Sitting of 12 November 1987

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

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 19 November.

    LONDON DOCK LANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
      TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
        YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
          KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)
            SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
              UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To he read a Second time upon Thursday 19 November.

    HIGHLAND REGION HARBOURS (MISCELLANEOUS POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      Considered; to read the Third time upon Monday 16 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Equal Opportunity
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to legislate on the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on equality of opportunity.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 October,
    536
    we shall be taking the report's recommendations into account in framing detailed proposals for new legislation on fair employment.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that the report has received considerable approval from most sections of society in Northern Ireland? Will he guarantee that he will introduce legislation to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, and that because that was Westminster legislation he will introduce the new legislation before the House?
    Mr. Viggers: We are firmly committed to such legislation. The standing advisory commission's report contained some 240 specific recommendations, so we must give careful thought to the matter before we legislate. We shall bring the issues before the House; we are currently considering whether we should do that by a Bill or by order.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware of what occurred yesterday in Northern Ireland when workers at Short's, the University of Ulster and at Fisher Body wanted to observe a one-minute silence? The managements said that, as a result of the FEA arrangements, they could not do that because it would offend certain employees in the work place. Is he aware that when nurses from the Royal Victoria hospital complex who worked with the nurse who was slaughtered asked that the Union Jack be put at half mast they were told that it would be offensive? It was only when the board intervened that the flag was flown at half mast. Will the Secretary of State assure the people of Northern Ireland that they will have the right to observe a one-minute silence in their workplace when atrocities are carried out by the IRA?
    Mr. Viggers: The points made by the hon. Gentleman do not directly follow the subject of the main question, but I assure him that the Government are committed to legislation on fair employment. We believe that our policy has the broad support of employers and employee representative bodies and is the right measure to reduce sectarian difficulties.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister see any inconsistency in the fact that a person was recently removed from employment in this building who was merely suspected of supporting Sinn Fein, when the Government's legislation is forcing employers in Northern Ireland to employ people who positively support Sinn Fein?
    Mr. Viggers: The Government are committed to fair employment. The process that we have outlined in our consultative document and again in the employment guide in September is—
    Mr. John David Taylor: Answer the question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Viggers: Monitoring of sectarian background is necessary to encourage employers and employees to co-operate.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential, in maintaining the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland — not only in relation to the improvements that have been made in court procedures vis-à-vis the Diplock courts but in matters relating to fair

    537
    employment — to ensure that Catholics have a fair opportunity to attain jobs on terms equal to those available to other members of the Ulster community?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend expresses the general view that it is broadly unacceptable to have unemployment among those from Catholic background at two and a half times higher than that among those from Protestant backgrounds, and that the Government line is the correct one.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister accept that the standing advisory commission statistics, the Government's own consultative statistics and, indeed, his own remarks show an unprecedented frankness in admitting the extent of the problem and a determination to deal with it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a two-pronged approach? First, we need strong fair employment legislation to outlaw discrimination and to take sanctions against employers who deliberately discriminate; and, secondly, we need investment in areas of high unemployment. Anything that obstructs that process of investment damages the creation of fair employment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: The figures that I cited were the Government's figures, confirmed by the standing advisory commission. I support the line that the hon. Gentleman has put before the House. Clearly, if we can encourage further investment and project Northern Ireland as a good place to do business and a fair place to employ people, we shall help to promote further prosperity and jobs.
    Mr. James Marshall: Does the Minister accept that that last aim could well be advanced if the Government showed firm political commitment to the measures in two ways? Does he agree that the report should be debated on the Floor of the House and, more important, will he give a commitment that the legislation will be introduced in the form of a Westminster Bill and not by order?
    Mr. Viggers: We are giving careful consideration to the latter point. On the timing of the legislation, there has been a large response to the proposals in our consultative paper. Some 80 substantial written representations have been made and it is crucial that we get the legislation right.

    Abortion
    Mrs. Wise: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consideration has been given to extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Needham): The legalisation on abortion in Northern Ireland was last reviewed in 1985. At that time it was concluded that any change in the law would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of the population. I believe that that remains the case.
    Mrs. Wise: Is the Minister aware that some readily available ante-natal tests in Britain for the detection of serious congenital abnormalities are not so readily available in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that in Northern Ireland a significantly higher percentage of babies are born with defects? Does that not give him good cause to reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Needham: I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Lady and I must admit that personally I should like
    538
    to see a broader debate on this matter. However, therapeutic abortion is available in Northern Ireland and I am doing all that I can as the Minister responsible for health to make sure that people are properly counselled.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in this country regard the 1967 Act with utter abhorrence and would greatly regret its extension to Northern Ireland or anywhere else? We should bear in mind that only about 7 per cent. of babies surviving beyond the 18th week of pregnancy are born disabled, that many deformities are only slight and that many disabled people lead worthwhile lives.
    Mr. Needham: I understand my hon. Friend's views and I appreciate the depth of her feelings. However, I believe that adequate and proper counselling should be available for mothers who may find themselves having a badly handicapped child, which may be immensely disruptive and destructive for the family.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has underlined the fact that therapeutic abortion is available in Northern Ireland. Will he also acknowledge that in our professor of genetics we have a very able person who is conducting a worthwhile scheme? However, in a week in which the House and the nation have shared in mourning the destruction of 12 lives in Northern Ireland, would the Minister not say that it was deplorable to suggest that an Act that has contributed to the destruction of almost 3 million human beings with potential should be extended to Northern Ireland? We do not want it.
    Mr. Needham: As I have already said, it has been the policy not only of this Government but of their predecessors not to introduce legislation of that sort, which would be opposed by a large majority of the people in Northern Ireland. That remains the position.

    Security
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation.
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with progress in the fight against terrorism.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since I last answered questions in the House on 23 July, 29 people have been killed in incidents arising from the security situation. These include a number of believed terrorists killed by their own devices. Against that serious background, the security forces have achieved some significant results. So far this year 394 people have been charged with serious offences, including 25 with murder. A total of 230 weapons and approximately 13,000 rounds of ammunition and 12,725 lb of explosives have been recovered.
    In addition, the Garda Siochana has recovered 118 weapons, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and some 4,000 lb of explosives. In addition, the House will be aware of the substantial arms seizure on the Eksund, for which we are most grateful to the French authorities.
    As I informed the House, I am having further urgent discussions with my security advisers in the light of the recent outrages. I shall also be having early discussion with Irish Ministers about security matters. The House will also

    539
    be aware of the universal condemnation that Sunday's outrage in Enniskillen has received. It is vital that that condemnation is backed by the fullest help and support from all sides of the community to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces in their vital fight against terrorism.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the ghastly and horrific events of the past few days there can be no doubt that those evil terrorists are the sworn enemies of all the people of Ireland, North and South? In the light of that, are we not entitled to expect, and likely to see, a renewed determination and total commitment by the Southern Irish Government to combat terrorism and impede it at every possible turn? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that the two Irish Governments should work together?
    Mr. King: There is no question but that recent events have made a profound impression south of the border as well as north. I note reports in The Irish Times of the formation of a new security committee headed by the Taoiseach. There is no question but that the kidnapping had a serious and proper impact on thought. Enniskillen has rightly shocked everybody throughout the island of Ireland and the arms shipments are a serious matter, which every person in the island of Ireland needs to take seriously.
    Mr. William Ross: I asked the Secretary of State whether he was satisfied with the progress in the fight against terrorism and I am not clear from his answer whether he is. If he is satisfied, he must be the lone voice in the House today. If he is not satisfied with the progress in the fight against terrorism, when does he expect his level of confidence to match the requirements of the situation?
    Mr. King: Of course I am not satisfied. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that any hon. Member could be satisfied with the progress on security after the events of recent days. There is no question of that at all. We are fighting hard. The hon. Gentleman does no credit to his knowledge of the situation to pretend that it lies in my hands or in the hands of the Government to wave a wand. There is a role for the security forces and for the leaders of all the communities in Northern Ireland. We owe it to all the people who have died in the tragedy of Northern Ireland not to seek to open old wounds. I believe that there is a new spirit flowing under the leadership of many of the people who have suffered most in Enniskillen. They want to see how they can build new bridges and make a new start. I plead with hon. Members who represent the Province not to open old wounds but to try to build on the spirit of what I believe is calling to them from these people and to give a new lead.
    Mr. Kilfedder: In order to further the new spirit to which the Secretary of State has referred, do all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now fully and unequivocally support the members of the security forces? Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect appeals to be made for the minority to join the security forces in greater numbers, so that we can present a united front irrespective or religion or politics against the men of terror?
    Mr. King: As I made clear in my answer, I look to all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to give the fullest support to the security forces, and I should dearly like to see enhanced recruitment of members of the
    540
    minority community. The evidence in recent years of the contribution made by the security forces in upholding the law impartially, protecting Nationalists as well as Unionists in the face of intimidation and terror, entitles them to the fullest support of both communities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that we need not only the co-operation of the Catholic part of the community, important though that is, but co-operation from Dublin as well? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate his hope that the extradition agreement will be enacted on 1 December? Will he also tell us why the Prime Minister ruled out a joint security commission before discussions with the Irish Government had even taken place?
    Mr. King: I am not sure that I picked up what the hon. Gentleman said about the joint security commission. However, I have made no secret of my concern about the extradition treaty. I have no hesitation in making it clear where I stand on that.
    I believe that. strong — overwhelming, some might have said—as the arguments were before the events of the past week, there is now no doubt that we must have the very closest co-operation and joint activity between both Governments in the fight against terrorism. There is such an identity of interest, manifest to everyone in the island of Ireland, that it has become a compelling priority.
    Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend not appalled that this morning the IRA placed a nail bomb outside a primary school in Belfast, which, mercifully, was defused by the security forces? Does he not agree that the "sympathy" expressed by Sinn Fein is nothing more than an obscenity?
    Mr. King: As the House will know, within hours of the issue of that contemptible statement of regret, a further bomb was identified. It had been placed at a Remembrance Day parade in Tullyhommon, near Pettigo. The overwhelming casualties that would have resulted if the bomb had gone off—thankfully, the IRA failed to detonate it—would have been civilians : young members of the Boys Brigade and the Girls Brigade, their parents and other spectators. It ultimately and totally reveals the contemptible nature of the IRA campaign.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the bomb that exploded in Enniskillen was a very political bomb? Does he agree that its aim was to damage the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that the people who stand to suffer most from that agreement are the Provisional IRA, who fear the two communities coming together as the Secretary of State has recommended?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the only way in which the Provisional IRA and those dedicated to violence can ultimately be defeated is through the united efforts of all those living on the island, and the help of the two Governments acting together?
    Mr. King: Certainly I agree. It would be difficult to conceive of an attack more villainously designed to stir up sectarian hatred than that outrage—in its conception and in the location and target of the bomb. I make no secret of the fact that I know that the IRA is determined to smash any attempt at closer co-operation between the

