Sitting of 10 December 1987

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To he considered upon Thursday 17 December.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 17 December.

  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 December.

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Rating Reform
    Mr. McCusker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish proposals for a poll tax in Northern Ireland, including a proposed timetable for its introduction.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): The Green Paper of January 1986, "Paying for Local Government", which forms the basis of the
    566
    Great Britain reforms, made it clear that the proposals did not apply to Northern Ireland. That reflects the fact that local government arrangements in Northern Ireland are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has therefore decided to monitor the development of the proposals in England and Wales before deciding whether, or to what extent, they should be applied in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McCusker: If that reply is not an Irish joke, is it not at least an inversion of logic to suggest that one monitors what one does to 97·5 per cent. of the population before applying it to the remaining 2·5 per cent.? As all local government services of any note in Northern Ireland are now administered by central Government, and as central Government now collects all the local government rates in Northern Ireland, should not the poll tax have been applied first to the 2·5 per cent. and monitored, and then applied to the 97·5 per cent.?
    Mr. Stanley: I suggest that the position is eminently logical, as 90 per cent. of local government functions in the Province are carried out centrally rather than by district councils. In those circumstances, and when making a major change in the local government financial system, given that there is a completely different base for local government in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of Great Britain, it seems eminently sensible to monitor the change in Great Britain.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): At 8 October 1987, the latest date for which unemployment figures are available, there were 124,701 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, representing 18·2 per cent. of the working population. Compared with the same period last year, that is a decrease in unemployment of almost 6,000.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not a scandalous reflection of the failure of the Government's economic policies for the United Kingdom as a whole, and Northern Ireland in particular, that nearly 20 per cent. of adults in Northern Ireland are unemployed? Does that not contribute to the maintenance of the secretarian divide, because there are two and a half times more male adult unemployed Catholics than there are Protestants? When does the Minister expect the Government's economic policies to start working to produce some jobs in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Viggers: As regards unemployment generally, Northern Ireland is now benefiting from the general upturn in the economy of the United Kingdom. If I may amplify my earlier figures, unemployment is now down by 900 a month over a three-month average. We regard that as satisfactory, and the signs are that it will continue. Of course, it is still too high, and we are doing everything that we can to reduce it.
    As for the level of sectarian distinction between the Catholic and Protestant communities, we accept that having two and a half times as many Catholics as Protestants unemployed is unacceptable, and we propose to introduce legislation as soon as possible on that point.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the largest numbers of employed people in Northern Ireland are in agriculture? Does he also agree that if the so-called remedies from Europe are applied to Northern Ireland agriculture they will have a very adverse effect on Northern Ireland's family farms? Will he declare the devastated areas of Northern Ireland disaster areas in order to give short-term employment?
    Mr. Viggers: The Government have been active in remedying the damage by flooding and in assisting those people who suffered damage. On the general issues, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to stand aside from the main trend within Europe. It is necessary for this to be handled on a European Community basis rather than on a Northern Ireland basis.
    Mr. Hume: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that in Northern Ireland a Catholic is two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than a Protestant. If we are to solve this problem, we must tell the truth about it. The unemployment problem in Northern Ireland as it stands today cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the Government. As the New Ireland Forum said in its document "The cost of violence", the paramilitary campaign of violence by the Provisional IRA over the past 20 years has directly cost 39,000 jobs in manufacturing industry between 1970 and 1980, and there are only 90,000 people employed in Northern Ireland in manufacturing industry. That campaign has caused £11 billion worth of damage to the economy of Ireland, north and south. If that money were floating around in the economy, fewer people would be unemployed. If we are to tackle the problem of discrimination, we must do it on all fronts, not just on some. We need fair employment laws, but we also need inward investment in the areas of high unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: I strongly support the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's points. If we were merely to remove unemployment from one area and allocate it to another, we would not be doing a good service to Northern Ireland. We need further investment in Northern Ireland, leading to further jobs. I endorse and support the hon. Gentleman's activity in promoting investment in his part of Northern Ireland and in the rest of the Province.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides the best opportunity to solve many of these problems? Does he further agree that the steps that will be taken to introduce that legislation—which will be agreed between the Government and the Government of the Irish Republic — will provide an equitable basis on which to improve the ratio in favour of fairer employment opportunities for Catholics?
    Mr. Viggers: It is this Government's duty to bring forward the legislation, and we hope that it will have broad support within Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that one of the causes of unemployment in Northern Ireland is the IRA's vicious campaign of threats and murder against business men and workers? Will he explain to the House what steps are being taken to improve that unacceptable situation?
    Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other ministerial colleagues are working hard to
    568
    improve the political and security climate. My narrow area of responsibility is the economy. If we can improve the quality of investment and the level of employment in Northern Ireland, that will make a contribution to Northern Ireland generally.
    Mr. McNamara: Given that nine further states in the United States are proposing to introduce legislation on the MacBride principles and bearing in mind the question mark that that puts over further investment in Northern Ireland, is it not in the interests of the Government to publish early their White Paper showing how far they embrace the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights? Is it not also important for the Government to state precisely their attitude towards the goal of reducing the ratio of unemployment of Catholic and Protestant males from 21/2:1 to 11/2:1 over five years? If the Government are unable to accept that goal, will they say why not? If the Government say that they seek to improve the situation in other areas rather than in some, can the Minister tell us the areas in which he hopes to have that improvement and the number of jobs that will be involved?
    Mr. Viggers: We are giving the most urgent and careful consideration to the proposals of the Standing Advisory Commission and we intend to bring forward proposals for legislation very soon. If we were to react too quickly, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that we had not given careful consideration to the commission's proposals. I hope that when, in due course—it will be soon—the proposals are put before the House, they will have the support of the hon. Gentleman.

    Universities (Research Places)
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to fund an increase in the number of research places available to postgraduate students at Queen's University and the University of Ulster; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): On 30 November 1987 I announced a new "Distinction Awards" scheme designed to attract to the Northern Ireland universities postgraduate students of the highest ability. Under the scheme, the Department of Education will fund up to 20 additional research awards each year tenable at the Queen's University of Belfast or the University of Ulster. Each award holder will receive £2,000 per annum in addition to the normal postgraduate award.
    Mr. Brazier: That is welcome news. May I ask my hon. Friend for his assurance that the extra places will be allocated fairly across the religious divide? I should declare an interest: I am a Catholic married to an Irish Protestant.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the proposals. I assure him that there will be no religious discrimination whatsoever in the giving of the awards.

    Joint Educational Projects
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available more resources to enable schools from different religious backgrounds to undertake joint educational projects; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have no plans to make further resources available. On 14 September I announced the availability of an extra f200,000 for new initiatives in cross-community contacts. The scheme, which is directed at young people under the age of 19, has already encouraged those working in this field to submit 65 applications for grant from the special fund.
    Mr. Davis: I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in welcoming the previous decision and hoping that the future will see more resources allocated. Already too many children grow up in an atmosphere of prejudice in Northern Ireland and become fuel and recruits for terrorist organisations. If the problems of Northern Ireland are to be solved, is it not necessary to find ways to increase contact between young people in that troubled Province?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and I entirely endorse the sentiments that he has expressed. It is important that we should find ways to bring the people of the Province together, to foster their relationships and understanding of their differences, and to ensure that those differences do not become points of division later in life.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that in answer to the previous question he may have uncon-sciously given a wrong impression—
    Rev. Martin Smyth: It will indeed relate to the question, but I must put on record that the tertiary—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to the previous question.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that joint community education imposes tremendous responsibility on the voluntary schools system to teach even civics, which would allow us to move together as people and as a nation, rather than have two separate identities? Will he acknowledge that the separation and division are at that level of education rather than at the tertiary level, as implied earlier?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. If I gave any impression in an answer given from the Dispatch Box that there is division at the tertiary level, that is quite untrue and it was not my intention. I do not think that I gave that impression, but if I did it was not intended.
    Part of the reason for the project in secondary schools is to explore ways in which schoolchildren from the two communities can be brought together to carry out joint projects, so that they will have an opportunity to learn together and about each other. The idea is that the absence of money should not hinder the bringing together of our young people in special projects.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not time to end the religious apartheid in education in Northern Ireland? Both education systems, which are supported by the taxpayer, divide youngsters from the earliest age, even from kindergarten, when they should be learning to live and play together and getting to know each other, so that Northern Ireland will have a future.
    Dr. Mawhinney: There will be much support for the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I take careful note of what he has said.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome what the Minister has said and his speech on the establishment of the community relations unit, but what progress has been made to assist Hazelwood college? Does he agree that integrated education should be actively promoted, especially in his discussions with members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have had a meeting with representatives of the governors of Hazelwood college in the past few days. We have agreed jointly that I will reach a decision on their application to become grant-aided in the first half of next year. That decision is acceptable to the governors and to me. It will give them an opportunity in the meantime to increase numbers in the school.
    With regard to integrated education, the Government see a role—perhaps even a marginally increased role—for integrated schools in the Province. It is not part of my responsibility or intention to do anything that would make the development of integrated education within the law and the constraints that we all know apply more difficult than it is at the moment.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister bear in mind that when the project got off the ground in Enniskillen the parents were kept completely in the dark? The children were told that they were having a holiday and no parents were consulted. As the Roman Catholic Church runs its own schools in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give a categorical assurance to the Protestant community that there will be consultation with the parents of all Protestant children and that they will have the right to say yes or no to any such project, just as the Roman Catholic Church has already said no to integrated education?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am not quite sure to what specific event the hon. Gentleman is referring. I want to make it clear that the scheme is entirely voluntary. People are invited to apply for money for projects if they wish to do so. The initiative does not lie with me. I am not forcing anyone to do anything, and I am not applying pressure. I am responding to what I identify as demand in the community for people to be allowed to come together and to do things together. That is good, and I am willing to finance it for the future of Northern Ireland. There is no sense in which anyone is being allowed to exercise a veto. It will be for the schools, parents and pupils to decide for themselves.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: We are all pleased to hear the Minister say that he wants to bring both communities together and to provide finance for that. How does he square that with the view of the Department of Education, as expressed in a letter to a constituent of mine on 22 October.
    "there is no need in Northern Ireland for teachers who specialise in Multicultural Education."
    That is the view of the Department of Education. Is it the Government's view? If not, what steps do the Government intend to bring forward to reverse that policy decision?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has a slight semantic difficulty. There is no great need for teachers in multicultural education in Northern Ireland because 'we do not have a multicultural society in the sense in which that term is understood in England. Society in Northern Ireland is divided on religious grounds. The policy of the Department of Education is of education for mutual understanding. As hon. Members representing Northern

    571
    Ireland constituencies will be aware, I have been increasing pressure on training schools in the matter of education for mutual understanding in general. I believe that it is very difficult for teachers to teach about the other community if they have no experience of that other community. We are strongly and firmly committed to education for mutual understanding, but we do not have a multicultural society in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that apartheid in education does not exist in Northern Ireland, but that there is the exercise of parental choice? Does he also agree that the voluntary sector embraces both the Catholic and Protestant community and state schools? Does he accept that there is ample opportunity for inter-religious communicational projects between schools if proper encouragement is given, and will he ensure that his Department encourages such intercourse in the immediate future?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will know that last April I announced that a new policy on parental choice would come into effect in our schools in September 1988. This has been widely welcomed, not least by parents, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his additional support.
    As for bringing people together, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, at the educational level aimed at the under-19s, the Government have much increased their determination to try to achieve that very desirable goal. I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, and that of his hon. Friends and other right hon. and hon. Members in Northern Ireland, in doing what they can to encourage our young people to spend more time contacting one another, and less time drifting apart and causing social or perhaps other and worse problems in the future.

    Security
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about cross-border security co-operation.
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since 23 November a major security operation has been mounted by the Irish security forces, supported in Northern Ireland by the RUC and the Army, which has resulted in a number of important arrests and some finds of explosives and munitions.
    Since I last answered questions in the House on 12 November, two civilians have died in sectarian attacks. The security forces have continued their determined and courageous work. So far this year 431 people have been charged with serious offences, including 27 with murder, while 247 weapons, approximately 18,000 rounds of ammunition and nearly 13,000 lb of explosives have been recovered.
    In addition, the Garda Siochana has recovered, up to the end of October, 123 weapons, 10,000 rounds of
    572
    ammunition and some 4,000 lb of explosives. That does not include a product of the recent search operation, which I understand will be announced this afternoon. It included 50 weapons and four bunkers which are believed to have been for storage of possible shipments.
    Recent events north and south of the border have emphasised most clearly the vital need for both Governments to co-operate closely in the defeat of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.
    Mr. Flannery: While thanking the Secretary of State for his answer, may I point out that the linking of the two other questions with mine is not quite correct? I am grateful for his information about the security position, and I deplore the terrible events that have occurred. However, my question is quite separate from the orthodox questions on security, which could well have been asked before the Anglo-Irish Agreement question. What I have asked in the question is what effect the right hon. Gentleman thinks that agreement has had on security. I am anxious that his answer should convey to me that, as I hope, the present accelerated rate of killing is temporary and will settle down.
    Mr. King: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer.
    Mr. Flannery: I listened very carefully.
    Mr. King: At the start of my answer I drew attention to what I believe is the most significant security operation ever conducted within the Republic of Ireland. It was conducted in the closest co-operation and preparation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army north of the border. It is the most tangible and obvious demonstration of the close security co-operation that is absolutely vital if we are to defeat terrorism, which is now so clearly perceived as the evil that it is for both communities, north and south of the border.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the promising words from Dublin after the Enniskillen atrocity, is my right hon. Friend aware of the scepticism about the full political will of the Irish Republic to defeat terrorism, when it still withholds the direct contact of its armed forces with those of the United Kingdom? What is being done about that?
    Mr. King: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not wish in any way to encourage scepticism on the subject. Rather, he will wish to do all that he can to work for the closest possible co-operation. His knowledge, which is profound, of the circumstances of the island of Ireland will make him well aware of the vital importance—given the difficulties posed by the border and the two jurisdictions—of close co-operation. I assure him of our commitment to achieving the closest and most effective co-operation in working with the Government of the Republic.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Given the failure to discover the Libyan ground-to-air missiles that are known to be concealed in the Irish Republic, will the Secretary of State make representations to ensure that British aircraft using Dublin airport are afforded the same protection as that given at Shannon airport to Russian aircraft on their way to Cuba?
    Mr. King: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to discuss the particular detail of this matter across the Floor of the House. We are anxious to respond effectively to any problems that may face us.
    Mr. Latham: What could be worse for the image of Northern Ireland than the appalling sight of sectarian killings, which make it look like Sicily or Don Corleone's New York? How can anybody with an ounce of decency continue with such horror, particularly after Enniskillen?
    Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are evil tendencies among some extremes of the population in Northern Ireland that are all too easily inflamed. A heavy responsibility lies on everybody, whatever position they are in—particularly those in any position of responsibility or representational position—in Northern Ireland to do everything that they can to ensure that no such passions are aroused and, rather more, that they are condemned.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State recall the seemingly inevitable confusion that attended the recent application for the extradition of Paul Anthony Kane, which received the customary misdirected criticism? Will the Secretary of State say why errors on warrants continue to bedevil the system?
    Mr. King: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the circumstances of the matter and that I am unable to comment on something that is sub judice.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is the duty of all hon. Members and parties in the House to give the security forces — the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army — unequivocal support in their fight against terrorism? Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that the five members of the SDLP including the chairwoman, who is a justice of the peace, clearly and definitely voted against such support when a resolution was put to Magherafelt district council?
    Mr. King: I am unfamiliar with the terms of the motion, but, without entering into the detail of the case, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. It is the responsibility of everyone who is determined to defeat the evil of violence and terrorism to give total support to the RUC and the security forces in the tough challenge that they face.
    Mr. William Ross: I listened to the Secretary of State's comments about the security position in the Irish Republic, for which he seemed to be claiming some degree of responsibility. Will he say what he has done since he last answered questions in the House to improve progress in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland, for which he is totally responsible?
    Mr. King: I certainly was not seeking in any way to claim responsibility for the search operation in the Irish Republic. I should make it clear that we sought to give them every support. The security forces put themselves at some risk and suffered casualties in their support of that search. With regard to the work that is continuing and the activities that are progressing, I am unable to discuss in detail a number of the steps that I have been taking, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to that work.
    Mr. Gow: In which other countries of Europe does Her Majesty's Government have less satisfactory arrangements for extradition than with the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. King: With no other country in Europe do we have the system of the backing of warrants, which is an
    574
    important point to recognise in this regard. If the point that my hon. Friend is making concerns the vital nature of an effective, speedy and fair extradition process, I can assure him that we are committed to that. There is a later question on the Order Paper on this subject, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to work to that end.
    Mr. Hume: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), will the Secretary of State please confirm that my party is the only one from Northern Ireland represented in this House that has no association of any description, and never has had, with any paramilitary or violent organisation?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hume: Furthermore, will he confirm that the hon. Member in question and his leader—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hume: Furthermore, will he confirm that the hon. Member in question and his leader have on many occasions been seen in the streets with masked men, taking salutes from masked men, and using paramilitary organisations when it suited them? May I restate for the benefit of the House that my party fully and unequivocally supports the security forces in seeking out anybody who commits a crime in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have noted, and the House will have noted, the categorical statement of the hon. Member. But what his intervention has clearly brought home to the House is that, of all things at this time—and I say it to hon. Members in all quarters of the House—what Northern Ireland needs is people who try to reduce differences, who try to build cooperation, and not those who seek the whole time to exploit division.
    Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No. I am not taking points of order.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on the Opposition Benches welcome the great improvement in cross-border security evidenced in the past few days and salute the work of both the forces of the Republic and our own in Northern Ireland, and the degree of cooperation which they have shown over those exercises? But will he also recall—going back to the earlier statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) — that one of the provisions of the agreement was the securing of greater confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland? Is he yet in a position to announce any further steps in that direction and, in particular, as it hits mostly the poor of both communities, is he yet in a position to say whether the Government are prepared to repeal the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971?
    Mr. King: I cannot comment on the latter point, which the hon. Gentleman bowled in rather unexpectedly, but I will certainly look into it.
    The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the vast improvement in cross-border security co-operation, and that is what we are striving for. I have never concealed from the House the very considerable task that lies ahead of us. The very exercise that he referred to, the scale of the

    575
    search and the problems of what actually emerged from the search, leave some very difficult questions to be answered and still pose a considerable challenge to the security forces, both north and south of the border. It is certainly a good start, but I do not underestimate the scale of the job that has now to be done.
    Sir John Farr: One of the benefits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—I use the term advisedly—was that in times of emergency police forces on both sides of the border could cross it in hot pursuit of a criminal. Has any agreement to that effect been signed, and have any incidents taken place recently?
    Mr. King: Not on that specific matter, but there are certain understandings of the ways in which co-operation can take place and certain arrangements that can be made, so that the security forces can give extremely close support in that sort of incident.

    Police Authority
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland on 23 November to discuss matters relating to the authority's responsibilities. The details are confidential.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Following that discussion, will the Minister give an assurance that the Army uniforms, which were apparently supplied by Mr. Frank Turner of QED to the RUC for cash and sent to Northern Ireland in an unmarked lorry, were not, and will not at any time, be used by RUC personnel or others to pose as British service men?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a considerable number of written questions about that matter. I hope that he will wait until we give the answers to them.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since 1965, 733 people have been extradited to Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland and 158 from the Republic of Ireland to the north of Ireland, giving a total of 891? Given the views of the Chief Constable of the RUC about extradition—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Has this anything to do with the police?
    Mr. Mallon: The views of the Chief Constable of the RUC on this issue are very important. In the light of his views and the figures that I have given, is the view that Britain is a less-favoured nation in respect of extradition very inaccurate?
    Mr. Stanley: The Government attach profound importance to the fact that there should be no hiding place for terrorists either north or south of the border and that extradition arrangements must reflect that policy.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that the spirit of rapprochement, generated as a result of the atrocity in Enniskillen among ordinary people, is being dissipated by sectarian killings? Will he make it clear to the chairman of the Police Authority that we must do everything possible
    576
    to get people to support the police and to reduce the number of unemployed in Northern Ireland by encouraging them to join the police force? I ask the Minister to appeal to the people of Northern Ireland fully to support the security forces.
    Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we make that appeal at every possible opportunity. It is of profound importance that the entire community gives every support to the security forces. That is a fundamental requirement and we shall continue to make that point clear at every opportunity.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, when he had talks with the chairman of the Police Authority, he discussed the fact that none of the SDLP representatives have ever called upon their people to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the British Army? Will he remedy that position by calling upon them now to do so, after the attack on the Ulster Democratic Unionist Members, when their own leader refused to talk to the Unionist party leadership and chose to talk to the IRA?
    Mr. Stanley: It is the Government's clear policy that the security forces in the Province, whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment, should be open to people from both communities. We wish to see the strongest representation from representatives of all religious denominations in the security forces in the Province.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Tom King: We are making worthwhile progress in our work under the agreement and are giving particular priority to our aim of enhancing security co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. The agreement has great potential to benefit all in Northern Ireland and the Republic.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who believe in the Union should support the Anglo-Irish Agreement in that the agreement is a guarantee from both Ireland and Britain that the status of Northern Ireland will never be changed against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: That assurance of the principle of consent is at the heart of the agreement. It is very important indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, even in his present condition, for his support.

    Extradition
    Rev. William McCrea: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extradition of terrorists from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom, in the light of recent problems in this area.
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the implications for his policy on seeking extraditions from the Republic of Ireland of the new extradition arrangements agreed by the Irish Government.
    Mr. Tom King: We welcome the Irish Government's decision to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. We note, however, that they have now introduced further procedural steps in the hacking of warrants process. We are naturally concerned that these should not impede the extradition arrangements within these islands, and we welcome the Taoiseach's commitment to review them if they are not working satisfactorily.
    Mr. McCrea: In the light of the Prime Minister's statements in the House on several occasions, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government believe that the regulations put in by the South of Ireland Government inhibit rather than help the extradition of terrorists, which is not helpful in the fight against terrorism? When will the British Government call for the extradition of Owen Carron?
    Mr. King: Obviously, I am not prepared to comment on individual cases, but on the general matter I have made clear our views on the importance of effective extradition arrangements and our commitment to work for those in the defeat of terrorism.
    Mr. Hayes: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that many Conservative Members are bitterly disappointed with the new extradition arrangements, because they will give precisely the wrong signal to the Loyalist community. In reality, will the new arrangements make any difference, or produce any obstacle, to the extradition of terrorists?
    Mr. King: We have made clear our concern about the inclusion of the role of the Irish Attorney-General and the problems that that could cause. We are obviously anxious to ensure—and we hope— that our fears are not well founded, and we shall be working closely with, and making our representations clear to, the Irish Government to try to ensure the most effective arrangements possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: Are we to have a statement before the Christmas recess on what action, if any, is to be undertaken to deal with the present acute crisis in the National Health Service? When beds are not available for young children, as at the Children's hospital in Birmingham, and when at the Queen Elizabeth hospital cancer and kidney patients continue to wait for beds, what evidence is there, if any, that the NHS is safe in the right hon. Lady's hands?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been here when I last answered questions, he would have heard of the enormous number of operations that are now taking place—about 2,360,000 a year; of the 6·5 million inpatients a year in hospital; and of something like 38 million out-patient attendance in hospitals. He would also
    578
    have heard of our excellent record on perinatal mortality, which means that some 3,000 babies are now surviving who would not have survived some 10 years ago.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Has my right hon. Friend, during her busy schedule, observed that, for the first time, the miners have now produced 4 tonnes per manshift, and that is double the production during the time of Lord Robens? Is that not partially attributable to the wise policies conducted by Her Majesty's Government?
    The Prime Minister: It is very good news from the viewpoint of the miners and it shows how ridiculous is the overtime ban. It also shows the Government's wisdom in their excellent investment in mining equipment.
    Mr. Kinnock: In an unprecedented statement this week, the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Surgeons, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said—I shall use their word — that there is a deep financial "crisis" in the National Health Service. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, spending has gone up enormously on the National Health Service. Spending on the family practitioner services has gone up by 43 per cent in real terms since the last Labour Government. It has gone up by 26 per cent. in real terms on hospital and community services. Capital spending on hospital and community services has gone up by 42 per cent. Indeed, the Government's record on health services far exceeds that of any other. As I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman, expenditure on health services will continue to increase further.
    Mr. Kinnock: The House and the country will note that the Prime Minister rejects the advice of the presidents of the royal colleges. Is that not further evidence that she is suffering from incurable complacency as well as untreatable arrogance in these matters as in many others? Following her litany of figures, may I say, in the words of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, the president of the Royal College of Physicians:
    "We know we will be hit by all the statistics … but the basic fact is that we are spending less on our health service than any other developed European country. The bottom line is that we had a service which was the envy of the world which we ran very cheaply. We are now trying to run it too cheaply."
    The statement says:
    "In spite of the efforts of doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, patient care is deteriorating."[Interruption.]
    The House and the country are listening to those boos, when the Presidents of the royal colleges, are saying:
    "Patient care is deteriorating. Acute hospital services have almost reached breaking point. Morale is depressingly low."
    Does the Prime Minister not think that that is a crisis?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to the figures, I would have thought that he would commend the Health Service on the excellent work that it is doing. I gave the annual figures for in-patients, for out-patients, and for operations. May I also point out that the Government have increased the proportion of the GNP spent on the National Health Service from 4·8 per cent. under the last Labour Government to 5·5 per cent. Not only has the GNP gone up, but the proportion spent has also gone up in real terms. Other countries are able to devote more to health care services because more is contributed privately, both from

    579
    private insurance and from families' pockets. If the doctors think what they have written, they must be very thankful that there is not a Labour Government in power.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the 40-year history of the National Health Service the presidents of the royal colleges have never found if necessary to speak to any Government in the terms that they have spoken to the Prime Minister's Government. Can she not learn from that, or from the evidence of patients, nurses and other professions in the National Health Service? When Mr. Ian Todd, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons says:
    "Managers are telling surgeons to do less work to balance the books."
    does she not recognise that she is responsible for setting lives against sums? What will she do about it?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. How can the Prime Minister possibly answer with all this noise going on?
    Mr. Foulkes: You, Mr. Speaker, are like a Pakistani umpire.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark at once.
    Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
    The Prime Minister: In the 40 years of the NHS there have never been more patients treated, whether as inpatients or out-patients. There have never been more accident and emergency cases treated. There have never been more heart bypass operations or hip replacements —[Interruption.] Of course hon. Gentlemen will interrupt, because they cannot bear to hear the facts.
    There are more cataract operations, more bone marrow transplants, more kidney transplants, more cervical smear tests, more people treated for kidney transplants and for chronic renal failure. —[Interruption.] Opposition Members will shout because they cannot bear the fact that the Government have a far better record than they have ever had. With regard to the future, if the Leader of the the Opposition had listened to me earlier he would have heard that next year spending on the NHS will increase by £1·1 billion. I mentioned that figure because I have heard Labour Members on the radio suggesting that an extra £200 million would do the task. Next year there will be an extra £1·1 billion—five times as much.
    Mr. Riddick: Bearing in mind that the demands for health care are never-ending and the fact that private spending on health care in this country is among the lowest in Western Europe, does my right hon. Friend believe that the time has come to introduce tax relief for individuals who take out health care insurance?
    The Prime Minister: No. It is more important to leave people to make their own decisions about what they do with their money than to increase reliefs for a particular sort of expenditure.
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKay: Irrespective of the statistics that the Prime Minister throws out, and irrespective of the light attitude
    580
    that she has adopted towards the statement from the Royal College of Surgeons, will she take notice of the National Association of Health Authorities, which reported that the hospital service is £200 million underfunded? Will she give an assurance to the House that the much needed increase in nurses' pay will not have to be found from the existing area health budgets?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has given the figure of £200 million which I mentioned earlier. I have already told him that next year the increase going to the NHS will be £1·1 billion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government slashed the NHS programme. They cut new hospitals by one third, cut capital spending for two years running and, having supported a strike against patients, presided over an increase in waiting lists of 250,000, to record levels under Labour.
    Mr. Heddle: On the matter of those employed in the Health Service, nurses in particular, and the community charge, will my right hon. Friend confirm that among the options which she and her right hon. Friends considered as a replacement for the present unfair and outdated system was capital valuation, coupled with a local income tax? Does she agree that that would bring hardship and chaos to every individual and their families, and that the Labour party, whose policy it is, is discredited for having pursued it?
    The Prime Minister: Capital valuation would have been infinitely worse than even the present basis of valuation. A local tax, similar to a local income tax, would put an even heavier burden on those who pay income tax and would mean that the amount they had to pay would be greatly in excess of a community charge.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Instead of burying her head in 10-year-old NHS statistics and repeating them like a cracked record, what would the Prime Minister say to Adrian Woolford, a seven-year-old Coventry lad, who has waited two years for a heart operation? What would she say to the parents of Chintu Kumar, a one-day-old baby, who died after a 100-mile dash from Coventry to Liverpool because half of Birmingham children's hospital beds were closed? What would she say to the parents of dozens of kids in the midlands who, tomorrow night, will meet midlands Members about the crisis? She might be able to buy her health and the health of her kids, but our families cannot. Does she not care?
    The Prime Minister: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the statistics that I give are not out of date but are updated. The number of bypass operations, cataract operations and many other operations that are now performed on children could not have been performed 10 or 15 years ago. The number of nurses on paediatric work has greatly increased over and above what it was under Labour, and the number of paediatricians is also up. Services are rapidly increasing. Under this Government, not only have we had a great increase in the gross national product, but we have devoted an increasing proportion to

    581
    the National Health Service, and the amount of care far exceeds that which occurred under Labour or anything that could ever occur under Labour.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider a survey that was published by the Department of Trade and Industry? It shows that of the 300 foreign-owned companies in this country 90 per cent. said that industrial relations had improved in recent years, and that 96 per cent. said that the performance of their British subsidiaries was equal to or better than that of their foreign-owned subsidiaries. Is that not yet another endorsement of the Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is excellent news. The success of this Government and the response of people to their policies are being recognised the world over. That is good news for everyone in this country.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the Prime Minister's concern for independent companies, will she spend some time today considering the implications of British Petroleum's likely doubling of its shares in Britoil? Britoil is an independent company in Scotland. Given that that company employs so many people in Scotland and that the smell of the Guinness takeover still lingers in the nostrils of the people of Scotland, will she assure us that. first, the Government will use their golden share to protect Britoil and, secondly, that they will use every opportunity to safeguard against insider dealing?
    The Prime Minister: Insider dealing is a matter of the criminal law. It is not a matter for me. With regard to I3P's purchase of shares in Britoil, I understand that it is a commercial transaction, and it is not for us to interfere.
    Mr. McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I4 DECEMBER — — Until 7 o'clock private Members' motions.
Afterwards progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY I5 DECEMBER — — Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
Motions on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 (HC 142), the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1984–85 (HC 158) and the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86 (HC 159).
WEDNESDAY I6 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill (1st day).
Motion relating to the appointment of Mr. John Bryant Bourn CB as Comptroller and Auditor General.
THURSDAY I7 DECEMBER — Completion of Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
FRIDAY I8 DECEMBER—Adjournment motions.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for responding positively to our representations about providing two full days for the debate next week on the poll tax Bill. In view of the importance of the business and the number of hon. Members who will undoubtedly want to speak on Second Reading, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, if there are lengthy statements or other business before the debate on the poll tax, business may continue after 10 o'clock? Following the right hon. Gentleman's discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, after his promise last week, will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when the poll tax rebate regulations will be published since those details must have a direct bearing on the debate on the poll tax Bill?
Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on the reasons why the report by Sir Robin Ibbs on the career Civil Service is not to be published? In that context, does he accept that it is important that that statement is made, in the light of the words of the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in The Times this morning that
"the issue of lifelong confidentiality is a red herring: what that argument is about is unauthorised disclosure"?
The Home Office has recently announced a change in the manner in which immigration cases are to be handled. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those are not fully implemented until proper consultations have been undertaken to ensure that Members of the House who are involved in such cases have a direct involvement?
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the Government's defence policy in the wake of the treaty and the super-power meeting in Washington this week? The Secretary of State for Defence told the NATO Defence Ministers last month that he wants what he called "compensations" for the withdrawal and discussion of land-based intermediate missiles? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made next week so that the Secretary of State for Defence can tell us about his ambitions for rearmament?
584
I note that there is to be no debate next week on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the serious situation that has arisen as a result of the report of the Committee of Selection that it is not able, at present, to recommend the setting up of that Committee? In the light of that unexpected report from the Committee of Selection, I understand that it would be sensible to allow a short period for reflection in the hope that a way forward can be found. However, the Leader of the House will recognise that this issue must come before the House as early as possible in January, regardless of the embarrassment that that will cause the Government.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that it will cause the Government all the embarrassment that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates. Let me answer the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me in the order in which he asked them. First, he asked me about the Local Government Finance Bill. We can certainly have discussions through the usual channels to see whether what he suggests would be helpful to the House. I give an undertaking that I shall do my very best to keep statements away from those days to enable as long a debate as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the decisions to be made about uprating income support in relation to the community charge. All I can tell him is that decisions on the amount of uprating will be announced in due course. I cannot be more specific than that at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the report of Sir Robin Ibbs. I shall refer that to the Prime Minister, but I am unable to give him the information that he requires at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Home Office review of hon. Members' correspondence and stops. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced on Second Reading of the Immigration Bill on 16 November, he is reviewing the procedures under which hon. Members take up immigration cases with his Department, whether in the form of written representations or of interventions, especially stops in port cases. The review is not yet complete, but when my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), have reached detailed conclusions they will be the subject of consultation with both sides of the House and with hon. Members generally.
I shall refer the question of a statement on defence to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, I stated last week that I was happy to arrange a debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs before Christmas, if that was the wish of the House. However, following discussions through the usual channels, I understand that it would be for the more general convenience of hon. Members if there was a longer time to consider the report of the Committee of Selection. Taking account of that, I propose to arrange a debate on that matter immediately after the House returns in January.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he gave a modestly encouraging reply to a question that I first started putting to his predecessor before Christmas 1986 about a debate on science policy? When are we to have such a debate? It is becoming rather urgent.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's deep concern about those matters and his persistence. I hope that he will be tolerant of me for a little longer.
Mr. David Steel: In view of today's recommendation by the British Caledonian board to its shareholders in favour of the partnership with SAS, will the Leader of the House make arrangements for a statement to be made as soon as possible giving an assurance on behalf of the Government that there will be no ministerial interference with the Civil Aviation Authority to prevent the shareholders making a decision in the interests of a strong, second-force airline in Britain and competition for the consumer?
Mr. Wakeham: As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Transport has certain statutory duties in this matter that follow from any report that he should receive from the CAA. I do not believe that I can say anything else about this matter other than that I shall report the right hon. Gentleman's concern to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Philip Goodhart: As the Government expect to secure the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill next week, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any plans to take the Committee stage of part I of the Bill, dealing with the community charge, on the Floor of the House in view of the constitutional importance of the decision and the fact that many hon. Members will wish to discuss that matter in detail?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a feeling that we shall have plenty of time to discuss all the implications of the Bill. I have no plans to take any part of it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 429?
[That this House calls for the profits made by the House of Commons Refreshment Department, including the Kiosk, during the week 14th December to 18th December inclusive, to be donated to the Ethiopian Famine Appeal.]
It calls for the profits made by the Refreshment Department next week to be donated to the Ethiopian famine appeal. Does he agree that the vast majority of Members and visitors, who will be spending a large amount of money next week through the Refreshment Department, would welcome a proportion of that money going to that important appeal? Does he also agree that where there is a political will there is always a way? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to cut through the red tape to ensure that starving people are helped by this House next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, the direction of excess funds from the Kiosk is generally a matter of the House of Commons Commission. The Government have made clear their concern about human rights in Ethiopia and the failure to provide agricultural incentives. In the present circumstances, the overriding need is to deliver food to those who face another major famine.
Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the annual report on Hong Kong is likely to come out next month. Will he arrange for an early debate on the report on the territory, preferably as soon as possible and before the publication in Hong Kong of
586
the White Paper proposals regarding representative government in the territory? Those proposals are due to be published in February and it would be helpful if we had a debate in the time between publication of the report and the White Paper.
Mr. Wakeham: That is certainly an important issue and I shall look at the possibilities for an early debate.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I refer to exchanges initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) yesterday which you, Mr. Speaker, said could be dealt with now. They concerned the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, whose responsibilities are also covered by the Secretary of State in this House.
Is the Leader of the House aware that my hon. Friend asked about the background to the pre-dawn raid by Strathclyde police on executives of the BBC in February? In reply to those questions, first the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and then the Secretary of State for Scotland denied responsibility for answering my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that my hon. Friend's question was
"beyond my sphere of responsibility … and goes to the root of intelligence matters that are the responsibility of others." —[Official Report, 9 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 433.]
Can the Leader of the House say specifically to which others we should address our questions?
Mr. Wakeham: I think the best thing I can do is to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Minister quite properly took the view that the supplementary question concerning grounds for suspicion related to intelligence matters. If, however, the question was intended to relate to the grounds on which the original warrant had been granted, a reply could have been given. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has written to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked the question, and the confusion arose as a result of a late correction to his question by the hon. Gentleman as to the date of the seizure of the material.
Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is no provision next week for a debate on the formation of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Can he confirm that that omission was at the insistence of the Opposition? If he can., what conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw about the attitude of the Opposition to Scottish business? Is he as concerned as I am that the Scottish people are being denied important representation in this House because of the obstructive tactics of the Opposition? When will we have a debate on the formation of the Select Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: We will have a debate on it as soon as we come back from Christmas. I shall leave it to my lion. Friend to draw conclusions about these matters. I reiterate that the discussions took place through the usual channels, and it was generally agreed that it would be for the convenience of the House not to have a debate next week.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Opposition Members are extremely anxious that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be set up? Without criticising the Committee of Selection, I may say that the motion tabled in the name of the Chairman of that Committee was not

587
really satisfactory in enabling the House to reach a satisfactory conclusion that would serve the interests of the whole House.
If there are to be strictures regarding the setting up of the Scottish Select Committee and the representation of Scotland in it, I refer the Leader of the House to the Committee considering the Health and Medicines Bill in which the absence of a Scottish Minister is to be deplored, particularly as the Opposition have two hon. Members of great expertise who wish to question the Government in Committee line by line and clause by clause on the operation of the Health Service in Scotland. Is it not a scandal that the Under-Secretary of State, who acknowledges the Adam Smith rule, is not willing to be seated on that Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the Ministers on that Committee will give a good account of themselves and will answer all the questions raised in the debates there. I cannot say anything further about that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other question about the Scottish Select Committee, as I have said from the Dispatch Box on many occasions, I am anxious to set it up as soon as possible. If I have the hon. Gentleman's support in doing that, we may make some progress.
Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, will he bear in mind that some Conservative Members will welcome the opportunity to debate what was wrong with it and why it did not perform its duty satisfactorily in the way that the other Select Committees—I served on two of them—did?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend does not need any encouragement from me to find an opportunity of expressing his views on these matters. My concern is to try to get the Select Committee set up in a proper and acceptable manner.
Mr. Harold McCusker: At some time during the two-day debate on the Local Government Finance Bill, will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the House—in particular hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies — is told why the poll tax proposals will not extend to Northern Ireland? After all, if the poll tax is for the benefit of all the citizens of the United Kingdom, surely the citizens of Northern Ireland should have the advantage of it, too.
Mr. Wakeham: The issue of who is called in debates is not a matter for me; nor is that of whether these matters are in order. However, I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Michael Latham: Could my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary be asked to confirm to the House next week that the Goverment have not forgotten Mr. Terry Waite and other British hostages in the Lebanon, and that every diplomatic opportunity will be taken to bring pressure to bear on sovereign Governments—not terrorists—to bring about their release?
Mr. Wakeham: Of course, I am sure that the whole House wants and expects my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to do whatever is open to him to assist in this matter. I confirm that that is what he is doing.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House perhaps find time in the early new year for a general debate on the issue of freedom of the press? No doubt he will agree that the growing rash of writs from the Attorney-General seeking to gag parts of the press and some people is most worrying. Will he bear in mind that it is often a free press that separates a democracy from a tyranny?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on those points, but I shall certainly bear them in mind.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the free world strongly support the INF treaty recently concluded in Washington? Does he accept that the treaty has created expectations which, if combined with major defence cuts by the United States, could have a major impact on the defence of Britain? Is not that a reason for a special defence debate, over and above the ones that we can normally expect, early next year?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that other hon. Members would support my hon. Friend, but I do not see an early prospect of having such a debate. My hon. Friend may be able to find an opportunity on Wednesday to ask the Foreign Secretary a question about this.
Mr. John Garrett: In connection with the appointment next Wednesday of the Comptroller and Auditor General, has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 427 which is in my name and in the names of an increasing number of my hon. Friends?
[That this House considers that, as the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House under the National Audit Act ( 1983 ) , appointments to the post should be made on a motion put down by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and that the appointment should not involve any consultation with the Prime Minister; and further considers that the requirement for the agreement of the Prime Minister to the appointment of an officer whose responsibility is to examine the financial management of the Government is constitutionally unacceptable.]
It draws attention to how unacceptable it is that the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, now a servant of the House whose job it is to inquire into the financial management of the Government, should be subject to the approval, even the veto, of the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to table an amendment to the National Audit Act 1983 to establish that the appointment shall be made by the Public Accounts Committee and on a motion by its Chairman? Will the right hon. Gentleman hold up this appointment until such an amendment has been debated in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I cannot agree to that. The procedure for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is laid down in section 1 of the National Audit Act 1983 and that procedure will be strictly followed. This is a matter for the House, but the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has been consulted and I understand that he has given his approval to this appointment.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend consider delaying the Report stage of the Local Government Bill? Is he aware that this week about 50 of my right hon. and hon. Friends signed

589
an early-day motion critical of the way in which local authorities exercise their powers under the Race Relations Act 1976? Is he further aware that an amendment has been tabled today to repeal section 71 of that Act? In fairness to local authorities, they ought to know that there is a serious risk of that amendment receiving the approval of the House and they ought to have time to put forward their claims to continue to exercise what many Conservative Members regard as their pernicious powers.
Mr. Wakeham: A reasonable time has been allowed to deal with these matters. No doubt my hon. Friend will forcefully put his point of view in next week's debate.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House give the House time—if not now, certainly after the recess—to consider the matter of loan sharks and the credit problem, which has become a matter of public concern? Does he agree that the House ought to pay more attention to the problem of the exploitation of the most vulnerable sections of working people, many of whom are now at risk because of their indebtedness to loan sharks who demand gross rates of interest on loans?
Mr. Wakeham: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about any irregularities of that sort. I cannot promise him time for a debate in the immediate future, but he might try his hand at applying for an Adjournment debate and see how we get on.
Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the allegation by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that his is the only party in Northern Ireland that has no association with paramilitaries, will the Leader of the House find time before the House rises for a debate on paramilitaries? I and my party not only repudiate paramilitaries but unequivocally support the security forces and the rule of law. It is essential to put the record straight.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend seems to have done that effectively, but I cannot promise time for a debate next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on the safety of equipment provided to schoolchildren following upon the death of Billy Walker, my constituent, after swallowing the top of a Bic pen? The executives of the allegedly reputable company have yet again refused to discuss the matter privately. In the circumstances, perhaps the best remedy is to discuss the matter publicly so that the company's heartless and irresponsible behaviour can be held up to the scorn it deserves and so that, at the very least, the company's shareholders will know the way in which the company's executives have seen fit to misrun it.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. and learned Gentleman needs no lesson from me on how to raise matters that he rightly thinks are of concern to his constituents and to the whole country, but I suggest that an Adjournment debate may be a suitable starting point.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend seek to arrange for the Minister for Sport to come to the House to make a statement about the problems the British cricket team is encountering in Pakistan, and to make a comparison between that and the excellent umpiring and refereeing in this country, not least the excellent refereeing in the second round of the Football
590
Association cup last Sunday when Macclesfield Town football club, otherwise known as "the silkmen", demolished an official league club, Rotherham, by four goals to nil?
Mr. Wakeham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his football team, and wish it well in future competitions.
All hon. Members will regret what has happened in recent events in Pakistan. Whatever the circumstances, there can be no excuse for flouting the authority of judges, referees or umpires. Such respect is fundamental to the playing of any sport. The enforcement of standards and the discipline of umpires are matters for the cricket authorities.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide time before the Christmas recess for a statement or debate on the Government's attitude to their golden shareholding in Britoil? Does he accept that there is great concern among hon. Members about the future of the United Kingdom's largest independent oil company, about 1,700 Scottish jobs and about whether the Government had prior knowledge of the BP moves? Does he accept that the Government must make a political decision in the next few weeks and that hon. Members have the right to debate it?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a statement, but I will certainly refer his question to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the amendment to early-day motion 226.
[That this House notes with acute concern the opposition of the honourable Member for Ealing North to the right of the Dawoodis Bohra Muslim Community to have a place of worship in Ealing, despite the support given by Labour and Conservative councillors following detailed consultation in the area,. further notes that following his campaign there has been an increase in racially motivated attacks in the area and that some behaviour at a public meeting has been offensive and came close to breaching the Public Order Act; and therefore calls upon the honourable Member for Ealing North to condemn such behaviour unreservedly and to support the right of freedom of worship.]
The motion points out that the Ealing council has mistakenly granted planning permission to the Dawoodis Bohra Sikhs to build a mosque on an industrial estate in Northolt, and seeks to persuade the council to find an alternative site for the mosque.
As the motion is signed by only 30 hon. Members and the amendment is signed by 70 hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate for the sake of the people of Northolt who are deeply concerned, disturbed and angry about the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises matters of concern to him and a number of his constituents, but they are matters for the local planning authority, the Ealing council. I cannot promise him that we can find time for a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Home Secretary make a statement next week on the relationship between Gibraltar and Britain on the landing rights agreement with the Spanish Government? We have not had a statement on the agreement, which raises many constitutional issues. For example, if the

591
Gibraltar Assembly were to veto the arrangement, what would happen to the agreement and the broader agreement on air fares in the EEC? The House and the people of Gibraltar deserve a full statement from the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Wakeham: That is an important matter and I will refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the profound concern expressed about the future of the D notice committee? Is he aware that the voluntary D notice system has worked extremely well for many years and was working effectively between the BBC and the authorities until last week? Now that the Government's injunction has smashed to smithereens the reputation and effectiveness of the D notice committee would it not be right for the House to debate whether it should continue to be funded with taxpayers' money and kept going?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, but the Government attach great value to the D notice system and hope that the media will continue to participate.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that, if the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments decides to request a memorandum on the Welsh rate support grant orders on Tuesday, the orders will not be taken? I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that there is little point in having a Select Committee to examine orders and report to the House if the orders are debated prior to that report.
When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Register of Members' Interests to be published? Will it be published early in the new year? May we have a debate on the register because there have been a number of reports about hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), being employed by organisations such as Saatchi and Saatchi, which is lobbying for British Airways in the BA-BCal bid? We should be able to explore the ramifications of the way in which Conservative Members obtain financial advantage from their parliamentary endeavours.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that this saga is changing its nature. All hon. Members have now completed an entry to the register and it was laid on Tuesday following a meeting of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I understand that at the meeting the Committee agreed a short report which will be published early next week. A copy of the register, which is being printed as it stood on 8 December, is in the Library. The hon. Gentleman can study it at his leisure. I cannot answer the question about the Welsh rate support grant without looking into it, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fundamental importance of the amendment tabled to the Local Government Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and his colleagues about the Race Relations Act 1976, and how that applies to local government, and as it strikes at the
592
foundations of the Bill, will he give additional time— perhaps until midnight—on Monday for the debate on the amendment?
Mr. Wakeham: Certainly we have given what I believe is a reasonable amount of time. We will waive the rule on Monday to enable discussion to take place. However, there is no fixed time limit as such.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, as it is currently compiled, the Register of Members' Interests is based upon a system that was devised more than a decade ago? Although it would require hon. Members to show whether they have any interest in stonemasonry, they would not be expected to include any reference to show whether they were freemasons, including those who are honorary freemasons, some of whom may be on the Conservative Benches. Would it not be a good idea, when the Register is compiled next time round—it is apparently ready for publication now — that it should contain a part instructing Members of Parliament who were members of a freemasons' lodge to include that information in the Register, as is the case in many local authorities?
Mr. Wakeham: That is of course a matter primarily for the Select Committee on Members' Interests and ultimately for the House.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to allow the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to withdraw and apologise for his disgraceful attack on the Army colonel which was made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege and which has since been proved to have been false?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that that is a matter for me. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is responsible for what he says and he will have to decide how best to deal with these matters.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have issued a public statement today about the Queen's Dragoon Guard in which I said that, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence had found no evidence to substantiate the allegations, I withdraw unconditionally and apologise to the commanding officer and the regiment?
With regard to Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan, the complaint was not that he broke the regulations, as the MOD has implied. The complaint was that he fined a man £500 for having a very untidy room and another man £500 for refusing to stop his bicycle when asked and for being disorderly. I regard those fines as excessive. The charges and the fines were excessive. Nevertheless, I have said publicly that I regret naming Lieutenant Colonel Macmillan under parliamentary privilege before the allegations were checked.
There is far too much evidence not only of bullying, but of real brutality in the Army. I have made my apology in good faith, but that in no way detracts from my deep and profound concern about my evidence of bullying. I will pursue my campaign to try to eradicate bullying from the Army.
Mr. Wakeham: The whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that apology as he may have caused serious damage as a result of what he said previously. We much appreciate his apology. However, I

593
cannot accept what he said subsequently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces have made the position quite clear. I do not believe that that coincides with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Given that this is apparently a Government of law and order, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement as early as possible about the Post Office letter monopoly and its lack of enforcement in Coventry? Will he explain why the university, the district health authority and a number of businesses are clearly breaking the law by using a firm called Coventry Couriers which, at 10p a time, and with a frank very similar to that used by the Post Office, is delivering mail and breaking the monopoly in Coventry —or will it be like the Chancellor's wife this morning, with another blind eye being turned?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he has evidence of the law being broken there are proper ways to deal with it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the leader of the Liberal party, will he consider urgently the possibility of an early debate on civil air transport policy so that the Secretary of State for Transport can explain fully to the House how the Government intend to facilitate transnational mergers within Europe, avoid quasi monopolies by big airlines and maximise competition for the benefit of the travelling public?
Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise the importance of those issues. However, I cannot offer an early debate on the subject. I will keep the matter in mind.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As the Government have introduced the Local Government Bill as a means of extinguishing the scope for mischief-making by the race relations industrialists in local government, why is this democratic Government now emasculating its own handiwork by bringing forward new clause 5 on the instructions of a discredited quango—the Commission for Racial Equality—when it can just as readily, with this Bill, get rid of clause 71 of the totally discredited Race Relations Act 1976?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's question is more pertinent to the debate next week than to business questions.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House find ways, through the usual channels, to get the Secretary of State for Energy to issue a statement of concern about the sale of National Coal Board houses in Nottinghamshire? Currently 2,000 houses are up for sale and 3,501) ex-miners, most of whom are very old, need help and security. They fear for their future security in their homes. I do not believe that they should be made to wait by the coal board, which is refusing to sell to proper housing consortia which will look after them in their old age.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I said on the subject a week or two ago.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Leader of the House realise that his comments on the Scottish Select
594
Committee are disgraceful and completely unacceptable, indicating delay, dither and incompetence on the part of the usual channels? It is scarcely credible that the Labour party seems to be going along with it. What is the Leader of the House doing about Scottish Tory Back Benchers who are shirking their duty by refusing to serve on the Committee, and about ideas such as drafting in English Members when duly elected SNP Members who are willing to serve are deliberately excluded? When will this affront to Scotland be ended?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not consider it in any way an affront to Scotland that such matters must be considered properly and carefully. The Scottish Select Committee is an important matter. If we are to set up such a Committee which has the support of the House, we must make sure that we obtain agreement as widely as possibly throughout the House.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In the light of today's decision by the five Law Lords, which will prevent journalists from investigating insider dealing and other important matters, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the need to amend the Contempt of Court Act 1981? Does he agree that Mr. Jeremy Warner of The Independent should defy the Law Lords and not reveal his sources?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly do not recommend anyone to break the law, but I have nothing else to say about the case in the House of Lords.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of the early-day motion that I am tabling today—[Interruption.] He may have had notice of it. It calls for Sir Clive Whitmore, chairman of the D notice committee, to convene a meeting of that committee, and to recommend the resignation of all lie members.
Does the Leader of the House understand that the work of the committee is now totally undermined? The committee is recommending one course of action, while the Attorney-General and the Treasury Solicitor are recommending completely different courses. As there is an inconsistency and a contradiction, why cannot the matter be wrapped up in the way that has been suggested?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I can contain myself in patience until I see his early-day motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Ernie Ross: May I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)? Will the Leader of the House seek an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Social Services to see whether an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can be a member of the Standing Committee on the Health and Medicines Bill? How can we possibly question the likely effects of the Bill on the Health Service in Scotland—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, health is dealt with separately in Scotland — unless someone with responsibility for it is on the Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).
Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Leader of the House accept that many hon. Members are

595
very concerned at the appointment of a new Comptroller and Auditor General? I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual, but the appointment is of someone who has been very senior in defence procurement, and also has a Treasury background. Given the fight that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to secure the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, will he allow his right hon. and hon. Friends a free vote after next week's debate on the appointment, so that they can decide having heard the full facts, and without pressure from the usual channels?
Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman has been here a bit longer, he will know that we do not talk about whipping matters from this Dispatch Box.
The new Comptroller and Auditor General is a deputy secretary in the Ministry of Defence and has wide experience of public expenditure both in the MoD and in the Northern Ireland Office. He is an eminently suitable person to be appointed, and his appointment will be the subject of next week's debate.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we are receiving from the Government over the acute crisis in the National Health Service, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of Christmas, whether any arrangements are being made for copies of "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens to be given to, every member of the Cabinet to read on Christmas day?
Mr. Wakeham: Instead of going on in the way that he does—I accept that it is in the spirit of Christmas—the hon. Gentleman should take heed of what I said to one of his hon. Friends the other day. If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the figures published in The Guardian about spending on the National Health Service, I think that he will see that the record of the present Government is considerably better than that of the Government whom he supported.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Leader of the House been informed that this morning the Act Now group, representing 40 organisations of or for disabled persons, has launched a campaign calling for the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act? In its main leaflet it asks why, given that Royal Assent was granted on 8 July 1986, nothing has happened 17 months later. What reply has the Leader of the House to that question —especially as he was Chief Whip at that time—and will he forgive disabled people for feeling cynical about the Government's inactivity?
Mr. Wakeham: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I did not know of this morning's announcement. However, I shall refer his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Adjournment (Christmas)
4.15 pm
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 18 December, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result will be made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1979, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act 1987.

2. Highland Region Harbours (Miscellaneous Powers) Order Confirmation Act 1987.

3. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1987.

4. Associated British Ports Act 1987.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill
4.16 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is appropriate that we should be considering this Bill in what has been a very significant week for arms control, and for the development of East-West relations generally. As the House will be aware, the Bill was given its Second Reading on 22 October, and subsequently considered in Committee. The debate on 22 October and the Committee stage gave wide opportunities not only for discussion of the main provisions of the Bill, but for a wide-ranging review of arms control issues generally. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the Standing Committee for the insights and contributions that they made. I should particularly like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) for his exemplary and good-humoured chairmanship of the Committee.
I am sure that the House will not want me to cover the same ground as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his speech on 22 October. However, it might be appropriate briefly to recapitulate the purposes of the Bill. I hope after that, if it is consistent with the rules of order, to say a few words about the historic agreement on the removal of the INF missiles signed in Washington on Tuesday, to explain both the main provisions of the Bill as they affect the United Kingdom and how it may be employed to give effect to the INF treaty.
As it now stands, the Bill is intended to give effect to the outcome of last year's Stockholm conference on confidence building and disarmament in Europe. The conference called for privileges and immunities to be extended to inspectors carrying out on-site verification, and to observers invited to military exercises notified under the terms of the Stockholm document—which is itself a major confidence-building measure between East and West. We believe that it is a significant and rather underrated development.
The United Kingdom's representatives have carried out one inspection in the German Democratic Republic this year and have observed 15 exercises since the document was signed. Eight of those observations were in Warsaw pact countries and seven in other NATO countries.
For the first time, we had an opportunity to play host to observers from Stockholm signatory states, including all the Warsaw pact countries except Romania, during Exercise Purple Warrior in Scotland last month. The observation programme passed off smoothly and attracted compliments from East and West observers on the efficiency with which it was organised and on the commitment to openness and transparency that it demonstrated.
The Bill provides for privileges and immunities to be conferred by Order in Council, to give effect to arrangements superseding the Stockholm document or to furthering arms control and disarmament generally—for example, the INF agreement, to which I shall return in a moment.
The purpose of extending the Bill by Order in Council is to ensure that, so far as possible, we avoid the need for primary legislation each time there is a new arms control
598
agreement. The verification arrangements of such agreements might involve the granting of privileges or immunities. I assure the House—I hope that I made this clear in Committee — that such extensions will be performed under the affirmative resolution procedure, which will give hon. Members a full opportunity to debate any order. I believe that that is a sensible way to proceed, and that it will reduce the administrative burden on the House.
A number of probing amendments were tabled in Committee, the effect of which would have been to limit the granting of privileges and immunities to the Stockholm document alone and require the introduction of fresh primary legislation every time that a new arms control agreement was implemented. I am pleased that, in the light of some discussions, sponsors of the amendments agreed to withdraw them. The fact that no further amendments were tabled on Report suggests that the framework that was set out in Committee is acceptable to the House. I am glad about that, as these issues should, so far as possible, not be the subject of partisan considerations but should command the confidence of everyone.
I should like to make one point clear. The Bill does not make any changes in the privileges and amenities that are given; they remain exactly as set out in the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. All it does is extend for a very brief period the category of people who are entitled to enjoy those privileges and immunities. In practice, this will have little effect on people who are here for a very short visit and very limited in numbers. For instance, under the Stockholm document, inspectors—a maximum of four per inspection team — and observers — a maximum of two per country — will enjoy, among other things, inviolability of the person, immunity from criminal jurisdiction and, with some minor exceptions, immunity from civil and administrative jurisdictions. Those privileges are enjoyed by diplomats who are currently accredited here. Many of those observing exercises in the United Kingdom — this was the case with Purple Warrior—will be service attaches accredited here. Many of the small Stockholm signatory countries send no observers at all.
In the case of inspectors, the time limits are clearly specified in the Stockholm document, and no inspection may last for longer than 48 hours. It is envisaged that inspectors will bring auxiliary personnel, as the British inspection team did when it went to the German Democratic Republic in September. Auxiliary personnel are equated with administrative and technical staff at diplomatic missions in London and will enjoy inviolability of the person and immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Such immunities will be limited to acts performed in the course of their duties.
In Committee, questions were asked about the hypothetical extension of the Bill to a range of potential arms control agreemens. I assured the Committee., and I repeat my assurance to the House, that at present we envisage the extension of the Bill to only the INF agreement, in so far as it affects United Kingdom territory. We intend to avail ourselves of clause 1, which provides for its application to other arms control agreements, in this respect. I am unable to tell the House precisely when we shall do that, because much will depend on the timing of the Bill's remaining stages, and other matters relating to the ratification of the INF treaty, which we hope will occur in the new year. I hope that it will be completed in time

599
to allow an Order in Council to be tabled speedily. Indeed, we would want to table it before the treaty comes into force.
I said earlier that the INF agreement was signed on Tuesday after much painstaking negotiation and considerable difficulty. Despite the doubts of Left and Right, which were expressed at different times, the two super-powers have achieved what their negotiators have long had in their sights — the global elimination of United States' and Soviet longer and shorter range intermediate ground-based missiles.
Mr. George Robertson: While the Minister is on this subject, will he say when the INF treaty will be available to the House? Is the text available now? Has the Minister seen a copy of it, and will it be available in the Library?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the Minister deals with that point, may I say that I am sure that he will bear in mind that his remarks must be related to the content of the Bill. We cannot broaden the Third Reading debate into a general debate, or anything like as wide a debate as we had on Second Reading.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without intending any discourtesy to the Minister, surely what my hon. Friend has asked for is highly relevant. The Bill confers privileges and immunities on Soviet inspectors who will be coming here in fulfilment of the provisions of the treaty. If we are conferring privileges and immunities on foreign inspectors coming to Britain, to the constituency of, among others, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), surely we have a right to see the text of the treaty under which the Bill will confer privileges and immunities? Surely, therefore, it is highly relevant to this narrow Third Reading debate to ask to see the treaty?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wanted to remind the House that the debate cannot be broadened to a general debate on the treaty; it must relate to what is in the Bill. I have heard nothing out of order yet, but I thought that it might be helpful to fire a warning shot.
Mr. Mellor: The principal treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States was signed on Tuesday. The basing country agreement between the United States and Britain regarding inspections on United Kingdom territory at the two areas where missiles are deployed will be signed tomorrow. Subsequently, a document between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union will have to be signed, whereby the Soviet Union will agree to abide by the arrangements that have been entered into, and that will not be done for some time. With regard to the first two documents, we shall make them available as soon as we have clean texts. We have copies of the text, but they are not in clean form.
We have been kept in touch with the drafting as it has gone on, and as I have explained to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), all the arrangements affecting the United Kingdom had to be cleared with us before they were accepted. A clean copy of the treaty in proper form will be deposited as soon as possible. —[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton finds this funny. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to start carping on a day when all of us—
Mr. Robertson: Don't be rude.
Mr. Mellor: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman telling me not to be rude; it is like the kettle calling the pot black. This treaty should be a cause for rejoicing. We have no interest in keeping it a secret document, and when we have a proper copy of the text available from Washington it will be disclosed. At the moment, copies come in the form of diplomatic telegrams of a kind that we would not wish to deposit in the House of Commons. A proper copy will come very quickly, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no great secret that he needs to have uncovered.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: In a moment.
Mr. Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: In a moment.
Mr. Davies: On the same point—
Mr. Mellor: In a moment. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall give way when I choose and not when he stands at the Dispatch Box, in breach of the rules of order of the House, and shouts at me. I shall make my point and then, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way—but not before.
As we intend to introduce an Order in Council that would permit inspectors diplomatic immunities and privileges under the Bill, pursuant to their work on the INF treaty, I shall give some details of the verification arrangements as they will affect the United Kingdom, if right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench will permit me to do so.
Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of verification arrangements. Will the note agreed between the United States and the United Kingdom set out the number of cruise missiles at Greenham Common and the number to be removed? The Minister will have seen the report in today's Independent, which seems to give the impression that there are more cruise missiles at Greenham Common than the Government knew about. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House the figures? Are there 24 launchers and 96 missiles, or 29 launchers and 101 missiles? How many missiles and launchers are there at Greenham Common and how many will be removed?
Mr. Mellor: That is well wide of the mark, and I shall not deal with that point. I think that I have the assent of the Chair in saying that. The Bill deals with privileges and immunities for inspections. There will be draw-down arrangements to provide for the missiles to be removed at a certain period. I am not here to answer Ministry of Defence questions about how many missiles there are. The right hon. Gentleman, who purports to be shadow Secretary of State for Defence, knows that that is a Ministry of Defence matter and not a Foreign Office matter.
Mr. Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman can stand there till doomsday and I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, if he

601
wants that information, he must seek it in a proper way and not from a Foreign Office Minister speaking on a quite different matter.
The INF' treaty has proved that to negotiate from strength and maintain Alliance solidarity is the way to achieve arms control agreements. The agreement has established the principle of asymmetrical reductions —heavily asymmetrical, as it turns out—with the Soviet Union coming down from much higher levels. It will eliminate the threat of SS20s, SS 12s and SS22s to our cities and airfields. For the first time in the nuclear age, nuclear weapons will be reduced. The verification regime is the most stringent to be put in place by any arms control agreement so far and will set new standards for future agreements. The inclusion of on-site inspection represents a considerable breakthrough. If it is faithfully implemented, the agreement will help to build up the trust between East and West without which no lasting improvement in relations is possible.
I come to the verification regime, which we hope the House will permit to take place under the privileges and immunities set out in the Bill. How will the INF inspection regime affect the United Kingdom? The details of the inspection arrangements, which are the same for all the countries concerned, whether they are associated with United States or Soviet Union INF facilities, are set out in an inspection protocol appended to the principal treaty. As I said, tomorrow in Brussels the United Kingdom, along with other basing countries, will sign a basing country agreement with the United States. This will establish the practical procedures and provisions necessary to enable the United States to discharge its obligations under the treaty in respect of facilities not on United States territory.
Under the exchange of notes with the Soviet Union, which will be signed shortly after the basing country agreement, the United Kingdom will grant the Soviet Union the right to conduct inspections on United Kingdom territory. In return, the Soviet Union will undertake to comply with United Kingdom laws and procedures, thus establishing the triangular nature of the legal relationship which is crucial to the respect for United Kingdom sovereignty which we wish to maintain, as well as playing our full part in—
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman is being grotesquely discourteous. He is not even allowing me to finish my sentence.
Mr. Davies: It is a simple point.
Mr. Mellor: Any question that the right hon. Gentleman asks is likely to be simple, but that does not mean that I wish to give way to answer it.
The basing country agreement and the exchange of notes will guarantee the United Kingdom direct powers to ensure observance of United Kingdom laws and sovereignty, and any future changes in these arrangements that affect the United Kingdom will not be agreed by the United States without our prior approval.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, let me say this. Throughout the Second
602
Reading debate we were pestered to give details of the verification arrangements under the treaty. I was unable to give the House those details, for the perfectly straightforward reason that the treaty had not been concluded. Now that it has been concluded, and I am giving the details, we have these monkey-house noises from Opposition Members who have no desire to listen but who are interested only in making their own debating points gleaned from a 15-minute reading on the tube of the latest wild speculations in today's newspapers. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reveal more of his morning reading, I shall give way to him.
Mr. Davies: I do not know why the Minister is being so tetchy. I was merely going to ask him whether the treaty or the basing agreement to be signed by Britain and the United States — I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the treaty—sets out the number of missiles and launchers at Greenham Common and therefore the number to be removed. Does the treaty say that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to be difficult with the House, but it is my job to see that the rules are observed. I am sure that the Minister will bear in mind the scope of the Bill in answering the question that has been put to him. Mr. Mellor.
Mr. Mellor: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth will be dealt with in the verification proposals in the treaty, so they are perfectly within the scope of this discussion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the subject of the Bill. We had better get on with the debate.
Mr. Kaufman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better if the House left it to me to judge whether remarks are in order.
Mr. Kaufman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However brief the debate may turn out to be, it is important for us to clarify at the outset the limits within which it can take place. As I said on an earlier point of order, the Bill confers diplomatic privileges and immunities on Soviet inspectors who are to come here. The Soviet inspectors will operate with the privileges and immunities conferred by the Bill, but under the terms of two documents, and it is impossible for us to debate the Bill adequately without discussing those documents, which the Minister alluded to but which are not available to the House. We are being asked to provide powers on which no satisfactory information is available.
One of the two documents to which the Minister referred is the inspection protocol. We are dealing with privileges and immunities to be conferred on inspectors. I do not begin to see how we can adequately debate a Bill under which we are to confer powers under an inspection protocol, not one word of which is available to this House. Furthermore, the Minister said that tomorrow the United Kingdom would be one of a number of countries signing a basing country agreement. That basing country agreement will affect the soil of this country. It will affect two constituencies. One is that of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the other is the

603
constituency of the Chief Secretary. Yet we are asked to confer powers, as a Parliament, under a basing agreement—
Mr. Mellor: No, we are not.
Mr. Kaufman: Yes, we are. This is Parliament. We are asked to confer diplomatic privileges and immunities. It is Parliament that is doing this, not the Government. We are still a parliamentary democracy. We are being asked to do that, and those powers will be conferred under a basing country agreement. That is an agreement to which the Government are a direct signatory. Yet there again we do not know the agreement under which we are conferring the powers.
It seems to me that the debate ought not to proceed in this way, because we are being deprived of important material in which we are conferring powers.
Mr. Mellor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Is it further to the point of order of the right hon. Member? If not, let me answer the right hon. Gentleman's point.
The right hon. Gentleman has really answered his own point, in the first part of his point of order, when he said that he conceded that this debate is comparatively narrow, in that it deals with the powers of the inspectors and the extension of those powers. Of course, it would be appropriate for passing reference to be made to the documents in the context of this debate, but it would not be in order for the details of the document to be debated on the Third Reading of this Bill.
Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but your response highlights the problem. We cannot refer to the details of the documents, since no one on the Opposition Benches has seen a word of them.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister will not even answer questions on them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be better to let the Minister get on with his speech.
Mr. Mellor: If I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, I assume, having great respect for him, that this is a deliberate rather than an accidental misunderstanding of the situation. The point that he put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is wholly erroneous. The Bill as drafted deals only with allowing inspectors and observers under the Stockholm arrangements the privileges and immunities confirmed by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. Any subsequent privileges and immunities to be granted will only be granted by permission of the House once an Order in Council has been laid and an affirmation resolution has been sought from the House.
If it be objected that the privileges and immunities sought in relation to the intermediate nuclear force treaty arrangements are wrong, the proper time to make that point is when the affirmative resolution is debated in the House.
Mr. Kaufman rose—
Mr. Mellor: In just a moment.
Here one sees the error into which one falls if one tries to be accommodating in one's approach to debates in this
604
Chamber at the request of the Opposition. When initially we sought in Committee simply to deal with the Stockholm arrangements, on the proper basis that other future arms control agreements lay outside the immediate scope of the Bill and that parliamentary procedure was provided for that to be done, that was regarded as unhelpful, a bad spirit developed in the Committee and in the end we agreed, with the kind permission of the Chairman, to be allowed to discuss in little modules wider arms control matters within the context of the privileges and immunities that might in future be granted under this Bill.
In that same spirit, although the Bill as it passes into law will confer no rights or entitlements whatever on any inspector who might be appointed under a treaty that has yet to be ratified and will not come into force for a number of months, I thought that it would be helpful to the House to have an opportunity of setting out, since it would be our intention to use the Order in Council procedure provided for under this Bill in due time, so that inspectors might enjoy privileges and immunities when going about the business of the INF treaty inspection, to give details of the arrangements.
Instead, we find ourselves plunged into an even worse thicket, in which an attempt is made to suggest that we are now taking the debate forward without documents being available. This is the logic of the asylum, not of a parliamentary Chamber.
Mr. Kaufman: May I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not criticise him for the way in which he has come equipped to the debate this afternoon. I think that he has been placed in an extremely unfortunate position because he has been asked to request the House to give a Third Reading to a Bill two days after one of the agreements which will trigger off the Order in Council procedure. Without in any way belittling the hon. and learned Gentleman— I have regard for him, as he knows — the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ought to have come here this afternoon in order to present to the country, on the first available occasion, his thoughts as Secretary of State on how this Bill will operate. I say that in no way belittling the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a very important debate, despite either the length of the Bill or the length of the debate.
Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman makes his point. I am happy to say that my right hon. and learned Friend has the same confidence in me that the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to express. Be that as it may, I want to assure the House that all the arrangements pursuant to the Stockholm agreement are in the public domain. That is the area in which privileges and immunities are directly conferred by the Bill as drafted. Any matters that need to be considered, that are novel in relation to the INF agreement, can be considered when the affirmative resolution procedures come to the House. In the interests of preparing the ground for that, I am happy, consistent with the rules of order, to give such information as I can about the nature of the inspection regime. I was beginning to do so when we were taken into the interesting highways and byways that we have been following for the past few minutes.
Going back to an earlier point, the INF treaty itself will provide for the draw-down over a three-year period of all

605
intermediate-range missiles, including those stationed at Greenham Common and Molesworth. Some six flights, consisting of 96 missiles, will be removed from Greenham and one flight consisting of 12 missiles from Molesworth. It is these two sites in the United Kingdom which will be liable to inspections, and these are the United States-operated facilities that I have already mentioned.
Under the terms of the treaty all the cruise missiles—I have given the numbers—will be eliminated within three years of the treaty coming into force.
There will be four types of inspection at Greenham Common and Molesworth. First of all, there will be a baseline inspection between 30 and 90 days of the treaty's entering into force, to verify the data exchange; secondly, there can be short-notice challenge inspections until missiles are eliminated, and inspections in the United Kingdom will be part of an annual quota of 20 such inspections in the three years of the elimination period; thirdly, close-out inspections, when all missiles have been eliminated; and, fourthly, continuing short-notice challenge inspections for 10 years after the end of the three-year period — in other words, extremely rigorous verification. It is, therefore, a period of 13 years altogether.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I understand from the details of the treaty which are published in The Daily Telegraph today that there is to be a special verification commission. Will that come within the remit of this Bill, and will its members be able to come to any of the Royal Air Force bases in the United Kingdom that may be involved if there were a dispute over the question of verification?
Mr. Mellor: As I understand the position—but I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail on this point—the purpose of the commission is to ensure that these arrangements are carried through smoothly, and all relevant assistance will be given to those who need to do that. Precise details of this, of course, and the arrangements under which they would come here remain to be worked out.
I should just like to make one point in relation to what I said about the flights at Molesworth. Contrary to what I said, it is 16 missiles at Molesworth, not 12.
Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has had to correct himself, it would be helpful if, for the sake of clarity and for the information of the people in the country, he will tell us how many missiles will be removed from each site.
Mr. Mellor: I gave the figures and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who either interrupts and ask questions or jibbers from a sedentary position, seems determined to be profoundly unhelpful. It is not a convincing performance. Ninety-six missiles will be removed from Greenham Common and 16 from Molesworth.
So far as the last category of short-notice inspections is concerned, there is an overall annual quota of 15 Soviet inspections for the first five years after elimination and 10 for the next five years. No more than 50 per cent. of the inspections can be made in any one basing country.
All inspections in the United Kingdom will begin with the arrival of a Soviet aircraft at RAF Greenham Common, and a maximum of 10 Soviet inspectors will be involved.
606
There are strict time limits. A single inspection could last for up to 90 hours from entry into the United Kingdom to departure, but most will be shorter than this. United Kingdom authorities will be informed immediately by the United States of Soviet requests for inspection. As little as one hour's notice will be given to clear a Soviet flight plan. How soon after this Soviet inspectors will arrive will depend on the point of their departure. United Kingdom and United States officials will jointly meet the aircraft carrying the Soviet inspection team and will form part of a permanent escort of Soviet inspectors during the period of inspection.
All inspection personnel will require United Kingdom visas. Inspectors will be drawn from a list approved in advance, about which the United Kingdom will be consulted. United Kingdom customs procedures will apply at the point of entry and British officials will then join their United States counterparts in examining equipment introduced for the purposes of inspections, to ensure that it is within the agreed limit.
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
While carrying out their inspection duties, the inspection personnel will be granted privileges and immunities. It is for this purpose that the Government will seek an Order in Council to apply the terms of the Bill to INF inspectors. These privileges and immunities will be consistent with, and in some respects more limited than, those granted by the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations of April 1964, and they will be set out in an annex to the basing country agreement, which will be made available to the House shortly, together with the INF treaty and protocols and the United Kingdom-Soviet exchange of notes.
Although the negotiations are behind us, we cannot, nor should we, put the INF agreement out of our minds. It must be ratified by the United States Senate. We Europeans must leave the United States Congress in no doubt about our support. It must be implemented and the verification provisions must be shown to work. We and he other European basing countries will be closely involved in this. This process will provide the backdrop to future arms control negotiations. We hope that this will cover 50 per cent. reductions in strategic weapons, eliminating the conventional imbalance and achieving a global ban on chemical weapons.
The Government hope that the INF agreement signals a sea change in the prospects for realistic, multilateral, verifiable disarmament. We shall play our part in ensuring that the opportunities offered by it are exploited to the full. Successful arms control can help to build trust and confidence between East and West. Verification of arms control arrangements through on-site inspection is a tangible piece of glasnost. The Bill will facilitate this and I have no hestitation in commending it warmly to the House in the hope that it will receive a speedy passage in the other place.
4.55 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I apologise to the House because, if the debate goes beyond 6 pm, I shall be unable to remain for the closing stages. I have to take part in a public encounter with the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), during which we shall no doubt discuss the Bill.

