibit this development in a way which I am sure the Government do not want. This is the basis of our case in these amendments and I was delighted to hear a hint from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the noble Lord. Lord Bellwin, may have some good news for us.
Lord Bellwin: Yes, my Lords, I said earlier what we proposed about this amendment and the one which my noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned. In making the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, does, I have to say that it is not so much for this amendment as for the underlying theology of what we are talking about that I still believe firmly that the opportunities that will exist for authorities who will be selected by definition will be greater than for other authorities, to enable them not to have to say that they cannot afford to spend money on some of these so worthwile functions which in no way do I belittle. Quite the contrary; I help to work within them so I would hardly do that.
But they will have to make decisions about what they really want to do. If we succeed in that we shall have taken everyone a long way down the road and we do not have to lose good services or any part of them. Indeed, I want them to expand more if the need is more. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has just made.
I, too, feel that I have to restate the principles; but having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, like my noble friend Lady Faithfull, knows that I want to take this back to consider it and have some further thought. I cannot make a commitment for that is not how it works, but we are seriously willing to consider this for the registered charities. Your Lordships will have to see what we come back with. I will certainly talk to the noble Lord about it beforehand and to my noble friend as well. But a commitment I cannot make. We are certainly sympathetic and that is why we want to deal with it in the way we are suggesting.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would consider this possible suggestion in
544
relation to this amendment? This is an amendment with two prongs: those suffering from mental disorder as statutorily defined, and elderly people over the age of 75. These two categories are very different in many respects. Mental disorder is something which makes those who suffer from it a uniquely vulnerable section of the community. If my noble friend is not able to give effect to the whole of a suggestion such as this, he might consider severing it and simply confining the directions which he is asked to give in respect of priority groups to those suffering from mental disorder. It would obviously have a very substantial financial effect in the way that my noble friend would wish and it would also limit the curtailment of local authority discretion to that extent. I simply throw this out as a consideration to which my noble friend may be good enough to give some thought.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, my difficulty with what my noble friend Lord Broxbourne has said is that I am thinking along rather different lines. I am thinking more to the principles concerned in this particular category of services. Registered charities is the area of which we are thinking. At the end of the day we still do not want to be in the business of deciding what specific services should or should not be favoured (if that is the right word, which I suspect it is not) but we want rather to look at it on a broader front. That is why if I am slightly hesitant my noble friend will bear with me. But I think that this is the proper way to do what we have in mind if it meets the bill and if I am able to do it—and I cannot guarantee that I am. But we shall try. I am sorry to be so vague on this. It is because we are in an area of some uncertainty.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, when the noble Lord undertakes his deliberations will be bear in mind that this amendment specifies, in the case of the elderly, those over 75 and not those over 65? This, as he will be well aware, is the age at which the cost to the National Health Service escalates enormously; it goes up to about six times that for a young or middle-aged person. Will be bear that in mind?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's helpful remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call the next amendment, I should point out to the House that if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 13.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("and") to end of subsection (2) and insert ("those principles shall be the same for all authorities.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Earl the Deputy Speaker will be calling Amendment No. 13, because I do not think that No. 12 will be agreed to. Amendment No. 12 is comparable to the earlier Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 and relates to the vexed question of the Minister and the Government being unwilling to be more precise

545
concerning the principles that will be applied to authorities. We still maintain that there ought to be maximum safeguards for local authorities against excessive use of the Secretary of State's discretion—and I say this candidly—in a politically biased fashion, certainly excluding from that charge the Minister who is answering these debates.
Members of the Government Benches in debates have been quite clear in indicating their detestation of the manner in which some local authorities have carried out their duties and have tarred them—and they have used the word more than once—by calling them Marxist councils. In my view, this is a clear indication of the way in which some people might be thinking in terms of exercising what I should have thought was a bad discretion. We come back to the point that there is a need to apply the same principles to all authorities. As far as we are concerned, our amendment would seek to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not want to say too much on this, although if the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, wishes to go into it deeply I will have to do so. We have been over this argument several times before. It is our intention to operate so far as possible on generally applicable principles, but the Secretary of State, we believe, should not be restricted in that way and the fact is that we could need a power to operate on principles applying to classes of authorities so that we can treat all authorities fairly and equally. That is really what we are all about in this. I believe that the amendment is founded on a fear, which I believe is a misplaced fear, that we wish to treat some authorities unfairly. That just is not the case. What we wish to do is to be able to take account of all the factors involved—which I will elaborate upon if your Lordships feel I ought to do so—and it is for this reason that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, predicted when moving the amendment that we should be unable to accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to withdraw this amendment; but the Minister tempts me to point out that the history of the Government in attempting to refashion and redesign their legislation in the rates field over the past three to four years since the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 is studded with new formulae which appeared to meet the case and then, exceptions having been found, amendments were made to it.
I would say simply that if one Conservative authority was the sole representative of its class having been caught as an over-spender by some fluke or because of a change in political control, that authority could not be let off just because it was the only representative of its class among the designated authorities. Flukes have happened before and we have seen the way in which the Government have sought to get themselves off the hook with their own supporters by bringing forward to Parliament amendments which on the face of them were designed to be general but which collectively have not been beneficial politically. We are strongly suspicious that that sort of thing can happen again. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 13:
[Printed earlier: col. 512.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this, and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("or smaller").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House and the support of others who have put their names to the amendment, I should like to move this Amendment No. 14 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Amendment No. 16: Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Where pursuant to subsection (5) above the Secretary of State has re-determined a level at a greater amount the authority in question may elect that for the purposes of this Act the level originally determined shall be applicable and on its making such an election as aforesaid the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of this section shall be deemed not to apply to that authority.").
Amendment No. 17: Page 4, line 20 at end insert ("together with (in the case of a decision to re-determine the level at a smaller amount) a statement as to the considerations leading to such decision and a statement as to whether, or the extent to which, such decision shall affect that authority's ability to fulfil its duties under any other Act or Acts (whether or not passed before the passing of this Act)").
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, drew attention to the possibility of an authority saying that it had nothing to lose by appealing for a redetermination if the right of Government to redetermine at a lower level were deleted. In a subsequent letter to me he said—and I should like at this stage to thank him for a very helpful letter—and I quote:
"We will not use this power to punish authorities nor is it our intention to discourage authorities with a genuine case to make. They need have no worry on that score. What we sought to avoid is simply providing a positive encouragement for authorities to pursue a frivolous application on the view that they had nothing to lose".
Very few authorities have the time or the manpower to undertake frivolous applications. The Minister constantly tells us that the majority of authorities are reasonable and willing to try to co-operate. Why can we not accept this as true, and proceed from that point? We are being asked to take on trust the good intentions of this Secretary of State—and I am sure that we do—but we are also having to take on trust at the same time the good intentions of future Secretaries of State. This is perhaps something which should give us pause for thought. The danger of leaving in the power to reduce the determination is that authorities in genuine difficulty will be deterred from making an application for a redetermination because of the implied threat of reduction and because by renegotiation of even a small amount they will lose whatever protection the, as yet, undefined principles may offer.
We have spent a long time this afternoon discussing principles and what they might be, and I took out my pen prepared to delete that paragraph but as time went on it appeared that, to say the least, the principles were still very flexible and so we do not know whether or not they will provide protection in these circumstances. As the redetermination process is now drafted, the local authority has nothing to gain and everything to lose by asking for a redetermination. The problem is though that if an authority were not to apply for a

547
redetermination it could prejudice its chances of any action against the Secretary of State for acting unreasonably in the use of his rate limitation powers. Natural justice demands that a designated authority should not have to confront this double jeopardy.
I should like now to move on to Amendment No. 16. Another aspect of the redetermination process that gives local authorities cause for concern is that the Secretary of State could grant a small higher expenditure limit and then impose:
"such requirements relating to its"—
the authority's—
"expenditure or financial management as he thinks appropriate".
This is a very wide-ranging power and could cover almost any aspect of the local authority—for example, compulsory privatisation or asset stripping. The redetermination process is very biased towards the Secretary of State and local authorities could run great risks if they appealed to him. The amendment seeks to ensure that if an authority does not like the requirements imposed by the Secretary of State in return for a higher limit it can at least reject them and stick with the first figure determined in accordance with those general principles referred to earlier.
Amendment No. 17 is a further attempt, although slightly different from the previous ones, to remove some of the double jeopardy from the redetermination process. The Government have said that the power to redetermine expenditure of appellant authorities at a lower amount is necessary,
"if, in the course of considering an application from an authority, it became clearly apparent that not only could the authority easily manage the original expenditure level, but could go further and bring about a bigger reduction in the rate."—[Official Report, 30/4/84; col. 436.]
Those were the words of the Minister during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is unlikely that any authority in this situation could easily reduce expenditure, but all this amendment seeks to do is to ensure, if a lower limit is set, the effect of that lower limit is clearly apparent and does not affect that authority's ability to fulfil its statutory duties. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 seeks to remove the power to set a smaller expenditure level, if after considering the case made by an authority for a redetermination it seems possible to identify additional savings. This amendment was moved and withdrawn in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Following our brief debate, I wrote to the noble Baroness and tried to explain in more detail why we could not accept it. It may help the House if I briefly set out the reasons I gave, which are still valid.
First, I pointed out that the right of every designated local authority to seek a redetermination of its expenditure level is an important one. It will ensure that where there are special local circumstances, an authority can put the facts before the Secretary of State. He will be able to depart from the general principles on which the authority's expenditure level was first determined, if he is persuaded that this is justified.
548
An authority will not be compelled to put those circumstances before the Secretary of State. They will have the option of living within the original expenditure level. It will be set on general principles which—I say this not for the first time today—must be reasonable. What we are talking about is the situation where an authority has applied for a higher expenditure level and, when all the facts have been considered, it is clear that far from needing a higher level it could make greater savings than were first proposed on general principles. The ratepayers would be justifiably angry, if knowing that for a fact, it was impossible to bring about those savings.
I went on to assure the noble Baroness that we will not use this power in any punitive sense, nor is it our intention to discourage authorities with a genuine case to make—they need have no worry on that score. What we sought to avoid is simply providing a positive encouragement for authorities to pursue a frivolous application on the view that they' had nothing to lose. It is more important that they set about making the savings which are achievable. And, we all know that significant savings do need to be planned for. Amendment No. 16 is concerned with the circumstance where a redetermination is at a greater amount than the original expenditure level and the Secretary of State is able to impose requirements on the authority where it is appropriate. The amendment would enable an authority which obtained a derogation but had requirements placed on it under Clause 3(6) to opt instead for its original expenditure level and avoid the requirements. It seems unlikely that these circumstances would arise. for we would not expect to grant a more relaxed expenditure level unless the authority could satisfy us that it could not meet the level first proposed. Nor would we expect requirements to be excessively onerous or directed to detailed policies. We see requirements more as a method of ensuring that work is undertaken towards securing longer-term savings—for example, putting value-for money studies in hand—particularly where the case for a determination rests on the need for more time to make savings. It would be thoroughly inconsistent for the Secretary of State to accept that, where he had granted a redetermination on the grounds that some increase was essential, he should then accept that the authority could, after all, manage with the lower figure.
Finally, the purpose of Amendment No. 17 is to require that, where the Secretary of State has redetermined an expenditure level at a smaller amount, the notice required under Clause 3(8) includes a statement of his reasons for that lower level and also a statement of how his decision would affect the authority's ability to fulfil its statutory duties. I fear that I cannot accept this proposal either. We have said time and again that it is not our intention to tell selected authorities where savings should or should not be made; that is for the locally elected members to decide. The Secretary of State is concerned only with stipulating total expenditure levels. If as a result of an application for derogation it is clearly apparent to the Secretary of State that not only could the authority manage within the original expenditure but could bring about a bigger reduction in the rate, I believe it must be equally apparent to the authority. Indeed it

549
would no doubt have been an integral part of the negotiations leading to the redeterminations. A formal statement of the reasons for the lower expenditure level would therefore be unnecessary. Furthermore if the Secretary of State were to identify where he thought savings could be made, it could be construed as requiring savings to be made in that area.
That is not what we are about. Local authorities are the ones who will have to decide. But of course any decision that the Secretary of State makes on expenditure levels, whether originally or following an application for a redetermination, must be reasonable. If he acts unreasonably, that decision could be open to legal challenge in the courts. On the question of the effect on the authority's ability to fulfil its statutory duties, it is my view that such a statement is unnecessary. Statutory duties have to be fulfilled and expenditure levels will have to be sufficient to allow for that. In any case, selected authorities will all be high spenders. I cannot see any danger of their being brought by rate limitation into any risk of not carrying out their statutory duties.
The objects of the Bill are to bring local government expenditure under control and to bring some relief to hard pressed ratepayers. We are providing a procedure to ensure that the circumstances of authorities can be taken into account. We have heard a lot of criticism of the procedures for seeking a redetermination, but we must not lose sight of the fact that this part of the Bill will assist authorities with genuine problems to discuss. It is up to the authority to decide whether to initiate the procedure. But once it has decided so to do, we cannot overlook the main purposes of the legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will give careful thought to what I have said, and even if we cannot agree entirely, I hope that she will at least feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is not my intention to press the amendment, but I must say that the Minister puts a very plausible case. However, it does not accord with the wording of the Bill. The Secretary of State will have the power, once the redetermination is made, to impose such requirements as he wishes, and we are being asked to take on trust that he will not intervene to too great an extent in local authority affairs. That is asking rather a lot, in view of the history over the past two years or so in relation to local government. However, at this stage, I shall not press the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Any decision of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above, together with a statement of the considerations leading thereto and particulars of any requirements imposed by him pursuant to subsection (6) above, shall be set out by him in a report laid before the House of Commons within three months of such decision and any such report may relate to two or more authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make the Secretary of State more accountable to Parliament in the use of his discretion
550
in redetermining the expenditure limits for individual authorities departing from general principles and imposing requirements on local authorities as to their expenditure or financial management. That is a phrase which could encompass almost any aspect of a local authority's work. We have been over very similar ground to this on a number of occasions, and basically I shall put forward the amendment without a great deal of hope. However, put it forward I shall.
In his letter, which was referred to earlier, and from which he kindly quoted, while he admitted that the Secretary of State would not have to give reasons for redetermining limits, whether up or down, the noble Lord the Minister went on to say that the local authority will be aware of the points of agreement and disagreement on this matter with the Secretary of State, as it,
"will have been engaged in detailed discussions with the Secretary of State over a long period".
But it cannot be right, in terms of natural justice, that the Secretary of State does not have to give reasons to the local authority for any redetermination, and it should not be accepted that just because detailed discussions have been taking place the local authority will be aware of what was in the mind of the Secretary of State when he took the decision. Parliament should wish to see the reasons for a local authority being given a higher or lower limit, to prevent the Secretary of State using his discretion in a biased way by giving some authorities a higher limit if they happen to have been caught by selective limitation, with that higher limit being given for no reason other than that the authority had found favour with him, for whatever reason. Departure from the general principles of expenditure determination, for whatever reason, is not just a matter for the Secretary of State and the authority concerned; there is a wider interest.
This amendment deals with one other aspect of the redetermination. As has been said, the Secretary of State can grant a higher limit and then impose undertakings upon the local authority. The Bill provides that the undertaking shall relate to the authority's expenditure or financial management; that is to say, almost anything could be imposed upon a local authority.
In the White Paper the Government said that such undertakings could involve value-for-money audits; but the Audit Commission was not informed of this at the time the White Paper was published. Privatisation, sales of assets, and so on, have already been mentioned. This amendment seeks to ensure that these undertakings are placed before Parliament. It does not require Parliament to approve them. It does not delay the process, as the report can be after the imposition of undertakings, and it allows the courts to deal with more than one authority. Therefore it would not involve a cumbersome process. The amendment attempts only to make the process more open to scrutiny and I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as the noble Baroness so rightly said, we are going over ground that we have covered before. The main point of this amendment once again is parliamentary involvement in the rate limitation procedures, and we certainly talked about it in Committee. However, I remain of the view that the