    541
    British and the Irish Governments. I also know that, if we are to defeat the evil of terrorism, that co-operation is vital.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only positive response to outrages such as that at Enniskillen is to reaffirm our determination to make a success of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he assure the House that not only is that his view, but that he will make every effort to ensure that that view is shared by the Republic?
    Mr. King: Co-operation must be the right way forward and it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland. The majority community has the greatest possible interest in a more effective attack on the problems of terrorism and in improvements in security. I am determined to work for that and I accept the advice of the Chief Constable that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has given him the best possible opportunity for furthering that cause.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jim Marshall to ask Question 5.
    Mr. James Marshall rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I had not realised that I had not called the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. Mr. McNamara.
    Mr. McNamara: You do not have to, Mr. Speaker. As I echo most of the opinions expressed by the Secretary of State, I shall not pursue the matter.

    ACE Funding
    Mr. James Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the evidence on which his decision to withdraw ACE funding from various organisations in Northern Ireland has been taken.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the main criteria used in deciding whether or not to renew ACE funding to organisations in receipt of such funding.
    Mr. Viggers: Subject to the availability of resources, priority is given to projects which provide services for disadvantaged groups, those which may promote permanent employment, and projects in areas where the level of ACE provision is lower than the local incidence of long-term unemployment would warrant. With the exception of a small number of cases where security considerations apply, I am willing to discuss the basis on which a decision to withdraw or not to renew ACE funding has been taken.
    Mr. Marshall: I hope that the Minister will accept that no Labour Member wishes to see any Government money get into the hands of any terrorist organisation on either side in the Province, but is he aware of the damage that is done to community relations when ACE funding is withdrawn and no reasons are given? If so, does he agree that, in order to minimise that damage, it would be elementary justice to introduce either a right of appeal against the Government's decisions or an independent review body to look at the decisions?
    Mr. Viggers: ACE is a popular scheme and its funding and numbers have increased every year since it was introduced by the Government in 1981. More than 6,000 people are now involved in those places and there is a
    542
    waiting list of 4,000. However, in a small number of cases there is a dispute about the way in which ACE funding has been withdrawn. For security reasons no details can be given, but each case is dealt with on its merits and a change in the pertinent circumstances can lead to a review of the case.
    Mr. Fatchett: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to see money used for purposes that would damage security, but, if I may pick a comment in the Minister's reply, will he meet representatives of the Twinbrook tenants and community association, from which I understand that funds have been withdrawn? It may not be possible for him to state the reasons for that now, but will he meet representatives?
    Mr. Viggers: The terms on which support for ACE groups can sometimes be withdrawn were spelt out in detail by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. in a reply in the House on 27 June 1985. For security reasons it is not advisable for us to give details of the reasons for the withdrawal of ACE funding.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister encourage voluntary organisations to make full use of the ACE scheme, particularly as many elderly and handicapped people would benefit from the services of some young people in their homes or gardens?
    Mr. Viggers: We try hard to ensure that ACE funding goes to those groups that are in the best position to assist the kind of disadvantaged groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

    International Fund
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals and organisations have applied for funding from the international fund for Ireland; if he will list those approved with the amount granted in each case; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stanley: The international fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Details of applications for assistance and awards made are a matter for the board. A copy of the fund's press notice of 27 August detailing programme allocations totalling £47·9 million is in the Library.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied and certain —if not will he make himself certain—that no money from the fund reaches any paramilitary or terrorist organisation? I have in mind especially the seepage that tends to happen from industries such as the construction industry to such organisations through the evil and unacceptable method of the protection racket.
    Mr. Stanley: I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's sentiments. That important consideration exercises the chairman and the board members of the fund when they consider individual applications, which are, of course, carefully scrutinised from that standpoint.
    Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware that the European Community is willing to contribute to the fund and that it is simply awaiting encouragement from one member state—the British Government? Will he please give the Community that encouragement?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the background to that. This matter raises wider issues of the EEC budget. He is aware of the substantial contributions that have been made in the Province and the Republic by the EEC through infrastructure funds and in other ways.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's impertinent and raucous advice to the Americans about their domestic financial affairs is especially unfortunate because it provides some partial justification for the Americans in their arrogant and ignorant support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement through the fund?
    Mr. Stanley: The Government Front Bench and, I believe, many Conservative Back Benchers and many Opposition Members welcome the fact that by August this year the United States Government had made significant contributions to the international fund. That is an important testimony to the American Administration's commitment to the process of economic and social advancement and reconciliation in North and South.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference established by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: The last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference took place on 21 October. A joint statement was issued after the meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. As that records, the conference discussed a range of matters, including extradition, the administration of justice, cross-border security and economic co-operation and religious equality of opportunity in employment.
    Mr. Corbett: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply may I ask him to confirm that the barbaric events in Enniskillen underline the critical importance of the co-operation of the Irish Government in all areas, and that that is best achieved under the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he accept that many of us in the House wish to play our part in the parliamentary tier envisaged by that agreement? Will he advise us when action will be taken on that to open the door so that every hon. Member of the House can play a constructive role in that process?
    Mr. King: Those who consider the position today will recognise the vital importance of closer co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. There is great merit in closer understanding between hon. Members in this House and the Houses of Parliament of the Dail Eireann. However, it is for hon. Members of this House to decide the ways in which they want to achieve that.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: After two years, cannot Ministers be honest, humble and courageous enough to admit that the agreement has outraged most people in the
    544
    Province, including moderate people, without achieving its aims and that it should be reviewed, as is provided in the agreement? How can my right hon. Friend continue to treat Northern Ireland as a colonial condominium? Is riot the surest safeguard against any sectarian domination, of which the Social Democratic and Labour party speaks, to treat Northern Ireland as truly part of this Kingdom, under this one Parliament, because that is the surest guarantee of minority rights?
    Mr. King: I advise my hon. Friend, whose interest in such matters I greatly respect, that the slogans that address this matter are not the most helpful way forward. However, I congratulate him on being prepared to put forward ideas, sit down and discuss them. What Northern Ireland now needs, above all after the events of recent days, is leadership from the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland to consider whether there is some way in which we can work to find ways in which there could be improvements. There is a later question on the Order Paper in the answer to which I make it clear that, although the Government support the concept of devolution, there may be difficulties in the speed of progress that can be made towards it. Obviously there is a case for looking at whatever alternatives can be considered as well. What I hope we can say and what I hope is the message from the people of Northern Ireland to their elected representatives, is, "Let us start talking constructively about the way forward."
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is aware that I passionately support the cause of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, at a time when the two nations are, quite properly, determined to establish their separateness and their sovereignty, is there still a case for extending to the citizens of Southern Ireland so many privileges that are uniquely extended to them compared to other citizens of the European Community?
    Mr. King: Of all the problems and issues that we have at the moment, that is a particular area in which I would not propose to trespass. However, it is true to say that, as my hon. Friend is aware, the particular and unique privilege regarding voting has been reciprocated by the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that. in my constituency; the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not produced the smallest vestige of improved security? Does he recall that the murder of Corporal Thomas Hewitt occurred when a sniper from the Irish Republic killed that young soldier in Belleek? Will he also give a detailed account to the House of the circumstances surrounding the bomb at Tullyhommon, which was placed in an area where young people were assembling for a church parade? The bomb was intended to wipe out an entire generation of young people in the Tullyhommon area and the attempt to detonate it was made from a hill in the Irish Republic.
    Mr. King: In respect of the first illustration that the hon. Gentleman has given of the murder of a British service man at Belleek, he will be aware that the Garda Siochana subsequently arrested one person in the Republic who has now been charged, although not initially, with murder. Obviously, co-operation in such matters is extremely important to us. In respect of the second matter, I have made extremely clear my views on the outrage that