607
I repeat, in the same spirit in which I made an earlier intervention, that it is wrong that the Foreign Secretary is not here to tell the House how the Bill will operate under the INF treaty. It is particularly offensive because he has distributed to every hon. Member a letter, via the Letter Board, in which he talks about making an early statement. This letter is the early statement. It is offensive to the House of Commons that the Foreign Secretary should write a circular letter to individual Members of Parliament, rather than stand at the Dispatch Box and answer questions across the Floor of the House, which is what parliamentary democracy is about.
The Minister has given us some details of the verification procedures under which the inspectors will be operating, under the privileges and immunities conferred by the Bill. It is a long-term piece of legislation, even under the first of the Orders in Council. Ten years plus three years makes 13 years, which will take us into the 21st century. If we get a strategic arms reduction treaty within the next few months, as all hon. Members hope, that will be taken further as the verification proceeds and as more inspectors are given the privileges and immunities under the Bill to carry out that verification.
We are not being provided with the information required to debate the Bill adequately. The Minister has told us how many missiles will be moved from Greenham Common and Molesworth. He has had to correct himself, although I do not blame him for that. On a matter such as this, the Minister must be briefed, and there was a mistake in the briefing which aroused some uncertainty about the accuracy of the material. Several newspapers —I have here The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph—make estimates about the number of missiles.
The Bill will be enacted by Parliament and will operate on our soil—that is particularly true in the cases of the two constituencies involved which are represented by Conservative Members — yet we were given the information about the number of missiles to be inspected under the scope of the Bill after the Soviet Union had been given the information. It is unacceptable that a foreign country, involved in a treaty to which we are not party, should be given information about how the Bill will work before the House of Commons, which is being asked to enact the measure, receives such information.
Until the Secretary of State for Defence told the House the other day, we did not know that there were missiles at Molesworth which will be inspected. The Soviet Union knew about that before the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, into whose constituency these missiles were surreptitiously slipped. It is not possible for the House properly to debate the Bill. As a Parliament, we are making a law and conferring powers on people from overseas who will be given privileges. It is totally unacceptable that we should be asked to debate a Bill without simple statistical material being given to Parliament before it is given to the Communist party of the Soviet Union.
Secondly, I say again, as I said on a point of order when I intervened in the Minister's speech, we are conferring privileges and immunities which will operate under the Bill. The Minister is mistaken in saying that they will operate under the order and that therefore we have no locus to debate that today, because the order-making power is made by clause 1(2) of the Bill. Until we pass the
608
Bill and until it is given Royal Assent, no order-making power will be available. That being so, for us to discuss what will happen under an order which the Minister has already said the Government intend to make under the Bill when it is enacted is germane to our discussion. Therefore, the Government should have postponed this debate for a few days so that we could have had the two key documents — the inspection protocol under the treaty, and the basing country agreement.
The Minister says that there is not a clean text, but there is a text of the treaty which contains, or has added to it, the protocol under which the Bill will be triggered. Before the Bill came before the House of Commons for Third Reading, the Government should at any rate have laid the inspection protocol before the House so that we might know under what terms the privileges and immunities will be conferred.
The Minister said that later this week the Government will sign the one document to which they are a party—the basing country agreement. I say again, these privileges and immunities are being conferred under the Bill in accordance with the basing country agreement, to which the Government will be a signatory. The Government must surely have that document in their possession. It must have gone through the Ministers' boxes and through the Prime Minister's box. I cannot imagine that such a major agreement would not have been thoroughly inspected throughout the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Prime Minister's Private Office and the Cabinet Office. I cannot imagine that it has not been available for weeks now. It may not have been available in final form, but the drafts must have been going through those various offices. It is unacceptable that we should confer on people from other countries powers to carry out inspections in constituencies represented by Members of the House without our being able to see the basing country agreement under which they will operate.
Mr. Mellor: I do not want to spoil the right hon. Gentleman's debating point. I simply say to him again that no power is provided in the Bill until an Order in Council is laid and until there is a debate in the House and an affirmative resolution is passed. By that time, all the documents will be available. I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman on one matter. It is right that at every material point the text, as it affects the United Kingdom, has been subject to the most scrupulous examination, but the idea that a clean, or even a substantial, copy of the treaty must be available for weeks is wide of the mark. The negotiators were working until the day before the treaty was signed and completed, and that is the basis upon which all this has been done. As I made clear in Committee, it was a race against time to finish it. When the clean text is available, it will be shown to the House. The right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently good at finding good points that he does not need to dwell on what I am afraid is a bad one.
Mr. Kaufman: It is a bad point only because the Minister misheard what I said. I was not talking about the treaty. Clearly the treaty has not gone through all those offices and been gone over in the way that I described—although I would have hoped that the Prime Minister might have had a peek at it before she entertained Mr. Gorbachev. I hope that she saw the treaty before she saw the lunch menu at Brize Norton.

609
I was referring not to the treaty but to the basing country agreement — the document to which either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, or possibly both, will append their signatures. That document must have been going through the Government machine for weeks. If it was not, the Government were damed irresponsible in not looking at it carefully since it relates to activities that will take place in Britain. That document, to which the Government are a party, should have come before the House of Commons and it should have been on the Table for us to see before the debate started.
Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. How can we lay before the House a document that has not yet been signed? He suggests that the basing country agreement has an existence independent of the principal treaty. That is true only in part. Of course, the basic formulation—the content—does not relate — [Interruption.] May I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention? It is difficult for him to hear what I say and for me to say what I want to say if I am subject to constant interruption. The right hon. Gentleman, as I know well enough after four years at the Home Office, does not need that much briefing.
The basing country agreement is available and known in its bare form, but its contents follow the contents of the inspection protocol, which is part of the principal document. Therefore, the basing country agreement cannot he concluded before the principal agreement and its inspection protocol are completed. All those arrangements fall together.
I am saying this in order to be helpful. If the only consequence is to stir up further recriminations, I shall not trouble further. In the hope that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the reality, I can tell him that he will get the document at the earliest opportunity, and that can only be after it has been signed tomorrow.
Mr. Kaufman: It is not satisfactory that the House of Commons should see a document, which is not controversial, only after it has been signed. The House of Commons has been asked before now to give its assent to treaties. It is a peculiar proposition that only when the Government have signed something should the sovereign Parliament of Britain be allowed— [Interruption] —Parliament is sovereign—to have a glimpse of it.
I had better explain this clearly to the Minister. He talks as though the order to which he refers with regard to clause 1(2) is an entity, complete, entire and free-standing. It is not. It is a subordinate piece of legislation made under the Bill when it becomes an Act and which cannot be made until that time. Therefore, it is completely relevant for us to refer to the potential content of an order which can be made only when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
I say this to the Government, I say it to the Minister, and I wish that I could say it to the Foreign Secretary who, I repeat, should be here. The Opposition completely support the Bill. There is no problem about it going through the House and there is no problem about it going through the House of Lords when it has completed its stages here. On the other hand, in so far as we are referring to the order-making power under subsection (2) with regard to this week's INF agreement, the Bill will not be triggered until the United States Senate has ratified the treaty. That means that, although we are perfectly happy
610
to facilitate the Bill's passage, there is no tumbling hurry. The Bill could easily have been debated in the first week back after Christmas, when we would have had the relevant documents. As I said, the Government have seriously mishandled the matter. In addition, they have created a difficult position for the House of Commons.
I agree with the Minister when he praises the agreement. As I said on Second Reading, it is the most hopeful development for humankind since the atom bomb was exploded at Los Alamos in 1945. The Government are trying to dodge the implications of the agreement under which the Bill will operate. It is totally absurd for the Minister, and for the Foreign Secretary in his word-processed letter, to claim that somehow or other, what they call the twin-track approach is responsible for the treaty under which the Bill will be brought into action. The idea that the Russians are so terrified of 400 cruise missiles that they are ready to destroy 1,600 missiles gives us a very interesting sidelight on what the Government believe is the Russian inferiority complex. If the Russians have such an inferiority complex, I do not understand why the Government are so afraid of them. If the agreement under which the Bill is to operate were a tit-for-tat agreement, an agreement to destroy 400 for 400, or 1,600 for 1,600, the Government might have had some claim that the twin-track route had worked.
The agreement that will be policed in Britain under the Bill is a tribute to the good sense of the United States and the Soviet Union coming to a rational agreement that will benefit all. It has nothing to do with the Government allowing cruise missiles openly into Greenham Common and secretly into Molesworth. The Government had better get off the silly point—the only point on which they can hang their hat—of trying to pretend that somehow or other they had any role, except as a bystander, in an agreement under which the Bill will allow foreign observers and inspectors to come to Britain.
We are delighted that that is happening, but the fact that it is happening owes nothing whatsoever to the policies of the Government. Indeed, we all know that if the Prime Minister had had her way, she would have stopped the agreement coming into force.
We have been discussing properly the consequences for the implementation of the Bill of this week's INF agreement. The President of the United States and the General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union are this week in Washington — to our great satisfaction—continuing discussions which we all hope — and there seems to be a reasonable amount of optimism — will lead to a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons—a giant step forward — in addition to the modest but epoch-making step forward which occurred this week.
Of course, the provisions of the Bill will stand to he implemented again if there is a START agreement, because the inspectors will be coming — with their privileges and immunities—under a separate and much wider arrangement. We have to consider the implications of a START agreement, in view of the fact that, under such an agreement, the Soviet inspectors will also be given the opportunity to come here. They cannot inspect Polaris, because Polaris is an independent British deterrent. We own the warheads and the missiles and we are capable of servicing them.
That will not be the case under the Trident agreement, because we will not own the Trident missiles. They will

611
come from a pool at King's Bay, Gerogia. There will be implications for inspection if the United States reduces the number of its Trident missiles in King's Bay, Georgia, because such an inspection will include the inspection of our missiles when they go back for servicing. Even though we will not be a party to the agreement, the missiles which we are leasing from the United States for seven to eight years will go back to the pool at King's Bay, Georgia.
If the Soviet Union and the United States come to an agreement under which those missiles are reduced by half —as we all pray they will—the missiles temporarily in the possession of the United Kingdom, as our independent nuclear deterrent, will be subject to inspection at King's Bay, Georgia, under powers parallel to those in the Bill. That demonstrates the total emptiness and hypocrisy of the Government when they claim that the successor to Polaris will be an independent deterrent. It will be part of the American deterrent, which we will be allowed to borrow temporarily at a cost of £10 billion to the British taxpayer, and which, of course, we will never be able to use independently, if there is ever the folly for it to be used at all.
The Prime Minister is obsessed with the possession of nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union and the United States sensibly acknowledge the destructiveness of possessing such weapons. She is now a unilateral nuclear armer when the Soviet Union and the United States are becoming nucler disarmers—and all praise to them.
Although the Bill and the powers conferred by it demonstrate that the Government are merely spectators of the marvellous process that is taking place in the world they are in no way activists, catalysts or assistants to it.
Mr. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No. These are my last two sentences and it will spoil the flow of my speech.
Although the Government demonstrate that they are out of step and out of date, in terms of world processes, the Bill fits well into the policies that the Labour party will be advocating throughout this Parliament and at the next general election. That is why we wholeheartedly welcome it.
5.16 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), for whom I have considerable respect, finds it so difficult to give more than a grudging welcome to the Bill, which is such a vital accompaniment to the INF treaty which marks the first reduction in nuclear weapons in the history of the world since 1945. Although it is a small Bill, in its own way it is extremely important. Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed the debate to go a little wider than the Bill itself, perhaps you will allow me to go a little wider, to the extent of putting my remarks into a context for which I believe the Bill allows.
I wish to remind the House that on 18 June 1980 the then Secretary of State for Defence told the House that cruise missiles were to be deployed at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth as NATO's response to the Soviet Union's deployment of SS20 missiles, and to the threat that those arms posed to Western European security.
612
On 15 November 1983, the first cruise missiles arrived at Greenham. Throughout the four years that have elapsed since then, the Government, their defence policy and my constituents have been under almost continuous attack from the Opposition, from CND and from those women who describe themselves as Greenham peace women, who have had a squalid encampment at Greenham Common regardless of the nuisance that they knew they were causing to my constituents. Those three groups — the Opposition, CND and the Greenham peace women —have tried to inform the nation that they are the people who care about peace, disarmament and humanity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member a preamble, but he must now relate his remarks to the Bill.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was about to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those groups argued that we on these Benches and our American and NATO allies were the warmongers determined to maintain the arms race. Today, four years later, the Government have brought forward the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill for its Third Reading.
The Third Reading comes at a fortunate time, because it means that the INF treaty, can be implemented as soon as it is ratified by the United States Senate and the Supreme Soviet, and that those who are to be authorised observers for the Soviet Union will have diplomatic immunity to enable them to discharge their duties. As a result of the Bill and the INF treaty, we in west Berkshire will no doubt be welcoming Russian personnel, as we have welcomed American service men, on the same basis as we accepted cruise missiles — to play our part in maintaining the peace and security of Europe.
As I understand it from the outline of the INF treaty printed in today's Daily Telegraph—nobody has suggested that that outline is inaccurate — under article 11 observers will be arriving at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth within 30 days, and not later than 90 days, after the treaty comes into force. The outline of the treaty in the Daily Telegraph states:
"each party shall have the right to mount 20 inspections a year in the first three years, 15 in the next five and 10 in the last five."
Since the article also states that the right to inspect applies not only to Molesworth and Greenham Common, but to support facilities — and clearly effective verification must involve those facilities—can my hon. and learned Friend give any indication of how many establishments in the United Kingdom are likely to be involved? Will all those who come from the Soviet Union be accompanied wherever they go by RAF personnel?
The Bill refers to inspectors, observers and auxiliary personnel, all of whom will enjoy diplomatic privilege. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister seemed to suggest that that would not mean an increase in Soviet personnel in the United Kingdom who enjoy diplomatic immunity. Has the Soviet embassy stated whether it will want to increase its staff by the numbers suggested in the Stockholm agreement, or are all observers, inspectors and auxiliary personnel to be flown in and out to perform their verification duties without any long-term residence in the United Kingdom? Perhaps that last question is peripheral to the Bill.
Nobody will argue that effective verification is anything but essential to the INF agreement. The Bill shows that the

613
United Kingdom is willing to play a full part in that. It will involve Soviet inspections of INF missile deployment sites in the United Kingdom, and it underlines the fact that the Government are working in close consultation with the United States. The United States will be responsible to the Soviet Union for obligations in the treaty, but United Kingdom sovereignty and security will be fully respected through the agreements with the United States and the Soviet Union to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
I said that the Bill was an essential accompaniment to the INF arms agreement. We all appreciate that that arms agreement is a good deal for NATO. We will lose missiles and launchers capable of delivering fewer than 400 warheads. The Soviet Union will surrender similar systems capable of delivering almost 1,600 warheads. We will accomplish more than we set out to accomplish when we demanded in 1979 that the Soviets withdraw their SS20s from Europe.
In addition, the Bill provides for effective verification, including, for the first time, on-site inspections in the Soviet Union. Because the INF treaty requires the elimination of an entire class of nuclear weapons, verification will he made easier. The treaty and the Bill vindicate the difficult decision to deploy intermediate range missiles taken by NATO in 1979. It will prove conclusively that strength, not appeasement, influences Soviet behaviour. As such, it should guide Western defence strategy and serve as a model for future arms negotiations. I commend the Bill and its intentions.
5.24 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the Bill, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House. I thank the Minister for his co-operation. After the first session in Committee, at which we had to force information out of him by long speeches, he did co-operate and gave many details to the Committee about the various stages of negotiations as they were taking place. He gave the Committee and the House some worthwhile information.
The Bill is about privileges and immunities for Soviet inspectors who, will inspect INF missile sites on United Kingdom territory. You said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker —I noted it down—that it would he all right to make a passing reference to the INF document. In my preamble I should like to make some reference to that document, which was signed in Washington by the United States and Soviet Union.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did say that, but the emphasis was very much on the word "passing".
Mr. Cohen: Yes, indeed.
The treaty is a welcome beginning. The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence sent a joint letter to all hon. Members prior to this debate, obviously to influence the debate. In that letter they call the treaty a historic agreement because for the first time ever the number of nuclear weapons in the world will be reduced by treaty. We are not sure of the figures, but I believe that the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons will be reduced by between 3 and 7 per cent. That is a welcome start, but we have to move on to further reductions, not increases.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that the agreement came from
614
strength. I do not believe that. The agreement came about for various reasons. One of those reasons was overkill. There is a vast number of nuclear weapons in the world. I believe that there are 60,000 with a capacity that greatly exceeds that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Another reason is the pressure applied by the peace movement and the Greenham peace women. They have applied continual pressure on Governments, to which they have had to respond. Another reason is the over-stretched and crumbling economy of the Soviet Union and the West. There is pressure on those economies mainly because of the burden of defence spending.
The joint letter from the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence says that the agreement
"shows the possibility of negotiating an effective means of checking that neither party to an arms agreement is able to cheat."
That is right. Verification is about checking to ensure that there is no cheating. Therefore, I welcome the rigorous verification process. It is the most rigorous that we have yet seen in an international agreement. However, I should like to see more details about that process.
The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence referred in their letter to cheating. It is important that neither the Soviet Union nor the West cheats on the agreement. As has been said, the Bill facilitates the INF agreement. Therefore, it was disturbing to see the Secretary of State for Defence at Monterey looking for ways around the treaty, for compensatory measures, and for what the Prime Minister calls modernisation, but which is really an increase in nuclear weaponry outside the INF agreement. Cheating is outside the spirit of the INF agreement.
The Secretary of State for Defence had meetings with his French counterpart to consider the Eurobomb. The Eurobomb would be a worrying development, and I hope that the Government will not go along with it.
The Secretaries of State were right to talk about cheating in the context of the Bill. I hope that the verification process, especially with the use of satellites and other high technology, will stop cheating. But cheating will stop if both sides approach the matter in the spirit that brought about the agreement in the first place.
The Minister mentioned the 96 missiles at Greenham Common and the 16 missiles at Molesworth. I understand that many missiles, particularly those at Molesworth, were installed only last week. They were rushed in so that they would be in place before the INF agreement was signed. That was wrong and a waste of money. I asked a question about the cost of Molesworth and Greenham to NATO and the British Government. The figure is £174 million. What a monstrous waste of money. Missiles have been at Greenham for only four years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the Third Reading debate. He was addressing his remarks to inspections and inspectors" powers. He is straying from that matter now. He must refer to the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: The point that I want to make is that the missiles at Greenham and Molesworth, which are subject to verification and inspection by Soviet inspectors, will be in place for a maximum of another three years. I put it to the Minister that they should be taken out as soon as possible to prevent the waste of any more money. The Government are just throwing money down the drain.

615
I wished to raise a matter by way of intervention, but the Minister would not allow me to do so because he was concluding his remarks. He referred to the lists of inspectors, over which Her Majesty's Government will have a say. That remark raised a serious worry. Presumably, expulsions could take place. They have taken place in regard to other diplomatic lists. There is a tit-for-tat aspect, and it would be worrying if it arose out of the arrangements and applied to inspectors. If we expel some of the Soviet inspectors, and if the Soviets expel some of the United States inspectors, what will happen to the treaty and the verification arrangements? I realise that the matter is hypothetical, but it is not so outrageously hypothetical that that could not happen. It is appropriate for the Minister to respond to that point. I hope that such expulsions will not take place. President Reagan said "trust but verify". I hope that we can have trust and verification.
There was discussion in Committee about the need to ratify the treaty in the Senate. We pressed the Foreign Secretary to urge the Prime Minister to tell recalcitrant conservative Senators that they should ratify the treaty without delay. We have still not had a response from the Prime Minister. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will say how his discussions with the Prime Minister have gone on that matter. It is about time that we had a statement in clear, unequivocal language from the Prime Minister that she will not give conservative Senators a hostage to fortune and will say that the treaty should be ratified without delay.
Conservative Members cannot claim triumph for the treaty. It is a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. Any claims about triumph, particularly in respect of cruise missiles, sound hollow. Conservative Members are saying that they had put cruise missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth. That is where the inspections will be held and to take them out and put them at, perhaps, Holy Loch if they are air-launched in order to get around the agreement does not sound like much of a triumph to me. It would have been a triumph if the Government had included British-owned nuclear weapons in the process. They could then have been subject to similar verification procedures. If the Trident system, which has a minimum of 512 warheads more than Polaris's 128, had been scrapped, or at least brought into the verification process, that would be a triumph.
I welcome the treaty and the verification process. It is important that the Government become involved in arms reduction and do not stand aside, as they have done, by not involving British-owned nuclear weapons. They must become part of the arms reduction process.
5.36 pm
Mr. James Hill: Conservative Members have been amazed at the churlish way in which Opposition Members are reluctant to congratulate not only my hon. and learned Friend the Minister but also the Prime Minister on the significant role that she played in acting as a go-between for the two super-powers. It was only obvious that NATO consulted our own Peter Carrington and that the Prime Minister was kept fully informed at all levels by the Soviet side and the United States side.
616
The shadow Foreign Secretary was wrong on one point. He said that the treaty must be ratified by the Congress and by the Senate. It must also be ratified by the Supreme Soviet. Mr. Gorbachev himself is not so confident that he can get ratification just on the nod. He is making tremendous progress in his own country. He put forward a plan that could not be visualised even a year ago. He is moving carefully forward. The churlishness of Opposition Members could not reflect on his performance in his country. We must watch that we do not expect too much from Mr. Gorbachev. When he succeeds, we must be wholeheartedly behind him in what is the most difficult job any Russian General Secretary has ever had to do.
The Bill must act almost as a photocopy for other countries that have cruise and Pershing missiles on their soil. I refer, for example, to Holland, Germany and Italy. The more rational way to play the verification process is to make sure that the cruise and Pershing missiles that were flown in by the United States air force are flown to one central verification point. It is nonsense that there will be many verification points throughout Europe. At the moment we are concerned only with Europe. The missiles concerned are movable and adaptable to air freight transport.
I should have thought that, if only for simplicity and the maximum use of limited manpower, a verification team could be used at a verification centre. It emerged in Committee that inspectors and observers are not numerous and have not had much work to do. Even the verification staff of the Western European Union have not had a lot of work to do on the verification of stockpiles of weaponry. There must be some co-operation between the countries that have used cruise and Pershing, so that there can be a verification centre.
I am worried especially about the number of inspectors and observers who will be available. Up to now, we have been talking only about Russian inspectors and observers. We know from experience that they will be existing diplomatic staff from the various embassies throughout Europe. Indeed, they will probably have a dual role as members of the KGB and inspectors or observers. However, we do not know; that is one of the little problems that one encounters when dealing with the complete change of heart that Mr. Gorbachev has brought about.
Verification by human beings must be backed up substantially by verification by satellite. This is probably not the debate to raise this, but we have heard little or nothing about the percentages and performances of verification by satellite. That is important, because all the missiles in the verification process are extremely movable. At a moment's notice, they can be dispatched from one end of Europe to another. I am thinking especially about behind the iron curtain. In our future debates we need to know exactly how effective is satellite verification and the sort of processes that will be involved. We need to know about accuracy and the state of our existing satellites for high definition verification.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, that is not the subject of this debate.
Mr. Hill: I raised a query in Committee about verification by human beings, but I am not completely reassured. Although my hon. Friend had obviously done his best, the question that I asked is hypothetical. It

617
concerned the number of countries and the numbers of back-up staff to the inspectors and observers who would be involved in the verification process. Many people are afraid that hundreds of iron curtain warriors will tread the by-lanes of Newbury and Molesworth. I have also heard it said that they will sit at the gates with the peace women. I hope that that is not true, because I can see all sorts of national problems in that. Knowing the numbers of nuclear warheads that will have to be verified and dismantled — no-one has yet mentioned dismantling, although it is in the Bill—we need to know the number of people who will be required to carry out the inspection and dismantling process.
I have been conscious that, if one considers the problem as a quid pro quo, it would not work out. We are giving up 400 nuclear warheads, but it is a statement of fact that the USSR will give up about 1,600 warheads. We do not know whether the warheads that the Soviet Union is to give up are at the end of their life span. The SS20, for example, has been a major weapon in Eastern Europe for some considerable time. We do not know—although the figures are out of balance — whether the equivalent destruction values are approximately the same. It might be as well to know those things, as that would certainly hearten those who are a little in doubt, such as Opposition Members, who have been terribly nervous about it. They seem to think that the balance is wrong and that perhaps we should give up 1,600 nuclear weapons to balance those 1,600 SS20s.
The main thrust of the Bill does not go into great detail on what the INF agreement is about. We are told that that is in the Daily Telegraph and, apparently, The Independent has an extremely good article on it. I am pleased to see that the shadow Front Bench read the better press because that is another move to the middle ground. The Daily Telegraph has always been my favourite reading and I am pleased that it is also the favourite reading of the shadow Foreign Secretary.
At no time in Committee did we mention that we did not have a draft INF agreement before us. We did not go into the nitty-gritty. We considered the positive plan to give diplomatic immunity to those people who will have to verify. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister enjoys a tremendous reputation in Europe for being on top of his job, especially in this area. We have talked almost constantly about the Russians coming into the United Kingdom, but we could say the same about the Russians going into Holand, Germany or Italy.
However, what will be the diplomatic immunities for those who will have to go behind the iron curtain? I am thinking, for example, of the travel restrictions there. We do not have such restrictions in Europe. Inspectors and observers behind the iron curtain will be closeted all the time and we should consider that fact. I was going to say that they may be followed by men in large trilbies and long black leather overcoats. However, when I watched my television last night, I realised that they were all in Washington, so that danger does not exist.
We are too myopic when considering conditions for the inspectors and observers. I hope that many will be inspectors and observers from the Western European Union. I always boost that wonderful institution, which has been involved in the verification process for many years. I hope that we shall go further and find out exactly
618
what plans and immunities are being put forward to safeguard the inspectors and observers who come from western Europe.
5.48 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: In Committee I had the pleasure of joining my hon. Friends in pressing the Minister on several points. Today is clearly the day on which, I hope, the Minister will gibe some concrete answers. Like all hon Members who have spoken, I welcome the treaty and therefore, this measure that follows directly from it—that we should have inspectors in this country to determine the fact that intermediate nuclear weapons will have left the country. As one of the people who believe that the peace movement contributed substantially to that process, I want to welcome it warmly.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he believes that the political climate has anything to do with building trust and confidence. I believe that it has and that the issue is not simply one of the technical measures before us.
Again, I press the Minister to tell us that the Government will make it clear to the country that there is no intention to circumvent the INF treaty by permitting or bringing in air-launched or sea-launched intermediate weapons to substitute for those which we are trying to get rid of as a result of the treaty.
How will it be possible for the inspectors and observers to verify that we are keeping the agreement? How will it be possible for them to know that there have been no secret flights of United States planes into United States-controlled bases in Britain carrying air-launched cruise missiles? The United States has repeatedly flown missiles and nuclear warheads into the country. That is why what the Secretary of State told us this week about the missiles at Molesworth was such a revelation. It is clear that this House has not been privy to that information.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to make it clear how the Soviet inspectors would be in a better position to verify that no substituting warheads had been brought into Britain, when the House of Commons has signally failed to discover that information in the past.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the right to inspect support facilities, and I trust that the Minister will be specific about that. I am aware that, at times, there has been controversy about the use of RAF Welford and RAF Alconbury in connection with the storage of warheads for cruise missiles and the movement of convoys from the main bases of Greenham and Molesworth to those locations. If confidence and trust is to be built up, it must be clear to the Soviets that missiles have not been taken out of the main bases and put somewhere else.
The Minister said that the agreement was triangular, but I find that difficult to accept. I believe that, given what has been said by representatives of Her Majesty's Government, they have not welcomed the moves that ultimately led to the INF treaty. That treaty has been negotiated between the Soviet Union and the United States. We are all aware that the Prime Minister went to Washington to urge the President not to make a deal with Mr. Gorbachev. That will not be forgotten by the House or the British people.
Mr. Mellor: I am sorry to intrude upon fantasy land —to do so is probably a pointless operation— hut the hon. Lady has only to look at the document that I read

619
out in Committee — the communique regarding the Prime Minister's meeting last November with President Reagan, in which the two leaders committed themselves to an INF agreement—to see that what she has just said is nonsense.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for me to say whether we are in fantasy land, but we are in great danger of going beyond the rules of order.
Mr. Mellor: Saved by the bell.
Ms. Ruddock: Not at all: I stand by the point that I made.
Subsequent to that communique, the Prime Minister has said that there has been enough nuclear disarmament. That is clearly contrary to the views of the President of the United States and the General Secretary—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is now going very wide of the Bill. We are on Third Reading. I realise that the hon. Lady has not been here long, but on Third Reading it is in order to refer only to what is in the Bill.
Ms. Ruddock: I am learning fast. I was trying to respond to the points made by the Minister, but let me conclude my questions.
The Minister has referred to the granting of visas to the Soviet inspectors, and he gave a clear indication that it would be possible for Britain—indeed, that would be correct — to refuse permission for any particular individual to enter this country. Under the agreement that is yet to be signed—the basing country agreement—will the United Kingdom retain any right to veto a Soviet inspection per se? Will the issue of the timing of inspections, the numbers and so on entirely rest on agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union? Are there any specific arrangements by which Britain will contribute inspectors to visit the Soviet Union under the terms of the agreement that has been reached?
5.54 pm
Mr. John Browne: I support the Bill because I believe that it is a testimony to the policies of this Government, the United States Government and the Governments of our NATO allies. That policy is the prudent pursuit of multilateral and verifiable disarmament. There were many reasons for entering into negotiations, but when one considers the international situation that prevailed in 1984, one realises that one of the prime reasons was that the NATO Alliance was not prepared to be browbeaten. NATO intended to match weapon increases with weapon increases. It did not intend to be bullied and would negotiate only from a position of strength. I believe that, without the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles, and without the mere threat of the American strategic defence initiative, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union would have negotiated on a serious basis about serious disarmament.
The Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend deserve credit. I do not believe that it gets us anywhere when the Opposition refuse to give such credit.
We are about to enter a tremendous era of disarmament, and things that were undreamed of a year or two ago are now before us. We have been given a
620
chance, and it is wrong for people to decry the tremendous efforts that have been made by the Western Governments. Our Government were a key element in the negotiations, and I wonder how far the United States would have gone to reach such an agreement if Britain had disagreed with such negotiations taking place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his preamble and will now address his remarks to the Bill.
Mr. Browne: I especially support this treaty because I believe that it heralds a new epoch—the first nuclear disarmament in history. Although the INF treaty does not have great significance for the military balance, it is a trend setter. However, one bad trend may be over-expectation.
A key point in prudent, multilateral, verifiable disarmament is trust. The key elements of that trust are verification and integrated, balanced agreement. Obviously we must not consider that nuclear balance or nuclear disarmament is a good thing if there is a massive imbalance in conventional, biochemical and space weapons. All disarmament must be considered integrated, multilateral and verifiable.
The Bill covers four main elements of verification. Many of the INF weapons are mobile—this is especially true of the Soviet weapons—and it is vital to have on-site inspection. We cannot rely exclusively on space-based surveillance. I also approve of the short notice challenge system. If we are to have on-site inspection, it is vital that we give diplomatic privileges to the personnel in those inspction teams.
It is understandable—I know that it comes in a trend —that because of terrorist actions in London and other countries we are trying to cut back on diplomatic privilege for one reason or another. I also support that. This is an extenuating circumstance, and we should think constructively of extending privileges for these inspctors. They need protection, and they also need to be afforded efficient passage. Life in the Soviet Union is very different from life in western Europe, and the ability of people to move about freely is a different concept. We must strive to make sure that the privileges that we grant by passing the Bill—I hope that it will be passed tonight—are reciprocated by the other side, not only in writing, but in real intent and practice. Our inspectors should be afforded the same ease of movement as we afford to people from the Soviet Union while they are in the United Kingdom.
I agree with the need for site verification, but what about out of sight on-ground verification? With regard to diplomatic privileges afforded to Soviet teams coming here to places such as Greenham Common, which is close to my constituency, will Soviet teams come to what would have been considered possible launch sites, and even the routes to launch sites, of cruise missiles in the Winchester and Alton area? Likewise, will we be afforded those privileges —if they are granted—on the other side? Will the on-site inspections be restricted to the base, or will we be allowed to look at possible launch sites and routes to them?
Another key element of verification—the third—is dismantling. The breakdown and disposal of the missiles is the key to the verification process — especially dismantling. Where and how will they dispose of all those materials? It is paramount that our inspection teams are afforded full access to ensure that that is properly done.

621
It is no use looking at empty sites if the missiles, or even the missile material, are available either for immediate deployment or quick assembly in other areas to which the inspection teams do not have right of access. Dismantling is a key element that I would like my hon. and learned Friend to cover this evening.
The fourth key element that I want to discuss is that of intent. One must build up verification. One cannot see everything in the world, especially when looking at missiles such as these. Intent is important. We see the Soviet Union agreeing to the treaty, but at the same time we see it modernising its military forces — fewer troops, more high-tech forces—and moving from labour-intensive to capital-intensive armed forces. And this is at a time when the United States appears to be over-extended, not only in diplomatic terms of granting visas, but in budget terms. If there are cuts in the United States budget deficit, they may well end up as defence cuts in American deployments to western Europe. I find that worrying, because I see a possible imbalance under the INF treaty, which throws even more weight on the verification, which must be extended to looking at Soviet intent. Obviously my hon. and learned Friend cannot comment on that this evening, but I hope that he will take the point on board.
I fully support the Bill and the measures outlined in it. It is a short Bill, but vitally important. It will be relatively easy to explain to our constituents the fact that Soviet personnel will be landing here. That is a strange, but not a bad, thing. Indeed, it is a good thing, because the era that it unfolds is one of genuine nuclear disarmament—the beginnings, the first steps. I am all for that. I want to emphasise to my hon. and learned Friend that I hope the reciprocal arrangements made on the other side will be not only in black and white on paper but in reality. Given the different type of environment and the huge expanses of some of the areas in the Soviet Union, I hope that we will have a matched verification ability, which will be the key ingredient in the whole matched INF agreement, which I entirely support.
6.5 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill is designed to implement the Stockholm agreement to build up confidence measures between the United States and the Soviet Union. For that purpose, privileges and immunities are being conferred on inspectors. However, the House tonight — not unnaturally — is concentrating on clause 1(2), under which, under an Order in Council approved by the House through the affirmative procedure, the immunities and privileges can be extended. Quite rightly, the House is looking forward to dealing with those orders to implement the INF treaty, which has been brought about by the bold and courageous leadership of Mr. Gorbachev. I hope that the Minister does not want to disagree with that, because the Prime Minister, who used those words when she met Mr. Gorbachev during refuelling at Brize Norton, would sack him if he did. Therefore, we must recognise that we will be concentrating on clause 1(2). It is right that that should be so: it is an important step forward.
I do not think the Prime Minister can claim much credit, as she has gained an international reputation as a defender of nuclear weapons. She may have had a couple of telephone calls from someone in NATO — such as Peter Carrington—or from someone else, to tell her how the negotiations were going, but she can claim no credit
622
for this INF agreement. The Minister is muttering from a sedentary position. In his winding-up speech he can tell us to what degree the Prime Minister has been involved. How many telephone calls has she had? How many discussions in the negotiations has she had? Of course the Minister cannot answer that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not invite the Minister to do that, because, were he to be tempted along that road, he would be out of order.
Mr. Cryer: I said what I said in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Minister is muttering under his breath the whole time. I feel constrained under that sort of provocation to make some sort of comment on the rubbish that the Minister is muttering under his breath; but I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall resolutely ignore the tortuous nonsense that seems to be pouring from the Minister's lips in his sedentary position.
As regards clause 1(2) and the INF treaty with which we are primarily concerned, there should not be any cheating in the application of the treaty, because we are anxious to deal with the affirmative resolution under clause 1(2), and if there were any cheating, that clause would not be brought into operation. There have been suggestions that there might be a development of air or sea-launched cruise missiles to make up for the 112 missiles that the Minister claims would be removed under the treaty from Greenham Common and Molesworth. The Prime Minister has not made a clear statement about the position of air and sea-launched cruise missiles and their possible adoption to cheat on the INF agreement.
I am desperate to see another order under clause 1(2) of the Bill come before the House. As the order under the Bill is brought before the House and given its affirmative passage and the missiles are dismantled, under the verification procedures set out in the Bill and because of the immunities and privileges conferred on the inspectors, what will happen to Molesworth and Greenham Common? Will they be used for a productive use, such as growing wheat for Ethiopia? The Minister laughs, but the then Secretary of State for Defence went to Molesworth with 2,000 police officers and more troops than stormed Goose Green to evict 16 peace people because they were growing wheat for Ethiopia. I do not want to go along that path, but I say that by way of explanation.
As the verification procedures are carried out and the missiles are sent packing back to the United States, where they belong, what sort of positive development will take place at Greenham Common and Molesworth? For example, will there be consultation with the Greenham Common peace women who, for many years, have stayed there against the sneers and taunts of the pin-striped hooligans who dominate the Conservative party? Those women went there and said that they would stay until the cruise missiles had gone. They have been proved right. The House is providing in legislation the verification mechanism that will carry out the belief that the Greenham Common women had when they went: many years ago to set up camp outside the Greenham Common gates. Despite all the dodges and harassment by the police and Army and the legislative dodges produced by the Government, those women have stuck to their task, and credit is due to them.
I look forward to the time when we have an order under clause 1(2) for verification procedures that will allow

623
inspectors to come to Britain to check that we have got rid of Trident. The Minister mutters sedentary nonsense about the Prime Minister not being a warmonger. Perhaps he will tell us why we are keeping Trident when we are all supposed to be pleased that nuclear weapons are to be eliminated. I offer an opportunity to the Minister. If he believes in market forces, why does he not apply market forces to Trident? If he did, we would use all the more rapidly the legislation in the Bill.
Why does the Minister not put Trident out to flag-day collections and use the £11 billion for something more useful? If the market will not give him the money, we could establish verification procedures under orders under the Bill. People could then come to Britain and see that we had got rid of Trident and were joining the 121 non-nuclear nations that have signed the United Nations nonproliferation treaty renouncing nuclear weapons. If we did that, we would be joining the majority of the world's nations, and that is an important development for which the legislation provides.
Quite properly, the House is dealing at some length with the intermediate nuclear force provisions under clause 1(2) of the Bill. It is a small first step, but it is welcome in all parts of the House. However, it represents only an 8 per cent. reduction in the total number of nuclear warheads that are available to exterminate civilization— [Interruption.] The Minister mutters that it is 3 per cent. Various newspapers have suggested that the number of warheads is larger than was at first thought because there has been a certain amount of deception about the number of warheads in this category that have been deployed. That would not be surprising, because time and again the Ministry of Defence has deceived the House about the number of operational United States bases in Britain. If there has been a sleight of hand, an economy with the truth, over the number of missiles, that would not be startling. Even if it is only the 3 per cent. that the Minister claims and not the 8 per cent. that some newspapers claim, it is at least a step in the right direction and is welcomed by everybody.
Mr. Hill: It is a giant step for mankind.
Mr. Cryer: It is not a giant step; it is a modest step brought about in large measure by the bold and courageous leadership of Mr. Gorbachev. The Prime Minister said that at Brize Norton. We must not argue about negotiations from strength, of which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke. He said that by keeping our nuclear weapons we forced the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. That is a peculiar argument and does not comply with the information provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a letter sent to all hon. Members. It sent a letter instead of sending a Minister to the House to make a statement, as any democratic Minister should do. The letter says:
"under this INF Treaty the Soviet Union will be giving up some 1,500 deployed nuclear warheads, nearly four times as many as the United States, removing the enormous Soviet advantage in this category of weapon".
Therefore, we have negotiated not from strength but from weakness.
In the negotiations we have achieved a success that has brought about an INF treaty with the Soviet Union, which has an enormous advantage in the number of warheads.
624
That shows that there can be successful negotiations from weakness which will lead to the removal of a far greater number of nuclear weapons from the other side.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to advance the argument that, if we had had no intermediate nuclear weapons, the SS20s would have been withdrawn anyway? Surely he does not mean that. He must accept my argument that, because NATO showed itself willing to deploy weapons of an equivalent type, the Soviet Union recognised that it would not be able to get away with nuclear superiority and that there was no point in pursuing that approach. The Soviet Union recognised that it would be better to remove its weapons if we removed ours.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will come back to the Bill.
Mr. Cryer: I should like to say something by way of explanation before I come to clause 1(2), which is the important part of the Bill. I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that the Soviet Union has always faced technological innovation by the West. It has been catching up all the time, but it has not had an overall nuclear weapons superiority. That is the sort of propaganda put about by NATO and the Ministry of Defence in order to justify their own position.
We shall never produce more orders under clause 1(2) for further verification inspection arrangements if we argue that we can only negotiate from strength. That is the essence of the arms race, in which each side says that it has to be stronger than the other or it will not be able to negotiate. How can we look in the eye the 121 non-nuclear nations that signed the United Nations non-proliferation treaty and tell them that they cannot have nuclear weapons, that having them is very foolish and we do not want to proliferate, if that is what we are doing?
It is important for us to start the procedure for dismantling Trident, and the Government should bring before the House an order under clause 1(2) by way of the affirmative procedure, for which the Bill provides, and say to the Soviet Union that we are joining it in demonstrating our emphasis on the need to get rid of nuclear weapons. We should say that we recognise the importance not of our peripheral nuclear weapons, but of the stockpiles held by the United States and the Soviet Union.
That is really why the INF treaty has been brought about. It is in place not because of the increase in the deployment of cruise missiles, but because the Soviet Union has recognised that it was the only way to end the arms race. It recognised the possible use of nuclear weapons either by accident or by design. Thank goodness the Soviet Union took the initiative of a test ban for 18 months and other important initiatives that have been met from time to time by the President of the United States. That is all to the good.
The major initiatives for the agreement came from the Soviet Union, because it recognised that at the end of the arms race there is a great danger that one or more weapons will be used by accident or design. That is why the peace movement poured out in its millions throughout Europe to demonstrate the fear that the end of the arms race would result in nuclear annihilation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is doing his utmost to link his remarks to clause 1(2), but the link is now getting very thin.
Mr. Cryer: I shall bring my remarks back to a solid base. I had intended to take only a few minutes, but Conservative Members have been muttering under their breath at me. As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this acts as a provocation and I have had to defend myself against the pin-striped nuclear fanatics on the Conservative Benches—
Mr. Churchill: The voice of appeasement.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Stretford, who has taken his carpetbag and shifted elsewhere so that he can keep his seat, says that the Bill is the voice of appeasement. The verification inspection arrangements in clause 1(2) have been welcomed by Conservative Members, yet the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has strolled into the Chamber and said that it represents appeasement, because he is fundamentally opposed to any sort of properly negotiated treaty, and the provisions of clause 1(2).
Mr. Churchill: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be so misinformed. I represent the same constituents as I have represented for the past 17 years, although the name of my constituency has changed, through no choice of mine. I have been in strong support of the verification provisions of the agreement. It has been solely thanks to the strong policies adopted by NATO and the Government that the agreement has been achieved, and no thanks to the policies of appeasement of the Labour party.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to say that the hon. Member for Davyhulme has wandered in at the close of the debate and slings out a word such as "appeasement", when he has no knowledge of what has gone on. I am pleased that he supports the legislation. I do not apply the term "appeasement" to this legislation. The Stockholm agreement on building confidence measures, at which the Bill is aimed, and the INF treaty, signed by Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, are very important steps. If we are to invoke clause 1(2) to provide verification and inspection orders through the affirmative procedures of the Bill—the hon. Gentleman would not be familiar with that, but that is what the Bill contains—we must contribute to measures for peace by getting rid of Trident nuclear weapons, which represent an escalation in nuclear weaponry and are in breach of the solemn United Nations non-proliferation treaty that we have signed.
The Bill is a small but valuable step in the preservation of civilisation on our planet. It is recognised as an important step by the United States and the Soviet Union, but the steps must become larger if we are to get rid of the threat of a nuclear holocaust.
6.23 pm
Sir John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. In his period of enforced absence, the hon. Gentleman's politics has not improved; now his remarks are even more extreme. He fails to recognise that the joint nuclear deterrent of East and West has kept world peace since the last war. The unique understanding between our Prime Minister and Mr.
626
Gorbachev, which his leader could never have attained with Mr. Gorbachev has resulted in Mr. Gorbachev coming to Britain to see our Prime Minister and consult her before going to Washington to sign the historic intermediate nuclear forces agreement.
The Conservative Government, NATO and the West have been determined that at all times we should be armed and able to resist nuclear blackmail. That has resulted in the Russians being brought to the negotiating table, and 8 per cent. of the world's nuclear missiles have been negotiated away. The Government and the Prime Minister have every reason to congratulate themselves.
I refer to the verification provisions in clause 1(2). Much has been said about the welcome visitors who will come from behind the iron curtain to verify the removal and complete disestablishment of the nuclear missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth. Have the Government given any thought to the extent to which the verification could take place by satellite? I understand that the missiles will be deactivated, which is quite a sophisticated job and will be carried out under the supervision of Soviet observers.
It may be possible that agreed sites in Britain, Europe or Russia could be deactivated and slit lengthwise, with all the nuclear fissionable material removed completely, but the equipment left there so that a spy satellite could check on it. Photography by spy satellites is so exact that it could check that the missiles not only are made ineffective under the inspection of the official visitors, but will remain ineffective for all time, hopefully as a rusting monument to the success of the negotiations.
I ask the Minister to tell the House, perhaps through the Order in Council, the number of persons who will be involved in verification. In this period of glasnost, when our relations with the Russians are very good, they would not be likely to send unpleasant people here under the cover of inspectors, but we must have some scrutiny by the team of visitors.
The Long Title of the Bill states that the visitors will be "observers or inspectors, and auxiliary personnel". We do not want to limit the number—other hon. Members and I believe that the more who come and the sooner they come, the better. Will the Minister tell us what the categories in the Long Title mean —although I suppose "observers" is obvious. Will he also tell us how many visitors will come and how long they will stay in Britain? I presume that they will visit the sites in Molesworth and Greenham Common. Will they stay here until the missiles are completely deactivated and rendered useless? Will they be accredited to the Russian embassy as part of the normal Russian detachment? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what is going to happen.
It is only two days since this wonderful treaty was signed. It would be helpful to know whether the observers who arrive for the purposes of verification will be officially accredited to the Russian embassy and whether they will reside there. Presumably the accredited number will swell while they are in this country, and when their welcome task is finished they will leave.
The Bill mentions the Orders in Council that are to be published. Has any date been set for the publication of these necessary and welcome orders? I understand that the usual process is that Orders in Council are debated and approved by the House. Is that likely to happen in January? If so, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could tell us whether the Orders in Council will be produced in

627
time for us to consider them before Christmas so that we can be ready for the debate early in the new year. It is a remarkable coincidence that we are debating the Bill today. Indeed, we could almost pay tribute to the party machine for that. It is a remarkable coincidence that we are debating the Bill at a time of international rejoicing, and I congratulate all concerned.
6.31 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: A number of questions have been raised in the debate and no doubt the Minister will endeavour to reply to them. I have a few questions to ask. The Minister mentioned the treaty. He will understand that it is a voluminous document, containing 31 pages of treaty and 100 pages of what is described as a "memorandum of understanding" or an appendix. I am not sure whether the Minister said that a copy of the treaty would be deposited in the Library. I hope that he will make clear which documents will be deposited in the Library, preferably before the Order in Council is brought before the House.
Will a copy of the treaty be deposited? Will the 100 pages of appendix which I understand contain a certain amount of United States classified information—which will be available to the United States Senate — be deposited? The Minister referred to various other documents, including an agreement between us and the United States, which I understand is called a "basing" document — although I am not sure what that will include—and a exchange of notes between us and the Soviet Union. Which of those documents will be deposited in the Library so that they can be examined before the debate in the House on the Order in Council that will give effect to the verification procedures in respect of the INF treaty?
Questions were raised about the destruction of missiles and warheads. I understand that that destruction will not take place in Britain. Presumably that will happen in the United States. The warheads will be placed on aeroplanes and flown out just as they were flown in; the rockets will also be flown out. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no physical destruction in Britain? As this is within his knowledge, despite the fact that it will happen in the United States, will he confirm that the nuclear material in the warheads, both Russian and American, can be freely used for other nuclear weapons? As I understand it, the treaty does not provide for total disposal of the nuclear material. The material will be available to be used in other nuclear weapons or, if it is technically possible, for commercial nuclear purposes.
Several hon. Members referred to travel arrangements and asked whether the Russians would be allowed to travel. Will the Soviet inspectors be allowed to travel far from Newbury, or will they be stuck in Newbury — which is a pleasant place? When they travel around the country, will they have special branch officers travelling with them? What arrangements will be made for travelling? Will the inspectors be restricted to particular sites, or will they be allowed to travel?
There is no point in going over the arguments in the Bill again. It provides not only for the granting of immunities in respect of the Stockholm agreements, but, according to the Long Title, for
628
"arrangements for furthering arms control or disarmament."
Once the Bill is enacted, it will become the Act under which an Order in Council will be made in respect of the INF treaty. It will also establish the machinery to ensure other verification proposals for other treaties. I very much hope that there will be other arms reduction agreements that can be covered within the Act.
The Minister looked ahead to a 50 per cent. strategic arms reduction treaty and we all look forward to that. I believe that the verification problem has largely been cracked — I would not say solved — and the steps forward on verification contained in the INF treaty will make it easier to reach agreement on a 50 per cent. strategic arms reduction treaty. Verification will obviously be more difficult in START because not all the weapons will be destroyed; half will remain. The political impetus behind the INF verification agreement is a great step forward. It will make negotiation of START easier. Indeed, negotiations on START have already begun and are moving rapidly. That should make it easier to reach agreement on a 50 per cent. arms reduction treaty.
The Minister also referred to a chemical weapons treaty. We are enacting tonight the machinery that will enable observers and inspectors to verify such a treaty. The verification of chemical weapons will pose a difficult problem. The Minister also referred to a conventional arms reduction treaty. As the Minister stressed, this legislation will enable us to provide verification in that area.
I would be out of order if I considered conventional arms reduction. However, every time that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) speaks, he gives a plug for the Western European Union. I have not always agreed with that body, but today I will give it a plug although I am not a member of it. I want to plug the WEU's recent report on the conventional arms balance in Europe. That is probably the best report on the subject. I would subscribe to most of the report, which more or less gets it right. The report will make it a little easier—it will not be easy — to reach a realistic arms reduction agreement when negotiations hopefully start between NATO and the Warsaw pact some time in February or March.
While the Minister was looking forward to other treaties, he did not refer to a treaty on the elimination or reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons.
Mr. Mellor: Quite right.
Mr. Davies: I note that the Minister says, "Quite right." We have debated this subject before and we will debate it again, but we should not debate it tonight. Apparently all the other treaties are fine, but the Government are making fools of themselves over battlefield nuclear weapons. Most NATO Defence Ministers would like to see simultaneous negotiations over those weapons. Indeed, the Federal Republic of Germany is desperate for simultaneous negotiations. I hope that the Government will think again. I do not know why they should be against it. We are not talking about giving up weapons independently; we are talking about multilateral negotiations.
The Bill establishes far-reaching verification procedures. I do not believe that those procedures would have been agreed without the political impetus that created the treaty in the first place. There have been arguments about why the treaty has come about: one side says that

629
it is because the West negotiated from strength. However, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Russians have three or four times as many missiles. That is a curious definition of negotiating from strength.
I believe that there are two main factors. First, public opinion was a powerful factor. Whatever their views about nuclear weapons, people in western Europe and the United States did not want any more of them. They felt that there were plenty around, and most people wanted them to be reduced. In the United States, the pronouncements of theologians and of the American Catholic bishops had an enormous effect on President Reagan, especially before his most recent re-election as president.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules of the Chamber must apply to the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill.
Mr. Davies: I was paying tribute to the political impetus that brought about the verification procedures in the Bill. Without that, delegates would have been sitting in Geneva for years, trying to solve the difficult problems of verification. The details can be worked out, but without political will it is not possible to reach an agreement. That will has come from the President of the United States and the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist party, both of whom, I believe, abhor nuclear weapons and want a nuclear-free world.
I conclude with a tribute to all who have campaigned for the removal of nuclear weapons. I hope and believe that this will lead to other treaties, although it will not be easy; it will probably be more difficult. I hope that the United States Senate will ratify the treaty—
Mr. Hill: And the Supreme Soviet.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) mentions the Supreme Soviet. Mr. Gorbachev himself has said that he has to get the treaty through the Supreme Soviet, but I hope that the United States Senate will not stand in the way — although I am sorry to say that its track record in ratifying treaties is not very good, from the League of Nations, to SALT 2. I hope that, for its own sake, the United States will realise that this treaty is not just about America, as, in a narrow sense, SALT 2 is. It is about weapons in Europe, although those weapons are American.
All those senators who will be flexing their muscles without enjoying themselves and putting down amendments should see the treaty in a wider context, and think of the damage that will be done to the United States in Europe if they do not ratify it. I hope that there will be no amendments under the old rule of "tacking"—which the other place can still do, but we cannot—and that the Senate will not tack on to the treaty matters which, while important. are extraneous to it. Otherwise, damage will be done to the United States and, as a result, to the West.
We welcome the Bill. I am sure that its progress in the other place will be speedy, and we look forward to the Order in Council which will enable us to debate more fully the documents with which, no doubt, we shall by then have been supplied by the Minister of State.
6.43 pm
Mr. Mellor: By leave of the House, I shall be happy to respond to as many as possible of the points that have been
630
raised. There have been a number of intelligent and interesting contributions — and, of course, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also spoke.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) ended on an important point. I am glad to he able to agree entirely with him, and indeed to commend his words and the vigour with which they were spoken. Whatever else we may fall out about in the House — and some hon. Members have gone to considerable lengths tonight to manufacture differences, even by travestying the words of others—it is clear that the House is united in welcoming the INF treaty. That is also the united position of NATO, which cannot be said too often. We do not want any member of the United States Senate to feel it necessary to ride in, like the knight in shining armour on the white charger, to rescue Europe from the consequences of the treaty. We are well content with it, have played a full part in ensuring that it came about and want it to be ratified as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli asked me a number of questions, which I shall do my best to answer quickly, so that I can respond to other points. The treaty documents published by the United States will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is a memorandum on data, but it has not yet been published by the United States, and may never be. If it is not published, we cannot deposit it in the House, but anything that the United States publishes in relation to the principal treaty will be lodged in the House of Commons Library as soon as possible thereafter, as will the basing country agreement and the exchange of notes. We want people to know what has been done in their name.
The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that there would be no physical destruction of warheads in Britain. Nuclear material which has been extracted can be used again.
Echoing a number of hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in his interesting speech—the right hon. Gentleman asked about inspectors. That, of course, is of particular relevance to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), whose presence in the House is always welcome to us, for we know the courage with which he has faced up to physical disabilities that would have destroyed a lesser man. I say that with all the sincerity that I can muster. My hon. Friend has done a formidable job for his constituents, who have been at the sharp end of making the Alliance's policy of standing firm work. All of us whose constituencies are remote from the issue should pay tribute to their fortitude, and to my hon. Friend's spirit in ensuring that their points were not ignored in the House.
Inspection will be restricted to two bases in the United Kingdom, which are the declared sites. I return to the point about satellite reconnaisance made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. The treaty —although this will not necessarily be true of its successors —makes it much easier to be confident about disclosed sites, because it is possible to know by various means—satellite photography, no doubt, being one — what is present, and where it is.
Inspectors will be accompanied at all times by United Kingdom as well as United States personnel. They will enter the country for a limited period, and will not be permitted to travel outside the places which relate to their immediate needs—the site that they are inspecting, the

631
airfield from which they come and points on the journey inbetween. Inspectors of military exercises will often be diplomats accredited to missions already in the country, and may stay for longer. I should say, however, that the observation of Exercise Purple Warrior lasted only two or three days.
The right hon. Gentleman set out the Alliance's negotiating position—
Mr. John Browne rose—
Mr. Mellor: I have a good deal of work to get through if I am to answer the debate in full. I do not mean to be discourteous, but I must try to answer the debate in 10 minutes, which is not easy.
The INF agreement and the START agreement on conventional and chemical weapons form not only the United Kingdom's but the Alliance's negotiating position.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: What about battlefield weapons and Chancellor Kohl?
Mr. Mellor: The West Germans subscribe to the Alliance's policy, like everybody else. Faced with the huge chemical and conventional threat, we believe that chemical weapons must be eliminated and the imbalance in conventional weapons redressed before we consider the negotiations on short-range nuclear forces.
I am not confident that the verification regimes for those matters, which will be more complicated than those for the INF agreement, could be contained in the procedures set out in the Bill. It is likely that they will require primary legislation; that is almost certainly the case for chemical weapons. It may well be the case for START, but it is not the case with regard to the INF agreement.
I am sorry that the Labour party persists in saying that the United Kingdom was and is irrelevant to these discussions. I suspect that the British public will take more notice of Mr. Gorbachev's views about the United Kingdom's relevance than the views of the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesmen. It is worth recalling what Mr. Gorbachev said at Brize Norton during his historic visit on Monday:
"We have covered this road together—the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain and your allies and partners."
On 8 December Pravda said—
Mr. Cryer: Conservatives are quoting Pravda now.
Mr. Mellor: I would have thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would treat Pravda with respect. [Interruption.] It is all grist to our mill these days. Pravda said:
"Both sides emphasise that the INF agreement was not only a result of the efforts of the Soviet Union and the USA but also due to the fact that they had acted in agreement with their allies. Here, Mr. Gorbachev emphasised Europe's role, which was not only indispensable, but increasing."
In saying that Mr. Gorbachev merely stopped off for a cup of airline coffee, the Labour party exposed how out of touch it is with events. I hate to rub salt into the wounds that gape every time Labour Members rise uncertainly to their feet to talk about these issues, but we have had 17 years of Labour government since the war, yet during that time a General Secretary of the Soviet Communist party never considered it remotely worth while to come to the United Kingdom. The Labour party must understand that things have changed.
632
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was kind enough to thank me for trying to respond to detailed debates in Committee. I am grateful to him; he and I have been over a few courses in Committee and I have no doubt we shall do so again. He asked about inspectors; there will be a list of inspectors but they could be refused entry. An inspection must take place within the terms of the treaty. One of the key matters that we considered necessary to protect British sovereignty was the right of veto of an unsuitable inspector, and we shall not hesitate to exercise it if need be. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we shall not want to get involved in tit-for-tat arrangements. Plainly, everyone will want to use their best endeavours to ensure that inspections go smootly.
The hon. Member for Leyton asked about the draw-down period. We expect the missiles at Molesworth to go within a year and that the others will go within the three-year period of draw-down, after which there will be a liability for inspections for a further 10 years.
The hon. Member for Leyton mentioned deployment at Molesworth, and I should make it clear that it was always part of the Molesworth deployment schedule that the first flight would become operational before the end of this year—as soon as the base was ready for them. Efforts to meet that end have been under way for several months, and had matters taken their normal course, the base would have become fully operational—four flights of missiles would have been established—by the end of 1988. Although the treaty cannot come into force until it is ratified by the United States Senate, the Alliance has agreed to suspend deployment following the signature of the agreement. The Alliance has been desperate to achieve consensus on that, and I am sure that there is agreement among hon. Members on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) plays a leading role in the Western European Union, as well as in the House. The WEU is a useful body, as I discovered when I was there last week. Hon. Members participate in it to try to achieve agreement within the Alliance on key issues. My hon. Friend asked about the number of inspectors. We expect it to be not more than 10, which is a relatively limited number. He asked about conditions for inspections behind the iron curtain —[Interruption.] That is the phrase that was used; whether it fits in with the right hon. Gentleman's views is another matter. Those who go to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to carry out obligations under the INF treaty will have precisely the same terms and conditions as Soviet inspectors coming here.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) repeated the brazen assertion that she made on Second Reading — that the INF treaty came about because of the peace movement. That brazen assertion was also made during a radio interview in which I was taking part by Monsignor Bruce Kent, who plays Rasputin to the Lady's Tsarina in the peace movement. He is every bit as brazen as the hon. Lady, although he is not so attractive.
Mr. Robertson: The same could be said of the Minister.
Mr. Mellor: I concede that, in the spirit of honesty and candour that informs these issues. I try to be nice to the hon. Lady when I can; there was little in her speech that was favourable.
The reality is that this arrangement came about because the so-called peace movement was defeated at elections in

633
the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady unattractively mingled paranoia and a dislike of the United States in her speech. All the examples that she gave of avoidance of obligation concerned the United States. I wish that the hon. Lady would get it into her head that we should also ensure that the Soviet Union is not avoiding its obligations. If the hon. Lady looks for violations of treaties, she is as likely to find them on the Soviet side as on the other.
We hope and believe that the regime of verification that has been undertaken, which is more obtrusive than anything contained in any East-West agreement in the past, will enable everyone to be sure that these arrangements are stuck to.
The hon. Member for Deptford travestied the Prime Minister's position. The Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed a negotiating strategy, which was subsequently agreed by NATO as long ago as November 1986. The hon. Lady said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said that nuclear disarmament had gone far enough. That was a description of the position after the INF and START treaties had been completed and had nothing to do with her suggesting that there was no need for START negotiations; she is as anxious as any of us for them to be successful.
After this interesting debate, I hope that we shall agree to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading. Whatever else we may disagree about, we agree about the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the instruction to the Committee on the Bill, and it will be in order to debate it as part of the general debate on the Bill.
Mr. Thorne: The docklands light railway is one of the outstanding success stories of recent years. Even before its opening it had a remarkable effect upon the volume of interest expressed in the docklands enterprise zone. A large number of businesses were attracted to the area in the expectation that exceptionally good public transport facilities would be provided to give quick and easy commuter access. That process was reinforced by the passing last year of the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act, which will give ready access to the City institutions, via the Bank, in addition to commuter access via the Stratford British Rail interchange provided for in earlier legislation.
Since the opening of the railway by Her Majesty the Queen on 30 July this year and after the computer teething troubles that delayed its public use for a further month, the volume of passengers has exceeded all expectations. Furthermore, London Regional Transport is being besieged from all directions to extend the network across the river to Greenwich and north-east to Barking. I even received a strongly worded personal plea from the Bishop of Barking and Father Barnes, the vicar of St. Mary's, Ilford, who are by no means happy to hear that Beckton is the furthest point in the present proposals. They believe that it is essential to provide an interchange with the Southend-Fenchurch street line as quickly as possible.
Because of this unprecedented success, the promoters would be happy to accept the proposed instruction in the names of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing):
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, That it Report to the House on the evidence to it concerning the adequacy, or otherwise, of the characteristics and capacity of the proposed railway in relation to the likely demands placed on the railway by existing and planned development in and around the area of the Royal Docks."
London Regional Transport is promoting the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway on behalf of the London Docklands development corporation. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the LDDC is charged with promoting the redevelopment of the docklands area. The redevelopment process is well under way. To date more than £2,400 million has been committed, including £2,200 million from the private sector. To the middle of this year about 660 new companies had set up businesses and more than 10,000 new jobs had been created. A further 3,000 jobs would be created or preserved in existing firms as a result of grants approved under the Inner Urban Areas Act scheme. NI ore than 6,000 private homes have been built, 45 per cent. of which have been bought by residents of docklands boroughs.
Improving public transport accessibility is an essential requirement of the redevelopment process. To this end

635
LRT is constructing the docklands light railway through the area. The first stage of the railway, which opened on 31 August, consists of two routes, totalling 12 km, linking Stratford to the north and the City to the west with the Isle of Dogs development area. This is known as the initial railway. Work has now started on extending the initial railway at the western end by some 1·8 km to Bank station to provide a better interchange with the Underground and a link to the heart of the City business area. The extension is being jointly funded by the Government and the developers of Canary wharf on the Isle of Dogs, and will be open for passenger service in late 1990.
Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the London Docklands development corporation was established — by the London Docklands Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980 — as the urban development corporation for London docklands for the purpose of securing the regeneration of its area. The corporation believes that the works proposed and the powers intended to be conferred by the Bill will help to achieve that.
Under the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985, the promoters constructed railway works which led to the public opening of the first stage of the docklands light railway from the new Tower Gateway station at Minories to the Isle of Dogs and Stratford in the summer of this year. The promoters have obtained powers, in the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act 1986, which will enable them to extend the DLR from Tower Gateway to Bank. The Bill is therefore seen as authorising stage 4 of the docklands light railway to provide an eastern extension from Poplar through the areas of Leamouth, the royal docks and Cyprus to the housing development sites at Beckton.
The principal clause—clause 4—gives the power to construct a number of works: works Nos. 1 and 2 are railways providing connections with the DLR at Poplar. Work No. 3 is a railway which would constitute the eastern extension of the DLR to Beckton. Works Nos. 4 and 5 are short lengths of railway from the eastern extension into the site of the former Beckton holder station gas works.
Clauses 5 to 14 of the Bill would confer the necessary powers for the construction of works Nos. I to 5, including special provision for crossing that part of the River Lea known as Bow creek.
Part III of the Bill provides powers to acquire lands compulsorily for the purposes of the works to be authorised by the Bill, and clause 16 gives the promoters the option to acquire such new rights over any of the lands as my be required instead of acquiring any greater interest in those lands. The period for the compulsory purchase of lands and new rights under the Bill is limited by clause 17 and expires on 31 December 1992.
Other provisions in the Bill contain powers uniform with those already conferred by the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985 and the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Act 1986 so as to achieve an integrated system for operating the docklands light railway.
At the expiry of the petitioning time laid down by the House, 10 petitions had been deposited against the Bill, but one of those has been withdrawn. There appear to be no objections to the concept of the Bill. One fundamental objection is to the intended route of the railway. The Bill
636
provides for a southern alignment across Bow creek, while the majority of petitioners seek a northern route providing for a DLR station at Canning Town.
Following detailed discussion and the refinement of the design and layout of the works at Poplar, in the Connaught road area and at Beckton, adjustments to the proposals are sought in an additional provision, for which leave has now been given to promote. The adjustments would enable the new railway to be integrated more effectively with the highway proposals and other developments in the locality.
The DLR is only one of the numerous projects designed to regenerate London docklands and the route selected is that which is felt to provide the greatest benefit in the long term, having regard to the development potential of the area, the road schemes being implemented or planned, the other forms of transport available or to be provided and the expenditure allocated to the DLR. Consequently, the alternative route through Canning Town is not favoured and the promoters adhere to their choice as proposed in the Bill; but this will, of course, be considered in detail in any subsequent Committee.
The promoters, therefore, ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading so that they may be allowed to proceed and put to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred their case for the provisions of the Bill and of the additional provision.
7.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I begin by saying that I shall not oppose the Bill. On the last occasion when the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and I crossed swords on the issue of the docklands light railway, I opposed the proposal that he put forward. Tonight it is a pleasure to say that I do not oppose the Bill whose provisions he has just outlined.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the instruction in my name and that of my hon. Friends from the London borough of Newham, and the hon. Gentleman and the promoters for accepting it. That will assist the Committee in its important deliberations.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South too far down the road of the London Docklands development corporation, on which I fear we would have differences of view, particularly about his reference to the 45 per cent. of local east end residents who had bought houses. That may have been the initial figure, but, as everyone will know, things have changed since then and, whatever happens to the Bill or to the docklands light railway, I suspect that the figures will change in the future. But I do not want to pursue that because, of all things in dockland, until now the principle—and I emphasise that—of the docklands light railway has been agreed on both sides.
The Minister will be glad to know that when it was first promoted it had the agreement of the Greater London council, the London borough of Newham, the Docklands Forum, the Joint Action Group in the Docklands and every conceivable residents' and community association, as well as of the LDDC and the Government, so that is at least one feature on which we can agree on principle. I can go back even further, because many years ago the much maligned but, I think, quite good Docklands Joint Committee published a pamphlet entitled "Bus, Tram or Train?". The group put together a discussion document in 1974 and it plumped not for the tram — which is, in effect, what the DLR is—but for the train.