551
setting of expenditure levels is a matter between the authority concerned and the Secretary of State. The derogation application and its outcome will be matters for long discussion. There will be negotiations, come to that, and Parliament need not be concerned at that stage. Expenditure levels in fact are but a steppingstone to rate limits.
I have said before, in regard to other amendments, that the proper time for Parliament to become involved is when it comes to the question of the rate limit. The debate on the rate limit order will give a suitable opportunity for the expenditure levels to be discussed. So, all else apart, I cannot see any advantage in the amendment. Without elaborating on what I have said, if the noble Baroness will so agree, that is the Government's position and it is one that I would try to develop in discussion with her, in written form, and whatever. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I think that we are talking about a different stage in the process. I was talking about after the redetermination had been made. The Secretary of State should then publicise his reasons for the redetermination, which is a different aspect of it. Does the noble Minister wish to comment on that, or was he aware of that aspect when I spoke?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I did not cover that point when I responded. Of course I shall consider what the noble Baroness has said. I doubt very much whether it basically changes anything, but of course I would want to consider this. I did not cover it when I responded.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Determination of maximum rate on precept]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("(d) the annual rate of inflation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the annual rate of inflation. It asks the Secretary of State, in determining the rate limit to be placed on a local authority, to have regard to the annual rate of inflation, seeing that that may have changed since the local authority's expenditure limit was first designated.
In a way, I think that this is a very modest amendment because it simply states that it is the annual rate of inflation which should be taken into account, and not the annual rate of local authority inflation. We all know that the costs incurred by local authorities are inevitably and frequently higher and that they rise at a faster rate than does the average retail price index. For example, over the past 15 years the rise in wage levels has consistently outstripped the rise in pure price inflation. That has been at a considerably greater rate, and of course a larger
552
proportion of the local authority's costs is in its wage bill. As a result, the impact of inflation on a local authority tends to be greater than the impact of inflation as recorded in the RPI. Because local authorities spend so much of their overall budgets on the levels of salaries and wages, the level of wages in local authorities' costs will almost inevitably be higher than the retail price inflation. Some local authorities are frequently affected by increases in interest rates, which have fluctuated over the years and which, in spite of the Prime Minister's statement over the last couple of days, look as though they may well be going up in the near future. Local authorities' costs may be influenced by factors outside the normal inflation rate which affects most household domestic budgets and which therefore govern the RPI.
I would hope that the Government might accept this modest amendment, because Clause 2 says that the Secretary of State should take account of the general economic conditions that appertain at the time. Surely one of those indicators would be the level of inflation. But let us suppose that the level of inflation changes between the time of designation and the time of rate limitation. If when he designates the Secretary of State takes into account a rise in inflation, surely he should take any change into account when he sets a limit on an authority's rate. The logic of this sensible argument will, I hope, appeal to the Government. It seems only right and fair that the level of inflation should be taken into account if it changes significantly between the first and last steps of the process. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this is indeed a narrow and modest amendment. We touched upon it during the Committee stage. I shall explain why we feel that it is not necessary. For all authorities, the rate or precept income which they require is determined by their total expenditure for the year, less any block grant payable, and is adjusted by net contributions to or from internal funds. In addition, authorities in London may have to provide for payments into or out of the London rate equalisation scheme.
In setting a maximum we have to follow the logic of that relationship. The level of expenditure to take into account will be the expenditure level determined or redetermined under Clause 3. As with the present expenditure targets, that will be a cash figure covering the whole of the financial year and will include all items of expenditure falling to be met from the rate fund or from block grant. Because the figure will relate to the whole of the relevant year, it will of course be necessary to build in some assumptions about the rate of local authority price increases. That will be done. Therefore the necessary inflation factor will already have been built into the calculations and it will not be necessary also to specify it in the legislation. I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is aware that this is so. If he agrees with me, perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: But what happens, my Lords, if the basis of the assumption has changed in the interim? The figures are worked out for the whole year on a basic assumption, but by the second stage that basis may have changed, particularly in view of

553
the fast increase in the rate of inflation which has occurred at certain periods during the past few years—not least during certain periods of the present Government's rule. The rate of inflation does change. The basis, therefore, changes. Surely, therefore, the remedy which the Government are producing should also change. I do not know whether the noble Lord would care, by leave of the House, to comment on what I believe to be a perfectly valid point.
Lord Bellwin: With the leave of the House, yes, my Lords. The noble Lord is of course right that the rate of inflation can change. It can go down as well as go up. I have served in situations where settlements have been made on one basis—I hope in good faith—and the rate of inflation has gone up. But recently we have, happily, been in a situation where the rate of inflation has gone down. However, the Government have not turned round and said that they want something back because the position has improved. I understand what the noble Lord has said. It would be astonishing if the rate of inflation were not to change at all. However, that does not alter the basic point that a reasonable figure has to be struck. As long as that is done, I believe that it works.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, quite rightly agreed that inflation can go down as well as go up. In that situation, there is even less reason, it seems to me, not to accept the amendment because, as the noble Lord has agreed, it works both ways. The amendment does not refer only to a rise in the rate of inflation. It would deal with a situation where the rate of inflation went either down or up. I should have thought that the Minister ought to consider having another look at this, for it is a small, harmless but very practical amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I intervene to point out that the Minister opened his remarks by saying that my noble friend's amendment was unnecessary. The Minister then gave as his reasons a recital of subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) of Clause 4. He said that the Secretary of State will determine that maximum by reference to a number of variables which are set out in that subsection. The Minister paraphrased those variables. Is the Minister saying, in effect, that when paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) are under consideration the Government will be taking into account the annual increase or decrease in the rate of inflation? If he is not saying that, his argument in support of the Government's position seems to be a complete non sequitur. I would ask the Minister at least to take back the amendment and reconsider the position.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we have to recognise that we are speaking here of cash planning. We are setting out in cash terms what the country can afford. It cannot be adjusted for subsequent inflation. It is the same basis as that on which we operate targets when we are dealing with that aspect of local government finance. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is right when she says that it is a very narrow point. I shall read
554
carefully what has been said, in case something has been missed. I do not believe that we have missed anything, but if we have we shall look at it.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, say that I believe we have won the basic logical argument on this point? However, the cash argument which the noble Lord the Minister produced—the difference made because of the fact that we are talking about cash limits—is one which I should like to study. The Minister has said that he, too, will look at the arguments. Therefore at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("may relate to two or more authorities") and insert ("shall apply to one authority only").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in this clause we are dealing with the final stage of selective rate limitation. It is imperative to give to Parliament maximum control over rate limitation so as to ensure that parliamentary rather than executive discretion will replace local discretion. Yet this final step in rate limitation is the first time that the Government are obliged to seek explicit parliamentary approval for their actions.
In the earlier stages of rate limitation—we have been through this in various ways in Committee—there has been the occasional requirement for Parliament to receive a report. Those reports must contain the principles upon which local authorities have been designated. But those reports need not be debated. As we are now well aware in this context, principles can mean almost anything. I shall not labour that point, because it has been raised by many other people.
Today the Government have amended the Bill to give them even greater discretion in the use of principles. None of this can possibly be described as any check upon the actions of the executive. The Bill, as drafted, gives to the Government even more discretion in the redetermination process. An authority might be tempted to appeal to the Secretary of State for a higher expenditure limit. It is possible that a higher expenditure limit could be granted, but it is also possible that a lower limit would be imposed or that demands might be made on an authority regarding its future policies. This appeals system is loaded against any applicant authority and it would indeed be surprising if any authority did apply to the Secretary of State. Its fear would be rather like that of the person appealing in some cases to a court of criminal appeal, who is frightened that his sentence will be increased rather than lessened.
The point is that the provision for redetermination is in the Bill and it is not subject to parliamentary check. Nor is it a substitute for parliamentary control of the rate-fixing of individual authorities. It is what the Bill says that counts—not, with great respect, what the Minister or anyone else says may be the intentions of the Secretary of State or of any other person.
Currently, the Bill clearly gives Parliament only minimal control of the whole process. It is only at this
final stage that those parliamentary checks begin to have more teeth—although they are more in the nature of milk teeth at the moment than the second growth of teeth. The Government have said that control of this final stage of rate-capping is sufficient. Yet even if we were to agree with that proposition—which we do not—the control provided in that last part of the process is grossly insufficient. As matters stand, the Government will be able to wrap up all the rate-capped authorities in one report. We do not know how many there will be.
At an earlier stage, when we were discussing Part I of the Bill in Committee, the Government mentioned a figure of 12 to 20 authorities. But the Bill does not provide for these or any other limits, and all attempts to smoke the Government out were of no avail. The number of rate-capped authorities appearing in one report coming before Parliament could be 50 or 100. The House of Commons would have to approve or reject the report in its entirety. The individual circumstances of individual authorities would not be permitted to influence that decision.
The whole report would be voted through on a Whip and local democracy would be overturned in batches. This is not the way for the only elected tier of domestic government outside Parliament to be treated. Nor is it proper to attempt to treat Parliament like a rubber stamp. Parliament should be given the power to make decisions about individual authorities, and those individual authorities should be given the right to put their case via their Members of Parliament. It is only by having separate reports from each authority that this process will have any meaning.
In response to earlier doubts expressed in Committee, but in respect of a differently-drafted amendment, the Minister attempted to reassure me. He stated in a letter that he wrote to me:
"The House of Commons and not the Executive should finally determine the level of local tax in any local authority area where that is in dispute".
It is only where the level is in dispute that there will be a report. If the Minister believes that the House of Commons should finally determine the level of tax in any local authority area, that could be read as supporting the proposal I am making now; that there should be a report for every individual authority. When I received the Minister's letter I was reassured; he can reassure me even more tonight by accepting this amendment.
This amendment will provide for the rate in any one area to be fixed by the House of Commons. The Bill does not do that. The Bill makes mention of parliamentary sovereignty—or at least the Minister has done so. I am sometimes quite confused by what we are told by the Minister compared with what one finds in the Bill, because they are often quite different. The Bill requires Parliament to approve a list of rates in an indeterminate number of areas. It seems to us that this amendment would achieve what the Minister, erroneously in my view, assumed the Bill would achieve. We hope to see his acceptance of it.
Perhaps I should add that this is not a party political point. It is one that has the support of all the local authority associations. It is important to both local
556
democracy and parliamentary democracy. This legislation is extremely controversial and is the subject of views strongly held and expressed. I put it to the Government that they should be bending over backwards to make the Bill as democratic as it can be and enable Parliament—and, in this case, the House of Commons—both to be seen to be doing and actually to do what is correct, in order that each authority will have the right to have its report discussed—instead of having all the reports bundled up in one.
We are surely all aware that if that happens, proper attention will not be paid to the reports. It is no use saying that MPs can ask questions. If nobody wishes to question a report and it is acceptable, then it will be in order for it to be approved. But among all the different local authorities, there must be many different reasons why they have taken the actions they have. They must have different needs and different demands. It is only right that Members of Parliament should feel that they have had a fair crack at the legislative whip. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment would specifically limit an order to one authority only. I recognise the argument that the disagreed rate limit order is the point in the procedure at which Parliament will have their principal opportunity to scruitinise the Government's proposals. But I believe that this can be done adequately within a composite order procedure. Although the Secretary of State will be looking at authorities' individual circumstances in considering applications for derogations, he will nevertheless have to take all his decisions on a basis that is generally consistent for all authorities. If two authorities had the same individual circumstances in some particular respect, the Secretary of State could hardly allow for that circumstance in different ways.
I am sure that Parliament will be concerned especially with scrutinising this aspect of the handling of the procedures. The other place will want to ensure that there has been fair and balanced treatment between authorities. It seems to me that this is the proper supervisory role of the other place, rather than the substitution of their individual judgments for those of the Secretary of State.
If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she suggested it might be possible to have a single order but with perhaps even voting permitted separately on the constituent parts of the order—but the procedures of the other place do not provide for that. Orders must be approved or negated as a whole.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, I did not mean on the constituent parts of the order. Every report would be the subject of one particular order.
Lord Bellwin: In that case, my Lords, the noble Baroness was not making the point I suggested—I accept that. In any case, I am not convinced that a composite order procedure under Clause 4 would prevent proper discussion. That is certainly not the experience with the rate support grant report debates in another place. They cover a far larger number of authorities than the 12 to 20 authorities which could at most be involved under the selective scheme. And

557
yet their individual views come through very clearly indeed. Often, debate is concerned with general principles as illustrated by the cases of particular authorities, rather than with the detailed circumstances of those authorities.
I should like to reassure all those who are worried about these orders being pushed through another place late or only after a short debate. If we face the situation of having 15 or 20 local authorities rate capped, and their rate limits coming before another place for approval, then there will be no intention by the Government to compress debate. I am sure that that does not arise at all.
I understand the fears of the noble Baroness and her great concern. Equally, I think that we are entitled to point to the real example of what happens with rate support grant settlement report debates and how they enable an individual authority's case to be made quite clearly and to be debated. I do not have the fears that the noble Baroness has. As she rightly says, this is not so much a party point as a point which we should all be concerned to get right. I think that what we propose does get it right, even if the end objectives may not be acceptable to everyone.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that the Government are now in a logical difficulty on this point? On the one hand, throughout the passage of the Bill, they have told us that only a few authorities are likely to be designated. That is certainly an argument in favour of separate reports, so that the particular circumstances of particular authorities can be separately considered by Parliament. I think that the Government play into our hands, or into the arguments of the noble Baroness, under that heading.
The noble Lord then goes on to say that, if there are two authorities with similar problems, there is no reason why they should not be discussed together. That also flies in the face of his earlier contention that there should be a multiplicity of criteria available for the Government in order that they can take each local authority's special circumstances into account. That is the second logical fallacy in the Government's position.
The third logical fallacy in the Government's position is the following. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that if you have several authorities on one report they can be discussed separately: those who are interested in one authority can talk of that authority, and those who are interested in another can talk of that other authority. But the important point to be borne in mind is that the vote on that particular report will be taken as a whole. Therefore, these shades of difference cannot be taken into account in the vote. As I hope I have made clear, there are three logical fallacies in the Government's case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think that there is a certain lack of logic in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. After all, if we are envisaging debate in another place on these orders, there will really be only two points for debate—first, the general policy of rate capping, on which probably by then both
558
Houses will have exhausted every conceivable argument, and, secondly, and perhaps more relevantly, the argument as to whether a particular local authority has been treated fairly in comparison with other local authorities.
If you have each one in a separate order, then in the case of the first order the figures for the others may not even be available. There will be no basis of comparison. It will not be possible to say, for example, that the GLC has been badly treated compared with South Yorkshire, or whatever example one may give, because one will not have the South Yorkshire figures for comparison. Indeed, looked at from the point of view of another place, where their rules of procedure are strict, I suppose if one were dealing with an individual order put down on an individual night, one might be ruled out of order for referring to a decision on another order because that order would not be before the House at the time.
Therefore, if one is to have an effective debate on whether the Secretary of State has treated particular authorities fairly within the ambit of the legislation—whether he has acted fairly, given the structure of the thing—surely one would want to have as many decisions as possible before one at the same time so that one could ask him, "Why on earth have you treated Little Puddleton so badly whereas Puddleton Parva has been treated more generously?" The Secretary of State would be able, if he had an answer, to give an answer.
If one is really concerned, as I know noble Lords opposite are—I think we all are—that when these cases come to another place they should be fairly and effectively debated, there is surely almost everything to be said for all of them, or at any rate a lot of them, being in the same order.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it is so obvious to all of us here that the simple answer to the difficulties which have just been put before us is for the Government to arrange that all the statutory orders are before the respective Houses at one and the same time.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I really do not find that the Minister's reply has been satisfactory at all. He compares rate capping to a discussion on the rate support grant. They are not at all the same thing. The rate support grant is something that the Government decide they will do out of their own public expenditure and from the way that they see things. Rate-capping is a strongly penal process which we have not seen before. That is why I am moving the amendment. It is even more important that on this the Government should be seen to be bending over to give the widest possible opportunity for each authority's report to be discussed individually. It is surely important not only that Members of Parliament should feel that, but that the individual authority should again feel that it has had a fair hearing. It cannot if there is to be this cluster of authorities. We do not even know how many there will be. A later amendment mentions the figure 50, but we do not know. We have not been told. The Government do not know. I do not think they are hiding a figure from us. But, as that is the case, each authority should be dealt with individually.

559
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that there would be no basis for comparison. With great respect, that is not really the point. First of all, the authorities will be known, because it will only be the authorities that are in dispute with the Government. If the authorities accept their rate-capping quietly, presumably everybody will be happy.
The point surely is that it is on what is done within a particular authority that the decision will be made as to whether that authority should be rate-capped. There is no advantage, and in fact great disadvantage, in being one of an enormous bunch, batch or whatever, rather than being discussed separately. This seems to me to be the way to start out. If it is found in the future that that is not necessary, it does not work properly or the authorities can be bunched together, that is a different thing, but we are embarking into what is partly the unknown. It is a matter about which authorities understandably have many fears. The Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are all concerned and have joined together in their support for this amendment, and the Government should pay attention. The amendment does not fundamentally alter anything. It does not affect rate capping. It gives proper parliamentary control and sovereignty, instead of merely paying lip service. Therefore, I intend to press this amendment to a Division.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents 90.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Bernstein, L.

Grimond, L.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hooson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Caradon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacobson, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Collison, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kagan, L.

Diamond, L.

Kaldor, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ennals, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Falkender, B.

Longford, E.

Falkland, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McNair, L.

Fitt, L.

Meston, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Mulley, L.

560

Nicol, B.

Stone, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Phillips, B.

Thurso, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Raglan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rhodes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, L.

White, B.

Serota, B.

Wigoder, L.

Shackleton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stallard, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Inglewood, L.

Avon, E.

Ingrow, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kintore, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bellwin, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bolton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Caccia, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Coleraine, L.

Middleton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Morris, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Digby, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Faithfull, B.

Romney, E.

Ferrier, L.

Rugby, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stamp, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinfen, L.