    545
    was attempted at Tullyhommon. The hon. Gentleman's account is accurate and I entirely share his feelings on that matter.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that is on the lips of the hundreds of people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are lobbying the House today? After two years of an agreement, the declared aims of which were to produce peace, stability and reconciliation, but which instead has increased the death toll, polarised the community and caused political and economic instability beyond that that we ever had before, when will the Secretary of State end the agony, bury the agreement and get a satisfactory alternative?
    Mr. King: The hon. Member talks as though the problems of Northern Ireland started two years ago. He knows perfectly well that the troubles of Northern Ireland and the terrorist campaigns go back very much longer than that. He knows very well that the scale of murders in Northern Ireland was vastly higher some years ago than even the existing appalling level, which I find quite unacceptable. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to the House, and as I have said to the elected politicians of Northern Ireland, that Ulster cannot just say no. Ulster must say yes to something. The hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in that matter, if I may say so—a responsibility which he and one or two others have sought to address. I hope that others will be willing to look constructively at constructive solutions.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that the continuance of the present divide in Northern Ireland will only result in hopelessness and cynicism about what is happening in mainland Britain concerning the Irish problem? Does he agree that the only way of dealing with the problem over the long period during which Ireland has been in this state has been through positive initiatives towards Ireland as a whole? The only way to soften the divide between the different parts of Ireland is to recognise it as an entity, so that we can move towards a proper unity of the Irish people and nation.
    Mr. King: If I understood that question correctly, I think that my answer is no.
    Rev. William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that none of the eleven people who died in the massacre at Enniskillen wanted to be associated with the Anglo-Irish Agreement? They did not die — [Interruption.] I know that, because I know that the people of Northern Ireland have completely rejected the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has brought nothing but death and destruction.
    Will the Secretary of State also take it from me that it is a tragedy that it took 2,500 people to die in Ulster before certain hon. Members were willing to condemn the IRA?
    Mr. King: It is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has introduced those elements of argument into a tragedy and outrage that has united people in condemnation. I do not know of his right to speak for every single individual in this. All of us who believe in democracy know that we shall stand united against terrorism. We are all determined on that course. It is the most united message that the House can give.
    Mr. McNamara: May I return to the issue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and say that if hon. Members did not
    546
    understand the Secretary of State's difficulties before, they will now, after the last supplementary question? We believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which they have been able to defy the bomber and the constitutional wrecker in maintaining the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We want it to go ahead and be extended to include not only security matters but others of economic and social importance for the benefit of all the people of Ireland. In many ways, the last declaration of the Anglo-Irish Conference was one of the most helpful and constructive that there has been for a long time.
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have made it clear to the House that the agreement is a sensible basis on which to co-operate in a number of matters of benefit to the people north and south of the border in the island of Ireland.

    Administration (Reform)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he is considering to enable the people of Northern Ireland to have a greater say in the administration of the Province.
    Mr. Tom King: While I believe that some form of devolved government would best meet the needs of Northern Ireland, the crucial test for any system is whether it can command widespread acceptance. I am willing, therefore, to consider any proposals that might pass that test.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming reaction to the massacre at Enniskillen is a feeling that unless the community is prepared to live under the shadow of the gunman and bomber indefinitely, it must find a way of working together? Earlier, my right hon. Friend referred to a new spirit. If he is to make something of that, is this not the moment for the Government to bring forward an initiative for some type of political forum in which the political parties in Northern Ireland could take part?
    Mr. King: I have made it clear that I would welcome discussions on any matters along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests. Whether it would he best for the Government to bring them forward, or whether others should seek to propose them and at a later stage the Government might become involved, is a matter for consideration. The events of recent days and weeks make clear the responsibility on all of us to see whether we can find a way in which that spirit of reconciliation that is echoing out of Enniskillen and other parts of Northern Ireland at this time can enable us to recognise our responsibility towards the people showing that spirit.

    Northern Ireland Economic Council (Report)
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council recently published and indicate what further action he intends to take to reduce the unemployment prospect facing Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: I welcome the constructive assessment contained in this report. Unemployment continues to be a problem, but, as shown by the figures published this morning, it is encouraging to note that for the past five

    547
    months the underlying trend of unemployment in Northern Ireland has been consistently downwards. The improvement shown in the monthly figures announced today was the biggest drop in the seasonally adjusted year-on-year numbers for 13 years.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Northern Ireland Economic Council recently forecast that in the coming years unemployment would increase in Northern Ireland? At 18·7 per cent. it is now the highest in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that those figures disguise the hidden unemployment, because of such special schemes as ACE and YTP, a prolific security industry and emigration? Does he further agree that recent Government action will exacerbate unemployment in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Viggers: It is of course true that many people are undergoing training on Government schemes. We are proud of that, not ashamed of it. Substantial new business investments are being made and more jobs are becoming available in areas of industry where Northern Ireland is a leader. This is good news and should promote more confidence that Northern Ireland is a good place in which to do business.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nelson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November 1987.
    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. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to welcome the decision by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the commendably swift report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission giving the go-ahead to the bid by British Airways for British Caledonian? Does she agree that such a merger is likely to be in the interests of both companies, their employees and customers, and that it is wholly consistent with the Government's competition policy? However, will she give an undertaking that if British Airways fails to comply with the conditions for competition the Government will not hesitate to refer British Airways back to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission worked with commendable speed and that the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been widely welcomed. I also agree that the merger is consistent with the Government's policy on competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals to be fully implemented. Assuming that the merger goes ahead, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken to report in a year to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about its implementation on the basis proposed.
    Mr. Kinnock: Are we to take it for granted that from now on the Government's policy on competition is the creation of private monopolies in gas, electricity and airlines, regardless of the interests of the consumer?
    The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the BCal-British Airways merger was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He is also aware that in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the MMC there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the merger. The right hon. Gentleman must await the Bill on electricity privatisation to see how that industry is to be privatised.
    Mr. Kinnock: The terms of reference of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are one thing; the Government's role as the ultimate safeguarder of the public interest is another. Will the Prime Minister answer the question? Is the future to be one of private monopolies, whereas previously she has been critical of public monopolies?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]. I will answer in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision taken on British Airways and British Caledonian. That is the meaning of his question. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must he given a chance to answer.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend took the decision to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission decided that the acquisition would not operate against the public interest and I have just informed the right hon. Gentleman that, in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the merger. Our competition policy remains. There are other powers under competition legislation if concerns arise in the future.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend spend a little time today looking at the latest unemployment figures, which show that for the 16th month in succession unemployment has fallen—to below 10 per cent.? Does she agree that, together with the steady growth in inflation, the steadiness in inflation and the value of the pound, the people of this country and abroad can rejoice in the strength of the British economy, which strength has come about through her Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The unemployment figures today are encouraging. Unemployment has now fallen by a record 445,000 over the past year, faster than in any other major industrialised country. Six years of economic growth show the wisdom of the Government's economic policies. Sound finance and British enterprise have produced the highest standard of living the country has ever known.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: In a week in which the House has experienced the sordid use of bought political influence, it has been announced that private companies, without any reference to their shareholders, donated more than £2·5 million to the Conservative party in 1986. Is it not time that the Government introduced legislation to provide that shareholders are balloted before companies make political contributions, or is this simply another case of where the Government's stated political principles come second to their political and private greed?
    The Prime Minister: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charge. The reason why Conservative Members supported the Felixstowe Bill is that Felixstowe is an excellent port. The Bill will help it to develop and it will be good for jobs, enterprise, exports, prosperity and the local people generally. No wonder the Labour party opposed it.
    Mr. Aitken: While warmly welcoming yesterday's surprise announcement that the Government now intend to reform the Official Secrets Act, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify whether her replacement legislation is likely to be a measure in the direction of greater liberalisation, or greater restriction?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said earlier this week, work has been in hand for some time to find effective enforceable and reasonable provisions to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. If, in the light of that work, we decide to bring forward further proposals for the reform, we shall announce our intentions in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend is conscious of the criticisms that have been levelled at the 1979 Bill. A great deal of work was done on that Bill. The Franks report was produced in the lifetime of the last Labour Government and that Government produced a White Paper. We brought forward the proposals then fashioned in the White Paper, but they did not find favour in the House. Therefore, we must be careful with the measures that we bring forward. They will be more restrictive than the present section 2. My hon. Friend did not need to ask a question to secure that reply.
    Mr. Steel: Presumably the Prime Minister did not mean to say that the legislation would be more restrictive.
    An Hon. Member: That is what the right hon. Lady said.
    Mr. Steel: I know that is what the Prime Minister said, but presumably it is not what she meant. Presumably it will not be more restrictive than section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Will the right hon. Lady support the private Member's Bill being introduced by her hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to repeal section 2?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Should we decide to bring forward a new section 2, it will be less restrictive than the present section 2, for obvious reasons. Indeed, so was the clause brought forward in 1979, which was rejected, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. A great deal of work had been done by both sides of the House then and it was thought to be a virtually agreed measure, but it did not turn out to be so.
    Mr. Barry Field: In view of the imputations against my right hon. Friend over her support of yesterday's business,
    550
    does she agree that it is remarkable that the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society spent £10,000 on the London Labour party—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will explain afterwards why that is not in order.
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister take time to read early-day motion 96 about speech therapists, which has been signed by 222 hon. Members belonging to all parties? Will she note that the motion draws attention to the grave shortage of speech therapists and their low salaries compared with those of other graduate professions? Will she, as a woman and as Prime Minister, support speech therapists, who are predominantly a female profession, in their efforts to obtain equal pay for work of equal value compared to that of other graduate professions in the National Health Service, which are mainly male?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, I shall read the motion. On pay, my recollection, subject to checking, is that speech therapists stayed outside the professions supplementary to medicine being referred to the review body on pay.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to send a message to the Customs service and to the Dutch authorities to congratulate them on their success in discovering the £51 million haul of drugs this week?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, gladly, both to the Customs officers, who are delighted with the haul, and to the Dutch authorities, on their efficiency. The drug seizure was double the total amount seized in Britain in the whole of last year. That is very good news and we gladly give congratulations to all concerned in the seizure.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eastham: Does the right hon. Lady recall the statement that she made to the House last week in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), when she claimed that funding for the National Health Service had been transferred, thus improving the service in the north? May I draw to her attention the fact that in Manchester royal eye hospital old people aged 78 and 80 are waiting 60 weeks for their first appointments and up to two years for cataract operations? How does the Prime Minister square that with the statement she made last week?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that under the reallocation of health resources more has been allocated outside London to help other hospitals. I have