637
In the dockland strategic plan which the group then published there was an extension of the Fleet line through dockland, albeit taking a slightly different route from the one that we are discussing tonight, extending to Thamesmead. Unfortunately, public money did not stretch to a full tube railway at that stage.
The group also published a good many other plans, including the "Technical Appendix to London Docklands" and "The Years of Growth". So what happened at that stage was better than some people now believe, particularly those who parrot some of the things that have been said by the LDDC. To some extent, therefore, the Bill is a substitute for the proposal at that time, which was passed by the House, for the extension of the Fleet line right to Thamesmead. So, in a sense, we have gone back 10 or 15 years to where we were before, with a scheme that is a substitute for it.
I mentioned earlier the considerable degree of agreement. The disagreement arises, first, over the route. The Canning Town loop proposal has been referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. There is also disagreement on the funding and on some of the purposes to which the railway will be put; in other words, over our interpretation of "regeneration". Regeneration in east London, particularly in the London borough of Newham, has not, as interpreted by the LDDC, been in favour of the existing communities. It has been in favour of other people.
We are concerned with the railway tonight, so it is appropriate for me to quote from the annual report of the Docklands Forum, a body set up and commended by the House of Lords Committee which set up the LDDC. It had this to say about the docklands light railway in the annual report for 1986:
"The Forum has continued to press for the eastern extension of the DLR to Beckton. Members objected strongly when the necessary Bill was not allowed to be laid before Parliament in November 1985 because 100 per cent. private funding could not be guaranteed. The Forum considers that public funding for the Beckton extension cannot now be refused because the City extension is to receive at least £60 million of public money despite a Government statement that the DLR would receive no further public money. When the extension goes ahead, Forum members are concerned that the service to the local community should be maximised, and that means a should run to Beckton District Centre via South Canning Town".
It is on that note that I turn to the fundamental issue with which we are very concerned— the Canning Town loop. When petitions come to be heard in Committee, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, the borough of Newham will be foremost in putting a petition in favour of the Canning Town loop, followed by residents' associations in the Canning Town area, who understand the position and who would want that very much because, in the view of the local people, it is not, and should not be, a developers' railway alone. The Government may want that, the LDDC may want that, but the people of east London are due and deserve a railway that they can use, as well as a railway that will be used for the other purposes that the Government have in mind.
We cannot understand why the Government and the LDDC — perhaps the Government are neutral on this, but certainly the LDDC is not—will not concede the idea of the train calling at Canning Town, which is the centre of Newham dockland and one of the major community centres in east London. It is both a shopping
638
centre and a market centre. In particular, it lies at the end of many bus routes and is therefore a natural centre for transport interchange.
It might be thought that the loop entails an enormous detour. It does not. It is about half a mile, or even less, longer than the direct route chosen by the LDDC. It might be thought that it would cost a lot more. When I originally wrote to Christopher Benson, chairman of the LDDC, he wrote back claiming that it would be very much more expensive. I believe that the promoters have subsequently claimed that too, but there have been reports, the gap is narrower, and the London borough of Newham tells me that, according to its calculations, it might even be cheaper to take the route that the people of Newham prefer.
Be that as it may — and it will be discussed in Committee—it might also be thought that the journey time will be longer. One of the objections, we were told, is that people hurrying to the City would have to go via Canning Town and it would take longer. If they go by the direct route, there is one station. If they go by the loop, there is one station. If it is half a mile longer, if acceleration and stopping times are the same, and if the train travels at an average of only 20 mph—a very modest speed—I make the additional time about a minute and a half. So that argument falls flat as well.
There is yet another reason that might make the loop superior. The bridge across the River Lea would allow easier navigation of sea-going and river-going ships, up part of the River Lea which otherwise might be disadvantaged by a bridge lower down. All in all, we cannot see why that loop should not be built. The residents and the London borough will put their case to the Committee, so I will leave it at that, but I do not want to underestimate the symbolic importance of putting a station at Canning Town, historic centre of east London, because putting the line directly across the Lea will cock a snook at the people of east London, who have taken a great deal recently.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Government's case primarily one of cost? Has my hon. Friend noticed that they built an inadequate railway, for cost reasons, and then keep adding bits? There have been changes since the Bill was laid last year, and we hear that other bits will be added on. Is it not likely that, in the future, the Canning Town loop will be added on? It would be much cheaper to build it now rather than in two or three years' time.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is right, and, as I have said — this will be discussed in Committee— the cost would probably be less if it were built now. The Government are standing off a little, at least procedurally, on this matter. The cost may not be borne by public funds, as some of us think it should, but may be borne by the developers themselves. If the cost is equal, they will not have to pay any more to provide a service for local people which they originally wanted to deny. These are important considerations which no doubt will be addressed in Committee.
My hon. Friend has pointed to another matter. If the original route goes via Canning Town in a loop, no one would object to an alternative route being built at a later date. That is another possibility that has not yet been canvassed.
The petitions will also deal with other matters. I shall not spend much time on these, but it is important to list

639
them. Some people differ in their views about the sites of stations. This is true in Newham and in part of Tower Hamlets, where part of the new railway will be built. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) may wish to raise that matter. There was a proposal to narrow Victoria Dock road in my constituency. This may appear to be an extraordinary proposal when one considers the heavy use of roads in the area as a result of the development in the royal docks. Later proposals might have made this unnecessary, but it is a matter of local concern.
The elevation of the railway has caused problems. There has been trouble with noise in Tower Hamlets, where the original undertakings in respect of noise have not been carried out. Residents in Strait road, the Cyprus area and Winsor terrace will seek an undertaking from the promoters about routes. We hope that discussions will resolve those problems before the Bill goes into Committee.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South mentioned the branch line to the Beckton gas works now being demolished. That is planned as a depot—
Mr. Thorne indicated assent.
Mr. Spearing: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. This is important, because, although depots may be silent, this one would be near Winsor terrace and the residents would like undertakings about the design layout and any noise that may come from the depot. Those are matters for the Committee.
I wish to deal now with the important matter of funding. I quoted from the Forum report, which stated that the City extension was originally to be funded entirely by private money. It is now to be funded by a proportion of private and public money, but we understand—the Minister may confirm this— that the railway extension will be wholly funded by the developers, or through the increased value of the land when the railway has been built. This is contrary to most approaches to such matters in this country until now. Usually, the public fund a road or railway and, through subsequent planning controls, the community—I emphasise that—benefits from it.
The Government have driven a coach and horses through that principle in favour of another which does not find favour on the Opposition Benches. It means that the railway and the development that it serves go hand in hand, which is one of the less attractive features of the development. As the developments will not be founded on local needs, but are being devoted to other purposes, the money for it is coming from those developments. We must be sure, and I am sure that the promoters will demonstrate in Committee, that the money that is likely to be available from those developments will meet the estimated cost of the railway, which in current prices is about £140 million.
How exactly will that work? This is an important point, not just for the railway, but for my constituency, through which it runs. We have been told—it was re-emphasised a moment ago—that the cost of the railway will be defrayed from the rising cost of the land, which itself will be made more attractive by virtue of the railway. As I understand it, the LDDC will be valuing the land after planning permission has been given and— I emphasise this—it has come to an agreement with the developer on
640
what that value shall be. It is necessary to go through the stages, because it is a controversial area both in content and in method.
First, planning permission must be obtained, and planning permission for the area of the royal docks that is served by the railway is now going through the due process. There has been one formal referral back to the LDDC, and at some stage it will no doubt agree it and then, at a later date, put a price on the land relative to the planning permission that has been given.
It is at that point that I lose track of the process. Either the land will be allowed to the developer at a lower cost than it would otherwise merit by virtue of the planning permission and the developer will then pay to the DLR or London Transport, or whoever is building the railway, the relevant amount, or it will get the land on its books at less than the price, and the LDDC, having forgone that amount of money, will pass it over to the contractor or the DLR.
I take it that it is the former process that will operate. This is of some importance, because this is a novel method of funding public transport. I believe that this is the first time that that method has been used, at least to any great extent. It is the Minister's responsibility to tell us this evening how that will be done. If he cannot do so this evening, he should do so before we go much further.
There could be some slip twixt cup and lip. I suppose that the developers are all right, but we have read about some difficulties in the City, and a difficulty may arise from a judgment that will come from Luxembourg in the not too distant future relating to VAT on building. We know that the provisional judgment does not relate to VAT on private housing, but it may well end up relating to commercial developments and to buildings for retail consortia, and so on. At some stage, the financial mechanism must be looked at carefully. We want to make sure that the resources are available.
In addition, we must look at the development itself. The royal docks are now undergoing enormous change.
Mr. Tony Banks: Before my hon. Friend moves on to consider other matters, will he reflect on the fact that the Beckton extension is being funded by receipts from the LDDC from land sales, with no direct Government money, despite the fact that the Government are prepared to put over £60 million into the DLR City extension to allow the Canary Wharf development? At the moment the Government seem prepared to use public money to subsidise private transport, yet public transport is to be financed totally from the private sector. There will be £300 million of public money in the docklands highway. Is that not typical of the Government's approach, which is to subsidise the private sector and ask the public sector to go private in order to get the financing that we want in Newham?
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the new territory, in terms of both funding and planning public transport, that we are now entering by virtue of the Bill. The Bill may be something of a precedent.
Let me take up what my hon. Friend said about the City extension. I am sure that the Minister will remember, about two years ago in the House, the rather dramatic evening when he announced that the money for the City extension could not be raised by private funds. We may

641
hear the same about the eastern extension, for all we know. If it could not be done for the Canary Wharf, and it still has not been done, what about the royal docks and the Beckton extension? That is an important point of principle.
I remind the House that at that stage it was said that all the money could not be found, but what has happened subsequently to Canary Wharf? It has had to pay only £8 million in cash and it has been let off £12 million in lieu of its contribution to the City extension and other bits and pieces. Therefore, Canary Wharf, with its enormous development, is getting a great deal from public land that was once owned by the Port of London Authority. Indeed, all the land in the royal docks that is being developed is either ex-Port of London Authority land or ex-gas board land and is owned by the British people. That should be well understood.
Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of transport matters, in which he has been interested over the years. Has he ever known another example of funding in this way from enhanced land value? After all, it is clear that if one builds a railway on a piece of land, the value of that land will be increased. Is the same not true if one builds a road? For example, the land adjacent to the M25 must have increased in value. The Government are happy to finance the roads out of public money, and are doing so in the docklands area and the east end of London, which is for the private sector, but when it comes to the public sector, we have this curious arrangement of which I have never heard before. Has my hon. Friend ever known that principle to be adopted? The other bit of the railway into the City brings people from the City, Sussex and Surrey into the docklands— the so-called yuppies. That bit of the railway is being financed by the Government, but for our constituents to get out of the east end into the City, the Government adopt this method.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be brief.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining my point. The Minister may be able to tell us whether there is any precedent. I rather think not.
I go one step further than my hon. Friend. The fact that roads have been publicly funded in that way has been balanced by the fact that any development that may come — or not, as we hope, in the case of the M25 — is constrained by proper planning procedures. There have been some planning procedures in the LDDC area, but not, I emphasise, planning procedures that were generally agreed after the war on both sides of the House for the public good. Those planning procedures are organised by the LDDC, a wholly appointed, undemocratic body and a creature of the Secretary of State. The planning procedures in the royal docks are different from those that would have protected public money invested in roads and railways.
Not only do we have a different sort of statutory procedure, but the Secretary of State has recently announced that instead of having a public inquiry into one of the major developments in the royal docks, the LDDC will be allowed to determine the matter without any public inquiry. The area that the railway is to serve is the subject of about 15 different planning elements, all of which have been made public, although no formal planning application has been determined for any of them. There
642
are about 15 different plans for major developments, any one of which, on planning criteria, could have led to a major national public inquiry in its own right. The area of the royal docks along which the railway runs, if it were described in terms of central London, would run from the Palace of Westminster to Kensington Palace. The area it involves is larger than Kensington gardens and Hyde park put together. That is the area that will be served by the extension of the railway.
What will be put there? Messrs Rosehaugh Stanhope has five different elements in its plan, which is before the LDDC. It proposes 1,000 homes in the western area of the site, plus schools, shops, a business park of 2·5 million sq ft, and a retail centre, and a community leisure centre of another 1 million sq ft. That is a planning proposal currently before the LDDC on which the Minister has said that there will be no public inquiry. The retail centre and the rest of the plan—apart from the houses—probably would not be there but for the Bill.
The second scheme, north of the Victoria docks, put forward by Lang-Fox-Vom — the London dome —proposes 2,000 homes, with facilities attached, a hotel, ultimately with 700 rooms, a sports dome to seat 23,000 people and another business centre. That is the second major area.
The third proposal, from Heron-Mowlem-Conran Roche south of the Victoria docks in the area surrounding the mills, would provide 4,000 dwellings, only a few of which would be let at fair rent, 500,000 sq ft of business premises and light industrial areas. That is rivalled by another scheme for the same area of the Victoria dock village, run by the East London Housing Association and Messrs. Barratt. There is a race to see which will get it. If my arithmetic is correct, that would amount to 7,000 dwellings, in addition to the business and retail premises.
That is an enormous development. One could say that it will not get through, but it will, because on 31 March the Secretary of State said:
"I have today approved a strategy for the royal docks proposed to me by the LDDC which will turn 270 hectares of derelict land into a new employment, retailing, leisure and residential centre for London. The LDDC strategy, completed in consultation with me, will provide 7,000 housing units"—
my estimate was right—
"and some 48,000 jobs."—[Official Report, 31 March 1987; Vol. 113, c. 440.]
That was the intention of the Secretary of State, who is working the planning procedure that I described, broadly to approve the investments that I have outlined, and to estimate—his estimate may be slightly over the top—that there will be 48,000 jobs.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State regularly goes right over the top and has to be brought into line by the courts, as we have known, in his various ministerial guises. Indeed, he is a recidivist in many respects. Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who represent east London welcome jobs, but would like to think that many of those jobs will go to the people who live in the east end who presently suffer unemployment? Will he comment on the scandalous situation in which a Secretary of State can give planning permission for monumental developments without any reference whatsoever to the needs and wishes of the people in the east end of London, as expressed by their democratically elected councillors?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be persuaded to go too far down that line. We are getting a long way away from the Beckton railway.
Mr. Spearing: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not so. The railway goes right through those developments and would not be funded if it were not for them. I understand your reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will not pursue too far what my hon. Friend has said. However, that is so. It illustrates the points that I made earlier. If people from Newham took those jobs, they would not need to travel on the DLR. They would walk or take the bus, and that would probably be better for everybody. It is true that an industrial zone is being retained, but we would like jobs for local people, and we wonder how many there will be.
The railway is at the centre of the debate. The planners and the LDDC have told us that in spite of the railway they expect 60 per cent. of those moving in and out of the enormous development to travel by road. That is an important estimate. I do not know whether it is true, but at least there is that assumption. We have to do some sums to see how many are expected to travel on the railway. In other words, we need to do some mathematics on what is technically called the modal split.
I do not know what the demand for the railway will be. I should have thought that it would be better to have an even higher proportion than 60 per cent. travelling by public transport because a great deal of money has been provided for the roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned a figure of £300 million for the east London highway, which is in Tower Hamlets and goes under Limehouse basin. That is an enormous cost. The roads in Newham will cost between £140 million and £200 million, about the same as the cost of the railway. However, the roads will be provided by the Department of Transport.
Mr. Leighton: By the taxpayer.
Mr. Spearing: Yes, by the taxpayer. Those roads will benefit people who will perhaps not be using public transport so much. However, the railway will be funded by the developers. That is an anomaly and shows the way in which the Government's introduction of urban development corporations has upset the apple cart in all sorts of ways. I have to ask whether the railway will be able to cope with all those enormous developments.
Mr. Leighton: It will not.
Mr. Spearing: I do not think that we can argue that tonight. That is a matter for the Committee and that is why I tabled the instruction. I am grateful to the Minister and the promoters for accepting it. These matters should be debated and looked at closely in Committee.
I tabled the instruction before I received in the post a very helpful document — I want to pay tribute to the promoters for producing it—which tells us a little more about the proposed characteristics of the railway. It shows that the capacity of the railway is perhaps not as great as we might have thought. In a table in the document we are told that in 1991 which is when the service to Beckton will be introduced, it will have a capacity of about 3,900 passengers per hour. That is based on the present one-unit train operating now. The ultimate capacity will be 11,700 passengers per hour. That is with an interval of only four minutes between trains.
644
Perhaps those figures can be modified. We know that the railway is suffering from some electronic bugs and it may not be able to run at less than four-minute intervals. Although a capacity of 11,700 passengers per hour may sound a lot, it is not when there are 23,000 seats around the London dome and all the housing that I have listed. I am beginning to wonder whether the Dockland Joint Committee—a much maligned body—was right and that perhaps a rather more substantial railway would have been wiser, particularly as there is a demand for extensions to Thamesmead and there may be demands for other extensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is present, and there is a logical extension to Barking.
I suggested that two or tree years ago, but the Department of Transport pooh-poohed it and threw the suggestion out of the window when I asked for the roadworks to be modified on the road to Barking —which will be opened shortly — which would have allowed a good route for the railway.
In short, people in the area like the principle of the railway. It will be advantageous to people living in Newham. It will enable them to travel to central London and to move around in Newham, which is a good thing. However, we think that the railway is rather cheap and that it could have been more substantial. We would like to see some of the electronic bugs ironed out. Above all, we regret that the railway, through financing and through its engineering, is not part of the coherent pattern of transport that we would like. Nevertheless, we do not oppose the Bill, for the reasons I have outlined.
7.46 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who presented the Bill will certainly have eased its Second Reading by the competent manner in which he has described the contents and purport of the Bill and, most notably, by his wise acceptance of the petition in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
It is minimal common sense that there should be a study to see whether the new proposed Beckton extension is adequate to meet the scale of use that can be expected, taking account of the major planning developments listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.
I feel that the fact that we have not had a comprehensive study of rail and road transport needs in the entire docklands area is a serious omission. I fully understand the difficulties of planning too far in advance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South reminded the House, a considerable exercise in forward planning was done 10 years ago by the docklands joint committee when it published the docklands strategy. I am glad to say that, as Secretary of State for the Environment at that time, I was broadly able to accept it when it was published in 1976. In that document the committee was able to make reasonable forecasts about the scale of transport needs and to present a strategy to that effect. We are certainly suffering from the loss of such a strategy for road and rail transport now.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South mentioned the fact that this is the fourth Bill on the docklands light railway that we have had in the past few years. The first two authorised the construction of the DLR from Tower

645
Gateway — the station in the Minories in my constituency—to the Isle of Dogs and Stratford. That large stretch of the DLR has now been completed and it has been operational since the autumn. The third Bill, which was before us last year, will take the DLR from Tower Gateway to the Bank. The main purpose is to link the City to the vast Canary Wharf development on the Isle of Dogs.
Although improved communications in the docklands are welcome, problems have arisen. Those problems should be discussed and faced now. My colleague and parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who is indisposed tonight, would have wanted to raise two broad points about the Bill which directly affect her constituents. First, at Poplar the Bill allows for a flyover to be built to take the track for the Beckton extension. I am assured that that takes the track very close to residential areas.
The second point relates to Blackwall station, which is located on a flyover across a six-exit roundabout. That is a serious point. Unless something is done, pedestrian access is bound to be unsafe and inadequate. I hope that London Regional Transport will do its utmost to overcome or minimise such problems. I hope that that matter will be thoroughly discussed in Committee.
Unlike its predecessors, the Bill does not directly affect my constituents in Stepney and Bethnal Green, but some important lessons are to be drawn from our experience with the DLR so far, which I hope will be applied to the proposed extension of the railway to Beckton.
First, there is the problem of excessive noise. The DLR has not proved to be a quiet railway. In particular, I refer to that stretch of the DLR which runs along Cable street, Stepney, which is in my constituency. Noise limits were specified at the time of the construction of the railway. I regret to say that they have been exceeded at many locations, as independent noise reports, carried out by the South Bank polytechnic, have confirmed. It did a most important study that showed that actual noise levels are above the specified noise levels at only one location during the day. That is not too bad. However, in the evening and at night, recorded noise levels are under specified noise levels at only one point. That is a serious criticism. The reason for high noise levels is the poor noise insulation quality of the concrete and steel elevated structures. Noise is echoed by the steel structures. That demonstrates poor design work and the results of cost cutting.
Further, it is our belief that existing noise specifications should be reduced because the noise of the DLR is characterised by a low rumble, which is not included in conventional noise measurements. My council, the London borough of Tower Hamlets, is now calling for a level of 35 dB(A) to be specified. The noise problem will be enormously enlarged when the City extension line is completed because the number of passengers and coaches will be at least quadrupled.
The second point, of which we already have experience, is the loss of privacy. That flows from the elevated nature of the railway in most parts of my constituency through which it runs. Residents' homes are overlooked. Station design should include visual as well as noise screens. Lights should be shaded so that they do not shine into people's homes.
The third point relates to safety in the broadest sense. The stations that have been built so far are unmanned and open all night. It is extraordinary that the docklands light
646
railway system is guarded only by a partial video screening that is taken from a central point. We in the east end of London are terribly well-behaved, but stations that are unmanned and only lightly and indirectly supervised by video cameras may give rise to serious vandalism problems — and, indeed, even worse problems. I am being extremely British and understating the problem. However, it is serious. Although the line has only recently been completed—it is almost a brand-new line—I have the greatest anxieties and worries about what may happen in future. The defects should be not only avoided in the new Beckton extension but remedied throughout the existing DLR route.
Many problems are due to the inadequate funding of the DLR. The different financial packages for the line have been put together in an extraordinary way. One package relies upon Government finance. A second package — the extension of the DLR to Bank station in the City—is a mixture of private money and public investment. Apparently the latest package — the extension to Beckton—is to be funded by wholly private sources. We wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The system is not fully and adequately financed.
The Government and London Regional Transport have a real responsibility to ensure that the system works in accordance with the full standards of safety and amenity that the public expect. If a further Government input into the docklands light railway is required to overcome the problems that I have described in relation not only to the extension to Beckton but throughout the existing system, then so be it. We should expect the Government to make that financial contribution.
Mr. Tony Banks: I emphasise what my right hon. Friend said in the context of other London Regional Transport developments. Quite recently we saw that the effect of underfunding provided by the Government for London Regional Transport and its own cost-cutting exercises was to reduce the margin of safety on the Underground and bus systems. We do not want to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry into the King's Cross fire, but clearly there seems to be a link between cost-cutting exercises and the margin of safety. My right hon. Friend attended the meeting between London Labour Members and Dr. Bright, the chairman of London Regional Transport. Would my right hon. Friend care to say more about the safety aspects of the DLR?
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend's point was at the back of my mind. It is at the back of all our minds when we discuss rail transport in London and the appalling disaster at King's Cross station. Special dangers are associated with underground systems as opposed to overground systems, but safety problems must be at the absolute forefront of all our minds.
I merely repeat that the safety of passengers must be considered. They often go to dark stations late at night. Such stations may be peopled by only a handful of passengers, and, as we know, totally unmanned by railway staff.
7.58 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has already said, Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill. Much

647
of it will be considered in more detail in Committee. Obviously, I am not opposed to the basic principle of extending a railway to give better facilities to people who live beyond the points to which it extends at present. Beckton is not in my constituency, but it is next door. Many of my constituents shop in Beckton. They know its name almost as well as they know the name of their own constituency. What happens in east London generally greatly affects the people of Barking. As the entire development of London docklands is creeping towards us, such things impinge on the lives of my constituents.
Although we do not oppose the basic principle of improving transport facilities in this part of London, I wonder whether this is not another lost opportunity. If London Regional Transport and the Government had properly thought out extending the transport facilities to and beyond east London, we should have had a better proposition, about which we might not have had so many queries. We frequently have lost opportunities in this House. They have occurred in, for example, the Education Reform Bill and the Housing Bill, and doubtless we shall find the same with the poll tax Bill. However, this seems a classic case of a lost opportunity.
In an intervention a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said — I am paraphrasing — that he could foresee the possibility that a little later on, the docklands light railway might go in another direction, or a little further. Why not think out the whole thing to start with, so that at least everybody knows where they are?
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend asked why this issue could not have been thought out. As a former member of the Greater London council transport and planning committee, I can answer that the trouble is that there is no longer a strategic planning authority for London. Therefore, public money or, come to that, private money cannot be deployed in the most effective or best way for the people of London, whatever income they have or whatever job they do.
Ms. Richardson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I had intended to make a point about the GLC later, but my hon. Friend has made it for me.
All the thinking behind the Bill has been derived: it has not resulted from genuine planning. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a much greater knowledge of this part of London than I have—although I regularly travel up and down the highway, bumping down that inadequate road —agrees that this should be an opportunity for people in the area to have an input into the type of transport system that they want. When the GLC existed, the people who lived in houses and flats in the area — not necessarily commuters—could go along to the GLC to make their views heard through that council. They no longer have that, and it is a significant lack.
Although the Bill is, as it were, privately promoted by London Regional Transport, I detect the Government's hand hovering over it. Obviously, the aim of the Bill is to open up docklands in line with the Government's thinking on docklands. The sponsors have failed to listen to the very people who would be likely to use—or would like to use—the facility of the railway. I believe that I am right in saying that one could call it a commuters' railway rather than a residents' railway.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and because she has put her finger precisely on the point—that the primary purpose of the railway is not to serve the people of the east end, any more than is the opening up of docklands. That is why there is so much objection from the communities in the east end to the developments in docklands and to the railway. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out the difference between now, when there is no public accountability in community terms, and the time when the Greater London council was responsible for the strategic planning of London and was the transport authority as well.
Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend is quite right. One can envisage situations in which a railway might have been planned, as might have happened under the GLC had we still had that authority—with the people of, in this case, Newham and Barking in mind. Although I am glad that in Barking we do not have such high unemployment as Newham where, I believe, it is 20 per cent; nevertheless it is a depressing and problematic issue. When one plans a railway, one should think also about ways of bringing industry and people together. One should not think only about providing a railway to take people out of the area and into the City of London to earn vast amounts of money, who then return to their £500,000 houses—
Mr. Tony Banks: And drink champagne.
Ms. Richardson: I doubt whether they do that, but it is not a matter for me.
The London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill will provide an eastern extension, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has said, from Poplar through the areas of Leamouth, the royal docks and Cyprus. I must confess that I should visit Cyprus because I have not seen it and think of the other Cyprus every time that I read about it. It will be interesting to know about it, but my hon. Friends should not tell me now.
Mr. Banks: I must advise my hon. Friend that the weather is not so nice.
Ms. Richardson: Indeed, but I should like to know the origins of the word and whether it has any connections with the country of that name.
Of course we applaud the principle of extending public transport. Opposition Members have a good record of opposing restrictions on transport throughout the whole period since the war. We have fought the closure of railways and stations and have tried to argue that people need transport, whether by rail, underground or bus, not only in London but throughout the country. However, we must consider closely piecemeal suggestions such as those before us.
I am sorry to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South so often, but I am glad that he made such great play in an important part of his speech of the looping through Canning Town, because that is a crucial part that has been missed out. As I understand it, LRT objected to that on the grounds that the cost would be prohibitive. However, one must consider cost and costs. The people of Canning Town will lose out because of the loop. I believe that it is perfectly possible that in the future LRT will have a loop through Canning Town. It would have been much better if it had done so now, so serving far more people and enhancing the transport provision to the City of London and the Isle of Dogs.
Mr. Spearing: An important point about Parliament is involved. Even if the Government deny public inquiries into such matters, is my hon. Friend aware that the private Bill procedure in Committee makes it possible—I am not saying that I believe that this should happen—that if the Committee were so persuaded by my constituents and the petitions presented that the railway should only be built provided that it goes by Canning Town, under the customary procedures that would probably persuade the House that that should be so. Therefore, all is not yet lost.
Ms. Richardson: I am not suggesting it is, or, at least I hope I am not. However, one does have doubts, because LRT has been antagonistic to the Canning Town loop and has been willing to ignore all the pressures put on it and one wonders whether, in spite of all the petitioning, LRT will listen. I think that if we had still had the GLC, it would have listened, if it had been so stupid as to make the mistakes in the first place.
We must not forget the people on the Isle of Dogs who may well not have the transport provision to which they are entitled because it has not been properly thought out. Whenever I sit down at home to watch "EastEnders"—it is not often, but otherwise I video it—at 2 o'clock on Sundays when the omnibus edition is shown, I think of the docklands light railway and wish that it would run there and bring more transport to the area.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is she aware that Albert square, on which "EastEnders" is based, is located in my constituency of Newham, North-West? I hope that when my hon. Friend watches that programme she thinks fondly not only of Newham, North-West, but of the hon. Member who has the job of representing that constituency in this House.
Ms. Richardson: I thought that it was based on Albert square —it is a natural thing for anyone to think. When the picture comes up of the Isle of Dogs at 2 o'clock on a Sunday, I shall remember what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, in future I shall remember my hon. Friend as the hon. Member for Walford.
The Bill seeks only to help better-off people moving into the development area rather than existing residents — many of whom are very poor. The Bill will do nothing to enhance their prospects. I have severe apprehensions and reservations about how the Bill will help the borough of Newham and the future safety, happiness and welfare of the residents.
I should like to spend some time underlining what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said about safety. I am extremely concerned for everyone who travels on the docklands light railway and I am especially concerned for the safety of women travellers. I have not used the railway myself. I will try it although I am rather apprehensive after what I have heard. Many women have come to me to say how apprehensive they feel going into a totally uncrewed station, how lonely and frightened they feel, despite the fact that some of them are tough characters and able to look after themselves. When I am driving to Barking, I pass Tower Hill station as I drive on to the highway. That station has an escalator that always reminds me of some kind of futuristic Hyatt hotel, such as the one in San Francisco.
Mr. Leighton: It is the only escalator on the docklands light railway.
Ms. Richardson: That is true, and one wonders what will happen if disabled people wish to use the docklands light railway.
As stations become vandalised and alarm buttons are destroyed—that happens, like it or not—I am extremely worried that problems will arise for women, men and elderly people. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there is only one video screen and that it is operated on a cyclical basis to cover all the stations. The station person must oversee the workings of all the other stations and the trains, and also look after the safety of the passengers.
Let us suppose that that person has eyes in the back of his or her head: what happens if he or she sees somebody being attacked? We do not know what the provision is for calling the police. Are there railway police? I hope that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) can tell me that the railway police will be quickly on the scene if they are called.
One cannot describe the docklands light railway as a "one-person train"; it is a "no-person train". It is amazing that we have reached the point when we are willing to dispense with people who are willing to look after other people.
Mr. Tony Banks: If the train is operated by no one, the logical conclusion is that it should have no one on it. That would answer my hon. Friend's concern about the safety factor. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, because of the pressures of costs, it is the safety margin that is always cut? Despite what the Minister says from time to time, the travelling public do not like one-man-operated buses. They certainly do not like the idea of having no one crewing a train.
When the docklands light railway was opened, there were many difficulties. Indeed, the official opening had to be delayed because of safety problems. I would like my hon. Friend to dwell a little longer on the peculiar problems faced by women travelling at night on public transport in London when there is an insufficient number of people to guarantee their safety.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may comment on the Beckton light railway, but not on the general conditions in London.
Ms. Richardson: The docklands light railway is the worst example in London—and the rest are pretty poor —in terms of safety and having staff around. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should just like to recall one occasion when I happened to be at the station at Birmingham international airport to catch a train that was leaving at 12.30 am. I got on to that station and could not believe that I could not find a single person. There were three or four platforms and no trains, although a train was due to arrive. There was no one about. I stood there for 25 minutes and I was terrified. I do not know what I would have done if anyone had come up, but to stand in that ghostly atmosphere was horrible. It must be equally horrible on the docklands light railway.
Women face safety problems because they must travel to and from work. Since the Government deregulated women's working hours, they are subject to the whim of their employees. Now many more women must take buses or trains late at night. Those women who travel on the docklands light railway may be forced to travel at such hours.

651
Another safety factor about which we should be worried is the fact that the railway is open all night. Goodness only knows what could happen if someone was dragged in or left at one of those stations. I hope that, when the time comes, the hon. Member for Ilford, South will discuss the policing of that railway.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before the docklands light railway officially opened, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and I were invited to ride on it? Unfortunately, the design of the doors is such that my hon. Friend was assaulted by them. Those doors swing inwards and that causes some difficulty. On the Underground, the doors slide open horizentally. Even if improved stock is delivered for the Beckton extension, that will cause some difficulty because, unless the whole system works in one way, people travelling in the older type of car—where the doors swing across and can hit someone—may not be aware of the problem and may be hurt. The improved stock might only be used on some parts of the railway. It appears that, because of too little finance, we are now left with that hazard.
Ms. Richardson: When corners are cut, safety is always the first thing to go. When corners are cut in the name, not of cost-cutting, but of an improved railway, the only thing one gets is a feeling that people will not be safe.
A year or so ago, I was invited to look around Mansion House station and consider safety conditions there. I commented on the lack of alarm buttons in that station. I was shown the videos in a control room. There were four of them and one man was supposed to look at them all the time. I do not know how—he did not have four eyes. The videos showed different parts of the station. We must seriously consider whether it is right to replace people by videos and television screens. It is much easier for people to complain to, scream to or be seen by someone standing on the station than it is to wonder, while being attacked, whether the television screen is picking up the incident. Probably it is not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also mentioned the people who live in the vicinity. In the places in which the light railway is elevated, people in the trains and stations can look down on people's houses, which is amazing. When I go across the M40 at Hammersmith on the elevated section I can almost see into people's flats, because the road is so high. I always think that that is an intrusion into people's lives, even when the flats and houses are some distance away. In the case of the railway, I understand that children have already thrown down things that have hit windows in neighbouring flats and houses. That is an unwarranted intrusion. The promoter of the Bill — London Regional Transport —should examine more carefully the problem of the privacy of people who have nothing to do with the railway but happen to live by the station.
In addition to LRT's responsibility for station safety, we are also thinking about the responsibility of the borough of Newham for the surrounding approach areas to the station. The roads outside, the corners and the approachways will not be the responsibility of the railway. I assume they will be the responsibility of the borough of Newham. When building a new station, one must consider how best to design and landscape it. Its approaches must be safe, and there should not be nasty corners when one
652
leaves or approaches the station in which someone could be attacked. Why should Newham have to pick up the tab? It is already hard pressed and should not have to pick up the tab for what should not be its financial responsibility. The whole matter has been badly thought out, and I echo what has been said about the demise of the GLC and of a London strategic authority that would have been able to take into account all these wider implications, instead of doing the whole thing in a piecemeal fashion.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has put her finger on an important point. Although I believe the London borough of Newham is well represented in the House by its Members of Parliament, all three of us would agree that it is not the most beautiful spot on earth. One reason for that is that it is a way through for large numbers of commuters. The A13, running right through the borough, brings many problems to the people and council of Newham, who have to try to keep the place tidy and presentable. The docklands light railway, as my hon. Friend rightly said, will bring similar problems. Does she not feel that more consideration should be given to the sort of problems that boroughs such as Newham and Barking experience because they straddle major routes into and out of London?
Ms. Richardson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West will agree that, in the past year, the A 13 has been a pain—
Mr. Banks: Because of the work being done on it?
Ms. Richardson: I am sure the improvements to the road will be welcome when they are finished, but a journey from Westminster to Barking, which used to take half an hour, now takes an hour. The delays on the A13 are unprecedented. I cannot prophesy that all these problems would be cured, but they would be improved if they were thought out by a strategic authority in cooperation with London Regional Transport.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes the point. The great traffic problems around Bow church have been caused by the need to strengthen the road and bridge over the railway. Unless we show ourselves capable of integrating the necessary planning into our transport system, what is seen as an improvement in one mode of transport only leads to a great deterioration in another. That is a crazy way of running a transport system.
Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has wound up my speech for me very well by pointing that out.
As I have said before endlessly, the whole way in which these proposals and the extensions to them started —including the done that we are debating tonight, has been piecemeal — hopping from stage to stage. How much better it would have been if a bit of forward planning had been done, taking into account the problems and benefits that might come to various members of the communities that will use the railway, both passing through and inside the constituency through which it runs. I hope these points will be closely explored in Committee and that, when the Bill emerges from Committee, it will be a fitter one than it is now.
8.26 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: In some sense I feel a little out of place in the debate, being the only northerner to be invited to it. However, I was drawn to it by the news that

653
my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is the Member of Parliament for "EastEnders". I feel disappointed about that, because every Sunday I have been in the habit of sitting my children in front of "EastEnders" to make sure that they learn about life as it would be lived by a typical Cabinet Minister or Minister of State and so that they can experience what the south of England is all about. I have a little more familiarity with the docklands railway, because ever since I came down south to the Houses of Parliament it has been only with the greatest difficulty that I have been able to persuade anyone from the south of England that I am not the hon. Member for Stratford. To that extent, I feel I am well into the system.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on introducing the Bill, and I join my hon. Friends in thanking him for accepting their amendment. That will greatly ease the passage of the Bill, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise the benefits of that judicious move.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who, as active and assiduous constituency Members, have given up their evening to be here to put forward their case and, in the process, to educate those of us who do not have their detailed local knowledge.
As the official Opposition, we welcome light rapid transport—light rail—systems in all our urban areas. As a general principle, we think that the more of them there are, the better, especially in London. In so far as the light rail system takes people off the roads and eases the transport problems of the conurbations, it is welcome and will receive the approbation of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is necessary to be critical, or at least less than complimentary, about the way in which this proposal and proposals for the whole network have been carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has already drawn to the attention of the House the lack of an adequate strategic planning function for transport and for other services in Greater London since the demise of the Greater London council. That means that in docklands and the adjacent areas there is no proper mechanism for resolving the relationship between the road and rail systems. That is a curious matter, and it has been touched on by other hon. Members.
The Government are not prepared adequately to fund the public transport system for the ordinary people of Docklands and slightly beyond, but they are prepared to fund the road system so that private motorists and transport systems can operate with funds provided by the Exchequer and ultimately by the taxpayer. That is a matter for regret, and it is not just due to some basic ideological divide, but has consequences for the type of service that is provided by light rapid transit systems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking have spoken about some of the consequences that will begin to show after a time.
I draw to the attention of the House the matter of unstaffed stations which is not dissimilar to the situation on the Metro system in Newcastle. One of the problems is that some stations are not staffed, except by somebody at the other end of a video link. In the event of an energency or, even more trivially, vandalism, there cannot
654
be a quick response. The system is suffering to the tune of about £1 million a year in trying to overcome the results of vandalism. That is a high cost to have to pay for lack of staff.
The King's Cross disaster shows the potential dangers of such a system. When the Minister is winding up, he should comment on that because he has a responsibility for the safety of the travelling public and for seeing whether the system is as safe as it should be.
If we fund the system on the cheap, if we do not put in the required level of investment, and if we do not design first-class public transport, we will face the consequences that have been seen in other areas. I understand that at a triangle junction the train has to slow down to about five miles per hour in order to get round an over-tight curve. That is rather curious in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South who talked about the extension at Canning Town and whether the Canning Town link should come in. The promoters of the Bill said that it could not be justified because of the loss of time and speed on the system. It is ironic to use that as an argument when parts of the system have been designed in that way because sufficient investment was not put in. A great deal of time is lost on those parts of the system where there are already over-tight curves.
Mr. Spearing: Those curves could literally be looked at during the examination of the Bill to see what constraints they impose on the frequency of service. I expressed surprise that there was not a forecast of less than four-minute intervals on the stretch that we are talking about. It is envisaged that there will be three units in a train, whereas at the moment there is one. The restriction on that curve and on the various junctions may well make it impossible to run more frequently. I do not know whether that is the case. My hon. Friend has pinpointed one of the "money-saving" areas that may put a restriction on the service on the route that we are talking about.
Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the important point raised by my hon. Friend will be addressed in Committee. It also raises an important point about the way in which the transport system throughout London will be run if the LRT system is to be a model for docklands and for its extension to the immediate areas.
I was intrigued by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about the problem of noise. That seems to be a consequence of the system and the way in which it has been designed. It raises the very real question whether such a system would have been acceptable if a different mechanism from the development corporation had been involved in its design. One wonders how things would have turned out if local authorities had been involved in consultation and negotiation. I do not know about the negotiations between the London Docklands development corporation and the local authorities, whether potential noise pollution was one of the issues raised, or whether attempts were made to resolve that problem.
Mr. Tony Banks: It appears that the then deputy chairman of the London Docklands development corporation said that an extension would be built without steel structures. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) could comment on that. Obviously

655
one would want to rely on the word of the then deputy chairman of the LDDC, but, of course, one realises that not all that glistens is necessarily gold.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend invites the hon. Member for Ilford, South to comment on that. Perhaps it is better for me to throw that ball into his court than to engage in what is clearly a London debate in which my intervention would not be totally welcome.
Mr. Spearing: One matter that is germane to the light railway and also of national importance is that my hon. Friend says that this might be a precedent for the future. Does he realise that if we wish to extend across the river to Thamesmead or Greenwich, or even perhaps to Lewisham, from the Isle of Dogs, as some people advocate, the method of financing that is being made available for this line might not be possible for those extensions? Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his winding-up speech.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a point of fundamental importance and it is one on which I was about to speak. His intervention serves as a suitable introduction. The manner in which this system is financed is of interest not only to London, but to the whole of the country. In connection with my own city of Manchester, a light rail Bill is to come before the House in this Session. Similar Bills for the west midlands and west Yorkshire are also to be considered. One is to be considered for Bristol, although in that case it will be a privately funded system.
The means of funding and the way in which die Department of Transport intends to treat the relationship between the public and private sectors are matters of considerable importance. What happens in this scheme may well set a precedent for all schemes. The proposals for Greater Manchester are relevant to the Bill, because there is considerable concern about the consequences of the Department of Transport's position. The Department seems to be insisting on the introduction of large amounts of private capital for the Greater Manchester scheme. I do not ask the Minister to go down the Greater Manchester track, but I ask him to tell us about the ground rules for this development. What are the funding consequences for this development? Will this scheme establish some kind of precedent for LRT systems within London and, more generally, for systems throughout the rest of the country? The Minister owes the House a clear explanation about departmental policy on that issue.
Opposition Members believe that adequate funding of the public transport system serves the public interest, not only on safety but as to a consideration of the type of transport system needed and who will benefit from it. A public transport system should serve the needs of those who live in a constituency such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, rather than to get people in and out of Newham and to wherever else they want to go for the rest of the journey. We want transport systems designed not only for yuppies and those outside the area, but to provide genuine access for people in the community.
The debate on the difference between the public and private sectors is of fundamental importance. On the Canning Town loop, where there was a cost incentive not to put the loop in, the private sector solution was not to
656
put in the loop, but the public sector considered that the people of the community would be better served by having that loop.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is right to point out the need for transport systems that serve people in the east end, in particular, Newham, rather than the yuppies, for whom we know the whole system is designed. Is my hon. Friend aware that painted on a bridge over the Burdett road is a slogan that says "Toffs out", which aptly sums up the attitude of the people in the east end to the characters who are moving into the area?
Mr. Lloyd: The developers of the rail system and docklands ought to consider seriously the disenchantment among ordinary people in the community. If they believe that the systems are designed not for them but for outsiders, it will make for the worst possible future for social development and fundamentally undermine all the Government's promises about the benefits of the development for London.
Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that the behaviour of the promoters and possibly of the Government—they may take a different view from the promoters; the Minister may say that he is neutral on the Canning Town loop—is highly symbolic? Not only did they cut out Canning Town, which is the hub of east London, but they did it on the basis of figures which may turn out to be specious. It is not just a question of not wanting to serve the people. When we want to serve them, the Government produce figures which may not stand up. We shall see what happens in Committee.
Mr. Lloyd: If the figures do not stand up, the position will be totally different, and I hope that the promoters will reconsider it. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is not neutral on the Canning Town loop and that he believes that public transport should serve the needs of the community.
Mr. Tony Banks: Do not hold your breath.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend injects a note of scepticism into the debate. Having listened to the Minister on many occasions, I believe that on the law of averages he will come down in the interests of the travelling public rather than commercial exploitation. Perhaps tonight will be the lucky night.
Mr. Banks: I bet my hon. Friend believes in Santa Claus, too.
Mr. Lloyd: I look forward to a visit from Santa Claus, were he to bring an adequate transport system to Greater Manchester. Fortunately, Santa Claus can rely on his own transport system. He does not have to rely on a road transport system that has suffered from under-investment.
Mr. Banks: He comes but once a year, rather like the No. 25 bus.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend tempts me too far into Christmas analogies. Those issues, which bring to the fore the choice between an adequate publicly funded transport system and a private transport system, are central to the success of the Bill and of the light rail system in docklands. I hope that the Minister will give us full details of what the Government and the Department propose to do. I hope he will say that funding will come from the public sector and that, when the choice is made between public and

657
private funding, the private sector will have to meet the most stringent conditions to ensure not only the safety of the travelling public but that the resources are adequate for the transport system and the public do not have to wait some miles away from the line wondering why they have been cut off. The Minister has a responsibility to give an answer to the important issues rightly raised by my hon. Friends.
8.45 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am pleased tonight to be able to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill to allow the construction of an eastern extension to the docklands light railway. The Second Reading was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), for which I am sure the House is grateful.
The docklands light railway is a bold and imaginative project, as has been said in the debate. It makes use of both new technology and new operating attitudes. It not only provides a new link to areas which have been poorly served by the existing public transport network in the past, but must also be seen as a crucial factor in the regeneration of the docklands.
The initial railway opened to the public at the end of August and, despite some technical problems, it is rapidly becoming an important and accepted part of the London transport scene. The Government's commitment to the initial railway was the catalyst for an upsurge in business confidence in the area, bringing major new development to the Isle of Dogs. We now have development on an unprecedented scale taking place at Canary Wharf and the developers have agreed to contribute £68 million of the £150 million costs of upgrading the initial railway and extending it to Bank in the heart of the City. Work is well in hand on this project which will link the DLR into the existing Underground network and offer a much improved service to passengers.
The links provided by the initial railway and the City extension between Bank, Tower Hill, Stratford and the Isle of Dogs means that the one remaining area suitable for major development in the docklands, the royal docks, lies beyond the present reach of the railway. The royal docks, as the House knows, is an area equivalent in size to the west end and the City of London, and has tremendous development potential. It represents the largest single area of docklands in line for regeneration under the LDDC's programme. The Government have given their approval to the future strategy for the royal docks proposed by the LDDC, which will turn nearly 700 acres of derelict land into a new employment, retailing, leisure and residential centre for London.
An extension of the docklands light railway from Poplar to Beckton is seen as crucial to the success of this exciting development by providing a fast and frequent link to the rest of London. Just as the initial railway has sparked development in the Isle of Dogs, so the eastern extension will help to revitalise the royal docks area. It is, moreover, not only business which will benefit from such an extension. The development in the royal docks will provide 7,000 new homes and some 48,000 jobs, and the railway will also serve the developing communities in the Beckton area.
Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mitchell: I was about to refer to the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), so perhaps he will allow me to make that reference. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman attacked the way in which the LDDC is handling the planning and development. The Government's decision to establish the LDDC has led to a rapid transformation in the docklands. The success speaks for itself. As the pace of the regeneration increases, it will provide enormous benefits for existing residents, as well as others.
The scale of present and projected achievements would have been unimaginable without the LDDC. I recall very well visits that I have made to that area in the past, where it was assumed that dereliction was inevitable and would continue in the future. We now see a massive revival brought about as a result of the Government's initiative in that area.
Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the Minister has not realised the case that Opposition Members have against the LDDC, if not against the Bill. He has shown that by his reference to "regeneration". Of course there is regeneration of the area, but not of the communities. Otherwise, the 48,000 jobs would be designed for east London as it is and not, as Canary wharf might be, the beginning of the end of the east London community. Apparently the Minister does not understand that.
How can people believe the development is for them when an elementary point like the Canning Town loop —which is for them—is denied by the LDDC and the promoters of the Bill? That is the proof of the pudding. It appears that that would not be more expensive and would not add more than a minute and a half to travelling time.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for 48,000 jobs designed for east London "as it is". As so often, the hon. Gentleman is looking backwards rather than forwards to the opportunities. The reality is that growth of employment is a fragile plant. It is difficult to plant and it is difficult to make it grow and succeed. It has not been successful in many parts of this country and elsewhere in the world even though immense resources have been poured in. In this case, very substantial progress is being made. In many cases, it is not a matter of jobs designed for the skills of yesterday. It is not a matter of the regeneration of dock work in the area or the regeneration of other established skills. However, jobs can be and will be created and they will have a tremendous effect on the prosperity of the whole area and not just benefit those who take the new jobs and are new residents.
Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the growth of employment is "a fragile plant". I think it is rather like a triffid. It is a non-existent plant in this country despite all the cosmetic working of the unemployment statistics. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made is that we are not trying to look back. Many of the people in the east end, living in what my hon. Friend described as the derelict docks area, are unskilled or semi-skilled. The new jobs coming to the area do not match those skills or lack of skills. Is the Minister prepared to say that there will be massive retraining for the people of Newham so that they can take advantage of the so-called 48,000 jobs—which we will believe when we see?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better stick to the railway.
Mr. Mitchell: I will resist the temptation to spell out all the schemes that the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment will deploy for the purposes referred to by the hon. Member.
The Government set several conditions last year when we gave approval to London Regional Transport to lay the Bill before Parliament. We said that we would support the Bill on Second Reading only if we were satisfied that the cost of construction could be met without any additional public expenditure in any year and that there would be no significant risk that any of the costs would fall as a burden on LRT.
We are now supporting the Bill on the basis that the railway will be paid for from the higher land values accruing to the LDDC which the provision of the railway will generate. The LDDC's evaluation of that method of financing shows that the money raised in that way should comfortably cover the costs of constructing the railway.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) raised a wider issue. I concur with his view about the potential of light rail. The docklands light railway will lead a considerable field. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are already plans afoot in Greater Manchester for a similar development. He trespassed gently, and tiptoed on the edge of being out of order—I am sure that you would not have allowed him to cross that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker—when he asked about private investment in the Greater Manchester area.
We do not believe that it is right to call on taxpayers and ratepayers to pay the full cost when private investment may be available to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of a large amount of public money. My philosophical difference with the hon. Member for Stretford is that, for some reason that I have not yet been able to comprehend, he regards spending public money as a virility symbol. I do not. I seek to protect the public purse—the taxpayer and ratepayer—wherever possible if I can get that money and the necessary resources from the private sector. We have achieved that with the docklands light railway. Massive increases in land values will enable the cost of the docklands light railway to be met without a call on taxpayers or ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Stretford also raised—
Mr. Spearing: In a calmer atmosphere, will the Minister tell us how that will be achieved? I referred to it earlier, in case he has forgotten. I hope that he will tell us now—or guarantee to tell us later—how that mechanism will work. That could be very important for local conditions.
Mr. Mitchell: I think that I would rather not seek to spell out the detail tonight.
Mr. Spearing: Why not?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I might give him fuller information at a later stage. I would like to do it that way, because I can then be sure of being accurate in describing the details of what is happening. It is sufficient to say that the provision of the docklands light railway is enhancing land values. That will enable the LDDC to sell land at a highly enhanced value and that enhancement will be the basis on which the project can be funded. I will spell out the process in detail later with refinements that I would not be competent to describe to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction tonight. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman by guessing at the detail.
660
However, the broad principle is as I have described. The enhancement of land values will enable the railway to be paid for without a call on public funds.
Mr. Spearing: I want to state that this is bang in order. I want to refer to the precedent of the funding of the railway and this is the right use of the Second Reading in a kind of semi-Committee stage of the procedure. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and await the details with interest.
I infer from what the hon. Gentleman says—I do not want him to answer the question, because I understand his position—that it would be possible for the funding of the railway now to be made not directly from the developers who may be given planning permission for various projects, but from the resources of the LDDC which may accrue from the increased land values. I see that the Minister is nodding. I am grateful to him for using the words that he has used, because I feel that the matter is of some significance, with implications not only for the docklands light railway but for a national funding of transport of the type that the Government may have in mind for other parts of London and elsewhere.
Mr. Mitchell: I was about to say something about that. I have already referred to the reference by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) to Greater Manchester. There are also proposals in the Bristol area for a scheme which may well be financed entirely privately, and that again will be an interesting development. We are seeing the gradual re-emergence of a feature of the 19th century, when the private sector financed massive amounts of transport infrastructure without having to turn to taxpayers and ratepayers for the necessary resources.
This is an uncertain area. However, we are considering what is the right way forward for Manchester, and are watching the Avon proposal with interest.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister answer a point of philosophy? What is the difference between investing in a public transport system such as London Regional Transport and investing in the roads? Why should one be supported exclusively by the private sector, and the other by the public sector?
Let me ask a more important question, which has implications both for docklands and more widely. Is the Minister saying specifically that the only public transport systems that will develop are those that can be funded by private-sector capital?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House would be well advised to defer any debate about general methods of financing transport systems, and stick to one Bill at a time. Can we get back to Beckton?
Mr. Mitchell: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me say en passant that philosophically there is no issue between roads and rail. There is, however, the practical problem that we have not found a way for those enjoying enhanced land values as a result of a road being built to contribute towards its cost. Equally, those who suffer a drop in value do not receive a contribution.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I believed that public transport should in future be developed only where it would be paid for by the private sector. That is certainly not the Government's position. The Government feel that, where there is a need for public transport, that need must be defined; subsequently, the question arises of how to pay

661
for it. It is, of course, right and proper that taxpayers and ratepayers should be sheltered from having to fork out if it is possible to secure private resources to achieve the same end.
Mr. Banks: I am intrigued by the philosophy that the Minister is spelling out this evening. Will he tell me why—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are running into precisely the difficulty that I foresaw: we are having a more general debate about financing methods of transport. That is not the matter before the House this evening. We are discussing the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, and I think that we should stick to it.
Mr. Mitchell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing myself to trespass on your generosity and follow the hon. Member for Stretford down the byways of Manchester and into other areas, such as the philosophical differences between us, which I shall not continue to pursue.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of resources and safety. He did so in a responsible and reasonable manner, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. There will be no cutting of corners on safety. However, while the hon. Gentleman's remarks were reasonable and responsible, that is not an attribute that anyone would apply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made an intervention that I greatly resent, implying that the Government were in some undefined way responsible for starving LRT of resources to the extent that safety was imperilled. That is entirely without foundation. Now is not the time to debate the matter; I would be out of order to do so. However, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were misleading, wrong and inaccurate, and that his charges are completely unfounded.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) helpfully pointed out a number of detailed matters about the route and access to stations, not only on his own behalf but for others. These are matters for the later stages of the Bill, and I am sure that the opportunity will be taken to consider those points carefully. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made another point, hut I think that in answering him I would be straying too far into a philosophical debate. I hope to answer him on another occasion.
There are a number of petitioners against the Bill, and they will have an opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Government do not object to the terms of the instruction to the Committee that has been tabled by the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The Committee will be in a better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and the other matters that have been raised by petitioners, and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed, in the usual way, to Committee for detailed consideration.
9.5 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, for two reasons.
662
First, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has accepted the instruction in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and myself. Secondly, we are not opposed to extending the railway to Beckton. We are in favour of it because we want a better railway.
Our main criticism is that the railway is most inadequate. Many people have called the DLR a toy railway. I have even heard it called a Mickey Mouse railway. It was graciously opened by the Queen, but when Her Majesty sat in the train it would not move. She was not amused. The ceremony was a debacle. I cannot think of a more fitting opening for this railway. It is the sort of railway that one might see in Disneyland. In fact, it is not a railway at all—it is an elevated tram. I do not want the House to think that I have anything against trams; they were a very good form of transport. When I have travelled abroad I have been to some cities that have excellent tram services. Their trams look more like a railway than this one.
Mr. Tony Banks: I share my hon. Friend's affection for trams. The transport planners made a major error when they removed them from London's streets. Did my hon. Friend ever do what I used to do—put a penny on the tramline so that the tram went over it, or did he worry about getting his bike caught in the tramrails? It used to frighten me to death when I was a child.
Mr. Leighton: I did not put my pennies on the line because I had a rather deprived childhood and did not have very many pennies. I found safer things to do with my pennies than to attempt to derail trams. However, I did have a great affection for the trams.
Our criticism of the railway is that it was inadequate to start with and is proving so now. I am certain that it will be shown to be inadequate in the future and that we shall have to rebuild and strengthen it, which will cost so much that it would have been better to build it properly in the first place. It is a false economy for the public purse, which the Minister claims to safeguard.
I have never heard a speech from a Minister quite like the one that we just heard. It was an astonishing speech. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the Bill, but we expect Ministers to do their homework and to know something about the provisions under discussion —particularly their financing. When the Minister was asked questions about the financing of the railway — this peculiar, unprecedented and unique method of financing —we were given no adequate answers. I took down two words. The Minister said, "I guess". I have never heard a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and deal in guesses.
Mr. David Mitchell rose—
Mr. Leighton: I have one more rude thing to say about the Minister, and he might care to hear that before he responds. He guessed at the answer to the question about financing. When he was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) he said, "Well, I am not competent to answer." That will be seen in Hansard. I have heard many incompetent Ministers, but I have never heard a Minister admit that he is incompetent to deal with the matter under debate. Is that not astonishing? It seems to set the tone for the whole subject.
Mr. David Mitchell: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point. I am not quite sure how much

663
detail the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wanted about the method of financing. I said that I did not want to guess at the details. It would be wrong for me to make guesses about details with which I am not familiar and which do not affect my Department. They relate to the activities of the Department of the Environment, which will ensure the raising of the money through the London Docklands development corporation.
I described to the hon. Gentleman the basic principle governing the financing of the proposal. Because of the arrival of the docklands light railway—this started even before its arrival—the value of land in the possession of the LDDC is increasing very rapidly. That land will be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of at hugely enhanced values, and those enhanced sums will be used to pay for the building of the railway. That spells out to the hon. Gentleman the basic principle, without any guessing or uncertainty. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants more details than that. I should be guessing if I gave him more details. No doubt he will wish to be fair and recognise that that is not an unreasonable position for me to adopt.
Mr. Leighton: I am grateful for that explanation. In a sense, the plot thickens, because the Minister has told us that his Department is not responsible. Normally the Minister dealing with a Bill comes from the Department that is responsible.
Mr. Mitchell: Either the hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to be unreasonable, or he has misunderstood the position. The LDDC will pay the bill. It will hand the money over to LRT. LRT is part of my responsibility and I will answer any questions concerned with that aspect of the matter. However, the precise details of the way in which the LDDC will carry through the principle that I have described—I think reasonably fully—to the House, is a matter for the Department of the Environment, to which the LDDC is answerable. I am content to deal with any aspects arising from LRT's promotion of the Bill—unless it is more appropriate that they be addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) —from LRT's side of the financing of the provisions or from its plans for development. Those are proper matters for the Department of Transport. The necessary funds will be provided to LRT from the LDDC. That money will come from the enhanced land values in the way that I have described. It is not reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to go further than that.
If the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South want more detailed information about how the LDDC will realise that enhanced value, that is a matter to address to Ministers in the Department of the Environment. I shall be happy to secure additional information if it is relevant to the Bill and if the hon. Gentleman wants it, but it would be a little unfair, and that is not what he intends, to expect me to go further than that.
Mr. Leighton: I would not like the Minister to think that I was unreasonable. I am well known for being one of the most reasonable Members in the House. In fact, I suffer from reasonableness to a fault. I shall move temporarily from the finances, because I can see that I have touched something of a sore point.
Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Leighton: I shall give way to my hon. Friends in a moment. I will just finish this point.
It is a point that interests me, and I will accept the Minister's offer to write to me or get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to write to me. I am very interested in this novel, unique and, as I understand it, unprecedented method of financing a railway. I would certainly like to know the details and the mechanics of how this is done. I shall return later in my remarks to the, to use the Minister's phrase, philosophy of the financing of this scheme.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for further pursuing a point which, perhaps unwisely, I did not press enough earlier in the debate. The Minister is one of the more reasonable Ministers that I know, and I compliment him on that, but is it not clear that he is in a complete difficulty? Because of the urban development corporation set-up, which goes across all the hitherto habitual and agreed internal workings of this country, the Minister cannot provide the money. It is provided by this animal, the LDDC, and the Minister has confirmed the point that I made earlier. So it is an evolving Government policy on transport and inner cities that we have now stumbled on in the course of dealing with a practical Bill. That is the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. No wonder the Minister carefully said that he would reply to me by letter—they have not properly worked it out.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Perhaps my hon. Friend would cast his mind back to the time when the Greater London council ran London Transport. If London Transport at that time had proposed a major investment, it would have known in the minutest detail what it and the GLC wanted to do. With every other transport authority throughout the length and breadth of the country the Department of Transport wants to know in minute detail how the money is to be raised and used, but when we have the private sector involved we are now told that as long as it comes up with the ready cash it can do what it wants. Are we not going down a dangerous road?
Mr. Leighton: We are indeed, and the more we apply our minds to the matter the more disconcerting and worrying it becomes. It is this curious beast, the LDDC, over which there appears to be no democratic control and which is not accountable. Even the Minister says that he is not responsible for "it", that "it" does these things, and that he will have to ask other people in other Departments to supply the information. I see that he is nodding. I understand his position, but it is not the usual constitutional position that we are in.
Mr. Spearing: Exactly.
Mr. Leighton: There is another point here. All sorts of promises and assurances were given by the deputy chairman of this strange beast, the LDDC. The deputy chairman had an extremely good reputation in the east end of London. He had a lot of credibility with the community groups and the local authorities because of the courteous and punctilious way in which he responded to letters and queries. He was like an evangelist, selling the LDDC with enthusiasm and gusto which some of us thought might have been worthy of a better cause. He built up his credibility and people accepted his promises. He has gone

665
now. He was sacked within 24 hours of a rather curious television programme. I did not think that we believed in trial by television in this country, but remarks were made on television and the man was given 10 minutes to resign. There was no chance of a right to reply and no chance to put his side of the story. After all his work, he was sacked.
The Government and the LDDC have acted scandalously and disgracefully. Do those promises now stand up? Who will take the deputy chairman's place? Whoever it is will not be considered very credible by those of us who represent the people of east London. It will not be possible to replace John Mills and fill his boots. Do the promises given by this unaccountable, unelected, authoritarian body count any more?
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a recent meeting of the Docklands Forum—a body of which we should take note, as was emphasised in another place—Mr. John Mills, acting as deputy chairman, discussed at length the problem of noise on the existing docklands railway and its relevance to the new railway? The Secretary of State for the Environment should ensure that the undertakings given by the deputy chairman of the LDDC are maintained.
Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is right. I read the minutes of that meeting, in which the deputy chairman admitted that the noise exceeded the levels previously agreed. He said that that was because of the steel construction and he gave an assurance that that type of steel construction would not be used in the Beckton extension.
John Mills, whom many people trusted, has gone. Can we believe his assurances? That is an important question. He said that in Cable street the docklands light railway is noisier than British Rail. That is not how it was supposed to be.
The railway is inadequate. It was built, as the Minister said, to save the public purse. If one builds something second class and inadequate, one must add bits to it. One must rebuild it, which is always much more expensive.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is here. I do not know whether she knows— she probably does because she keeps her ear to the ground very effectively—that discussions are taking place about adding bits on to the docklands light railway. One of the suggestions being strongly canvassed —it is alleged that decisions have almost been taken, so we shall have another Bill in the near future which will be the fourth on this subject—is to extend the railway to Barking. There is another suggestion to extend the railway under the river to Greenwich and Lewisham.
Mr. Spearing: Who is to pay?
Mr. Leighton: We do not know how we shall pay for this bit, let alone who will pay for extending the railway under the river. Who would benefit from putting a tunnel under the river? It would tax the Minister to say how we could enhance the value of the river.
Cheese-paring has led to all sorts of problems—noisy structures and unstaffed stations. At a time of mass unemployment we should employ people to do something sensible. When we travel on the Underground, there are no staff. The stations are desolate and empty.
Ms. Richardson: And filthy dirty.
Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is so right.
666
I was brought up in a London transport family. When my father left the Grenadier Guards, his first job was as a porter on the London Underground. I do not know whether hon. Members can remember porters. They were the people on every station who used to sweep the platforms, keep them clean and wash them with buckets of water. On some British Rail stations there were even gardens and flowers. Can you remember, Mr. Speaker, when there were waiting rooms with a cheery fire in winter? Can you remember, Mr. Speaker, when there were things called toilets on stations? If people had a long journey, they could relieve themselves on the stations.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am afraid that they still do.
Mr. Leighton: As my hon. Friend points out, the smell and the stink, especially on the Underground, prove that they still do. That is the result of not having any stall.
At the moment the DLR is like a bright new button. It is very attractive. But how long will that be the case if its stations are unstaffed? How long will it be before we get the graffiti and the vandalism? We have the new technology in the form of videos. A video might or might not be able to record what happens. It is cyclical, which I think means that it moves round—now we see it, now we do not. The video can only record a given station at a certain time before it moves round. But even if the video records vandalism, what can he done if there are no staff there? Therefore, cheese-paring is worrying, and the inadequate provision is the result of under-financing, which is a false economy.
Let me return to the question of money. I am seeking to be non-controversial. I do not want to upset the Minister. However, let me address that matter in a gentle way, looking at the philosophy behind it. There is no Government money for the Beckton extension. There is Government money for the roads in exactly the same area —£300 million. Obviously, there is a deep philosophical point behind all this. We have heard the Minister say that it is a philosophical matter. The only philosophy that I can see is that if something is for the private sector, the public purse is open and the Minister is generous — large dollops of public money for roads. When it comes to the public transport system, it is not open. But hang on a minute. The money is there if it goes west. The Minister gave us the figures—£150 million with £68 million being provided by somebody else. That means that he has opened the public purse and taken out £82 million to extend the DLR from Tower Hill to the Bank. I should like explained to me the philosophy behind opening the public purse if a development goes west, but shutting it if it goes east.
Mr. David Mitchell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot comprehend the simple fact that the public purse is making up a shortfall of what is not attainable from the private sector. In the case of the western extension, a certain sum was obtained from the developers of Canary Wharf, and the public sector made up the difference. In the case of the eastern extension, there is no need for the public purse to make up the difference, because the entire cost will be met by the enhanced land values, through the LDDC. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found something philosophically difficult about that, but I find it simple and straightforward. Where we can get the private sector to pay, we do so, and where we cannot, we turn to the public purse. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that

667
is wrong but wants to turn it the other way round, he is supporting his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who believes that public spending is relatively simple.
Mr. Leighton: I wonder whether the Government have been conned. I wonder whether the Government have stood the three-card trick. There are people in London who know how to work the three-card trick, and perhaps the gullible and naive Ministers have fallen for it. Who can say whether the people who have been willing to put up the £68 million were not willing to put up more? May I make an analogy? I heard Lord King say that he was willing to pay only £140 million to take over British Caledonian and make a monopoly. Then, when there was some competition from SAS, which is one of those half-public, half-private BP-type operations, he suddenly upped his offer to £200 million. Who is to say that the people who make huge fortunes out of Canary Wharf, which was the equivalent to building a second City of London, would not have put up that money?
The Government seem to look more sympathetically and generously, and their hand does not falter so much when it reaches for the public purse, when the money is going to the City of London, where people get salaries in telephone numbers, and where most of them vote Conservative and go home to areas such as Surrey and Sussex, the stockbroker belt. However, when the money is going east, to Beckton or down to Canning Town—
Mr. Spearing: It does not go to Canning Town.
Mr. Leighton: When it was proposed that it would go to Canning Town, when the original railway was suggested —the DLR — various options were put in consultation paper. One of those options was that it should go to Canning Town. When the consultation was held, most responses said that it should go to Canning Town. The people of Canning Town and the people of east London want it, but they are not to have it. I believe that that is a philosophical point which the Minister should take on board. He has been down to the area on several occasions and looked at it. I do not know whether he has spoken to many people there.
There is a lot of tension there, because people see those wonderful new apartments going up. If one has £500,000 to spare one can have one tomorrow. I hope that the Minister is not smiling. That is quite cheap for many of them. An enclave of very rich people are cheek by jowl with the people who live in the most deprived and squalid circumstances. I hope the Minister understands that that is the case. Those people want some benefit from these developments, and if the railway extension leaves them out they will see all the wonderful developments that we keep hearing about. A sum of £2·2 billion of private money has already been attracted into the LDDC area. The royal docks development will attract another £2 billion. Those are huge sums.
All that the people want is a little loop in the railway going to Canning Town. If they do not get it, what will they think about the development? They will have been left outside it. There used to be a saying that they will have missed the bus, but they will have missed the train, because the train will not go to them. They see the yuppies—that is an inelegant term—coming in, but how do they
668
come in? The railway does not take only east-enders to the City. It carries people from Surrey and Sussex who are earning telephone number salaries in the City. They can either walk from the City to Wapping and the lovely apartments, or they can get the DLR. That happens on the extension to the west and is being financed from the public purse. However, in our area—the derelict area, as the Minister so delightfully called it — there is no public money, so we have an inadequate and second-rate service.
I must not trespass too long on this, but I must speak about Canning Town. Some of us feel strongly about areas such as Canning Town. I hope that Conservative Members do not think that Canning Town is some sort of joke. It is the heart and guts of the east end of London. It withstood the Luftwaffe, was praised during the second world war and had numerous visits from royalty. The people from that area are the salt of the earth.
We were originally told that the station at Canning Town would cost millions. That figure has now been reduced to under £1 million. The local authority has looked at the matter and said that it made a mistake and that the figure would be less than half that. We are told by those who know—London Regional Transport and the LDDC—that the station would serve 2,000 people. Those 2,000 people are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. I should like to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend for the vigilance that he has displayed on this matter. He pores over every detail all the time. I know of no one else in the House with a greater knowledge of transport matters. He was a member of the London county council transport committee for many years.
We miss the GLC now. When we consider the whole of the transport system in the east end of London we can see that the roads are overcrowded, and the east London river crossing will disgorge another lot of traffic into the transport system. There is no co-ordinated planning, and that is where we miss the GLC.
What have the Government and LRT got against the 2,000 people in Canning Town? Why can they not have their station? Are they not as good as the people at Bank and Tower Hill? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has done more than anyone on this matter. He is right to speak up for those people. I know that he will do so in future, and he will have our support.
9.38 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am greatly privileged to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). In many ways he has given us an accurate picture of the situation in the east end of London, specifically in the London borough of Newham, which I have the honour to represent with my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The Minister was offended by something that I said. To get a spark out of this Minister is a tribute indeed. However, if he was offended by what I said he must understand that I was equally offended by his description of the docks as an area of dereliction. As one of the derelict Members from a derelict area, I can tell him that we strongly object to that. It is not an area of dereliction at all. There are still many jobs in the royal docks. It is not the fault of the people who live there that, because of economic circumstances, jobs deserted them as the port of London moved its activities away from the royal docks.