Grantchester, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaizey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Henley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Holderness, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think this is probably a convenient moment to break for the adjournment business. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Cycle Tracks Bill
7.29 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 35, after ("any") insert ("land or").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be right for me to take Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 36, after ("being") insert ("land or").
Many of the footpaths across the country are also vehicle tracks, even though public access is only made available as a footpath. In these cases under this Bill these footpaths turned into cycleways will only be open to emergency in the fire service, the highway authority and statutory undertakings. There appears to be no provision for the owner of the land, the farmer or whatever, who already will use these tracks, to continue using them unless he is visiting premises. The word "premises" implies a building or a particular part of land. These tracks which are and will be used for management, keepering, forestry inspection, general land management, and so on, lead to no particular premises or particular part of any land, but to land in general. I feel therefore that to the word "premises" should be added the word "land", so that there can be no doubt that those who have work in the countryside, their employees, and also such people as ADAS representatives and people who, for some reason or other, have to go into the countryside along these tracks, and who have done so in the past, are able to continue to do so.
Lord Henley: I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Clause 8(2) of the Bill, dealing with interpretation, provides that:
"Except where the context otherwise requires any expression used in this Act which is also used in the 1980 Act"
that is the 1980 Highways Act
"has the same meaning as in that Act".
Section 329 of the Highways Act defines "premises" as including land and buildings. Therefore the point of my noble friend's amendment is already covered. I hope that in the light of this explanation he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 36, after second ("part") insert ("to which he has legal right of access and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to subsection (4). It allows as a defence for someone going on to the land the fact that he is going to a certain place. This need not be an owner or a farmer. It may not even be a visitor. It may be someone driving on a cycle track in order to go somewhere to admire the view. The intention of the subsection is surely that the track should be restricted to bona fide vehicles, that is to say, those used by the owner of the premises, the farmer or someone involved in the management of the land. It could even he a caller, a salesman or anyone else who is a genuine visitor. I do not believe, however, that it is intended to give access, as it is written, to anyone who simply says that he wants to get from A to B without any reason and with no legal authority. The amendment is intended to ensure that someone who wants to use a cycle track has to have some legal right of access as a visitor or whatever. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My noble friend's amendment has caused us to look again at the defence contained in Clause 2(4). I am grateful to him for making us look again at the drafting. Our examination has shown that the subsection could be improved. Any vehicular use of a cycle track to gain access to property must be based on a clear legal authority so to use the cycle track. To use a cycle track to gain access to property, even if it is the sole reasonable means of vehicular access, may involve unlawful use of the cycle track. Clearly, it would be wrong to condone, as the present drafting of the subsection appears to do, such unlawful use.
In addition, if a person had lawful authority at present to use the cycle track but had another means of vehicular access, the clause as drafted would take away that right without compensation. This would obviously be wrong. My noble friend's amendment, I am afraid, does not adequately cover these points, and I propose to bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will perhaps reconsider the need for his amendment.
Viscount Long: I should like to intervene for a moment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Henley, who is dealing so admirably with the Bill, that we must ensure that the basis for vehicular use of a cycle track rests on there being clear, lawful authority for that use. We shall therefore assist, if I may say so, my noble friend in the drafting of his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend, and on that basis, ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Conversion offootpaths into cycle tracks]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 8, after ("footpath") insert (",whether fenced or unfenced.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I would also like to discuss Amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 8, after ("land") insert ("or which leads only to such land").
These amendments, which are somewhat similar, concern the position where there is land farmed and where there is a fenced track running along agricultural land. That land may be owned or farmed by the same person on both sides, or maybe by different people. It is absolutely necessary that just as a farmer can stop a track being made into a cycle track going across his field, so he should have control over a track running between two hedges or fences through his land. This is particularly the case in Amendment No. 6 where the fenced track leads to a dead end. It could well happen that the track could come off a road and continue for a long way perhaps to a farmhouse, and that it could be a public footpath as well as a private road. The footpath could then well go off into open land, moorland or perhaps rough grazing.
While one would hope that the farmer would have control of the footpath over the rough grazing, he would have no control over the making of the footpath in the lane between two hedges. This is a slightly dangerous position. I therefore consider that something along the lines of the amendment to include the words "whether fenced or unfenced" is necessary and that the Bill should also underline the case where a fenced track leads to open land. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: This amendment and Amendment No. 6 deal with Clause 3(2). The clause was inserted in another place following discussions between my honourable friend Mr. Cecil Franks and both the NFU and the CLA. It is intended to provide protection for agricultural activities when footpaths cross agricultural land. The term "agricultural land" is defined. My noble friend talks about the case where a footpath goes adjacent to a field between two hedges. That would not be covered by agricultural land and would therefore be dealt with under the ordinary procedure; in other words, the landowner himself would not have the total veto that he has if it crosses right across the middle of agricultural land. But he would have exactly the same power as anyone else to object and the matter could then be dealt with at a public inquiry. In view of that, I think it will be found that the owner of that agricultural land will be perfectly well protected—in fact, probably better protected than he is at the moment.
I hope that when the Secretary of State comes to make regulations under subsection (4) of this clause he will insist that owners of land and owners of adjacent land will be notified of any proposed cycle track. In view of this, I hope my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw these two amendments.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I do not think I am very satisfied, but equally I do not think there is a case for pressing the amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 8, after ("agricultural") insert (", forestry or moor").
The noble Lord said: This is a much more important amendment. The farmer or landowner has considerable control over the putting in of a cycle track on a path over agricultural land; obviously that is practical and necessary. But apparently this does not apply to forestry or moorland. There are many who feel that once one gets into moorland, one gets into the wild areas that people usually think are public property and are looked after totally by God. In fact, both forestry and moorland are looked after by managers. Forestry requires an enormous amount of capital and work throughout the life of the forest, and moorland requires an enormous amount of keepering and burning and general management for the sheep and the grouse.
Without that management, the game and other wildlife would disappear. The heather would cease to flower because it would become too big. The management of moorland and the amount of work needed on it are very considerable. Because technically it is not agricultural land, there would be less control by the owner on the conversion of a footpath to a cycle track. This goes back to the previous amendment where one has the fenced road perhaps going up to a national park and then a footpath going across the open land which could be made into a cycle track.
This needs more control. Most cyclists are respectable and responsible people, like everybody else, but it only needs a small percentage to be irresponsible. These are the chaps who will always be a problem. In some cases it would be unacceptable for the managers of moorland and forestry not to have the same amount of control as the farmer over the conversion of the footpaths to cycle tracks. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am a little worried about this amendment. As I am sure all noble Lords know there is a vast number of footpaths going through forestry land and also over moorlands. According to subsection (2), a highway authority cannot make an order if a person who has got a legal interest in the land has not given consent in writing. I wonder how far this will start to infringe on the Bill dealing with access to the countryside and access to the mountains. Many moorlands are mountains.
Therefore, I am rather worried, unless there is something in the Bill—I cannot see it—whereby if a person who has a legal interest does not give consent there should be opportunity to appeal beyond that. Later in the Bill there is provision for an iquiry to be held where a person seeks to object to an order. Surely there ought to be some opportunity for appeal if a person with a legal interest in the land refuses to agree to the conversion of a footpath to a cycle track. That will become more of a problem if it is extended to forestry land and to moorland.
Lord Henley: I think the noble Lord is worrying too much. It is only the owner of agricultural land who has a right to object to the conversion of a footpath to a cycle track. It can still continue to be a footpath.

565
whatever his objections. At the moment this does not affect moorlands. I would rather not have this amendment.
Lord Underhill: My reading of the amendment is that it refers to a footpath which crosses any agricultural land, forestry or moorland. So it will affect moorland if the amendment is carried.
Lord Henley: If the amendment is carried. I hope it will not be. My noble friend's amendment seeks to extend to forestry and moorland this protection which, as I said, at the moment is only for agricultural land. We feel this is a very significant extension of that protection. I think it is very unlikely that there will be many cases of footpath conversions on forestry or moorland. If there are, the introduction of cyclists will be unlikely to cause any significant extra disruption in the uses of footpaths. It may also be rather difficult to establish exactly what consititutes forestry and moorland. The subsection defines agricultural land, which is fairly easy to define.
If proposals are made to convert footpaths which cross forestry or moorlands—or, for that matter, any other footpath—objections can be made in the usual way. These will be considered by the Secretary of State and there will be the usual inquiry procedure. So, as always, there are the same safeguards. It is felt that agricultural land ought to have special protection. I might add on a technical point that in any event my noble friend's amendment cannot be accepted in its present form as it defines the term "agricultural land", which is defined later in the subsection. Therefore, the whole thing would have to be redrafted.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Long: I should like to come in at this point because there is some difficulty about who is going over whose land and what path it is. The subsection as drafted seeks to give an additional protection where a footpath crosses agricultural land, that is, crosses farmers' fields and could disrupt agricultural activites. If one finds a path going from left to right across a field and one deals with it that way, one will find that it is disruptive to a farmer. Therefore, the Government fully accept that the additional protection is needed for agricultural activities.
There are many rural footpaths which do not cross agricultural land. There may be circumstances where in the interests of safety a local highway authority wishes to convert such footpaths to cycle tracks. We consider that the authority should be able to do this, subject, of course, to a clear right of objection when an order is made. However, we do not consider that the protection given by subsection (2) should be extended to forestry and moorland. There are problems of definition which may not easily be overcome. If I may say so, the activities undertaken on such land tend to be more robust and less sensitive to disruption than do many agricultural activities. Again, the right to object to any conversion remains and, having considered all the circumstances, we agree with my noble friend that this protection is adequate.
Nor do we consider that there is a need to provide specific protection for footpaths leading only to agricultural land. Therefore, we cannot envisage that
566
such footpaths will be candidates for conversion. The right to object to conversions should suffice in the unlikely event that any particular case arises.
My noble friend is quite right in saying that the drafting is not quite adequate at the moment. I would ask my noble kinsman to have another look at this matter. We would willingly help him in strengthening the Bill in this way, if he so wishes.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friends. Obviously I must withdraw this particular amendment, but I should like to consider it further and see whether I should come back with it at a later stage. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("and order such works or advertisements to be made as it thinks fit to inform cyclists of the quashing of the order.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the situation where an authority announces, as it may well do, that a certain track is to be made into a cycle track. One can visualise that immediately thereafter cyclists will start to use it. Then there may be an objection and the court may suspend the order. In that case the cyclists will have become used to using the track and although the court may have suspended the order, and although the local authority may have ceased to claim it to be a cycle track, nevertheless it will be extremely difficult to stop cyclists using that track or to inform them all that the track is no longer a cycle track.
Therefore, the amendment is designed so that when such an order is made the court may, if it thinks fit, order that the council undertakes such advertisements and works as may be thought fit to ensure that all cyclists are aware that they can no longer use the track. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My noble friend's seventh amendment proposes to amend Clause 3(7). It is novel in that it seeks to give to the High Court powers to specify advertisements and works to be undertaken to give effect to its quashing of an order. I know of no other circumstances in which such powers are given to the court. If the court quashes an order, the footpath concerned will remain a footpath, and it is the local highway authority 's duty to ensure that the rights of those using the footpath are protected. It would be an exceptional move to give the High Court power to take action, either by insisting on advertisements or on the undertaking of specified works, to enforce one of its own decisions.
Responsibility for the protection of footpaths rests, and should remain with the local highway authority. If that authority fails in that, it could be held to be in breach of its statutory duty under Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980. I should also say that it may reasonably be expected that challenges in the High Court will receive a certain amount of local publicity and therefore people should get to know that the original order has been quashed. In the light of what I have said, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I should like to ask my noble friend a question. My noble friend says that it is the responsibility of the local highway authority. Do I take it, therefore, that the cycle tracks will have little discs stating that cycling is permitted, and that if such tracks are no longer permitted to be used by cyclists, those discs will be removed in the same way as they are in the parks in London?
Lord Henley: Yes, obviously there will be some sign indicating that every cycle track is a cycle track. If it ceases to be a cycle track, there will no longer be any signs stating that it is a cycle track, and it will revert to being a footpath.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: In those circumstances I think that my noble friend Lord Gisborough should withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My noble friend has talked about the court taking action. However, that was not part of the amendment. The idea was that the court should order the local authority to take action. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but I should be very surprised if it did. However, there is the resort to Section 130 and I think that one will just have to hope that that works. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provision of barriers in cycle tracks, etc.]:
7.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 17, leave out from ("authority") to ("necessary") in line 19 and insert ("shall, in the case of any cycle track which is adjacent to a footpath or foot way, provide and maintain such barriers as are").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships' Committee to consider Amendments No. 8 and 9 together, Amendment No. 9 being, to a certain extent, consequential upon Amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
We now turn to the point which I raised on Second Reading about the protection of the blind and the visually handicapped. Clause 4, which we are considering concerns the protection of various classes of people, beginning with subsection (1) which deals with the safeguarding of the people actually using the cycle track. Subsection (2), which these amendments seek to alter, deals with the protection of others with whom they may be brought into contact.
The various societies and authorities which represent the blind and the visually handicapped are considerably perturbed about this Bill as it stands at present. There have, indeed, been conversations with the Government about the necessary steps which should be taken and the necessary precautions which should be introduced for the safeguarding of the visually handicapped. The Government are being extremely helpful in this matter and are trying to do their best.
But we think that the precautions in this Bill should be reinforced. In that respect I address myself equally to the proponents of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and those others who have put this forward—and to the Government themselves. Therefore, these amendments have the following effect. Where the original Bill says that:
"A highway authority may…provide and maintain such works as they think necessary for the purpose of separating, in the interests of safety, persons using the cycle track from those using the footpath or footway"
the amendments state "shall" instead of "may", and,
"such barriers as are necessary"
instead of,
"such works as they think necessary".
Therefore, the amendments make it a matter of quite definite fact and obligation on the part of the local authorities to provide for the safety of pedestrians, in particular those who are in any way handicapped.
It does not seem to me that there is any reason at all—I may be wrong about this—why those who are putting forward this Bill should object to these particular amendments. But I think it is a matter for the Government to consider because we have a problem at the moment where, due to the general state of the economy, the local authorities are under very considerable financial pressure as to what they may or may not do. In fact, we have been discussing that throughout the afternoon and no doubt we shall be discussing it for the rest of the evening. In this situation there is a very real danger that if this is merely permissive, the precautions which are taken may not be sufficient.
For instance, at various stages in discussing this Bill there has been talk of the painting in of white lines to separate cycle paths from pedestrian paths. White lines are a perfectly good way of alerting cyclists to the area to which they must keep; they are not nearly such a good way of alerting the blind to the area to which they should keep. It is absolutely necessary to ensure that there are physical barriers of one kind or another—perhaps the textured barriers which are now being tried in various parts of the country, including, for instance, the textured surfaces by the pedestrian crossing not far from your Lordships' House.
All sorts of experiments are taking place, and I am not saying that we can lay down in any detail what particular form these barriers should take. But that there should be barriers, that they should definitely be there and that they should conform to a standard which not only the local authorities think is adequate but which any reasonable person thinks is adequate, is a step which is urgently necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said. He has said everything that has been going through my mind as a cyclist, so I await the comments of my noble friend on the arguments put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: In the drafting and consideration of this Bill the concerns of groups representing the blind and the partially sighted have received our closest consideration. My honourable friend Mr. Cecil Franks

569
discussed the provisions in the Bill with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport has discussed the Bill's provisions with the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People. Noble Lords will be aware that her department has undertaken a comprehensive review of the advice that it issues to highway authorities on cyclists' use of pedestrian-only facilities, and my noble friend on the Front Bench might possibly want to comment on that.
The Bill seeks to improve the safety and convenience of cyclists, but not at the expense of others. Throughout the Bill we have sought to ensure that it is balanced. Indeed, we consider that in many important respects the Bill improves the position of blind and partially sighted people. If they or any other persons object to a footpath conversion, under Clause 3 the decision on that conversion must be made by the Secretary of State following the usual public inquiry procedure.
In drafting Clause 4 we have also sought to improve the position for blind and partially sighted people and other pedestrians by giving powers to highway authorities to construct any works that they consider necessary to separate a cycle track from an adjacent footpath or footway. We all accept that the best way of improving conditions for and the safety of cyclists is on the road itself. But this may not always be possible and it may be necessary to consider allowing cyclists to use facilities previously reserved for pedestrians. A wide variety of circumstances may arise where this may need to be considered, and it must always be for sound safety reasons, and must always increase the safety of cyclists.
But in every case it will be necessary to balance the safety benefit to cyclists against the risk of endangering or, for that matter, inconveniencing pedestrians. Each proposed conversion will be different. We can establish guidelines but we cannot and should not seek to establish absolutes. The particular requirements of each location must be determined following careful survey and consultation, and highway authorities must, therefore, be able to respond flexibly to a range of different circumstances and different requirements as the situation demands.
To require them to provide barriers, as this amendment would do, and never to alter or remove them whatever the circumstances, eliminates flexibility. It may also eliminate from consideration many locations where a positive safety benefit can be made for cyclists without putting the safety or security of others at risk.
These amendments seem to strike at the very balance that we have sought to provide in the Bill. They impose inflexibility when the Bill seeks to provide a balanced and cautious response to the safety problems and risks which cyclists face daily on our roads. I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but I cannot agree to accept his amendments.
Viscount Long: Perhaps I could try to help the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. The Government are very serious about this Bill as it affects the safety of cyclists, the blind and the partially sighted. We are trying to
570
bring a very serious piece of legislation together as soon as possible. I do not say that we are riding roughshod over the Bill, but we want to get it through Parliament in order to help the local authorities which are in need of help, the landowners and the owners of adjacent land. Therefore, we are working to an end, and that is to get the Bill properly through Parliament.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, have been requested and drafted by the National Federation of the Blind. From what I have to say to the noble Lord in the next few moments, he will realise that the Government have not worked alone on this subject, and nor could they. They have had to take the best possible advice. My noble friend Lord Henley has worked very hard trying to help this legislation through Parliament, as has also my noble kinsman.
The amendment seeks to place a duty on highway authorities to erect (and this is the amendment to subsection (2)) and maintain in perpetuity (which is the amendment to subsection (3)) barriers whenever a cycle track is alongside a footpath or footway. The amendment to subsection (3) would also mean that harriers provided on any cycle track under subsection (1), whether or not it is adjacent to a footpath, could not be altered or removed by the highway authority. The amendments conflict with the existing statutory framework, which is aimed at providing highway authorities with discretion. I failed to tell the noble Lord just now that the highway authorities are very much involved in this through the 1980 Act, and so on.
The amendment's requirement for separation by barrier runs contrary to the advice that the department proposes to issue on shared pedestrian-cycle facilities. The department considers that while segregation by barrier or kerb or other physical means would be best, white-line separation and unsegregated sharing as safety measures of last resort must remain available to highway authorities. White-line separation has operated satisfactorily in practice.
With the support of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People, on which the National Federation of the Blind are represented—and the noble Lord knows this well—the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is currently undertaking research on forms of tactile surfaces which might assist blind and partially sighted people using shared facilities. I think I can refer to the fact that not far away in Westminster there is a tactile surface. I mention to the noble Lord at this moment the Road Research Laboratory. That is where the expertise is to come from as to what is to be the best and safest measure for the blind and the partially blind.
The department's proposed advice that shared pedestrian and cycle facilities should be considered when there is no other way of overcoming the problems that cyclists face on the carriageway, together with the right to object to footpath conversions, and for such objections to be considered by the Secretary of State, should give adequate protection against ill-conceived footpath conversions, which I think the noble Lord, as well as other noble Lords, are worried about. Highway authorities must, in any event, be allowed to retain flexibility in the