    551
    visited many new hospitals which have come about as a result. He is also aware that far more cataract operations are undertaken now than there were eight years ago. It is hoped that under the waiting list provision that improvement will continue.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that millions of people throughout the country will have welcomed the fact that the Licensing Bill received its Second Reading last week? No doubt quite a few hon. Members in the House will have welcomed that as well. Does she agree that that is one more successful step down the path of deregulation, and that removing the obstacles and burdens from both large and small firms is the best way to get them to grow and create the new jobs that we all need?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the passage of the Licensing Bill to its Second Reading and I hope that it will complete all its stages without any hitches.
    Mr. Mallon: Noting the resolve of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic to bring to justice those who planted the bomb in Enniskillen, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that no one should use the terrible suffering of those people of Enniskillen for political reasons? Does she further agree that the job of politics in the north of Ireland now is to translate the humanity, compassion and forgiveness of the relatives of people who have suffered in Enniskillen into politics in the north of Ireland for the betterment of all the people there?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the brave and noble reaction of the people of Enniskillen has had a profound effect on all who witnessed it. The people of Enniskillen have no time for hate, only for dignity and help. Now is the time for co-operation between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, that is, those who reject violence. They must come together to make a new move forward.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: 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. Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER — Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.
Motions on Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Failure of the Government to Provide Adequately for the Transport Needs of the Nation."
Motion relating to the Education (Governing Bodies of Institutions of Further Education) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Debate on a Government motion to take note of the White Papers on Developments in the European Community July-December 1986 (CM.122) and January-June 1987 (CM.205) and EC documents relating to the future financing of the Community. Details of the EC documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Family Credit (General) Regulations.
THURSDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Motion on the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations.
FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (4th AllottedDay). The debate will arise on a motion in the name of the Leader of the Liberal party. Subject for debate to be announced.
[Debate on Monday 16 November 1987

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1837)

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1888)

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 5) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1894)

Debate on Wednesday 18 November

Relevant European Documents:

(a) COM(87) 100

Future policies in light of Single European Act

(b) COM(87) 101

Future financing of the Community Budget

(c) 8248/87

Budgetary Discipline

(d) 8249/87

Own Resources

(e) 8251/87

Reform of structural funds

(f) 8087/87

Amendment to Financial Regulation

(g) 8940/87

Third Amendment to Financial Regulation

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 22-xvii ( 1986–87), para 6

HC 22-xx (1986–87), para 2

(b) HC 22-xix ( 1986–87), para 1

(c) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 3

(d) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 3

(e) HC 43-v ( 1987–88), para 15

(f) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 15]

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to ask the Leader of the House three
554
specific questions. First, he will recall that the Government have taken a decision to deny unemployment benefit for six months to employees who it is said have left their jobs unreasonably. Should not a statement on that subject have been made to the House? Will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House next week justifying that petty and vindictive act?
Secondly, when is the House likely to debate the Autumn Statement? Must we wait for the constitution of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and then for the Committee to consider the Autumn Statement? The Opposition believe that we should debate it more speedily than that.
Thirdly, with regard to the section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, the only thing that became clear during the Prime Minister's comments today concerned the prospects of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) ever receiving a knighthood. We need to know the Government's intentions on that Act. May we be assured that there will be no press leaks and that the Prime Minister, or whoever is lucky enough to have responsibility for the subject, will come to the House as soon as a decision is finally made and tell the House, rather than tell the newspapers as happened earlier this week?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman asked me three specific questions. On the regulations concerning voluntary unemployment, the benefit sanctions are intended to discourage people from leaving jobs without good reason. The House will have ample opportunity to debate these changes, which require an affirmative order and regulations. Therefore, I see no need for a statement to be made next week.
With regard to the Autumn Statement, it would be obviously to the benefit of hon. Members if the House could have the advice of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee before it debates the matter, but I recognise the need to get on with it. I give a clear undertaking that the debate on the Autumn Statement will be before the Christmas recess.
With regard to Official Secrets Act 1911, I cannot say other than that work is going on. A statement will be made to the House as soon as a decision is made.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great difficulties if the Select Committees are not set up by next week, not least in the context of the Autumn Statement that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned? Will he make sure that time is available to ensure that that occurs in the course of proceedings next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. I note that the recommendations of the Committee on selection are on the Order Paper, but they were blocked. It will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee to determine when he would like them brought before the House again.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will be aware that NIREX issued a discussion document today on the disposal of radioactive waste. Given the concern of many hon. Members about the issue and the fact that NIREX wants a wide discussion on it, will the Government provide time to discuss the matter in the House?

555
Secondly, does the Leader of the House agree that, given the support yesterday by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the B-Cal-BA merger and the apparent opposition to it by the Leader of the Opposition, a debate would be useful to elucidate the Labour party's position?
Mr. Wakeham: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question seems to be a subject that could well form part of next Tuesday's transport debate.
Responsibility for identifying a suitable method of and location for a disposal facility rests with NIREX. Its consultation exercise began today with the publication of a discussion paper. Hon. Members are encouraged to read that paper and comment to NIREX. It would be better to await the outcome of the consultation exercise and see what proposals NIREX brings forward before considering a debate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the imminence of the Eurotunnel share offer, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes an early statement to assure us that the welcome and repeated assurances about Government finance for the tunnel will not be undermined by the Bank of England, which is an arm of Government, using cash in its control to invest in the project?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that at a late hour during Tuesday's sitting I did not give my hon. Friend a full answer to the question that he asked in slightly different terms. There is no intention to use either the issue department or the banking department of the Bank of England to buy equity share capital in Eurotunnel. I shall refer my hon. Friend's interest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House accept that all hon. Members greatly appreciate the courtesy shown to the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in making a statement today on the European Space Agency, despite the dislocation of business yesterday? Will he accept that that only highlights the discourtesy to the House of the lack of a statement on Scottish Homes by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland to come forward next week and show some courtesy to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept that criticism. The Secretary of State was willing to make a statement to mark the publication of the White Paper. However, the date of publication having passed, there is no urgent need for discussion. Opportunities for full discussion will arise during the debates on the proposed legislation.
Mr. Michael Latham: Bearing in mind the importance of the Housing Bill to the Government's housing policy, does my right hon. Friend expect it to he published next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give my hon. Friend a firm undertaking, but the Bill will be published shortly.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: With regard to next Wednesday's business will the Leader of the House consider providing separate debates for the retrospective consideration of White Papers and the prospective consideration of future financing? In that regard, is he aware that the proposals for Britain's rebate payments,
556
which will replace the Fontainebleau formula negotiated by the Prime Minister, have been outlined in Commission document 101? I have it on good authority that the document was published yesterday in Brussels. Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that that document is before the House during the debate on Wednesday?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of and interest in these matters, but I cannot give him the undertaking that he requires. If by chance he and I should have a discussion about these matters later today, we will be able to discuss the matter in more detail.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: For the third successive week may I raise the subject of haemophiliac AIDS victims? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sympathy and understanding that he showed last week was greatly appreciated and gave considerable encouragement to those outside as well as inside the House? May we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services next week? If the Government were to respond to the needs of these people and their reasonable requests, that would be warmly welcomed.
Mr. Wakeham: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that we will deal with the matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing horror at the events of a few hours ago in my constituency, with the death of one man, and possibly others? Does he agree that everything possible should he done to bring the culprits to book and that nothing should stand in the way of the efforts of the police to achieve that end? The local community and others should be cautioned against jumping the gun or leaping to premature conclusions.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the House shares those sentiments. May I say how much we appreciate the leadership that the hon. Gentleman has shown for many years in trying to maintain understanding between the communities in his constituency.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As it is absolutely clear that there is no point in the Chairman of the Selection Committee retabling the motion to set up the Select Committees unless and until the Government give time for that above the line on the Order Paper, to prevent automatic blocking, when is my right hon. Friend going to give time that will enable the Chairman of the Selection Committee to take effective rather than nominal action for the setting up of the Select Committees?
Mr. Wakeham: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection will not find me wanting. As soon as he feels that he has a reasonable chance of resolving these matters I shall act, because I am as anxious as he is to get on with setting up the Committees.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that in August I wrote to him about the allocation of money to opposition parties, particularly the problem that he has in the allocation of that money to the SDP? Is he aware that the allocation is based on the number of Members of Parliament returned, together with a sum of money allocated on the basis of the number of people who cast votes at the general election preceding the allocation of the money? As we have not one, but possibly