669
One of the most depressing and offensive aspects of the work of the London Docklands development corporation is that, in its great capacity to purchase land and thereby rob the people of the east end of their land, it is forcing out or closing down many firms that still operate within docklands. Rather than increasing employment in the docklands area, it is bringing about a net decrease. That is why hon. Members from Newham use such strong words when we hear the Minister give us the old advertiser's hype about what the wonderful LDDC is doing and how many jobs will be created. The Secretary of State plucked a figure out of the air. There do not seem to be any independent surveys or reports that substantiate the exaggerated claims about jobs. By way of intervention, I said to the Minister that the sort of jobs that are being talked about will not be suitable for the presently unemployed people of Newham, Barking and Tower Hamlets.
As you have probably gathered from the debate so far, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned because the DLR does not exist to suit the convenience of the people of the east end. If it were not for the explosions that have occurred within the City and the need to expand out of the City of London, I do not suppose that there would have been much talk about the development of the light railway system. Notwithstanding that, we in the east end are much deprived of amenities, although we are well served by a Labour-controlled council in Newham. Therefore, it will not be the policy of the London borough of Newham, its Members of Parliament or community groups there to oppose the Bill. We are anxious to see that there is the best possible provision in the Bill to ensure that the impact of the railway on existing residents is minimised.
Although many points have been covered in the debate, some have not been covered. I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) wishes to make a few points in about four minutes' time, so I shall not delay the House beyond two more minutes—and a very fast minute has just passed.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South, who has listened most attentively to the points that have been made, will no doubt have registered Opposition Members' great concern about safety aspects with regard to the DLR. We are particularly concerned about the safety aspects of unstaffed stations.
Already at Shadwell, stones have been thrown into nearby residents' houses. A report from the Wapping neighbourhood committee, by the London borough of Tower Hamlest police adviser, serverely criticised many safety aspects at stations. The report stated that alarm buttons are either broken or deactivated because of misuse. Station entrances are not covered by videos. Ticket machines are not located in visible areas. Stations are open all night, thus allowing vandalism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East mentioned. The report referred also to the aberrant scatalogical behaviour of some passengers who use the stations and the fact that videos are scanned by the same person who is responsible for overseeing the whole operation of the railway from the control room at Poplar. As my hon. Friend said, cameras are operated only on a cyclical basis; there is no constant cover.
We want to make sure that, when the Bill is considered, the lessons that have been learnt up to now are taken into consideration. There is a great deal of concern. The cost pressures that are being exerted not only on this railway
670
but on London Regional Transport generally are leading to a diminution of safety standards within the whole transport system.
It is unnerving to sit on a train that does not have any staff that one can see. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has said, it is especially unnerving for women. Anyone who uses the existing railway system, as I have done on several occasions, will notice the absence of women. I am sure that one of the major reasons is that women feel unhappy and unsafe on such a system.
It is remarkable that we talk about cutting staffing levels on public transport, such as buses and railways, but, when it comes to the better class of travel, air travel, a major selling point is the service that the passengers receive. I do not see why a person travelling on a No. 25 bus should not equally be welcomed aboard by a steward who says that he will be travelling from Stratford to Victoria at approximately ground level, who will give the estimated time of arrival, traffic conditions allowing, and then serve refreshments. Indeed, duty-free goods could be offered. In a light-hearted fashion I am trying to say that I do not see why public transport such as buses and railways should continually cut comfort and safety when other forms of transport emphasise those things. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will at least acknowledge our concerns, especially those about transport safety.
9.45 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: By leave of the House, I should like to try to answer one or two of the points that have been made in this helpful debate. I am sure that many of those points can be considered in much greater detail in Committee, but I should like to deal with one or two now.
The question of the Silvertown loop obviously causes considerable disagreement about its actual cost. the information that I have is that the construction costs would amount to £5·9 million; the additional time factor would involve an extra £2·3 million and the running costs another £4·7 million. Therefore, the total additional cost of fitting in that loop could be—I emphasise "could be" —£12·9 million. I am sure that hon. Members will have the opportunity to explore and compare those figures more in Committee.
There is no suggestion that this is a developers' railway. Other facilities are available to people who live in the Canning Town area. The interchange at Western Gateway with British Rail will be a great help to those people, as will the train and bus facilities that will help those passengers who wish to join the route to move west. Such matters will be dealt with in Committee. Indeed, they have already been considered and there is no question of ignoring the needs of the people in that part of London.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that he does not have a lot of time. Although the issues of cost and timing can be argued in Committee, does the hon. Gentleman accept that his interpretation of its not being a developers' railway is riot accepted in east London? If we do not get the Canning Town route, that will be looked on as cocking a snook at the people of east London, and the railway will be interpreted as entirely for developers.
Mr. Thorne: I hope that that will not be the outcome. I am sure that those hon. Members who serve on the Committee will have an opportunity to express themselves then.
I should have liked to go into the question of costs in much greater detail, but time does not permit, other than to say that I understand that the total cost is likely to be about £136 million. It is expected that that sum will be paid by the London Docklands development corporation during the course of the work, so that there will not be any further cost to the taxpayer. The extra value that will accrue to the land owned by the LDDC will enable it to pay that sum of money. That is an important factor, and whether one agrees with that philosophy or not, it is a point that my hon. Friends will appreciate.
I listened with care and interest to the reasoned speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I share his concern regarding noise; indeed, that matter has been raised on a number of occasions. He mentioned light shining into homes and certainly I have had experience of that problem in my constituency as a result of car headlamps and inconsiderate supermarket operators. The right hon. Gentleman also expressed his concern about unmanned stations.
I compliment the people who live in the area where the docklands light railway is based, on the absence of graffiti so far at the stations. The people in the area have behaved extremely responsibly and I commend the people living in the east end for the way in which they have not abused those stations. I hope that that will continue to be the case.
Policing the railway has been mentioned and that will be dealt with on a central basis and from a central control centre. Either the transport police or the Metropolitan police—whoever is in the right location—will be called upon immediately. I believe that their response will be extremely encouraging and that they will be able to deal with whatever arises.
Some hon. Members have mentioned the need for videos. Certainly the train captains on the docklands light railway have been extremely successful and I believe that they are appreciated by the passengers. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Members representing Newham and Tower Hamlets have received a favourable response from their constituents who have used this service.
The Government have given a £60 million contribution towards the cost of funding the extension of the railway into the City. That connection into the City is a key factor
672
for the whole network — indeed, the prosperity of the region relies on that connection. The extension will be expensive, despite the fact that it is a short extension, because it will run through a tunnel. It would be wrong to say that the Government lay out money for the roads rather than the railway. Road fund taxpayers consistently complain that they do not see a return on their money and that they pay out a lot more money than is laid out on the roads. Indeed, the road users have made a contribution towards this railway.
Mention has been made of what the ex-deputy chairman of the LDDC said about steel. I am not quite sure to what he was referring, because certainly steel will be required in the structures. Perhaps he said that not so much steel will be required in the structures in the extension out to Beckton when compared to the first phase of the development. Undoubtedly, however, steel will be required to reinforce structures, especially those above ground. It is important to remember that the corners and angles of the proposed construction should be reduced. Another worrying feature about the Silvertown loop is the degree of noise generated by such loops. The loop that passes around the Beckton gasworks is more gentle than the loops elsewhere on the network; the reason for that is to try to reduce the amount of noise generated.
I believe that I have covered most of the points that have been raised. I cannot help the hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) about the origins of the name of the area known as Cyprus. I can only assume that that was the area where products from the island of Cyprus were landed. Indeed, I think that some settlers from that island also settled in the area. That is the best information that I have been able to get for the hon. Lady.
I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I am delighted that, in the future, we hope that it can be extended elsewhere. I hope that we can now give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed.
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, That it report to the House on the evidence presented to it concerning the adequacy, or otherwise, of the characteristics and capacity of the proposed railway in relation to the likely demands placed on the railway by existing and planned development in and around the area of the Royal Docks.—[Mr. Spearing.]

London Regional Transport Bill
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
9.55 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: The London Regional Transport Bill has met most of the objectors' objections, apart from the outcome of the Pudding Mill lane issue. That has also been programmed, but there remains the issue of how it will be financed.
The remaining features of the LRT Bill are generally to be welcomed. Hon. Members on both sides will look forward to some of the improvements proposed in it, especially those that make a positive contribution to the safety of the network. I hope that, if we do not make as much progress as I would like on the Bill tonight, we shall be able to return to it soon, because it has some important features.
Pudding Mill lane is an important matter. The demand on the docklands light railway is such that some of the doubts in the past that it could be funded properly are beginning to evaporate. I hope that in the not-too-distant future it will be possible to raise the additional funds. We want to make provision for the extra facility of the dualling of that part of the track to cater for the extra facility moving into and out of Stratford. That is to be welcomed. The provisions concerning the length of trains, the amount of land required and the additional proposals to modify the legislation that is already in existence are to be welcomed. I hope the House will soon have an opportunity to put the measure on the statute book.
9.57 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: We have little time left in which to consider the Bill. I am sure that as and when it returns to the Floor of the House, my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who so assiduously represent the borough of Newham and its people, will wish to raise the important issue of the financing of the Pudding Mill lane stations.
I want to take the two remaining minutes to address the issue of the Angel tube station, which, to a certain extent, is covered by the Bill. However, the provisions of the Bill will not be implemented by London Regional Transport, because that body's thinking about the future development of that station has progressed since the Bill was first brought in. The Angel tube station, which serves a large number of my constituents, is one of the more outdated and inefficient stations in the London Regional Transport network. I see that one of my constituents, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who I know uses the Angel tube station frequently, is nodding his assent to that.
The two principal objections that my constituents have to the condition of the station concern, first, the inefficient operation of the lifts, and, secondly, the danger posed to passengers by the island platform nature of the station, especially at rush hour, when there is a lot of extra pressure because of the new office developments in the area pouring a large number of extra people into the station. I fear that the danger to those people is acute.
674
London Regional Transport's new proposals for escalators to replace the existing lifts and for the removal of the island platform to make station safer and more convenient for passengers are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that when the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill comes before the House all hon. Members will give it a warm welcome and a swift passage.
In the meantime, it is important to recognise that the provisions in the Bill that is before us are inadequate. London Regional Transport has recognised that, has revised its proposals, and has come up with something that is much more satisfactory and which will be to the benefit of my constituents.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
To be further considered upon Thursday 17 December.

Representation of the People
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two orders on representation of the people. I must tell the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
Resolved,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 3) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 4) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  CIVIL AVIATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

  MEDICINES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Medicines (Exemptions from Licences) (Carbadox and Olaquindox) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

Outward Bound Trust
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrelll.]
10.3 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that affects two charitable bodies. I am calling for a measure of justice between them. By appointment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am chairman of the trustees of the Community Projects Foundation, which is a charitable body that exists to apply community development techniques to social problems. It has been in existence for 20 years and some hon. Members have been connected with the foundation during those years. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was one of the first directors of the organisation in its original form.
The sequence of events that I shall describe occurred in 1986. One of the projects that is organised by the Community Projects Foundation is in Dundee and is called the Dundee work start scheme. In the course of its work, which was to help unemployed people in an area of Dundee with a high incident of unemployment, a journalist was contracted to write a pamphlet that showed how the ideas that had been developed in the scheme might be extended to include the prospect of work overseas. In the pamphlet he used the term "outward bound activities" without using capital letters. In a summary at the end of the pamphlet he included in a list the term "outward bound training".
The people in the project then became aware of attempts to obtain a copy of the pamphlet. I shall shortly describe those attempts. After a time a copy was supplied to the person asking for it, and it appeared that that person was no less than a representative of the solicitors of the Outward Bound Trust, who objected to the fact that these terms had been used in the pamphlet. There was a terse exchange of correspondence and we were accused of unauthorised use of the terms. It was said that there was damage to the good will and the name of the Outward Bound Trust. The director of the Outward Bound Trust spoke in an affidavit of protection of the trademark. We believe that this was not correct and we found ourselves, in attempting to contest this, facing a writ. Our director received a summons.
At that point it became obvious to me that we had to proceed to a settlement. Despite the legal advice I had been given, it appeared that, as the Community Projects Foundation is almost wholly dependent upon a grant of the voluntary services unit of the Home Office, that being taxpayers' money, it could have been putting at risk some £20,000 by proceeding to legal action. I did not feel that that was proper for a charitable body funded by the taxpayer. Settlement was eventually reached out of court, which nevertheless meant that the Community Projects Foundation has lost in legal costs to both its own and the Outward Bound Trust solicitors a sum in excess of £6,500.
I do not doubt the good work that the Outward Bound Trust does and has done for many years; I make no assault on that whatsoever. Nor would I object to its right to defend its legitimate interests if it believed they were threatened, but it could have dealt with the matter altogether differently.
While this may not be the main thrust of my argument, I maintain that there was not really a case to be brought
676
by the Outward Bound Trust against the Community Projects Foundation. The term "outward bound" is in free use by practitioners of education and training, almost as a generic and often figurative term. I believe that people would be genuinely surprised to be summonsed for using the descriptive term "hoovering the carpet". By the same analogy, it is absurd that a term which has come to be used as widely as outward bound should be the subject of threatened legal action.
In attempting to look at how widely the term is used, various examples were uncovered. In an article in The Guardian education section, Michael Schweitzer, a former Gordonstoun pupil and bursar of Atlantic college, wrote:
"You won't find a comprehensive not doing some element of outward bounding. The Outward Bound Schools are less important now—the dye has come off and run into the mainstream of schooling."
I uncovered a more absurd example, which refers to a training programme for zoo-bred rare monkeys to prepare them for the return to the wild state in Brazil. The language used is:
"seven tamarins were enrolled in a primate's outward bound, a back-to-basics training programme."
One could add to those examples many times over to show that it was preposterous that there was thought to be a basis for any action. The advice I received was that there was no basis for action and that no damage had been suffered by the Outward Bound Trust.
The point to which I draw the attention of the House is the conduct of the Outward Bound Trust in handling this matter and the conduct of its solicitors, Messrs Humphreys and Co. of Bull Wharf, Redcliff street, Bristol, B 1 . I find it difficult to describe that firm of solicitors, on the basis of their handling of this, as other than grasping and deceitful. I believe that their conduct has been entirely unethical and ought to be reported to the Law Society. There was a totally undercover approach to the foundation in the search for a copy of the pamphlet. At no time was there a straightforward communication from the Outward Bound Trust, its director or chairman, simply to ask for this and say why they were asking for it, or to exress any concern.
The unorthodox and deceitful approach appeared to begin with Mr. Ian Fothergill, the director of the Outward Bound Trust. In an affidavit that he signed in 1986 Mr. Fothergill states that he instructed the trust's solicitors to try to obtain a copy of the material. Thereafter he states in the affidavit that in July 1986 Mrs. S. Nicholas, an employee of Humphreys and Co. telephoned the Dundee office of "Work-start Overseas" and asked to be sent some publicity material. She did not identify herself. Then, according to Mr. Fothergill, at the beginning of August 1986 a second telephone call was made by Mr. Humphreys giving the name Jenkins, asking to be sent publicity material. It is incredible that a firm of solicitors should behave in that way and moreover that they should do so at the behest of an organisation like the Outward Bound Trust, which we have always believed to be an entirely reputable organisation. Further attempts were made in other telephone calls on an anonymous basis.
The first that the foundation knew that a problem existed was when a formal letter arrived from Messrs Humphreys and Co. The solicitors for the foundation felt throughout their dealings with Messrs Humphreys and Co. that they appeared to be dealing with lawyers who were bent on trouble, who did not appear to want to hurry to a settlement. Was the behaviour of Humphreys and Co.

677
directly condoned by the Outward Bound Trust? Was it controlling the solicitors or were the solicitors simply taking hold and running with it?
Some clue about the nature of the solicitors can also be found in the fact that, when the settlement was reached, they filed costs of £7,057·15, which were deemed by the foundation's lawyer to be absurd. It was recommended that at further expense the matter should be taken before a taxing master, and that happened during the course of 1987. The amount was reduced to £4,483·21. That was a sign of the excessive approach adopted by that firm of solicitors, with or without the express approval of the Outward Bound Trust.
The question is not whether that was the right way for the Outward Bound Trust to behave towards the Community Projects Foundation. However, when Mr. Fothergill states in his affidavit that as director of the trust it is one of his responsibilities to follow up and prevent the use of the name "outward bound" by third parties who without authorisation use it to refer to activities that are unconnected with the trust, he should discharge that responsibility on a totally even-handed basis.
I discovered that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) described his impressions of the 1986 Labour party conference in an article in The House Magazine. He included a passage reading:
"So conference is really a multi-function event, a meeting with old friends, a test of the mood of the party, a rally, an Outward Bound course (I survived), a beer festival and a launching pad for egos and ideas".
I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not pursued by the Outward Bound Trust or its solicitors.
On 5 January 1987, an article appeared in The Independent by its labour correspondent, Mr. David Felton. It described courses run by Ashridge management college. It included a passage which referred to "outward-bound type activities" without using capital letters. I sought the views of the editor of The Independent and was later assured by Mr. Whittam Smith that he had not been sued by the Outward Bound Trust.
It appears that the Outward Bound Trust may be selective in whom it seeks to tackle in terms of any alleged infringement of its trade mark or familiar name. If that is so, it is an absolute disgrace, because in this case the trust was picking on a body that is almost entirely reliant on taxpayers' money: money given for a specific purpose, which has ended up in the hands of solicitors. That is a scandal, and it shall not go unnoticed by those who support the Outward Bound Trust—who include Her Majesty's Government.
My hon. Friend's Department funded the trust to the tune of some £13,000 in 1985. Presumably a similar amount was spent in 1986, and it has also received grant from the Scottish Office. I find it incredible that a body that is supposedly trying to do good work in the community should tackle another body with a similar purpose, as the trust did, to cause such a loss.
In raising the matter on the Adjournment, I seek not only to draw the matter to wider attention, but to suggest to my hon. Friend that, if the Government continue to fund the trust, they seek assurances on its future conduct and establish whether it will refrain from taking further action of this kind. I believe that justice would truly be done if a sum no greater and no less than £6,528·91—the amount of taxpayers' money needlessly wasted by the trust—were deducted from its future grant, and perhaps,
678
through the realms of Government, brought back into the coffers of the Community Projects Foundation, so that it could do its work as the Government intend.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on his success in obtaining the Adjournment debate. In the traditional role of Back Bencher, he has raised some serious issues.
Until as recently as July, I was the Minister responsible for the youth service. In that role, I became increasingly aware of the valuable part that voluntary youth organisations can play in assisting young people to become responsible adults. The ministerial brief for the youth service has now passed to my noble Friend the Baroness Hooper, but I am handling tonight's motion.
The debate provides me with an opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the voluntary youth organisations, and to reaffirm the Government's commitment to supporting and encouraging their work. My noble Friend's responsibilities in the Department of Education and Science include supervision of the grant aid of about £3 million a year which the Department makes available to 64 national voluntary youth organisations. At present, grant is given to support the headquarters administrative costs of those organisations, new developments in their work and the capital cost of regional and national projects.
There is a wide range of such organisations, national and local. Some, such as the major uniformed organisations, are household names, and most of us have experienced their useful influence, either directly or through our children. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of children and young people have some contact with a voluntary youth organisation in their lives, and that at any one time those organisations reach 6 million young members and users. About half a million adult volunteers are generally recognised to be involved in their work.
Some of the household names among those organisations are particularly famous; some are less well known, but they have a very large membership. Others — the Outward Bound trust is one — have established a reputation for undertaking a particular type of challenging work with young people, and, in some cases, with adults.
It is for the trust and other voluntary bodies to define the essence of their work and the routes that they believe will best lead to success in working with young people. Each organisation has an individual approach, but one element of this work is taking young people away from their day-to-day concerns and facing them with challenge. Those challenges have often been in the natural environment — trekking, mountaineering, orienteering and learning survival skills.
One of the keys to the success of these organisations is that young people are given opportunities to think about their experiences and achievements as individuals and as a team. This helps to increase understanding, confidence and motivation. Increasingly, different challenges are being introduced, including those that arise from giving social service in hospitals, homes for the elderly and disabled, and work with other young people.
I did not detect in my hon. Friend"s remarks a wish to call into question the value of the Outward Bound Trust's work. What I have said shows the value that is placed by

679
the Government on the work of that trust and other organisations working in like sectors and, more generally, our support for development, in local authority and voluntary sectors, of the youth service and of constructive activities that increase young people's confidence, motivation and skills.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot offer a qualified opinion about the use by one organisation of a term that is directly or indirectly associated with another. That is not a matter for Ministers.
My Department gives headquarters grants for specific purposes and on condition that they are applied solely for those purposes. The grant that my Department has made available to the Outward Bound Trust represents only a part of its total income—less than 10 per cent. of its income for headquarters operations.
680
We have yet to determine the total amount available for distribution for headquarters grants for the 1988–89 financial year, but we have begun to consider individual organisations' applications. We are currently considering the Outward Bound Trust's application for grant for 1988–89. The House will understand that I am unable to say what the result of that consideration will be. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider all relevant factors, including income that it receives from other sources.
I undertake to draw this debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

WALES

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department will collate figures for housing waiting lists in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Waiting lists are not compiled by local authorities on any uniform basis. There would be no merit in collating the figures centrally, since this would not provide meaningful information.

  Intensive Poultry Farming
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the past five years on the adverse environmental impact of the establishment of intensive poultry farming in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No comprehensive records are kept, but since 1984 approximately 14 representations have been received about the environmental impact of poultry farming.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of teaching of the Welsh language in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Encouraging progress has been made. Our proposals for including Welsh in the national curriculum are a further significant step forward.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has completed his consideration of the responses to the consultation exercises conducted by his Department on the question of Welsh language legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  After studying the responses I have concluded that both I and the Minister of State need to take further soundings on this sensitive issue. I propose early in the new year to meet representatives of several organisations to discuss the matter further. Additionally, I am setting up a working group with a membership spanning a very broad spectrum of Welsh life to be chaired by the Minister of State. This group will consider the more substantive comments submitted as part of the consultation exercise, seek any further views it feels necessary and advise me on the most constructive and appropriate action that I might take to foster the Welsh language.

  NHS (Consultants)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision exists in his Department's budget for the current financial year for the employment of outside consultants in relation to his Department's responsibility for the National Health Service in Wales.
  216
  Mr. Grist
  At the start of the financial year, £0·282 million was earmarked with hospital and community health services provision for consultancies for which there was an outstanding commitment to provide central funding. Since then a further £0·200 million has been made available for consultancies in respect of Gwynedd and Mid Glamorgan health authorities from funds released through slippage in the take-up (by authorities) of funds originally allocated for centrally financed service developments.

  Integration Operations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the European Commission with regard to the integration operations proposals put forward by Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys county councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Commission has not yet reached a decision on the integrated operations programme for Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys. I have fully endorsed the submission and I am pressing for an early decision.

  Community Hospital (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether staff of his Department have had discussions during the past three months with members or staff of Gwynedd health authority about the practicability of scheduling at an early date, the construction of a new community hospital to serve Dwyfor and north Meirionnydd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No discussions have taken place.

  Ysbym Madog
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department received an inquiry from the Gwynedd health authority concerning the legal status of Ysbym Madog, Porthmadog; and on what date his Department replied to such an inquiry.

  Mr. Grist
  No inquiry has been received.

  Health Authorities (Sale of Land)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued in relation to the sale of land or buildings by health authorities in Wales; and whether health authorities are allowed to retain the cash proceeds from such sales and to use them at their unfettered discretion.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities are required to conduct land transactions within the procedures set out in the National Health Service "Land Transactions Handbook" and the relevant Welsh health circulars. They are entitled to receive the proceeds from the sale of land or buildings no longer needed by the health service except in those cases where the property has become surplus because of a closure following a centrally funded scheme. In such cases the sale proceeds will not be kept by the district health authority, but will benefit the all-Wales provision. Health authorities may use the proceeds of sale for the provision of hospital and community health services for which they are responsible.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those hospitals in Wales for which closure proposals have been submitted to him for decision, after the appropriate local consultation procedures, during the past four years; and if he will indicate for each one whether closure was approved or rejected or whether a decision is still pending.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Welded Rail
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of continuous welded rail he expects to authorise, as envisaged in British Rail's corporate plan, in the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  British Rail's expenditure on continuous welded rail is a management matter for which they do not require ministerial consent. The mileage of track on which British Rail expects to complete work in each year is as follows:

  Mileage

  1988–89

  268

  1989–90

  249

  1990–91

  241

  1991–92

  228

  Railway Crossing, Criccieth
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what direct representations he has received from residents of the Criccieth area concerning the danger of the railway crossing at Criccieth; whether he has replied to these representations; if he has agreed to meet the county councils for the area to discuss this problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Representations have been received from the Criccieth Maes Railways Crossing Action Group that the existing Automatic Open Crossing should be programmed for immediate conversion to an Automatic Half-Barrier installation. The Department have replied to the effect that British Railways have primary responsibility for deciding what alterations should be made and when the works should take place. We have had no request to meet the county councils for the area.

  Motor Cycle Noise
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the Motor Cycle Noise Act.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are preparing two sets of regulations on motor cycle noise. The first, under the Motor Cycle Noise Act, will introduce controls on the sale of motor cycle silencers and exhausts. The second, an amendment to the Construction and Use Regulations, will bring into effect the provisions of directive 87/56/EEC, which sets tighter noise limits for motorcycles first used on or after 1 October 1990.
  218
  We expect to circulate both sets of regulations for comment early in the new year.

  A43 (Accidents)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personal injury accidents have occurred at the junction of the A43 trunk road with the unclassified road from Charlton to Evenley since the dual carriageway was opened on 20 August; and what action he proposes to take to improve visibility and reduce further accident risks.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There have been two personal injury accidents. The junction is of a type common throughout the country. It is well signed and has good visibility. Our agents, Northamptonshire county council, have been instructed to monitor the situation and examine whether there is any scope for improvement.

  Traffic (Lowestoft)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make public the findings of the Maunsell report into Lowestoft's traffic problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are considering the Maunsell report following the consultant's study of traffic movement on A12 in Lowestoft. I shall make an announcement about the findings and our response as soon as possible.

  Special Types General Order
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends further to amend the Special Types General Order.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. I have signed an amending order to modify the new rules set out in Statutory Instrument 1987 No. 1327. This extends the time for changing existing vehicles used for carrying abnormal indivisible loads. These will now be permitted until 1 October 1989 to operate with their existing axle arrangements. For those weighing up to 80 tonnes gross weight the maximum axle weight will be reduced to 13·5 tonnes. From 1 October 1989 the maximum axle weight for these vehicles will be further reduced to 12·5 tonnes and the new rules on axle arrangements will apply.

  Railways Inspectorate (Chief Inspecting Officer Post)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the recently advertised post of chief inspecting officer at the Railways Inspectorate has been set at one grade lower than that of the current holder of the post.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  When unified grading was introduced into the enlarged open structure of the Civil Service, the post of Chief Inspector of Railways was assigned to grade 4. Grade 4 posts are, however, usually responsible for the management of grade 5 officers. There are no such posts in the chief inspector's command. The present chief inspector retires next year and this represented an opportunity to consider the grading of his post. Since it does not involve the management of other senior staff, it was decided that it should formally be grade 5.
  219
  There is no intention, implied or otherwise, to diminish the post of the chief inspecting officer or the statutory responsibilities of the post. I am fully conscious of the need to appoint a candidate of the highest quality to carry out these important duties. The advertisement makes it clear, therefore, that a higher salary will be considered for a candidate with exceptional qualifications or experience.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hillmorton
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Hillmorton in Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Holy Loch.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister how many council houses and flats have been sold to their tenants since May 1979 in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  More than I million tenants have bought their own homes since May 1979.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer of 30 November, what specific plans there are to cut the length of time it takes to process new titles in the Land Registry; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In his response to the Adjournment debate on 30 November 1987, at columns 741–44 my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, set out specific plans to meet the Land Registry's commitments and to contain, and eventually reduce, the backlog of outstanding casework, including new titles.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General who is to be the successor to Mr. Roderic Bowen QC as Welsh Social Security Commissioner; and if he will be capable of chairing hearings undertaken in the Welsh language.

  The Attorney-General
  Oral hearings continue to be held in Cardiff on a regular basis to deal with appeals which arise in Wales. A commissioner, based in the London office, is available to conduct oral hearings in the Welsh language should the need arise. The Lord Chancellor has no plans at present to appoint a further social security commissioner to be based in Wales.

  Family Law Reform Act 1987
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) 23 July,Official Report, column 291, how the Government have derived the figure of £3·5 million a year as the cost of implementing part II of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, and if he will give a breakdown of this figure.

  The Attorney-General: The figure of £3·5 million is derived from the impact on the county courts and on the legal aid fund of the increased rights given to both unmarried parents by part 11 of the Act. The breakdown of costs is as follows:

  £million

  Court services and judiciary

  0·4

  Services of probation officers

  0·6

  Legal aid

  2·5

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Books and Equipment
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what system he has for ensuring that the provision made by him in grants to local education authorities for books and equipment in schools is being allocated by schools and local education authorities for those purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Education support grant is allocated to authorities for specific purposes, including the provision of books and equipment for GCSE. Grant may be claimed only on expenditure which an authority's auditors are satisfied has been made for that purpose. However, it is for individual authorities and schools to decide on the priority to be given to books and equipment within expenditure supported by block grant.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the numbers of students registered at universities in the United Kingdom from countries outside the EEC, defined by country of origin, in each of the years since 1978.

  Mr. Jackson
  The required information for 1986 for countries with more than 250 students is shown in the table. Information for all countries could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In addition, there were 7,000
  221
  students from other non-EC countries. Information for earlier years has been published in "Statistics of Students from abroad in the United Kingdom", by the British Council, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Students from abroad in United Kingdom universities

  1986

  Hong Kong

  4,729

  United States

  4,202

  Malaysia

  3,788

  Singapore

  1,606

  Nigeria

  1,493

  Norway

  1,104

  Iraq

  1,061

  Algeria

  1,059

  Iran

  1,044

  Canada

  952

  Cyprus

  719

  China

  716

  Kenya

  688

  India

  650

  Pakistan

  634

  Saudi Arabia

  575

  Japan

  444

  Brazil

  419

  Egypt

  419

  Zambia

  392

  Australia

  363

  Jordan

  356

  Cameroon

  336

  Lebanon

  330

  Sri Lanka

  324

  South Africa

  316

  Indonesia

  286

  Bangladesh

  280

  Tanzania

  261

  Total

  29,546

  Adult Literacy
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has available to him regarding the standards of adult literacy in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  Few adults are unable to read or write at all, but there are a large number who have problems with reading, writing and spelling. In a report recently published by the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit, it is reported that 13 per cent. of 23-year-olds who were interviewed in the National Child Development Study survey in 1981, said they had some problems with reading, writing or numeracy. If this were typical of all adults, an estimated 5·5 million people in England and Wales could have difficulties with literacy and numeracy. The Government provide help through the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit which acts as a central focus to assist LEAs and voluntary organisations to establish new basic skills provision and develop existing provision. The grant to the unit for the current year is £2,170,000.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning adult literacy.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not received any such representations during the present Session.

  CERN
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the review of CERN has 222
  yet been completed; if a decision has yet been reached on the United Kingdom membership of CERN; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the CERN review group, chaired by Professor Abragam, has completed its work and that its report will be available before the CERN council meeting on 17 December. The report's recommendations will be taken into account in reaching any decision.

  School Meals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to provide information as to how many children living in Lancashire are in receipt of free school meals; and what percentage of Lancashire school children this represents.

  Mr. Dunn
  The total number of free school meals taken in Lancashire on the day of the annual school meals census in October 1986 was 44,017, or 21 per cent. of full-time equivalent pupils registered at maintained schools.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the total number of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-to-teacher ratio in primary schools in Cleveland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dunn
  The number of pupils on roll and the pupil-teacher ratio in maintained primary schools in Cleveland each year since 1979 were as follows:

  January each year

  Pupils1

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  1979

  65,386

  23·4

  1980

  62,770

  23·1

  1981

  60,446

  23·1

  1982

  57,321

  22·4

  1983

  54,395

  21·8

  1984

  53,505

  22·1

  1985

  53,106

  22·2

  1986

  53,270

  22·3

  1987

  53,755

  22·1

  1 Full-time equivalent pupils. Part-time pupils counted as 0·5.

  "Educational Reform"
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of the booklet "Educational Reform" have been printed; to whom they are to be distributed; and what is the total cost of the publication itemised by costs of(a) printing, (b) preparation at all stages, (c) distribution, including postage, and (d) other costs.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  500,000 copies of the booklet have been printed. Individual copies have been sent to all headteachers and clerks of governing bodies in England; to all right hon. and hon. Members and to some noble Lords; to local education authorities, chief education officers, examining bodies, teacher unions, examining groups, employers' groups and others known to have an interest and who requested copies of the consultation documents. Further copies are available on request from my Department.

  The cost is as follows:

  223

  £

  (a) Printing

  46,450

  (b) Design

  4,250

  (c) Postage

  45,560

  (d) Other costs

  Nil

  Total

  196,260

  1 Unit cost 19·25p.

DEFENCE

  Foreign Service Allowance
  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations took place with the Retired Officers Association over the replacement of foreign service allowance from I January 1988 with a cost of living allowance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Cost of living addition was agreed after extensive negotiations between the official and trade union sides of the national Whitley Council in 1985 and 1986. It was announced within my Department in a Defence Council instruction on 2 May 1986 and is being introduced progressively worldwide. Transitional arrangements were included in the agreement for staff whose allowances were reduced.

  The Retired Officers Association is not a member of the Council of Civil Service Unions and does not have independent negotiating rights. However, like all civil servants, including non-union members, members of the ROA are subject to such nationally negotiated agreements. The new rates for staff in Germany result from a recent Treasury inspection. They were agreed following negotiations with local trade union and staff representatives. The local representative of the ROA was given the opportunity to present the association's views to the inspector.

  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of how much retired officers filling service appointments as re-employed officers will on average lose in a year as a result of the replacement of tax-free foreign service allowance with cost of living allowance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under Inland Revenue rules, overseas allowances can only be regarded as tax-free if they compensate for necessary and actual additional expenditure. One of the major features of the cost of living addition (COLA) provisions is to pay child provision only to officers with eligible dependent children whereas foreign service allowance included an element for a child in the basic rate, whether or not the officer had dependent children.

  This change will result in any civil servant without children, including retired officers, receiving the basic rate of COLA without child provision. In Germany the new rate of COLA for this category of staff in the grade equivalent to RO3 is approximately £760 per annum less than the old FSA rate, due mainly to this change.

  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average annual payment of foreign service allowance to(a) a young married officer with young children and (b) retired officers filling service appointments as re-employed officers who no longer have
  224
  dependent children; and what will be the average annual payments of cost of living allowance for these examples after 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The old and new rates in Germany payable to a married civilian officer with two children compared to that for a married officer with no children, for the grade RO3 in which the majority of retired officers fall, are:

  Old £

  New £

  Band 4 Civilian Officers without dependent children

  2,630

  1,869

  Band 4 Civilian Officers with 2 dependent children at post

  3,014

  4,212

  Retired Officers (Re-employment)
  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to preserve the pay and conditions of retired officers filling service appointments as re-employed officers, after the introduction of cost of living allowance on 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Foreign service allowance is being replaced by the cost of living addition (COLA) which came into effect on 9 January 1986. COLA is being introduced progressively worldwide as individual countries are inspected under the allowances procedure. The COLA agreement applies to all UK-based civilians serving overseas and it is not within the power of my Department to exempt any of our staff from the terms of this agreement.

  Low-level Flying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has anything to add to his replies to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 10 November,Official Report, column 157, and the hon. Member for Workington on 16 November, Official Report, column 451, on the number of RAF fast jets lost in low-level accidents in the United Kingdom and surrounding waters in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information given in my answer to the hon. Member on 16 November is correct. The answer on 10 November to a question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the number of aircraft and airmen lost during Royal Air Force fast jet operations involving low-flying training in the United Kingdom and surrounding waters in 1985–87 omitted to mention one aircraft loss which occured in 1986, but had not at the time of the answer been identified in records as occurring during a low-flying excerise over the sea. No fatalities were involved.

  TR-1 Reconnaissance Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with the Lockheed company concerning the possible purchase of the TR-1 reconnaissance aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Holy Loch (Servicing)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any request or notification from the United States authorities relating to the replenishment or servicing of United States Navy Tomahawk cruise-missile armed submarines at Holy Loch.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Any discussions of this nature would be confidential between the two Governments.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the European fighter aircraft is expected to be procured as a one-for-one replacement for Royal Air Force Jaguar and Phantom aircraft: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on 8 December at column 149.

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to respond to the report by the National Audit Office on the loss of public money involved in the sale of Royal Ordnance factories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I understand that the Committee of Public Accounts examined the accounting officer on 9 December on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the costs and benefits of the sale of Royal Ordnance plc. Once the Committee has reported to the House on its conclusions, the Government's response to those conclusions will be given, in the customary manner, by means of a Treasury minute.

  Radioactive Contaminants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many armed forces exercises involving radioactive contamination have taken place at Buchan since 1981;

  (2) if he will make a statement about armed forces exercises involving radioactive contamination at Buchan.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our policy to discuss the locations where exercises involving the use of radioactive contaminants are held.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT (United States Forces)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss to the Exchequer of exempting maintenance and equipment contracts for United States forces in Britain from value added tax; under what authority this is done; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information on revenue forgone is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Relief from the United Kingdom duties and taxes is afforded to United States visiting forces under the authority of an exchange of notes between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America which was made in 1952 and which supplements earlier agreements including the mutual defence assistance agreement of 1950.

  Friendly Societies (Political Donations)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and which organisations lodging accounts with the Director of Friendly Societies show political donations.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that an answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he does not include defence procurement expenditure in tables showing identifiable public expenditure by function in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Major
  Defence procurement expenditure is deemed to have been incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole and it is, therefore, not appropriate to allocate it to an individual country in tables showing identifiable public expenditure by function and territory.

  Television (Public Service Messages)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 543, what information the Central Office of Information has as to the number of viewers reached by public service messages on BBC and independent television, respectively; what specific steps he is taking to achieve greater audience penetration amongst those who watch predominantly BBC channels; if any fee is payable to the BBC for this service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Central Office of Information receives regular reports from the BBC and independent television companies detailing the times at which public service messages were transmitted and the channels or companies which broadcast the material. However, this information does not include audience figures and it would need a disproportionate use of resources in the Central Office of Information to research individual audience figures for each public service message. In the 12 months to the end of September 1987, the independent television companies and the BBC reported details of more than 16,000 transmissions of Government-sponsored public service messages.

  Monthly guidance is given to encourage the greater use of topical public service messages, but transmission must be at the discretion of the broadcasting organisations. No fee is payable to the BBC or ITV companies for the transmission of public service messages.

  Housing Bill
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of reissuing the Housing Bill, excluding printing; and of that how much was the postage cost for distribution.

  Mr. Brooke
  The cost of re-issuing the Housing Bill (excluding printing) cannot be determined exactly without incurring disproportionate cost, but it is estimated to have been around £300, of which some £175 would have been for postage and carriage.

  EC (Budget Council)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Community Budget Council meeting on 9 December.
  228
  Mr. Brooke
  The Budget Council met in Brussels on 9 December. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council held further discussions on the establishment of a 1988 draft budget. I again made clear that any draft budget must respect the own resources ceiling. The Council adjourned without reaching agreement.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 26 November,Official Report, column 293, how many jobs in manufacturing industry in Scotland were created for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Estimates of employees in employment in Scottish manufacturing industries, along with comparable estimates for the service sector and total employees in Scotland, are as follows:

  Employees in employment in Scotland: thousands, mid-year

  (Changes on a year earlier in brackets)

  Manufacturing

  Services

  Total

  1975

  645 (-38)

  1,158 (+30)

  2,076 (-8)

  1976

  615 (-30)

  1,182 (+24)

  2,071 (-5)

  1977

  622 (+7)

  1,182 (-)

  2,071 (-)

  1978

  611 (-11)

  1,190 (+8)

  2,067 (-4)

  1979

  604 (-7)

  1,224 (+34)

  2,102 (+35)

  1980

  564 (-40)

  1,244 (+20)

  2,082 (-20)

  1981

  510 (-54)

  1,233 (-11)

  2,002 (-80)

  1982

  477 (-33)

  1,228 (-5)

  1,950 (-52)

  1983

  444 (-33)

  1,216 (-12)

  1,899 (-51)

  1984

  434 (-10)

  1,231 (+15)

  1,901 (+2)

  1985

  430 (-4)

  1,244 (+13)

  1,904 (+3)

  1986

  410 (-20)

  1,260 (+16)

  1,888 (-16)

  1987

  398 (-12)

  1,278 (+18)

  1,890 (+2)

  Changes between

  1975–87

  -247

  +120

  -186

  1979–87

  -206

  +54

  -212

  1983–87

  -46

  +62

  -9

  Some of the decrease in the figures for manufacturing will be the result of the reclassification of jobs such as industrial cleaning, catering, computer services and road haulage previously done by manufacturers' own employees and now done by sub-contractors. This developing feature of our economy has the effect of exaggerating the extent of the move from manufacturing to service sector employment. Employees in employmment in the service sector in Scotland increased between 1976 and 1987.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from voluntary and conservation bodies concerning proposals for the reform of eligibility criteria for the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received a number of representations from voluntary and conservation bodies about the community programme eligibility criteria.

  Benefit Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many additional support staff for unemployment benefit adjudication officers have been appointed, following recommendations of the chief adjudication officer's annual report.

  Mr. Lee
  The chief adjudiction officer first recommended an increase in support staff for adjudication officers 230
  in his annual report for 1984–85. Since the period covered by that report, my Department has conducted an internal survey into the organisation of the adjudication service. In the two years since that survey some 90 additional clerical and secretarial staff have been introduced to support the work of adjudication officers.

  Passive Smoking
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to protect employees in their places of work against the consequences of passive smoking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are awaiting the fourth report of the independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, which is expected about the end of the year. I understand that the report will cover the health risks associated with passive smoking, on which the committee made an interim statement earlier this year. We shall then be able to consider any further action that may be needed on smoking in the workplace. We are continuing to encourage employers to limit the exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke at work on a voluntary basis, for example by workplace agreements to limit smoking to particular areas or to segregate smokers and non-smokers.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people employed in national dock labour scheme ports; and what information he has as to what proportion this constitutes of the total number employed in all ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The forthcoming report on manpower in the United Kingdom ports industry, soon to be published jointly by the British Ports Association and the National Association of Port Employers, will show that, of around 40,000 people employed in United Kingdom ports on 20 March 1987, about 28,000 (70 per cent.) worked in scheme ports.

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has concerning section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  Mr. Fowler
  A consultation document has been published today. It explains the changes required in relation to section 51, sets out in detail the other legislation under consideration and seeks, by 29 February, views on the extent to and manner in which the legislation should be amended. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library.

  Restart Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures showing the number of unemployed people who have been issued with invitations to attend restart interviews since the beginning of the scheme, the total number of interviews conducted during the same period and a breakdown of the difference between these two totals, estimating(a) those who ceased to be unemployed prior to receiving the invitation, (b) those who left the register between the receipt of the invitation and the interview date and (c)

  231
  other reasons for non-attendance; and if he will also provide an estimate of how many of these people would be likely to leave the register if the normal outflow from the unemployment register continued at pre-restart levels.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Since the start of the restart programme, 3,286,000 people have been invited and 2,558,000 have attended an interview. It is not possible to break down the difference between these two totals in the manner requested. However, among those people invited for interview who do not in the event attend for interview are:

  (a) people who cease to be unemployed shortly before or after receiving their invitation;

  (b) people who are about to start work;

  (c) people who cease claiming unemployment benefits for other reasons.

  We do not know how many people ultimately find work or other opportunities as a result of a restart interview.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures showing(a) the average duration of unemployment of those who have attended restart interviews and (b) the proportion of restart interviewees who remain on the unemployment register (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) three months and (iv) six months after a restart interview.

  1 June 1986 to 9 October 1986

  10 October 1986 to 8 January 1987

  9 January 1987 to 9 April 1987

  10 April 1987 to 26 June 1987

  29 June 1987 to 25 September 1987

  People counselled under restart

  366,451

  412,600

  506,046

  409,436

  612,264

  Referals

  Job

  37,930

  34,906

  38,669

  38,128

  52,181

  Community Programme

  56,883

  48,195

  43,247

  30,102

  45,040

  Jobclubs

  17,278

  23,358

  36,054

  39,520

  59,057

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  16,800

  17,493

  20,087

  16,047

  22,732

  Restart Courses

  63,149

  68,095

  57,801

  19,655

  25,316

  Training

  45,327

  51,349

  59,267

  74,305

  101,022

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  9,628

  11,357

  14,786

  7,149

  11,198

  Voluntary Work

  Employment rehabilitation Centres

  2,883

  132

  1,726

  934

  1,229

  Jobstart Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures showing the total number of payments made under the jobstart scheme, together with a breakdown of the wages of jobs covered by the scheme in the same format used in the reply given on 18 April 1986,Official Report, columns 527–28; and if he will show the average duration of jobstart payments.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 7 November 1987]: Since the introduction of jobstart, 18,107 people have been accepted on to the allowance. The total sum paid out under jobstart up to 27 November 1987 amounts to £6·8 million. The most recent figures available as to the breakdown of wages of jobs covered by the scheme are as follows:

  1 July 1986 to 25 September 1987

  Wages (£ a week)

  Number

  0 to 39

  642

  40 to 49

  1,101

  50 to 59

  2,521

  60 to 69

  4,104

  232
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Most of those interviewed under the restart programme are invited to interview after six, 12 or 18 months unemployment. The information requested on the length of time spent unemployed after a restart interview is not available.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures, showing the outcome of interviews conducted under the restart scheme, covering the period from the introduction 01 the scheme, in the same format used in the reply given on 6 November 1986,Official Report, columns 523–24, together with a breakdown of these figures to show outcomes for each three-month or similar time period.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: The number of people interviewed under the restart programme and the numbers referred to the various menu items, broken down into three-month periods since the national inception of restart, are shown in the table.

  We do not know how many of those selected for interview are ultimately placed in a job or in a training scheme or programme.

  Wages (£ a week)

  Number

  70 to 79

  7,543

  Total

  15,911

  Information on the average duration of jobstart payments is not available.

  YTS (Statistics)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Employment how many persons have had a benefit penalty applied to them by an adjudication officer for refusing to enter a YTS course or for leaving a YTS course early, for each month since December 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of people who have had their supplementary benefit reduced for refusing a youth training scheme place, or for leaving courses early, in each month since December 1983, are as follows.

  For 4 Weeks ending:

  Refusal of Place

  Early Leavers

  1983

  20 December

  168

  789

  233

  For 4 Weeks ending:

  Refusal of Place

  Early Leavers

  1984

  17 January

  191

  733

  14 February

  265

  1,362

  13 March

  165

  1,229

  10 April

  88

  1,093

  8 May

  63

  895

  5 June

  47

  853

  3 July

  53

  806

  31 July

  36

  627

  28 August

  27

  462

  25 September

  25

  502

  23 October

  40

  649

  20 November

  42

  716

  18 December

  32

  579

  1985

  15 January

  35

  357

  12 February

  56

  766

  12 March

  50

  607

  9 April

  34

  469

  7 May

  36

  429

  4 June

  22

  405

  2 July

  17

  401

  30 July

  18

  318

  27 August

  10

  267

  24 September

  12

  371

  22 October

  48

  426

  19 November

  29

  496

  17 December

  22

  405

  1986

  14 January

  9

  217

  11 February

  25

  475

  11 March

  28

  526

  8 April

  20

  375

  6 May

  n/a

  555

  3 June

  17

  322

  1 July

  20

  318

  29 July

  17

  282

  26 August

  6

  234

  23 September

  16

  346

  21 October

  16

  507

  18 November

  25

  428

  16 December

  25

  392

  1987

  13 January

  25

  219

  10 February

  22

  350

  10 March

  17

  403

  7 April

  10

  306

  5 May

  3

  106

  2 June

  6

  80

  30 June

  9

  65

  28 July

  4

  65

  25 August

  3

  80

  22 September

  2

  64

  20 October

  1

  81

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Recidivism
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current rate of recidivism among former prisoners; and what was the rate for each of the previous four years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information relates to sentenced prisoners reconvicted within two years of discharge from a prison department establishment and is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and 234
  Wales" copies of which are in the Library. Table 8(a) of the latest issue (Cm. 210) gives information about those discharged in 1983 and earlier years.

  Sheltered Housing (Fires)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatal fires there were in local authority homes for the elderly or sheltered housing in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information readily available is given in the table. Fire statistics for 1986 will be available shortly.

  Fires, and deaths in fires, attended by local authority fire brigades in certain locations1

  United Kingdom

  Number

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Elderly persons' homes1

  Fire deaths2

  3

  7

  5

  Fires resulting in these deaths of which, in local authority

  3

  4

  5

  premises3

  2

  1

  2

  Sheltered housing1

  Fire deaths

  5

  4

  6

  Fires resulting in these deaths of which, in local authority

  5

  4

  5

  premises3

  1

  1

  —

  1 Information on location is based on brigades' descriptions of the premises involved. Figures for "sheltered housing" exclude premises described by brigades as old peoples" dwellings (flats, bungalows, etc) but not specifically as sheltered housing.

  2 Figures published annually in "Fire Statistics United Kingdom" (Table 32 of the volume for 1985).

  3 Fires readily identifiable from fire reports as occurring in local authority premises. It is possible that some of the other fatal fires above were also in local authority premises.

  Home Defence Exercises
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of local authorities in the major home defence exercises planned for September-October 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have indicated to local authorities our belief that participation should be limited to the provision of guidance by county emergency planning officers on any local authority matters which may arise.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were lodged against police officers yearly, since 1979; and of them(a) how many complaints were withdrawn, (b) how many complaints were upheld, (c) how many complaints were rejected and (d) how many prosecutions were brought against police officers as a result of a complaint.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about complaints made against the police and their outcome is contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Further informaton can be found in the annual reports of the Police Complaints Board or, since 1985, the Police Complaints Authority. These reports are available in the Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report how many firearms, of what calibres and types (a) civilian held, (b) police owned, and (c) armed forces owned, which have been (i) stolen and (ii) recovered in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the number of burglaries and thefts recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been stolen, by principal weapon type and location of incident, is published in tables 3.12 and 3.13 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1986" (Cm 233) copies of which are in the Library. Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of weapons stolen in these incidents, on their ownership or on the number subsequently recovered. The information included for thefts and for burglaries from military establishments is thought to be incomplete because such offences are not necessarily reported to and recorded by the police. Comprehensive figures for thefts from the armed forces are not readily available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made any estimate of the number of lives which will be saved annually as a result of his recently announced measures for firearms control, and how many would arise(a) from the reduced use of firearms by the legal holders of such weapons and (b) from the reduced use of firearms in the commission of other criminal acts which end in murder or manslaughter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible to estimate how many lives might be saved by the Government's proposals for new firearms controls. The Government believe, however, that the new measures will reduce the risk of firearms misuse, which the Hungerford shootings and other recent incidents have shown to be unacceptably high.

  Murder and Manslaughter (Firearms)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons have been the victims of murder and manslaughter in cases where a firearm was used which was not known to have been legally held in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many persons have been the victims of manslaughter or murder by persons legally holding firearms, in each of the last 10 years for which records are available; how many of these murders were committed by persons related to the victim; and if he will provide a breakdown of the type of firearms used in each year;

  (3) how many persons have been the victims of manslaughter or murder by legally held firearms stolen from their owners in each of the last 10 years for which figures were available; in how many of these cases such deaths occurred when other crimes were being attempted or carried out; and what information he has as to the type of weapons used in each year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on offences of homicide by shooting and on the type of firearm involved is published annually in tables 4.3 and 3.6 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" copies of which are in the Library; the latest issue (Cm. 233) gives figures for 1976–86. The available information on the relationship between victim and suspect for all homicides by shooting 236
  and on homicides by shooting in furtherance of theft or gain is given in the tables. Information on whether the firearms involved were legally held, illegally held or stolen is not available centrally; corresponding information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide where the victim was related to the principal suspect by type of firearm

  Number of offences

  Year

  Total

  Type of firearm

  Long-barrelled shotgun

  Sawn-off shotgun

  Pistol

  Rifle

  Other

  1982

  12

  9

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1983

  22

  14

  2

  5

  1

  —

  1984

  19

  19

  1

  9

  —

  —

  1985

  29

  10

  2

  2

  5

  —

  1986

  23

  15

  5

  3

  —

  —

  1 As at 1 June 1987.

  Table 2

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide where the victim was related to the principal suspect by type of firearm

  Number of offences

  Year

  Total

  Type of firearm

  Long-barrelled shotgun

  Sawn-off shotgun

  Pistol

  Rifle

  Other

  1982

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1983

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1984

  6

  3

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1985

  6

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1986

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 As at 1 June 1987.

  Mrs. Fatima Mohamed Gulaid
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations and lion. Members who have made representations to his Department concerning the proposed deportation of Mrs. Fatima Mohamed Gulaid.

  Mr. Renton
  No representations from organizations have been received about the proposal to remove Mrs. Fatima Mohamed Gulaid following refusal of leave to enter. Representations have been received from the hon. Member, from the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). On 11 November an early-day motion was tabled and signed by eight hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. We expect to reach a decision on the case shortly.

  Winson Green Prison
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many female prison officers have been allocated to the male prisoners' wings at Winson Green prison under the fresh start programme;

  (2) if the duties of the female prison officers at Winson Green prison, Birmingham, include supervision of slopping out by male prisoners; and if he will make a statement.
  237
  Mr. John Patten
  Six additional female prison officers were allocated to Birmingham prison last month. Part of their duties involves working with male officers in male prisoners' wings, for example to lock and unlock prisoners. The arrangements take account of the need to preserve privacy and decency.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Stock Exchange (Deregulation)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has of the effects of deregulation upon the turnover of foreign investment on the stock exchange; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Such figures as are available about foreign investment on the stock exchange are contained in the autumn edition of its publication "Quality of Markets Quarterly".

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has of the effects of deregulation on the average commission rate on share dealings on the stock exchange; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The stock exchange, in the autumn 1987 edition of its report "Quality of Markets Quarterly", has given its most recent estimate about the trends in commissions since big bang, namely 27 October 1986.

  Departmental Establishment (Wales)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was and is the total establishment number of the Department of Trade and Industry in Wales for each year since 1970.

  Mr. Atkins
  Staff-in-post figures for the Department of Trade and Industry in Wales for each year since 1976 were as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1976

  1,608

  1 April 1977

  2,262

  1 April 1978

  2,262

  1 April 1979

  2,395

  1 April 1980

  2,270

  1 April 1981

  2,194

  1 April 1982

  2,060

  1 April 1983

  1,979

  1 April 1984

  1,788

  1 April 1985

  1,770

  1 April 1986

  1,769

  1 April 1987

  1,727

  Figures prior to 1976 are not available. The figures in the table do not represent a comparative series because of machinery of Government changes.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to make the description of homes for sale given by estate agents in their publicity material subject to the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act.

  Mr. Maude
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Textiles (Turkey)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the results of the European Community's recent negotiations with Turkey for renewal of a voluntary restraint arrangement for textiles; if he will publish the agreed import limits in the Official Report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Auditors
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for implementing the European Commission eighth company law directive on the regulation of auditors.

  Mr. Maude
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a note setting out the basis on which the Government intend to implement this directive. This follows detailed consultation. Legislation will be included in the next Companies Bill.

  The main points are as follows: the directive governs the supervision of auditors engaged on the audit of the annual accounts of companies where such audit is required by company law. Our intention is that the overall responsibility for this supervision should be exercised by the Secretary of State, but the detailed implementation will be entrusted to recognised professional bodies. However, the legislation will be designed to enable him to transfer these responsibilities to a general auditing council or some other supervisory body, if, in due course, he considers it appropriate to do so. Under the proposed system, the ability to practise as an auditor will depend on the fulfilment of appropriate education and training requirements to be administered by recognised professional bodies according to standards approved by the Secretary of State, or on individual approval by the Secretary of State. In addition, practising auditors, including those individually approved by the Secretary of State, should be designated "registered auditors" and subject to detailed supervision by a body approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State. Any body seeking approval as a monitoring body should have to demonstrate the adequacy of its rules and procedures against broad criteria set out in the legislation.

  We propose to keep statutory provisions on the edcuation and training requirements for the recognition of professional qualifications to the minimum necessary for compliance with the Directive. This will give the recognised bodies the maximum flexibility to develop new courses and make other adjustments in the light of changing circumstances.

  In fulfilling the directive's requirement to safeguard the independence of auditors, we believe that the emphasis should be on strengthening professional guidance rather than statutory requirements. However, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the guidance is adequate before approving a monitoring body. We also intend that companies other than small companies should have to disclose fees paid to their auditors for non-audit services.

  We also propose to remove the existing statutory prohibition on corporate auditors. The basis on which incorporation should be allowed poses some questions and I welcome the recent announcement that representatives of the accounting profession are setting up a joint working

  239
  party to consider them. We shall want to take account of their conclusions before putting forward detailed proposals. I do not believe, however, that the need to safeguard independence necessarily rules out outside ownership of shares. I hope, therefore, that the working group will be able to reach agreement on ways of safeguarding independence while allowing an appropriate degree of flexibility in the way incorporation is permitted.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake a feasibility study into relocating the Patent Office to Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make it his policy to transfer the Patent Office in London to Yorkshire and give consideration to finding a site in Harrogate.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My officials together with officials from the Welsh Office and the PSA are currently examining the feasibility of relocating the Patent Office to Cardiff or Newport. These locations already house large DTI establishments and locating the Patent Office close to them would yield significant operational and financial benefits. I, therefore, have no plans to look elsewhere at the moment.

  Plymouth
  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the European Commission to give its agreement to the continuation of the intermediate area status of the Plymouth travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Commission's agreement to intermediate area status for Plymouth was for a three-year period from November 1984. I am pleased to confirm that, on the basis of a submission by my Department supporting the case made by the local councils, the Commission has no objection to Plymouth's intermediate area status being extended for a further four-year period.

THE ARTS

  British Library (Hebrew Collection)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will issue a direction to the British Library Board under section 5 of the British Library Act 1972 to compile and publish a catalogue of its collection of Hebrew printed books.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the British Library Board to determine the priorities for its cataloguing programme. The library hopes to publish early next year a second supplement to its original 19th century Hebrew catalogue.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he is satisfied with access for disabled people in wheelchairs to all museums and galleries for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Luce
  I am satisfied that the museums and galleries for which I am responsible are fully aware of the needs of disabled people and are doing all they can to meet those 240
  needs. This includes improving access in existing buildings and planning for the needs of the disabled in new buildings.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he is satisfied that the extension to the National gallery and the Tate gallery of the north in Liverpool will provide adequate access for disabled people.

  Mr. Luce
  I am satisfied that the new extension to the National gallery has been designed to provide a full range of facilities, including adequate access, for disabled people, both visitors and staff. Similarly, I am satisfied that the needs of disabled people, including that of adequate access, have been given particular consideration in the planning and refurbishment of the Tate gallery building in Liverpool.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he is satisfied with the access for disabled people to the new Turner gallery at the Tate; and whether he has received any complaints from disabled people or organisations on this issue.

  Mr. Luce
  The needs of disabled people were taken into account when the Tate gallery drew up the design brief for the Turner gallery. The director and trustees of the Tate recognise, however, that further improvements need to be made, particularly within the building. They are taking steps to rectify the situation. I have not received any representations from disabled people or organisations on this matter.

ENERGY

  Coal Mining
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he has any plans to repeal the restriction on deep coal mines which prevents them from employing more than 30 people;

  (2) if he intends to abolish the royalty that must be paid to the National Coal Board on every ton of coal mined by private opencast pits;

  (3) if he has any plans to remove the restrictions on marketing to which private coal mines are subject;

  (4) if he has any plans to seek to reform legislation relating to the licensing of private coal mines;

  (5) if he intends to facilitate worker buy-outs of local pits by National Coal Board employees.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Under existing legislation the British Coal Corporation is responsible for the issue of licences for private mining operations and is entitled to levy a royalty on coal produced under licence. There are no present plans for changes to that legislation, but the Government are considering the possibility of changing the statutory limits on both deep mined and opencast licensed production. The corporation is considering whether there is scope for increased flexibility and transparency within that legislation. The corporation does not require licensed coal to be delivered to it except by agreement with the licensee. Within existing legislation British Coal is prepared to consider proposals by former employees to establish worker co-operatives.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether plans by the Central Electricity
  241
  Generating Board for new fossil fuel power stations at coastal sites in the United Kingdom include flue gas desulphurisation based on sea water scrubbing.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The sea water scrubbing process is at an early stage of development and there are no present plans to use it at proposed new fossil power stations.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy that the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation proposed for three coal-fired power stations and the programme to retrofit low nitrogen oxide burners at the 12 major stations operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board will be retained following the privatisation of the industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government will expect existing commitments entered into by the Central Electricity Generating Board to be fulfilled following privatisation of the industry.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the present preferred method for the transport of civil plutonium from Sellafield to Japan; and what safety tests have been conducted, or are planned, on both emergency planning and container packaging for this transport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the present preferred option for the proposed transport of reprocessed plutonium to Japan is shipment by air, although this is not expected to take place until 1992 at the earliest.

  Emergency arrangements for all types of radioactive materials transport are required by national and international regulations, and are subject to periodic testing by exercises.

  Design testing and development of a suitable package is in progress.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Redundancies
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many employees of the Commission or its predecessor have been made redundant on grounds of redundancy or financial exigency in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  In the last 10 years one employee's appointment has been terminated on grounds of redundancy.

  Refreshment Department
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord Privy Seal what was the total profit made by the House of Commons Refreshment Department in the week preceding the Christmas recess in 1986.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Refreshment Department does not produce weekly profit figures.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present monthly additional cost from employing agency nurses rather than regular nurses in the National Health, Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 9 November at columns 100–101. For the reasons explained in that reply it is not possible to provide the information requested.

  Doctors' Lists
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) to what size the patient list is going to be increased in order to qualify for full basic practice allowance, as set out in the primary health care White Paper;

  (2) on what measure of patient numbers the practice list leading to qualification for full basic practice allowance will be based; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if the proposal to increase the minimum list for qualification for full basic practice allowance applies to rural areas.

  Mr. Newton
  Changes in the criteria for entitlement to full basic practice allowance proposed in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" will be the subject of negotiations with the British Medical Association's general medical services committee. We will be consulting the general medical services committee over the scope for introducing measures to assist family doctors who practise in rural areas.

  AIDS
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what drugs are available from the National Health Service for those over 65 years of age suffering from HIV contracted through blood products.

  Mr. Newton
  People whose immune systems become impaired because of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may acquire opportunistic infections which are amenable to treatment and for which the full range of appropriate drugs are available through the National Health Service. Zidovudine (Retrovir) inhibits replication of the virus and is available for the management of patients with serious manifestations of HIV infection. The choice of drugs for an individual patient is a matter for the doctor concerned.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals have been closed as temporary closures in each of the last eight years; how many have re-opened subsequently; and how many have been disposed of.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of recipients of
  243
  attendance allowance (a) at the lower rate and (b) at the higher rate at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Attendance allowance: Numbers of recipients at 31 March 1986

  Number

  Higher rate

  237,000

  Lower rate

  348,000

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the estimated net annual cost of providing(a) attendance allowance in respect of children below the age of two years who are otherwise eligible but at present are excluded by reason of their age, and (b) mobility allowance in respect of children below the age of five years under the same criteria.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 30 November 1987]: If the proportions of children who would qualify for attendance allowance below age two and for mobility allowance below age five were similar to the proportions of children currently eligible, the costs in a full year would be about £17 million and £8 million, respectively. These figures must, however, be treated with caution because they do not exclude the unquantifiable number of impaired infants who might be ineligible because their need for attention or inability to walk is no greater than that normally to be found in a child of that age.

  Rent Taper
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of pensioner households which will lose entitlement to housing benefit as a result of the increase in the rent taper to 65 per cent.

  Mr. Portillo
  The estimated number of pensioner households losing all entitlement to rent allowances or rent rebates as a result of increasing the rent taper from 60 to 65 per cent. is 25,000. Some of these will retain entitlement to rate rebates. People receiving income support will be unaffected because by definition they continue to receive maximum help with rent.

  Notes:

  1. The source is the 1985 family expenditure survey, updated to 1988–89.

  2. Further information on data sources can be found in the introduction to the revised technical annex, "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits", which is in the Library. This does not identify housing benefit separately.

  Housing Benefit Regulations
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) in what circumstances accommodation is considered to be particularly suitable for elderly, sick or disabled persons by virtue of (i) size and (ii) heating system for the purposes of schedule 1, paragraph 1(c)(ii) to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987;

  (2) in what circumstances accommodation is considered to be not particularly suitable for elderly, sick or disabled persons by virtue of (i) size and (ii) heating system for the purposes of schedule 1, paragraph 1(c)(ii) to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987;

  (3) by what criteria other than size or heating system accommodation will be assessed as particularly suitable
  244
  for elderly, sick or disabled persons for the purposes of schedule 1, paragraph 1(c)(ii) to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 provide that a charge for an alarm system may be met through housing benefit where the system is provided in accommodation which is occupied by and has been specifically designed or adapted for elderly, sick or disabled people or is otherwise particularly suitable for them. In deciding whether accommodation is particularly suitable, the regulations require authorities to consider the size, heating system and the other major features or facilities of the accommodation as a whole.