571
types of protection they can provide based on their assessment, following careful survey and consultation, of what is needed at any particular location. One geographical area is obviously going to be different from another in terms of the safety area.
The Government are aware of the concern about certain forms of shared pedestrian and cycle use felt by blind and partially sighted people. It was because of that concern that the Department of Transport undertook a comprehensive review of its advice on shared use. Indeed, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord—I know that he said he has not yet had his supper, and nor have I, but I like to give him a carrot to eat on—that tomorrow the department, with the National Federation of the Blind, is organising a seminar for Pavement Day to discuss the problems faced by visually handicapped people on pavements.
The department's review included issue of a consultation paper and meetings with members of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People. Almost all those who responded to the consultation paper accepted that, in appropriate circumstances and on a limited basis, shared use could make a valuable contribution to the safety of cyclists. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport has now agreed the revised advice that will shortly be issued by her department.
There is no intention of allowing cyclists general use of footpaths or footways. The advice starts from the basis that shared pedestrian and cycle use is a cycle safety measure of last resort to be considered only when there is no other way of overcoming the problems cyclists face on the road—and they are increasing. Cyclists face dangers on our roads. Unfortunately and tragically, the number of accidents involving cyclists shows a steady increase. The honourable lady's department is examining ways of helping cyclists on roads through its programme of innovatory cycle schemes and cycle route research. The department's safety campaigns seek to improve cyclists' safety generally. There will, however, always be circumstances where shared use will need to be considered. Shared use should be proposed only after full survey and consultation.
The department's advice will place particular emphasis on the need for highway authorities to obtain the views of blind and partially sighted people, as well as other likely users of the facility. The department's advice will clearly state that where cycle tracks run adjacent to footpaths or footways, segregation by barrier or kerb is best. Where barriers or kerbs cannot be provided and there is a clear cycle safety problem to be overcome, then white line separation or unsegregated sharing may need to be considered.
Lord Gisborough: Do I understand from what my noble friend is saying that cycle ways are to be used strictly for cyclists to get from A to B and not to get them into the countryside on recreational cycle tracks? Does my noble friend mean that categorically?
Viscount Long: I think that my noble kinsman has it two ways. First, there are already tracks that go into what he knows as the forest, for recreation, and there
572
are those tracks, which I am trying to define at the moment, which are for safety, for helping cyclists to get off the main roads for more safety.
The advice will also clearly state that white line or unsegregated sharing will often be unacceptable if the route is used by elderly—and this is another point that has to be looked into—blind, partially sighted, or physically handicapped people. White line separation has been carefully monitored and found to work satisfactorily. However, we recognise that white line separation offers no guidance to blind and partially sighted people, and with the support of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is undertaking research on the use of tactile surfaces and central markings or humps to assist blind people using shared facilities. This work is at an early stage and full site testing will be needed to assess effectiveness. Subsection (2) of this clause, as currently drafted, is intended to give highway authorities powers to install such tactile surfaces or humps.
We consider it essential that highway authorities should be able to have flexibility in the way they separate cycle tracks from adjacent footways and footpaths. We do not consider that it is right to insist that barriers be provided whatever the circumstances. Other forms of physical separation may be equally effective. The form separation can take can be decided only after full consideration of local circumstances and after consultation with interested parties.
Another essential when former pedestrian-only facilities are made available for use by cyclists is that they should be closely monitored. If problems emerge with any form of separation, highway authorities should have the ability to alter it. Subsection (3) is essential.
I have outlined in general terms our policy objections to these amendments. May I now look at the effect of the amendments in more detail. I apologise for my long brief, but it is essential that we try to get it right for all those concerned. The provision of a complete length of barrier may operate against the effectiveness of the cycle track, footpath or footway in that it would bar all access across the adjacent way. The pedestrian, including the blind or disabled pedestrian, could not cross the cycle track from a footway in order to cross the carriageway. He may not cross the adjacent footpath to gain access to premises. The cyclist could not dismount and cross the adjacent footway to reach the shops. All these examples show that the amendment is too restrictive and inflexible. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head, but he is not giving enough flexibility to it.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seem to have missed the point. If these amendments are carried, it does not mean that local authorities must put in a barrier.
Lord Henley: Yes, it does.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No, it does not. It means that they should put in a barrier if it is necessary for safety. That is what it says, and that is what it means. It does not mean that they have to put in a

573
barrier. Both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Viscount the Minister have been arguing as though the amendment made it compulsory for the highway authorities to put in a barrier whether or not it is necessary.
Viscount Long: What we are trying to do is to give strength to the elbow of the local authority, whether they want to do it or not. At the moment they cannot do it, or if they can do it, they have not the exact power to do it. Therefore, I think that we must go on as we are in this particular instance. I do not think we have lost the point. I think it is essential that we look at the Highway Code as well.
The mendment also removes the power for highway authorities to provide works to segregate a cycle track from an adjacent footpath or footway if they are works of a kind that fall short of being a barrier. It therefore takes away the power to implement the results of the work being undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory; and they are the ones who at this very moment are seeking to find the best ways of helping the blind and the partially blind. We must not restrict them in any way at all.
The amendment will also add considerably to the costs incurred by local authorities by imposing an obligation to put up barriers where none now exist even if existing arrangements can be shown to have been working effectively. The amendments conflict with the existing safety provisions in Section 66 of the Highways Act 1980, where highway authorities exercise their own judgment in the use of discretionary powers for the provision of guard rails and so on.
My noble friend Lord Henley has referred to the balance in the Bill. He pointed to additional protection given to those who are worried about the principle and practice of shared use by the right of objection given when footpaths are proposed for conversion.
The needs of blind and partially sighted people have been borne in mind in the drafting of this Bill. In the Bill as it stands we consider that we have struck the right balance—and my noble friend said this a moment ago—between seeking to increase the safety and convenience of cyclists and protecting the interests of others. I therefore ask that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, withdraws his amendment, because either I do not see that he has allowed himself enough flexibility in his amendment to allow others such as the research laboratories to carry out the research, or he is tying down the local authority too much.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has produced a very detailed explanation of what is being done and what is planned, and for that I thank him very much. I asked for it and I wanted it and it is something which I will go away and study. There were points in what he said that gave me some comfort. I am particularly interested and will go away and study what he was saying about the rights of appeal. But the main arguments which he produced, and which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, produced, were based, as I said in my intervention, on a complete misunderstanding of the amendments and went on for a long time dealing with a non-existent bogey. If my amendments were agreed to, subsection (2) would read:
574
"A highway authority shall, in the case of any cycle track which is adjacent to a footpath or footway, provide and maintain Lich barriers as are necessary for the purpose of separating, in the interests of safety, persons using the cycletrack from those using the footpath or footway".
There is no question about raising barriers if they are not necessary. Quite clearly they do not. There is no question of having to put up barriers which run for miles and miles and stop the poor blind moving across the cycleway to get to the road. There is nothing about that at all. It is merely to make the question as to whether it is safe a matter which is judicable, which is juridical, which is not just dependent upon what the local authorities happen to think when they are tempted—as they must be, poor things—by the desire to save money. The local authorities will have most of the freedoms except for the freedom to disregard the rules of safety.
I do not think that most of what I heard, and certainly the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, put forward in relation to these amendments were satisfactory, though I pay tribute to him for bringing forth this Bill, which I think is a very good Bill, and I congratulate him. There may be sufficient embedded among the misunderstanding of the case produced by the Government to satisfy me, but of that I am not at all sure. I will go away and study it, and I will consult. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Compensation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, very briefly, I have two queries on the compensation suggested in Clause 5. I appreciate that I have not given notice of this and I am quite prepared to wait for the answer, but I feel that I must put the questions now.
In subsection (1) there are the words, "where any person suffers damage". May I be told whether that damage refers to material damage or physical damage, or whether it would refer, for example, in an urban situation, to a case where a trader has a cycle path going past his delivery entrance and the vans will, now according to the rest of the Bill, have to park elsewhere while being unloaded? Could the trader in those circumstances claim damages for delay or inconvenience? In other words, I should like clarification of the word "damage" in that case. In subsection (2) there are the words,
"Where…any person suffers damage by the depreciation in value of any interest in land".
If, perhaps owing to a situation on the edge of town where the land in question was of little value at the time when the cycle track was first put in, the land gained in value as a result of housing or other development along the edge of it, would the owner be entitled to claim damages retrospectively for depreciation; or will there be a time limit on the point at which he can claim damages?

575
Those are my two questions. I shall understand if the answers are not forthcoming but, if they are not available, I wonder whether I may have them before the next stage of the Bill so that an amendment may be produced.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I understand it, "damage" under clause 5(1) concerns damage by reason of the execution of the works. In other words, it is the actual creation of the works. I presume— I am open to be corrected and will inform the noble Baroness when I know— that that would cover any financial loss that one could put against the execution of the works.
With regard to her query about damage under subsection (2), I am not sure if I can help the noble Baroness at the moment. May I get in touch with her later before the next stage?
Viscount Long: I did hear the noble Baroness's speech at Second Reading. It is considered at this stage of the Bill that it is unlikely there will be many claims under the new procedures or that substantial sums will be involved. Under the clause as drafted, disputes go to the Land Tribunal, and Section 307 of the Highways Act 1980 is applied. None of the sections of the Highways Act to which Section 307 is applied place time limits, which is what I think the noble Baroness was asking about in relation to the submission of compensation claims, and it would be considered appropriate to err in favour of a possible claim rather than specify a time limit in respect of claims made under Clause 5. We have been advised there would be no great difficulty in assessing compensation in case of retrospective claims. I wonder whether that helps the noble Baroness.
Baroness Nicol: Yes; I thank the noble Viscount. It is not a complete answer, but it goes some way and I will investigate a little more before the next stage.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Rates Bill
8.32 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Power to introduce general control]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert—
("the date to be specified under subsection (1) above shall not be less than three years from the date of operation of an Order laid by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 2(1) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Evans of Claughton, who is unable to be here tonight. This is similar to an amendment which was moved at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It
576
must be a compliment to him that my noble friends have chosen to take it up and to run it again at stage of the Bill.
The important point is that here we move on to Part II of the Bill. The object of the amendment is clear. It is to provide what one might call a cooling-off period of three years preceding the bringing into force of the general powers after the selective provisions of Part I have been introduced. This would give the Government the opportunity to discover whether the selective scheme, on which they have staked so much, would work.
The Secretary of State has himself agreed that during the past three years the cumulative effect of the reduction of a proportion of the RSG and the introduction of targets and penalties have brought local authority spending more into line with Government and public spending guidelines. He has argued that such reductions could not be achieved overnight: therefore it would be unrealistic for the Secretary of State to expect the provisions of Part I to operate to secure the reductions required by him in. say, one year. Indeed, the statements by Ministers have made it clear that they would not seek to reduce the spending of any one authority by more than 5 per cent. in any one year, and that is reflected in the target methodology which no one authority is expected to reduce its spending by more than about 6 per cent. in one year.
In short this amendment gives Part I, the selective scheme, time to operate. It will be a matter of time before we see whether it works as the Government intend. As I have said we also hope that this amendment will provide a cooling-off period so that the Government can contemplate and assess the results that they have achieved as a consequence of Part I.
One other point is that there still remains no definition in the Bill—we have discussed this under earlier amendments this evening— or in the notes on clauses or in ministerial statements on the criteria which will be used to decide when it will be necessary to introduce general powers. On all these grounds we feel that a delay in their introduction is desirable. and I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment, to which I have added my name on behalf of the Association of County Councils. My noble kinsman Lord Kilmarnock has said everything that needs to be said; and, indeed, it was brought up at Committee stage before your Lordships. But I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence by referring briefly to the debate which we had on Clause 9 at Committee stage because this is the first opportunity to do so at this stage of the Bill. During the debate on Clause 9 stand part, my noble friend Lord Chelwood— who, unfortunately, owing to family problems, is not able to be here tonight—referred in his speech to many things in opposing the Bill. When he was answered by my noble friend Lord Bellwin the impression was given that the Association of County Councils had refused offers of consultation on certain aspects of the Bill before it came before this House. I should have intervened at that stage to deny this

577
allegation as the president of the association. Indeed, I should have liked to do so, but I was not sure of my facts; I was not likely to have been involved in any such consultations, and I do not think quickly enough when I am here.
However, subsequent research and a good deal of correspondence among all concerned leads me to think that there has been a genuine and very simple misunderstanding which I think should be put right on the record and the impression should be corrected. The Association of County Councils has always been ready to consult on local government matters, and always will be. No offer to do so was refused or ever will be in the future. I want to make this quite clear beyond all doubt.
I am very well aware that my noble friend Lord Bellwin was in fact referring to an invitation to discuss technical matters at officer level, which all three associations refused as being inappropriate on the date suggested last September. This is a quite different matter. I am also quite certain that my noble friend Lord Bellwin would agree that this is a misunderstanding which can be laid to rest here and now. I know that were my noble friend Lord Chelwood here he would not wish to pursue the matter any further. His statement was in effect largely, if not entirely, accurate and I think we owe it to him to put this right.
I know that my noble friend Lord Bellwin in dealing with all these matters is extremely courteous and diligent and all his responses to all these problems are greatly valued by all involved. I know he would not refuse any consultation which was necessary, nor has he ever done so over five long years of very hard work in the interests of local government and of this House, nor would the ACC ever wish it to be said that they had refused to talk to him.
This may be the last word I shall say on this matter, I would only add that if when all such legislation came before us it were possible for more talks to be held between the Government and their genuine friends it is possible that not so much legislation would be put before us. I hope that we can put this matter straight. I wish to support the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I may, I begin by responding to my noble friend Lord Ridley on the latter point that he makes. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying exactly what happened over the question of consultation. The Government have always been extremely anxious to proceed in respect of its local government policies in consultation with local government and with the local authority associations. That is usually what that means. To that end, I wrote to each of the associations on 12th September, 1983, offering a meeting at official level to discuss without commitment the practical operational implications of our policy proposals on rate limitations. This offer, of course, was against the background that at that time we were in the middle of a large consultation exercise on our Rates White Paper and we were awaiting the comments of the association on the basic policy.
The response to the offer of working level discussions was immediate but negative. However, I think it fair to say—and this is a point that I did not
578
mention at the Committee stage— that the ACC response included the sentence:
"I imagine that we will be having further discussions with you and your colleagues after you have considered our response to the White Paper proposals".
It is against that background that, when the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, suggested that there had been no consultation with the ACC, I responded by saying that the opportunity for consultation had been offered but had been turned down.
May I say that I appreciate very much the way in which my noble friend Lord Ridley brings up his point tonight. I say unhesitatingly that in the times of debate when one is first in consultation and when there is a broad area of discussion and not discussion— if I can put it that way— it is very difficult to say what has happened and what has not happened. But certainly no wrong implication was intended. If the ACC feel that they are unhappy about it, I would not want that to be the case, so I would readily concede the point to them in the hope that they, too, would understand how this matter came about in the way that it did. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ridley will feel that that covers the point properly. He is right that the record ought to be put straight.
So far as this amendment goes, it was moved during Committee. It was said then to be a probing amendment, and it produced a very full debate during which I gave a brief description of the sort of circumstances which might give rise to our need to invoke the general powers. I said then, and I make no apology for saying again, that it is our sincere hope that these powers never have to be used. One of the reasons I am optimistic on this score is because of the deterrent effect that the very existence of the general power will have on local authorities. But that deterrent effect will be lost for three years if this amendment is accepted. For that reason, I cannot accept this amendment. As I said during Committee, the selective and general schemes are complementary, and it could be dangerous if one of them were unavailable for a fixed period.
Furthermore, although I regard it as highly unlikely, I could not accept the situation where we should be unable to respond to a significant breakdown in the pattern of largely responsible behaviour in financial matters by local government before the financial year 1988–89. It may well be that we shall want to see how the selective scheme works before the question of any wider measures arises. But local government could pre-empt us if we deprived ourselves of the situation of a deterrent. I feel that in practical terms this is just not a starter. I could not accept it during Committee and I still do not feel that there is any case at all of our accepting it now. I am sorry that that is so. I respect the manner in which it was moved and the support that I know it has, but I feel that as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said in his opening remarks and as it was said earlier on today, we have to see the legislation in place and working. The Government are optimistic about its effects. Only when we actually see what it produces will we have a better ability to judge its effectiveness.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is quite extraordinary that we were told all the time on the discussion of Part