557
two SDP parties, how will he allocate the money? If a rump of SDP supporters form a mutation and choose a new leader in the House, as is likely, who will receive the £62,000? Will it go to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who supposedly leads the authentic section of the SDP, or will it go to the provisional wing, which is represented in Sainsbury's supermarkets?
Mr. Wakeham: I well remember the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent me, which was written in his own fair hand. I hope that he will allow me to keep it among my souvenirs for my later life. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's letter posed problems rather than gave me solutions to problems. I assure him that before too long there will be an opportunity for him to give the House an insight into his thinking on the matter.
Mr. James Kilfedder: May we have a debate as soon as possible on the Anglo-Irish Agreement so that we may talk about extending it to the whole of the United Kingdom, as there are more nationals of the Irish Republic living in England than in the whole of Northern Ireland? We could discuss, too, all those who have fled from the Republic to benefit from the social services in England, as well as those who have come here to seek divorce, abortion or contraceptives. Finally, we should give the Opposition representatives of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland the opportunity to come out unequivocally in full support of the members of the security forces, the soldiers and the police, who daily face death to protect everyone in the community from the gunmen.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the feelings and the concern of many hon. Members on these matters. However, at the moment we should be very careful about having a debate that might exacerbate differences rather than heal them. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to get his views before I come forward with proposals.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study early-day motion 214 on the environmental consequences of the Grande Carajas project in Brazil?
[That this House is concerned that the Grande Carajas project in Brazil is environmentally damaging and disastrous for the indigenous people of the area; welcomes the recent report from Survival International which describes the devastating effects of the scheme; calls on Her Majesty's Government to support the proposals outlined in the report; and demands that Her Majesty's Government use its influence to stop the use of EEC and World Bank profits to finance projects that are environmentally damaging to the eco-system of the Amazon rain forests.]
Will the Leader of the House ensure that in the near future the House has an opportunity to discuss the British Government's attitude to the world debt crisis, their funding through the World Bank and the EEC of environmentally damaging projects such as the Grande Carajas project, and the damage that is being done to the economies of many Latin American countries by the imposition of totally unsuitable economic models upon those countries?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is looking into the matters raised in Survival International's report and will write to that body in due course.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: While Northern Ireland is without a devolved administration, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs along the lines of the Scottish Affairs Committee? What would be the procedure for creating such a Select Committee, which would be a precedent?
Mr. Wakeham: It would be easier to deal with the procedure than to get everyone to agree that the move was worth while. I have given some thought to the matter, but I do not believe that it would be right to take such a step at present. However, these matters are constantly under review.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Given that the NIR EX report makes Scotland the prime target to be used as a dumping-ground for nuclear waste, will the Leader of the House reconsider his previous answer and allow a debate so that urgent and proper consideration can be given to this very important matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I have to say that the report only confirms the wisdom of my original answer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report more carefully.
Sir Anthony Grant: Following an earlier question, will my right hon. Friend spare a thought for the people of Scotland, who have been unable to get their questions answered this week because of the incompetence and disunity of the Opposition? Might not that be rectified by an extra Supply day for a debate entitled failure of the Opposition to conduct its affairs in such a way as to give proper representation to the people of Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me, but today is not a day for raking over yesterday's business. Scottish Opposition Members should concentrate hard to decide whether three of them are prepared to serve on the Select Committee, because we lack them at the moment.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave last week about a debate on the future of the construction industry? The right hon. Gentleman said that we could discuss it during a debate on proposals for the housing industry. Housing is just one part of the construction industry. It is a large industry, the largest in the country. On that basis, and with all the growing problems, such as the growth of lump labour, the fact that more and more people are being killed and injured every year, the continuity of employment, and so on, is it not important that we should have a debate on the industry as a whole and not use other Bills and other issues within the industry to try to discuss the whole matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman last week was not entirely satisfactory, for the reasons that he has just given. However, it was the best answer that I could offer him at the time. I am afraid that there are many calls on the time of the House, and although I shall bear the matter in mind, I cannot promise a debate immediately.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend say that in the week after 1 December the Government will provide an opportunity for a full debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, so that the House may have the advantage of considering any debate in the Dail on the extradition proposals, and so that the Government may have an opportunity to explain, in the light of two years' experience, how they see the agreement?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject, but I do not think that I can add to the answer that I gave earlier.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am somewhat dismayed by the right hon. Gentleman's response to the two questions that he has been asked on the NIREX document. He seems to be saying that the standards for the discussion in the House will be set by the contents of the document. Will the Leader of the House take it from me that the document is incomplete? It makes no reference to the most reasonable proposition, namely, engineered storage at the surface on the site at which it originates, where it can be managed, redeemed, monitored and repackaged if necessary. The Leader of the House, of all people, must know that that subject can have grievous consequences at election times. Will he give the House the assurance that the subject will be discussed at an early date, that it will be a full debate and that it will not be in any way decisive in imposing the decision upon the people of this country?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add to the answer that I have given, except to suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends to see whether he can obtain assistance from them.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the important environmental and conservation issues raised during the passage of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, particularly the Labour party's concern for the over-protected species, the greater registered dockworker? May we have an early debate on the operation of the dock labour scheme in general, especially the desire of the other ports in this country to be free of the scheme and to recruit more workers?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask whether we could have a debate on redshanks, waders and other matters. I would be able to tell him that I would welcome that, because I have been a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for 40 years. I have not been a member of the dock labour scheme, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on his deplorable decision not to initiate prosecution proceedings against the perpetrators of the offensive, racist and lying document entitled "Holocaust News", which has been circulated, not only widely in my constituency but, I believe, to every hon. Member? Will he at least seek to confirm that there must be some law in the land to prevent that sort of offence from being given by way of political pornography of the worst and most vile sort?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern in these matters, and I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. Barry Porter: My right hon. Friend may recall that in distant days we used to have debates on the English regions, usually in Government time. In years gone by I could never understand why the Government allowed that time, for obvious reasons. Now that times are better, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the north-west region so that we can say how well we have done and how much better we intend to do in the future?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a very good idea, but I cannot promise a debate at the moment. If my hon. Friend has the opportunity to take part, however, that would encourage me to look further at such a possibility.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on commercial lobbying interests, particularly in view of the stench of financial inducement to vote in a particular way that we have observed over the past few days, which represents merely the tip of the iceberg of commercial lobbying in this place? Will he also make a statement on the timeshare developers' association involving Barratt, Costain and Wimpey, which have no doubt contributed to Tory party funds, using this place for the purposes of an exhibition and providing further drinks for Members on the Terrace? Is it not pretty appalling that the House of Commons seems to have been handed over to the financial supporters of the Tory party at the whim of the Government in office?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept many of the hon. Gentleman's allegations. However, I consider it right that we should get on and deal with the question of the Register of Members' Interests. It is for the Select Committee on Members' Interests to decide when to lay the Register before the House. I understand that the Committee has not yet done that, because some hon. Members on both sides of the House have not yet registered. The Committee feels that a delay of a week or two may enable a complete Register to be placed before the House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: While it could be said to be a bit savage and uncharitable to kick a suicidal institution in a sensitive area, may we have a debate on the Church of England? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he considers it right to sustain a Bench of Bishops in the other place for as long as the Church continues to fudge and funk fundamental biblical and moral issues?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend will no doubt continue to put his point of view in his own special way, but I must tell him that the Church of England and the Synod are an important element in the setting of moral standards in our society. I am sure that they will take that into account when reaching any decisions that they may make.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to discuss the newly established office in London of the South African coal industry, and will he allow the House time to discuss what involvement the director of that office, a Mr. Robert Swain, has with Government Departments, in view of his known links with the South African secret service and alleged links with the British secret service?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall not arrange for such a debate next week, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the matter I shall find out whether there is any Government responsibility.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as my constituency is near both Heathrow and Gatwick airports, a substantial number of my constituents work for British Airways and British Caledonian? They welcome the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government's response to it. However, many others work for small airlines and they have a sizeable and legitimate interest in obtaining access to routes and slots, as discussed in that report. May we have a proper, full debate on the report as soon as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: If that is a trailer for the speech for which my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in next Tuesday's transport debate, I for one shall try to come and listen to it.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Leader of the House aware that Councillor Neil Powrie, the leader of the Conservative opposition on Dundee district council, is at present on a visit to South Africa as the official guest of the South African Government? Is he also aware that Councillor Powrie will be having discussions with the National and Conservative parties in South Africa, thereby lending credibility to the perpetrators of an evil and inhuman system? Given the press report this morning that Foreign Office representatives are having discussions with the ANC later this week, does Councillor Powrie's visit represent a change of policy on the Government's part? Do the Government support Councillor Powrie's visit to South Africa?
Mr. Wakeham: There has been no change in Government policy. I cannot comment on the Councillor's visit.
Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 281?
[That this House expresses its grave concern at the allegations made in the Scottish Television programme dealing with the financial affairs of Dundee Labour clubs and the Dundee Labour Party and a number of individuals who were named in the programme and who were active in public affairs in Dundee during the period when substantial financial losses were incurred by the Dundee Labour clubs, and calls upon the Government and the law officers to report at an early date on the effect the financial losses have had on Dundee District Council's rent and rates collection.]
If so, may we have an early opportunity to debate its contents, which relate to a television programme that was shown in Scotland concerning the affairs of Dundee district council and the Labour party in Dundee ; allegations that large sums of money have disappeared, and that, indeed, there have been acts of homosexuality?
Four hon. Members were named in the programme —the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and if—
Mr. Frank Dobson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that was an unacceptable slur on the hon. Members involved.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) wishes to reflect on the conduct of any hon. Member, he must do so on a motion.
Mr. Walker rose—
Mr. Wakeham rose—
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was a most clear innuendo—if there is such a thing— against four of my hon. Friends. I put it to you that things have been said by Labour Members that have led to you demanding that they be withdrawn, and they have either been withdrawn or the hon. Member has been asked to leave the Chamber.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I agree. I think that it would be right for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to withdraw what he said.
Mr. Walker: I never completed my sentence, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. Speaker rose—
Mr. Walker: Please, Mr. Speaker, this is fundamental. I am trying to defend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman complete his sentence by withdrawing any allegation about any hon. Member.
Mr. Walker: I am making no allegation, Mr. Speaker.I want to make that quite clear. I am not making an allegation. Two of those hon. Members are friends of mine. The remarks were made in a television programme that was seen throughout Scotland, and those hon. Members have two courses by which to clear their names —one is in this place, where we have an opportunity to raise such matters, and the other is through legal action. I am trying to help them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr. Wakeham: Would it be in order for me to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), because these are important matters? The Government's view on the need to strengthen local government accountability for its financial behaviour is well known. By their actions they will continue to press for that accountability to be the subject of the voting judgment of those electors it affects.
Hon. Members: "Disgraceful."
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Please sit down.
Despite what the hon. Member for Tayside, North has said, I have not seen the programme, but I note that the thrust of his question was an allegation against hon. Members of the House. I ask him now, please, to withdraw that.
Mr. Walker: If I have made any allegations against the integrity of any Member of the House, I withdraw them without hesitation. However, I was not making any allegation. I was referring to them in the context of the programme.
Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman if he would withdraw any allegation without any qualification.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the aftermath of yesterday, and with exchanges such as this today, let me say that the reputation of our House of Commons is in the mouths, actions and behaviour of hon. Members. What went on yesterday. and matters of this kind in the House, bring the House into grave disrepute. I hope that we will give a lead to the nation by our good behaviour in this place and by good standards. That was not a full withdrawal of his comments, so will the hon. Member for Tayside, North now withdraw them unreservedly?
Mr. Walker: I unhesitatingly—I mean unhesitatingly — withdraw. I said earlier that two of the Members named are friends of mine. They may be on the Opposition Benches, but they are friends.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Friendships span across the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has unreservedly withdrawn his comment, and I accept that.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to go on. The hon. Gentleman has now apparently withdrawn the accusation that he was making against four of my hon. Friends, but what perturbs me just as much —it is related to my previous point of order—is that the Leader of the House came to the House prepared to answer that very question, which was out of order. It is outrageous that he should have come so prepared.
Mr. Wakeham rose—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take any points of order that may arise on this after questions. Who was next?
Mr. Jeff Rooker: May we have a statement next week from any Minister with responsibility for health on why last weekend, at less than 24 hours' notice, half the beds in the cardiac unit of the children's hospital in Birmingham were closed, causing massive anguish to parents throughout the west midlands this week? Babies less than a week old had to queue up for operations, which were then suspended because the beds had been closed. Such action surely demands some kind of ministerial statement.
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, anything of that sort is greatly distressing to everybody on both sides of the House. Operationally, it is a matter for those who are dealing with the services locally. It is not directly a matter for the Minister for Health. If there is any way in which he can help he will do so, and I shall refer the matter to him, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget the substantial increase of funding of the Health Service that was announced recently — a £2·8 billion cash injection into the Health Service in the next four years, the biggest increase that has ever been announced.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House should have a chance to debate the claims that Vanessa Redgrave and other CND members financed the operation to spring the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on that matter, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can find a way of raising it.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Further to the unsatisfactory answer that the Leader of the House gave me last night, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, (Mr. Douglas) a short while ago, does he accept that there is now every need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the Government's proposals for Scottish Homes? Does he not realise that the proposals will mean substantial rent rises for many Scottish people? As Scottish business was squeezed out yesterday, mainly at the Government's behest, and as there appears to be an interest in Scotland on both sides of the House, even from unexpected quarters, will he now get the Secretary of State to make a statement on Scottish Homes next week?
Mr. Wakeham: Of course, prolonged filibusters, from wherever they come, cause difficulties for all of us. I was here through the night and I witnessed from where the filibustering came, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: May I ask—
Mr. Speaker: Let us have Mr. Holt first.
Mr. Dickens: I give way.
Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to note that there is great disappointment in the country that this Parliament has not debated capital punishment and it is time that we had a debate on that, particularly in the light of what happened last week?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern and, as I have said previously, I have no doubt that there will be a debate on capital punishment when the Criminal Justice Bill comes from another place.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 282 about the crisis in the NHS in Halifax?
[That this House condemns the Government's inadequate funding of the National Health Service, whkich has led to a financial crisis in Halifax resulting in the district health authority taking a decision to implement £½ million cuts; notes that these cuts will lead to: (a) the premature closure of Faldon Hospital for the Mentally Handicapped, (b) the closure of a gynaecology ward and (c) the closure of an acute psychiatric ward; and believes that these measures will lead, inevitably, to an increase in waiting lists and a serious deterioration in the service provided to the people of Halifax.]
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's previous remarks, will he allow time for a debate and explain to us why, if all that money has been spent on the NHS. we are facing yet another £500,000 worth of cuts, which will lead to the closure of a hospital for the mentally-handicapped, and a gynaecology and a mental illness ward? Why, when there is such a crisis in caring for the mentally ill in Halifax, and when the health advisory service has condemned the care of the mentally ill in Halifax, is another ward to be closed for purely budgetary reasons? May we have time for a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: The Chancellor's recent announcement on 3 November on the spending plans for the NHS in 1988–89 showed a 1·7 per cent. real increase over 1987–88 levels and a 32 per cent. real increase over 1978–79 levels. Health authorities, like other organisations, are required