  The question of whether accommodation is particularly suitable is a matter for local authorities to decide. The factors we would expect a local authority to take into account in reaching its decision include the number of bedrooms, the overall amount of floorspace, the number of rooms which are heated as well as the location of the accommodation, its proximity to health and social services facilities and its accessibility.

  A one-bedroom ground floor property with heating in the bedroom and living room and which is close to shops, health and social services facilities is likely to be considered suitable for an elderly, sick or disabled person; whereas, for example, a property with several spare bedrooms, heating only in the living room, and which is at a distance from such facilities would be considered unsuitable.

  NHS Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses have opted out of the National Health Service superannuation scheme as soon as they have finished their training and made their first job move, since 1983, or over any similar period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  The specific information requested is not available. However, the total number of members who left the National Health Service superannuation scheme with a refund of contributions and therefore less than five years service since 1983 is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  52,287

  1984

  52,728

  1985

  53,933

  1986

  51,161

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to accord higher pay and status to medical laboratory scientific officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The pay and grading of National Health Service medical laboratory scientific officers is a matter for the professional and technical staffs a Whitley council. I understand that an offer of a 5 per cent. increase in pay and allowances effective from 1 April 1987 was accepted on 16 November. Discussions are expected to begin shortly on proposals for a comprehensive review of the medical laboratory scientific officer grading structure.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider individual representations for
  245
  medical laboratory scientific officers when he prepares his response to the forthcoming report of the current Whitley B committee.

  Mr. Newton
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the planned discussions between the management and staff sides of the professional and technical staffs 'B' Whitley council on proposals for a revised grading structure for medical laboratory scientific officers. MLSOs will be represented in those discussions by the staff side of the Council, but it is open to individuals to make their views known through management channels.

  Cervical Cancer (Dewsbury)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the area covered by Dewsbury health authority have died from cervical cancer in the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what is this figure expressed per 1,000 women.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths and death rates per 1,000 women for malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri (ICD 180)1 for usual residents of Dewsbury health authority.2

  1977–86

  Year

  Numbers

  Rates (per 1,000 women)

  1977

  8

  0·49

  1978

  6

  0·37

  1979

  6

  0·36

  1980

  8

  0·49

  1981

  12

  0·73

  1982

  8

  0·49

  1983

  8

  0·49

  1984

  4

  0·24

  1985

  10

  0·61

  1986

  5

  0·30

  1 International Classification of Diseases 8th, 9th Revisions.

  2 Dewsbury Health District 1977–81.

  Dewsbury District Health Authority 1982–86.

  Waiting Lists (Teesside)
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are on hospital waiting lists in(a) South Tees health authority and (b) North Tees health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest information available centrally is contained in the booklet "Hospital In-Patient Waiting List—England at 31 March 1987, National, Regional and District Summaries", copies of which have been placed in the Library. For more recent figures the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the district health authorities concerned.

  Emergency Alarm Systems
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any proposals to provide assistance through income support with the installation and running costs of emergency alarm systems.

  Mr. Portillo
  The costs of the installation of emergency alarm systems are not met under the existing supplementary benefit scheme and we do not intend to make specific provision for this under income support or the social fund. Where a person's income support assessment includes an 246
  amount towards his housing costs (in particular, mortgage interest) help will be available for the running costs of an emergency alarm system. Help will be given only where the alarm system is provided in accommodation which is occupied by and is particularly suitable for elderly, sick or disabled people and the claimant has no choice but to meet the cost as part of their service charge.

  Parliamentary Constituencies (Hampshire)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report each of the parliamentary constituencies in Hampshire in ranking order according to the size of their current electorates, indicating the percentage variation on the average number of electors per constituency in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested has been taken from OPCS monitor EL87/1 and is as follows:

  1987 electorate

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number

  Percentage difference from English average1

  Eastleigh

  88,664

  +27·4

  East Hampshire

  87,476

  +25·7

  Aldershot

  81,791

  +17·5

  Portsmouth, North

  81,350

  + 16·9

  Romsey and Waterside

  80,179

  +15·2

  Basingstoke

  79,116

  +13·7

  Fareham

  77,910

  +12·0

  Winchester

  77,527

  +11·4

  Havant

  77,412

  +11·2

  Portsmouth, South

  76,814

  +10·4

  New Forest

  75,780

  +8·9

  Southampton, Test

  74,711

  +7·4

  Southampton, Itchen

  73,412

  +5·5

  North West Hampshire

  70,916

  +1·9

  Gosport

  68,891

  -1·0

  1 The average number of electors per constituency in England is 69,585.

  Short-term Locums
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any estimate of the effect of the abatement rules on the availability of recently retired consultants for short-term locums in the summer months, and of the effect this has had on National Health Service waiting lists.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to make any such estimate. The abatement rules which apply to consultants are those which apply to all National Health Service staff who retire from the service and take retirement benefits. The current abatement provisions in the major public sector occupational schemes are under review.

  Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why he has not answered the letter from the Secretary of the British Medical Association of November 1986 requesting a meeting with him on the subject of the superannuability of fees payable to medical practitioners who serve on district management teams; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have replied to the British Medical Association today, at the same time expressing my regret about the error which has occurred.

  Abortion
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost to public funds of abortions carried out under the National Health Service for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986–87 the total cost of abortions carried out under the National Heath Service, including those performed under agency arrangements with the private sector, is estimated to be approximately £13 million.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost to public funds for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available of supplying under the National Health Service, without charge, contraceptive devices and related substances.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest information available about the cost of National Health Service family planning services gives expenditure of £76 million in England in 1985–86. This covers the cost of contraceptive substances and appliances prescribed, contraceptive fees paid to general practitioners and appropriate health authority staffing and overheads costs.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide information for each of his Department's offices at Bradford and Keighley on total expenditure on supplementary single payments and number of payments granted for the periods (i) January 1985 to December 1985, (ii) January 1986 to December 1986, (iii) August 1985 to July 1986 and (iv) August 1986 to July 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 2 December 1987] Information about single payment expenditure and the number of payments made for each of the Department's offices in Bradford and Keighley is given in the tables.

  Table I

  Number of payments

  1984–85

  1985–86

  11986–87

  11987–88

  Bradford East

  16,818

  19,614

  14,362

  2,090

  Bradford South

  12,167

  14,962

  12,249

  1,919

  Bradford West

  12,208

  15,644

  13,320

  2,175

  Keighley

  5,516

  6,271

  6,319

  1,183

  Table 2

  Expenditure

  1984–85

  1985–86

  11986–87

  11987–88

  Bradford East

  1,199,016

  1,595,387

  1,219,857

  181,569

  Bradford South

  769,691

  1,052,278

  916,405

  147,769

  Bradford West

  1,215,077

  1,358,779

  1,149,496

  196,967

  Keighley

  398,713

  497,612

  461,145

  86,541

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  1. Information is given for the year April to April.

  2. Figures for 1987–88 are given for the period 8 April 1987 to 28 July 1987.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of households receiving(a) certificated and (b) standard housing benefit containing non-dependants in respect of whom deductions from housing benefit are made; and if he will estimate the proportion, in each case, who are subject to either the higher or lower rate of non-dependant deduction at the latest available date.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The estimated number of housing benefit recipients in Great Britain for which a deduction was made in respect of one or more non-dependants in autumn 1986 was as follows:

  Thousands

  Certificated cases

  340

  Standard cases

  370

  TOTAL

  710

  The number of non-dependants in each category in certificated housing benefit households was as follows:

  Thousands

  Higher rate deduction

  210

  Lower rate deduction

  160

  TOTAL

  370

  This total is higher than the corresponding figure quoted above because there is on average more than one non-dependant per household.

  Information on the number of non-dependants in each category in households receiving standard housing benefit is not available.

  Labour Force Survey
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report data from the latest labour force survey showing how many residents of the United Kingdom (a) were born in the Republic of Ireland and (b) are citizens of the Republic; and whether he will include separate figures for the south-east region and Greater London.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is estimated from the 1986 labour force survey that, in spring 1986, the numbers were as follows:

  Area of residence

  Persons born in Republic of Ireland '000

  Citizens of the Republic of Ireland '000

  United Kingdom

  580

  560

  South East Region of England

  290

  250

  Greater London

  180

  160

  Blind People
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what are the most recent statistics on annual registrations as partially sighted by people in age ranges(a) 16 to 64 years and (b) and over 65 years, whose BD8 shows the cause of blindness to be (i) glaucoma, (ii) diabetic retinopathy and (iii) cataracts;

  (2) what are the most recent statistics on annual registrations as blind by people in age ranges (a) 16 to 64

  249
  years and (b) and over 65 years, whose BD8 shows the cause of blindness to be (i) glaucoma, (ii) diabetic retinopathy and (iii) cataracts.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: The data are given in the table.

  Annual registrations as blind and partially sighted by people aged 16 to 64 years and over 65 years: certain causes

  Blind

  Partially sighted

  16–64 years (1985–86)

  Glaucoma

  72

  68

  Diabetic retinopathy

  152

  128

  Cataracts (including congenital)

  95

  128

  Over 65 years (1980–81)

  Glaucoma

  1,209

  834

  Diabetic retinopathy

  437

  243

  Cataracts (including congenital)

  1,012

  1,054

  Note: Registrations arising from more than one of the causes listed have been counted under both, or all three, conditions.

  Restart Interviews
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish up-to-date figures showing the total proportion and numbers of benefit disqualifications or reductions that are linked to restart interviews; how many of these were(a) because of failure to attend the interview without good cause, together with the number of reinstatements following a later interview, (b) on the grounds of non-availability for work and (c) because of the refusal of suitable offers of employment; how many of these decisions were subject to appeal; and what was the outcome of such appeals.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: I have been asked to reply.

  Under long-standing legal rules people can lose benefit if they fail to attend an employment interview without good reason. Up to 28 September the total number of claimants disallowed under these rules for failing to attend restart interviews was 27,991. Information is not available on the number of these people who appealed against these dis-allowances nor on the number who had their benefit reinstated following a later interview.

  Any refusal of benefit subsequent to a restart interview follows not from the interview itself but from the decision of an independent adjudication officer operating under long-standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments.

SCOTLAND

  Firearms
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received since 1 July calling for amendment of the law of Scotland relating to the control of firearms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  About 100, the majority commenting on the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 22 September of the Government's main conclusions following the Hungerford tragedy.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will itemise, for each health board in Scotland, the donations received by the health board from voluntary organisations, patients, relatives or other benefactors for each month of 1987 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the pay settlement for National Health staff has cost each health board in Scotland in each year since 1982; and how much extra funding for this was made available by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: Table 1 shows the full cost of pay settlements for National Health staff for the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87. These figures are derived from broad estimates by health boards. I regret that figures for 1982–83 and 1983–84 are not available.

  Boards' allocations have been increased year on year to allow for forecast inflation, including the cost of pay settlements. Financial allocations additional to this were made in 1984–85 and 1986–87 and these are shown in table 2. The amounts in table 2 are in addition to the allowances for forecast inflation already included in boards' allocations in those years.

  Table 1

  Estimated total costs of pay settlements for national health staff

  £ thousand

  Health Board

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,099

  3,808

  4,542

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,870

  2,661

  3,341

  Borders

  901

  783

  965

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,599

  1,392

  1,653

  Fife

  2,787

  2,536

  3,174

  Forth Valley

  2,610

  2,394

  2,939

  Grampian

  4,998

  4,557

  5,590

  Greater Glasgow

  14,361

  13,347

  16,186

  Highland

  2,093

  1,921

  2,309

  Lanarkshire

  4,629

  3,997

  7,360

  Lothian

  8,933

  8,154

  9,737

  Orkney

  164

  121

  173

  Shetland

  192

  180

  209

  Tayside

  5,381

  4,794

  5,831

  Western Isles

  338

  250

  350

  Scotland

  55,955

  50,895

  64,359

  Table 2

  Additional allocations

  £ thousand

  Health Board

  1984–85

  1986–87

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,634

  411

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,139

  299

  Borders

  331

  86

  Dumfries and Galloway

  584

  147

  Fife

  1,083

  280

  Forth Valley

  1,058

  268

  Grampian

  1,983

  511

  Greater Glasgow

  5,931

  1,473

  Highland

  836

  211

  Lanarkshire

  1,844

  467

  Lothian

  3,584

  903

  Orkney

  60

  16

  Shetland

  76

  19

  Tayside

  2,128

  530

  251

  Health Board

  1984–85

  1986–87

  Western Isles

  114

  29

  Scotland

  22,385

  5,650

  Agricultural Development
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the failure to resolve EEC budget difficulties, he will indicate the likely date of the commencement of the Scottish islands agricultural development programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Spring 1988.

  Mr. James Stobo
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the relevant experience of the newly appointed chairman of the Scottish Seed Potato Development Council, Mr. James Stobo, with particular reference to any direct or indirect experience of the production, processing or planting of seed potatoes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947 the chairman of a development council established in the exercise of powers conferred by that Act is required to be one of the council's independent members, that is, he must have no financial or industrial interest which would be likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a member of the council. Mr. James Stobo satisfies this statutory requirement in that he has no financial or industrial interest in seed potato matters. By virtue of his wide-ranging knowledge and experience of agricultural promotion and marketing Mr. Stobo is well qualified for the post of chairman of the Scottish Seed Potato Development Council, the main function of which is to promote the production and marketing of Scottish seed potatoes.

  Forestry Commission
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of the Forestry Commission's review of the composition and procedures of its regional advisory committees.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Forestry Commission has now completed its review, and my right hon. Friends and I have agreed a number of changes designed to improve the effectiveness of the regional advisory committees in their role of conciliating over forestry proposals in respect of which there are unresolved objections from statutory authorities consulted by the Commission.

  This review stemmed from the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on 31 January 1985 in his response to the Countryside Commission's Report "A Better Future for the Uplands" (Official Report, columns 282–90), that the Forestry Commission would be seeking ways to achieve greater public accountability for the regional advisory committees' proceedings. The basis on which the Commission approached this task was to look for ways in which the proceedings of the committees might be better publicised when they are exercising their conciliation role in disputed forestry grant and felling applications, so that
  252
  the public can have an opportunity to voice their opinion. The Commission subsequently extended the review to consider possible improvements to the composition of the committees with a view to achieving a better balance on them between forestry and other countryside interests.

  In the course of the review, the Forestry Commission issued a consultation paper setting out its proposals which drew comments from over 50 organisations and individuals with interests in forestry, land use and the environment. The consultation paper, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, also provided a helpful background summary of the Commission's present consultative procedures for forestry grant and felling permissions and the key role played in these by the regional advisory committees.

  The Commission noted the concern which has been expressed by environmental bodies that the planning and environmental members on the committees cannot be expected to be in a position to cover the whole range of environmental interests—such as landscape, recreation and nature conservation—and that the numbers should be increased to accommodate members with expertise in those areas. The farming interest on the committees was also considered to be under-represented. In the past, this problem has to a certain extent been met by the appointment of forestry members with multi-disciplinary backgrounds, but this was clearly not a satisfactory answer in the longer term.

  With the growing importance attached to the regional advisory committees' conciliatory role, coupled with the Commission's new environmenal duty introduced under the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, we have some sympathy with the Commission's conclusion, which has received fairly wide support from both forestry and environmental interests, that the membership of the committees should be raised from a maximum of nine to 12, and we are considering this matter further.

  In the meantime, the regional advisory committee chairmen will be encouraged to invite to meetings considering disputed grant or felling cases any persons whom they think might be able to assist in achieving an agreed solution, particularly when a case involves an interest not represented on the committee. The Commission will prepare and maintain lists of persons who could be asked to serve in this capacity as the occasion arises.

  As regards other aspects of the appointment of committee members, we agree that the Forestry Commissioners should give closer consideration to ensuring that appointees are suited by technical, professional and practical experience and knowledge to speak for the general interests they are appointed to represent. We also endorse the Commission's proposal that the service of Committee members should normally be restricted to two three-year terms, although exceptions might be made in special circumstances to retain the services of a particular member for an extended period. This proposal has merit in allowing a reasonable turnover of members. Further, we endorse the principle that new regional advisory committee chairmen should as far as possible be appointed from backgrounds which are unlikely to cause any real or apparent clash of interests when disputed cases come before their committees. It is also desirable that the chairmen should have a broad range of knowledge on relevant land use matters.
  253
  Turning to the main purpose of the review, which was to find ways of achieving greater public accountability in the proceedings of the regional advisory committees, the Forestry Commission proposed in its consultation paper that procedures should be introduced to give the public the opportunity to submit views to the committees when they were considering disputed planting and felling proposals. It was envisaged that this would be done through a system of advertising details of cases to be considered by the committees and inviting those wishing to comment to do so in writing; such comments would then be taken into account by the Committee in its discussions with the parties to the dispute.

  The Commission received a wide variety of views on this proposal, ranging from those which felt that it would detract from the regional advisory committees' chances of successfully fulfilling their conciliation role to those which considered that, while it was a small step in the right direction, it did not go far enough. A number of environmental interests wish to see all forestry proposals presented for public comment, not just the small percentage referred to the committees.

  We have considered these representations very carefully, but have concluded that the Commission's proposals strike broadly the right balance between wider public involvement and the risk of increased bureaucracy and administrative costs. However, the statutory authorities consulted are already encouraged to consider the views of voluntary bodies and others in commenting on forestry applications, and we have asked the commission to discuss with the local authority associations the effectiveness of those arrangements and any ways in which they might be improved and made more cost-effective.

  Again, we have carefully considered calls for the meetings of the committees to discuss disputed cases to be open to the public, and for the record of such meetings, including the intended advice to the Foresty Commissioners, to be published. We accept the commission's view, however, that it would not be practical or conducive to the committees' conciliation role to throw open site discussions with the applicant and the objecting authority or authorities to anyone who wishes to attend. As was stated in the consultation paper, the committee chairmen will nevertheless have discretion to invite any person or non-statutory organisation who has submitted views to attend or be represented at the site meeting, if it is considered that this will assist in the conciliation process.

  We also take the view that the publication of a record of committee meetings could inhibit full and frank discussion between the parties and hamper the prospects of a compromise solution being found. It would be the intention, however, to notify those who had submitted comments of the outcome of the case.

  The procedure for public particiption proposed by the Commission is necessarily a limited one, but the Government is satisfied that it should broadly meet the need for public views to be taken into account by the regional advisory committees without detracting from their conciliation function. We have therefore asked the commision to introduce it in respect of all future cases.

  The Government greatly appreciate the dedicated and constructive contribution that the members of the regional advisory committees make, not only in giving general advice to the forestry commission but in the part they play in the Commission's consultation procedures. We hope
  254
  that the changes I have announced will assist them in their work and lead to a wider understanding and acceptance of their role.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, during the past eight years, Ministers of his Department have held joint meetings with health authorities in Scotland, together with right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies served by those health authorities; and whether he is currently prepared to consider such three-sided meetings if so requested by health authorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There has been one such formal meeting, although Ministers have from time to time had less formal discussions with constituency MPs when visiting health board facilities. Ministers meet regularly with health board chairmen to discuss a wide range of issues, and health boards in turn hold meetings with constituency MPs.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current state of progress of the bypasses for(a) Auckinleck and Cumnock, (b) New Cumnock, (c) Maybole and (d) Girvan; how this compares with the planned progress; and what are the reasons for any alteration in plans or speed of planning or construction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These schemes are at various stages of preparation. As with all schemes, progress depends on the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, the availability of funds and the priority of particular schemes within the context of competing claims from the entire trunk road network in Scotland. I would not expect any of the four schemes mentioned by the hon. Member to commence construction before the early 1990s.

  School Management
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which political parties responded to the consultation paper "School Management and the Role of Parents".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: We received submissions for the national organisations of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, the Scottish Labour party, the Liberal alliance, the Scottish National party and the Scottish Green party and from a number of local and constituency associations.

  Social Work Services Group
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what innovative proposals, policy guidelines or ideas for dealing with delinquency have been published by the Social Work Services Group;

  (2) what innovative proposals, policy guidelines or ideas for dealing with alcohol abuse have been published by the Social Work Services Group;

  (3) what innovative proposals, policy guidelines or ideas for dealing with drug problems have been published by the Social Work Services Group;
  255
  (4) what has been the published contribution of the Social Work Services Group to policy development for the mentally handicapped:

  (5) what has been the published contribution of the Social Work Services Group to policy development of community services for the mentally ill;

  (6) what has been the published contribution of the Social Work Services Group to the development of policy initiatives for 16 to 21-year-old offenders;

  (7) what has been the published contribution of the Social Work Services Group to the development of policy initiatives for the care of the elderly in the community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 December 1987, c. 41]: Since 1979 there have been published or widely circulated to social work agencies, some 80 circulars or similar communications to local authorities, 12 practice guidance documents, 32 research reports, four reports of programme planning groups (jointly with the Scottish Home and Health Department), and a number of miscellaneous documents, including reports of seminar

  Cereals Tonnes

  Beef Tonnes

  Butter Tonnes

  Skimmed milk powder Tonnes

  England (Regions)

  Northern

  146,715

  7,009

  18,921

  280

  Midland and Western

  221,217

  5,230

  57,669

  2,377

  South West

  164,300

  1,191

  42,448

  1,988

  Eastern

  1,096,232

  9,807

  18,563

  —

  South East

  118,582

  1,417

  14,145

  —

  Scotland

  451,500

  5,949

  12,957

  101

  Wales

  —

  217

  19,240

  1,155

  Northern Ireland

  —

  28,875

  14,969

  1,596

  Total

  2,198,546

  60,695

  198,912

  7,497

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by commodity, town of location and amount in each store, the stocks currently held in European Economic Community intervention by the United Kingdom Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member of the answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 19 November at column 663.

  Free Food
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the final figures of the amounts of food distributed in the United Kingdom under the free food for the needy scheme, broken down by region and by commodity.

  Mr. MacGregor: The information is as follows:

  A. Products released from intervention stores; final figures (regional breakdown by location of store)

  Tonnes

  Butter

  England and Wales

  8,959·2

  Scotland

  1,571·0

  Northern Ireland

  3,093·5

  Total

  13,623·7

  Beef

  England and Wales

  336·602

  256
  proceedings, bearing on topics mentioned by the hon. Member. The group's purpose in issuing material of this kind is to provide information and guidance to local authority social work departments which, since reorganisation in May 1975, have exercised responsibility for developing regional policies and service patterns, and to other social work agencies.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available figures by commodity for the total amounts of food taken into European Economic Community intervention by the United Kingdom Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; and if he will break these figures down by region.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At 30 September 1987 intervention stocks in the United Kingdom were:

  Tonnes

  Scotland

  146·475

  Northern Ireland

  557·752

  Total

  1,040·829

  B. Milk and milk products on which reimbursements were claimed as at 3 December 1987.

  (Regional breakdown by location of charity claiming reimbursement)

  Litres

  Whole milk

  England and Wales

  2,991,289·28

  Scotland

  497,444·96

  Northern Ireland

  1,409,501·07

  Total

  4,898,235·31

  Semi-skimmed milk

  England and Wales

  228,154·38

  Scotland

  551,279·04

  Northern Ireland

  Nil

  Total

  779,433·42

  Cheese

  Kgs.

  England and Wales

  7,397,786·42

  Scotland

  1,427,402·56

  Northern Ireland

  1,401,875·77

  Total

  10,214,529·75

  Concentrated butter

  England and Wales

  81,777·93

  257

  Litres

  Scotland

  3,360·00

  Northern Ireland

  Nil

  Total

  85,137·93

  EC (Fruit and Vegetables)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amounts, by commodity, of fruit and vegetables have been withdrawn from the market under European Economic Community regulations in the United Kingdom so far in the current year, and each year for the past seven years; what proportion of that amount has been destroyed or left to rot; and what proportion has been put to some use.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The figures requested are given below:

  Marketing Year1

  Withdrawn (Tonnes)

  Used for human or animal food

  Destroyed

  Total

  Cauliflowers

  1987–882

  592

  5,479

  6,071

  1986–87

  4,100

  20,000

  24,100

  1985–86

  800

  4,100

  4,900

  1984–85

  560

  7,800

  8,360

  1983–84

  25

  575

  600

  1982–83

  110

  8,100

  8,210

  1981–82

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1980–81

  400

  675

  1,075

  Tomatoes

  1987–882

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1986–87

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1985–86

  1

  20

  21

  1984–85

  5

  125

  130

  1983–84

  Nil

  180

  180

  1982–83

  Nil

  54

  54

  1981–82

  Nil

  5

  5

  1980–81

  Nil

  4

  4

  Apples

  1987–882

  220

  232

  452

  1986–87

  3,550

  3,560

  7,110

  1985–86

  2,100

  8,500

  10,600

  1984–85

  7,800

  15,200

  23,000

  1983–84

  2,300

  3,600

  5,900

  1982–83

  8,400

  13,850

  22,250

  1981–82

  160

  300

  460

  1980–81

  5,400

  19,000

  24,400

  Pears

  1987–882

  19

  Nil

  19

  1986–87

  230

  33

  263

  1985–86

  735

  142

  877

  1984–85

  600

  130

  730

  1983–84

  515

  260

  775

  1982–83

  535

  30

  565

  1981–82

  Nil

  40

  40

  1980–81

  45

  140

  185

  1 Cauliflower 1 May-30 April; Tomatoes 1 January-31 December; Apples 1 July-30 June; Pears 1 July-30 June.

  2 To date.

  EEC Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total EEC expenditure on(a) cereals, (b) dairy products and (c) sheepmeat in each of the past three years; and what is the projected outturn for the current financial year.
  258
  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is set out in the table below.

  (mecu)

  1985

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Cereals

  1,650

  2,310

  3,391

  5,023

  Milk and milk products

  5,442

  5,933

  5,406

  26,298

  Sheepmeat

  434

  502

  617

  704

  Source:

  1984—EAGGF financial reports.

  1987—Estimate based on EC Commission statistics.

  1 Estimate of total spend, which exceeds the 1987 budget. Expenditure in November and December 1987 will be met by member states who will be reimbursed from the 1988 budget.

  2 Excludes costs of special disposal scheme for butter which will be spread over the budgets for the four years from 1989.

  Italy (Lamb and Sheep Exports)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the details of consignments of lambs or sheep from the United Kingdom which were refused entry to Italy between 26 April and 31 December 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  For a period following 3 May 1986 food imports into Italy were temporarily disrupted while the Italian authorities worked out a certification system following the Chernobyl incident. That apart and aside from routine checks on matters such as health and welfare certification — which can occasionally cause temporary delays —I have no evidence to suggest that the Italian authorities have refused entry to our sheep or lambs.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what provisions within the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987 are additional to those required to implement the European directive 86/113/EEC; and for what reason they were included in the regulations;

  (2) what scientific research has been undertaken by his Department into the optimum size of battery hen cages to house one, two and three birds, respectively.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Member states are required to implement at least the minimum standards laid down in this directive. The Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987 require more space than the directive's minimum of 450 sq cm per bird when there are only one, two or three birds in a cage. This is because it is recognised from work carried out in this country and abroad that birds in such small colony sizes are less able to share each others' space than when there are four, five or six birds in a cage. Work carried out by my Department suggests that mortality is reduced and egg production increased when small numbers of birds are given more space.

  Dead Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he first issued instructions in 1986 to farmers in the restricted area of Cumbria on how to dispose of dead sheep.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1986 was issued on 20
  259
  June 1986. Under it movement of any sheep (either live or dead) off holdings in a designated area was forbidden except under a consent. Advice to farmers on disposal of dead sheep (on or off the holding) was given by my staff on a case-by-case basis.

  Chickens
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of(a) live chickens and (b) frozen chickens imported into the United Kingdom in 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Details of imports are not available in the form requested.

  In 1986, 743,820 live chickens (other than day-old chicks) were imported into the United Kingdom. In the same period, a total of 70,418 tonnes of fresh or frozen chickens were imported.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the adequacy of the weather charts available to the National Radiological Protection Board for the period immediately after the Chernobyl accident and as to the National Radiological Protection Board's ability to build up a detailed picture of the areas with high rainfall and consequent fallout; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  The National Radiological Protection Board had access to weather data provided by the Meteorological Office, together with information on dose rates and activity concentrations in air, rain, grass, soil and foods supplied by a number of other bodies. This was sufficient to enable a detailed assessment of any potential risks to be completed quickly so that advice on remedial and protection action could be given to Government and the public. Advice about refraining from drinking undiluted, fresh rainwater for prolonged periods was given within a day of the radiation cloud reaching the United Kingdom.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is given in deciding the allocation of housing investment programme moneys to an individual local authority as to that authority's housing rent arrears.

  Mrs. Roe
  Housing investment programme allocations to local authorities are based on an assessment of need. We are currently consulting the local authority associations about the details of the methodology for allocations for 1988–89.

  Councillors
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of local authorities are not liable to pay rates.

  Mr. Chope
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the expenses and emoluments paid to each chair and every member of the residuary bodies for the five former metropolitan counties for the year 1986–87.

  Mr. Chope
  Information of salaries for the year 1986–87 is as follows:

  Salary on 1 April 1986

  Salary from 1 July 1986

  £ per annum

  £ per annum

  Chairmen Greater Manchester;

  Merseyside;

  West Midlands

  17,600

  18,198

  South Yorkshire;

  Tyne and Wear;

  West Yorkshire

  16,000

  16,544

  Deputy Chairman

  South Yorkshire

  13,200

  13,742

  Members

  All members

  5,600

  5,830

  Notes:

  (i) As a result of increased time commitment to residuary body work the salaries of five members of Merseyside residuary body were doubled, during the period 1 February to 31 July 1986;

  (ii) One member of West Yorkshire residuary body received a daily attendance allowance as an alternative to an annual salary. This was increased on 13 May 1986 from £16 to £16·70;

  (iii) Remuneration is subject to abatement, if applicable, in respect of public sector pension received.

  Information on the total expenses paid to chairmen and members is contained in the residuary body annual reports and accounts for 1986–87 which were laid before Parliament on 25 November.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the £4 million for Estate Action packages, published by his departmental news release No. 499 of 1 December, is for the expenditure of money provided by him in grant and how much in loan sanctions from existing resources of local councils.

  Mrs. Roe
  As indicated in the press release of 1 December, £217,624 (5·5 per cent.) of the approved expenditure announced that day will be eligible for estate action urban programme grant; the other HIP extra allocations totalling some £3·7 million (94·5 per cent.) are additional resources being made available by Estate Action to the local authorities.

  Rate Support Grant (Bolton)
  Mr. Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to rectify the miscalculation in the future education and highways elements of grant-related expenditure in establishing Bolton's rate support grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will correct at the first supplementary report stage the errors so far discovered and acknowledged by his Department and any errors which may subsequently be confirmed in his calculation of the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 for Bolton; and if he will make a statement.
  261
  Mr. Howard
  Information supplied to the Department by the Department of Education and Science and used in calculating grant-related expenditure assessments for the 1988–89 RSG settlement had not taken into account further education students undertaking courses as part of the MSC technical and vocational education initiative. GREs for all education authorities will be revised in the first supplementary report for 1988–89 to correct this. There has been no miscalculation of the highway maintenance component of Bolton's GRE.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the proposal from Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria, within the framework of the UNECE Geneva convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, to establish a protocol to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides by 1995.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In common with the great majority of countries which are parties to the convention the United Kingdom Government do not consider the objective of a 30 per cent. reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by 1995, on a 1980 base, to be a feasible objective, given, for example, the lead times involved for the introduction of the new emission controls technology.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the discussions held between 16 and 18 November during the meeting of the working group on nitrogen oxides under the auspices of the UNECE Geneva convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, in view of the working group's mandate to draft a protocol which would result in effective reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides by 1995.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom, together with representatives of 20 other parties to the convention, participated in the meeting to which the hon. Member refers.

  The working group agreed on the structure of the draft protocol and on a number of articles, but has yet to reach agreement on the key articles concerning basic obligations and transfer of technology. I expect further progress to be made at the next meeting of the working group, scheduled for 16–19 February 1988.

  There is no reference to 1995 in the mandate of the working group.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the anticipated annual emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons from petrol-engined motor vehicles in the United Kingdom for each of the years up to the end of the century, taking into consideration the limits agreed under the Luxembourg agreement and changes in the vehicle fleet.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Estimates of future nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon emissions from petrol-engined vehicles depend on assumptions about growth in vehicle use, vehicle replacement rate and the full emission characteristics of vehicles built to new specifications. Uncertainties attach to each of these factors and estimates are revised as new evidence becomes available. Warren Spring 262
  Laboratory has made some initial predictions for the Department through to the year 2010 and these have been published in report LR 612 (AP)M. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline(a) the results yielded by daily measurements of precipitation composition from the primary network of nine rural sites during the most recent week for which figures are available, (b) the results yielded by the secondary network of collectors during the most recent week for which figures are available and (c) for each network the minimum period of delay between recordings being taken and results being available.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Results from the first year of operation (1986) of the primary and secondary acid deposition networks were published in September 1987 by Warren Spring Laboratory which undertakes the monitoring on behalf of the Department. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library. The report shows maps of the annual averages of acid deposition. Stringent quality control of the data is carried out in quarterly periods; validated data are generally available within one month of the end of each quarter. I am arranging for data for the most recent available week to be extracted and sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the tonnages of both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by each of the coal and oil-fired power stations operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board for each year between 1970 and the present day (b) the corresponding percentage sulphur content of the fuel consumed at each of these stations and (c) the source of the fuel.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I regret that this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made as to the effectiveness of the use of tall chimneys to dilute and disperse emissions of(a) sulphur dioxide and (b) nitrogen oxides, from fossil fuel power stations.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Evidence for the effectiveness of tall chimneys in achieving low ground level concentrations of sulphur dioxide is provided by the data published in the Department's annual digests of environmental protection and water statistics. These show that ground level concentrations have fallen in line with emissions from low level domestic, commercial and industrial sources but are much less influenced by power station emissions. The results are consistent with the parameters imposed on power station chimney design intended to give acceptable ground level concentrations of both pollutants.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current estimates of acid deposition falling over Britain which originates from United Kingdom sources of air pollution; and if he will provide a breakdown of this information into sulphur and nitrogen oxides.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Sulphur and nitrogen budgets for the United Kingdom were presented by the United Kingdom review group on acid rain in its second report to the Department ("Acid Deposition in the United Kingdom 1981–85", pages 65–66). Copies have been placed in the Library.
  263
  Approximately 85 per cent. of sulphur deposition on the United Kingdom is estimated to come from United Kingdom sources, and the figures for nitrogen oxides is very similar.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his written answer,Official Report, 8 July, column 161, to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). whether he is now able to make a statement on the findings of the study by the Fellowship of Engineering into the environmental impact of various flue gas desulphurisation systems for use at coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The report of the Fellowship of Engineering's study on acidic emissions abatement processes will be presented to the Department on 15 December. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. One of its four volumes is devoted to coal combustion. The environmental impact of the various flue gas desulphurisation processes depends not only on the process but also on the circumstances of the particular power station. The report is a valuable source of part of the information needed to assess the impact of FGD at particular stations but it also has a wider value as a source document for specialists investigating the implications of possible future abatement options.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the exploitation of indigenous reserves of low sulphur coal as a means of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The House of Commons Environment Committee considered this possibility in 1984 but concluded that there was little scope for using indigenous low-sulphur coal to reduce emissions from power stations.

  The bulk of the United Kingdom's low-sulphur coal production comes from Scotland and from Wales. The former is almost entirely used already by the south of Scotland Electricity Board, and the latter by specialist markets. I understand that there is no scope for the economic expansion of this production.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment the chief inspector of pollution has made as to whether the prevention of emissions of sulphur dioxide from the chimneys of the major coal-fired power stations not included in the three-station programme of flue gas desulphurisation retrofitting is practicable with current abatement technology.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The chief inspector has advised that for new coal-fired power stations flue gas desulphurisation is practicable with current abatement technology. On the basis of this advice the Government, in September 1986, in addition to authorising the CEGB to retrofit 6,000 MW of existing generating capacity over the period 1988 to 1997, announced that future coal-fired power stations would he required to be fitted with FGD. There are no plans at present to extend the retrofitting programme to other existing stations, but the possibility is kept under review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rail Services
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the British Railways Board about rail services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to seek to set up mini urban development corporations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I plan to introduce legislation to create a development corporation which would be responsible for developing a series of vacant and underused sites along the banks of the River Lagan as it flows through Belfast's inner city.

  I do not foresee the need to create new development corporations for other areas of Belfast or elsewhere.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Maghaberry prison will be ready for full occupation.

  Mr. Stanley
  There are two prisons on the same site at Maghaberry, one for women and one for men. The women's prison has been fully operational since March 1986. It is anticipated that the whole of the male prison will be available for occupation from January 1988. A gradual build-up of the population in the male prison has already started and will continue over the course of next year.

  Mutual Understanding
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to increase teaching in education for mutual understanding in schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 14 September I announced a new initiative in education for mutual understanding and allocated additional resources for this purpose. As part of this initiative there will be greater emphasis on EMU in the training of teachers and increased support from the Department's inspectorate. Funding for voluntary groups involved in inter schools' work will also be enhanced.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met schoolchildren in Enniskillen to promote education for mutual understanding.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have not spoken directly to these children since the tragic events of Remembrance Sunday. In addressing local sixth formers at Fermanagh college of further education in September last year I took the opportunity of emphasising the importance of mutual understanding when launching "The General Lesson", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding he will provide for the victims of the flooding at Strabane.
  265
  Mr. Needham
  In my reply of 3 December 1987, at columns 638–69, I indicated to the hon. Member the help provided at that time. Last week I announced a further package of measures to help those in genuine need in both Omagh and Strabane, including the creation of 45 ACE posts to provide the much needed help to refit and redecorate damaged property. I would also encourage those who may be eligible for payments under the social security system to claim these entitlements immediately.

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to introduce greater parental choice of schools in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I announced new arrangements on 7 April this year to abolish intake quotas to secondary schools which will give parents greater freedom of choice in the selection of secondary school for their children. The new arrangements are planned to take effect from September 1988.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to seek to change the scope and nature of the activities of the Intergovernmental Conference set up by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no such plans at present. My hon. Friend is aware that the agreement itself provides for a review of the working of the conference next November.

  Queen's University
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy, when fixing the block grant for Queen's University, Belfast, to stipulate that open competitions be held for academic posts and that all heads of department be required to spend a minimum number of days per week on university business; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. Appointments to academic posts at Queen's University, Belfast and the conditions of service of staff are entirely matters for the university authorities.

  Security
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security in the period since Sunday 8 November.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security position in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on improving cross-border security since 8 November.
  266
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).

  Election Candidates (Declaration)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to introduce a declaration of non-violence to be undertaken by all local government election candidates.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government's discussion paper "Elected Representatives and the Democratic Process in Northern Ireland" sought views by 30 November on such a proposal. We are now considering the way forward in the light of the responses received.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent the new budget for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive takes account of the difficulties faced by the executive in making adequate provision for the elderly, the disabled, and the homeless and in maintaining and improving existing housing stock.

  Mr. Needham
  Housing needs and conditions in Northern Ireland are assessed annually by the Housing Executive and the results of its reviews are considered fully when the public expenditure allocations for Northern Ireland are decided. While it has not proved possible to provide all of the funds sought by the Housing Executive for 1988–89, in recognition of the difficulties faced by the NIHE, the resources allocated are, in terms of expenditure per capita, significantly above other regions of the United Kingdom. It will be for the executive to propose, in the first instance, how these resources should be used in the provision of the various services which it supplies to tenants and applicants.

  Postgraduate Teacher Training Awards
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to change the eligibility criteria for postgraduate teacher training awards for Northern Ireland students studying in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no such plans for the immediate future, but I shall continue to review the position each year.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to seek to extend the provisions of the Education Reform Bill to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had on the implications of the Education Reform Bill for policy on secondary and higher education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The provisions of the Education Reform Bill will not generally extend to Northern Ireland, apart from those relating to certain university matters. I
  267
  shall be issuing a consultative paper early in the new year inviting comments on how best measures corresponding to those in the Bill can be implemented in Northern Ireland. Thereafter, separate Northern Ireland legislation will be brought forward.

  ACE Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of funding for the ACE scheme in the financial year 1987–88; and if he will make a statement on future levels of funding.

  Mr. Viggers
  A total of £28·84 million. An additional £10 million has been allocated to increase provision for the ACE programme in 1988–89.

  Youth Training Programme
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the operation of the youth training programme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The youth training programme has provided a two-year training package for 16 and 17-yearolds since 1982. During that time there have been 75,000 entrants. At the end of October this year there were 14,000 young people in training.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government are to publish their reply to the report on fair employment of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights.

  Mr. Viggers
  We shall announce our plans for legislation on religious equality of opportunity as soon as possible in the new year. Our detailed proposals will take full account of the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission's report.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he accepts the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in its report on fair employment, that the Government establish the goal of reducing the differential between male Catholic and male Protestant unemployment from two and a half times to one and a half times over the next five years.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government's goal is to effect a substantial reduction in the disparity in employment opportunity between the two communities, through the immediate adoption by all employers of the sound employment practices outlined in our "Guide to Effective Practice."

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of the document "Religious Equality of Opportunity in Employment: Guide to Effective Practice" have been distributed.

  Mr. Viggers
  Approximately 29,700 copies of the "Guide to Effective Practice" have been distributed to date.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is yet in a positin to say what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of 268
  the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights report on equality of opportunity to use the Government's purchasing power to promote equal opportunities, and to eradicate religious discrimination, in employment.

  Mr. Viggers
  The recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights are being carefully studied and they will be taken fully into account in framing our new legislative proposals. Details will be announced as soon as possible in the new year.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is his intention to legislate by means of a Bill, rather than by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights' report on fair employment.

  Mr. Viggers
  We intend to introduce new fair employment legislation at the earliest opportunity. My right hon. Friend and I have already made it clear that we shall take the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission fully into account in the new provisions. We have noted the representations that such legislation should be by Bill.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).

  Terrorism
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with progress in the fight against terrorism.

  Mr. Tom King
  Since 23 November a major security operation has been mounted by the Irish security forces, supported in Northern Ireland by the RUC and the Army, which has resulted in a number of important arrests and some finds of explosives and munitions.

  Since I last answered questions in the House on 12 November, two civilians have died in sectarian attacks. The security forces have continued their determined and courageous work. So far this year 431 people have been charged with serious offences, including 27 with murder, while 247 weapons, approximately 18,000 rounds of ammunition and nearly 13,000 lb of explosives have been recovered.

  In addition, the Garda Siochana has recovered up to the end of October 123 weapons, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and some 4,000 lb of explosives.

  Recent events north and south of the border have emphasised most clearly the vital need for both Governments to co-operate closely in the defeat of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation following the Enniskillen bombing.

  Mr. Tom King
  Since 23 November a major security operation has been mounted by the Irish security forces, supported in Northern Ireland by the RUC and the Army, which has resulted in a number of important arrests and some finds of explosives and munitions.
  269
  Since I last answered questions in the House on 12 November, two civilians have died in sectarian attacks. The security forces have continued their determined and courageous work. So far this year 431 people have been charged with serious offences, including 27 with murder, while 247 weapons, approximately 18,000 rounds of ammunition and nearly 13,000 lb of explosives have been recovered.

  In addition, the Garda Siochana has recovered up to the end of October 123 weapons, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and some 4,000 lb of explosives.

  That does not include a product of the recent search, which I understand will be announced this afternoon. It included some 50 weapons and four bunkers which are believed to have been for storage of possible shipments.

  Recent events north and south of the border have emphasised most clearly the vital need for both Governments to co-operate closely in the defeat of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.

  Labour Statistics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of unemployed in each local office area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information is as follows:

  Local office area (Jobmarket area)

  Number of unemployed claimants1

  October 1985

  October 1986

  October 1987

  Antrim

  3,802

  3,775

  3,455

  Armagh

  3,073

  3,369

  3,228

  Ballymena

  3,790

  4,228

  4,037

  Ballymoney

  2,692

  3,137

  2,889

  Ballynahinch

  801

  878

  843

  Banbridge

  2,095

  2,214

  2,144

  Bangor

  2,945

  3,089

  3,008

  Belfast

  38,960

  41,994

  40,050

  Carrickfergus

  2,272

  2,524

  2,236

  Coleraine

  3,941

  4,407

  4,130

  Cookstown

  2,272

  2,307

  2,189

  Downpatrick

  1,450

  1,555

  1,597

  Dungannon

  3,588

  3,832

  3,721

  Enniskillen

  4,480

  4,853

  4,627

  Kilkeel

  751

  836

  772

  Larne

  2,117

  2,296

  2,021

  Limavady

  2,318

  2,550

  2,424

  Lisburn

  4,265

  4,588

  4,176

  Londonderry

  10,021

  10,389

  9,956

  Lurgan

  3,841

  4,172

  3,843

  Magherafelt

  3,031

  3,165

  3,130

  Newcastle

  1,110

  1,172

  1,114

  Newry

  6,189

  6,463

  6,317

  Newtownards

  2,646

  2,896

  2,721

  Omagh

  3,105

  3,454

  3,465

  Portadown

  2,504

  2,575

  2,660

  Strabane

  3,763

  3,917

  3,948

  Northern Ireland

  121,822

  130,635

  124,701

  1 There was a change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986, which provided a more accurate and consistent measure of the numbers claiming benefits. This change consisted of compiling the statistics 3 weeks, rather than 1 week, after the specified count date each month. It resulted in the count being lower by an estimated average of 2,100 per month in Northern Ireland.

  Financial Policy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that all Government-approved increases, particularly regional rates, public housing rents and public housing heating charges, will not exceed the recognised inflationary factor.

  Mr. Stanley
  No. The Government recognise the significance of these costs for many households but the policy with regard to increases in charges must also have regard to overall public expenditure and fiscal considerations.

  Extradition
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposed changes in arrangements for extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the extradition agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

  Integrated Rural Development Plan
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to implement the integrated rural development plan for Northern Ireland, prepared and adopted by the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I am satisfied that the continued operation of existing administrative and financial arrangements, including the assistance available from the European Community, provide the appropriate means for tackling the social and economic problems in rural areas in Northern Ireland.

  RUC Mountain Rescue Team
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the RUC mountain rescue team is maintained.

  Mr. Stanley
  This is a matter for the operational judgment of the Chief Constable.

  Child Welfare
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that those disposed sexually to interfere with handicapped children are not appointed to positions in connection with children's welfare or education.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1983 the Department of Health and Social Services has operated a pre-employment consultancy service which enables health and social services boards and voluntary child care organisations to check the criminal background of shortlisted applicants for posts giving access to children in certain child care settings, chiefly children's homes and day-care facilities. The service does not generally extend to posts giving access
  271
  to children in facilities specifically for the mentally or physically handicapped. However, an interdepartmental working party, representative of the Department of Health and Social Services, the Department of Education and the Northern Ireland Officer, is currently drawing up proposals for a broader vetting system for the statutory sector, covering a wider range of posts, including those giving access to mentally or physically handicapped children. At a later stage consideration will be given to extending the system to the voluntary sector.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dental officers employed by each health

  Dental Officers 1984–87 at 31 December1 by Health and Social Services Board

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Health and social services board

  Number full time

  Number part time

  Total WRE

  Number full time

  Number part time

  Total WTE

  Change in WTE since 1984

  Number full time

  Number part time

  Total WTE

  Change in WTE since 1986

  Number full time

  Number part time

  Total WTE

  Change in WTE since 1985

  Eastern

  22

  4

  23·68

  22

  10

  26·38

  +2·70

  22

  10

  24·79

  -4·30

  22

  14

  24·36

  -0·43

  Northern

  8

  1

  8·61

  10

  —

  10·00

  +1·39

  9

  —

  9·00

  -1·00

  9

  1

  9·68

  +0·68

  Southern

  10

  1

  10·60

  9

  2

  9·78

  -0·82

  7

  2

  7·97

  -1·81

  8

  2

  8·97

  +1·00

  Western

  8

  5

  10·40

  7

  5

  9·40

  -1·00

  10

  5

  12·40

  +3·00

  10

  5

  12·40

  —

  1 1987 figures as at 30 September.

  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (NI) Order
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account Her Majesty's Government took of the various views expressed by interested bodies in submissions on the draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (NI) Order.

  Mr. Stanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 3 December to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).
  272
  and social services board in Northern Ireland are (a) full and (b) part-time; what full-time equivalents these numbers represent; whether their duties are similar; whether any board has any plans to increase the numbers of such officers; what change there has been in their numbers during the last three years; and what were the principal reasons for any such changes.

  Mr. Needham
  The table sets out the number of dental officers employed by each health and social services board in each of the past three years. The duties of these officers are similar. There are no plans to increase the number of these officers and any alterations in numbers over the past three years has been due to posts becoming vacant and subsequently being filled.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to increase the hill livestock compensatory allowance payable to farmers, in view of the drop in beef cattle numbers.

  Mr. Viggers
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 9 December 1987 the arrangements which will apply in the United Kingdom to the 1988 hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. I have nothing further to add.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Air Transport in Europe
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, following the meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council held on 7th December, agreement was reached on a total package covering air capacity and market access; and what was the action agreed on for hastening the liberalisation of air transport in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am pleased to say that a package of measures liberalising civil aviation within the Community was agreed by the Transport Council last Monday. This provides important new opportunities for airlines to introduce lower fares, to decide for themselves what capacity to operate, to open up new routes and for greater competition.
This is a major achievement. But it is only a first stage. The council is committed to agreeing on a second, more far reaching, step by 30th June 1990 as part of the wider process of completing the Community's internal market by the end of 1992.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I welcome this initial first step and congratulate the Government on their sustained effort to bring about the signing of this agreement, but is the Minister aware that regretfully I have reservations? I believe that the original proposals have been watered down significantly because of strong opposition from member states of the Community.
Will the Minister answer two brief questions? Does he feel able to agree that substantial benefits to airline passengers are unlikely until more radical measures have been introduced; and that the present agreement will have less far-reaching effects on fares than people imagine? Lastly, can he tell us when the agreement comes into force?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we certainly would not have agreed to the package if we did not believe that it was worth having. In fact it is based largely on the UK initiative and took shape during our Presidency last year. It will allow airlines to compete over the level of discount fares and to introduce new cheap fares. It relaxes the strict 50–50 capacity-sharing rule where it still exists, allowing airlines to operate more flights without being limited to matching the number flown by foreign airlines.
304
It will open up 60 new routes for UK airlines between hub and regional airports. But, most importantly—and for this reason in particular I think that we shall see cheaper fares—it allows direct head-to-head competition, known as multiple designation, on all the major trunk routes in the Community. This will mean increased choice for the consumer. The package comes into effect on 1st January next.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I welcome this package agreement, but does the Minister agree that there could be a danger of believing that liberalisation is deregulation? This is particularly important as on 9th November the Secretary of State said in answer to a Question in the other place that the air space over London is crowded. Must we not keep that in mind? Therefore we will still need to regulate the capacity our airports can cope with.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. I can assure your Lordships that all member states take their responsibilities for air safety extremely seriously. Questions of safety and congestion are kept under constant review. However, there is nothing in the new package that in any way weakens our present stringent safety standards and procedures or our determination to enforce them. The airports policy White Paper in 1985 took into account effects of liberalisation. As I said in an earlier answer, there is great potential for development of regional airports in this package.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I hope my reservations will prove groundless, but I doubt it? If I put down a Question for Written Answer will he have the details of this agreement printed in Hansard? It will then be much easier for all quarters of the House to realise what has been put forward.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. Copies of the instruments as adopted will be deposited in the Library as soon as they are available from the Commission. However, I should also be happy to provide a summary of the effects of the package in the form of a Written Answer if the noble Baroness puts down a Question.

London Roadworks
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Strange: 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 who is responsible for the present state of the roadworks between Trafalgar Square and Oxford Circus.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the City of Westminster as the highway authority is responsible for roadworks on the roads concerned.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful and informative reply. However, is he aware that, although the roadworks have now been

305
completed in the Haymarket and in Regent Street, it still takes in a bus between 15 and 25 minutes to travel from Trafalgar Square to Oxford Circus and in a taxi between 14 and 22 minutes, and vice versa? Is he also aware that the pavements in this area are full of potholes? There are 195 cracked paving stones.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my orginal Answer, this is a matter for Westminster City Council. However, noble Lords will be aware that there are major developments at Piccadilly Circus at the moment involving LRT and Westminster City Council and also various commercial developments. These will be continuing for a little longer. In the meantime I am sure that Westminster City Council will do what it can to alleviate the traffic problems.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the importance of the Question put by the noble Baroness, but is the noble Lord also aware that some of us are concerned with similar problems in the suburbs and in other parts of the country? Can he tell us whether the Street Works Advisory Committee, set up under the recommendations of the Horne Committee Report, is working satisfactorily, or have there been any complaints about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is rather a different question. I am aware that the Committee was set up under the recommendations of the Horne Report. but I am not briefed about its present progress. Perhaps I can find out and write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, will my noble friend consider asking whichever council it is, wherever it may he in London, whether more forethought can be given when these roadworks are to take place and notices put up so that a motorist can see them a mile or more before he reaches them? It might make life much easier, because one could then take an alternative route.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that Westminster City Council will read what has been said this afternoon in your Lordships' House. Perhaps it will be able to act on it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whichever highway authority is involved, it is in danger of losing the battle? For instance, Jermyn Street, which was previously blocked by parked cars, is now blocked by repairs. Is he also aware that London is in danger of winning the battle with New York and Washington over the number of holes which remain in roads? I hope that these will be repaired.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I too hope that the holes will be repaired. As I said earlier, it is a major development at Piccadilly Circus, which obviously is taking time. The Government give ample allowance to local authorities for road repairs.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that it is now quicker to walk from Piccadilly
306
Circus to Oxford Circus? In that context will he please congratulate British Airways on its excellent Christmas lights?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, certainly.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, having regard to the number of potholes, can my noble friend say whether the road authority is legally liable for damage to vehicles caused by them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. I shall have to write to my noble friend.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the deteriorating standard of pavement maintenance? When pavements are repaired the paving stones are often badly fitted. Is he further aware that I was all but thrown forward from my wheelchair when I hit one of these ill-fitting paving stones not long ago?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the experience of the noble Viscount but this is very much a matter for local councils, not for the Government.

Coinage: Design
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 they will commission the Royal Mint to examine and publish a report on improving the present design of the national coinage, and its ratio to paper currency.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. The Royal Mint has already published a pamphlet, The United Kingdom Coinage, setting out options for possible changes to the coinage. The Government are considering responses to that pamphlet and will be making a statement shortly. There are no plans to alter the ratio of coin to paper currency.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for advising us of the advances being made. Can he tell us how wide the consultations have been and what research has been undertaken? Will his department take into account the severe imbalance between coinage and paper in our currency? Will he take into account the Scottish attitude to the preservation of the £1 note and perhaps, if necessary introduce a £2 note?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government consulted widely on these plans. They have already commissioned research by Nottingham University. We have consulted interested parties such as the blind, industry, retailers, banks, manufacturers of coin vending machines, and the

307
general public, from whom we received over 3,000 letters. The imbalance between note and coin in this country is historic in that it has always been the same as it is now, at a ratio of either five to one or four to one.
Scottish pound notes and the question of whether or not the banks wish to continue with the printing of them are a matter for the Scottish banks. I understand that the banks are taking increasing numbers of coins.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why the £2 coin appeared and has now disappeared?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the £2 coin was issued as a commemorative coin. There are no plans to bring it into general circulation. On the other hand, there may be further occasions for commemorative coins.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the Minister give any assurance that the Scottish £1 note, which circulates with great acceptance north and south of the border, will be protected in any review that is undertaken?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, that is a matter for the Scottish banks. We should certainly not attempt to influence their decision to go on issuing pound notes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the form which our currency takes is not merely a matter for the banks? It is a matter of national concern, particularly in view of the unsatisfactory state of both its weight and its design in many forms. Will the Minister give some indication of what he means by "shortly" when he says that the Government will make a decision and an announcement shortly? How quick will "shortly" be?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope it will be before Christmas, but I do not want to commit myself completely to that. As I have said, we consulted not only the banks but a great many other interested parties and the general public.

Bovine Tuberculosis: Dairy Herds
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: 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 they are satisfied with the measures taken to prevent the re-establishment of tuberculosis in dairy herds in this country, and why the compensation offered in cases of compulsory slaughter is so much greater in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington):Yes, my Lords. We are satisfied that the measures taken are adequate. The basis on which compensation is calculated is generally the same for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, in Northern Ireland the maximum may be increased by up to £225 for pedigree cattle only. This is a longstanding arrangement, originally designed partly to encourage farmers to join the eradication scheme when it was voluntary, and which recognises the particularly strict health controls which apply in Northern Ireland and the additional risk of infection by movements across the land border.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that this Question arose from the eradication of a good pedigree herd belonging to a very good farmer, an ex-president of the NFU in Scotland? A number of disturbing features apply to the whole country. The first is that the three-year test in a previously clear herd suddenly disclosed 80 reactors out of 200. Secondly, traces of tuberculosis were found in the lymph glands in the cattle killed which were not reactors. Does this not indicate that countrywide tests should be more frequently applied? Is it not nonsense that this farmer, if his herd had been in Northern Ireland, would have received £70,000 more in compensation? Surely the grounds for this difference have long since disappeared.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a great many questions under the heading of one supplementary. The question about animals killed but which were not reactors showing positive tuberculosis results is in a way of no account because when a test reveals the reactors are slaughtered and a further test is carried out on the whole herd 60 days later. If disease is confirmed at post-mortem or in the laboratory further tests are carried out at 60-day intervals until the herd is clear. The average premium which has been paid over the past six months in Northern Ireland has been £130 and accounts for less than I per cent. of the total compensation paid in Northern Ireland.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the figure showing whether the number of reactors found over the past 10 years is on the increase or is remaining stable?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the incidence of reactors is currently about 0·015 per cent.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is that an increase or a decrease over the past 10 years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the incidence is very much decreased over the years.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the level of compensation between animals from Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I understand the reasons for the higher level of compensation for pedigree animals when that was introduced, but surely that no longer applies.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that there has been the greatest difficulty in eradicating this disease in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there is the problem of movement of cattle across the border. It is considered necessary to continue with this amount of money in that area where the incidence is still higher than in this country.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am concerned about the difference between pedigree and non-pedigree animals. I can understand the level of compensation being higher for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, but why is there the difference between the pedigree and the non-pedigree animal?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, successive governments have taken the view that 75 per cent. strikes a fair balance between recognition of the efforts and co-operation between herd owners in TB eradication, on the one hand, and, on the other, the considerable public investment in fighting the disease. With the incidence of tuberculosis now at a very low level farmers can insure against the disease at reasonable premium rates to cover the difference between compensation and the market value of reactors.

Business
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1987 and the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1987 will be taken.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 20,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 21 to 33,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 34 to 43,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 44 to 51,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 52,

Schedule 8.

—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 8th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Rule requiring corroboration abolished]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No, 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("in relation to civil proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to remove unnecessary words from Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Admissibility of hearsay]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No, 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("(3) In paragraph (e) of section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 (power to make provision as regards the Court of Session for admission of written statements etc. in lieu of parole evidence), for the words "the admission in lieu of parole evidence of written statements (including affidavits) and reports, on such conditions as may be prescribed" there shall be substituted the words "written statements (including affidavits) and reports, admissible under section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1987, to be received in evidence, on such conditions as may be prescribed, without being spoken to by a witness".
(4) For paragraph (3) of section 32(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (corresponding power to make provision as regards the sheriff court) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(e) providing in respect of any category of civil proceedings for written statements (including affidavits) and reports, admissible under section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1987, to be received in evidence, on such conditions as may be prescribed, without being spoken to by a witness,".")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, when accepting an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to delete what was then Clause 2(3) of the Bill, I indicated that I wished to be certain that the Bill dealt properly with the question of evidence given by way of written statements. Procedural rules made under the powers contained in the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 provide for the admission in certain categories of case of written statements, including affidavits and reports in lieu of oral evidence. Power is also given to prescribe conditions which must be satisfied before the document is admitted.
These rules serve two purposes. First, they ensure that statements are admissible. Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill provides for the admissibility of statements made other than during the course of a proof; and to that extent the rules would be otiose. The second purpose is to provide in appropriate circumstances that the statement will be capable of being received in evidence without requiring to be spoken to in any further way—in short, to be "self-proving". As I mentioned during the debate in Committee, there are instances where it is not entirely clear on the face of the rules whether production of a statement in satisfaction of the prescribed conditions will render a document self-proving. This appears to he generally accepted in practice, however.
I think it right that we should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to make it clear that the court does have power to provide that documents which are otherwise admissible and satisfy any prescribed conditions can be self-proving. In this way I believe that a proper distinction will be established as between those statements admissible under Clause 2, but requiring authentication, and those statements to which the court has decided to accord special status as being not only admissible under Clause 2 but also self-proving in the particular circumstances prescribed by rules of court.
I have said that the rules will be overtaken by Clause 2(1)(b). It would surely be inappropriate to leave in place a power to make rules purporting to render written statements, including affidavits, admissible. Such a power could not be properly exercisable in so far as all such documents will in future be admissible. The amendment makes it clear that for the future the power to make rules in this regard does not extend to matters of admissibility.
This amendment therefore refines the existing powers in the 1933 and 1971 Acts to clarify that the rules of court may provide that in any specified category of case a written statement otherwise admissible will be taken to be the statement of the person alleged to have made it, provided that it satisfies any prescribed conditions as to authentication.
This is an important matter and one to which considerable thought has been given both inside and outside this House. It has resulted in an amendment which I consider effects a considerable improvement to the Bill. I have sought the views of the Lord President of the Court of Session and he is content with the manner in which, as a result of this amendment, the Bill would deal with rules of court. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has taken up at this stage all but one of the points I tried to raise at Second Reading and in Committee. He has taken the areas which I tried to amend and refined and polished my amendments. I am delighted and very much welcome the helpful and constructive approach that he has taken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Application of certain provisions of Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Acts 1966 and 1968]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving this amendment I also speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
This package of amendments is the result of further consideration of the question as to what types of proceedings should come within the ambit of the Bill. At present, as well as applying to ordinary courts, the Bill applies to common law arbitrations and other proceedings where the parties can exercise control over which rules of evidence are to regulate their case. I accept it to be a logical extension of the policy to have the Bill apply on the same footing to statutory arbitrations, tribunals and inquiries. In this way the Bill will provide a uniform basis of evidential rules for all the proceedings mentioned. If this and the succeeding amendments are accepted, the Bill will apply to the whole range of civil proceedings but it will make the important distinction that different evidential rules can be applied to those proceedings where it is competent to do so by, for example, tribunal rules or by agreement of parties in arbitrations.
The remaining amendments are consequential. The inclusion of proceedings which were originally not covered by the Bill enables the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Acts 1966 and 1968 to be repealed in the schedule to the Bill. With that understanding, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 42 to ("and") in line 44 and insert—
("( ) any arbitration, whether or not under an enactment, except in so far as. in relation to the conduct of the arbitration, specific provision has been made as regards the rules of evidence which are to apply;
( ) any proceedings before a tribunal or inquiry, except in so far as, in relation to the conduct of proceedings before the tribunal or inquiry, specific provision has been made as regards the rules of evidence which are to apply:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 7, at end insert—

("1966 c. 19.

The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966.

Section 7.

1968 c. 70

The Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968

Section 9. Sections 13 to 16. In section 17(3), the definition of "computer".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Royal Assent
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act,
Highland Region Harbours (Miscellaneous Powers) Order Confirmation Act,
Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act,
Associated British Ports Act.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether at this stage I might make an appeal to those of your Lordships who are taking an active part in this Bill. In this House we have no guillotine and no selection of amendments as is the case in another place. Any noble Lord may table and move any amendments that he likes and as many noble Lords who wish to speak to them are free to do so. And this is clearly right for a revising Chamber. But I really do believe that it presupposes a large measure of voluntary restraint both in the number of amendments tabled and in the number and length of interventions. I must tell your Lordships that amendments have been tabled to this Bill at such a rate that, as we enter this fourth Committee day, there is a larger number still to be discussed on the fourth Marshalled List than appeared on the first Marshalled List at the beginning of the opening day.
It clearly cannot be right for an amendment that happens to be called in the afternoon and early evening to attract an inordinate amount of discussion whereas those that are called after the dinner adjournment have to be skimped. The efficacy of your Lordships in dealing with a particular point does not necessarily vary in proportion to the amount of time spent on it. Very often the reverse is the case. And it is generally accepted on all sides of the House that it is incumbent on all noble Lords to see that the Government are enabled to get their business through in reasonable time.
This particular Bill, being intricate, wide-ranging and controversial, although almost entirely in a nonparty-political way, is one that your Lordships' House with its wide range of expertise and
314
experience is ideally suited to process. But it is also one on which the rate of progress is almost impossible to control.
It is proposed that, today being a Thursday, the House should sit until the normal time of somewhere between 10.30 and 11 tonight. There will be two further Committee days next week. On Monday next, 14th December, the House may sit until midnight but on Thursday, 17th, it will rise no later than 6 p.m. There will now be one final day after the Christmas Recess, on Tuesday, 12th January, when the Committee stage of this Bill will be concluded at whatever hour that may be. The appeal that I therefore wish to make is that all noble Lords should exercise the voluntary restraint that I have referred to, both in moving and speaking to amendments, so that the hour at which the Committee stage is completed and the House is therefore able to rise on Tuesday, 12th January, does not present too awesome an ordeal either to your Lordships or to the staff of the House who serve us so well.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for that statement. I should like to respond to it and support him in the plea he makes for a large measure of voluntary restraint by your Lordships in the number and length of interventions during the Committee stage of the Bill. I should in fact say that I do not think that overmuch time has been wasted on the Bill, and that amendments have been cogently and concisely put.
I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for agreeing that it is sensible that there should be an extra Committee day on this Bill in the New Year. I am sure that with that extra Committee day on Tuesday, 12th January, we should, given goodwill all round, be able to complete our consideration of the Bill at Committee at a not too late hour on that day.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I also wish to thank the noble Lord the Chief Whip for making this statement. He was kind enough to give me some few minutes prior knowledge of what he was going to say. Again, as I think a subsidiary of the usual channels, I also welcome attention being drawn to this problem.
The fact is that one cannot really restrain noble Lords from putting down reasonable amendments. Not all the amendments that have been put down late in the day have been from the Opposition parties. A goodly number of them have come from the Government, and I believe that there are still some government amendments to come before next week.
Nevertheless, we are grateful that it has been found possible to take an extra day over this complicated and highly technical Bill. However, I would join in urging noble Lords to speak as briefly as they can to their amendments on the understanding that they very rarely change anybody's minds, however long they talk.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords opposite for their support in this way and, in anticipation, your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
3.33 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
("Licensing scheme for making copies of sound recordings.
. (1) The Secretary of State may by order on the appointed date vary the provisions of this Act with regard to the making of copies for private purposes by members of the public of sound recordings or musical works on any recording medium by approving a licensing scheme in relation thereto.
(2) A scheme established for the purposes of this section shall—

(i) provide for the collection of a royalty on blank audio compact cassettes from manufacturers and importers of this medium in the United Kingdom;

(ii) specify the categories of copyright owners and performers entitled to benefit from the royalty;

(iii) provide for the establishment of a collecting society to be charged with the collection and distribution of the royalty;

(iv) prescribe the rate at which such royalties be payable and the method by which the proceeds shall be distributed by the collecting society.

(3) The Secretary of State may provide in such licensing scheme for the establishment of approved procedures for granting rebates of any royalty paid under the scheme to—

(i) persons who are blind or whose sight is so impaired that they cannot read;

(ii) organisations to be designated as representing persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (i).