579
I of this Bill that there would be just a handful of authorities (between 12 and 20) and we have never got beyond this rather mythical approach to it. Then, when it came to Part II, we were assured on so many occasions that the Government did not expect ever to have to invoke the general powers but just wanted them, as I understood it, in reserve. I think I am right about that. If that is so, it seems to me quite extraordinary that they cannot accept an amendment of a pause (if you like) of three years. What do they expect to happen? Either they are expecting a complete avalanche of authorities to be ratecapped under the scheme or they are expecting to vote for the general powers much more readily than they have let on so far. Either way, it does not seem to me that the case against this is at all convincing.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not find it contradictory in any way. What we have said we have believed and we still believe. The general scheme is a deterrent, it is a reserve power. We do not expect that we would have to invoke it. The very fact that it is there, in place, is, as we believe, a deterrent. We are talking of between 12 to 20 authorities for selection. As I said when we were discussing this matter in Committee, what we cannot preclude is that there are things happening today in local government that have not happened before. There are people running authorities on an ever-growing scale and we just do not know what the position will be. We firmly believe that the legislation as we are now putting it in place will get us and the authorities concerned and the ratepayers where everyone needs to be. That is the hope and, we believe, the effect. Without having the deterrent there, we feel that it would not be as effective and, in the long run, therefore, would be a disadvantage to local authorities as a whole. That is why we cannot accept it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said does not seem to me satisfactory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has pointed out, and as I did earlier, the Government are getting into logical difficulties again and again in this Bill. On the one hand, they say that there are only 12 to 20 authorities likely to suffer under the Bill, and then in the next breath they go on to say that all the other authorities, who hitherto had been presumed to be good, need to be deterred. I should have thought it a fairly simple matter that you do not need to deter the good; but only the bad. I did not follow that line of argument. If we leave Part II of the Bill as it stands, all that is happening is that a vast number of local authorities are going to enter a minefield in the dark without maps. I do not think this is good enough for a Bill which is going through your Lordships' House. I think that I should test the opinion of the House.
8.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Nicol, B.

Attlee, E.

Northfield, L.

Birk, B.

Phillips, B.

Brookes of Tremorfa, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Falkender, B.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kagan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

McCarthy, L.

Winstanley, L.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Henley, L.

Avon, L.

Hives, L.

Bathurst, E.

Inglewood, L.

Bellwin, L.

Ingrow, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bolton, L.

Long, V.

Boston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Middleton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Coleraine, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Portland, D.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Rochdale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V.

Rugby, L.

De Freyne, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Digby, L.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Swansea, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Faithfull, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Trenchard, V.

Fortescue, E.

Trumpington, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Vaizey, L.

Gisborough, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glanusk, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Grantchester, L.

Westbury, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gridley, L.

Wise, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) On the making of an order under this section, sections 10 and 11 below shall remain in force for the period of twelve months from the date specified in such order and shall thereafter cease to be in force but without prejudice to the Secretary of State's power to make a further order or orders with like to which the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) below shall apply.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was unable to accept an

581
amendment which was similar to this one in so far as its purpose was to restrict the life of a general rate limitation order for one year. Your Lordships may recall that that particular amendment was technically deficient and was withdrawn. Naturally, I hope that the amendment now before the House, Amendment No. 25, is in order.
Unless some time limitation is placed on such an order, it will remain active until there is further legislation to repeal it. The issue with which we are faced is whether a general rate limitation order should have a life of only one year at a time. I would emphasise that, although the order would expire at the end of 12 months, new primary legislation will not be necessary, for the amendment, it will be noted, includes the provision that the time limitation is without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to make a further order or orders; that is, he may renew that particular order.
When this matter was dealt with in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made three particular points. These are set out in column 822 of the Official Report for 8th May. I shall refer to these three points because, apart from the amendment's technical deficiency, it was because of these points that the noble Lord said he could not accept it. First, he said that the suggested annual renewal of powers is,
"more appropriate to emergency legislation which might be expected to lapse quickly or to be replaced by more permanent provisions."
Obviously my first question is: in what category of permanency do the Government regard this particular provision in the Bill? The second question is: are the Government really saying that the Rates Bill will not be replaced by more permanent powers which could set up a more healthy and more accountable system of local government finance? If so, that must be a very gloomy prospect for any noble Lords who thought that this Rates Bill, though undesirable, was a necessary expedient.
Secondly, the noble Lord the Minister said that the general powers under Part II of the Bill would be sought only where,
"substantial numbers of authorities are ignoring the spending guidelines of the Government.".
He added:
"It would surely be unreasonable then to expect that matters could be put back to rights in so short a period as one year.".
That particular point can be dispensed with quite easily because if the Minister would accept the principle that there should be a time limit on any order under this reserve scheme, and if he considers that a year is too short, I ask him (as I asked him at Committee stage and got no answer): do the Government accept that another period would be acceptable to them? If so, I hope that they will accept this amendment and they can adjust the time limit— providing it is a reasonable time limit— at the Third Reading stage.
The third point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was that the order would be introduced only after proper scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate, first of all, that no order can be amended by either House: they accept or reject. The Government have made much of
582
the need for both Houses to approve this particular order, but no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will recall a Question on this very matter, which was asked by his noble friend Lord Chelwood as recently as the 14th May. The Lord President of the Council on that occasion replied (at col. 1268):
"There is a well-established convention that the House of Lords does not vote against the Second Reading of a mandated Government Bill … it might be regarded as inconsistent … to reject an affirmative instrument to implement Part II of the Rates Bill".
So on the question of parliamentary scrutiny, even the Lord President told the House that really this was against the conventions and could not be done in this House. Therefore, the safeguard of scrutiny to which reference was made at the Committee stage does not really hold good, and unless a time limitation is placed on a general rate order it will be there permanently. I am certain that is not what the House would wish to be allowed.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to intervene on this amendment, not so much to support the amendment itself as the idea behind it. I should like to start by thanking my noble friend for sending me a copy of the letter which he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, after the debate which we had on the 8th May during the Committee stage where we were discussing this matter.
I think it would be true to say— and I believe the House would agree with me— that nobody is particularly glad to see this Bill. The Government themselves have introduced it with reluctance and Parliament is passing it with reluctance in order to deal with a situation in which the conventions which have hitherto governed local government finance have broken down. We hope that situation is temporary. I think there is recognition that permanent remedies lie in the improvement and fundamental reform of local government finance; and our hope and expectation is that when this Bill is on the staute book the Government will buckle down to the reform of local government finance. To the extent that that succeeds—and it must succeed— the need for these general powers will in due course lapse. I therefore think it would be undesirable to have them permanently on the statute book.
On the other hand, if the situation deteriorates from that existing now, when only the selective powers are thought to be necessary, to the point where general powers are needed, then I cannot see that it will be appropriate for this part of the Bill to lapse after so short a period as a year. Therefore, I would like to commend to my noble friend a formula roughly along these lines:
"This part of the Act shall continue in force until the end of the period of X years"—
and we can discuss how long X should be but it should be longer than one year—
"beginning with the passing of this Act. It should then expire, but at anytime before the expiry of this part Her Majesty may, by order in council, direct that it shall continue in force for another period of one year, provided that Her Majesty shall not be recommended to make an order under this section until a draft of this order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
This phrasing is precedented in a number of other pieces of legislation of this character. It is something more permanent than purely emergency legislation,

583
but not so permanent as to remain on the statute book after it has ceased to be necessary. I think the whole House believes that Part II of this Bill should not remain on the statute book for longer than is necessary. Therefore, my question to my noble friend is this: would he be prepared to consider something along the lines that I have indicated in substitution for what is being moved at the moment, and be prepared to discuss what length of time X should be?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to my noble friend Lord Sandford. Of course I will, as always, read carefully what he has said. However, I am bound to say that the reasons which I shall give for being unable to accept this amendment will apply to what he has proposed.
The amendment takes into account what was debated in connection with a similar amendment in Committee. This amendment seeks to time-limit an order introducing general rate limitations, and, unlike the amendment we discussed in Committee, the order would relate to Clauses 10 and 11. However, the purpose is basically the same: to require the Secretary of State to seek annual renewal of the powers in both Houses of Parliament.
I still cannot accept this amendment. My reasons are exactly the same as those given when we discussed Amendment No. 79 in Committee: namely, that the annual renewal of powers is more appropriate to emergency legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I just cannot accept that general rate limitation powers are in any sense similar to such emergency legislation. However much noble Lords opposite, and indeed my noble friends, are worried about this and however much they may not like it. the fact is that the powers have been specifically endorsed before in our election manifesto and the legislation is being subjected to proper scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. Furthermore, the decision to seek to activate Part II will have arisen only in circumstances where the previous convention on local government spending has clearly broken down. Should that situation ever arise—and I say again and again that I sincerely hope and believe it will not— it would be quite unreasonable to expect matters to be put right in one year.
Nor could I accept a biennial renewal of powers. nor triennial, nor, for that matter, any other fixed period of time. At this time it is simply not possible to say how long it might take to put matters right. If, however, after a period of time it is felt that circumstances have changed so that the form of the general limitation powers, or the need for them, is brought into question, I see no difference between this legislation and, frankly, most of the other legislation considered by this House. That is why I believe that there is no basis on which to accept the time limiting of these powers, whether on annual renewal or any other fixed period.
As to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about affirmative procedures in the House, I agree that it would, indeed, be exceptional for the House to reject an affirmative resolution order, particularly where it related to a specific manifesto commitment of the Government. We are all familiar with the controversy which surrounded the rejection in
584
1968 of the order relating to the Rhodesian sanctions, but it is certainly not unknown for the House to divide on contentious pieces of subordinate legislation. I am informed that since 1968 there have been a score of occasions on which opposition to Government orders has been pressed to Division, on a Motion to approve the order, or on an amendment to the Motion, or on a related procedural Motion. This record shows that the House has always been cautious in the use of its powers, but it also shows that the powers exist.
I regret that we are not getting any further, because I know your Lordships believe that, with a time limit, it would not be open-ended. If the circumstances come about—as I sincerely hope they will—then, just as with other legislation, there will be no difficulty. That is why I have to say that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, needless to say. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. We took the three reasons why the Minister could not accept the amendment at the Committee stage and incorporated them in an amendment which is no longer technically deficient; at least, we believe that it is no longer technically deficient. The Minister has indicated that he believes it is in order. Having therefore, dealt with those points, we hoped that the Minister would either accept the amendment or make a reasonable suggestion about how to amend it.
I am grateful for what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Sandford. I do not understand why the Government cannot impose a time limit of some kind on the order, bearing in mind that our amendment provides an opportunity for renewal by affirmative resolution, whenever the Minister wishes. The view of local government—this view is. I am sure, shared by my two fellow presidents of the associations—is that central control of local government will become a permanent fixture. That is what local government now believe and they will continue to believe it. That belief can be removed not only by consultation, but by the Government fixing a period.
The Government say that the period of one year contained in the amendment is insufficient. However, they could fix a not unreasonable period, bearing in mind that there will still be the power to renew by order, if they so wish, at the end of that period. The Minister has said exactly what he said at the Committee stage, even though I have attempted to answer the points which he made then. However, I do not think that it would be right to divide the House at this stage. We ought to look very carefully at what the Minister has said and also at what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, bearing in mind that there will be a further stage of the Bill when something can be done to restore the confidence of outlook which is missing in local government at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.13 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) No order shall be made under this section unless at least 50 authorities have been designated under Part I of this Act in relation to the financial year immediately preceding the date on which such order is made.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I admit that this amendment ought properly to have been moved at the Committee stage and that it is being raised a little late in the day. I hope, however, that that will not prevent a short consideration of the point which I wish to make. Earlier in our proceedings today Part II of the Bill was likened to the nuclear deterrent—to be used only when conventional weapons have failed. The question is, when would such a situation be triggered off and what would trigger it off when the conventional Part I of the Bill failed? Nobody wants to pull the nuclear trigger in this Bill, or in any other sphere. However, the Government have frequently said that they will introduce a general scheme only when all the specific weapons at their disposal have failed to bring about the desired result. But they have been diffident in saying how and when they would define that situation as having arisen, despite the pressure in another place and here to do so.
The Government have said also— and my noble friend Lord Bellwin himself has said— that Part II will be introduced only if 60, 80, or 100 authorities are spending excessively. In the amendment, I have chosen the much more modest figure of 50 local authorities, so I hope that the House will not regard this as wrecking the Bill but as helping the Bill. I hope it will require the Government to be a little more specific about the conditions in which the general powers will be invoked. It will only be effective, as I have said, when Part I has failed.
This provision would mean that adherence to Part II on the horizon can be seen to be coming forward by all concerned and that the country will realise that Part I has not been a success. Therefore, for all I know, Part II may well be justified in the future. This amendment will not stop the Government's purpose, nor hinder what the Government are doing. I believe it would be helpful to define the position where, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in respect of the previous amendment, the situation "has clearly broken down". I hope that this amendment will be given sympathetic consideration.
Should the figure of 50 local authorities be wrong, I shall be quite happy not to stick to it; I shall be willing to accept a figure of 49 or 51. The point I wish to make is that there has to be a minimum number of local authorities attacked under Part I before Part II should be brought into being. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I say, first, that at present we do not envisage a situation in which 50 local authorities might qualify for selective action. Although I seem to have failed to convince noble Lords opposite that that is so, I want to repeat that point. When we keep speaking of from 12 to 20 local authorities, that is exactly what we mean. It will not be too long before we are able to show that that is so.
I have listened carefully to what has been said by my noble friend in support of the amendment. I believe there is still some confusion as to the Government's position. Throughout, we have said that the general rate limitation scheme is not applicable in present circumstances and that it does not apply at the present time. At present, we have a small minority—I say again. a small minority—of grossly overspending
586
councils which account for the great proportion of total overspending.
In these circumstances, we have argued that selective rate limitation is adequate since the large majority of authorities are spending at or close to their expenditure targets. We have gone on to ask, "What if the picture changes? What if, despite capping the rates of the present minority of irresponsible authorities, we continue to experience significant overspending because a large number of local authorities spend well above their expenditure targets?". That would be a different situation and one that could occur without a large number of authorities actually spending so much that, individually, they would qualify for selective action. We have said that in those circumstances, the different approach of general rate limitation might be appropriate.
I have consistently resisted— I acknowledge—all attempts to impose artificial constraints on the introduction of a general rate limitation scheme. I have done so for two reasons. First, we believe that such constraints will only weaken the deterrent effect of the powers. If authorities know that there are procedural hurdles in the way to a general limitation, they will be less concerned about the possibility of its introduction.
Secondly, I cannot accept that it is sensible to try to restrict the scope for action in the case of powers, which, if they are used at all, would only come into effect at an uncertain point in the future. However sensible or realistic a constraint may seem to be now, there can be no certainty that it will look the same when and if the time ever came to apply it.
We have provided already for a very important restraint on the Secretary of State's freedom of action, by requiring the approval of both Houses to an order to bring Part II into effect. The important point is that if and when the time ever came, the Government would have to make their case in Parliament. I am sorry because I know that this does not satisfy my noble friend; it is not without reluctance that I cannot accept this amendment, but I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, I fear that I must intervene. If it were not so serious, this Bill would be absolutely hilarious. It is incomprehensible. As my noble and learned friend observed, it is full of gobbledegook. The drafting is absolutely appalling. Its intentions are not known. The motivations are all mixed up. We see this all the way through the Bill. The Minister is doing the best that he can with, honestly, almost the worst possible piece of legislation that he could have had thrust on him. In that way I feel very sorry for him about it all.
It is not now really a question of whether the noble Lord accepts this particular amendment which has been moved by the noble Viscount. It is a question of the whole see-saw. I repeat this once again; we are all having to repeat the same things, and that applies also to the Minister. On the one hand, we are told that the Government do not expect to invoke the general power. We, therefore, argue that they could at least give this lapse of three years. We are told, no, they cannot do that because something dreadful may happen and we have to be ready for it. The noble