565
to work within their budgets. Measures recently announced by the Calderdale health authority will not affect the overall level of service provided to patients. Faldon hospital's case represents only the earlier implementation of the plans contained in its longer-term strategy.
Mr. Dickens: Following the debate in the Church of England Synod this week and the helpful advice that we have received in this honourable House on occasions from bishops, will my right hon. Friend make some time available for a debate on the future of the Church of England, so that we can call on the Church to purge its pulpits of homosexual vicars, many of whom have proved to be a danger to children?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and of other hon. Members. However, I am afraid that I cannot offer any Government time in the near future.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have lost my voice, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)? Does he recall that on the last occasion that NIREX made recommendations they failed, there was a row, and the Minister and, indeed, the Leader of the House, had to be rescued before the general election? We do not want that to happen again. May we have a debate on these matters prior to the recommendations being made?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has lost his voice, but I am not sure that my sympathy is shared by everybody in the House. However, he seems to have lost his memory also, because my recollection of events is different from the one that he has recounted to the House.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend please take note of the Eurotunnel share advertisements, which suggest that a number of free journeys across the English channel may be obtained by the buyers of certain numbers of shares? Will he draw that to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that an early statement can be made to the effect that such free offers on journeys would be a benefit received by shareholders and would be assessable to income tax? In consequence, the offer may seem less attractive, and investors should be fully informed of that when the prospectus is published.
Mr. Wakeham: The question of any prospectus and the terms in which it is couched are fully covered in our statute law. Eurotunnel is a private consortium that takes its own decisions. I do not believe that there is any responsibility on me to tell the House that it can get on with it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of your concern, Mr. Speaker, about standards in the House being in grave disrepute, and because standards start at the top, has the Leader of the House noticed the following early-day motions : No. 228.
[That this House notes in the hook, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in
566
fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair].
No. 253,
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party, we did.' and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
No. 272,
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. … He ( Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her ( Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.
No. 273,
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years— A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he ( Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
No. 286,
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She

567
was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Britian and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity next week for the Prime Minister to explain to the House why she told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 January that she did not know about the role of her then Trade Secretary until the inquiry had reported'? Will she confirm that Mr. Charles Powell did, indeed, keep her fully informed? Will she explain why, for the protection of her position as Prime Minister, and in order to remain in Downing street, she told the House a necessary and indispensable lie?
Mr. Wakeham rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that last comment.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of being economical with the truth. It is a question of—
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a perfectly correct preamble on his and my concern about standards in this House. Will he please withdraw that statement?
Mr. Dalyell: Good standards start at the top.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the point. Will the hon. Gentleman please unreservedly withdraw that statement?
Mr. Dalyell: I must make my position quite clear. I believe that the real affront has been to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have some memory of this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his comment about the Prime Minister?
Mr. Dalyell: Having been here for 25 years, I believe that the real affront is to the House of Commons and that it will damage its standing with the public.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman one more chance. I have some memory of this matter and I am sorry that this has surfaced again today. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the comment about the Prime Minister?
Mr. Dalyell: I must make it clear that if I had been going to withdraw it I would not have said it in the first place. I really mean it.
Mr. Speaker: Well, in that case the hon. Gentleman puts me in an extremely difficult position. I shall be forced to name him unless he will withdraw that comment.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not withdraw it. I believe that it is quite clear that I set out in the debate on the Defence Committee reports on Wednesday of the week before last—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I name Mr. Tam Dalyell for persistent disobedience of the Chair.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Watley, East)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Wakeham]
Several Hon. Members rose—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. HefferOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that when a Member has been named in the House and the Government have moved the motion, we are allowed to debate it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The Question must be put forthwith, as I have done.
The House having divided: Ayes 220, Noes 102.