(4) A scheme established under this section may provide that non-compliance with any specified requirement of the scheme shall constitute a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) A dispute arising from the operation of any part of such scheme may be referred to the Copyright Tribunal.
(6) The power to make such order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 174. Having listened to the modest strictures of my noble friend the Chief Whip, whose dilemma one understands, I have put down only three simple amendments here, so I am not guilty of being one of those who have prolonged the proceedings of the Committee. The amendments are so reasonable that I have no doubt that the Government will be only too happy to accept them.
The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. It is to allow the Secretary of State to approve a scheme which legalises home-taping in return for the payment of a royalty on blank audio tapes. Everyone knows that home-taping has become a major consumer activity over the past 15 years. Research has shown that more than six times as much recorded music is acquired by the process of home-taping than is acquired by purchase. This taping is from records and from the radio. The effect on the record industry is that this has drastically reduced its ability to benefit from its market; it has also reduced the amount which performers and companies are paid for the work they have made and which other people now copy for nothing.
In 1986 over 90 million blank tapes were imported into the United Kingdom, and 90 per cent. of those blank tapes were used for recording music; and they cost about £1 each. The position at the moment is curious, if not absurd, in that it is legal to tape a record if it is played on the radio but it is illegal to tape it if it is played at home. But of course there is no way of enforcing the law. Those who tape at home are in fact breaking the law.
Home-taping is here to stay and no one objects to that, but the purpose of this amendment is to allow some reasonable return to the artists and to the record companies who have provided the material which is in demand, and at the same time to legalise what at present is illegal.
There is no simple way of doing this, or no specifically right way of doing it. The most reasonable way is to put a levy on the use of all blank tapes: in other words, to provide a royalty. The 1986 White Paper suggested a 10 per cent. levy. That seems modest enough. I should have thought that there was a sound argument for having a larger levy, but that was what was considered.
The 1986 White Paper also considered that only tapes which have a duration of over 35 minutes should be subject to a levy. Ordinary tapes which are used for business purposes, or those used for talking, would not be subject to the levy. Longer tapes which are used for recording books for the blind will also be exempt.
This would not be difficult to organise. My amendment allows the Secretary of State to draw up a scheme. A collecting agency would be empowered to collect a levy at a stated rate on all tapes which were imported, or tapes which were manufactured in this country. In fact almost all blank tapes are imported. This royalty would then be distributed in an appropriate fashion to the owners of the copyright—in other words, to the record companies and to the music publishers. The performers would then be paid their royalty in relation to the contracts that they had with the companies and the publishers.
The owners of the copyright and the performers would then be able to benefit from the public enjoyment of their work which, at the moment, they are unable to do. The fact that they cannot do this runs counter to the most basic principles of copyright which have been enshrined in English law for nearly three centuries.
I suppose that a reasonable encapsulation of the philosophy of this amendment would be that copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material and performances by those who tape them at home to the prejudice of the legitimate interests of copyright owners. There is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tapes as a means of providing such remuneration. Any levy should give the public an entitlement to record for private purposes.
That was not my view. That was the Government's view, which they put forward in their White Paper of 1986. Indeed no fewer than six pages of the White Paper were allocated to dealing with the problem of allowing a levy on blank tapes. The Government

317
were clear in what they intended to do. My amendment puts into the Bill so far as possible what was said in the White Paper. The White Paper said that the Secretary of State will be empowered to make an order providing for a levy. The levy will be payable by the manufacturers and importers. Any order will specify the categories of copyright owners and performers who are entitled to benefit from the levy. The rate of levy will be prescribed in the order. Any levy scheme introduced will be operated by a collecting society approved by the Secretary of State. Trading in leviable tapes without notifying the society will be a criminal offence. Performers and owners of copyrights and sound recordings and works would receive the benefit of 10 per cent. of the retail sales value. As a consequence of the order, domestic users will be entitled to make for private purposes recordings of copyright material.
All the onus is on the Secretary of State in making an order, and the amendment permits him to do that. That is what the Government thought in 1986, and they also thought so as recently as June this year. A brief circulated in respect of the Queen's Speech included the announcement that a Bill would be brought forward to reform the law of copyright and other intellectual property. One of the main provisions would be to legalise home taping in exchange for a 10 per cent. levy on blank audio tapes.
l am a fairly generous fellow and I like to think that the Government must have forgotten to include that provision in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will acquit me of putting any knives into him from behind, because I would not do such a disagreeable thing. I am trying to help him in his modest difficulty. This issue did not appear in the manifesto because manifestos deal with more important matters than putting levies on tapes. However, it appeared in the Conservative campaign guide, which stated that as part of a major reform of the law of copyright home taping would be legalised in exchange for a 10 per cent. levy on blank audio tapes which would be paid to copyright owners.
The Government have consistently taken that view and I am bound to ask what has happened to make the Government change their mind. I am all in favour of governments changing their mind because it shows that they are not rigid and inflexible. I hope that they will change their mind again because I believe that the provision is important. I hope that they will incorporate the provision which they stated in the Green Paper was their intention. They also stated in the White Paper that that was their intention; they stated during the election campaign that that was their intention; and they stated in the Queen's Speech that that was their intention. I thought that the Government were right on those occasions, and I still think that they are right. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. I believe that it is contrary to what the law should be. I suggest that home taping is in no way wrongful, in no way illegal and in no way an infringement of any copyright. I suggest that what
318
was stated in the White Paper is wrong in law. Paragraph 6.2 states:
"the owners of copyright in audio, video and broadcast material have the right to control reproduction of that material. This means that much home taping is illegal since there are copyrights in most broadcasts and recordings and the owners of those copyrights have not consented to the home taping."
I should like to put forward one or two instances. Let us suppose that there is a broadcast of some of the music of Gilbert and Sullivan and that at home I record that on to tape. There is now no copyright in the operas of Gilbert and Sullivan. That is removed after the author or authors have been dead for more than 50 years.
If anyone at home thinks sufficient of my speech in this Committee to record it on tape, there is no copyright. It might well be that they will tape a speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham; and if so there is no infringement of copyright because there is no infringement of what is recorded of my noble and learned friend's speech. Those are simple instances in which home taping is not in the least illegal.
I should like to put forward further examples of recordings which may be the subject of copyright. I appeared in a programme called "Jim'll Fix It", where I played the part of a mock judge and I gave a mock judgment about Noddy who had been found guilty of reckless driving in Toytown. If that programme had been the subject of home taping (as it might have been) I would not now have any complaint about that. It is only the BBC which could complain because it owns the copyright. If that is right, it would be able to say, "You are infringing the BBC's copyright and not Lord Denning's". The same would apply to the "Wogan" programme on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and I appeared and gave an interview, or whatever it is called. I suggest that we would not own the copyright; it would be owned by the BBC or some such body.
My question is this: is it not lawful for every home taper, if he so wishes, to tape "Jim'll Fix It", or "Wogan", or whatever? Is he infringing anyone's copyright? I suggest he is not for the following simple reason. When the BBC, or any such body, puts out the programmes, knowing that millions of people at home will tape them, it impliedly consents to that home taping by so doing and therefore it is no infringement at all. If there is an objection, let the announcement be shown at the beginning of the programme, "You are not to home tape this programme", and then it would be illegal. Unless that is shown they are impliedly consenting and acquiescing to all the home tapers taping it.
I suggest that the fundamental proposition is quite wrong. Home taping of any programme is not illegal unless it is specifically prohibited by the broadcaster or whoever, as the case may be. If that is right, it destroys the whole basis of the blanket fee in regard to the selling of the tapes. There is nothing unlawful in home taping.
One of the amendments tabled provides that the Secretary of State may make a licensing system. Another states that he shall make a licensing system. What is even worse is the fact that he is given power to create new criminal offences. If a person makes a tape or supplies it without paying the fee, he will be

319
guilty of a criminal offence. The Secretary of State's regulations are not the right place in which to create new criminal offences. In each of these amendments power is given to the Secretary of State to define what are criminal offences under the law of England. That is not the right place. If a new criminal offence is to be created, it must be created by an Act of Parliament. I entirely oppose this amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I hesitate to suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is totally mistaken but for the fact that on more than one occasion in the past legal luminaries have reached a similar conclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will agree that in the past he has been mistaken, as happens to us all from time to time. It is therefore conceivably possible that he may be mistaken on this occasion, and I am sure that he will be ready to accept that.
I think that the noble and learned Lord is wrong because the Government are right in this matter. It sticks a little in my gullet to say that; but it is true that throughout the whole of this affair the Government have been right until this moment when they state that they will not act in the way in which they have always recommended. I do not know why the Government have changed their mind. I listen to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in the hope that he will be able to tell us why. I do not know whether he knows, but I do not know. The Government have not told us why. They have merely stated that they have changed their mind. We have had no details. Until we have some details, I think noble Lords on all sides of the Committee may ask: what has happened to change the Government's mind on this issue?
Here is something which is agreed throughout the entire industry—performers, copyright owners, the whole range—and the Government themselves have said that there is no reasonable or proper alternative to reward people, who are entitled to reward other than this 10 per cent. levy which the Government proposed. And, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out, they went so far in their own statement as to declare the size of the levy. They said that it would be a 10 per cent. levy, which is most unusual. It seemed to declare a certainty of procedure which at the last moment they have decided not to follow. I simply do not understand this.
I shall not go over the entire ground of the matter, partly in response to the appeal made so persuasively by the noble Lord the Chief Whip and endorsed by the other Chief Whips. It would he possible to do that, but I shall refrain from doing so. The arguments have been so cogently expressed in the past that I should add nothing to them if I were to try to do so this afternoon. Noble Lords who have read the White Paper on this matter, and who have considered the debates which took place earlier on the Green Paper on the subject, can have no doubt that the Government were on the right path. But they are now retreating from that position for reasons which entirely escape me and which I cannot understand for the moment.
It is my hope that the Government will listen to the appeal made by the noble Earl and, if they were to do
320
so—I say this in a further contribution to the appeal of the Chief Whip—and were to agree to the amendment put before them by the noble Earl, although the noble Earl's proposals are less good than those which the Government themselves made in the White Paper but go some way towards them, I would not move the two amendments which follow in my own name. I hope that the Government will accede to that appeal and will do as I suggest.
Lord Willis: It may be convenient if I speak to my Amendment 174C, which is very similar to the amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. My amendment is down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and myself. The basic difference, apart from the fact that mine is longer and better, is that I provide for the Government at some stage, if necessary, to introduce a similar scheme for video.
One of the great problems with some of the speeches I have heard in this Chamber is that quite a lot of noble Lords have appeared on television, like the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning. If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who I believe appeared on a programme called "Tom'll Fix It"—
A Noble Lord: "Jim'lI Fix It".
Lord Willis: "Tom'll Fix It" will do just as well. The fact is, if I may say so with the deepest respect, that the noble and learned Lord is a great and senior professional judge but he is an amateur actor, and there are out there a great number of professional actors who are earning a living at what he was doing and who have some concern about copyright. They have some concern that the product of their art is being exploited by other people with no return to them.
I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said earlier about keeping speeches short, but perhaps I may say that the truth is that, first, it is a most important amendment, and, secondly, it is a most important Bill and I should not have thought it a political Bill that needed to be rushed through this Chamber in any way.
However, home taping has become the single biggest use of pre-recorded music today. Half the adult population of this country copies music. It does not buy it; it copies it. A third of adults with tape equipment have access to twin cassette decks and can copy. Many children of 8 to 14 are already in the habit of copying music. It has become a natural thing, and the British Market Research Bureau—I have quoted its figures so far—estimates that something like 80 per cent. of children copy music. That is a great flood.
I am not suggesting for one moment that you can stop it, but can we stand idly by and allow it to go on without any recompense to the music industry, the composers, the lyricists, the orchestras, etc? All blank audio tapes are imported, most of them from Japan—more than half, certainly—and there are approaching 100 million blank cassettes sold every year. Why do you buy a blank audio cassette? You buy it to copy music or something else that you may

321
want from the BBC, from the independent radio stations or from records.
It is a common thing now that you can go to your local library and hire a new issue of a record. You take it home, you tape it and then you take the record back. What have you done? You have paid £1 for hire to the local library, from which the author, the composer and the music companies get nothing. You paid £1 to that local library for the use of it. I do not condemn it, but you have copied it and then you pass it on to friends. That is just audio tapes, and it has become a tremendous flood. Whatever way noble Lords look at it, the fact is that it is robbery. Somebody's creative rights are being robbed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that there is no harm in copying a tape. But if every home in this country had a reprography machine, what would we say if people borrowed a book from the library, made innumerable copies of it and passed them out to their friends? Would not that be theft? Would not there be an outcry about that? Is there any difference between that and copying music or songs?
The difference between my amendment and that of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is that I look to the future on the question of video tapes. That is already a danger on the horizon and, in a way, it is even more serious because video tapes cover a wider range than music. You have composers, you have playwrights, you have directors and you have actors, all of whom under their union agreements get extra fees if their performances are reproduced, and perhaps sold in Australia, America, or wherever; but they do not get the fees if their performances are stolen and copied on a video cassette.
We are now getting to a situation where there are twin cassette decks for videos, and it will be a simple matter for people to set them up, hire a video, copy it and then pass it on. I admit that it is not yet a serious problem, but what we have done in the amendment is to provide for the Government, at some stage or other, if the problem becomes serious, to introduce the necessary regulations about a levy on video tapes.
It is a growing problem. Other Western countries—France, Germany and Portugal—have introduced a home taping levy both on video and on audio, and it has been shown, particularly in those countries, that the amount of levy on the audio tape has either been absorbed by the manufacturers or passed hardly noticed by the people who buy the tapes. So I do not think we have a great problem there. If the UK becomes the odd man out, there may well be a situation in which some of the record companies move elsewhere.
What are the objections to this licensing scheme? I do not like the word "levy". I prefer to call it a licensing scheme, but for the sake of shorthand I will call it a levy. What are the objections to it? First, it is said that it would be a new tax. The Government themselves, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, admitted in the White Paper that it would not be a new tax. and there is no reason why the Government should become involved in it at all. We have some very efficient licensing societies in this country. They
322
could get together and collect this levy and distribute it. It would not involve the Government in any cost or in any effort.
Another objection is that the bulk of the money would go to the well-off people. That is no argument, is it? You may as well say that if a millionaire's home was burgled, the police should take no action because he could well afford to be burgled. In any case, with this levy it would be quite possible, as with public lending right, to put a ceiling on it. That would be quite acceptable to the industry and to the creative people in the industry. But it certainly is not a defensible argument to say that because some money might go to the well-off people we should not have it. The principle remains the same whether £1 or £1 million is involved.
Another argument is that not every tape is used to breach copyright. Of course there may be a few that people use for dictating messages or to send off to their children in Australia and such places. So there is a certain element of rough justice here. There is a certain element of rough justice in the public lending right Bill in the sense that composite authors sometimes do not receive anything. We cannot get absolute perfection, but are we going to throw away justice because we cannot get absolute perfection? In any case, the number of audio tapes that are sold for use other than copying must be really very small.
The other argument concerns the deaf and other handicapped people. There is no problem there as regards sorting out a scheme. If the Government were to accept this amendment and were to set up a licensing scheme I can assure the Committee that the licensing body of which I am the president would be very happy to work out a scheme with them whereby the handicapped people to whom I have referred would get a free run at this particular problem. There is really no great problem there.
The other argument is that not much money would be raised by this measure. Again, that is absolutely irrelevant. The principle remains the same. In an earlier debate, some comment was made about America and the fact that some scheme had been brought into being there and all the costs had been swallowed up in administration. But the Americans have now got it right after three or four years of not having it right. That still does not depart from the principle. If this levy is right, we must have it. With apologies for yet again repeating what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said earlier, I must again say that if it is worth copying it is worth protecting.
4 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I simply wish to address the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has touched on affecting the blind and the partially sighted. Normally I am extremely sympathetic to anything promoted by the noble Lord. I well recall his long and ultimately successful battle with the public lending right, which I fully applaud.
The noble Lord recognised that not all tapes are used for recording music. That is particularly the case in relation to the blind, who use blank tapes as a basic aid where most of us would use a pen and a notepad,

323
a pencil or some other means of annotation. They may also use such means for recording visits to ancient monuments or routes for rambling or other leisure purposes. They may also use them for some work purposes. Here I have a note about a student who used 75 four-track C90 cassettes for lectures and lecture notes during his course at university. So these blank tapes have many applications for the blind and the partially sighted.
It is the case that both these amendments make an attempt to address this problem. The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, states:
"The Secretary of State may".
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out, this provision is only permissive. Nevertheless, the amendment states that the Secretary of State may provide in the scheme for some special arrangements for,
"persons who are blind or whose sight is so impaired that they cannot read".
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, which is longer and has more flesh on it, is not permissive. It states that the Secretary of State shall do something about this. It refers to classes of persons or organisations entitled to rebate of royalty payments. In fact, the blind and the partially sighted are not actually specified in that amendment. If the Committee were to accept that amendment I should wish to see that group of people included in it.
But there are great problems attaching to rebates and exemptions. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that he would be very happy to get together with the interested parties and that no great problem was involved. However, that is not my information. I have it on good authority that the Royal National Institute for the Blind and other bodies spent something like 18 months trying to work out a viable scheme with the Department of Trade and Industry, and that they failed to do so. One of the solutions that was put forward was vouchers for the blind. However, that would obviously produce much personal difficulty in a blind person's life. It would mean that he would handle more paper work, and what is generally called the hassle factor would increase. There would also be the difficulty of putting a value on the vouchers when tapes are of different lengths and different values.
It was also suggested—I was initially attracted to this idea—that the principal organisation representing the blind should act as the distribution centre for levy-free tapes. That on first sight did not seem to be too bad an idea, but I understand from the RNIB that it simply does not have the organisation or the funding to carry out such a scheme. It has no network of local branches to act as distributors. There are 200 autonomous non-RNIB local organisations around the country, but there would be great problems in postage and even in identifying the members of the blind community because apparently blind people are not identified in any way by means of any central register. So there are very considerable practical problems facing any exemption or rebate scheme from a levy.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, provides that the measure should not apply to tapes
324
of under 35 minutes. Some Members of the Committee may be inclined to think that this is sufficient for the purposes that I have been indicating, but I gather from the figures that have been sent to me that practically all the tapes that are bought by the blind are of 60 or 90 minutes duration or longer. They seem to prefer those, presumably on the grounds that they represent greater economy, utility and practicality.
Therefore, all these very considerable difficulties exist as regards implementing either of these schemes. I must say that given the appalling disability to which blind people are subject and the great utility of this method of recording information which is of the greatest use in their lives, I personally would find it very hard to vote for either of these amendments unless either of the noble Lords or indeed the Secretary of State himself can assure us that there is some copper-bottomed way around the problems that I have outlined. However, I have yet to hear it.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: I spoke regarding this matter at some length on Second Reading and I have no intention, in saying that I warmly support one or other of these amendments, of attempting to rehearse at length the arguments which have already been adduced. More particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has made the case so clearly and so eloquently, it would be idle to seek to add very much to what he has already put before the Committee.
One always listens to the opinions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with the greatest respect, particularly on legal matters. Nevertheless, I confess that I was a little surprised to hear him state so broadly, as I understood it, that in no circumstances whatever would it be an offence to carry out home taping. Clearly, in the kind of instances that he gave—cases where one is dealing with non-copyright material—no infringement may be committed, but that is not the kind of case to which this argument is directed. It is directed towards copyright records, normally with copyright music on them.
I should have thought—certainly the Government have always taken the view—that it is quite clear that there is an infringement of copyright in such cases. It was part of the Government's proposal that there would be an adequate quid pro quo to the public for introducing the scheme, which they had supported both in their Green Paper and in their White Paper. The public would be given a licence, in effect, to carry out home taping without any fear that they were infringing anyone's copyright. That would be a valuable right to the public because they would know that what they were doing was perfectly proper and lawful.
The Government stated in their White Paper in the clearest terms on page 38 that they had concluded that:
"there is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tape as a means of providing such remuneration"—
that is, for the copyright owners. They say that they have given full and careful consideration to all the opinions expressed in response to the 1985 Green Paper and that they have come to that conclusion.

325
With great respect, it seems rather surprising that the Government now come along and, having dealt very effectively with such arguments as were raised against the idea of a levy, say that they have changed their mind and are rejecting their own carefully considered opinion.
At the very least, one would have thought that in those circumstances they would have given a careful and detailed explanation of the reasons they have for changing their mind. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has pointed out, we have not been vouchsafed any such explanation. The matter therefore stands in that extremely unsatisfactory way.
Perhaps I may venture to make one other point. Private Members of your Lordships' House are in difficulty when they come to submit draft clauses of this degree of complexity. No doubt there are certain difficulties which arise on the actual drafting of clauses. However, one hopes that, if the Government can be persuaded to take further thought and revert to their previous considered opinion—which was expressed on several occasions in print—that such a levy is the only way of dealing with the matter, noble Lords advancing the proposals would withdraw their amendments on the understanding that the Government will produce carefully considered amendments which have had the full attention of their draftsmen.
I urge on the Government, as far as one can, that they should reconsider the matter and come up with their own clauses in due course, which they have largely considered in their own White Paper. I urge them to present proposals, whether in the positive form that a scheme shall be introduced, which I imagine most noble Lords who are in favour of the amendment would prefer, or, alternatively, the lesser solution. which is taken in the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the matter should be discretionary and that the Secretary of State should be able to consider all the implications before the actual introduction of the scheme.
That would enable him, for example, to have ample time to consider the technical complications that may arise, such as those just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when he drew attention to the fact that there may well be technical complications in making the scheme adapt to the needs of the blind. That is a point with which all noble Lords will doubtless sympathise. I make a firm request to the Government to reconsider the matter and in due course introduce an amendment of their own.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may make one brief comment. It has been stated that in the amendment standing in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, there are no exceptions for the blind. However, if the Committee will look at subsection (4)(d), it will see that the Secretary of State may define the classes of persons or organisations entitled to a rebate of royalty paid. I hardly think that he would not class the blind as one of the groups who would be entitled to a rebate.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: I thought that everyone was now in favour of freedom of the press and freedom of information being pushed as widely as possible. Now we understand that that is not so. Why should people pay 10 per cent. more for recording something they like at home? Why should an unemployed man have to pay 10 per cent. more for recording a football match? If we want wider freedom, let us have it here.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I suggest that the Government were entirely right to omit the substance of the amendment from the Bill. That is true quite apart from any questions of drafting. It is all a question of balancing the interests of a group with sectional commercial interests against the home user. It is doubtful whether the record industry is being seriously disadvantaged to the degree that we should tip the balance against the home user or that that situation would ever arise. The question of exceptions can be made a matter of drafting. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, has said, and I think that the Government are entirely right.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I wish to speak briefly, not for any reason that the Chief Whip has given us, but for the better one that I do not have much to say on this matter. I have been building up a collection of tapes from the wireless for the last 10 years. Ten years ago, being a law abiding character, I had a licence for doing that; it cost 30 shillings in those days. That licence was then discontinued. Since then I have been in open breach of the law. I am very grateful that the Bill will make an honest man of me.
I feel that the very large number of people who have enormously developed their interest and pleasure in music through that medium are without exception prepared to pay a small premium on tapes so that performers and composers—both of whom were omitted in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—quite apart from the companies that arrange such matters, may get some return. That was the principle of a kind behind PR. It has worked very well, This is on the same lines and I feel that it is only a matter of justice to performers that they should receive something for this entirely new technological development.
Viscount Caldecote: In a finely balanced issue of this kind I think it is very important that all the facts should be clearly before us. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that the whole industry was in favour of the amendment. The tape manufacturers' industry is not in favour of it for obvious reasons.
Secondly, the impression has been given that the only other kinds of use are for the blind and so on. However, enormous lengths of magnetic tape are used for scientific purposes and that is very important. It would be most unfortunate if that were not taken into account. We do not want to increase the cost of scientific work; there is a shortage of money for such work as it is. It is important that those factors should be put on the other side of the argument.
Lord Auckland: As I see it, the amendment applies mainly to the record industry. As I said on Second Reading, I have no interest to declare except that I am a collector of records as opposed to tapes. It seems to me that what the Committee has to decide is whether the record industry is being hit through home taping. One has only to go to a record shop in one's lunch hour to see how many people still buy records, cassettes and compact discs.
Where there are rentals of videos it is a completely different matter. This Bill is the first such Bill for 30 years and in 30 years' time when many of us will not be around, we shall have another Bill and at that time home taping and videos will be just as relevant as is the old 78 rpm record machine.
I am very glad to see facilities for the blind in the amendment of my noble friend. I raised that matter on Second Reading, at which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made a very erudite contribution. In the last analysis this amendment will be very difficult to enforce. How much of a 10 per cent. levy will go to the young recording artist? I think that is the nub of the amendment. Nobody wants to see pirate taping. We are trying to educate young people and others to have an appreciation of the arts and particularly the art of music. I believe that the Bill as worded at present will do just that.
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps with one or two sentences I may support this amendment. I prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for two reasons. First, because it makes it mandatory upon the Government to make an order and, secondly, because it is in line with the Government's White Paper on the subject. I said before in a different context in the debate on this Bill that I believe that the copyright owner—and I am thinking particularly of music in this caseߞshould be able to do his work in an environment in which he knows he will be obtaining some reward. Illegal home taping should be made legal because it is bound to continue. What is important is that the copyright owner should receive some benefit from a massive proliferation of his music.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: I am mindful of the plea made to the House by the Government Chief Whip and I shall do my best to comply with his wishes.
I wish to make a few remarks as co-tabler (if that is the right word) of this amendment in addition to those made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Since 1979 there have been no fewer than nine Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry. According to various organisations concerned with copyright issues, very few of them have known about copyright in all its technicalities. Why should they? It is a very specialised subject which very few people understand. I do not, and I do not pretend to, comprehend the numerous and complicated legalities involved. I do not understand the technicalities of patents, trademarks or whatever. But I know and understand the principles and I am in total agreement with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. Those principles, which are at stake here, are responsible for this amendment. It is entirely wrong that someone
328
else's property should be used and enjoyed by millions of others without that person receiving any payment for it. That is especially true when very considerable financial investment, involving a high element of risk as well as artistic creativity both in thought and deed, has been made in the end product whether it is a motor car or a gramophone record.
It is simply not good enough for the Government to acknowledge that massive copying of musical works takes place and then leave things as they are, saying that nothing can be done about it. I submit that that is irresponsible because something can be done. This Government said that something could be done about it. Many speakers have referred to the Green Paper, the White Paper and also to the gracious Speech presented earlier this year.
However, as we all know, Secretaries of State come and go and Ministers responsible for the Department of Trade and Industry are no exception. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have had nine Secretaries of State at the DTI since 1979. Admittedly some of them, as it were, were merely passing through on their way elsewhere. But it is fair to say that those Ministers to whom the record industry had the opportunity of talking were in agreement with the principle of instituting a system of royalty payment to the copyright owners of recorded music when that recording was copied onto audio tape.
The others who did not have this chance of speaking about the issue with the industry either did not know one way or the other or were against the establishment of such a system. As a result, the British record industry has had a very difficult time during the past 11 years.
There is a well-known popular song from the 1930s—copyrighted of course—which some Members of the Committee will remember. It is called "You're Undecided Now". The Committee will be highly relieved to hear that I do not propose to burst into song at this point. The first lines of the song read:
"First you say you will, and then you won't
Then you say you do, and then you don't.
You're undecided now, so what are you going to do?".
Those lines express exactly the dilemma that has confronted the British record industry for many years in its dealings with the DTI.
The proposed charge on blank audio tapes is not a tax or a levy. It is a royalty payment for the copyright owner. The Government do not call it a levy—at least not throughout the White Paper; they refer to it as a royalty.
I feel that the UK must join with its European partners in this matter. There will soon be eight member-nations of the European Community which will have protective legislation in place to give recompense to copyright owners for the massive private theft of their work that is taking place.
The organising and collecting of royalties from the sale of blank audio tapes will not create any added bureaucracy. It will cost the Government nothing. It can easily be done from within the industry itself. Exemptions can be made without fuss to such groups as the blind, who perhaps have a special case against having to pay more for their blank tapes. I have my

329
doubts about that point for two reasons. The first is that we are only talking about a royalty amounting to 10 per cent. of the retail price of a tape. The average price of a 90-minute tape is £1, which means an additional lop per tape—or does it?
My second reason for having doubts about making exemptions is that the additional cost of 10p per tape could easily be absorbed by the importer. There is ample room within his profit margin to accommodate it. Sales of blank tapes are forever increasing at dramatic rates and last year they reached new dizzy heights. Nearly all tapes, as has been said, are imported. From an administrative viewpoint it would present few problems to anyone, least of all the industry itself, which is more than able to administer and organise collection and distribution.
There is one final point I wish to make which I know I raised at Second Reading. I wish to mention it again because I see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sitting in his seat and my remark is directed to him.
On retirement if he decides to write his memoirs and the fruits of his intellectual labours are illegally copied on a massive scale by an organisation based somewhere in the Far East, and it results in severe loss of revenue to himself, how would he feel? My guess would be that he would not be very happy. Exactly the same principle is at stake in this proposed amendment, Amendment No. 174.
4.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): These amendments would pave the way for the introduction of a levy on blank audio tape for the benefit of copyright owners and performers. How they achieve this, I suggest, is a secondary matter. I therefore should like to speak mainly to the matter of principle underlying these amendments.
As in other areas of copyright we are faced here with a conflict of interest and one side or the other will feel aggrieved whatever the outcome. But there is more to it than that. There are some fundamental matters at issue. The problem, which is well known, is that modern technology has brought cheap tape recording into the home. Undoubtedly many people take advantage of this to make copies of copyright music without regard to the fact that this is an infringement of copyright. In the aggregate a great deal of music is undoubtedly recorded illegally in this way.
However, it does not follow from this that the Government should step in and tax those who make the recording possible by supplying blank tape. The fact that the Government would neither collect nor receive any revenue from the levy does not make it any less of a tax imposed on one sector of the community for the benefit of copyright owners as a substitute for the exercise of the copyright owners' private rights. Governments do not normally act to enforce private rights, and there has therefore to be a very stong case indeed that it is in the public interest to impose a levy before the Government could agree
330
to do so. We have not been persuaded that the case is sufficiently strong.
One immediate fundamental difficulty is that any levy scheme involves making home taping legitimate. It is not clear that this would be in the copyright owners' interests. Indeed, some owners of copyright have themselves argued that such a step reinforces the public's perception that copyright is something that can be taken for nothing. The public would be largely unaware that a notional royalty payment had been made under a levy scheme, since any levy imposition would simply add to the costs of the manufacturer or importer and would not be identifiable by the consumer purchasing his blank tape.
Furthermore, because the payment would have to be made in advance of the tape's use, then anyone who bought the tape for entirely legitimate purposes would be unjustly penalised. He would have paid for an act he had no intention of committing, and except in certain special cases it would not be practically possible to devise a scheme which allowed him to get his money back. In addition, there are those cases to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred and which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, confirmed, where taping takes place and no infringement of copyright occurs.
This brings me to one very important special case; that of visually handicapped people who use blank tape as a means of communication in the same way that sighted people use note-paper. This amendment makes provision for granting rebates of the levy to visually handicapped people, as, indeed, did the Government when putting forward proposals for a levy scheme in the 1986 White Paper. Following the White Paper, the Government put a great deal of effort into devising a rebate scheme which would compensate visually handicapped people without placing fresh burdens on them; and, I have to say, we were unable to devise a scheme which was acceptable to organisations such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Talking Newspaper Association. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will recognise that.
Those are the main reasons for our coming to the conclusion that a levy would not be desirable. However, there are other concerns. We were disturbed by the possibility that a levy charged at the point of first sale would have been "marked-up" in the retail chain so that retailers might receive a windfall profit and consumers would pay significantly more than the amount going to copyright owners. A new bureaucracy would be required to administer the levy; and I am dedicated to reducing red tape, not increasing it.
We were not satisfied that collection and distribution of the levy could be carried out without a substantial amount of the money collected being dissipated in the costs of administration, particularly given the need to include a mechanism for paying rebates to visually handicapped people and others, even if we could devise such a scheme. In all probability the cost of administration would have been disproportionate to the amount of money concerned. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that it is worth setting up a licensing scheme even

331
if the only result for those operating the scheme is that they barely cover their costs. However, I wonder whether that really would be sensible or desirable.
For all those reasons the Government have decided that the financial benefits of the levy to copyright owners are outweighed by the disadvantages to consumers, particularly those who are visually handicapped. In other words, we consider that when the public interest is looked at in the round the case for government intervention in the exercise of private rights (which I referred to earlier) is not made out. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, compared home taping from public libraries with borrowing books from public libraries and photocopying them. But is the noble Lord actually arguing that we should therefore put a levy on all supplies of paper in the land?
It is true that the Government previously took a different view, even as late as the time of the Queens' Speech at the opening of Parliament. We took a different view of the balance of the argument. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, seek, in a very pointed way, to hold us to what we said in the 1986 White Paper. However, I must make a confession. Governments do occasionally get things wrong, even this Government.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Young of Graf ham: I am glad that at long last I can satisfy noble Lords opposite! We have given this matter a great deal of consideration since the White Paper was published and that has enabled us to see the underlying principles more clearly. Practical difficulties have also become more apparent with time, particularly in the light of our considerable but unsuccessful efforts to establish a satisfactory rebate scheme for blind people, to which I have already referred.
I hope that I have given a full and helpful explanation of the Government's reasons for not proceeding with the levy; but before leaving the matter, I should like to say that our decision does not in any way imply a lack of concern for the record companies' problems over piracy. On the contrary, we are determined that commercial operations which carry out or blatantly inspire illegal copying are simply not allowed to become established in the United Kingdom.
We heard during the Second Reading debate of the activities of Japanese copy shops which blatantly rent out compact discs for a very small fee and provide blank tapes and tape recorders on the premises so that the public may make their own copies. I view such practices with the same abhorrence as other members of the Committee who have spoken. We must not let those things happen here. That is why we have not made it legal to copy records and videos for private purposes. Alas, therefore, I have to inform the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that he might still be breaking the law.
Consequently, since private recording remains an infringement of copyright, copyright owners in cases like this will be able to take action against the people
332
doing the taping and the owners of the copy shop. That is also why my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, in an earlier debate of the Committee, undertook to look closely and urgently at whether copyright owners need further rights to control or share in the benefits from rental operations. I am glad to repeat that undertaking today.
In provisions of this kind, the action to be taken is by the copyright owner against people carrying out infringing acts. In contrast, a levy would be payable at first instance by ordinary traders and passed on to consumers who may never commit an infringing act. That is why I believe it is right to resist all these amendments.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord finally sits down, may I ask whether I fully understand what he said at the end of his speech—that the Government are content to leave private home taping of a record bought by an individual as an illegal act?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes. Where there is an infringement of copyright it must continue to be an infringement of a civil right.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Secretary of State has been very full in his reply—his interim reply, because there may be a further debate on the matter. This is clearly an important question and I agree with the noble Lord that it is a balance of interest. It is for the Committee to try to strike a proper balance of interest.
We believe that the problems involved with the unsatisfactory state of the present law need some attention. In our view, they will become worse with the arrival of new technologies; for example, digital audio tapes and other technologies. As my noble friend Lord Willis said, over the next 20 years video technology will certainly become much easier to operate in the home, and therefore we are liable to get the same problems with home taping of videos as we have at present in home taping of records.
There is again the international interest. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, referred to tape manufacturers. Many tape manufacturers happen to be Japanese, and they are of course extremely interested in not only what we intend to do about this but the whole matter of what copyright protection we intend to give. I shall not rehearse the arguments for and against a levy. The noble Lord the Secretary of State has already done that as indeed have other noble Lords.
The argument in favour of the consumer clearly is one to which we must pay attention. An article in the Evening Standard not long ago referred to the proposed blank tape levy, before the Government changed their mind, as a tax on silence. This kind of sloganising generates a great deal of heat. I do not wish to go through the various arguments in that form because the matter is too serious for such a discussion.
Nor indeed do I wish to follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, down the path of criticising the Government for changing their mind. Governments are after all entitled to change their mind. As the Secretary of State has already said in words that I

333
shall remember and recall, governments do sometimes get things wrong. Indeed, this Government, I hope the noble Lord will admit, on occasions have got something wrong.
If one weighs up all the arguments, there are problems in the Government's present position. My noble friend Lord Peston in an intervention pointed out the major problem. Given that there is no equivalent to the public lending right—and I thought that the Secretary of State at certain points was making an excellent argument against the public lending righ—the problem is that home taping is unregularised and, where it breaches copyright, is illegal. The Secretary of State pointed out clearly that he intends that to remain the situation.
Just as we find the present balance in Sunday trading difficult to accept, so we find this difficult to accept. We find it almost impossible to accept that Members of the Committee can say, "This is fine, it will remain illegal", and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge will continue to collect his tapes, possibly illegally, but there will remain some right of some copyright owner at some future date—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may make the situation clear, from my point of view it is a matter of years in prison. I understood the Secretary of State to say very clearly that it is illegal to copy on to tape from record and to copy video from television. It is clearly stated in the Bill that private taping is legal. Am I right or wrong?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Perhaps I may continue while the Secretary of State considers the point that he has raised. The noble Lord has some problems about the copyright of a broadcast and infringing copyright in a broadcast. The Secretary of State will no doubt give the Committee the definitive view.
Of the amendments before the Committee the amendment of my noble friend Lord Willis is the one that I am inclined to favour on the grounds that it includes video tapes. I believe that that technology, as my noble friend said, will become more prevalent in future and we must do something about it.
As Members have said repeatedly in Committee, the Bill will have to last us for many years—there will not be another such for 20 or 30 years at least. I am sure that Members of the Committee will join me in hoping that that is correct. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, has said many times, we must try to get it right. The balance is very fine, but government after all is the art of choosing the least undesirable option. We too have to make up our minds. I believe that any solution of its very nature is bound to be blanket and somewhat unsatisfactory.
We conclude that we shall support my noble friend Lord Willis in his amendment. However, our support is obviously based on the position that home taping should be legalised and that those whose welfare is diminished by such a levy should be properly catered for. I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the Secretary of State on how
334
difficult it has been—we too have been advised of the difficulty—to find some accommodation for the blind. I hope very much that there can be an arrangement. Indeed, I hope that my noble friend Lord Willis, who is more expert in the matter than I am, can make a proposal to help the Secretary of State.
I believe that we should support my noble friend not just because we wish to support the record companies—that does not seem to be the basis of a serious argument—or indeed the high profile pop singers, who might do well out of such a levy or royalty, but to support the lower paid musicians and authors who need this form of encouragement.
I believe that we have to consider the trend towards monopoly among record shops which gives rise to particular problems to independent labels. Any scheme that might give some encouragement to the independent labels would have the characteristics for which we should look. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to young musicians. If there were a scheme for them, we should like to consider it.
Above all we feel that the present state of the law cannot continue. The Government were right on balance the first time around. From the Opposition, we propose to support my noble friend Lord Willis in his amendment.
Lord Young of Graffham: A moment of reflection has enabled me to assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that it is perfectly legal to tape at home where no copyright material is involved. Thus all Gilbert and Sullivan is safe hut, alas, where copyright material is involved, it is illegal to tape it at home.
Perhaps I may reply to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. If we were to impose such a tax and anything were to be left over after the administrative costs had been deducted, in equity it should surely go to those who have sold the most records or earned the most. Little indeed would go to lower paid musicians. Most would go to those who do the best and sell the best. To do it any other way would be piling one inequity on another.
I do not think that we can see any way in which to overcome the difficulty of exempting the payment of a levy to those who are short sighted, partially sighted or blind. Other categories have been mentioned for whom tapes are used for non-copying purposes, and there is the use of scientific research. In any event, what would be done with the proceeds of the levy?
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Lord has said that Gilbert and Sullivan being out of copyright it would be within the law to tape it. A production of Gilbert and Sullivan, say, in modern dress with specific cuts and alterations to the text surely is in copyright. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge will be back in prison for another long term—despite the efforts that he has made to make it more comfortable.
Lord Young of Graffham: Let me at least assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it is not a criminal offence at present, nor will it be. To my knowledge he will not have to go to prison.
Lord Howie of Troon: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, might not go to gaol but he might get into some kind of bother. The point is that Gilbert and Sullivan as such is out of copyright but later productions are not—for example, a television production or a film. Were the noble Lord to tape that, he would be in some kind of jeopardy—not gaol perhaps or discomfort, but at least some kind of embarrassment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I prefer Bertha Lewis and Henry Lytton to anybody singing today!
Earl Ferrers: It just shows how complicated the present situation is. I can only wish the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his advisers the best of luck in finding out whether he is within or without the law.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Secretary of State for having put the position clearly. He was very fair about it. He said that this was a dilemma and that the Government had changed their mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, tried to shove a pitchfork between me and my noble friend because he said that I was complaining that the Government had changed their mind. I did not complain; I congratulated them on doing so, and I looked forward with anticipation to their doing so again.
In fact I think that they were correct, but there are one or two points which need to be made clear. My noble friend said that this was the imposition of a tax. It is not a tax; a tax goes to the Government. This is a royalty which would be distributed to those people who had the copyright. My noble friend inferred that there would not be very much left after the collection of this tax, as he put it. My information is that the collecting societies would collect the royalty. This is not new; it has been done frequently before and is done at present. The cost of the collection would be about 7 per cent. I do not think that that is a difficulty.
My noble friend, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quite rightly referred to the difficulties of the blind. Both noble Lords were entirely correct to do so because special circumstances apply to the blind. Where talking books, or tapes used for recording books, are used the proposal is that they would not be subject to a levy. However, that does not mean that a blind person who wishes to purchase a tape for playing in his home would not have to pay the levy like anybody else. Let us get this into perspective. The blank tapes cost about £1. The proposed levy is 10 per cent.; that is 10p per tape. The average number of blank tapes that people buy in the course of a year is eight. If the blind were to buy twice that number—that is 16 tapes—the cost per year in levy would be £1.60. It is not a great deal.
Lord Kilmarnock: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Perhaps I may give a small statistic. There are 100,000 blind people who are too poor to pay a tax. Some of them make very considerable use of tapes. Therefore this additional 10p on each tape would make a considerable difference to their circumstances.
Earl Ferrers: That comes back to the remark of the Secretary of State when he said that this will be an additional tax. My understanding is that the profit made on blank tapes is about three times that which is made on recorded tapes before the levy. Even if a levy were introduced, the profit on blank tapes would still be almost twice that on recorded tapes. Therefore I do not believe that there is any likelihood of the cost of the tapes increasing.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred to the fact that home-taping was not illegal, I listened with the greatest respect, as everyone always does to the noble and learned Lord. Had he been a colleague of mine of the same age, I should have said that he had got it wrong. However, as it was the noble and learned Lord, I can only say that I heard his analysis and his conclusions with interest. He referred to Gilbert and Sullivan. We have discussed whether or not it is copyright. I do not know the answer. If the noble and learned Lord had been a little more up-to-date and had referred. for instance, to Andrew Lloyd Webber who wrote "The Phantom of the Opera" and that had been recorded, there would be an element of copyright. If one looks at the other end of the artistic scale and one thinks of that young lady, Madonna—whose attributes seem to extend a good deal beyond the confines of the microphone—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: But those are not copyright!
Earl Ferrers:—if that young lady, and others like her, were to create music, and then found that the number of home copies was six times the number of records sold through the shops. I think that there would be a legitimate cause for complaint. These people would say, "Here we are providing the music and the records and we are getting nothing for it."
My noble friend Lord Auckland asks, "It is all very fine, but are the young artists going to receive any of this levy?" The answer is that the levy goes to the recording companies or the music publishers. The artists will get the benefit from that in relation to the contract which they have with those recording or music houses.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that 90 million of these blank tapes are imported every year. Independent analysis says that 90 per cent. of them are used for home-recording. The proposed levy is relatively modest. I entirely accept that there is an element of injustice here. My noble friend the Secretary of State said that we must achieve a balance of justice. He was not convinced that the public interest in the round would benefit from this. I believe that the public interest in the round would not be adversely affected. However, those who create the music and whose work is in such demand are adversely affected.
The Government's behaviour has been similar to that of a metronome which swung one way and the other. I hope that my noble friend can say that it will swing back. If he were to give me a nod of assent that he will consider this matter again I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment. There is

337
nothing party political about this issue. It is merely a question of what is fair or right. I hope that my noble friend will look at the matter again.
Lord Mottistone: Before my noble friend sits down, he did not cover the point raised by my noble friend Lord Caldecote that industry has a great range of tapes for recording which have nothing to do with copyright. Does he say that it pays a levy which then goes to the recording companies?
Earl Ferrers: That entirely depends on the nature of the tape that is produced. Those tapes that are used, for instance, on dictaphones and recording machines, which people use in their businesses, would not be covered.
Lord Willis: We have been talking a great deal about getting the balance right. We all want to get the balance right and we all have the normal sympathy for the visually handicapped. The Government have advanced as one of their most powerful arguments that they are putting the balance on the side of the visually handicapped—because they apparently cannot solve that problem. They are inflicting a great injustice upon the thousands of composers, writers and so on who are involved in this constant, ongoing theft of their copyright. That cannot be right.
I speak as a president of a collecting society for authors. We believe that we can work out a system to ensure that visually handicapped persons are not inconvenienced by the kind of royalty about which we are talking. We do not see any real problem if there is goodwill on both sides.
I have a slightly different approach from that of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He says that the money from the royalty would go to the record companies. Under my amendment it would be collected by collecting societies who would divide it up. Some of the money would go to composers, lyricists and so on. Not all of it would go to the record companies. I am not in the business of ensuring that all the money goes to the record companies. Under the German scheme—and this answers a point that other noble Lords made—25 per cent. of the proposed levy in Germany is set aside by the society that collects it for the promotion of young artists, new concerts, new music and that kind of thing. I believe that that would he a very good scheme to have here.
The attitude of many people is summed up by my noble friend Lord Monckton who asked, "Why cannot I go into my house and record a piece of music if I wish to? "I can only say to the noble Viscount, and other noble Lords, that you are not talking about your property but about mine. You are talking about the property of other people out there. If I came to borrow your lawnmower week after week you would get fed up with it and would have to buy a new one. However, you keep borrowing our music, you keep borrowing our songs, you keep borrowing our lyrics without paying a penny. That is wrong and that is what my amendment is set out for.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers; but I fear that I must disagree
338
with him on this occasion because the levy he suggests is a tax. Let me explain. If the scheme is in existence and I buy a tape to use at home on my telephone answering machine, I would have to pay a levy of 10 per cent. on something that does no more than receive messages. If I am part of a university and buy tapes to use in scientific recording or to use only for non-copyright material, I shall time after time make a payment for something that I have no intention of doing, nor indeed will do—that is, using it to record copyright material. It is estimated that even if the tape levy were in existence, the gross revenue from it would be £7 million a year.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: Surely the noble Lord has a very long telephone answering machine tape. I understood that the levy would apply only on tapes of over 35-minutes' duration. Is that correct?
Lord Young of Graffham: I have a very long tape. I must have very many messages, but the machine takes a tape that lasts for more than 35 minutes, so indeed do all the telephone answering machine tapes that actually record messages. The estimated revenue before administrative expenses would be £7 million a year. I do not know what it would be afterwards—perhaps three-quarters or half that amount. The 1986 sales of the United Kingdom record industry were £425 million at trade prices and very much more at retail prices. As we are talking about retail prices, the figure must be close to double that so it would be £600 or £700 million. So the levy is a very small amount of money.
I can certainly understand that we should pay a copyright fee; but is it right that we should take money from people and then distribute it to whom we please, even if those causes were deserving as in the case of young people? That is benevolent, but surely not in the case of a levy which is enforced by the Government on all people who buy a product which may not even be used for such purposes. I fear that I cannot tell my noble friend that we shall look again at this.
We have considered this issue with the appropriate authorities, and we cannot see that in all justice we can add to the burdens of those who rely on tapes either for their entertainment or necessity in the case of those who are poorly sighted.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 174) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Amherst, E.

Brentford, V.

Attlee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avebury, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Banks, L.

David, B.

Beloff, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Blackstone. B.

Dormand of Easington. L.

339

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mersey, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grimond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rugby, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Somers, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kagan, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kearton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lockwood, B.

Longford, E.

Winterbottom, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wise, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ypres, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fortescue, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Aldington, L.

Greenway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Alport, L.

Marylebone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hayter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henley, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hertford, M.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Bolton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brain, L.

Ironside, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Caldecote, V.

Lawrence, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Luke, L.

Cawley, L.

Marley, L.

Chapple, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Avon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cox, B.

Monson, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Craigton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

De Freyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De La Warr, E.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Denning, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Dowding, L.

Pym, L.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Reilly, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

340

Rochdale, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rodney, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strathspey, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Swansea, L.

Salisbury, M.

Teviot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Teynham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sandford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Seebohm, L.

Trafford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Shannon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sharpies, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 174A:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
("Future subordinate legislation.
Within three months of the date of passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument implement Chapter 6 of the White Paper "Intellectual Property and Innovation" of April 1986 (Cmnd. 9712).").
The noble Lord said: In deference to the advice given to us by the Government Chief Whip, it will be my intention, if the Committee approves, not to move this amendment in favour of the amendment to follow in the name of my noble friend.
[Amendment No. 174A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 174B and 174C not moved.]
Clause 64 [Free public showing or playing broadcast or cable programmes]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 174D.
Page 24, line 34, leave out from ("part") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively small point compared with the point that was recently discussed in Committee. It concerns the free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programmes. It is difficult for us to understand what is meant by Clause 64(2)(b).
The Bill as drafted says:
"The audience shall be treated as having paid for admission to a place"—
and I shall leave out paragraph (a)—
"(b) If goods or services are supplied at that place … at prices exceeding those usually charged there and which are partly attributable to the facilities afforded for seeing or hearing the broadcast or programme".
We do not understand how you can partly attribute a surcharge to a particular broadcast or event. We are not clear whether this is confined to one bar in a cinema or to the hall in which the event is taking place, or indeed to a whole complex of cinemas or halls in one of which an infringing broadcast is taking place. In short, this clause seems to lack a great deal of clarity. There is a need both for a government explanation of what it is all about and perhaps some redrafting. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like briefly to support my noble friend not only for the reasons he has given but also because the clause seems to be exceptionally badly drafted. I refer to the words,
"at prices exceeding those usually charged there and which are partly attributable".
It is surely not the prices that are attributable to the facilities, as we are told; it is the fact that the prices are high that is attributable to those facilities. As it is worded at present I do not think it makes sense.
Lord Beaverbrook: Clause 64 provides that where an audience has not paid for admission a broadcast or cable programme may be shown or played in public without infringing copyright in the broadcast or cable programme itself or in any sound recording or film included in it. The exception does not apply with respect to any copyright in any play or music which may be contained in such a broadcast or cable programme and a copyright licence will in the normal way be required by the Performing Rights Society. Our obligations under the Berne Convention do not permit the exception to be extended to dramatic or musical works. Without the exception it would be necessary for anyone playing a radio or providing a television set in, for example, a shop or a pub to obtain a copyright licence not only from the Performing Rights Society but also from the broadcaster or cable company and from any owner of copyright in records or films that might be included in the broadcast. We believe this would be unreasonably burdensome to the public.
The exception must not, however, be abused. The two criteria in subsection (2) are designed to prevent this. Without them those playing radio or television for the benefit of their clientele could profit from this activity by levying charges indirectly without passing anything on to the copyright owners involved other than the owner of copyright in any dramatic or musical works. The criterion in paragraph (b) is surely as necessary to prevent this as that in paragraph (a).
Lord Williams of Elvel: Yes, but what does it mean?
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned an example of a theatre charging for drinks in a bar. If those drinks are charged at a normal rate there is no effect; but where for instance there was an attempt to get around copyright by not charging for admission but instead charging a very high price for, let us say, a compulsory drink or a compulsory ice-cream, this would provide a way around having to obtain copyright.
Lord Kilbracken: It cannot be said that the prices are attributable to the facilities provided. It is the fact that the prices are so high that is attributable. The phrase "and which" is poor English. Will the noble Lord consider looking at the drafting to improve the sense of the provision before the next stage?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to hold up the noble Lord. I am as anxious as anybody to get on with the Bill. If the place in this clause charges prices exceeding those usually charged there, then it may be
342
an infringement. If it is perpetually infringing the copyright and always charging at a high level, it is not putting a surcharge on its usual price. That is one of the problems. The second problem is that I do not understand what "partly attributable" means.
Lord Beaverbrook: As to how a low price is partly attributable to a particular broadcast, that is not what the clause says. It refers to prices being partly attributable to facilities. In other words, if a price is charged to pay both for food and the facilities, that is caught by the provision. As to a place with several separate halls, each is a separate place and can be considered separately.
The drafting of paragraph (b) is, I admit, taken unchanged from the 1956 Act. Certainly if it were in some way unworkable we could consider changing it, but the wording adopted in the Bill has worked perfectly well for all these years.
Lord Willis: This is really a question more than anything else to the Minister. Is there not here a problem with something we discussed earlier in the Bill about public performance and the definition of what is a public performance? We have a growing situation where, apart from music being played in pubs—often to my horror—you now have television sets in pubs, and one can stay there and watch plays and everything else.
There is an obvious anomaly in the sense that you have to have a PRS licence to have a public performance of music but you do not have to have a licence for the other material that is incorported in the recording. There is an anomaly here and an injustice, and I should like to ask the Minister to look into that.
Lord Beaverbrook: I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord has said, but this is really a fairly narrow exception, and subsection (2)(b) is designed to stop a possible avoidance of having to obtain copyright to show a broadcast or cable programme.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was kind enough to say that he will look at the point. Perhaps he could send a letter—I realise that he is going to have to send rather a large number in the next few weeks—because I do not think the point is quite as narrow as he suggested. There is a point of some significance here and we would all welcome a clear definition of the Government's position in good time before the Report stage.
Baroness Phillips: If a change in the clause will stop us having our eardrums damaged by this ghastly Muzak which we now get in every restaurant and every pub, I should be delighted to support it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am glad that the noble Lord has undertaken to have another look at it and perhaps write to us before Report stage. I hope he will recognise that although this is in the 1956 Act it has hardly ever been invoked. Just because something is in the 1956 Act does not mean that it is sacrosanct.
Lord Beaverbrook: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may say that I shall write to noble Lords concerned to explain our thinking on this. I also undertake to look at the wording in paragraph (b), but I believe that the paragraph is necessary in order to stop a possible avoidance in this exception.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I take the point that a paragraph is necessary. It is not that I am trying to delete the paragraph. I believe that the paragraph is rather badly drafted and does not cover the point raised in this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Reception and retransmission of broadcast in cable programme service]:
[Amendment No. 174E not moved.]
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 25, line 31, leave out from ("but") to end of line 34 and insert—
("(i) where the making of the broadcast was not an infringement of the copyright in the work, the owner of the copyright shall be entitled in respect of the retransmission to be paid equitable remuneration by the person making the broadcast; and any dispute regarding the amount of remuneration payable may be referred to the Copyright Tribunal;
(ii) where the making of the broadcast was an infringement of the copyright in the work, the fact that the broadcast was retransmitted as a programme in a cable programme service shall be taken into account in assessing the damages for that infringement.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment tries to clear up what we regard as a rather important point. Under the provisions of Article 11 of the Berne Convention a compulsory licence in respect of the retransmission by cable of a broadcast of a work is permitted, subject to the right of the author to receive equitable remuneration in respect of such use. But under the provisions of the Bill, which correspond to Section 40 of the 1956 Act, the copyright owner's entitlement to such remuneration is not made clear.
The amendment proposed would clarify the matter. It should receive the support of the Government because it would comply with their view, in circumstances covered by this clause, that such remuneration should be paid by the broadcaster and not by the operator of the cable programme service. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: We recognise that copyright owners have never been happy with the provision of the 1956 Act which is re-enacted in subsection (3) of Clause 65. The substance of this provision, as it now stands, is that where a broadcast made from the United Kingdom is simultaneously retransmitted by cable within the intended reception area of the original broadcast, or in pursuance of what is known as a "must carry" requirement imposed on a cable programme service by the cable authority, the provider of the cable programme service does not have to obtain consent from the copyright owners of works included in the broadcast or pay them royalties for the retransmission.
344
This is a matter on which I am afraid we continue to differ from the rights owners concerned. Our view is, and always has been, that a cable retransmission within the intended reception area of the broadcast is not a genuinely new or separate communication to the public in terms of the Berne Convention. The potential audience is exactly the same and will normally have the choice as to whether to receive the programme by cable or off-air. The rights owners are normally paid by the broadcaster in respect of the total audience he expects his broadcast to reach. If cable operators were also liable to pay the owner of rights in the programme content, this would be double payment for the same transmission to the same potential audience.
The noble Lord's amendment seeks to give the rights owners a formal claim for remuneration in respect of cable retransmission, not against the cable operator but against the broadcaster. I find it hard to see what this would achieve. The contract of the rights owner is with the broadcaster anyway and will normally, or should, provide for payment in respect of the total audience reached by the broadcast.
As I have said, cable retransmission within a reception area does not in any way enlarge this audience. Where, as with satellite broadasts, the broadcaster can control retransmission, then the terms agreed between broadcaster and copyright owners can reflect any payment the former can obtain from cable operators. As to broadcasts retransmitted under "must-carry" requirements of the cable authority, these will almost always be national BBC and IBA services which in any case would benefit from the in-area exception I have described.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is an interesting answer, but does it really fit the Berne Convention? That says that the authors are to be entitled to equitable remuneration for any communication to the public by wire, or by rebroadcasting of the broadcast of the work, where this communication is made by an organisation other than the original one.
It seemed to me that what the Minister said about the area was precisely off the point. The point is that there is rebroadcasting by a different organisation, and therefore the Berne Convention would imply that something had to be done.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord argues that our obligations under Article 11 bis(2) of the Berne Convention oblige us to ensure that rights owners can receive equitable remeneration for any cable retransmission of a broadcast. My answer to that point is the one I have given. Retransmissions in area simply cannot be regarded as separate communications to the public of the kind that Article 11 bis(2) is designed to cover. Where there is a cable retransmission beyond the intended reception area of the broadcast then this ceases to be so, except where the "must carry" obligation applies and the Bill gives copyright owners as well as broadcasters a right to control retransmission.
Lord Willis: I am not entirely convinced by that argument. The retransmission need not necessarily be to the same audience. You have a classic example

345
with BBC I and BBC2. They repeat a programme and it goes to the same national audience, but we know that in fact it is a different audience which listens to the play, or whatever it may be. This is an important point and the problem is going to grow worse in the next year or so. However, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, with which I am not entirely satisfied, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I was in my place in time to move my amendment to Clause 65.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: On a point of order, the noble Lord was called and was not here, and his amendment cannot therefore be moved, in my submission to the Committee.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I can see that I was mistaken, and I withdraw.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 175A:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
("Teletext sub-titles.
—(1) Where a work, or part of a work, is included in a television broadcast in the form of sounds, copyright in the work is not infringed by the inclusion in the broadcast of teletext subtitles representing those sounds.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply where the sounds were included in the broadcast without the licence of the copyright owner.'')
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. Perhaps I may preface my remarks about this amendment in this way. During the next few hours I shall be presenting, I hope briefly and succinctly, a number of amendments dealing with difficulties for broadcasters that arise from the Bill in its present form. I should say that in this connection I am being advised jointly by lawyers from the BBC and ITV.
This present amendment deals with problems arising with teletext sub-titles in the course of broadcasting. As this Committee knows, it is now technically feasible for broadcasters to add teletext sub-titles to television programmes, so that the audience has the opportunity to read as well as to hear what is being said, or an abbreviated version thereof.
It would be helpful for the broadcasting institutions if the legislation could provide that the addition of such sub-titles is not an infringement of the copyright, as, for instance, when the script of a dramatist is being presented. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: In Clause 65 we have made provisions for the sub-titling of recordings of television broadcasts. However, this is restricted to designated non-profit making bodies who wish to
346
make and sub-title recordings for deaf people. This very narrow exception to copyright only applies to the extent that licensing is not available.
We introduce this provision in order to relieve the bodies concerned not from copyright constraint but from the difficulties they were experiencing in getting the necessary clearances. I do not think the broadcasters face the same difficulties. They have to obtain the right to broadcast the work in the first place and therefore they know who the copyright owner is. If they wish to sub-title the work then it is open to them to include this in the licensing negotations. I do not think that we should give broadcasters an entitlement to sub-title.
There may be copyright owners, particularly of feature films, who do not want this. Some film directors, I suspect, may regard such sub-titling as an unjustified modification of their work. Therefore, if it were done badly they might well have a case under the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and I have heard what he said. I will accordingly take advice upon it. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Right to be identified as author or director]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 26, line 29, leave out ("but the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with section 70,")
The noble Baroness said: We now come to a very important and new concept in the Bill which deals with moral rights. Although this has been in existence in other countries in Europe for some time it is the first time it has appeared in any legislation in this country. The concept of moral rights and the provisions to implement them are therefore very welcome.
It is important that the United Kingdom honours its obligation under the Berne Convention, especially Article 6 bis, which states.
"Independently of the authors economic right, and even after the transfer of the said right, the author should have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification",
and so it goes on, though I will not read it all out.
However, as it stands now in the Bill, Clause 69 confers on authors the new moral right to be identified as authors of their work—generally known as the right of paternity—but makes the right subject to a formal assertion in accordance with Clause 70 which is the next clause.
Our amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna and myself, is intended to avoid the rights of paternity being subject to assertion. Under the Berne Convention it has always been accepted that the existence of copyright should not be subject to any formalities such as registration, claims and so forth. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, copyright simply subsists in literary, dramatic,

347
musical and other works. In the same way, moral rights—which are quite separate from copyright—should vest automatically in the author and not be subject to any formalities.
Therefore, we find it inappropriate that the right of paternity granted under Clause 69 should not take effect unless formally asserted under Clause 70: when we come to that, as Members of the Committee will see, we intend to oppose the clause. Many of the authors for whom moral rights are being enacted may be inexperienced, unbusinesslike or in a weak bargaining position; they may either be ignorant of the need for assertion of rights or feel inhibited and under pressure not to do so. In exceptional cases—for example, when a large number of authors contribute to the compilation of a reference work or an encyclopaedia—the consent of the authors to their names not appearing can easily be sought under Clause 77, to which we shall come later. In any case, it is not clear how authors would assert their rights in practice; there is nothing to explain that at all. The very fact that you have to assert rights, in our submission, puts up a barrier against the automatic coming into effect which is really what is intended, and quite clearly spelt out, in the Berne Convention.
For example, if someone sells copyright for the work to be used, if there is no formal assertion no credit need be given and the author cannot do anything about it—that is, if a formal assertion is insisted upon by the user. But if there is no formal assertion the author should automatically have the moral right and be entitled to the credit.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government should insist on this being in the Bill, although I think, if I remember rightly, that in winding up on Second Reading the Minister said that this would really only apply to a small minority of cases, or words to that effect. I do not think that this is necessarily true numerically. Nor do I think it right to put something into legislation even if it is going to affect only a few people.
I hope that we shall get a satisfactory reply on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I should like to say a word upon this. Moral right is now being introduced into our law. I do not like the word "moral" as opposed to a simple right. We say "moral right" about things which are not rights at all but the word comes from the Berne Convention or from the French "droit moral", so we are bound with it. But, having got this right to be identified as the author or director of a work, surely it is quite right—and will soon get known throughout the profession—that if a man wants to be identified he must tell the producer of whatever it may be that he wants to be identified to show his part in the work.
I should have thought that there would be no difficulty about it: unless he asserts this right the producer can go on without particularly naming him. I should have thought that it would be quite a simple exception to apply, and therefore I do not support the amendment.
Baroness Birk: It is with trepidation that I point out to the noble and learned Lord that, as I
348
understand the matter, the concept of moral rights is in existence in France and other countries in Europe. The formal necessity of assertion is not needed and it has not been found to be necessary.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like to endorse what my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches has said. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, I have been approached by the publishers of a reputable magazine. Today I received a further letter from an association of magazine publishers. They are disturbed even at the extent to which the Bill goes in its present form. It may be that their fears are groundless because they are complaining about the terms in which the Government have replied to their representation. However, I think that if the amendment were passed they would certainly have legitimate ground for disquiet.
Basically, their complaint lies in the difficulty of a composite work. When a magazine, particularly a political or economic magazine, publishes a weekly series of feature articles under the name of the editor of the magazine, it is frequently the composite work of a considerable number of authors whom, individually, it is impossible to identify. I am sure that if they were able to speak with their own voice, the publishers who have already complained to me about the Bill in its present form would be even more disquieted should they be told that at any time within 50 years of the publication of the weekly number (or whatever it may be) one of the composite authors of one of those works could demand his allegedly moral right to be identified. They would find life impossible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I too have received a letter from, I suspect, the same publication as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. They have expressed concern about the matter and they have expressed deep concern as regards this particular amendment. It would create intolerable problems for them.
Having declared an interest, in that some years ago I was employed by the particular publication, I think that it would be a great pity if high-quality publications of this kind were put in jeopardy, as they could he if the amendment were to be added to the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: I should like to add a few words as regards the amendment. I have also received a communication about this matter from the managing director of no less a periodical than the Economist. Undoubtedly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has pointed out, intolerable complications would be created if it were applied to newspapers, magazines and composite works.
I should like to point out that an attempt has been made by another noble Lord, under Amendment No. 189A, which we have not yet reached, to deal with the problem by means of excepting this type of publication. The question still remains as to whether the moral right should not be acceptable, subject to the amendment that is being moved—that is, that it should remain acceptable on the footing that a further exception is made in relation to such newspapers and periodicals. Presumably we shall reach that amendment in due course.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to express my support for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as regards calling the rights "moral". I do not see that "moral" is the right word to use; I think that the word "intellectual", or some other word, would be more appropriate and I hope it will be changed.
I am in favour of my noble friend's amendment because I should prefer there not to be any need for the author to assert his rights. However, there are certain difficulties, although I do not believe that they will matter when the writer, illustrator or photographer is an employed person working on the staff of a newspaper or magazine. However, it would cause problems to daily newspapers where outside contributors and freelance writers are working under pressure. It would mean that in cases where a photograph of an event that had just taken place was sent in a taxi to the picture desk, or a news story or article is telephoned to the news desk without the reporter going near the office, the story or photograph would be required to contain a byline. Even if it were a small picture or a four-line story, it must always state the author, whereas at present that is not necessary because he would not have asserted the right to have that byline. Although I agree with the principle of the amendment I feel that it needs a little further thought.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support the amendment and disagree profoundly with the noble and learned Lords who have spoken so far. Concentration has been on the written word and the magazine article, etc. I should like to consider the amendment from the artist's viewpoint.
I find it extremely difficult to understand why the onus should shift to the author of the work when it comes to the moral right. "Moral" right may not be a perfect word but it follows droit moral and surely it makes the position easier for everyone if the same name is retained in our law.
In the Bill the added right is given to the artist and the author but then it is immediately taken away in the sense of making it extremely difficult for him to enjoy his right at all. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the moral right, which follows the making of the work, should not be precisely the same as the copyright. Why should not a person who purchases a work of art, or comes into the possession of a work of art, be in exactly the same position as regards the onus as he would be as regards the copyright? He may not know whether the work is in copyright and he may not know who owns the copyright but if he is to make use of that work it is up to him to find out. Why should not exactly the same principle apply as regards the moral right?
If an artist makes a drawing, a painting, or a sculpture, how on earth is he to assert his right in relation to a work which was put on to the market years before? How can he assert his right when a gallery comes into possession of the work and puts it on sale or into an exhibition without giving the name of the author or the artist? How can he follow the appearance of a work made years before in order to assert that right to the person who is exhibiting the work? I think that that task will be well-nigh
350
impossible for the artist. The artist may assert the right when he gets rid of the work, of course. The point will arise in later clauses, but will the obligation be on everyone who has the work from then on to assert the right from one person to another?
Suppose the artist gives one of his works to someone who hangs it on his wall for 20 years before deciding to sell it. Perhaps by that time the artist has become a famous figure and the work is put on show in an exhibition in a gallery or museum under someone else's name, or not under the name of the artist. How is the artist to know that somewhere in the world the work is being shown? Surely the onus should be on the person who shows the work.
If I may say so to both noble and learned Lords who have spoken, we are talking about a moral right. The extent to which it would be extremely difficult to find out who the author was on the composite work and so on would be taken into account if someone were to assert his moral right at a very late date when in a composite work, of which his part was only very very small. There would be no damages, or it would be taken into account in the circumstances. I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may also speak in support of this amendment. To me the difficulty is the absence anywhere in the Bill of any definition of "assertion". We are told that the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with Section 70. Section 70 states various ways in which it may be asserted—and we shall come to that—but nobody tells us what "assertion" is. Surely it would help people dealing with a totally new right to know—and I am deliberately not using the word "moral" because I think that that may convey something different—what this assertion is. If, for example, somebody writes a book and sells the copyright to a publisher, but his or her name is still on the book, is that assertion or is that not assertion? If, say, Agatha Christie had sold her copyright for a certain hook to a publisher, is she asserting her right or not asserting her right?
It is far from clear, and I should have thought that the composite work argument really goes back to the old argument we had on Clause 11 about contract. I find difficulty in accepting that a composite work would be entered into without the authors having had some communication with whoever was putting together the composition.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have substantial sympathy with my Front Bench in relation to this amendment, particularly where it refers to an author who is clearly and unmistakably identifiable.
In that situation I do not think that many of us would be at all harrassed. The idea of moral right I think is a good one: that the author should be identified wherever and whenever possible; when he is clearly known and clearly identifiable he is clearly accepted as the author. None of us would object to that.
However, I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to a specific difficulty concerning the identity of authors in certain circumstances. I referred to these circumstances in earlier debates

351
concerning magazines and periodicals, where the authorship might be multiple or composite. I do not wish to add anything to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord.
However, I should like to make one reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. In the examples which he cited, which I thought mainly concerned paintings and things of that sort, I should have thought the author's position could easily be protected within the provenance of the picture. The label that you stick on the back of it could cover that problem quite simply, and his worries would be dealt with I think quite succinctly there.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Labels come off.
Lord Howie of Troon: Yes. They may have to write it on by hand or something. There may be a way of dealing with it which, in these days of high technology, would not be beyond the wit of man. I think that the provenance, in so far as provenance has a reality, could deal with that specific example, even though labels might come off.
There is a further problem which we have not thought about, and it arises in this respect. We have been thinking of the author as a creative man, a writer. My Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and others have taken that up. I entirely sympathise with their view in that respect. However, in the magazine industry there is another area of authorship, which is covered by this moral right; it concerns the whole problem of the authorship of advertisements and things of that sort.
One of my magazines which was published a couple of years ago, because it was a special occasion amounted to something like 490 pages. Of that 490 pages, I am happy to say that about 250 were taken up in advertisements which were very expensive and were paid for promptly. But each of these advertisements contained an element of creativity. That element of creativity lay in the hands of the copy writers, who were authors in their own way, in the photographers, who were authors in the sense of this Bill, and in the typographers and lay-out people who produced these display advertisements, who are also copyright holders and moral right holders within the purlieus of this Bill.
We are faced with the situation where either each display advertisement must itself have these attributions, or at the end of the magazine you must have a list of credit titles, rather like the films which we see nowadays where the credit titles roll on and on for several minutes at the end of the film, with suitable music, while we all wonder whether it is appropriate to leave and go home, or whether we ought to wait until the very end. That is an important issue in this respect.
The amendment is right in the sympathetic view it takes of the individual author, but it is mistaken in this complicated situation to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred earlier, and to which I refer now. I think that further thought must be given to this amendment before it can be found to
352
be acceptable. I advise my noble friend on the Front Bench to withdraw it for the moment, and to think about it before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has told us, Clause 69 brings us onto the very important question of moral rights. These are distinct from the economic rights which we considered in Chapter II, which are provided to enable the author to obtain remuneration for the use of his works. The moral rights will enable the author to protect his reputation.
Clause 69 is concerned with what is sometimes called the 'paternity right'. It is the first of the two moral rights specified in Article 6 bis of the Berne Convention which requires that:
"the author shall have the right to claim authoriship of the work".
Clause 69 gives the author of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work the right to be identified as author when his work is exploited in a variety of specified ways. For example, the author will have the right to have his name on a book he has written. The right also applies to adaptations of literary, dramatic and musical works, so that, for example, the same author has the right to be associated with the dramatised version on the West End stage.
However, there is to be no infringement of this right unless it is asserted in accordance with the procedures set out in Clause 70, and it is this limitation that the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, seeks to remove.
We believe that assertion is necessary so that the users of copyright material know where they stand. It is fully consistent with the Berne Convention which requires that authors should have a right to claim authorship, not an absolute right to be identified. Indeed, it is interesting in this context that the Guide to the Convention produced by the World Intellectual Property Organisation which provides a quasi-official commentary on the convention's provisions says this of Article 6 bis:
"This provision enshrines two of the author's prerogatives: first and foremost, to claim the paternity of his work—to assert that he is its creator".
Publishers and others who deal in copyright material need to know exactly what their responsibilities are in this matter. They cannot be expected to operate under a constant danger of action for infringement. Sometimes the author may not be known to them. However, once the right has been asserted, they are put on notice and must ensure that the author is appropriately identified. As a practical matter, we believe assertion is essential if Clause 69 is to work properly. This way the author gets his Berne right to claim authorship and the user knows what he has to do when that right is claimed.
I was very interested in the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I think that this is a problem peculiar to artists, sculptors and other creators of artistic works. While I am not sympathetic to the amendment itself, I am very willing to have a look at the situation as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, to take the amendment away and see whether we can perhaps come up with something as an improvement.