587
Viscount then suggests that we give a number of authorities. The Government say, no, they cannot do that, because we do not know the number. We are talking, of course, of a handful, say, 12 to 20. When we ask whether it is a big or a little handful, we get no answer at all. As I say, the whole thing is absolutely ludicrous. It is like being Alice in Wonderland. It is absolutely appalling. The more we go on, and the Government bring forward more and more amendments—Amendment No. 4 was, unfortunately, an oustanding example—the more completely incomprehensible, intricate, introverted and tied up the whole thing becomes. It is an insult to both Houses of Parliament that we should have been presented with this Bill.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I have no intention of pushing this amendment. I am sorry that the Government cannot see the logic of my argument that it is better to have Part II defined than not defined. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said with great eloquence, the Government have refused all efforts to define matters when they were bringing in Part II. I have said before, and I say again, that I think they will live to regret that attitude, but I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Authorities subject to general control]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, if Amendment No. 27 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 inclusive.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("each of the three") and insert ("the").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient for the House to take with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, as they all refer to the same point.
Amendment No. 29: Page 8, line 31, leave out ("years") and insert ("year").
Amendment No. 30: Page 8, line 34, leave out ("each of the three") and insert ("the").
Amendment No. 31: Page 8, line 34, leave out ("years") and insert ("year").
We were presented at Committee stage with a considerable concession by the Government in that certain authorities were to be exempt from Part II of the Bill if they fulfilled certain conditions. I think that the House, and I am sure local authority associations, welcomed that very important concession—provided of course that the authorities concerned have proved their good behaviour for a certain period of time. I think we had a debate on that on that occasion. The trouble is that in order to qualify for that exemption an authority has to get over two hurdles. First, it has to be below its GREA, and, secondly, it has to be below its target. As we said at the time, both are movable hurdles which can be shifted at any period. Therefore, to avoid what is, in effect, jumping twice through two hoops on four occasions can be quite a process; so perhaps, on closer thought, the concession is a little less generous than we might have expected.
In order to qualify for the concession an authority has to obey the conditions for not less than four years—that is to say, the three years preceding and the year for which it has budgeted. If the concession is to mean anything, it should be reduced in period. The amendments seek to say, in effect, that an authority has to prove its fulfilment of the conditions for the first year—that is, the year just ended— and to be budgeting below the targets and the GREA for the second year. The authority could then say to its ratepayers, "We are no longer in fear of rate capping and we can go ahead and do what we promised to do".
I believe that the amendment is a modest improvement which would make the Government's concession more realistic and more acceptable and, hopefully, would come into life before this Government disappear and perhaps the Government after them. Otherwise, the legislation will be with us for so long that the concession will be meaningless. It may be wrong that it should be a total of two years, rather than four. It could be a compromise, which is not difficult to see, to cover three years; that is to say, to be good boys for two years and to promise to be good boys for a third year. But I believe that the concession the Government gave would not be seriously weakened by this group of amendments.
I think there was a considerable attempt among Conservative Members of Parliament in another place to move in this direction, but of course they did not have this amendment because it did not come before them. If I remember rightly, it appeared, or saw the light of day, only a very short while before our Committee stage and I do not think we had enough time to consider it, though, as I said on that occasion, and as I am sure we all agree, it is a considerable and generous concession to a process which nobody really enjoys. In that light I hope that the Government will consider it most seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is certainly not the Government's intention that prudent authorities with a consistent record of good management in compliance with our spending guidelines should be set a rate limit were a general power of rate limitation ever needed. Indeed, our purpose in amending Clause 10 in Committee was to provide for the exclusion from the operation of a general rate limitation scheme authorities with an established record of responsible self-restraint. We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue both in this House and in another place. We have now provided that should general rate limitation ever prove necessary, rate limits will not be set for authorities which have not exceeded their GRE in each of the previous three years and which are so budgeting again in the year in which the question of exemption falls to be determined, or which have budgeted similarly in relation to their expenditure target.
The amendment before us seeks to cut down the period during which an authority must demonstrate its self-restraint to just one year, and the year in question. I cannot accept that an authority could demonstrate consistency over such a short period of time. It would be perfectly possible for an authority to manipulate its budgeted total expenditure by the use of special funds, to give an impression of prudence which would allow

589
it to avoid a rate limitation. Two years is too short a period to judge whether an authority is really complying with the guidelines. It is only if we are sure of that, that we can justify giving an authority the special treatment provided for in Clause 10, as amended. If we were not sure, the consequences for ratepayers in these areas would be serious. An authority which had manipulated its budget to secure exemption could be expected to make a particularly heavy demand on its ratepayers during a year when it had an unrestricted rate to refinance its balances.
I gather from what my noble friend Lord Ridley said that in some ways we have weakened; we have not gone as far as was proposed in another place by the honourable Member for Honiton and others. While what was talked of there did suggest that expenditure should be considered only over a two-year period, it is also true that it would have provided only for the exemption of authorities which had met their targets consistently. So long as targets continued there would have been no GRE exemption.
I think your Lordships will accept that we have gone slightly further in one important respect because we have provided for authorities which have consistently spent below GRE to be excluded, even if they have exceeded target. As I said in Committee, we certainly do not condone any spending over target but it is very unfair to suggest that our amendment was less satisfactory for the authority which has truly exercised self-restraint.
I should like to take the opportunity, during debating this amendment, to revise the statement I made in Committee about the amendment which we then agreed to on Clause 10. I said that, using the pattern of local government expenditure over the past three years and budgets for the current one, 208 English authorities might have been exempted if that question fell to be decided now. In fact, it appears that the correct number would be 220. I apologise for not having that figure right before, but I think the difference does not significantly alter the situation. Certainly, it does not worsen it.
Of course, we must continue to be wary of reading too much into the evidence of past years. We have made and we meant to make a significant concession to the reasonable concerns of the prudent authorities. What we are being asked to do in the amendment now before us is to take a chance with the protection that we are offering the ratepayers in higher spending areas. I fear that this is something that we cannot do.
I feel that this is an attempt to meet some of the concerns expressed although I do not have any of the fears to which the noble Baroness in particular referred when we were discussing the last amendment. I have much more confidence than that. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will understand why I am not able to accept the amendments.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I certainly shall not push the amendments. However, I should like, by leave, to make two points. I should have said of course that four years is the life of a council. If you have to be good boys for four years, someone else will reap the reward of your good behaviour or otherwise because there will
590
then be an election and someone else may take over. In two years, you can show results that you could not otherwise do. My noble friend's defence was not as strong as that which he normally deploys, and I am sorry that he has lapsed from his high standards. He said that if you were very good boys for two years, you could then be very naughty after escaping the Bill and get it all back in the third. That, applied after four years, means that you can get even more back in the fifth. I do not accept the force of my noble friend's argument, but I am wasting time and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29, to 31 not moved.]
9.33 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by notice in writing served on an authority exempt it from the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to the next financial year if he is satisfied that, in relation to that authority, one or more of the following conditions apply, namely—

(a) that the authority has exercised its best endeavours with a view to ensuring—

(i) that its expenditure in the previous financial year has not exceeded the grant related expenditure (as defined in section 56(8) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980) of that authority, and

(ii) that its expenditure in the previous financial year has complied with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 59(6)(cc) of the said Act of 1980;

(b) that the authority is a designated authority for the purposes of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978;

(c) that the authority has entered into arrangements with the Secretary of State or Ministers pursuant to section 7 of the said Act of 1978;

(d) that all or any part of the authority's area has been designated a special area pursuant to section 8 of the said Act of 1978;

(e) that any increase in the total expenditure of that authority or in any rate levied or precept issued by it, as between the last but one financial year and the financial year immediately following that financial year has been less than the increase in the Index of Retail Prices in the same period.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this rather bulky-looking amendment which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, seeks to pin down the Government to give a definition of how a local authority wishing to conform in every way with the Bill could achieve exemption from subsection (1). If an authority is to avoid the sin of overspending, it would help if we had a definition of what this sin in reality is, or, alternatively, of what virtue is. The amendment would protect local authorities by making sure that a local authority would not be penalised if it complied with the Government's 1980 Act and if it is a designated authority for the purposes of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. If the area in question already has special problems, what is the point of giving with one hand and taking away with the other? The amendment would simply let local authorities know where they stand by giving guidelines for the criteria of designation or exemption from designation.
Looking at the amendment in detail, paragraph (e) provides for exemption if the total expenditure of the authority in preceding years has been less than the increase in the retail price index. This would make it supremely virtuous. As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, local

591
authority expenditure is almost inevitably normally above the RPI rate of increase.
The amendment, in essence, asks the Government to define a virtuous authority rather than leaving everyone in the dark. The noble Lord I think on a number of occasions during the Committee stage and possibly today, has referred to reasonable expenditure. The question really is, "What is reasonable expenditure?" At present, we have no definition of this at all. It is like asking the Government how long is a ball of string and getting no answer. This is a probing amendment. We want some clarification from the Government of what a virtuous authority is, and what reasonable expenditure can be expected to be. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment, too, is exactly the same as one tabled during Committee stage and seeks to introduce further exemptions from the operation of the general scheme. Obviously, the statement I made during the Committee stage has not satisfied noble Lords opposite. The first part of the amendment again seeks to exempt authorities which have tried to meet GRE and target in the previous financial year. However, as your Lordships know, the Government have already amended the Bill to exempt authorities with a proven record of responsible spending. This is now incorporated in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 10.
In my view, the Government's amendment, with the specific criteria that we have adopted, will be much easier to operate than what is advocated in the first part of this amendment. I cannot see how it would be possible to establish that an authority had used its best endeavours to reduce its spending. How can one measure a best endeavour? In my view the Government's approach is much preferable and I could not support the first part of the amendment.
The next three exemptions in the amendment, dealing with partnership and programme authorities, overlap substantially since all partnership and programme authorities must also be designated authorities for the purposes of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 and a special area cannot be defined except for a partnership or programme authority. We have heard once more how inner city authorities ought to be exempt from rate limitation because of their special problems, but, for the reasons we debated at great length in earlier stages, I cannot accept that view. We know that inner city areas do have special problems and that is reflected in their GRE assessments. I have before me a lot of figures to illustrate that.
I have already explained in Committee that the Government willingly support programmes of action through the partnership and programme authority machinery. I said earlier today that for five years I myself have been deeply involved in that work, so I know that that is so. But that does not give them carte blanche to spend money. The arguments which I advanced then still hold good now. I do not propose to detain your Lordships by repeating them again. Suffice it to say that we already have in mind the special needs of inner city areas. But inner city status is not inconsistent with responsible control over expenditure and—I
592
repeat this and say it carefully—the search for economies.
The final exemption in this amendment would exclude any authority which between one year and another increased its total expenditure or its rates by less than the rate of inflation. Again, I explained in Committee why I could not accept this. Nothing has been said in the meantime to make me change my mind. Such an exemption would still be open to considerable manipulation by those willing to exploit it. Furthermore, it would require us to exclude any authority which was standing still in volume terms. The purpose of this Bill is to secure real reductions in spending, particularly from the high spenders. None of the proposed exemptions in this amendment is acceptable to the Government, and in those circumstances I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for covering all the specific points in the amendment. Tomorrow I shall read with great care what he has said. He has indicated that the Government are alive to inner city problems, although I must say that in my opinion they do not seem to be going about dealing with them in quite the right way.
I am slightly confused by his claim that the RPI or the matter referred to in the last subsection could be manipulated. I was not quite clear what he meant by that. As for standing still, I should have thought that if in some areas expenditure could stand still while needs and problems were increasing—demographic problems and social problems of various types—those authorities would be doing very well indeed. I will read carefully what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 13, leave out from ("exceed") to ("by") in line 15 and insert ("£10 million, he shall").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment for the same good reasons that the Government have introduced into Part I of the Bill a threshold of £10 million: that is to say, to avoid a lot of bureaucratic investigation, calculation, review and negotiation over amounts of public money which are not material when compared with the budgets of those authorities who are spending sums several times in excess of this amount. I move it for the additional reason that the authorities to whom this threshold applies—namely, the 333 members of the Association of District Councils—have, in aggregate, been within the Government's targets not only last year but also this year, and show no signs of going outside them. Therefore, there really is no need for this part of the Bill, any more than the previous part, to bear upon these authorities and to cause all the extra work that would be involved.
I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 34:
Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall before the commencement of each financial year by an order made by him increase the amount specified in subsection (5) above by not less than the increase in the retail price index for the preceding calendar year.").

593
I certainly do not want to press either of these amendments now, and particularly not Amendment No. 34 because we have already agreed in the course of dealing with Amendment No. 2 that there is a better formula for indexing the threshold than the one now proposed in this amendment. So what I am moving is an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 33 to introduce the threshold into this part of the Bill for the reasons that I have just given, and to attach to it a further amendment along the lines of that which I proposed and which the Government accepted in principle when I moved Amendment No. 2 earlier this afternoon. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as I seem to have said time and time again in discussing this Bill, the circumstances which would lead to an introduction of a general limitation scheme would have to be substantially different from those pertaining today. Whereas we regard the £10 million exemption limit as appropriate for the purposes of the selective scheme, we simply cannot possibly know at this time what might be appropriate as an exemption limit for a general scheme. Indeed, it might not be appropriate to have any exemption along these lines, especially since we have already included in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 10 specific exemptions for authorities with a proven record of responsible spending.
The Bill as presently drafted allows us some flexibility over the operation of the general scheme. Not only will it allow us to exclude authorities in a similar fashion to the selective scheme, but it would also permit us to exempt authorities spending less than amounts which could be related to GRE or targets. But that flexibility would be lost if these amendments were accepted. I wonder whether my noble friend quite takes that point on board. Furthermore, £10 million
594
might be too low a figure if at any stage in the future we had to introduce these powers. And under this amendment we would have no way of increasing the figure save by annual inflation increases, but those could not start to apply until Part II is brought into effect.
For all those reasons I believe that the subsection as presently drafted would allow us the right degree of flexibility to operate a general scheme in a way appropriate if at any time it became necessary. I have difficulty with the amendments, and in accepting them, because to do so would, in my view, deny us that flexibility of approach. I wonder whether my noble friend, on reflection, would not be inclined to agree with me.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I say what enormous pleasure it gives me to agree with him for once in the arguments which he has just advanced. I referred a few minutes ago to Part II as a nuclear deterrent. I cannot see that district councils can claim exemption from nuclear deterrents; it is like the GLC calling itself a nuclear-free zone—such a thing does not exist. I hope that this amendment will not proceed any further.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I think that it is an excellent amendment and it does nothing at all to upset the flexibility which my noble friend requires. But unless I manage to collect some support from either the AMA or the ACC I shall obviously not have any luck. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 11 insert the following new clause:
("Guidance under s. 59(6)(cc) of 1980 Act.
Where the Secretary of State has—

(a) issued guidance to a local authority pursuant to section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government and Planning Act 1980 (in this section referred to as the 1980 Act); and

(b) determined a maximum expenditure level for an authority pursuant to this Act,

then notwithstanding the provisions of the 1980 Act for the purpose of the issuing of guidance to an authority and the determination of an authority's maximum expenditure as aforesaid, the higher of the figures shall be used for both purposes.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one that was put down by my noble friend Lady Stedman during the Committee stage. The difficulty that it seeks to reduce is the apparent contradiction of issuing rate-capped authorities with a spending limit which is different from the two benchmark figures which are currently used in the block grant.
At present— that is, in 1984–85—each authority has a "grant-related expenditure assessment" and a "target". These are different figures calculated in different ways. In fact, at various stages in the Bill we have heard about these extraordinary discrepancies. If rate-capping is introduced under this Bill each authority whose rate is to be limited will also have a third, and a different, spending norm.
Authorities cannot possibly be expected to understand which of three spending benchmarks they should, in fact, be spending near. It would be likely that an authority spending at its rate-cap spending limit would be penalised for overspending its target, and this is obviously ridiculous.
This amendment would oblige the Government to use the higher of each authority's "target" and "rate-cap expenditure limit" for both purposes. That is, if an authority had a "target"of £50 million and a rate-cap expenditure limit of £60 million, then £60 million would also be used as the target. Surely it is desirable to reduce the elements of doubt in the shifting sands of this Bill.
This could be accommodated within the existing law for target-setting. It could be a principle used in setting the target that it could not be lower than the rate-cap spending limit. The effect of the amendment should be to reduce confusion and contradiction, and to introduce much-needed simplicity into a deplorably complex system, while not challenging the Government's objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords I do not accept that expenditure levels and targets should necessarily be set at the same level. They have different purposes and there could be good reasons for determining them in different ways. It would not be surprising therefore if the numbers differed in the end. I explained these differences in Committee when we considered a similar amendment. Perhaps it would help your Lordships if I set out our thinking again in the light of this modified amendment.
596
Looking at targets first, they are set by formula and, subject to that important limitation, they reflect the Secretary of State's judgment of the amounts he could reasonably ask each authority to aim at in order that the Government's overall expenditure plans should be met. But they are not individually tailored figures, and authorities have the ability to overspend the target figure—at the cost of grant holdback and therefore higher rate bills. Unlike targets, expenditure levels feed straight into the rate limit, which means that, effectively, authorities cannot exceed them. So, whereas targets can be exceeded, albeit at the cost of higher rates, expenditure levels cannot.
Secondly, precisely because these levels cannot be exceeded, we have provided in the Bill for a redetermination procedure which allows the Secretary of State to take account of particular local circumstances of individual authorities. In setting targets, by contrast, he cannot do that: he is statutorily obliged to calculate targets on principles applicable to all authorities.
So an authority's target must be based on general principles and can anyway be exceeded. Its expenditure level under the Bill can take account of its particular circumstances and cannot be exceeded. Those important differences may well result in different target and expenditure level figures for an authority, and with good reason.
It has been suggested that it would be illogical to provide for authorities spending at the expenditure level set by the Secretary of State to face the possibility of grant holdback if that level happens to be higher than its target. I disagree. As I have explained, the expenditure targets and expenditure levels serve two purposes and are derived in different ways. The expenditure level will not be an approved minimum expenditure level but a statement of the maximum spending level to be taken into account in setting a rate limit. There is no reason why an authority spending at that level should not decide to make the extra effort to get down to its target and avoid holdback. And it would be quite unfair to ratepayers in authorities which are not selected if they had to bear the cost of lost grant in the event of overspending, if authorities which had worse spending records were to be exempted.
The new clause ignores the two essential differences between targets and expenditure levels, and that is why we cannot accept it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that extremely ingenious explanation. I am not sure that I am able to accept it, but for ingenuity it was almost matchless. The fact still remains that the general principles of the Government's public expenditure objectives which are embodied in the targets may take no account whatsoever of the expenditure levels which the Government agree are needed by certain local authorities to maintain their services. I must have a simple mind because I find that surprising.
When there is the further complication of the rate-capping limit and there are these three possible figures juggling around in the air, it seems to me that confusion is worse confounded. It is strange the