Division No. 68]

[4.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Aitken, Jonathan

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Derek

Allason, Rupert

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Amos, Alan

Fox, Sir Marcus

Arbuthnot, James

French, Douglas

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gardiner, George

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Ashby, David

Gill, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Baldry, Tony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Batiste, Spencer

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Beith, A. J.

Gorst, John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Benyon, W.

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Boswell, Tim

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bottomley, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hannam, John

Bowis, John

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Harris, David

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Hayes, Jerry

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hayward, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Heddle, John

Butcher, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Butler, Chris

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hind, Kenneth

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Holt, Richard

Carrington, Matthew

Howard, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Cartwright, John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Chapman, Sydney

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Chope, Christopher

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Churchill, Mr

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Irvine, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Janman, Timothy

Cormack, Patrick

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Couchman, James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Cran, James

Key, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Kilfedder, James

Curry, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Day, Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Devlin, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knapman, Roger

Dicks, Terry

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dobson, Frank

Knowles, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Latham, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fallon, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Farr, Sir John

Lightbown, David

Fearn, Ronald

Lilley, Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Livsey, Richard

569

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lord, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sims, Roger

Maclean, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Speed, Keith

Mans, Keith

Speller, Tony

Marlow, Tony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Squire, Robin

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maude, Hon Francis

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stern, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stevens, Lewis

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mills, lain

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sumberg, David

Moore, Rt Hon John

Summerson, Hugo

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Needham, Richard

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Neubert, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Newton, Tony

Thorne, Neil

Nicholls, Patrick

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thurnham, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Paice, James

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Patnick, Irvine

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wallace, James

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Walters, Dennis

Portillo, Michael

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Price, Sir David

Warren, Kenneth

Raffan, Keith

Watts, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, John

Wheeler, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wiggin, Jerry

Riddick, Graham

Wilshire, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Winterton, Nicholas

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wood, Timothy

Rost, Peter

Woodcock, Mike

Rowe, Andrew

Yeo, Tim

Ryder, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Scott, Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Alan Howarth.

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Callaghan, Jim

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clay, Bob

Barron, Kevin

Clelland, David

Battle, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boateng, Paul

Cousins, Jim

Bradley, Keith

Cummings, J.

Caborn, Richard

Cunliffe, Lawrence

570

Dalyell, Tam

McKay, Allen (Pemstone)

Darling, Alastair

McLeish, Henry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Doran, Frank

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Martlew, Eric

Dunnachie, James

Meale, Alan

Eastham, Ken

Michael, Alun

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Faulds, Andrew

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Morgan, Rhodri

Fisher, Mark

Morley, Elliott

Flannery, Martin

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Flynn, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

O'Brien, William

Galloway, George

Patchett, Terry

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Golding, Mrs Llin

Quin, Ms Joyce

Graham, Thomas

Reid, John

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hardy, Peter

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Heffer, Eric S.

Sedgemore, Brian

Hinchliffe, David

Sheerman, Barry

Holland, Stuart

Steinberg, Gerald

Home Robertson, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hood, James

Turner, Dennis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Vaz, Keith

Hoyle, Doug

Wall, Pat

Illsley, Eric

Walley, Ms Joan

Ingram, Adam

Wareing, Robert N.

Janner, Greville

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wilson, Brian

Litherland, Robert

Winnick, David

Livingstone, Ken

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Worthington, Anthony

Loyden, Eddie

Wray, James

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

McCartney, Ian

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner

Macdonald, Calum

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to that vote.
Mr. Speaker: There can be no point of order.
Ordered,
That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be wise to get on with the statement.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I sense that the mood of the House is that we should get on with the statement.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statement.

European Space Agency
4.27 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the European Space Agency council meeting that I attended at The Hague on 9–10 November.
The 13 European Space Agency member states met to discuss wide-ranging proposals for the agency's future development. This was the first ministerial meeting since the council in Rome in 1985 when members agreed on a blanced long-term plan for the next decade with the aim of moving by measured stages towards a wider European space capability. We have since underlined our commitment to ESA by the significant increased funding we have provided—no less than £85 million this year alone.
Since the Rome ministerial meeting, our commitment to European co-operation in space has not changed. What has changed, however, is the scale of ESA's aspirations. Overall, the total cost of the proposals put to us at The Hague would increase spending on space by more than two and half times over the next five years. For the United Kingdom, agreement to those programmes would have meant an increase to more than £200 million — the equivalent of more than a dozen new NHS hospitals— every year from now on.
Our objection is, however, not solely that the bill is so huge. We recognise that space research is expensive, but we cannot see sufficient scientific, industrial or commercial benefits to justify such a huge increase. My approach at the council was therefore to press for a reassessment of priorities under present-day conditions, and to develop a strategy designed to achieve worthwhile aims which would yield solid and worthwhile returns.
Three major new optional programmes were presented by ESA: Ariane 5, a new heavy-lift launcher capable of putting three satellites into orbit; Columbus, the European involvement in the international space station project; and, at French insistence particularly, the Hermes manned spaceplane. I made it clear at the outset, as we had done in the preparation for the meeting, that I could not endorse the grandiose ambitions of the Hermes programme to put man in space by the year 2000. At enormous expense this would only achieve capabilities which the United States had achieved 20 years previously. There was considerable sympathy for my view from a number of other member states and it remains to be seen whether they will formally sign up to the programme in its entirety. At the moment, only six countries out of 13 have firmly committed themselves to making a contribution to the first phase of development.
On the Columbus space station programme, there has been no satisfactory conclusion yet to negotiations with the Americans about European participation. I declined to agree to proposals that Europe should in any event go ahead with a separate and autonomous version of the Columbus programme if agreement with the United States could not be reached. I said that we would consider further the proposal for a polar platform associated with Columbus, which would be an unmanned space vehicle, primarily for earth observation, that would be complementary to a similar United States platform. Our final position on that will depend on further discussions I shall
572
be holding with United Kingdom companies about the financial contribution they would be prepared to make to ensure their participation either in contracts to which they attach significance or as users of the platform.
My approach to the Ariane 5 launcher proposal was that emphasis should be given to ensuring that the European Space Agency has a fully commercial launch capability—for satellites, in particular. It is important to give European industry ready access to a launcher for telecommunications and other satellites. Again, however, I had to question the increase that some other members wanted solely in order for Ariane 5 to be man-rated, and to enable it to launch spaceships as well as satellites.
The European Space Agency executive also brought forward proposals for increases in the mandatory science and general budgets, which had already enjoyed major increases since the Rome ministerial meeting. The science budget will have increased by about 27 per cent in real terms—over and above inflation—between 1985 and 1989. The European Space Agency proposed a further increase of 5 per cent. per annum in real terms up until 1992. Professor Bill Mitchell, the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council. and I had to make it clear that there could be no justification for such a proposal. In our opinion, the European Space Agency could and should achieve the agreed scientific objectives within the currently agreed funding level. I could therefore not endorse the proposed increase.
Throughout the proceedings, I emphasised the need to take a fresh look at some of the new and hugely expensive European Space Agency proposals, which largely derive from a new desire to follow the Americans into manned space craft. I confirmed our substantial support for those parts of the established programme that gave due weight to industrial, economic, commercial and scientific considerations. I also argued for greater involvement of industry and users in the planning and financing of programmes. There was support from other Ministers for these aims, several of which were incorporated in the final Council resolution.
The United Kingdom remains one of the major participants in European space programmes. We have a budget of more than £110 million a year, and we shall continue to ensure that it is used as effectively as possilble. We shall continue to play a constructive role with our European partners, and I shall be holding meetings with United Kingdom companies to see how that can best be achieved.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Will the Minister accept that what we have just heard is not so much a statement, more an admission of failure? First, it is an admission of political failure because, even in terms of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own stated objectives, he completely failed to bring about any reassessment of priorities within the European space programme, and found himself wholly isolated. He is reported as having said that he at least came back with his money still in his pocket. It might be nearer the truth to say that he came back with his tail between his legs and a flea in his ear.
Is it not true that, while the Government may be correct in describing some of the ESA programme as overambitious, they have no alternative future programme to suggest for the European Space Agency? Is it not the case that, however modest and sensible the ESA's expansion, the British Government would have opposed it on