353
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, touched on this when she asked how an assertion is made—I find it difficult to sympathise with the noble Lord's problems over the meaning of the word "assert". Clause 70 sets out the ways in which the right may be asserted—claimed, in other words. In the noble Lord's Agatha Christie example, the author would need to include the assertion in the assignment; for example, "My name must be on the spine of every copy published".
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wonder if I may ask the Minister, arising out of the instance put by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, whether the signing of a picture or a drawing is, in the view of the Government, an assertion. If he prefers to say that he is considering the whole aspect of that matter, I should be content to leave it like that. But he may know the answer at once.
Lord Beaverbrook: I think that the signing of an original picture would not necessarily in itself be an assertion. I think it would be similar to the author's name being on a book. And as I said, as regards the example of Agatha Christie, the author may well assert that her name must be on the spine of every copy published. That would not necessarily apply to an original picture, but it could certainly be applicable where prints are being made of an original picture, and the person who painted the original picture may well want to make some stipulation of that nature. But I think that it may well be that a signature on the original picture is an assertion; and maybe it should be.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the observations he made. I know that he will bear in mind in his consideration of the artist that signatures on works of art are very ephemeral things. They do not continue to stay where they are put. They are very often removed, and people who have to try to decide who painted and who is responsible for a work of art usually give very little credit to the question of whether there is a signature on the work of art, which very often turns out not to be genuine in any event. Of course, if the signature had gone that could not possibly be an assertion to the person who is in possession of the work of art.
Baroness Birk: I have not really been convinced by any of the arguments which have been deployed against this amendment. First, the Minister himself had to admit that he was not sure whether a signature on a picture or a title on a book was in itself an assertion. I should have said from reading Clause 70 that he was right. It is not necessarily so. So this means an entirely new and different act. My noble friend asked how that would be carried out, but we seem rather to be left in the air over that.
Also, from my reading I do not find in the Government's White Paper the need to assert. Assertion seems to have come in later. Thirdly, this is
354
a new concept and that is a problem. It has this name which I think some people find rather strange and do not always like—moral right. When you translate from the French it seems to come out quite differently in English. So it is a case of getting used to an entirely new concept.
Noble Lords referred to letters of protest that they have received. One of the problems is unsigned articles. The Economist always has unsigned articles. This has gone on for many years and was also the case with The Times until comparatively recently. All this would be taken care of by means of contract. I assume that those writers who, even today, would rather have their names attached to an article and consider it extremely important would not write for the Economist. But if there were any form of loss, a contract between the writer and the publisher would certainly take care of that.
The Minister having heard all that has been said, I hope that he will go away and look at the amendment again and see whether—perhaps between us all—he can come up with something which is not quite as harsh as this is at the moment, and make it in accordance with the Berne Convention, as it is meant to be. Also, would he look into the position if we move right away from the Berne Convention, which is exactly what we would be doing if we insisted on the right to assertion? In the meantime, and hoping that the Minister will think over all those many points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 27, line 12, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I will speak to Amendment No. 178 with this amendment because they go together. The point of these two amendments is to add to subsection (4) the words in Amendment No. 178 as a third heading. What we are dealing with here, provided that I still understand what we are dealing with, is the moral right of an author of an artistic work who has presumably asserted his right. He then has the right to be identified under paragraphs (a) and (b) and the new paragraph (c) reads:
"the work is recorded or transmitted by any electronic or reprographic means".
Very often, speaking about photographs, one has the situation where the identification—if that is an assertion—is on the back of the photograph, but if the photograph is being transmitted by wire it is only the front that is being transmitted. Therefore, one needs to write in somewhere that the transmission will transmit his right as well. That is the purpose of the amendment and, as artistic works can now be transmitted in this way, it is proven that the right should be protected in the same way as it is protected in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) when a work is broadcast. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: These amendments are concerned to add a further category to the list in subsection (4) of the cases in which the author of an artistic work is to have the right conferred by Clause

355
69. If the noble Lord's concern is that the artist should have the right in respect of electronic publishing, then the amendment is unnecessary. He has the right whenever the work is published commercially. The Committee will note that Clause 159(4) defines commercial publication of an artistic work as including:
making the work available to the public by means of an electronic retrieval system".
The amendment would, however, confer the right in cases where there was no element of publication or other public exploitation, such as in the case of a photocopy taken for purposes of private study. That is not the point of the paternity right. The author would gain nothing by it but the user of the work might be greatly inconvenienced. I hope that with my assurance that Clause 69(4) does include electronic publishing, the noble Lord will feel that that is satisfactory.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should have thought that the example that the noble Lord gave of private use would be covered anyway under fair dealing and therefore would not be involved. Unless I have not followed the Minister completely, it did not seem to me that he dealt with the point. We are coming to somebody who has—as I thought I said when introducing this amendment—asserted his right to the photograph. That has to be asserted for example in Clause 70(3). "by instrument in writing". When the photographer has put his instrument in writing the assertion then
"binds anyone to whose notice it is brought".
If there is no right—if the photograph is being transmitted by wire—to have the photographer's right transmitted, the photograph will land up on the desk of another newspaper without any right attaching to it. That is the problem that is meant to be dealt with here. If the name of the photographer, together with whatever is involved in the assertion, is printed on the back of the photograph, and a photocopy is taken and sent off by some means several thousand miles away and it is then printed, how is the author asserting his right? Why is his right not to be protected by the person who sends it off?
Lord Beaverbrook: I should say to the noble Lord that once the author has effectively asserted his right that is it, especially if the assertion is an assignment, because Clause 72 makes that binding on everyone. I believe that in cases where it is necessary, where there is not a prior arrangement between the photographer and the person to whom he is sending the photograph by electronic transfer, that electronic transfer could also be used to carry an assertion of his right in that photograph.
Lord Brain: I think that what the Minister has just said is quite true—that the assertion can be continued in the electronic transmission. Very often in the filing system the two then have a great risk of getting separated. All that this amendment seeks to do and all that we are seeking to do is to ensure that the information is retained on the copy. As I said at an earlier stage, with future magnetic means of taking photographs it may not even have been on the
356
original other than in a magnetic form which identifies "photograph by Bloggs, copyright". This needs to be transmitted and it needs to be maintained throughout. That is all we are seeking to do. If the Minister would look at this and see whether there is some other use of words than these, which I agree may be conferring too many rights on reprography or reservations, I should be very happy to see the amendment withdrawn.
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, of course I shall consider what noble Lords have said and I shall indeed look very carefully at what they have said, but I am not convinced that there is a problem here. A publisher of photographs, let us say a newspaper, will have a considerable photographic library. Within that library there will be the photograph, the record of who took that photograph, the record of when that photograph was taken and of whom it is. There is no reason why along with the history of the photograph there should not be a record of whether a right has been asserted, just as the owner of the copyright should be recorded.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not think that we can take this very much further. There is a difficulty and I am very pleased that the Minister is prepared to take it away and think about it, as I am sure he will. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 178A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 179.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 178A:
Page 27, line 15, leave out from ("architecture") to end of line 16 and insert ("or engineering construction being a building or other structure has the right to be identified as the architect or the engineer—").
The noble Lord said: I certainly should not like to stand in the way of the proposals contained in Amendment No. 179. Those Members of the Committee present with long memories will recognise that this amendment is an echo of one that I moved several days ago. It has the intention of reviving the interest of the Minister and the Government in the very important proposition which I put forward then.
As this is a repetition of an earlier debate I intend to be extremely brief. I shall illustrate my point by citing only one example and that is an historical one. When we debated this matter earlier we talked about copyright. What we are not talking about is the moral right to be accredited with work done. Let it be said that I very strongly support that right. It is extremely important that in works of building construction not only the architect should be recognised and have the work attributed to him but also the other professionals who are involved in the work. To illustrate my point I shall draw attention to only one historic work, that being the Crystal Palace which was built a

357
century or more ago. Normally when people refer to the Crystal Palace they refer to Paxton's Crystal Palace. A very interesting book was published not long ago called Paxton's Palace. Paxton is recognised as the architect of the Crystal Palace although in fact he was not the architect at all. He was a gardener who had acquired some aptitude in designing glass houses, stone objects and such things. Paxton later rose to become a director of the Midland Railway, but he was never an architect although Crystal Palace is attributed to him.
It is not my intention to take away from Paxton the right of attribution for the Crystal Palace. He contributed several important characteristics to that great and important building. First, he contributed the conception of it. Secondly, he contributed the rudimentary design which was scribbled out on a blotting pad belonging to the Midland Railway during a directors' meeting, presumably when someone else was speaking.
Thirdly, Paxton had a capacity for Parliamentary lobbying, largely through Lord Brougham and Vaux. It was through that lobbying that he obtained the work at Crystal Palace. The fourth characteristic that Paxton brought to the Crystal Palace was a very important one. In the course of little more than a week he produced a feasibility study. He did not design the Crystal Palace. That was designed by Charles Fox, an engineer from Birmingham whose name now lives on in the consulting engineering firm of Freeman Fox. Paxton produced a feasibility design and in the course of' the next few weeks Charles Fox produced the actual design of the building. Paxton's part in the Crystal Palace was notable and should be recognised historically. However, Fox's part was equally notable. The Crystal Palace should always be, under moral right, attributed equally to Paxton and Fox.
That is an historical example and I dare say it is outside the scope of the Bill. However, exactly the same argument can be used in relation to the Sydney Opera House, the Pompidou Centre and other important buildings, some of which I have drawn to the attention of the Committee earlier. I think that the amendment is highly significant and important. I hope I was right in thinking, when we discussed this matter earlier, that the Minister was sympathetic. I should not wish to lose his sympathy by going on too long and I hope that he will rise to his feet and say that his sympathy has been enhanced by my arguments, followed by a period of reflection since our last discussion.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord is quite right. This amendment is consequential on his earlier amendment, Amendment No. 11A. I am grateful to him for allowing me to say that I now have sympathy for his earlier amendment. I said that I should consider what he had said, and I now believe that in our reconsideration of the copyright status of engineering structures we should also look at the moral rights implications. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and allow us to take a further look at it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I rejoice in the Minister's words. I happily withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 27, line 15, after ("building") insert ("not being a private house").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this simple amendment. It raises a question of personal rights and of aesthetics. The question is whether the Bill should provide that the architect of a private house should have the right to have his name put on that house. Should owners of private houses have to have the architect's name on their houses; Clause 69(5) reads:
"The author of a work of architecture in the form of a building has the right to be identified as the architect—
(a) on the building as constructed".
My amendment would make an exception with regard to private houses so that the author would not have the right to have his name struck on a private house. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am not very happy with the amendment. I do not wish to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. However, I should be happy to see people such as Gropius and many other architects being allowed to have their names on houses. I agree that many houses are built by architects who, one hopes, will feel so ashamed when they see the results of their work that they will not want to put their names on them. However, I think that is a great pity to leave private houses out because there could be quite exceptional pieces of architecture which are built as private houses. I hope that the noble Lord will think again.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I also hope that the noble Lord will think again. One of the greatest glories of this country is its private houses. I do not know why he does not want the architect's name on a great house, whereas he would love to have it on a factory or an office building. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, has been reminding us of the great days when architects were not the only people responsible for buildings; other artists who were not professioal architects built buildings. What a pity we cannot return to those days! However, that is rather off the point. I am against the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I do not see why private housing should be left out. I should be interested and delighted to know who the architect of my own house was.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not live in a grand house, which will surprise no one. However, I am opposed to the amendment. My house was designed by an architect. I like some of it; I do not like other bits of it. I wanted to know who the malefactor was, though I am sure he was a good man. It was difficult to find out; I had to go through the records. I think it would be rather nice if there was a little plaque or brick beside the front door with the name of the architect so that I should know who did the house.

359
He was not Lutyens or anybody important. However, he was not a bad fellow in his own way. I should like to give him credit by nodding to him every time I go through the door.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has a very practical point, particularly when we look at paragraph (b). If we have a film which deals with housing or a general film of any sort which covers a large area of country and includes many houses, the credits will be longer than the film.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It seems to me that the difficulty about the amendment is that there are a number of different sorts of private houses. There is Number 2, Laburnum Grove, and there is Blenheim Palace. A line ought to be drawn somewhere between those. The amendment goes altogether too far.
Lord Beaverbrook: Notwithstanding where the noble and learned Lord would like to draw his line between Laburnum Grove and Blenheim Palace—perhaps somewhere near Woodstock—we are concerned with the architect's right to be identified with his work. We recognise that different considerations apply when considering architects than when considering other authors. For example, we recognise that many buildings, particularly private dwellings, may be constructed to the same design, and so we have proposed that the right only arises in respect of the first to be constructed.
We are reluctant to go further and remove the right altogether in respect of private houses. First, what is a private house? Are we only talking about buildings designed for private dwellings or does the architect's right expire if a building is converted from other use? More important, there are private houses for which the architect can reasonably expect some recognition. Many of our stately homes are fine works of architecture and it seems inequitable to deprive the architect of the right to be identified because he has designed a palace rather than a factory.
If the person for whom the building is to be constructed feels strongly about the matter he can of course require the architect to waive his right. This seems the more equitable safeguard, rather than depriving the architect of his right from the beginning.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that his point is met by the incidental inclusion in Clause 71(3)(b).
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I prefaced my remarks in introducing the amendment by saying that it was a question of aesthetics and possibly of personal rights. I therefore anticipated that there would be a considerable difference of views. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 27, line 39, leave out from ("prominent") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 182A. The implication in Clause 69(7) that any form of identification must be referred first to the author for approval threatens many difficulties in practice. To avoid those difficulties it may be more satisfactory if the author were to be given the opportunity to dictate the desired form of identification at the time when the right to be identified is asserted. Such an agreement would be in line with the provisions on waivers in Clause 77(2) and (3), where the possibility of a waiver being conditional is envisaged. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I wish to support my noble friend's amendment. It seems absolutely sensible and rather simple. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can accept it.
Lord Beaverbrook: These amendments deal with the question of how an author chooses to be identified when he has asserted his paternity right. It may be, for example, that he wants to be known by his pseudonym. At the moment this is provided for in general terms in Clause 69. The suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Cullen is a useful one. It would mean that the author, when asserting his paternity right, could specify the exact form that his identification should take. In this way the author or director could ensure that those whose notice was brought to the assertion would also be aware of the means of identification. This is something that we can accept in principle, but we should like to look a little more closely at the wording.
In the light of this assurance, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I willingly withdraw the amendment. I am just recovering from a sense of shock.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 27, line 40, at end insert—
("( )References in this section to a work include references to a substantial part of a work.").
The noble Lord said: Can the noble Lord tell us the occasions on which the author has the right to be identified? I noticed in subsection (2) that the author has the right to be identified whenever the work is published commercially which I thought should apply whenever a substantial part of a work is published and not necessarily when all of it is published.
When I looked at paragraph (b) I saw:
"copies of a film or sound recording including the work are issued to the public".
Surely that should also apply to the work or any part of it. As I continued looking through the other subsections I found on each occasion that those words ought to be inserted. I felt it would be simpler to have a new subsection at the end saying:
"References in this section to a work include references to a substantial part of a work".
That is what my amendment intends. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: I intercede to support my noble friend. If we look at subsection (7)(b) we see that it refers to buildings. I draw the attention of the Committee to such a construction as Hampton Court Palace, which is the work of several hands, some of which carried out substantial parts of the work but each of which should be recognised rather than merely one, in a modern version of the same thing. I think my noble friend's amendment should be very carefully considered and perhaps accepted.
Lord Beaverbrook: This amendment seeks to ensure that the paternity right applies to parts of works as well as complete works. This has in fact already been provided for in the first subsection of Clause 79, which states that the right applies to the whole or any substantial part of a work. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Kilbracken: I had not noticed that subsection, and I have just turned to it. I am not perfectly certain that I am happy about that, but I feel sure that I shall be when I have had time to read it carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 27. line 41, after second ("section") insert ("70 (requirement that right be asserted) and section").
The noble Earl said: I suggest that the moral right to be identified, if it is to apply to cases in which the right does not apply—Section 71—must also apply to the requirement that the right be asserted. At this stage I am not going into the question of assertion but merely asking the Government to look again at the anomaly between this subsection and Section 70. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: An unsuccessful attempt was made to get the assertion taken out of the first part of Clause 69. There is no need to repeat what was said. We must have asserted the right before any of these came along. Therefore, if I am following the noble Earl correctly, this is an unnecessary amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: I agree. This amendment seeks to ensure that the paternity right will only have effect if it has been asserted in writing. This has already been provided for in the first subsection of Clause 69, which states that the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with Clause 70. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
The Earl of Stockton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Requirement that right he asserted]:
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 28, line I, after ("copyright") insert ("or exclusive licence").
The noble Earl said: This clause grapples rather laboriously with the concept of assertion. This concept is new in this Bill and was not treated in the Acts of 1911 or 1956. I support the concept and the aims set out in the Bill. I wish to point out to the Government that where an exclusive licence exists and is assigned, then the right to be identified should also be asserted. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: The assertion of the right to be identified as author can be made on the document which provides an assignment of copyright. This then binds the assignee and anyone claiming through him. This amendment seeks to make the same provision through an exclusive licence. I am afraid that I consider this amendment to be mistaken. An assignment passes copyright out of the hands of the author and he is thereafter dependent upon his moral right to protect his remaining non-economic interests in the work. To be able to rely on his right to be identified he must assert that right, and the most effective way of doing that will be in the assignment itself. This then binds the assignee and every other person who thereafter becomes owner of the copyright.
A licence is entirely different. An author granting a copyright licence will still be owner of the copyright and he will rarely need to rely on his moral rights. He will, as at present, be able to insert appropriate terms in the licence, and breach of those terms could well be breach of contract, infringement of copyright or both.
In the rare event that he considers it necessary to rely on his moral rights, he will be able to include an assertion of his right to be identified in the licence, as my noble friend Lord Stockton envisages. That can be achieved already under subsection (3) of the clause. There is no need to introduce the point into subsection (2) which, as I have just said, deals with the different circumstances of assignment.
The Earl of Stockton: I thank the noble Lord for his reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 182A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I return to this question of assertion. This clause tells us the methods of asserting but it does not tell us what assertion is. Subsection (1) states:
"a person does not infringe the right conferred by section 69…by doing any of the acts mentioned…unless the right has been asserted in accordance with the following provisions so as to bind him".
"Him" is the person who does not name the author. One then has a situation that the right can be asserted on assignment. I should have thought that at least some lawyers would like to know what has to go into the document of assignation to be the assertion. What has to be said? If I heard the Minister correctly when we were dealing with the amendment to Clause 69(1), he said that the name of the author on a book was not necessarily an assertion of moral right. If that

363
is not an assertion, what is? How do you get across to the public, or to anybody, that you are asserting something.
I take an example of something which might conceivably happen to me—which is unlikely so far in the copyright provisions of this Bill. If I write an opinion on a matter of law and it is provided to a firm of solicitors, which passes it to its clients, who in turn pass it to somebody else, how do I assert any moral right I may have as the author? Such circumstances must pertain fairly frequently in lectures and things of that nature. What is it we are talking about in saying "assertion"?
Subsection (3) states:
"The right may also be asserted by instrument in writing signed by the author or director; and in this case the assertion binds anyone to whose notice it is brought".
How does the author bring this to the notice of somebody? Are we to have on each page of each book a notice saying that the author of the page, if it is a composite work, has asserted his moral right, so that anybody reading it has to resort to this notice? If not, what exactly is the intention? It is far from clear, at least to me, what this assertion comprises. Unless there is some definition of how one sets about asserting, what the Government mean by it and what the lawyers and others are to understand by this strange act of assertion (which of course nobody in Britain has ever had to do before), we are left in a state of total confusion.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I echo the confusion of the noble Lord. I find it very difficult, as I said on Second Reading, to understand how this assertion works in relation to works of art. If one asserts one's right to the person one passes a work to, is that assertion to be passed on by the transferor of the work? If one does it by means of an instrument, is the instrument to go with the work of art for ever, and a day, and can one presume that it has been so passed on? As regards the concept in subsection (4) of asserting generally one's right in relation to a work of art, I do not at the moment understand what a general assertion would be in relation to a work of art rather than a specific assertion. How is one expected to assert something generally? Can one assert it generally and then sit back for ever, and whoever comes into possession of that work will be deemed to have had that right asserted to them?
The Minister made some very helpful comments when we discussed this matter previously. I put forward these questions in the friendliest possible way. I hope he will take them into account when he considers "assertion" in relation to works of art.
Lord Somers: I should like to support the amendment. It seems to me that assertion is only a second form of copyright—
Lord Beaverbrook: Is the noble Lord aware that we are on a clause stand part debate at the moment?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: I do not see any problem at all with assertion in the case of a book, for example,
364
because I imagine it is only necessary that the contract with the publisher states that the author asserts his right to be identified as the author on all copies of the book. However, there seems to be a problem regarding pictures, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said about the signature on a picture not being at all reliable. The fact that the painting has been signed is perhaps not good enough to identify the painter. I do not know how the author of a painting could be satisfactorily identified unless there is a little plaque under each picture stating who the author is. If you can take a signature out of a drawing of some sort and substitute another one, or leave it without a signature, a fortiori, you can take a plaque off and put it on another painting. How will a painting be identified through the centuries? If only it had been done in the past there would be a lot less trouble in the art galleries. But it has not been done, and how it is to be done in the future I cannot imagine.
Baroness Birk: As my noble friend pointed out, Clause 70 seems to add very largely to the confusion. There is no doubt that this clause, even with the Government's intention behind it, is certainly far from clear. It still does not give any practical information on assertion. Subsection (5) states:
"In an action for infringement of the right the court shall, in considering remedies, take into account any delay in asserting the right".
It seems very difficult to be penalised for a delay in doing something when you have not been told exactly how you should do it and in what way. Many questions arise on this. A writer is under a double handicap, first, over assertion and then over the need to use a waiver in certain circumstances. The clause is far from clear in its present form, whatever the Government's intentions are, and should not remain in the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Morton, asked what an "assertion" is. I have already discussed that with him. I repeat that an assertion is a statement by the author that he wishes to be named on copies of the work and he can say so in as many words in his assignment, or, as the noble Lord said, in his assignation, which I think I am right in saying is the Scottish equivalent. Alternatively, he can say so in as many words in his notice under subsection (3). The noble Lord's suggestion about a notice on each page of a book is clearly not required with this clause.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I have already said to him that I will consider the point that he raised earlier about artists. I can say little more now. However, I make it plain that where there is an assignment of copyright, as opposed merely to sale of a picture, an assertion in the assignment is good for all time. If the assignee or his successors in title lose it, that is their problem, not the author's.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, he used the phrase "through the centuries". I merely remind the Committee that moral rights last only for the term of copyright, which is usually life plus 50 years.
I turn to the point made—
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will give way. In contrasting subsections (2) and (3), he said that under subsection (2) an assignation or the assignment lasts for ever for anybody. There is a distinction in subsection (3), where the assertion binds anyone to whose notice it is brought. Does he say that the assertion covered by the assignment—or, as I would have it, assignation in Scotland—binds someone whether they know about it or not, whereas in subsection (3) it does not bind anyone unless it is brought to their notice?
Lord Beaverbrook: As I understand it, the assertion binds the assignee or his successors absolutely. If the successors lose it, that is their problem. The author or painter will have to bring the original assertion to the notice of the new owner of the copyright. On that basis the painter or author has done what he has to do to assert his moral right in this instance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, brings to our notice the fact that the clause provides that in an action for infringement the court should take into account any delay in asserting the paternity right. It may be unjust to grant an injunction or substantial damages if there is a late assertion after the right owner has spent the money on exploitation.
To revert to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, about assertion, I think that this is a difficult area. I should like to get it quite clear for him. I shall write to him on the subject and have a copy placed in the Library for the benefit of all noble Lords.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Would the Minister kindly state in the letter not how an assertion is communicated but what the assertion has to be? Perhaps he will include in the letter illustrations of how it is done in a musical sense, in a literary work and in an artisitic work.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wonder whether there is any sense in which the assignment is similar to the exchange of a Bible between Robert Burns and Highland Mary over the burn at Filford near Ayr? I observe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, is present. Perhaps he can help on the matter.
Lord Beaverbrook: My noble and learned friend says that he was not there! I shall indeed include in the letter a form of words that I believe would be an assertion of my paternity right in the letter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington:I hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind that the discussion on this clause is on the basis that there remains a duty to assert. In considering Clause 69 I know that he will bear in mind the question whether there should be a duty to assert at all in the case of artists in relation to painting, sculpture and so on. The discussion has taken place on the basis that that duty will remain. I hope that as a result of the Minister's reconsideration of Clause 69 such artists will be exempted from assertion.
Lord Kilbracken: I wish to refer to the Minister's comment on my remark "down the centuries". He
366
seemed to indicate that the right to be identified as the author of a copyright work extended only for the period during which the copyright was valid; in other words, for the lifetime of the author. This may be tucked away in another part of the Bill, as these things often are, but I see nothing in Clause 69 to the effect that his right to be identified does not go on for ever. The clause says,
"The author of a copyright … work … has the right to be identified".
It does not say when the copyright ends. If I am wrong in this and it is valid only while the copyright continues, I should be grateful to know where it is provided for.
Lord Beaverbrook: It is in Clause 76.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Cases in which right does not apply]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 183 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 184, 184A, 185 or 185A.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 28, line 15, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: Clause 71(2) denies the right to be identified as author to computer programs and typefaces. Is this not a breach of the Berne Convention, if moral rights are to cover all literary works. Unless it can be argued that for the purposes of Berne, unlike the United Kingdom copyright law, computer programs are not literary works and typefaces are not artistic works, it is not at all clear that we are right to agree to this part of the Bill. In other countries this provision is gradually being made for literary and artistic works. As we shall not have another measure of this kind for many years, I think that we should take note of what is happening now and will continue to happen in the realms of modern technology.
Lord Beaverbrook: The amendment seeks to ensure that the authors of computer programs and typefaces are entitled to the right to be identified as author. The list of exceptions to the paternity right given in Clause 71 has been compiled for a number of reasons, one of them being practicality. We feel that giving the authors of computer programs and typefaces the paternity right would cause numerous practical problems and would lead to more problems than benefits. Although literary works, programs are different in many ways from books and other material regarded as literary works. It would not, for example, be appropriate for the authors of the computer programs running teletext services to be identified each time someone wants the latest news or cricket score. The same sort of argument applies to typefaces in relation to more orthodox artistic works. It is worth observing that even in France, where legal recognition of moral rights is perhaps most fully developed, there are no such rights in computer programs.
I believe that the Bill as drafted provides for us to fulfil our obligations under the Berne Convention.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Having had considerable experience in the parliamentary information technology field and as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I understand that this would lead to an impossible situation.
As the Minister has indicated, computer programs necessarily contain many hundreds of names in the codes and take up valuable computer storage space. The copyright owners will not be able to maintain the programs by means of modernisation and improvements without obtaining the consent of all the producers of programs. It seems to me that this amendment would make similar modification to typefaces an impossible task.
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has almost convinced me, but I shall read in Hansard what he has said. I was also asking for information. I was informed that provision is being made in other countries. I was also asking whether the provision contravened the Berne Convention.
Lord Beaverbrook: I said that I believed that the clause enables us to fulfil our obligations under the convention.
Baroness Birk: It was for information and in order to make that point that I moved the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Should any more information come my way between now and the next stage of the Bill, I may reinstate the matter in another form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: Your Lordships' Committee may feel that we have reached a suitable moment to break in order to return to the Bill in an hour's time, at eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1987
7 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The purpose of these regulations is to give effect to European Community Directive 84–5 EEC which requires extension of compulsory motor insurance to cover liability for damage to property as well as liability for personal injury. The regulations and associated arrangements aim to guarantee compensation for most people whose property is damaged by negligent drivers of motor vehicles.
In 1981 your Lordships' House invited the Select Committee on the European Communities to consider the draft directive aimed at a level of harmonisation of compulsory motor insurance law
368
throughout the Community. The Committee's report concluded that the directive was a welcome step in the right direction. It identified the main consideration, which is that the full protection of accident victims' property would be reflected in increased insurance premiums and that the size of the increase could be determined by the use of certain options which the directive affords member states when giving effect to it.
Following the directive's adoption, the Department of Transport consulted widely. Responses included those from representatives of accident victims, drivers and their insurers, the Motor Insurers' Bureau and the police. Where their views are in conflict, the Government have aimed to maintain a reasonable balance between them to achieve an effective package which secures benefits for victims of accidents without the prospect of substantial increases in premiums. As my honourable friend the Minister responsible for roads and traffic said, we accept that insurers may have to meet more claims for damage to property than at present but this is not likely to prove significant in relation to insurers' overall premium base.
Once the regulations are approved a parallel amendment to Northern Ireland law will be proposed for compliance with the directive's deadline for amendment of member states' domestic legislation.
Regulation I will require motor policies to cover liability for property damage from 31st December 1988, the latest date allowed by the directive for compliance. Insurers need until then to issue documents meeting the new requirements as policies become due for renewal during the course of next year.
Regulation 2 lays down the level of cover which policies must provide. There will be no change to the unlimited cover in respect of death or bodily injury. Its new requirement is for at least £250,000 of cover in respect of damage to property. This will not present problems to motorists and hauliers. Virtually all their policies already give at least this level of cover for damage to property of others.
Regulation 2 also proposes exclusions in respect of damage to the vehicle whose driver causes an accident, damage to goods carried in such a vehicle and damage to property in the custody of the insured person. These exclusions were all identified when the directive was agreed in Brussels and will not prevent the legitimate claims by third parties.
In addition, two existing exclusions from compulsory bodily injury insurance are extended to property damage. Since employers' insurance provides cover in respect of their liability for property damage, there would be double cover if it had to be included in motor policies as well. The current exception in respect of contractual liability is applied to compulsory property damage insurance too, as the directive requires only civil liability to third parties to be covered.
There are other obligations arising from the directive concerning guarantee funds. The Motor Insurers' Bureau carries out this function for the United Kingdom through agreements with my right

369
honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. In common with the changes to the law the main change will be the extension of the uninsured drivers' agreement to cover damage to property. The present agreement requires the bureau to pay compensation in respect of those injured or killed by uninsured drivers. Its principle for compensating for property damage will be similar to that in the existing agreement. This requires the bureau to meet an unsatisfied court judgment. In the vast majority of cases, however, litigation has proved unnecessary. Claims against uninsured drivers are settled by the bureau without recourse to the courts. From the end of next year much the same system will apply in relation to damage to property.
The only significant difference is that the directive allows an excess on property damage claims met by the guarantee fund. Most of those who responded to the consultation recognised the need to strike a balance between the fullest protection of those whose property is damaged by uninsured drivers and keeping within bounds the call on the bureau's funds and administrative costs, which come from a levy on motor insurers' premium income. In this light, the Government's decision is for an MIB property damage excess of £175. This compares with an excess of £100, recommended by your Lordships' Committee. The sum of £175 takes account of the cost of vehicle repairs, which have risen faster than inflation over the period in question.
Few have dissented from the view that there should he no provision in respect of damage caused by unidentified drivers. It would be all too easy for a driver who damages his own vehicle to blame a vehicle which did not stop. Accordingly, the Government are convinced, as was your Lordships' Committee, that this type of claim must be excluded.
The Motor Insurers' Bureau and other motor insurers' representatives considered that implementing the directive in this way is unlikely to lead to premium increases of' more than 3 per cent.
The victims of damage only accidents—who are more often than not motorists themselves—are of course the beneficiaries of these changes. The regulations give them further protection by eliminating a growing abuse: the failure of drivers who damage property of others to inform their insurers. As a result, their victims are often deprived of compensation. At present there is no legal obligation for drivers to report damage accidents to their insurers. If they fail to do so and refuse to pay for the damage from their own pockets it is left to the victim to take civil action. Often claims do not justify the expense involved. Others fail simply because the driver does not have the means to pay.
The regulations will provide broadly similar safeguards to those suffering damage to their property as already exist for those injured by negligent motorists. By the application of the existing provision in Section 151 of the 1972 Act a driver has to supply details of his insurance to a damage accident victim in the event of a claim. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. The victim can then call on the driver's insurers to meet his claim for
370
compensation regardless of whether the insurer is notified by his policyholder.
The directive requires disapplication of certain conditions in insurance policies so that accident victims are not deprived of compensation. This is not a novel concept. The third kind of policy restriction listed by the directive for this treatment concerning the condition of the insured vehicle is already disapplied by the 1972 Act. Without this kind of agreement the purpose of compulsory insurance could be frustrated. Two further conditions to be avoided concern vehicles used by unauthorised or by unlicensed drivers.
Although an extension of the existing provision is the obvious course, Regulation 3 adopts an alternative approach which is already embodied in Section 149 of the 1972 Act. We have done that in order to take account of the objections of the insurance industry. Effectively Section 149 confers on the victim a statutory right of recovery from the insurer. As amended, it requires the insurer to meet a court judgment against persons not insured by the policy and unlicensed drivers. Such persons driving in breach of the relevant policy restrictions would not have a defence to the Section 143 offence. Insurance certificates will remain much as they are, retaining the name of the person or group of persons entitled to drive and reference to the requirements of drivers to hold licences. They will however carry a statement for the benefit of accident victims who might otherwise be misled into thinking that they have no right to claim from the negligent driver's insurer. Insurers are arranging for this.
An exception to the requirement for insurers to meet claims is made in respect of losses suffered by passengers carried in vehicles that they know or suspect have been stolen or unlawfully taken. The onus will be on the insurer to establish the qualifying circumstances and there is a safeguard for innocent parties unable to do anything about their predicament.
Regulation 3(2) details the arrangements where there is only £250,000 on the table and claims for property damage exceed this. £250,000 is of course the extent of an insurer's liability for such damage when the law is relied upon. It reasonably reflects the lower limit set by a number of insurers in the light of their experiences. It is almost four times the limit of insurance envisaged by the directive and will provide adequate protection against the kinds of property damage that most of us are likely to suffer at the hands of a negligent motorist who turns out not to be properly insured. As with the 1972 Act where an insurer becomes liable as a result of the voided conditions, there are rights of recovery. These are provided by Regulation 3(4). In the case of an unlicensed driver otherwise covered by the policy, the insurer can recover the amount paid in respect of the compulsory insurable loss from that person. Where an unauthorised driver is not insured by the policy, the insurer can recover either from that person or a person who is insured by the policy, if he caused or permitted the use of the vehicle.
Regulations 3(3), 3(5) and Regulation 5 are consequential amendments. The first two are self-

371
explanatory and the third refers to nuclear risks, which are usually excluded from policies. Regulation 4 provides a definition of the term "accident" and Regulation 6 simplifies existing procedures for identification of the country of origin of visiting vehicles.
Taken together the regulations achieve the legislative changes necessary to give effect to Directive 84/5/EEC in Great Britain and maintain a balance among interested parties. They guarantee compensation for most people whose property is damaged by drivers. The few exceptions to this guarantee are necessary to avoid significant increases in motor insurance premiums. I commend the regulations to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10th November be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining this order. I need not detain the House. Generally we welcome the order and I am pleased to note the emphasis that the Minister gave to the amount of consultation that took place before the regulations were finally drafted.
I notice in the Sixth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments the reference:
"That the Committee draw the special attention of both Houses to the above draft instrument on the ground that it requires elucidation."
I believe that the Minister has given us that tonight. I foolishly decided to look at Appendix II and read the whole five pages of the Department of Transport memorandum. I shall now need to read what the Minister has said in order to elucidate that. I believe that he will succeed in doing that.
It is surprising to see in paragraph 5 of that memorandum that:
"The UK is the only Member State without an element of compulsory insurance in respect of damage to property".
I also noted paragraph 28, on which I hope that the Minister will expand a little. For the benefit of noble Lords who are still in the Chamber, perhaps I had better quote paragraph 28 of the Department of Transport memorandum:
"The Directive does not define the term "damage to property". Nor is there any indication in the Directive of the scope of this term, which is imported into the draft Regulation without qualification. Absence of a definition in the Directive leaves interpretation to the Courts under the guidance ultimately of the European Court of Justice. Its ruling will he binding upon Member States. Any definition in UK law could, therefore, be in conflict with it. and misleading. Such a definition at variance with the ruling of the Court would give rise to a breach of the Treaty obligation."
I should be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on that and what the consequences might be as a result of any action being taken. The Minister said that insurers generally feel that there will be an increase of only 3 per cent. in insurance premiums. I hope that that will be monitored because it is possible that the Motor Insurance Bureau will find that the cost may be greater than anticipated. Otherwise we welcome the order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his welcome to the order. The definition of damage to property is not in the regulations. The noble Lord has referred to what the department has already said on this matter. There is not a lot I can add to that. In the circumstances we have little choice but to rely on the common sense definition which insurers currently employ, which embraces damage to material property and anything which flows from such damage such as claims for consequential losses.
On the 3 per cent. rise in insurance premiums, that is what insurers have advised us will be the result of the coming into effect of the order. Insurance premiums have risen quite sharply recently for other reasons, and those reasons may continue. However, we do not believe that the result of the order will lead to an increase of more than 3 per cent. It will be difficult to monitor precisely how that will work, but we should like to cover ourselves by saying that if the insurers try to increase premiums by a great deal more than 3 per cent. they will have to justify those increases for some reason other than this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill said, we have not previously covered damage to property, but the regulations extend compulsory insurance to liability for damage to property. We believe that they are a significant step towards protecting the public who suffer the consequences of road traffic accidents. They achieve that with few major costly changes commensurate with the protection of accident victims and our Community obligations. Therefore I think they are good step forward.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1987
7.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These regulations were laid before the House on 18th November. This amendment introduces a small change in the supplementary benefit regulations governing help with the cost of water rates during the final weeks before those regulations cease to exist. Its effect is that in the last few weeks before the implementation of the social security reforms next April increases in water charges will not be taken into account in the assessment of supplementary benefit.
I shall explain why this change is necessary and why, indeed, it would be irresponsible for us not to make it. One of the complications of the supplementary benefit scheme which is to be removed under the social security reforms is the inclusion in benefit assessments of individual amounts for water charges. Under the new income support scheme, water charges will be subsumed into the general applicable amount—separate individual amounts

373
will not be included in the assessment. The need for these administratively costly reassessments which provide only small increases in benefit will no longer exist. At present the entitlement of 3½ million supplementary benefit claimants includes an amount for their individual water charges liability. For 2 million of these the money is paid under an administrative arrangement by local authorities. This administrative arrangement with local authorities will stop one week before the housing benefit reforms take effect, and so local offices will pay the final week's payment in all cases. Every time there is a change in the amount of water charge the entitlement of each claimant has to be reassessed to take account of that change and his benefit payments adjusted accordingly. Water charges are reviewed annually, usually in April. For about 1·5 per cent. of people there are two reviews; the water rate element is reviewed in January, and the sewerage and environmental services in April, meaning two separate reassessments.
Within two weeks of the start of income support, water charges are due to increase because of the main, April, review of charges. Precise details of the April increases in water charges are not generally known until March. Without this amendment, local offices will need to reassess 3½ million cases again normally for just the last week or two of the present scheme. Trying to handle this at a time when all efforts will be directed at completing the change to income support would have a significantly disruptive effect in local offices. Before income support can begin, more than 5 million supplementary benefit cases need to be converted from supplementary benefit. A task of this size has to be spread over several months, and the exercise, which has already started, will not finish until next April.
To put the amendment into perspective, assuming that water charges increase by 6½ per cent. (which was about the increase for this year) the average increase overall for a supplementary benefit claimant will be less than 10 pence a week. For those whose water rate and environmental services charges increase together on 1st April, the average amount of total extra benefit payable if cases were reassessed would be 20 pence. Even for the small minority whose water rate increases in January, the average extra benefit would be a total of just over 85 pence spread over three months.
Against this background the proposed amendment is both logical and responsible. We do not think it would be defensible to impose on our local offices the additional burden of reassessing some 3½ million claims in the crucial last weeks before the implementation of major reforms and when the sums involved are so modest. It would not be in the interests of claimants, including those affected by this change, to risk unnecessarily delays in the assessment of their income support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th November be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, there is no opposition on this side of the House to the regulations. However,
374
I must ask why this problem was not foreseen. We are getting too many amendments from the DHSS on matters which are totally foreseeable. Now we have another this evening. Surely this problem of the water rates and the cost must have been known. The time of the House should not be taken up by matters which should have been dealt with in the earlier regulations.
I have to ask a few questions. Will the water rates after 11th April be fully covered by income support? Will it be a differentiated item so that people on income support will know what element of water charges is involved in their benefits? This is an important matter because with the privatisation of the water authorities there are likely to be big changes. Many people fear increases in water charges. One has to look ahead and beyond what is before us tonight as regards water charges for people on benefits.
I do not want to delay the House. I want only to know whether the water rates will be different after 11th April and how much we are going to help people through housing benefit to deal with what could be a serious problem.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, from these Benches we should also like to thank the noble Lord for his lucid explanation of the amendment regulations. We entirely take the point that this applies to a short period from the end of this year until the coming into effect of the new income support arrangements.
The noble Lord has explained that a reassessment of 3½ million cases in that time would impose an excessive burden on local offices. We accept that point. I should like to ask two questions. Does this mean that Regulation 21 of the original 1983 regulations on restrictions where amounts are excessive is overridden? It is not mentioned in this amendment but I should have thought that it would need to be overridden to bring into effect what the noble Lord wishes to achieve.
My final point is the same as that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. Can the Minister throw a little light on what the arrangements will be under the new income support scheme? I think he mentioned that water would be subsumed. Perhaps he could expand a little on that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their reception of the order. I was asked why the problem was not foreseen. It was foreseen. I was not around at the time of your Lordships' discussions of the Social Security Bill in 1985 and 1986, but I understand that this matter was referred to then by my noble predecessor. I too regret that we could not encompass this order with the orders we debated the other night. Unfortunately, as I understand the matter, there were drafting problems, because it could quite easily have been subsumed—that is rather a useful word for this evening—into the housing benefit regulations.
I was also asked about transitional protection and whether the 1988–89 water rate figures will be used for transitional protection assessments. The answer must

375
clearly be no, because we will not know in time what the new water rates and water charges will be. Transitional protection will be based on the 1987–88 water charges amounts but the income support levels—and this is the important part—take account of the estimated amounts for 1988–89. I think that remark also answers one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. As with many of the miscellaneous identifiable benefits of the past, we have rolled them up into a global total. This was one of the objectives of the reforms under the Bill, and now the Act, to which I referred.
This amendment has no effect on Regulation 21 of the requirements regulations, which provides for restrictions when housing costs in general are high. I think I have answered all the points. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.29 to 8 p.m.]

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 71.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 28, line 18, at end insert—
("(c) where the copyright in the work originally vested in a person other than the author by virtue of section 11(2) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 189 and, with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, No. 189A.
The Bill introduces in the form of moral rights in relation to copyright two rights of fundamental importance to newspapers and periodicals: first, the right of an author of a copyright literary work to require that he shall be identified as its author whenever the work is published commercially; and, secondly, the Bill endows an author, other than an employed journalist, with the right not to have his copyright work unjustifiably modified.
This right would be enjoyed by freelance contributors and writers of letters for publication, but it goes far beyond that. It covers, for example, the director of every TV advertisement, the author of every trade catalogue or brochure. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, explained earlier, it covers the photographer's photographs used in advertisements, and much more besides. However, in deference to the noble Lord the Chief Whip I shall restrict my comments on the implications of these two rights to newspapermen and periodicals, I shall do so by quoting without modification from a letter which the editor of the Economist addressed to several Members of this Chamber.
The editors' anxieties have already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but they are generally so important and so compelling that I believe they deserve fuller mention. I quote from the letter, with the permission of the editor. He writes:
"The impact of this legislation on The Economist would undoubtedly be damaging and, if the waiver provisions were removed"—
as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in his amendment to Clause 77—
"potentially disastrous. The introduction of moral rights of this kind may be appropriate for books by single authors, but for newspapers, magazines, periodicals and works of composite authorship, it would be utterly unworkable. The result could threaten, and possibly destroy, the special character of The Economist which has been its hallmark since its earliest days.
"There is a special place in British journalism, exemplified by The Economist, for the written article that is published as the collective voice of an editorial team. This type of journalism could be eroded to the point of destruction if each individual journalist became absolutely entitled to insist upon attribution, and (in the case of a freelancer) to give or withhold, as he chooses, his consent to the editing of his work before publication.
"A system based on assertion of the right to attribution and upon waivers or consents to modification is completely impractical for a newspaper working to tight deadlines. It could easily put [the editor] in a position of either having to abandon an article or risking legal action from, say, a photographer whose picture is to be cropped but who cannot be contacted for consent before our deadline".
I may perhaps add that it seems odd for a government who have devoted legislation to reducing the rights of trade unions to set about achieving in this particular measure a great strengthening of the National Union of Journalists. Finally:
"A regime in which an editor's decision to publish requires constant reference to lawyers for advice on contractual terms, consents and waivers cannot be in the public interest. It would interrupt the natural flow of news for publication.
"The legislation requires that every participant in the creation of a finished article should receive attribution if he requires it. Nothing could be less appropriate for The Economist than having to include an exhaustive list of researchers, journalists, editors, graphic artists and photographers who have contributed to an article".
I should add that Sir Edward Pickering, the executive vice-chairman of The Times, has written in similar terms of the difficulties that his newspaper would face under these clauses.
These arguments and conclusions are weighty. Above all, they are practical. In a number of clauses the Bill provides desirable and strongly supported protection for such folk as creative artists, authors of books, and contributors to symposia or works of reference. However, as it stands there is in places in the Bill a conflict when this protection, necessary for some, is achieved at the price of making the efficient conduct of newspapers and periodicals impossible.
We have put forward the amendments in an attempt to sort out this muddle. Amendment No. 184 excludes works made by employees from the right to be identified, and No. 189 and No. 189A would, in different ways, ensure that editors will remain in control of the content of the publications for which they are at present solely responsible.
I am conscious that the drafting may be defective and I emphasise that the intention of the amendments is to open the issue for consideration. I hope that the Minister may be willing to reconsider the clauses and

377
suggest a method of resolving the conflict which at present exists between the rights of creators and the imperative necessities of producing papers and journals speedily. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I rise to support strongly what has been said by my noble friend who moved this amendment. I support the amendment for exactly the same reasons. I suppose I should begin by confessing that I have some interest in this matter because my son is an assistant editor on the Economist newspaper. But there are other papers, not as good as the Economist but good nevertheless, which will be affected. In all seriousness, if the Bill, I think by chance, were to ruin what has been the outstanding character of the Economist for at least 100 years, it would be unfortunate. It would not be intended, I am sure, by the Government or the Committee, but it would he apt to happen.
There are at least three Members of this House who have been or are directors of the Economist or its parent companies. No doubt they will in due course address the Committee on exactly what this will mean to the paper. But I am informed, as indeed is the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, that it would fundamentally alter the character of the Economist because most of it, if not all, is a joint effort. Most of it is anonymous but it is put together by the staff of the Economist, sometimes by outside or freelance writers; photographs are acquired through agencies and so forth. It is a collective production. I think there is certainly room in the British press for such a method of producing a paper, and the Economist, I would say, is a very good example of what can be done.
It may be thought at first sight that all this is to protect the rights of journalists. But actually what will happen is that many journalists will find that the Economist can no longer publish what they produce because it will not have the time, the means or the legal advice to fulfil all the provisions of the Bill as it stands. So I would very much hope that the amendment, or something like it—because I notice the noble Lord does not pretend that it is the only or necessarily a perfect amendment—which gives effect to it will be acceptable to the Government and the Committee.
This matter has already been raised and is indeed relevant to Amendment No. 158A and particularly to Clause 77 and the amendments in connection with that. When we come to Clause 77 it may be argued that there is protection in that clause which would make our fears unnecessary. That no doubt will be argued when that clause is considered. But certainly, as I understand it, the Economist at present feels that the provisions of the Bill, if they are enacted as they stand, will be harmful to it, and if they were amended by striking out the protection in Clause 77, they could well be disastrous.
As I say, this is a matter which could possibly be tackled in different ways. I think the Committee will agree that it is necessary that it should be tackled and that the tradition of this paper—which adds very greatly to the reputation of this country throughout the world and has enormous world-wide
378
Circulation—should be protected and not harmed unintentionally by the drafters of the Bill.
If everybody who contributes to the Economist has to be identified and if every photograph which is cropped has to have the consent of the photographer, many of which come from agencies and others from outside writers, it will make the production of the paper almost impossible. Therefore I very much hope that the mover of the amendment will gain the support of the Committee and that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is always interesting to hear the position that the Alliance takes. If it will allow me to do so, I should like to speak in favour of the freedom of the individual. It seems to me that the Bill, as drafted, is fair enough. In fact Clause 11(2), as we tried to argue on this side of the Committee, does not go far enough.
As I understand the basic premise of the Bill, it sets out the position of the law subject to contract. Anybody in any situation is free to contract to alter the position of the Bill. So the Bill is laying down what the common law or the statute position is, leaving it to the employer, the commissioner or anybody else to have a look and say: "This does not suit my particular position. I will have a contract".
As regards the editorial team of the Economist or of The Times, if it has one, I would suggest that they consult a good lawyer and enter into a contract with their employees. As regards the freelancers, I would suggest again that they enter into a contract.
Freedom of contract is extremely important to people. If we are saying that somebody who has a contract with a newspaper is never to have any moral right to anything that they write, that is a rather rigorous diminution of that individual's rights. I should have thought that that would not commend itself to the Committee.
I cannot see why it is so difficult—and we have had this argument several times in the fairly long debates we have had in Committee so far—for the newspaper organisation to enter into contracts with those whom they employ. Should they wish to have the advice as to who would be a good lawyer to advise them on contracts of employment, those noble Lords who have spoken thus far have one sitting very close to them who is in a position to advise them as to who might know something about contracts of employment. I should have thought that this is just totally unnecessary.
Lord Howie of Troon: I hesitate to dissent from my noble friend. He is a wonderful lawyer but not a great journalist. He has shown no great—
Lord Morton of Shuna: If my noble friend will allow me, I have never made any claim to be any sort of journalist. I have never tried to. If I tried to be a journalist, I should try to have a contract that controlled what I was doing.
Lord Howie of Troon: That is more or less what I meant. My noble friend is in the wrong field in his argument here, because, although he is right in some ways, he is wrong in others.
The first thing I should like to say is this. I assent happily to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that we should discuss this with my Amendment No. 189A, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, earlier in one of the debates which we had. I would also add to it Amendment No. 185A, which is further down page 7 of the Marshalled List. This is identical to Amendment No. 189A and has the same intention: that is, of excluding magazines, newspapers and periodicals from this clause.
Our reasons for excluding periodicals and magazines are not to attack the freedom of the individual. In a recent debate I expressed some confusion—not quite confusion, but I expressed myself as having one foot on either side of the fence. While I defend the right of the individual author, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has argued cogently throughout the Bill, the matter becomes more complicated when we reach journalism, because we are not then dealing with the individual author.
In journalism when we are dealing with the individual author I would support the noble Lord, Lord Willis, entirely. But we are not always doing that. The Economist is the case in point. I have never written for it. not even a letter, though I buy it, I am happy to say at a discount. The whole point about a magazine like the Economist and other periodicals is that it works to a house style and the house style is not necessarily the style of the particular author.
The fact is that a piece of work is conceived somewhere. It may be conceived by the author, the editor, some editorial committee or by a conjunction of journalists perceiving the need for a story. The story is written by a working journalist and is then reworked by a body of people who produce a piece of work in the house style of that particular magazine. It is not necessarily in the house style of the particular author. Although the original author may well have a strong claim to paternity, he does not have sole claim to paternity. The ultimate work is a true team effort in which the sole author cannot be identified, and he cannot be identified because he does not exist. That is a weakness in the Bill.
Earlier in our debate the point was made very strongly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that we are talking about the question of practicability. That is precisely the point which was raised by the Minister during discussions on Amendment No. 183 before the dinner break. The point of this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is to add to practicability. If it is not practical to identify the author, it should be possible to remove the area where he is not identified from the Bill, and that should be done.
I should now like to make a wider point. This short debate illustrates a recurrent weakness which appears over and over again throughout the Bill. The weakness is that the position of the individual artist or author, with which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is concerned, is confused
380
with the more general journeyman journalist. In an earlier attempt to deal with copyright, and to deal with moral right now, the Government have devised a formula which is applicable to the individual artist or author. We agree with the Government in that respect but it is not applicable to the journeyman journalist working in the journalistic situation where the "author" might not turn out to be the author after all. There is a conjunction of author, editor, sub-editor, layout man, author of the headline, typographical artist, etc. I think that that central confusion is weakening the Bill over and over again, and I believe that the amendment should be supported.
Lord Kilbracken: I do not believe that any problem arises as regards journalism when the work is carried out by people who are on the staff of the publication. In every case there is a contract of employment. All these matters can be agreed and laid down in the contract of employment, including whether they are to be identified, under what circumstances they are to be identified and, in the case of a team, what the by-line will be. That will be set out in the contract. However, problems arise in cases where outside contributors, freelance writers and photographers, are engaged because in such cases there is practically never a contract. That person may be writing for eight, 10 or 12 different publicatons but does not have a contract with any of them. He will telephone the paper and offer a story. The paper takes it but there is no contract because it is done ad hoc on that occasion. It is then that the question arises as to whether he has a right to he identified as the author and have his by-line on the story. It is often an honour to have one's by-line on a story. In journalism they are the only cases in which this issue can arise.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am not objecting to my journalists having by-lines. I like journalists to have by-lines and to have their photograph appear at the head of the article in order to identify them as real people. I think that that is a right that they should have. However, the difficulty arises in identifying who is the real person. Instead of the photograph of one author, do noble Lords want to see a row of fellows, each one of whom has had a hand in the pie?
That brings us back to the question of practicability. What the Government wants to be done cannot be done sensibly. I do not wish to take anything away from the author, but I wish to make sure that the right author is identified at the right time and that he is given his due respect.
Lord Beaverbrook: As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has spoken to a number of amendments that were not previously grouped, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has spoken to a number of amendments tabled in his name, I should like to confirm that I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 184, 184A, 185, 185A, 189, 189A and 263A.
Amendments Nos. 184, 184A and 185 seek to deprive employed authors of the right to be identified conferred by Clause 69. I cannot accept that giving employed authors this right will create insurmountable difficulties, as has been suggested.
Lord Howie of Troon: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was separate from those which relate to employed journalists. It may be better if the two arguments are kept separate.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Howie, spoke to the amendments standing in his name, which I believe are Amendments Nos. 185A, 189A and the consequential Amendment No. 263A, so I shall speak to them also.
We must remember that this right does not arise until it is asserted. The assertion must be made in writing. signed by the individual employee and brought to the attention of the employer in order to be effective. How often this will happen may be open to debate.
The important point to note is that if the employer is concerned that the right could be exercised in an way he would find unacceptable, he can make waiver of the right a condition in the contract of employment.
I should remind the Committee that in several European countries moral rights are much more favourable to the author than our proposals. Yet newspapers are still produced and publishing houses continue to function. Claims that the moral rights provisions in this Bill will totally disrupt newspaper and book production seem greatly exaggerated.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon—those are Amendments Nos. 185A, 189A and 263A—it is said that Clause 69 will give a right to a by-line on even the most trivial item and that Clause 72 will interfere with the editors's function.
The amendments seek to resolve these perceived problems by disapplying the moral rights provisions from newspapers, magazines, periodicals and what are called composite works, defined in Amendment No. 236A. I am not altogether sure what the noble Lord has in mind here. Does the adjective "similar" apply to composite works as well as to periodicals? For example, does he intend to include or exclude composite works such as encyclopaedias and anthologies?
We can, I think, leave these questions on one side for the moment and just consider the underlying principle in the context of newspapers. First, there is the right in Clause 69 which would give the author of a newspaper article the right to be given a by-line. Waiver of the right may be made part of the contract of employment or commission if the newspaper believes that giving a by-line is undesirable. If the right has not been waived, the right is still not effective unless it is asserted. In the case of an employed journalist that would mean giving formal written notice to his employer. And what if the right has not been waived, and has been asserted, and still the newspaper omits the by-line? If it is a five-line article, the damage suffered to the journalist's reputation is very unlikely to be sufficient to give cause for an action but the Committee may feel that the journalist has ground for complaint if his name is omitted from the page 1 "scoop" story.
382
The right not to have a work subjected to unreasonable modification is, I believe, even less of a problem for newspapers. First, it does not apply to works produced by employees, so the newspaper need only concern itself with commissioned works, or unsolicited contributions, such as letters to the editor. With commissioned works, the newspaper can obtain a waiver if it feels this is necessary. And so all we are left with is letters to the editor. Should editors be able to make unjustified modifications to letters sent to them for publication? If your Lordships' Committee believes the answer is that, yes, editors should he able to make unjustified modifications, then Amendment No. 189A may prove acceptable.
However, we remain unconvinced that the problems that this Bill poses for newspapers are as substantial as has been made out. In the Second Reading debate, several of your Lordships commented that we were giving moral rights with one hand and taking them away with the other. I do not accept that criticism. What we are doing is providing for moral rights and establishing a framework in which they can operate in a practical fashion.
I now turn to Amendment No. 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. As the noble Lord told us, the editors of newspapers and other journals have expressed concern that the right conferred by this clause not to suffer unjustified modification may interfere with what they sometimes call the editor's right to edit.
First of all I must make it clear that we are not concerned here with the issue of editorial freedom. This is not about what items an editor includes or excludes from his paper. All we are dealing with are the editorial changes made to copy before it is included in the published paper. Editors and sub-editors may make changes to an article before it can be included in the paper. For example, it may have to be shortened because of pressure on space. The question is: will the right conferred by Clause 72 interfere with such long-standing editorial practices? The answer is no.
First we should note that Clause 73B means that journalists employed by newspapers do not have the right conferred by the clause. The question therefore only arises in those few cases where an article is commissioned, in which case a waiver can be required, or when unsolicited material such as a letter is printed.
The editor will not fall foul of the modification right, even in the very few cases when it is applicable, if the changes he makes are reasonable in the circumstances and not prejudicial to the honour and reputation of the author. No competent editor has anything to fear. Surely not even the most ardent advocate of the right to edit would advance the case that the editor should be able to damage an author's honour and reputation with impunity.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have been in Parliament in one House or another for 25 or so years, and I must say the Minister's reply has very nearly taken my breath away. It is not that it was not interesting,

383
because it was interesting. But what I thought odd about it was that it replied to a sizeable number of amendments which have not been moved.
Lord Beaverbrook: They have been spoken to.
Lord Howie of Troon: They have not.
Lord Beaverbrook: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, did indeed say he was going to speak to Amendment No. 189. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, also spoke to the amendments that I have spoken to.
Lord Howie of Troon: We mentioned three amendments, one of the noble Lord's there and two of mine. The Minister has spoken to about eight, including my Amendment No. 263A, which I must confess is so far in advance in the Bill that I had forgotten all about it. Let me tell him this: regardless of his reply to my Amendment No. 263A, which I am going to move next week or the week after or whenever it may be, I am going to move my amendment. I was really quite staggered at the width of the Minister's reply. It is quite improper. I know he is in a hurry to get this Bill over and done with, but he should really exercise just a little bit of patience.
Lord Beaverbrook: We have been 33 minutes on this point. I have spoken only to amendments that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I would say, that, if Amendment No. 263A is going to be moved later on in the Bill, by all means, and I shall be very happy to reply.
Baroness Birk: Very briefly, I would very much like to support what my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna had to say and also what the Minister said. I do not always agree with him, but on this occasion I thought he made out a first-class case for what is an absolutely first-class point. I am a paid-up member of the NUJ, and used to do a lot more journalism than I do now. I have always had a contract in one form or another, even as a freelance. When you are freelancing fairly regularly, you can have a contract for that.
So far as the question of letters is concerned, I think that even today in most newspapers it states that the editor has the right to print the letters, to alter them or to shorten them. This appears there as well. There are already ample ways in the Bill in which anybody can get a waiver, or I would prefer to call it a consent. This is done between the two people.
As I said on an earlier amendment, if somebody writing for the Economist does not have his name on an article, this has been going on for years and years and years. It is nothing new so he will obviously have agreed to it before. There is ample room here for any sort of arrangement, consent and contract. I think those are unnecessary fears. Some of the amendments that have been spoken to are so wide they are quite frightening in their effort to deal with this problem.
Lord Howie of Troon: My noble friend on the Front Bench is actually quite mistaken. There is no
384
point in her saying there is nothing new. The thing that is new is the moral right. It is entirely new. It has never been anywhere in our law before. It has been introduced from Continental law and is something which I support. I support entirely the moral right of people to have their work identified, and properly attributed.
The only problem which I raised was the difficulty of attribution and the question of practicability, which the Minister himself supported under Amendment No. 183. What I am saying is that I support the moral right and I support his contention of practicability. I am saying that this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, makes something which at the moment is impracticable, practical.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Of course, I was very disappointed by what the Minister had to say. It does appear that the gap between the Minister's view of how newspapers work and their editors' view is so wide that it would be helpful if an attempt were to be made to bridge it by consultation between now and the Report stage. But I shall in any event perhaps wish to come back to this at Report stage.
I would like to say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I thought his observation that individual rights rest upon the foundation of freedom of contract was breathtaking in that one main strand of socialist thought has been precisely the denial of that proposition.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I would be very interested if the noble Lord would identify the strand which says that socialism denies the freedom of contract. That would be an interesting line. There is a normal line throughout all the history of all the parties who are at present represented in the Committee, as I understand it, that there is a limit in which the state intervenes in the freedom of contract for what is called the public interest point of view or to regulate that. But I have never known, and I have only been a member of the Labour Party for something over 40 years, anything that said that the Labour Party was against the freedom of contract. If the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, can point to the fact, well he is increasing my education.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to reply to that. This is not a political Bill. It has nothing to do with socialism, it has nothing to do with the Alliance and it has nothing to do with conservatism. It is a practical matter and it is on these practical grounds that we should deal with it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): Is the noble Lord withdrawing this amendment?
Lord McGregor of Durris: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184A, 185 and 185A not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 185B:
Page 28, line 24, leave outparagraph (b) and insert—
("(b) section 31 (broadcasting of recordings of speech):").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to help broadcasters in regard to the need to credit speakers. The majority of programmes naturally lead to named speakers participating in them, but there are numerous circumstances in which such naming would be unnecessary and extremely irritating to the audience. Radio features comprising, for instance, numerous voices recounting snippets of experience should not have to be followed by a recitation of the names of all the contributors. Crediting on air is much more intrusive than crediting in the acknowledgement pages of a book, and I do not think that this is a difficulty for broadcasters that can be dealt with wholly from a contractual point of view. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord's amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 133A which we debated on Tuesday and which, if we had accepted it, would have introduced a new clause making an exception from copyright for interviews, speeches, and so on, recorded at the instigation of someone other than the speaker and then included in a broadcast. I explained at length then why we thought that amendment to be unnecessary. The noble Lord at that time agreed to withdraw it and to consider what I had said.
The present amendment is primarily intended to ensure that if the noble Lord's clause had been agreed to, the right of an author or director to be identified would not apply to cases where the exception for recorded speech applied. I am not sure that that would necessarily be the right decision. Should a person who agrees to be interviewed on television not have the right to be identified if he wants to be? In any event, I suggest that in view of the noble Lord's decision to withdraw Amendment No. 133A it would be somewhat anomalous to proceed with the present amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The Minister has been good enough to refer to Amendment No. 133A. On that occasion I complained, quite amiably, that the Minister did not have in mind the real problems associated with broadcasting. But I have listened to what the noble Lord has said in regard to this amendment and will take advice on his answer. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 185C:
Page 28, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The right does not apply in relation to the inclusion in a broadcast of a photograph.
( ) The right does not apply in relation to any work where one or more of the acts mentioned in section 69 has been done in relation to the work and, before the act was done, the author had a reasonable opportunity to assert the right.").
The noble Lord said: In spite of the amendments that I have already spoken to, this amendment is
386
intended to prevent, again, television screens becoming cluttered up with credits to stills photographers. This Bill already recognises that so much music is used in broadcasting that it really would be absurd if every composer had to be credited. The amendment proposed recognises that some television programmes use such large numbers of stills that it would be equally impracticable for their authors to be credited. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord's amendment seeks to disapply the right to be identified as author—the so-called paternity right—in two instances. I must admit that we are somewhat puzzled by the proposal that photographs included in a broadcast be made a specific exception to the paternity right.
First, I cannot see why photographs should be treated differently from any other artistic work. Why should the author of a photograph not be identified when the author of a painting, for example, can enjoy his paternity right? We find it difficult to imagine any circumstances where this exception would be appropriate. After all, paragraphs (a) and (b) already provide for most instances when we would see a photograph included in a broadcast. For example, if someone died and his photograph was included as part of the news item about him, this would be covered by the fair dealing exception for the purposes of reporting current events.
To move on now to the second part of the amendment. it seeks to disapply the paternity right in cases where the author had a reasonable opportunity to assert it, but did not do so before any of the acts mentioned in Clause 69, such as commercial publication of the work, were carried out. I think this is a fair point, but I believe it is one that we have already adequately covered in Clause 70(5). It provides that in an action for infringement the court shall take into account any delay in asserting the paternity right. This recognises that it may be unjust to grant an injunction or damages if there is a late assertion after the rights owner has spent money on exploitation.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the second part of my Amendment No. 185C, which I did not fully develop in my speech. He has referred to the fact that that point in the second part of this amendment is dealt with by Clause 75. I have not had the advantage of looking at Clause 75 and I certainly do not recall its terms.
Lord Beaverbrook: May I make it clear that I was referring to Clause 70(5)?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I have heard what the Minister said. I will take advice on it and probably come back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 72 [Right not to suffer unjustified modification of work]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 185D:
Page 28, line 39, after ("film") insert ("which is based on or comprises a dramatic work").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment that has been put forward to me, as I said earlier today, by the BBC and the ITV lawyers jointly. The intention of this amendment is to limit the class of directors entitled to this new moral right to directors of dramatic works, such as feature films and television dramas. It is really a misnomer to describe makers of other types of films as directors. The word should be limited for the purpose of this clause to directors of actors; hence the link with dramatic works.
The proposed paragraph (b) adopts the more precise wording of the Paris provision of the Berne Convention. It is important that the words "distortion" and "mutilation" should appear as they indicate the degree of seriousness required before an author or director should be able to object to an unjustified modification. The present text of the Bill which refers only to an unjustified modification—
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. I think, if he is speaking about distortion and mutilation, he is speaking to Amendment No. 187A. I believe we thought he was speaking to Amendment No. 185D.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should have asked for the leave of the Committee to speak to Amendment No. 187A at this stage. If I may continue, the present text of the Bill in regard to this part of the clause refers only to unjustified modification and fails to convey this, and thus goes much too far beyond the requirements of the convention which the Government wish to ratify. I beg to move.
Lord Willis: I am opposed to this amendment, for a very simple reason. One of the great glories of our film industry is that over the years we have made some extraordinarily good documentary films going back as far as John Grierson. I do not see why you should take away from the people who have created documentary films of this kind the kind of right that is included in the Bill. Therefore, I think that the amendment is mistaken.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I also think that the amendment is mistaken. I just can remember who John Grierson was. Many very good nature films have appeared on television. I can imagine that somebody with an inclination to parody, or somebody like Mr. John Cleese, could have great fun with those and could cause considerable fun if he was allowed to modify them to a considerably unjustified extent. I should have thought this was a protection which these people are entitled to have.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am afraid that I do not know who John Grierson is.
Noble Lords: Was.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am so sorry. I did not even know that.
I was just about to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that perhaps he would be agreeable if I spoke to his Amendment No. 185D now and came back to Amendment No. 187A as that has been grouped with Amendment No. 188 to which we shall come. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to limit the integrity right to film directors whose film is based on or comprises a dramatic work. I see no reason why film directors of, for example, nature films should be deprived of the right not to suffer unjustified modification of their work.
The rights of the director to be named on the film and not to suffer unreasonable modification should not depend on the subject matter of the film. The making of a documentary may require just the same level of creativity from the director as is needed by the director of a feature film. If there is concern that, for certain films, the exercise of moral rights might prove inconvenient, it is open to those who engage the director to require a waiver. This is a matter which those most directly concerned can agree between themselves. I do not believe that we should attempt to decree in the statute which films merit moral rights and which do not.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Again, I have heard what the noble Lord has said. I must comment that there is this lack of sympathy by the Minister to the great problems which broadcasters seem to have. Nevertheless I shall take advice on this and probably come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 186 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 187, 187A, 188 and 189. I call the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 29, leave out lines I to 32 and insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "modification" of work means any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work, other than—

(i) a translation of a literary or dramatic work, or

(ii) an arrangement or transcription of a musical work involving no more than a change of key or register; and

(b) modification is justified only if it is reasonable in the circumstances and is not prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director;

and in the following provisions reference to a "modified version" of a work are to a work, or copy of a work, which has been subjected to unjustified modification.
(3) In the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work the right is infringed by a person who—

(a) publishes commercially, performs in public, broadcasts or includes in a cable programme service a modified version of the work; or

(b) issues to the public copies of a film or sound recording of, or including, a modified version of the work.