597
analogies that come to one's mind in this Bill. I think I used "minefield" when movng the last amendment. This time I used the words "shifting sands". They are all appropriate. They underline the imperfections and unsatisfactory nature of this Bill. I shall read with my usual care what the noble Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Commencement]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Part I of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the principles referred to in subsection (4) of section 2 have been approved by each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government are asking Parliament to give them a blank cheque with this Bill, as has been pointed out before. Selective rate limitation is a major accretion of power to the centre, yet the amount of parliamentary control over rate limitation is minimal. Soon after this Bill is enacted the Government will announce their first hit list. The first batch of authorities will be designated for selective rate limitation; but despite probing in this House and also in the other place we do not know on what basis those authorities will be designated. We know only that they will be designated in accordance with principles; that there is scope in the Bill for 16 different sets of principles to be drawn up to ensnare local authorities; and that more principles will be the subject of a report to Parliament. That is all we know for certain, because that is all the Bill says.
During the Bill's passage the Government have attempted to assuage Parliament's fears about this aspect of the Rates Bill by publishing a putative hit list based on 1983– 84 data. Ministers have used this to illustrate two points. First, they claim that whatever the criteria the same authorities appeared on the hit list. Secondly, they used it to illustrate the sort of criteria—a word the Government use interchangeably with principle, and incidentally define neither—that might be used to designate authorites, but we were not reassured by the Government's illustrative hit list.
The Government's statisticians used 11 different combinations of 11 different factors to produce a hit list of 33 authorities. Each of the combinations caught between 12 and 28 authorities. Only five authorities appeared on every one of the 11 combinations of criteria. For other authorities their inclusion on the hit list, their designation as an overspender, depended critically on the criteria, or principle, chosen. The City of London, for example, managed to appear as an overspender on three of the 11 combinations of criteria.
One of the worrying aspects—the whole thing is a nightmare—has thus been illustrated by the Government's own statements. Just what principles are used will be crucial in determining the fate of individual authorities. We cannot give Government such unbridled powers. It would be quite wrong and quite contrary to our Parliamentary democracy.
598
Parliament should see the principles for clarifying overspenders before the Government use this Bill's powers. Hence the purpose of Amendment No. 37 which makes sure that the principles have been approved by each House of Parliament. In approving the principles somebody will then have to get down to defining them so that we shall at least start at the beginning once again. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment seems to re-open the debate which we had earlier on Amendment 12 in Committee, about the provision for parliamentary scrutiny of the process of selection for rate limitation. The amendment seeks to prevent Part I of the Bill coming into effect until the principles on which selections will be made have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. I hope that, following certain correspendence I have been having, and my earlier remarks, your Lordships are now clear about what we mean by "principles" in this context. I should like to repeat some of the facts for the record.
We are proposing no formal procedure for the approval of the report mentioned in Clause 2(1), which will set out the names of the authorities designated and the principles on which designation would take place as provided in Clause 2(6). That report will be laid before the other place and we have undertaken that a copy of it will be sent to each authority named. The Secretary of State's decisions and the basis on which they have been taken will therefore be set out formally and in the public domain.
As I have said before, members of the other place may pursue the interests of their own constituencies by correspondence, or by bringing deputations from the authorities concerned to see Ministers to explain their case. They may also pursue the matter by parliamentary Question or adjournment debate. If the feeling in the other place was that there was a need for more general debate of the principles on which the Secretary of State had acted then there are procedures for achieving this. The Environment Select Committee could determine that it would investigate the report and call for Ministers and officials to give evidence.
There are additionally other opportunities available and Governments can always make time available. I have always said that if there were a general desire for debate and there was a danger that it could not otherwise be arranged, no doubt the Government would consider sympathetically a request for assistance through the usual channels. I am convinced that there will be adequate opportunities for consideration of the Secretary of State's determinations in Parliament without the necessity for the statutory procedure envisaged by this amendment.
We have discussed the idea that the designation report should require the approval of both Houses. We have rejected that notion in Committee by voting against Amendment 12. This amendment differs only in proposing that an approval should be given once only to a set of principles before Part I comes into effect. That seems to me rather odd since there is no provision in the Bill for the principles to remain the same each year. And I am advised that it is technically

599
defective to require the approval of the principles before Part I can come into effect when those principles cannot statutorily exist until Part I comes into effect. For all the reasons given, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, are we to understand the Minister to be saying in the last part of that reply that the principles referred to in Clause 2(4) are likely to change from time to time, because if that is what he is saying it becomes even more of the nightmare—as my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock was trying to put together—of the two ideas of shifting sands and the minefield. If you can think of anything more of a nightmare than a minefield and shifting sands, I cannot. I think that this Bill is that.
It seems to me that this is an extremely good amendment. The noble Lord the Minister produced all sorts of other ways in which its ends could be achieved, but none as simple and as effective, it seems to me, as this particular single method, whereby, as is only right, Parliament should approve what this Bill is about before it comes into force. Unless it has the opportunity to examine those principles and to vote on them it will be voting on a Bill based on principles about which it does not know and which will change, it is now informed, from time to time. I cannot think of anything more unsatisfactory than that.
Perhaps this time of night is not the moment to try to force this amendment to a Division. Nevetheless, I do not think this amendment should be abandoned because it seems to me to go to the heart of the matter.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with leave of the House, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to read carefully Hansard for the debate which we had on Amendment No. 3. That debate went to some length and went round the whole of the matter. Although tempted, I feel it would not be appropriate for me to go over that again now, but that explains more clearly than may have come out in the debate on this amendment the matter of the principles, how and what they are and how they would operate.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his stalwart support. He is quite right, as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton was when he moved Amendment No. 3 earlier this afternoon. Since principles in this Bill are such a movable feast I do not see why the Minister should be so exercised about whether one set is referred to in one lot or in different lots. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out, there is little point in pressing this to a Division tonight, and we shall have to find another way of approaching it, perhaps in the last stages of the Bill. Nevertheless, the only way we can get any solace from all this is that when the Government find, unfortunately, that they get into the muddle which we have all foreseen they will have on record the much stronger straws at which they can clutch than those with which they are building the Bill at the moment. i beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Parts I and II of this Act shall continue in force for the period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this Act and shall then expire.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to limit the life of rate limitation to only three years. There was much feeling about this both on Second Reading and in Committee. This is now another version which is trying to obtain the same objective.
We have heard again and again during the Bill's passage that the system of local government finance is riddled with anomalies, inequities and complexities. The present Government have legislated in an attempt to solve the problem of local government finance three times in the last five years. They have also withdrawn two Bills on the same subject. I must, in all fairness, say that the previous Government also found difficulty in dealing with local government finance. That is not the monopoly of one party: I say that right away.
However, the Government have created a nightmare now for those elected councillors and officials who have to try to deliver services against the background of shifting targets, changing rules and nine different grant sytems in five years.
On top of this wholly unintelligible mess, the Government have superimposed rate capping, which we are engrossed in tonight. In one blow they have added to the complexity of local government finance and, worse, confused the already tenuous accountability of local councils to their electorates. The Government had two chances; one on Second Reading in a reasoned amendment and one again at Committee stage, to try to do something to sort out this financial muddle in local government, but they turned it down on both occasions. Nobody, not even the Government, I am sure, will say that the system of local government finance we shall have when the Bill is enacted will be anything other than a tremendous mess. In fact the Government have now superimposed one big mess on an already enormous mess. We cannot countenance this system continuing in this way unamended. Local government would atrophy and gradually be taken over by the DoE in the same way that the DHSS runs the Health Service. I really think that the DoE is changing from the days when I was there, and I hate to think what that machine is like now.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Hear, hear!
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord may well say "Hear, hear!" I am sorry for all those who work in that building and who also have to look at it. The Government will try again to liquidate their way out of the chaos. I would guess that in about 18 months' time we shall see again further local government legislation. But this need not be the case. Why do the Government not say now that enough is enough? They now have their manifesto commitment to "protect the ratepayers". though one must ask at what cost in terms of the damage to local democracy. One must also ask whether, when it comes out in the wash, it will, in fact, protect the ratepayers.

601
Why do the Government now not concede that the Rates Bill is not a long-term solution and recognise—though I do not expect them to do so—its naked expediencies and say that the search will continue in a vigorous manner for a better way of financing local services, encouraging local participation in Government, and letting local committees have a proper say in the levels of services that they would want to see? That can be done by putting a time limit on Parts I and II which would encourage that to take place. Rate capping is not the answer. If the Government were to see it—as, at times, they keep saying that they see it—as only a stop gap, then, by accepting this amendment, they would be coming part of that way and would be giving themselves a chance to rethink and to reknit the whole thing, which is what they will have to do in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Baroness's dissertation and her cri de c œur as regards the state of local government finances— the same thing that I have been hearing for about 20 years. The tune is slightly different each year, but the song underneath is pretty much the same. There is no doubt that whenever you seek to have a system which tries, on the one hand, to distribute several billion pounds' worth of grants among some 450 authorities on the principle of equalisation, you are bound to have problems and difficulties, for wherever there are winners so there are losers; that some get more means that some others get less. In the past we had a convention that everyone more or less followed and worked within Government outline parameters for spending; and that seemed to work more or less all right.
What the noble Baroness was fair enough to remark upon—and I remember it so well, for I was making representations from the other side of the table at the time—what a complexity it always has been; and, I suspect, always will be. I do not think that the amendments to this particular part of the Bill get us much further forward. For the time being the urgent problem is to carry on dealing with the problem of excessive spending and rating which, happily, so far is confined to a relatively small number of authorities. If that problem can be dealt with and the traditional relationship between local government spending and central Government's responsibilities for economic policy can be re-established, then I believe that we shall have gone a long way to improving the climate of relations between central and local government.
That is something to which I hope we shall be moving. I am still convinced that the bottle is half full and not half empty and that there is opportunity. I know that there is cynicism and I know of the concern expressed, but I feel that we cannot accept these amendments. I do not think that time-limiting is the answer. It may be, as I said at Second Reading, that the time will come for something else. In all truth, it never seems to stop being something else; but when that time comes is a matter for further debate.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say something at this stage. I have not
602
so far spoken on this Bill. In a way this amendment is a modification of the amendment in Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. He moved to leave out Clause 9, I think it was—the first of the clauses in Part II. That was defeated in Committee. This is a lesser amendment in that it seeks to limit both Parts I and II to a life of three years, which I do not think the House as a whole would support. But I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider at a later stage moving an amendment to limit the life of Part II to three years. With regard to Part I, I think the majority of the House feels it is necessary, although I do not expect that the Opposition would agree to that. But Part II is contingent and involves reserve powers and perhaps there are certain dangers, so there is something to be said for limiting the powers of Part II to a specific period of time. That suggestion might find favour with the noble Baroness at a later stage.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the suggestion that has just been made. I am sure that this is a compromise which could well find considerable acceptance in the country.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I was lost in fascination listening to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It really is a delight to hear him speak. I cannot answer clearly as to what one might do. I suspect that, having come all this way, we could not now decide to put a time limit on the general scheme. I am well aware of the concern, and the Government have spoken again and again—and I have done so too—of the great reluctance with which we have this in the Bill at all. But either it is a deterrent or it is not. Only time will tell how effective is Part I of the Bill. I believe that it will be effective and successful; time will tell. As to whether or not one does anything else with Part II, I am bound to say that, although I sympathise very much with the motivations of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I must question that. But I shall think about what he says.
Baroness Birk: I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said and I shall want to give it some thought. I am grateful to him for his suggestion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
10.12 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 13, line 3, after ("Rates") insert ("(Protection of Ratepayers)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I first of all explain that because of a misprint somewhere along the line the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has been erroneously included on the Marshalled List in support of this amendment. The name that should have appeared is of course that of my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross.
The purpose of the amendment is to alter the Short Title of the Bill so that it would read: "Rates (Protection of Ratepayers) Bill".
"The purpose of this Bill is to protect the ratepayer".

603
Those are not my words but those of none other than the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, speaking on the 26th April at col. 166 of the Official Report. Identical assertions were made at various times by many other Ministers and other senior Conservatives both in this House and in another place. Even a noted Conservative opponent of the Bill, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, speaking on the "World at One" on 28th March conceded that the Bill would "protect most ratepayers." He then went on to attack the general powers in Part II of the Bill which he particularly disliked. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, defending the Bill in the Observer of 29th April explained:
"Where the system allows ratepayers to be exploited, the Government must step in to protect them. Nobody else can."
That was backed up in greater detail a week later by the chairman of the Ratepayers' Action Group for the Lothian Region, writing in the Daily Telegraph on 4th May. He explained that without the effective form of rate capping which applies in Scotland. the regional rate would be more like 200 pence in the pound than the 96 pence in the pound that applied as a result of the de facto rate capping.
Despite all this, the Bill is strangely unpopular with the general public, as a number of quite separate public opinion polls have revealed. This unpopularity would seem to stem from what most people, and most outside commentators, agree to be poor presentation on the part of the Government, and ineffective public relations. A bland and uninformative Short Title is symptomatic of the poor presentation, in my submission. It is no business of mine, speaking from these Benches, to boost the Government's image. On the other hand, I do not want to see a government of a different political persuasion coming to power, as is bound to happen one day, and rates soaring astronomically, way above the rate of inflation, simply because the public have not been won over to the undoubted overall merits of this Bill, despite a number of imperfections. I also believe that accuracy and precision in a Short Title are desirable in themselves. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, one can begin to respond to that by asking, what's in a name? I am bound to say that I am not without some sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, says about this. He says the public have not yet been won over. I think it would take more than a name to do that. What matters is not the name, but the outcome and how effective the legislation is. That is what will decide at the end of the day whether or not the Bill is successful and whether the public are really won over. I believe in fact that the Bill is very much welcomed by those who actually pay the rates, and I have no reason to think otherwise.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the change in the Title of the Bill, though I thank the noble Lord for his motivation in proposing it, which I know is very supportive. But as well as protecting ratepayers, there are many other substantial provisions in the Bill which would not be covered by this proposed Title. Your Lordships will have noted that these provisions make up more than half the Bill, in terms of pages of text. So although the Bill certainly does protect ratepayers, that
604
is not all that it does. That is why I think we have to stick with the Title "Rates Bill", and for me it will have to be a case of a rose by any other name smelling as sweet.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, is it not true that there is a further danger in accepting this proposal, in that if the Title were to be changed, every ratepayer in the land would think that his rates would be protected? Ratepayers would think that it was about rate capping, and therefore if the rates were to go up at all, they would blame the Government for allowing them to do so and for not capping them; and the Bill would not work. We are told that only between 12 and 20 authorities are affected. What would happen to the other 429 who are not affected if it were to be called the Protection of Ratepayers Bill? They would think that their rates would not be protected, by the Government's own admission. Therefore I think it would be very unwise for the Government to accept this proposal. however desirable it may be.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, the point is that 80 per cent. or more of authorities try very hard to keep their rates down to reasonable levels—and likewise their spending. That is why the thrust of the Bill is with the minority of high spenders. That is where the emphasis has to lie.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to support the Minister in resisting the amendment. There is a touch of frivolity behind the seriousness with which the amendment has been moved. I recall that the late Lord Conesford moved a similar amendment to a Bill which was entitled the Park Lane Improvement Bill. A dual carriageway was made and part of Hyde Park was taken for the purpose. Lord Conesford's amendment to the Short Title was to substitute "Hyde Park Diminution Bill". That amendment was resisted on the grounds of frivolity.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not entirely convinced by the arguments that I have heard against the amendment. Some of the Government's support has been of a rather barbed nature; but if they do not wish to accept a helping hand, who am I to press it upon them? I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Miscellaneous amendments and repeals]:
10.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon) moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
(" Part of hereditaments temporarily unoccupied
3A.—(l) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the principal Act for the words from "until" to "subsection" there shall be substituted the words "until whichever of the events specified in subsection (1 A) of this section first occurs".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The events mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;

605

(b) the ending of the rate period in which the request was made;

(c) a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament taking effect under that subsection.

(1B) Where an apportionment of the value of a hereditament under subsection (1) of this section has taken effect in a rate period and, in that or a subsequent rate period, it appears to the rating authority that the part of the hereditament which was unoccupied at the date of the apportionment has continued to be unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the rating authority may give further effect to the apportionment by making a determination under this subsection in relation to a specified rate period.
(1C) From the commencement of the rate period to which a determination under subsection (1B) of this section relates until whichever of the events specified in subsection (1D) of this section first occurs the value apportioned to the occupied part shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the value ascribed to the hereditament in the valuation list.
(1D) The events mentioned in subsection (1C) of this section are—

(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;

(b) the ending of the rate period to which the determination relates;

(c) a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament taking effect under subsection (1) of this section."

(3) In subsection (2) of that section for the word "subsection" there shall be substituted the word "subsections".
(4) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1984; and any apportionment which has taken effect under subsection (1) of section 25 of the principal Act before this paragraph comes into force shall cease to have effect on 31st March 1985, unless it has previously ceased to have effect under that subsection or it is the subject of a determination made by virtue of this paragraph in relation to a rate period beginning after that date.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Section 25 of the General Rate Act 1967. It enables rating authorities to provide at their discretion rate relief on parts of premises which are temporarily out of use. The amendment we are proposing would make the provision more workable by setting a time limit on the relief. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is a sensible amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 20, after ("hotel") insert (",shop, museum")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 provide powers for the Secretary of State to bring operational land and properties of the British Railways Board, London Transport Executive and the British Waterways Board—the transport boards—into the rating system by means of statutory formulae. At present these premises are excluded from rating by Section 32 of the General Rate Act 1967, and instead the boards pay contributions in lieu of rates set down in statutory formulae. Non-operational property, such as hotels, offices, places of public refreshment and premises let out by the boards are, however, rated normally.
The provisions in the Bill include powers to vary the coverage of the formulae by order. Should any further refinements, additions or deletions be necessary in the light of consultations with the organisations which will take place before any use is made of these powers, we could redefine the coverage, as required. I commend this amendment to your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
("Non-domestic hereditaments not in active use
7A.—(1) After section 46 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—
"Relief for non-domestic hereditaments not in active use
46A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a hereditament to which this section applies shall be treated as unoccupied if, apart from this section, it would fall to be treated as occupied by reason only of there being kept in or on the hereditament plant, machinery or equipment—

(a) which was used in or on the hereditament when it was last in use; or

(b) which is intended for use in or on the hereditament.

(2) This section applies to a hereditament which is not a dwelling-house, a private garage or private storage premises; and in this subsection—

(a) "private garage" means a building having a floor area not exceeding 25 square metres which is used wholly or mainly for the accommodation of a motor vehicle; and

(b) "private storage premises" means hereditament which is used wholly in connection with a dwelling-house or dwelling-houses and wholly or mainly for the storage of articles of domestic use (including bicycles and similar vehicles) belonging to persons residing there.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a hereditament that is not in use shall nevertheless be treated as a dwelling-house, a private garage or private storage premises if it appears that, when next in use, it will be a hereditament of that description."
(2) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1985.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone tabled an amendment at the Committee stage which would have provided what is commonly referred to as mothballing relief for parts of premises which were unused. We were unable to accept his amendment, but I believe that this amendment, together with Amendment No. 40 to which I have already spoken, should go some way towards the same objective of helping businesses which are suffering from the recession. I hope that the House will welcome this amendment, as well as Amendment No. 40, as a valuable package for industry and commerce. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether any estimate has been made of the rates which would be forgone by local authorities in the event of this amendment being implemented?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the limits already imposed by the Government on the level of empty property rates which can be levied by rating authorities mean that after the three-month rate-free period such unused industrial premises would receive 100 per cent. rate relief, and that any other non-domestic premises would receive 50 per cent. rate relief. The amendment will help businesses which have to close down but which do not wish to strip out plant and machinery. I cannot give the noble Lord a figure such as that for which he asks, but if I can have one discovered I shall let him have it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful but when it is suggested to the House that this will be

607
of considerable help to industry, although that may very well be so, it must be because someone in the Ministry has taken that view. If the extent of that help turns out to be minuscule, then we shall want to draw that fact to the attention of the wider public. On the other hand, if a reasonable figure can be found, then, as far as I am concerned, it is certainly acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 23, line 48, at end insert— ("( ) At the end of sub-paragraph (1)(c) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the principal Act there shall be added:—
"(d) occupied by persons as their homes in respect of which they are liable to make payments by way of rates (whether to rating authorities or to other persons);" ".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lady Birk. This amendment seeks to draw attention to an anomaly in the rating system which affects tenants in some multi-occupied properties and non-self contained homes. Since this amendment comes right at the end of the Marshalled List and is sandwiched between a number of amendments which seem to be automatically accepted, I suppose there is not much danger that this amendment will not be accepted as well—so I shall be brief.
Amendment No. 43 refers to Schedule 13 to the 1967 Act, which deals with the use of premises as private dwellings and lists a number of exceptions to the hereditaments being used as private dwellings. Our amendment seeks to add yet another exception to deal with these particular tenants.
At present, the rating authorities are required to levy the non-domestic rate poundage on such properties; that is, before deducting domestic rate relief grant. As I recall it, local authorities, borough treasurers and directors of finance throughout the country are usually guided by the description of property put out by the valuation officer at the time of revaluation or when some other procedure has to be gone through. We all know that that is not a very regular occurrence. The last revaluation was in 1973, or about then, and so the descriptions are not necessarily always accurate or up to date. This situation creates the anomaly to which the amendment refers.
The effect of the anomaly is a considerable cost to tenants in such homes. I understand that from information compiled by the Westminster City Council rent officer—which must be fairly impartial—it is possible to ascertain the effect of this inequity upon individuals. The total commercial rate payable on one such house in multiple occupation in the W.2 district of London for 1983– 84 was £2,472.16. In this property, there were 20 non-self contained bedsitters, making an average rate payable per bedsitter off 123.60. If the domestic rate poundage were payable in respect of that property, each tenant would pay only £103.19, thus saving £20.41. That is quite a saving for people in those circumstances.
Such tenants are very often the most vulnerable members of the community. They often do not qualify for points under the various points scheme and so they
608
have no chance of securing a permanent council dwelling. Very often, they are people who cannot afford to purchase in the market. They are vulnerable to that extent. There are people, I imagine, living in parts of Westminster who are affected by the Rachman exposé of a few years ago. They are certainly people who are not very often protected by the rent Acts. They are in a category which requires special attention. It is true that they may qualify for housing benefit, but they may not. Even if they do, that does not detract from this failure to treat all domestic ratepayers alike.
As I speak, I am reminded of, I think, the 1980 Act, where we decided to apply the domestic rate poundage to private garages. I know that that is not perhaps exactly relevant, but if in that context it can be applied to private garages, I think that now we should apply it to these very vulnerable people living in such circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will see fit to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment because it gives me the opportunity to explain to the House why the existing legislation concerning the provision of domestic rate relief is framed in the way it is. Section 48 of the General Rate Act 1967 requires rating authorities to provide domestic rate relief of 181/2 pence in the pound on domestic hereditaments which include dwelling-houses as defined by Schedule 13 to the Act, which the noble Lord mentioned. Schedule 13 specifically states that where the whole, or substantially the whole, of the available accommodation is used for the letting of rooms singly for residential purposes then, except in certain special circumstances, the hereditament shall be deemed not to be used for the purposes of private dwelling or private dwellings. Effectively this means that domestic rate relief is not available for hotels, guest houses or houses in multiple occupation.
This amendment is intended to ensure that houses in multiple occupation, such as hostels and buildings divided into bedsits, are covered by the definition of a dwelling-house and are hence eligible for domestic rate relief. I must say at once that it is not clear that the amendment would do this in all cases, because it would seem to be necessary for any agreement between the tenant or licensee and the landlord to include specific provision in respect of payment of rates. That is not the point.
The reason why such types of property are excluded from the definition of "private dwelling" is that they are normally let out on a commercial basis. The courts have taken the view in various contexts that eligibility for domestic rate relief should be related to the use made of the hereditament by the rateable occupier. In the case of hostels and buildings divided into bedsits, as well as hotels and guest houses, that rateable occupier is likely to be the owner or landlord rather than the tenant or licensee. In these circumstances, it is the landlord who will receive the benefit of any domestic rate relief, and there is nothing in this amendment that would require him to pass this benefit on to his tenants. I am sure that this is not what the House would wish.

609
The only way of ensuring that tenants do benefit from domestic rate relief is to make it available to them directly, and this can be done only where the building is divided up in such a way that separate rateable hereditaments can be defined and individually assessed. In these circumstances the tenants can be rated separately, and they will then receive domestic rate relief. But in many houses in multiple occupation this is not a practical proposition, particularly when certain facilities are shared. Perhaps more importantly, in many cases it is likely that assessment of the house as a whole will give a lower rateable value than if it were assessed in parts. This will often more than compensate for the loss of domestic rate relief.
I have gone into some detail in response to the noble Lord. I hope that he will agree that these are good reasons for not extending domestic rate relief to such accommodation and for leaving the law as it now stands. I hope that my explanation has helped and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his lengthy reply. I must confess that I am not convinced that his replies meet the up-to-date situation as we know it in local authorities at this moment. In boroughs like my own—certainly in Camden and many other inner London boroughs—many properties fall into the category that I described. They have not been reassessed or revalued for many years. If they were revalued in the way that I have suggested, they could be covered by the amendment.
In many ways I expected some of the responses that the noble Earl made. I expected him to say that there would be difficulties in assessment because of shared facilities, and so on. It is precisely because of those difficulties that our amendment seeks to rerate the whole house—in other words, to apply domestic rating to the whole house. That would take care of that point. I expected that the noble Lord would say that this would have an effect on the revenue. I can only say that that is conjecture. The noble Lord did not give any statistics about how much it would affect it and so on, and we could probably argue as good a case the other way.
I thought that the noble Lord might well deal at length with the position of hostels and guesthouses, which he did. Of course, we accept that and we did not include those in the amendment. So I feel that, while his reply may have been relevant some years ago, it is no longer relevant given the amount of development and redevelopment that has gone on inside houses, and the number of changes that have taken place that have not been funnelled through the local authorities, their treasurers, and so on. So although I expect and understand that he is not going to accept the amendment, I am disappointed with his reply. Nevertheless, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 25, line 27, at end insert—
("Substituted rates and precepts
.—(1) After subsection (8) of section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there shall be inserted—
"(9) Where the original rate or precept has been quashed because it is insufficient to meet the expenditure required to be taken into account under section 2 or 11 of the said Act of 1967, subsection (2) above shall not prevent a substituted rate or precept being made or issued which is sufficient to meet that expenditure.
(10) Where, whether by virtue of this section or otherwise, a precept is issued to a rating authority after it has made a rate for the financial year to which the precept relates, subsection (2) above shall not prevent a substituted rate being made by the authority for giving effect to the precept; and a rating authority which makes a substituted rate by virtue of this subsection shall be entitled to recover from the precepting authority in question any increase in its administrative or rate collection expenses which is attributable to that rate."
(2) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1st April 1984.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment stems from a commitment given in another place. The new subsection (10) of Section 3 of the 1982 Act is to a large extent in response to a commitment given by Ministers in a Commons Committee when Amendment 100, which was tabled by the Opposition, was withdrawn on an indication being given that the matter would be considered. This amendment is a result of that consideration, and I very much hope that the House will approve it.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Schedule 2 [Rating of moorings]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert—
("PART I
EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN MOORINGS
.—(1) No mooring to which this paragraph applies shall be liable to be rated or to be included in any valuation list or in any rate.
(2) This paragraph applies to any mooring—

(a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and

(b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device—

(i) which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and

(ii) which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time.

(3) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1985.
PART II
RATING OF MULTIPLE MOORINGS")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment ensures that certain types of mooring, commonly referred to as swinging moorings, are not liable to be assessed for rates. This is something that was asked for in another place and has been generally welcomed, both inside and outside Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to elaborate the definition of a swinging mooring?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, most certainly. Swinging moorings are those moorings which are unattached to land and which can be temporarily removed for servicing. Generally speaking, they are those to which the boat or vessel is attached. The boat or vessel is attached by a buoy to the mooring at the bottom of the seabed. The weight to which the buoy is attached is attached by a line to the shore, otherwise it would float away. Therefore, the moorings being temporary, it was thought desirable that they should no longer be liable to be used for rating purposes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate the explanation, but I do not think it is good enough simply to advise the House that this is in pursuance of an undertaking given in another place. I think this House is entitled to have an explanation given to it as to the merits of the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I should explain that Schedule 2 deals with the rating of moorings and has been the subject of a very large number of representations, mainly from yacht clubs and owners. Among these there is widespread and, I have to say, mistaken belief that the schedule places a new tax on yachting. Let me say quite clearly that the schedule as it currently stands in no way affects the basic rateability of moorings, which has existed for a very long time. In practice, however, many moorings have escaped rating because of the difficulty of identifying occupiers, while others have had to pay rates. This is clearly unfair. Schedule 2 therefore ensures that that liability can be better enforced by providing valuation officers with discretion to assess a group of moorings in separate occupation as a single hereditament in the occupation of the owner.
I quite understand the concern of the yachting community that this may lead to additional financial burden for some of them. Much of that concern is focused on whether it is proper to rate one particular type of mooring, commonly known as a swinging mooring, which, as I sought to explain earlier, consists of a buoy attached to an anchor or weight which lies on the seabed and is designed to be raised from time to time—for example, in the winter or for maintenance. There is some doubt about the rateability of such moorings, many of which may not be sufficiently permanently fixed to the seabed to satisfy the basic criteria for rateability. We therefore agreed in another place to bring forward an amendment to remove any such doubt by making clear that this type of mooring is not liable to be assessed for rates. The amendment that we are now considering does just this. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is both sensible and pragmatic.
It is sensible from the point of view of the yachtsman because his position is now made entirely clear. It is sensible from the point of view of the rating authority because it will now know exactly on which moorings it can realistically collect rates, whereas up to now the situation has been at the very least indistinct. I do not think that it is appropriate at this time of night to go into details of the way in which the amendment is drafted. We have consulted the main interested parties on its terms, including the Royal Yachting Association, which, I understand, is content with it. Again, I referred to this earlier. The remainder of Schedule 2 is not altered and will apply to all moorings that are not exempted from rates by this amendment.
I hope that it will be thought appropriate for the House to accept this amendment. If not, I shall be happy to answer any further questions which your Lordships may feel, within the bounds of order of the Report stage, should be addressed to me. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that absolutely fascinating and very detailed
612
explanation. As one who has spent a certain amount of time on boats but who has never got to mooring them and who has also had the experience, on going through a lock, of being unable to jump from the boat to the shore, whereupon my husband fell in due to my efforts (that was the end of our going through locks!), I found the noble Lord's remarks extremely interesting and extremely educative.
Can the noble Lord say whether this applies not just to swinging moorings but to the very smart fixed moorings that one sees around—those with telephones attached, electric light and fresh water that can be connected? If so, is there an exemption for them? Or is this just an exemption for these particular moorings? Can be also say whether the yachting clubs are completely happy about this, and what representations the Government have received? I accept that it is a compromise, and what I would consider a reasonable compromise, but it would be interesting to know how it affects those people who actually use the moorings. I wonder if the Minister would be kind enough to prolong his contribution by giving those answers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as one who spent a great portion of the Easter Recess sailing and, when I was not sailing, attaching the boat to a swinging mooring, I shall be delighted to answer the noble Baroness's intriguing questions. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State has received more than 100 letters in the department on the subject of this amendment or rather, should I say, on the subject of a concern which I suspect the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, well understand. As a result of answering those letters, I should say that he has been able to convince those members of yachting associations and private boating associations of the justice of the measure that the Government are seeking to bring forward in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I have never met a swinging mooring that has a telephone or electricity attached to it. If I were to meet such a thing, I would immediately invoke the wrath of the local environmental health officer because it would be a great danger to the public.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: Hear, hear!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it was the wrong noble Baroness behind me who happened to say, "Hear, hear" at that moment, because I would have expected my noble friend Lady Vickers, who in this House and outside it is a great champion of the environmental health officers, to respond to the remark that I have just made.
I hope that with those few remarks I will have satisfied the concerns of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. I think for the third time this evening on this particular amendment, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 28, line 12, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 28, line 23, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment also with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons. read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PRISONERS: CHANGE OF NAME
  PRISONERS: CHANGE OF NAME
  LAND ROVERS: SCOTLAND
  LAND ROVERS: SCOTLAND
  REGINA v SECRETARY OF STATE, ex parte FINDLEY AND OTHERS
  REGINA v SECRETARY OF STATE, ex parte FINDLEY AND OTHERS
  TRADE STATISTICS AND THE EC
  TRADE STATISTICS AND THE EC
  VEHICLE OWNERSHIP REGISTRATION: SCOTLAND
  VEHICLE OWNERSHIP REGISTRATION: SCOTLAND
  FARMING: MILK PRODUCTION AND EC DECISIONS
  FARMING: MILK PRODUCTION AND EC DECISIONS
  DAIRY QUOTAS: TRANSFERABILITY
  DAIRY QUOTAS: TRANSFERABILITY
  AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CAP SUBSIDIES
  AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CAP SUBSIDIES
  LAND DRAINAGE AND SEA DEFENCE WORKS
  LAND DRAINAGE AND SEA DEFENCE WORKS