389
(4) In the case of an artistic work the right is infringed by a person who—

(a) publishes commercially or exhibits in public a modified version of the work, or broadcasts or includes in a cable programme service a visual image of a modified version of the work; or

(b) shows in public a film including a visual image of a modified version of the work or issues to the public copies of such a film.

(5)Subsection (4) does not apply to a work of architecture in the form of a building; but where the architect is identified on a building which is the subject of unjustified modification, he has the right to require the identification to be removed.
(6) In the case of a film, the right is infringed by a person whoߞ

(a) shows in public, broadcasts or includes in a cable programme service a modified version of the film; or

(b) issues to the public copies of a modified version of the film, or who, along with the film, plays in public, broadcasts or includes in a cable programme service, or issues to the public copies of, a modified version of the film sound-track,

(7) The right conferred by this section extends to the modification of parts of a work resulting from a previous modification by a person other than the author or director, if those parts arc attributed to, or are likely to be regarded as the work of, the author or director.").
The noble Lord said: On the face of it this amendment seems rather a substantial one but I hasten to reassure the Committee that we detected one or two drafting errors. For example, reference should be made throughout to a "cable programme service" rather than a "cable programme". As several amendments were necessary, we have taken the opportunity to restructure the clause to set out its provisions on a more logical basis. For example, the definition of what constitutes unjustified modification is now at the beginning rather than the end of the clause. The right is now expressed in terms of when it is infringed rather than a right not to have something done.
The only change of substance in this general reshuffling is in subsection (7) of the amendment. As drafted the Bill provides for the right to extend to the modification of a work previously modified. We now propose that the right should extend only to modification of those parts of a work which have been previously modified by someone other than the author or director if those parts are nevertheless likely to be regarded as the author's or director's modifications.
Perhaps I should give an example to assist the Committee. Mahler's tenth symphony was unfinished and there may have been several attempts to finish it. I know that Mahler is long out of copyright, but for the purposes of this illustration let us assume that he died more recently. A notable completion was penned by the music critic Derryck Cooke. That completed symphony is a modification of Mahler's original. Now let us suppose that someone made further modifications to the completed symphony. if the changes are confined to the original part then of course Mahler or his heirs should have a right of action. But let us suppose that the changes are confined to Cooke's additions. Should Mahler be able to object?
We have come to the conclusion that unless the part of the work which is being modified is capable of being regarded as the author's work, he should not have a right to object. In the example I have given it might only be Cooke's reputation and not Mahler's
390
which would suffer if someone modified the end of the symphony in an unjustifiable way. In that case Mahler should not have a right of action. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 186, Amendment No. 186A:
Line 10, after ("provisions") insert ("of this section").
The noble Lord said: First, I express my sorrow that the Minister is totally unaware of a very eminent Scot who was one of the most eminent creators of the documentary film, while he seems to remember Mahler who, if my memory is right, was an Austrian who died considerably before my time. However leaving that aside, I agree with and congratulate the Minister on redrafting this clause in a more comprehensive way. Amendment No. 186A merely adds on the tenth line the words "of this section" to make quite clear that the following provisions do not take us down to the end of Clause 277 and the seven or eight schedules that follow. It is necessary for clarity that what is meant is that the following provisions finish in this one section of the Bill and do not go any further. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: I do not think that this is a very great improvement in that in Clause 72(1) we are told that the author:
"has the right in the circumstances mentioned in this section".
In the original draft we were told what those circumstances were. Now we are not told what they are. We are simply told that the right will be infringed in various ways without being told what they are.
I have another point of which I have not given the noble Lord notice. If he wishes to write to me about it I shall completely understand. I should point out that in the new subsection (2) there is a definition of the word "modification" which states:
"'modification' … means any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work".
However, in Clause 21(3) there is a definition of adaptation which applies throughout this part of the Bill and therefore applies in this case. In that definition of adaptation in Clause 21(3) we are told that:
"(a) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, means—
(i) a translation of the work."
We are told also that in relation to a musical work it means an arrangement or transcription of the work.
But here we are told that modification means an adaptation:
"other than—
"a translation of a literary … work, or an arrangement or ranscription of a musical work".
It seems to me very confusing to have two different definitions of adaptation which both apply in this subsection. This would have applied under the original wording as well as under this. At least in Clause 21(3) we should read, In this part except in Section 72", and make an exception in the case of Section 72 in that early part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: I only wish to say that whoever finishes Mahler's tenth symphony will do it

391
with more alacrity than Mahler would have done himself. Although Mahler was very good, he tended to go on for a long time.
More importantly, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to subsection (5) because in that subsection he will find my King Charles' head, that being a reference to architecture and buildings. He will recall our earlier conversations about engineering and such other matters. I dare say that later on when he has considered these matters he will consider them in relation to this part of the Bill as well.
Finally, if I understood the deputy Chairman correctly, if this new clause is accepted, as seems likely, we shall be unable to accept Amendment No. 189. I only ask that the Minister should consider the spirit of Amendment No. 189, which referred to the old clause, in relation to the new clause.
9 p.m.
Lord Airedale: As Mahler went on for rather a long time. he might have found himself at home in this Committee stage.
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will accept that, when I spoke earlier to Amendment No. 189. it was on the grounds that if my amendment is accepted, Amendment No. 189 will not be called. Therefore I should have been unable to speak to it. That was my reason for speaking to that amendment at that time.
Lord Howie of Troon: Thank you very much.
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who moved Amendment No. 186A as an amendment to my Amendment No. 186, that I am happy to accept his amendment. If I may say so, that change falls into the category of justified modification.
So far as concerns the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I did not follow precisely what he was getting at. I shall look carefully at what he has said in Hansard and consider the matter.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may say that that amendment deals with some of the amendments which I had in mind and clarifies matters.
On Question amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 186, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 187 to 189 not moved.]
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Cases in which modification need not he justified]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 189A:
Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
("(aa) to newspapers, magazines or similar periodicals and composite works.")
The noble Lord said: Looking at the Bill, I see that the amendment would permit unjustified
392
modification to works. In those circumstances, I do not think that I care to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 189A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 190:
Page 29, line 38, leave out paragraph(b).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 190,191,191A and 192. I do not wish to move Amendment No.190. However, because it has been grouped with other amendments, no doubt other Members will wish to speak to the group of amendments.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 191, I should point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 191A.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 29, line 42, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 191, perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I have an interest to declare in my association with the Association of Cinematographic, Television and Allied Technicians, the ACTT. Because of its members, that association must clearly be affected by a great many of the matters which have been before the Committee.
The members of the ACTT obviously welcome that part of the Bill which relates to moral rights. As the Minister has said, that is a major additional right or benefit. The puzzlement of the members of the ACTT—not least those who are directors of films—was drawn most cogently to the attention of the House at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Willis. It is the issue of, "Now you have it, now you don't". You have moral rights but you are going to have a great deal of difficulty in exercising them.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said earlier. He says that despite the impression gained in a large number of quarters that moral rights have been given and taken away by the subsection that we are seeking to delete, he has an answer.
May I remind the Minister that when his noble friend, Lord Young, introduced the Bill at Second Reading he said:
"The Berne Copyright Convention requires that the author be given the right to claim authorship of his work and to object to any modification which is prejudicial to his honour or reputation. The Bill enshrines these moral rights in statute for the first time. Film directors are also specifically recognised in the United Kingdom copyright legislation for the first time and are given moral rights in respect of their films".—[official Report, 12/11/87; col. 1478.]
In essence, I invite the Minister, in responding to this probing amendment, to say something positive about the doubts we have and which we are seeking to put right, particularly in terms of paragraph (c). How does that sit fairly and squarely with what the Minister has said?
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, in col. 1496 of the Official Report for 12th November 1987, said:
"What is in the Bill is a direct going-back on what was said in the White Paper".
In the White Paper, it was said:
"Moral rights will he independent of economic rights and will he exercisable only by the author".
Therefore, the amendment is benign in the sense that we clearly want to hear what the Minister has to say. It may well be that what he says will satisfy those outside the Committee with a deep interest. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee,I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 191, 191A and 192.
Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 seek to give employed authors or directors integrity right. As with the paternity right, there are some exceptions to the integrity right and those again have been included for reasons of practicality. There are many cases where, in the course of normal working practices, a work will be modified in some way. For example, a young employee might be asked to draft a report which his employer might then, from the benefit of more experience, wish to amend. That is not a practice which we would seek to stop, and the amendment, if accepted, would cause great problems in some industries. In the newspaper industry the job of the sub-editor would be difficult if he was not able to modify an article in order to fit the allotted space without worrying about a potential claim under the clause.
Amendment No. 191A adds to the list of cases where modification of a work need not be justified. It would mean that in addition to employed directors, film directors engaged under freelance contracts would not be able to enjoy the integrity right. The clause already provides that the right does not extend to employed directors, just as employed authors can have no right in respect of modifications made or authorised by the copyright owner.
What the noble Lord proposes would apply rather unfairly to freelance film directors only and not freelance authors. I do not see the need to draw the distinction. The question of moral rights and the extent of any waiver should be decided by the two sides in the matter in a contract drawn up between them.
Amendment No. 192 has already been provided for in Clause 73(b). It is the exception to the integrity right, with copyright originally vested in a person other than the author by virtue of Clause 11(2).
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord is very good to refer to Amendment No. 191A, which is in the names of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The answer does not seem to correspond to the advice that I was given as to the real meaning and practical application of the terms of my amendment. In view of the lateness of the hour and the complication of this part of the Bill in relation to directors' employment, whether it is "for services" or "of services", I shall defer further consideration of
394
this aspect until Report. I shall not move Amendment No. 191A.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarity of his remarks but whether they are acceptable is another matter. I simply point out that Clause 73 lists the circumstances in which the right does not apply. Quite clearly subsection (c) refers specifically to the film industry and to the director. When we consider what that means it is that the right of a work not to suffer unjustified modification does not apply where copyright is vested in the director's employer, who is the producer.
This will almost inevitably be the case. As far as directors are concerned they see this as making what appears to be a moral right for them meaningless in that context. I appreciate that the noble Lord has treated this fairly and it may be that at a later stage I shall need to return with a more positive amendment which he will be prepared to accept. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191A and 192 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Consent and waiver of rights]:
[Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 31, line 42, at end insert ("in writing").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall also refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, which has not been moved; it is giving consent in circumstances which can be dispensed with by agreement. The amendment put down by the noble Earl would give consent either orally or in writing, whereas the amendment that I am moving on behalf of myself and my noble friends makes it clear that the consent has to be in writing.
It is greatly preferable that consent should be given in writing in order to minimise the possibility of there being doubt, uncertainty and confusion as to what has or has not been agreed. For example, if a newspaper seeks to dispense with an author's moral rights it can easily do so in contracts of employment, standards and conditions of engagement and so on. It would be thoroughly bad practice to encourage businesses which deal with authors to seek an author's consent on the telephone or otherwise without confirming that consent in writing. Unless the consent is in writing I envisage it leading to a great many misunderstandings and a great many problems. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support my noble friend. The realities of the film and television industry are such that there will always be immense pressures on writer-directors to consent to a waiver of their rights. There is also a tendency in that industry (and it may not be an exception) to work at very great pressure. In the first instance agreements are verbal

395
and very often, but not always, they are codified in writing later. This amendment seeks—and I cannot believe that there will be any objection to it—to ensure that those who are most affected by it will feel more comfortable and that those rights which they appear to have are copperbottomed and guaranteed in that the whole issue is reduced to writing. I hope the noble Lord will see the sense, the fairness and the equity of this amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 197 and I shall briefly allude to Amendment No. 194, which was not moved and which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Stockton. We envisage consent in respect of moral rights to operate very like a licence in respect of copyright; that is, that it may be implied, expressed or signified by conduct. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stockton would have limited consent to express oral or written consent, which we do not believe is right. Waiver of rights in advance should be in writing but consent to the doing of particular acts ought to be able to be given in any way whatever.
Consent is different from waiver. It is short term, whereas waiver is long term. I give an example. An employee who has not waived his right to be identified might draft a letter for the signature of his superior. Nothing is said between them and the work leaves the company unchanged over the signature of the superior. It is his name that appears on the work, not the author's, but the author has consented to this by the very action of passing the draft up the line to his superior.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would remove the concept of waiver from the Bill altogether, substituting reliance on written consent and the general law of contract and estoppel. In Scotland the concept equivalent to estoppel is personal bar, as mentioned in Clause 160. I think it would be wrong to abandon the distinction between consent and waiver. I have said that consent is short term. It means consent to the doing of an act, but there must be an act in the minds of both parties before there can be anything to which consent can be given.
Waiver, on the other hand, is the giving up of rights in whole or in part, conditionally or unconditionally, revocably or irrevocably, in favour of particular people or in favour of the whole world, irrespective of whether any particular act is in anyone's mind. It is the sort of thing most likely to be found in a contract, but not necessarily. For example, it might arise in non-contractual dealings between members of a club committee or between a researcher and the publisher of the results of his research. It cannot sensibly be called consent; indeed, it is not consent. It is not saying, "I retain my rights but consent to your doing of that act", but "I waive my rights and give them up". We consider that we need provision for both informal consent and formal written waiver.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for his reply. We feel that it should be a matter of consent and should always be in writing. We are not happy about
396
waiver, as we have made clear on earlier amendments. Even if I agree with the Minister's own words, I still believe that consent should be in writing and not given orally. As we see the whole matter as a question of consent and contract, then it should always be in writing and not oral. As it is late, I will have another look at this amendment, and perhaps the Minister will also consider the matter, and I may come back to it at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
9.15p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 32, line I, at beginning insert ("Subject to the proviso in subsection (3)(a) below")
The noble Lord said: I also speak to Amendments Nos. 196B and 196C because they all hang together and of course are all related to Clause 77 and the circumstances in which the consent under waiver apply.
The amendments are an attempt to distinguish between staff directors—for example, directors permanently employed by TV companies—and self-employed directors working on a freelance basis. Of course it is entirely appropriate that staff directors with a position within an organisation and security of permanent employment should waive their rights in favour of the employer; otherwise they would find it difficult to operate. However, it is not appropriate that self-employed directors with none of the rights and obligations of permanent employment should have to waive such rights in the way proposed. The Minister and his advisers will be aware that there are a great many people working in the industry who fall into that category.
The imbalance of power between individual directors and the companies is such that if the clause remains unamended they will in the overwhelming majority of cases be forced to waive their moral rights in order to obtain work in the first place. Indeed, a new or unknown director in a weak bargaining position could easily be forced to waive all his moral rights for any possible future work as a condition of obtaining his first engagement with such a company. The Committee may feel that that is reprehensible, but I am told that there are circumstances—and I can envisage them—in which sadly that may be the case. As it stands, it is only established named directors—that is, those who least need help because they are already well-established—who might be in a strong enough position to resist demands for a waiver.
The Bill is worded so that a writer or director could be forced to waive his moral rights in a totally open-ended way without any information or consultation after the modifications proposed. This means that the waiver could relate to works generally or to future work.
I hope the Minister and his advisers accept that the amendment requires only that specific modifications be proposed to the director in advance so that he or she can make an informed decision on the waiver.
Lord Willis: It is true that freelance writers, especially new young freelance writers, and directors are at a disadvantage because they are so anxious to have their work on the screen or to have the job that they are prepared to make concessions to the more powerful companies.
The Government rightly are strongly encouraging the growth of independent production, but "independent production" to some extent is a misnomer. A person who sets himself up today to produce television films for Channel 4 or for a film company may call himself an independent producer, but he has to go cap in hand to Granada, Yorkshire Television, MGM or other companies for the money. It is not possible to make a reasonable feature film these days for under about £3 million. No independent producer has that sort of money. In order to obtain the £3 million he may well sell his soul simply because he wishes to make the film. He is in a difficult position. His bargaining position is undermined and the big companies know this only too well. I do not wish to denigrate Granada or other companies, which on the whole are fair traders, but others are not. My career has been littered with the names of people who have been twisted in this way simply because they had a weak bargaining position.
Lord Beaverbrook: The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, seek to make general waiver of moral rights applicable only in the context of the employer/employee relationship provided for in Clause 11(2). Thus a freelance author or director would in effect have inalienable moral rights subject only to consent for particular acts.
In tabling the amendments the noble Lord has, I think, conceded that consent and waiver provisions are necessary in certain areas of the media and elsewhere and that the concept of inalienable moral rights for authors is not practical in the real world. What we are now being asked to consider is whether, if consent and waiver provisions are accepted as right for some authors, other authors should have inalienable rights. The answer, I believe, is no. It has been a recurring theme of our debates that all authors should be treated in the same way. We accept that as a general principle. Exceptions to that general principle may sometimes be justified, but this is not such a case. There is, I think, a natural reluctance to make one group of authors second class or, viewed in another way, to raise another group to an elite.
Leaving aside this point of principle, I believe that there are practical reasons why we should not discriminate between authors. Consent and waiver are just as necessary for "stand alone" works—if I may coin that expression—as for those produced by freelance authors. The publisher of the life story of a barely literate celebrity must be assured that the true author, the ghost writer, will not suddenly seek to exercise his right to be named. This can only be ensured by provision for contractual waiver. Without provision for consent and waiver the users of copyright works are placed in an impossible position, with a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I am not sure that those
398
outside the Chamber will be satisfied with what he has said. However, I appreciate that the Minister has not beaten about the bush on the issue. I may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196B and 196C not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 32, line 14, leave out from ("estoppel") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and my noble friend Lady Birk. My noble friend Lord Morton would have asked a question on Scottish law here. I do not know whether it has been covered by the noble Lord in his previous intervention. It is whether contract or estoppel has an equivalent in Scottish law and whether there should be an amendment to cover that point.
Secondly, subsection (4) refers to,
"informal waiver or other transaction in relation to any of the rights mentioned in subsection (1)".
I am not entirely certain what "informal waiver" means. This is a probing amendment to find out what informality means in relation to waiver. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I had understood that this amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 194, 195 and 196. I spoke to that group including this amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to read what I said. If it does not cover his point I shall be very glad to try to do so again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise to the noble Lord. I had not appreciated that there was this grouping. The noble Lord is quite right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Assignment and licences]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 33, line10, at end insert—
("(c) to one or more, but not all, of the countries in relation to which copyright subsists by virtue of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We are entering into Chapter V of Part I of this Bill, which has dealings with rights in copyright works. Clause 80(2) defines what is meant by a partial assignment. It states:
"An assignment of copyright may be a partial assignment, that is, an assignment limited so as to apply",
and then two paragraphs follow to which partial assignment can apply. If this amendment is accepted I am adding a third category defining that partial assignment should apply
"to one or more, but not all, of the countries in relation to which copyright subsists by virtue of this Act".
It is a simple, straightforward amendment. As copyright is always dealt with territorially, this amendment seeks merely to preserve the flexibility that an assignment can take place in respect of one or more of the territories referred to, but not all the territories. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I am afraid that to explain why this amendment is unnecessary I shall need to go into a little history. As many Members of the Committee know, the Copyright Act 1911 was a full-blown imperial statute. It extended throughout His Majesty's dominions, except for the self-governing dominions such as Canada and Australia. Provision was made for extending it by Order in Council to the protectorates, and the legislatures of the self-governing dominions could cause the Act to extend to themselves.
The result was that the Act extended to the whole of the British Empire. It was obviously desirable that a copyright owner could, upon assigning his copyright, divide it up between different parts of the empire, so that one publisher could own the copyright in the United Kingdom, another in Canada, and so forth; or perhaps the author might wish to retain his rights in the United Kingdom but assign them elsewhere. The 1911 Act therefore provided that assignment might be,
"either generally or subject to limitations to the United Kingdom or any self-governing dominion or other part of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act"—
that is, the 1911 Act—
"extends".
The 1956 Act adopted a different approach. It was still an imperial statute, but rather less enthusiastically so. The self-governing dominions had matured to fully independent states, and were dealt with in exactly the same way as foreign countries. Moreover, the Act did not extend automatically to the United Kingdom's colonies and other dependencies; extension had to be achieved by Order in Council under Section 31. Nonetheless, it was again necessary to provide for assignments of copyright to be capable of covering only part of the total territory to which the Act extended, which is why Section 36(2)(b) provides that an assignment may be limited,
"so as to apply to any one or more, but not all, of the countries in relation to which the owner of the copyright has by virtue of this Act",
the exclusive right to do the acts restricted by copyright. The Committee will recognise the close similarity between the wording of the provision in the 1956 Act and the wording of the amendment.
One effect of these provisions about the extent of the 1911 and 1956 Acts was to create a single jurisdiction, consisting, in the words repeated frequently throughout the 1956 Act, of the United Kingdom and the other countries to which the provisions of the Act extended. In particular, Section 1(1) of the 1956 Act provides that copyright consists of the right to do certain acts,
"in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which the relevant provision of this Act extends".
400
Infringement under Section 1(2) of that Act consists of doing any of those acts,
"in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which the relevant provision of this Act extends".
An infringement in any of the other countries to which the 1956 Act extends may be the subject of legal proceedings in the United Kingdom, as indicated by Section 31(4).
This is all being changed in the Bill. Clause 16(1) provides that copyright is the exclusive right to do the restricted acts "in the United Kingdom". There is no mention of other countries to which Part I of the Bill extends. Nor is there mention anywhere else in Part I of those other countries except in Chapter IX, which is concerned with qualification. The important effect of this is that there is no longer a single jurisdiction consisting of the United Kingdom and the other countries to which our copyright law extends. Copyright under the Bill is limited to the United Kingdom, infringement is not defined as something which may occur in any other country to which Part I extends, and there is no possibility of proceedings in the United Kingdom in respect of infringement of the copyright law of another country to which Part I extends.
The Committee may ask, what then is the point of the provision for extension of Part I to dependent territories under Clause 146(2)? The answer is that the purpose is more limited than under the 1911 and 1956 Acts. First, it ensures qualification for copyright under Clauses 143, 144 and 145. Secondly, it provides a means of legislating for the United Kingdom's remaining dependencies—most of which, of course, are now very small—at very little cost either to the dependencies or to the United Kingdom itself. Upon extension, however, a separate copyright will arise in each dependency. It will not cause the scope of a single copyright covering the United Kingdom and its dependencies to expand, as under the 1911 and 1956 Acts.
The Committee will appreciate, therefore, that there is no cause for a provision enabling assignments of copyright under the Bill to be in respect of some countries and not others. As far as the law of the United Kingdom is concerned, copyright under the Bill will subsist only in the United Kingdom, not in the dependencies, and thus an assignment of copyright under the Bill will necesarily be limited to the United Kingdom. Assignment of copyright in the dependencies will be a separate matter for the law of each dependency by Order in Council under the Bill.
I should emphasise that none of this will make any difference in practice. It will still be possible to assign copyright in one country, in several countries or in the whole world by a single document, that document having effect in each country in question in accordance with its own laws. The only difference will be that an assignment of copyright in a dependent territory will be dealt with in exactly the same way as an assignment of copyright in a foreign country.
I am sorry that I have had to weary the Committee with such a lengthy explanation, but the point is complicated and there are no short cuts in the argument. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I congratulate the Minister on his learned and interesting dissertation on constitutional law. I heard what he said. I am afraid that I have not gathered what the consequences will be for my amendment. However, in the circumstances, I shall see what my advisers at ITV and BBC have to say about this and perhaps come back to the question at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Exclusive licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Transmission of moral rights on death]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert ("provided that in the case of the right conferred by section 69 above, the successor acquires the right to assert in accordance with section 70, waive in accordance with section 77 and enforce the right for the actual author to be identified as such,")
The noble Lord said: It appears from subsection (1)(a) of Clause 85 that a man might be entitled to be named as the author of his dead father's work. The present wording seems unclear. My amendment seeks to clarify it. I beg to move.
Lord kilbracken: I agree with the noble Lord. The same point had occurred to me. It is not at all clear what particular rights pass to the person specified in the will. It need not be the father. The person to whom the rights pass apparently has the right to be shown as being the author of that work. That surely cannot be intended.
The Earl of Dundee: The right conferred by Clause 69 is a right to be identified as author. When the author has died that right may still be exercised or waived by the person to whom the right passes under subsection (1)(a) or (b). But it is still a right relating to the name of the author and the successor cannot require that his name be put on the work instead of the author's. That was never intended, and although I do not believe that the courts would ever construe the clause in that way, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for alerting us to this point. Is it certainly better to put the matter beyond all doubt.
Therefore I am perfectly happy to accept the principle underlying my noble friend's amendment. However, we think this principle should apply not only to those who inherit the right by testamentary disposition under subsection (1) but also to those to whom the right passes under subsection (2). I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, given the assurance that we will table an amendment to cover more fully the point he has raised.
Lord Kilbracken: I am not quite sure what particular right is being passed on to the heir. Is it a right to ensure that the work of his father or whoever it may be is still attributed to him, that he is still identified as the author and that he still has the right to stop unjustified change from taking place in the copyright that has been left to him?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, that is exactly what is desired to be avoided.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for undertaking to look at this point and clarify the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 34, line 28, leave out ("expires") and insert ("passes to the personal representatives of the owner of the moral right").
The noble Lord said: In the hope that this point will also be looked at carefully I move the amendment and ask why this provision does not comply with Chapter VI of the Berne Convention, which says that the moral rights shall after death be maintained in exactly the same way as the economic rights. Perhaps the noble Earl has a piece of paper which he is prepared to read to me in some way that I may be able to understand it. Otherwise I cannot see why, if the author has not managed to make a will or tears up his will, his heirs should not have the same rights as if he had made a will. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: I agree with my noble friend, but I would go further and say that I cannot foresee that paragraph (c) would ever be applicable. The rights under paragraph (a) will of course pass to a person he has indicated in his will. Then paragraph (b) says:
"if there is no such direction but the copyright in the work in question forms part of his estate".
I do not see how it can do anything but form part of his estate, whether he is testate or intestate. Even if he has not made a will the copyright is surely part of his estate, and therefore the moral rights pass to the person to whom the copyright passes.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The moral right is different from the copyright. That is the problem. You can assign the copyright to one person and retain the moral right yourself.
Lord Kilbracken: But paragraph (b) considers the condition if:
"the copyright in the work in question forms part of his estate".
Surely the copyright in a man's work will always form part of his estate, and so the moral rights pass to the person to whom the copyright passes. Is that not right?
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the copyright does not form part of his estate, the moral right does not pass under paragraph (b) of Clause 85(1). Therefore one has to have Clause 85(1)(c) to deal with the moral right when he has assigned the copyright to

403
somebody else because it does not pass under his estate. It is in that sense that I should have thought that the heirs have a right to protect his reputation.
Lord Kilbracken: I am sure that my noble friend is right, though I do not quite see it.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for his explanations. The clause provides for the transmission of moral rights upon the death of the author or director. To the extent that copyright in his works forms part of his estate and passes to another, moral rights will do likewise. Where a copyright does not form part of his estate and the rights are not the subject of a specific bequest, they will then lapse.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the rights do not lapse in this way but rather that they should pass to the person or representatives of the moral rights owner instead. We consider this to be mistaken. The reason for bringing the rights under Clauses 69 and 72 to an end if there is no passage of copyright or specific bequest is that those rights may well become unmanageable in any other circumstance.
The general residue of an estate frequently passes either by the terms of a will or an intestacy to a large number of persons, often pursuant to trusts providing for life interests or other partial interests. One must always look at moral rights from the point of view of the copyright owner as well as the author, and the copyright owner could be put in an impossible position if moral rights became widely held.
If an author is sufficiently interested to want to keep his moral rights alive after his death, he can always specifically bequeath them. I am aware of course that the amendment adopts a similar approach to that in Clause 85(5) on false attribution. However, the reason for this subsection is that no better solution can be devised. One cannot bequeath to another the right not to suffer false attribution because there is no particular work in respect of which the right subsists which may be made the subject of a bequest. We are therefore making the best of a bad job, and if anybody can come up with a better idea we should be interested to hear it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Has the noble Lord thought of Article 6 of the Berne Convention? Whoever authorised that had the idea:
"The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding paragraph"—
which are the moral rights—
"shall, after his death, be maintained at least until the expiry of the economic rights.".
That is a fairly definite assertion of a point of view. It may be totally daft, in which case no doubt the Government can negotiate with the authors of the Berne Convention. However, if the Government intend to ratify the Berne Convention, could they please explain how this will happen? Surely if somebody dies without making a testamentary disposition—and testamentary dispositions are covered by Clause 85(1) (a)—the rules of intestate succession will apply, and those are not to my
404
knowledge regularly implying a right of liferent or anything of that nature, whatever the English term may be, to anybody at all. In instestacy there is usually somebody, even an executor, who can look after the rights.
I am sure an author who was misguided enough to die leaving a wife and several children would consider that they might have the right to protect his reputation from being subjected to modification, or unjustified modification, in the same way as they are entitled, or may be entitled, to the economic rights of copyright. I really do not see the difficulty that the Government seem to see. Perhaps if the noble Earl consults a well-known author who is sitting fairly close to him, he may get some advice.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: The well-known author to whom the noble Lord refers has in fact been silent just now. However, I do have sympathy with the latter point of the noble Lord regarding the widow and immediate family of the man who has died. As regard the Berne Convention, I would say to him the reason for not providing passage of moral rights to personal representatives is that the Berne Convention permits us to provide that some rights may, after the death of the author, cease to be maintained. This is provided for in the final sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 6 bis of the convention.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is very interesting to see how the Government wish to destroy personal rights of property. No doubt this will also be of interest to all those who are authors within the meaning of the Bill. But I shall read what the noble Earl has said and may well return to this at a later stage.
There is something rather bizarre in this side of the Committee trying to defend the rights of property in authors and the Government trying to abolish all rights of individual property. However, we shall see where we go at the next stage and at this time I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Infringement actionable by copyright owner]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 35, line 23, at end insert ("but damages for conversion of any infringing copy of a work shall not be recoverable")
The noble Lord said: With leave of the Committee, I move Amendment No. 203, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. He told me during dinner that he had to leave early and asked me to move the amendment.
We are still in the realm of exotic legal matters. This amendment concerns what the possible results are in an action for infringement. Damages obviously are the result, or may be the result, of an action for infringement of copyright. The White Paper stated that damages for conversion of any infringing copy of a work would not be recoverabe. Those are the terms of this amendment.
The legal history of copyright law over the past 10 years has been very interesting. It was possible not merely to get ordinary damages on infringement of copyright but an anomalous position arose in regard to copyright where you could get what we call conversion damages.
I do not think that I need explain to the committee at this late hour what conversion damages are in detail. But the effect was that vast damages—very large damages—were obtainable as a result of infringement of copyright. This was a unique position and has arisen with the general possibility of litigation. This was anomalous and the Government in the White Paper stated that they wished to abolish conversion damages. I assume that there is not much difficulty about the Government accepting the amendment, which provides that conversion damages should be abolished, as stated in the White Paper. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am sure that Members of the Committee will wish to join me in agreeing wholeheartedly with the sentiments of this amendment. However, I am not able to accept the amendment. I do not think it is necessary and, moreover, I think that it will introduce an element of confusion into the Bill.
As Members of the Committee will know, Section 18 of the Copyright Act 1956 gives to a copyright owner all the rights and remedies in respect of infringing copies of his works as though he were the owner of those copies instead of the infringer. That has a number of consequences, some of which have been carried forward into the Bill. In a few minutes we shall come to Clauses 88 to 89. However, we have not carried forward the consequence that the copyright owner can recover from the infringer damages calculated by reference not to his actual loss but to the value of the infringing copies made and sold. These are the damages for conversion referred to in the amendment and they are usually much higher than the normal measures of damages. They are almost universally condemned. Last year in our White Paper we undertook to abolish them, and in this Bill we do just that.
Section 18 is repealed along with the rest of the 1956 Act, and there is nothing in the Bill to resurrect them. Indeed, so great is our distatse for conversion damages that in paragraph 28(2) of the revised Schedule 1, to be inserted by Amendment No. 274, they are singled out—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Will the noble Earl be good enough to repeat those sections, please?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, of course. The sections in question occur in paragraph 28(2) of the revised Schedule 1 to be inserted by Amendment No. 274. They are singled out for particularly unfavourable treatment in the transitional provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is concerned that conversion damages may be awarded under Clause 86. I can assure him that that is definitely not so.
The proposition is that Clauses 86 and 87 substantially replace Section 17 of the 1956 Act.
406
Clauses 88 and 89 are designed to achieve some of the effect of Section 18 but without the possibility of conversion damages. Since conversion damages were available only as a result of Section 18, not under Section 17, there is nothing in the Bill, particularly in Clause 86, on which a claim for conversion damages could be based.
We consider this amendment to be not only unnecessary but positively undesirable. It would remove all argument that conversion damages were available under the Bill, and that is so, but it would suggest that without the words in the amendment such damages were available. I should not like to think of the kinds of awkward consequences the courts might conjure out of that suggestion. In the light of that statement, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Would not the easy answer be to include one sentence stating that concession damages will not be available in any copyright action? That would make the matter quite clear, and perhaps the Government should think about that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The Minister's speech supports the necessity of having a clear statement to the effect that conversion damages should be abolished. The noble Earl has made an intricate statement on the matter and I should like to think that he would wish to put the position more clearly.
The Earl of Dundee: I cannot go against the noble Lord's appeal for clarity. I shall certainly look at the matter again to see whether we can produce a different statement.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Provisions as to damages in infringement action]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("it is shown") and insert ("the Court is satisfied on the evidence").
The noble Lord said: The words that I take some exception to are "it is shown":
"Where in an action of infringement of copyright is it shown"
that various things happen. Shown by whom and to whom? Sometimes in a court case one puts forward an argument which is in a sense shown by the evidence but is totally rejected by the court. We suggest this provision might be clearer if it said, "If the Court is satisfied on the evidence that the defendant did not know". The phrase "it is shown" does not make clear to whose satisfaction. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord. So far as I am concerned, the expression "it is shown" and the alternative expression "the Court is satisfied on the evidence" mean more or less the same thing. But I would readily agree that the words

407
proposed by the noble Lord express the point more obviously. My only reason for not wishing to accept the amendment now is that it does not appear to be comprehensive. For example, it does not cover the case where a point is pleaded by the defendant and not contested by the plaintiff.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, would also not want me to overlook any possible differences between English and Scottish law, but I am very grateful to him. We shall look at these words here and elsewhere, such as in Clause 212, and come back with something at a later stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In Scotland we have an odd tradition when one side in an action makes an assertion, and the other side accepts it, that the court tends to accept that, in a civil action, as being accepted. I have looked for a long time for the reason why English cases take so much longer than Scottish cases. Perhaps I have now got a clue. If both sides agree that a situation is a fact, the judge can disagree. That may be the answer. To be serious for a moment I should have thought that if both sides agree in a civil action a judge tends to say, yes, that is agreed; and therefore the court is satisfied.
However, if the Government consider that they must look at this again—I learnt a long time ago that no drafting from this side of the Chamber is ever acceptable and can always be improved—I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 204:
Page 35, line 27, leave out ("had no reason to believe") and insert ("it would not have been obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, I think, supposed to be spoken to along with Amendments Nos. 209, 220, 223, 226 and 233. It proposes to take out the phrase "had no reason to believe" and to insert the phrase "it would not have been obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances". I think we have covered this point in principle because it is the phrase that comes in the Patents Act 1977. It seems difficult to ascertain why one has one standard which is objective in the Patents Act and one standard which is apparently subjective in the copyright section.
At an earlier stage the Minister said he was going to consider this matter, so in the confident hope that that would have been the reply from the noble Lord on the opposite side I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 35, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) No damages or other pecuniary remedy may be recovered from an employee under a contract of service who bona fide in the course of his employment commits any act of infringement of copyright.").
The noble Lord said: There is an increasing tendency in litigation in copyright matters for the
408
plaintiffs to exert pressure upon defendants by suing individuals. Under the proposed new law, and old law, a machine operator, for instance, who activates a machine which prints infringing material or designs shall be liable for infringement of copyright and payment of damages. This activity of suing employees, for instance, just extends the time and causes a lot of delay.
Therefore the amendment that I am seeking to introduce is just this: that no damages—this clause is dealing with revisions as to damages in infringement actions—or other pecuniary remedy may be recovered from an employee under a contract of service who bona fide in the course of his employment commits any act of infringement of copyright, design right, registered design or patent. It is a sort of commonsense approach to reduce the cost and time of litigation that, if a plaintiff sues an employee who is in these circumstances, he cannot get any damages or any pecuniary reward from it. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said. The amendment would protect employees only from monetary remedies. Other remedies, such as an injunction to prevent further infringement, would still be available. Nevertheless, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that there are some fundamental principles of law involved here. As a result, we shall need to consult before we can come to a view on whether it would be appropriate to do what the noble Lord proposes. If he will withdraw the amendment, I shall certainly set the necessary consultations in hand and return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Right to delivery up of infringing copies, &c.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I must point out that if Amendment No. 206 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 206A.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 35, line 39. after ("trade") insert ("or profession").
The noble Lord said: I think that this is general business that we dealt with earlier. A "trade or business" should be a "trade, profession or business". I think it was taken away to be considered, because nothing is acceptable without consideration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: With the leave of your Lordships' Committee, as well as Amendment No. 206A I shall address Amendment No. 218D. As my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook said when we

409
discussed this earlier, it is certainly not the intention of the Government that the professions should be treated more favourably when it comes to matters of copyright infringement. We believe that the present wording will catch the professional and the businessman alike. Any profession or practice carried on for reward is a business but, as I say, we are looking at this again to make sure that that is the case. If it is not, we shall introduce appropriate amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I happen to be a member of the Faculty of Advocates. I think that on this point I would have support from a barrister of the English Bar. I think we would object very strongly to any allegation that we were engaged in trade or in business. That would be terrible. We must be classified as being a profession. But if the intention is that we cannot breach the copyright law, so be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207 to 209 not moved.]
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 35, line 42, at end insert ("or has been used").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point but one of which I hope the Government will take note. It seems to me ridiculous that under this clause you can seize or cause to be delivered up articles that have been adapted for the making of copies, but you cannot take those articles which had been used for the making of copies. I hope therefore that the Government will look at this amendment and agree to it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis. Clause 88 provides a right of delivery up of articles specifically designed or adapted for making infringing copies. Where a person has such an article in possession, custody or control, and he knows, or has reason to believe, that it will be used to make infringing copies, the copyright owner can apply for a court order that the article be forfeited and delivered up to him. It is said that the effectiveness of this remedy would be enhanced if, instead of referring to an article which is to be used, we also made mention of an article which has been used. After all it is easier to establish that something has been done than it is to establish future intent. I do not think the court would refuse an order against a defendant who was proved to have made infringing copies but who claimed that the article would not be used to make any more. However, we shall certainly consider whether any amendment is necessary and if so come back with the appropriate amendment.
Lord Willis: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 36, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience
410
of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 211, which concerns the same issue. This provides that if there is an infringing copy, no remedy is to be available to remove the infringing copy from the infringer's possession if damages would be an adequate remedy. It would seem on the face of it very alarming that one can get an award of damages, which after all may never he paid—it just sits as an award unpaid—but that one can do nothing to recover the infringing article. It would seem on principle that this is entirely wrong. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: Clauses 88 and 89 contain provision to the effect that an order for delivery up and forfeiture of infringing copies should not be made if damages would prove an adequate remedy.
The Committee will recall our earlier discussions when we talked about the conversion damages which were available under the 1956 Act. Those are to be abolished. I think that, as we discussed a moment ago, there is general agreement that this should be so. To allow the delivery up and forfeiture of infringing copies in every case would be to retain some of the undesirable features of the remedy of conversion. If it is accepted that conversion damages are wholly inappropriate, why should we consider that the copyright owners should get the full value of the infringing copies by having them forfeited to them where damages would be adequate? This reintroduces the effect of conversion damages by the back door.
It will be asked why should the pirate be able to retain copies? Should we not aim to have pirate copies withdrawn from the market? The answer may well be yes, and if the court finds that damages are not an adequate remedy, it can perfectly well order delivery up and forfeiture. Damages probably would not suffice in the case of pirate cassettes being sold on the market and the courts would be able to make an order for delivery up. However, in the case of inadvertent or partial infringement—for example a book which contains passages taken from someone else's work—damages may well be a sufficient remedy. To make an order for forfeiture of copies of the book would be unduly onerous. We believe that these clauses strike the right balance. The courts will have the flexibility to decide when delivery up and forfeiture are appropriate. That is, I think, as it should be.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is perhaps not the time to ask for the opinion of the Committee. I shall consider what the noble Earl has said, although I must say I do not consider his answer totally satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Right to seize infringing copies, &c.]:
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 89 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 89 stand

411
part of the Bill. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak to Clause 210 and also to Amendments Nos. 293 and 294, which would be consequential if I can establish my position under Clauses 89 and 210.
Under Clause 29 a plaintiff who thinks that there is infringement can apparently go into a factory or other such place without a court order and seize the property which he says is the subject of infringement without any court order and under no control whatsoever. I daresay that the clause is meant to deal with the market barrow boy kind of sale so that such items can be seized on the spot. However, a plaintiff could cause massive loss to a shop, say, by entering the premises and seizing allegedly infringing goods of only small value.
There are very strict rules which can help a plaintiff in taking proceedings against an alleged infringer. A plaintiff who considers that there has been infringement of his copyright, patent, registered design, trademark or similar right can go to the court and obtain an order to enter premises to search for and remove infringing articles. That is known as an Anton Pillar order which has been developed in the courts over the past 10 years or so. The court has jurisdiction and discretion to decide whether the plaintiff's agents can enter on premises of an alleged infringer. There is control over the method which the plaintiff's agents adopt in premises. There must be a solicitor present.
The courts recognise that the so-called Anton Pillar orders can severely disrupt the business of a defendant. They impose conditions on the way in which the orders may be executed. A solicitor must be present and he must explain to the defendant in plain English the nature of the order. Execution of the order is normally restricted to working hours on weekdays. The court considers each case individually and carefully balances the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant.
In view of the procedure which is now available, it seems to me that the provisons in clauses 89 and 210 are totally unnecessary and can only lead to breaches of the peace. One can quite imagine that if some agent enters into premises without a court order and tries to seize goods, it will probably result in a fist fight. I think that the provisions in the two clauses are quite unnecessary and can only lead to breaches of the peace. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: The deletion of Clause 89 would deprive copyright owners of an important right of seizure of infringing articles. Loss of that right can only make it easier for copyright pirates and counterfeiters. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to encourage them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not concerned with counterfeiting at the present time. There are clauses later on in the Bill to deal with the aspect of counterfeiting. At present we are dealing with infringement of copyright, which is a well-known phrase and which does not require the draconian powers of Clauses 89 and 210.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is quite improper that owners of copyright should be able to wander around the countryside bursting into people's property and picking up whatever they feel may be an infringing article. They should go through the courts. They have a procedure which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will know can operate very quickly indeed to recover such articles. It seems entirely proper that that should be done under some sort of control and not by anyone who is wandering about and leaping in where angels fear to tread.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: In the circumstances when a copyright owner is entitled to the delivery up of infringing copies or articles for making infringing copies, he is also permitted under this clause to seize or detain the copy or article in question. In order to do this the copyright owner may enter premises to which the public have access such as a video shop, but he certainly may not use any force.
Under Section 18 of the 1956 Act the copyright owner was treated as if he were the owner of every infringing copy. Copyright owners have used this provision to seize, for example, infringing records from street market traders. It has proved to be an effective weapon in the fight against piracy.
As the Committee knows, we propose to abolish conversion damages in copyright infringement cases and this has been the substance of a discussion over the last two or three amendments. As I said earlier, this has been very generally welcomed. In doing away with conversion damages we must not throw the baby out with the bath water and repeal all remedies in respect of conversion.
We are committed to the fight against piracy and do not wish to deprive copyright owners of any of the other weapons in their current armoury. We therefore believe that they should retain a right to seize infringing copies.
After such seizure the copyright owner may apply to the court for an order for the copies or the articles to be forfeited to him. He will do this if he wants to be sure of his right to hold onto the copies or articles or to destroy them as he thinks fit. He does not need to do so if he is quite confident of his position without such an order.
The person from whom the copies or articles were seized will always be able, if he thinks the seizure was not justified by Clause 89, to bring an action in the courts to get them back or to recover damages. The rights and wrongs of the matter can be sorted out in those proceedings. This clause retains for copyright owners the existing possibility for peaceful—and I emphasise peaceful—self-help without depriving others of the opportunity of sorting things out in court.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to the Anton Pillar orders. We do not think it is sufficient to rely only on Anton Pillar orders. The problem with them is that they take time—if only a little time—and they may give infringers the opportunity to escape. Where Section 18 of the 1956

413
Act applies copyright owners do not need to rely upon Anton Pillar orders. There is no good reason to deprive copyright owners of this existing remedy.
I wish to refer also to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, about the risk of the use of force. The clause does not permit entry into premises to which the public do not have access, nor does it permit the use of force. The fears of the noble Lord cannot be realised as a result of this clause. If they were realised, of course it would be unlawful but not the result of the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If I am the copyright owner of a record and I go into a shop, pick up against the owner's wishes the offending infringing copy and remove it from the shop, can the noble Earl explain how I am not using force of any sort? There is the difficulty that I shall probably be arrested for shoplifting. What is going to happen?
Do the Government believe that each copyright owner as an individual will not send a servant or agent, who may be fairly well built and fairly young, just in case he is detained by a store detective? It is a situation which cries out for the commission of a breach of the peace, and one can see it happening.
The Earl of Dundee: In theory I take the point which the noble Lord is making. In fact there is no force used in the example which he gives.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: There are no powers under this provision for force to be used. One must be realistic about the operation of the measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said if a person who thinks he is the owner of the copyright sees his gramophone record and tries to pick it up, there is bound to be a breach of the peace. Clauses 89 and 210 create a breach of the peace. Obviously, a person with a stall in a market might find some difficulty in selling these infringing records, or what are thought to be infringing records. He might be able to get away with it that afternoon, but this does not give one the right to go to anyone's premises and say, "I am the copyright owner. That is an infringement of my copyright", and grab the records and take them away. That seems to me quite absurd.
The Earl of Dundee: As always, I highly value the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna, and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I am prepared to take away, without commitment, the comments which they have made in order to see whether we can alter the provision in any way. However, before doing so, I reiterate that I believe we have struck a fair balance. After all, conversion damages have disappeared and, as I understand it, since the 1956 Act there have not been many examples of blatant breach of this provision. Therefore, in that way, perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the eating. However, without commitment, I will take away the comments that the Members have made.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have experience of going with the backing of a court order and various court officials to recover alleged breaches of copyright from
414
alleged infringers. It is not an easy situation and is one which is very fraught. if you do not do that with the help of a court order and the court officials you are really asking for trouble. I believe that part of the reason that there has not been trouble until now is that copyright owners have not been so stupid. To leave in this clause is asking for trouble in the future.
The Earl of Stockton: On the one or two occasions when I have had to enforce copyright—not in this country but under very similar circumstances—the mechanism by which I have done it is, where I have been informed there are copyright or piracy provisions, to go into the shop and purchase a copy of the offending material. I take it outside and place it in a safe place in the back of the car. I then go back in and say, "I have just bought a pirate or offending copy of this material in your shop and I see you have another 80 copies of it. These will be seized", or, "I am seizing these". I have done this in Jordan, in the souk in Amman, where the man was a little upset, but I assure the Committtee that there was no breach of the peace there. I have done it on the dock in Port Harcourt in Nigeria and there was no breach of the peace there. I believe that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has exaggerated the volatility of the representatives of the book trade and other trades in this country if he thinks a breach of the peace is likely to happen here.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Has the noble Earl ever done this in Cheltenham? I am delighted to hear the stories of the noble Earl about what happens abroad. I can tell him how infringement of trade marks are sometimes dealt with in Indian towns. The lawyer goes in with a large sword, puts it on the table in front of the man who is supposedly infringing the trade mark and sorts the matter out. There is no violence at all, perhaps due to the presence of the weapon. However, that is not something one can do in this country. All that Clause 89 says is that you can go into a premises in this country, not abroad, and take what you believe is an infringement. That really leads to a breach of the peace.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Pecuniary remedies where concurrent rights of action]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 37, line 18, leave out (", and any right of action exercisable, by") and insert ("or available to").
The noble Earl said: Clause 92 provides for the award and division of pecuniary remedies in cases where the copyright owner and exclusive licensee have concurrent rights of action. Paragraph (a) requires the court to take two factors into account when assessing damages in cases of concurrent rights of action. The first is, naturally, the terms of the exclusive licence. The contractual provisions are highly relevant to the question of damages and how they are to be divided.
The second consideration is what other remedies are available to the copyright owner or exclusive licensee. The Bill as drafted requires the court to take

415
into account not only any pecuniary remedy already awarded but any other right of action exercisable by the copyright owner or exclusive licensee. We now realise that this was wrong, and the amendment will correct that defect.
All the court should consider when assessing damages is the terms of the licence and any pecuniary remedy already awarded or available to the copyright owner or exclusive licensee. The fact that either may also have the right, for example, to obtain an injunction is immaterial.
The amendment also removes a grammatical defect which some noble Lords may have spotted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 [Remedies for infringement of moral rights]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 213 or Amendment No. 214 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 215, 216 and 217.
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 37, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: On behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and Lord Graham of Edmonton, I want to draw attention to a very serious subsection of the clause.
Subsection (2) specifically states:
"Damages for infringement of the… (right to be identified as author or director) shall be given only in respect of economic loss suffered by the plaintiff'.
We operate in a creative business where loss of reputation can be more serious than any economic loss. It can lead to long or short-term economic loss. Damage to reputation is one of the hazards that we experience in the business. It seems wrong to deny a director or author the right to take action for damage to reputation if he or she thinks it appropriate. I wish to know why the Government limit the matter in this way. I think that it would be better not to include subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support the amendment. Those who believe they have gained something under the Bill find once again, when they look closer, that the substance disappears.
The point of moral rights is that emphasis should be placed on the artistic and creative integrity of directors and writers and not only on economic criteria. In this instance the Bill narrows the impact of moral rights. The provision for damages in respect of economic loss is wholly inadequate. I believe, as does the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, that such restriction is unnecessary and that the broader question relating to artistic and creative integrity should be considered when assessing the damages.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support the amendment. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 214. As we know, the author of an artistic work has the right to be identified. That right has been given
416
him, first, because he has to assert it in relation to the infringer. Secondly, if he succeeds in doing that, he has to prove economic loss. Thus the right that he has been given is whittled down to nothing.
The Minister will no doubt reply to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that injury to reputation will be covered in any action for damages. However, it is not only a question of injury to reputation. Someone may show a work of art by a person and assert, say, in Scotland that the work was by a well-known water colourist. That colourist might come from Shuna, Kilgerran, or some such place and gain a tremendous amount of kudos when in reality the artist was a good, true English artist from the little hamlet of Lullington.
There is a great deal there to be suffered by the artist. I would say with the greatest respect to my noble friend that to prove economic loss would be out of the question. Amendment No. 214 simply seeks to put such a person in precisely the same position as the person who has had the copyright infringed, using the same wording as is found in Clause 87(2). That would surely seem to be the fair situation.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: On behalf of my noble friend, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I think I am right in saying that we are taking these amendments together. I shall therefore speak to Amendment No. 215 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and myself, which seeks to:
"leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert ('shall be such as the justice of the case may require.')".
That seems to me to be a very simple way of expressing what we are all trying to achieve. In this area, which deals with moral rights, it is totally wrong that it should be specifically stated in the Bill that damages,
"shall be given only in respect of economic loss".
We then find ourselves back at square one. What is the point of having moral rights if there is no compensation for damages for infringement?
For that reason I do not like Amendment No. 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, which inserts the words:
"not include compensation for injured feelings".
This almost reverts to the orginal text, which confines damages to cases of economic loss. There must be some compensation if we are to have this scheme of moral rights. I prefer our amendment because it seems a very simple and short way to express this. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: For the convenience of the Committee, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 213, 214, 215, 216 —which is in my own name—and 217, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stockton.
The drafting of Clause 93(2) has drawn considerable criticism, not least during the Second Reading debate. As I indicated then, the intention of Clause 93(2) was to exclude damages for injured feelings but not to exclude the loss of reputation. We fully accept that an author lives on his reputation and any loss of reputation is therefore an economic loss.

417
I promised the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that this would be something to return to in Committee and my amendment therefore makes plain that only injured feelings are intended to be excluded. I hope that this will meet the concerns of the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee.
Amendment No. 214 borrows wording used in Clause 87(2), which deals with action for an infringement of copyright. As the noble Lords will recall, conversion damages are not included in the Bill and the purpose of Clause 87(2) is to provide a deterrent to flagrant infringement of copyright. While it is very important for copyright I do not think it is appropriate to moral rights, where flagrant infringements are much more difficult to determine.
With regard to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stockton, I am not sure what is meant in this context by the word "genuine". The courts would not knowingly award damages in respect of a loss which was not genuine. But if the intention is to restrict damages to specific financial loss caused by failing to name the author, then that runs counter both to the Government's intention to which Amendment No. 216 gives expression and to what I had taken to be the mood of the House during Second Reading.
I hope that in the light of Amendment No. 216 and what I have said, the noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw their amendments, and agree to Amendment No. 216.
Lord Willis: I am still worried about this and I may have to look at it again. As I understood it, in law—and perhaps the lawyers among us can tell me—it is possible to obtain damages for injured feelings. Is that true? So why cannot copyright owners get damages for injured feelings? Why should they be excluded from the clause?
Lord Beaverbrook: I am advised that one cannot get damages for injured feelings.
Lord Willis: I have to bow to superior legal knowledge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 37. line 37, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 38 and insert ("not include compensation for injured feelings").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 37, line 42, leave out from ("act") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: Those noble Lords with a copy of the Bill will appreciate that the words that I wish to strike out are:
"unless a disclaimer is made, in such terms and in such manner as may be approved by the court, identifying the modification in question and dissociating the author or director from it".
Clause 93(3) totally misses the point of moral rights, which include the right to prevent a justifiable or modified work from being shown on artistic or creative grounds. I know that the clause has been modified slightly by the Minister's amendment, but in support of my amendment I want to say that to show such a work and merely to issue a disclaimer completely undermines the raison d'etre of moral rights. A disclaimer is not in any sense a remedy since the damage is done anyway.
I should be grateful if the Minister will address himself to the point I am making. Perhaps then I shall be able to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: The amendment moved by the noble Lord seeks to restrict the remedies available to the court when considering cases of infringement of the right conferred by Clause 72. We do not believe that we should deprive the courts of flexibility. There will be cases where the best course is to allow the modified work to be used, provided that the author or director is clearly dissociated from it. I think the flexibility benefits both authors and directors as well as the users of copyright material. The court might find the modification insufficient to justify a full injunction so the author could find himself associated with a modified work which he wishes to disown. Clause 93 will allow the court in cases where a full injunction is not justified to allow exploitation to continue while allowing the author to be dissociated from the change.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sure that the Committee will read with care what the Minister has said. Clearly it is possible to presume difficulties, which the Minister's words may overcome. Without reservation or qualification, because I may need to come back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 [General presumptions as to subsistence of copyright.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 38, line 3, leave out ("in the absence of evidence to the contrary") and insert ("unless put in issue by the defendant").
The noble Lord said: We are now entering upon Clause 94, which sets out general presumptions as to the subsistence of copyright. One of the presumptions set out in the clause is that:
"In proceedings"—
that means court proceedings—
"brought by virtue of this Chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary".
The one presumption about which I am complaining is that the plaintiff,
"if he claims to be the owner of the copyright, is the owner".
It is unprecedented in British law for a plaintiff not to have to prove the ownership of an intellectual property right and whether or not it subsists. Very often the plaintiff is the only person who knows the relevant facts. The clause as proposed would avoid a

419
plaintiff being obliged to disclose documents on discovery unless the defendant had evidence, but this may be entirely in the possession of the plaintiff. It is quite unprecedented that the plaintiff should not have to prove his ownership and whether his intellectual property rights subsist.
It is true that the Whitford Report suggested some years ago that in interlocutory proceedings it would be possible for a plaintiff to claim copyright and it would be within the discretion of the judge to decide whether that was feasible in the circumstances of the interlocutory proceedings. However, it is quite unknown and unprecedented in intellectual property proceedings for the plaintiff not to have to prove ownership and subsistence of his rights. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I am advised that the effect of the amendment would be completely to neuter the impact of Clause 94. Establishing that copyright subsists and that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright are costly operations. I am no lawyer, so I do not know how much the costs benefit the lawyers. The requirement to provide this type of proof, especially when it is not necessary, dramatically increases the legal costs of the copyright infringement actions. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The amendment addresses the whole question of evidence on presumptions. This is the subject of certain amendments that we have tabled on subsequent clauses. I think it proper that the Minister should give a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, which will cover the substance of the amendments we have down on the question of presumption in subsequent clauses.
Lord Beaverbrook: The purpose of this clause is to provide general presumptions as to the subsistence and ownership of copyright in civil proceedings. Subsection (1) provides that it is to be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that copyright subsists in the work in question and that the plaintiff is the owner of copyright. These presumptions already apply under Section 20 of the 1956 Act but only until the defendant puts subsistence or ownership in issue. The defendant has only to raise the point in his pleadings without any evidence for the plaintiff to have to prove subsistence and ownership. Under the Bill, however, he will have to produce some evidence to back his challenge before the plaintiff can be put to proof. The amendment would restore the provisions of the 1956 Act.
Establishing the subsistence and ownership of copyright is not always easy and there has been a constant complaint that the defendant can put the plaintiff to proof when he has no reason to doubt the assertions made. The trouble and expense may deter the plaintiff from proceeding and occupies the court unprofitably. We do not think the out and out pirate should be able to use this delaying tactic or that valuable court time should be wasted on establishing such self-evident facts as the subsistence of copyright in the latest film on release.
420
We are, however, aware that our proposed alternative is criticised for creating as many problems as it solves. We would like, therefore, to take the opportunity of going away with the clause and reconsidering it altogether. I doubt whether we would want to return to the existing law via the noble Lord's amendment, but it may be that we can find a better answer.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Presumptions relevant to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works]:
[Amendments Ns. 218A and 218B not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Presumptions relevant to sound recordings and films]:
[Amendment 218C not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles]:
[Amendment No. 2I8D not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 39, line 36, leave out ("with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Williams of Elvel. This amendment would narrow the offence of possessing in the course of a trade or business to just that. The clause as drafted includes the weakening qualification of,
"with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright".
We discussed this point earlier in the proceedings in the Committee. We feel that such a qualification would allow the offender an easy escape route. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: From these Benches I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in this amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: The Committee will be aware that a person who, in the course of a trade or business, is in possession of a copy of a sound recording, film or computer program which he knows to be an infringing copy is guilty of an offence. These provisions, introduced in the last few years, have been highly effective in the fight against piracy. In the White Paper we promised to extend this criminal offence provision to all categories of copyright material and, for consistency, make unauthorised possession by way of trade a secondary infringement under the civil provisions. This we have done, in this clause and Clause 23 respectively.

421
When we came to look at this question again in the course of drafting the Bill it became apparent that the criminal offence might be too onerous. For example, a garage might have a photocopy of a repair manual, or a sales company might be using an infringing copy of a training video to train its staff. In such cases, possession would be a purely internal matter, with no intent to exploit the material by further copying.
We felt that this was an area where the full force of the criminal law should not be brought into play. By restricting the offence of possession in the way we have done, the pirate will still be liable. Possession of a garage full of pirate videos will be an offence. But incidental possession, if I can use that term, such as in the examples I gave earlier, will he matters for the civil law only.
The Earl of Stockton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 220 to 226A not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 40, line 23, leave out ("imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 228, 229 and 230. The object of these amendments is to remove from Clause 98 any sanction of imprisonment being imposed upon a defendant when he is found guilty. My reason for this is that it is anomalous that alone among intellectual property rights infringement of copyright should be a criminal offence.
Why should the inventor of a patented product, for example, be obliged to rely upon civil remedies alone but the composer of a pop song have the assistance of the criminal law? It is totally incongruous and highly unsatisfactory in British law. Mere infringement of copyright should not be criminal, although in many instances counterfeiting must be caught, and can be caught, by other provisions of the criminal law.
It is so necessary to differentiate between what is meant by infringement of intellectual property rights and counterfeiting when it can be proved. In this Bill the differences have been set down. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, knows that. I think the amendments have been put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen. There are a large number of amendments to deal with counterfeiting, and there, of course, imprisonment can be one of the sanctions and I shall support most of those provisions in regard to counterfeiting. When one is dealing purely with infringement of copyright, criminal proceedings should not be included as an action that can be taken against the defendant. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I am sorry to cross swords again with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as we often join in these affairs together. However, I am advised that removing imprisonment as a penalty would not be reasonable. Where copyright
422
infringement is a criminal offence the penalties for such infringement should include a short prison term. It seems to me to be perfectly straightforward.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am not sure whether I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, correctly, because he assumed from the outset of his argument that infringement was a criminal offence. It is not a criminal offence and, indeed, it should not be.
His argument was that if it was a criminal offence then there should he imprisonment. I agree that that might be a sanction but he has I think—with the greatest of respect to him—got infringement of copyright muddled up with counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is a criminal offence and therefore criminal sanctions should apply—but not to infringement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to speak very briefly to this. Over the years we have had increasing criminalization—if I can use that expression—of civil offences. This is a fundamental principle which has been creeping into our statute and we will come back to this subject at a later stage, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will also.
We do not believe that infringement of copyright should be a criminal offence. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was making and we support that. However, this is not the time to debate the point as it should be debated.
Lord Beaverbrook: Do I gather from that that the noble Lord wishes to withdraw the amendment now or would he like me to speak to the Committee at this hour of the evening, which I am very happy to do?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think the noble Lord the Minister should speak to the Committee on this matter.
Lord Beaverbrook: My noble friend the Secretary of State made an unequivocal condemnation of copyright piracy when he opened the Second Reading debate on this Bill. In doing so I am sure that he was reflecting the sentiments of this Committee.
Whether one calls it piracy, bootlegging or counterfeiting, what we are really talking about is the misappropriation of someone else's property. That can only be regarded as theft. People are in the business of taking the intellectual property of others and selling it for profit, often passing it off as the genuine article. Not only does the producer of the genuine article suffer when his property is stolen but often it is the consumer who also suffers. The pirate or counterfeit goods are seldom of the same quality as the original. While some members of this Committee may feel that a loss in sound quality on a pirate pop music cassette is not of great moment, those interested in such music are being shortchanged. When we get to counterfeit goods such as electrical appliances or brake-shoes there is a very real safety problem.
In Clause 98 we are solely concerned with copyright. Piracy of copyright material is a world-wide problem, particularly for records, videos and

423
computer software. The estimated value of the pirate market for records alone runs to 100 million US dollars per annum worldwide. In some countries over 90 per cent. of records and cassettes are pirate versions. This Committee will be aware of the efforts that we are making to encourage those countries where piracy is a serious problem to take action.
On our domestic scene piracy is still a problem, although on nothing like the same scale. About 5 per cent. of the home market for prerecorded music is pirate. One of the reasons why we have kept piracy under control in the United Kingdom is the deterrent effect of the penalties provided in the law.
The 1956 Act provided for fines and terms of imprisonment for various copyright offences. Legislation introduced in 1983 substantially increased the penalties in respect of films and records and then in 1985 did likewise for computer programs. The effects in the pirate video field were dramatic. The pirates' share of the market fell almost overnight. It was this that encouraged us to standardise these penalties across the whole field of copyright. We want to send out a strong anti-piracy message from this Committee and I believe that the amendment in question would send completely the wrong signals. Piracy is theft and needs to be dealt with as such.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the comparison with patents is not, I feel, a very good one. Copyright piracy is pure copy. Patent infringement is a much more complex matter, with considerable doubt in many cases as to whether infringement has taken place at all.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: It is kind of the Minister to explain the Government's case. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee at this late hour. I should like to look at what he said in Hansard and I shall probably take up the matter again at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 228 to 230 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 40, line 32, leave out ("do not") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: Clauses 94 to 94, referred to in subsection (6), to which my amendment applies, are presumptions as to various matters connected with copyright. These presumptions relate to subsistence and ownership of copyright. If put to strict proof these could involve an extremely costly evidential burden. In film piracy £500,000 in costs is not untypical for a single case. These matters are rarely, if ever, challenged seriously. They are merely challenged to deter prosecutions. In any event, the proposed change—that is, to revert the sense from the negative to the positive in this subsection—would still enable them to be challenged if evidence were produced.
The requirement for the prosecution to prove copying and intent to copy would still remain. If such unnecessary challenges became commonplace on software piracy criminal cases, they would result in either significantly increased costs being faced by public prosecution authorities, the cost being passed
424
on to the industry or prosecutions being dropped on grounds of expense. The effect could be to make criminal sanctions completely ineffective in practice. There are signs that this has already happened in film piracy cases. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: Unlike other intellectual property rights such as patents, copyright is not registered in any way. Establishing subsistence and ownership of copyright can sometimes give rise to problems. Particular difficulty appears to have arisen in film cases. We have therefore thought it right to provide for certain presumptions to be made in civil proceedings to ease the burden on the courts and to prevent the pirate from infringing with impunity, secure in the knowledge that he can deter an infringement action by putting the copyright owner to proof.
While it may be right to provide for certain presumptions in civil proceedings, one must of necessity tread much more carefully when dealing with criminal provisions. We do not believe that a defendant in a criminal case should be put in the position of having to prove his innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt.
If the presumptions contained in Clauses 94 to 97 were to be applicable in criminal proceedings—and Clause 94 cannot be applied without some modification—the onus would be on the defendant to disprove certain presumptions made about ownership, authorship and subsistence. Providing presumptions to assist the court to come to conclusions on the balance of probabilities is one thing; providing presumptions in matters which have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is quite another. Indeed, to introduce these presumptions into our criminal law would be an astonishing development. There are some offences of strict liability, and others where the onus of proving matters within the knowledge or control of the accused lies on him and not the prosecution; but I am aware of no offence in our law in which the accused must prove the negative of something about which he may know nothing.
The criminal provisions of copyright law are intended to supplement, not replace, the civil provisions. Copyright owners sometimes complain that it is more difficult to get a conviction than with a civil action. But that is as it should be. Copyright is, and must remain, principally a matter for the civil law since it is concerned with the enforcement of private rights.
Lord Mottistone: I understand what my noble friend has said and I thank him for explaining the matter at such length. I should like to think about it, and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Clauses 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Forfeiture of infringing copies, &c.]:
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No.234:
Page 41, line 10, leave out ("district or").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 234 stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. I am advised by my noble friend, who, alas, has had to depart for Scotland, that there is a Scottish point to be made and that the district court is not an appropriate court do deal with these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment, which I am prepared to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 101 [Offence by body corporate: liability of officers]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No.235:
Page 41, line 37, leave out ("97") and insert ("98").
The noble Lord said: As I explained earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, asked me if I would move his amendment. Clause 101 sets out offences by body corporate: liability of officers. The first line reads:
"Where an offence under section 97 committed by a body corporate is proved".
When one looks at Clause 97, it does not seem to be appropriate and the figure should be 98. So this major amendment is to substitute 98 for 97. I hope that I am right. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lord and am of course prepared to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 101, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether in his department the divisions which are concerned with patents and the divisions which are concerned with companies have consulted each other about the contents of this clause. I will say no more, because I think that at a later stage I may wish to come back to certain responsibilities of people purporting to be directors, and all the rest of it.
Lord Beaverbrook: I will certainly look into that matter and let the noble Lord know.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Infringing copies may be treated as prohibited goods]:
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 42, line 12, leave out ("a sound recording or film") and insert ("any work").
The noble Lord said: Copyright goods are now imported into the United Kingdom in many forms, not just sound recording or film, as printed paper works, films, magnetic tapes or disks, optical disks and laser cards, as well as works fixed in semiconductor chips, may all be imported from countries in which counterfeiters and pirates flourish. Copyright owners should have the power to ask the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to treat such goods as prohibited copies of the works; hence my request for an amendment to say "any work" instead of restricting it to two particular items. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: When we announced our intention in the White Paper to extend the import prohibition provisions in the 1956 Act to films and records, we indicated that such provisions may create difficulties for Customs and Excise. The existing provisions have not been used to any great degree and any sudden increase would impose undue burdens on the limited resources of Customs and Excise. It was for this reason that we said in the White Paper that, in the case of films and records, the copyright owner would have to give notice of the expected time and place of the infringing importation.
To extend the import provisions even further would not be a practical proposition, even if resources were not already fully used. It is relatively easy for a Customs official to identify copies of a book, film or record; usually it is self-evident. It is clearly much more difficult to determine whether a floppy disk carrying a computer program is a copy or not. The benefit to be gained by extension of the provisions to all types of copyright work cannot justify the costs that would be incurred. I am afraid that the extension of the present law now provided by Clause 102(3) is as far as we can go.
Lord Mottistone: Sadly, my noble friend is very convincing. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Power of Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 238A and 238B not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Supplementary provisions with respect to forfeiture orders]:
[Amendment No. 238C not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee may perhaps agree that we have reached a suitable moment to break. If so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN THE SOUTH-EAST
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN THE SOUTH-EAST
  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  JOBCENTRES: SUPPORT TO NEW ENTERPRISES
  JOBCENTRES: SUPPORT TO NEW ENTERPRISES
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES: CONTROL
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES: CONTROL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  LONDON BOROUGHS: JOINT COMMITTEES
  LONDON BOROUGHS: JOINT COMMITTEES