573
principle? Can the Minister assure the House that we shall at least participate in the Columbus programme and try to secure the lead role in the polar platform satellite project?
Is not this decision the worst possible news for the no fewer than 300 United Kingdom firms that are involved in space? Will they not now inevitably fail to win contracts, and will they not face a new brain drain of top scientists to Europe? What chance do we have of retaining those scientists and programmes when all the worthwhile and advanced work is being done elsewhere?
Did the Government try to win ESA support for investment in the Hotol project? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman amplify his teasing, unsatisfactory remarks about the possible Japanese funding of Hotol? How do the Government expect the private sector—it must be their expectation—to make up the gap in space spending? What mechanisms has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster arranged for private sector contribution to the ESA? How can that possibly match the contribution that the Government — unlike 12 other—Governments have refused to make?
Is not the failure to back a British contribution to the European Space Agency symptomatic of a wider failure to back science in this country? Has the Minister seen the article in today's issue of Nature, which describes how British science is falling behind in metallurgy, biomedical engineering, solid state physics, civil and mechanical engineering, and material science? Those are all areas of weakness, and disciplines of great importance to our industrial future. Which of them will be hit by the Minister's opting out of the space programme in Europe?
Is the Minister aware that the Autumn Statement of a week or so ago promises real cuts in science spending over the next two years? Was his attitude at The Hague merely a reflection of that financial priority? Is he aware that his attitude at The Hague was a prime example of Thatcherism in action, characterised by short-term considerations—anti-investment, anti-scientist—and, in the end, uniting everyone else against us in opposition to the position that he took?
Mr. Clarke: First, I obviously do not accept the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of the meeting. It is fashionable when reporting European meetings to describe them in terms of rows, failures, or successes, with people coming away saying that they gave each other bloody noses, or failed to, as the case may be. However, the atmosphere at the meeting was extremely friendly. My colleagues, Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber of Germany and Alain Madelin of France, are people with whom I am on friendly, satisfactory terms and with whom I usually agree on politics. We share a belief in strong European co-operation in this and as many other matters as possible. We discussed optional programmes to be added to the mandatory programmes, to which we are a strong contributor. We exercised our option to decline to join in projects which are essentially led by the Hermes spacecraft project—a new addition since the Rome meeting.
If the hon. Gentleman inquires among the British industrial and scientific communities, he will find remarkably little support there for Hermes—the name of the proposed spaceship — and much sympathy with my view that the desire to get into manned spacecraft has
574
been distorting the balance of the ESA programme. The only reason that I abstained at the end from supporting the resolution as a whole was not that I wanted to stop anybody going in for Hermes. If the French and the Germans want to pay for Hermes, I wish them success. I hope that Hermes succeeds eventually — if it matches their priorities.
I am worried that going in for the manned spacecraft will distort the balance of the whole programme, and perhaps damage the programmes in telecommunications and Earth observation which are our principal interests and which we think ought to be at the forefront of the programme. As Hermes gets into difficulties, I am sure that we will come back to the alternative that I put forward, that we should reassess priorities, and especially reassess what Ariane 5 was for, and get back to an assessment of the scientific and industrial objectives upon which we all started.
Mr. Gould: It did not happen.
Mr. Clarke: I agree that it did not altogether happen, but that was because the French put so much money into ESA. With the French prepared to put up almost half the cost, a decision was taken, to which only six member states firmly adhered, to press on with putting this spaceship in the centre of the programme. That was the position in which we were placed.
On alternatives, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the polar platform. I agree that that is an extremely interesting concept that has attractions for British industry and would enable valuable Earth observations to be conducted. Further discussions are required with the Americans, because to get the best value we must ensure that it relates to a similar American polar platform. In addition to the discussions that I have already had and which did not go very far, further discussions are required with British Aerospace and others who are interested in the polar platform to see upon what basis Government and industry might contribute if the Columbus programme goes forward in the way that we wish it to go forward.
What does this decision mean for firms? It means that we have decided not to go into these huge additional programmes, but it does not imply any reduction in our existing effort in space or in our existing contribution to the European Space Agency.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Hotol, the very ambitious programme put forward in particular by British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce for a re-usable spacecraft. That was not on the agenda at the ESA meeting and was scarcely mentioned. There was no prospect of ESA adopting it as a project and, so far, it has not been so adopted. I think that the French regard it as a competitor to the Ariane-Hermes project, which at the moment they have succeeded in promoting within the agency.
Hotol must be worked up to a serious project and we need to consider what international collaborators are available, because such collaborators are certainly required. That requires further discussions between British industry and the industries in the countries that are interested, and between the Government and British Aerospace and others about the next step in working up Hotol. There was never a snowball's chance in Hades that Hotol would be taken up by the European Space Agency at the Hague meeting. Sensibly, that was not put on the agenda.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot intervene now. He may ask a question in a moment.
We are interested in more private sector funding on those aspects of space work that produce a commercial return. Not all space research can do that, but some can, and we have succeeded in getting private sector funding in the development work oh a number of programmes. I shall give an example. With the agreement of practically every other member state represented at the meeting, I strongly stressed that the proposed data relay satellite is of such commercial potential that we should contemplate making it largely a private sector project. There would be strong British participation in that.
That matter was not clearly resolved because some member states, notably Italy, insisted that to a large extent it should be financed by Governments. I suspect that that sort of argument comes from countries that are not sure that their industries will get a large part of the work if it is left to the private sector to develop it and to British and other industries to compete on fair terms for the work that they can do best. We are interested in more private sector involvement. and that was put in the resolution. All the other 12 states agreed that we had to go further in getting private sector contributions.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was an increase in ESA's science budget. The answer to that is that there is. Professor Bill Mitchell, the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council went with me to the meeting. The hon. Gentleman would find that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science were to say that an additional £10 million was available for science and engineering research, Professor Mitchell would say that it should not be spent on space research because that is done very well and is not the highest priority.
The £200 million that the hon. Gentleman says we should spend each year on ESA — if he says that we should have signed up—is almost one third of the total amount that all the research councils at the moment put into the funding of all university and polytechnic programmes. It would be a huge slice from the scientific budget and the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Government and I had to decide whether that was a justifiable use of huge resources on what I regarded as largely non-scientific objectives.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: While I support my right hon. and learned Friend in his desire for realistic programmes in space, is he not aware that Government spending on space has declined in real terms in the last few years? Is he not concerned that every country with a space capability is increasing its expenditure, while we appear to be cutting ours?
Mr. Clarke: Just making comparisons with what other countries spend does not take one far in many policy areas unless one asks on what those countries are spending money and if we are comparing like with like. When one looks at comparisons with other countries one finds that they are sometimes spending, not always very successfully, on quite different types of space programmes. They are not the kind of objectives that were on offer to us in ESA. We have to make a sensible appraisal of what is on offer.
If, in my discussions with British industry and in further council meetings of the European Space Agency, people
576
come forward with well-judged projects of proven commercial, industrial and scientific value, we will consider them, analyse them and put them alongside other scientific and commercial priorities. I should be happy to discuss such projects with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary or with anybody else. When we are faced with a take-it-or-leave-it optional programme by an agency such as ESA, there is no point in saying that Britain has only one option and must choose to take what is on offer and go into things that I do not believe are in the interests of Britain's scientific or industrial community.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister accept that there is considerable resentment about the very strong position that he has taken against co-operating with the 12 other countries in Europe? His comment that was widely reported and, I think, broadcast on television— that, "If these countries want to frolic in space on their own, that is their affair"—has been properly and rightly resented as a demonstration of hostility to the idea and principle of European co-operation on the frontiers of technology.
Does he not accept that his view is totally inconsistent with the Government's active encouragement to British companies to get involved in research for the star wars project, for which the technology and the final implementation is dubious and over which the Government have no control whatever? In this instance, he has turned down the opportunity to be involved in a technological development in which the Government would be actively involved and in which British companies would be guaranteed a stake in advance.
Apart from further damaging our relationships with our European partners with whom technological cooperation is vital, this decision will exclude many British companies from access to a vital market. Many of those companies are already investing substantial amounts of money. I understand that British companies have invested over £100 million in space technology. Therefore, the Government's suggestion that there is inadequate support from the private sector does not stand.
Does the Minister not acknowledge that, at the end of the day, the space programme and space technology will be developed in Europe and that British companies which have made that investment will be shut off from full participation and involvement in the spin-off? Is that not a disgraceful betrayal of securing Britain's role in the future development of some of the highest technologies that will be advanced in Europe?
Mr. Clarke: The comment to which the hon. Gentleman took exception arose out of my attempt at the end of the meeting to describe to lay journalists the difference between the mandatory programmes to which we are fully committed and in which we actively participate, the optional programmes in which we choose to take part — especially those programmes in telecommunications and Earth observation—and these new optional programmes related to this spaceship. I used a figure of speech that I took from a different legal connotation and described the French and one or two others as having gone off on a frolic of their own in exercising this option. As I said, they are paying for it and I wish them success, but we were not obliged to join it.
I do not understand the reference to star wars. No hon. Member has suggested that the Government should put

577
hundreds of millions of pounds into star wars. We are not doing that. We are aware that private companies in Britain are trying to win contracts. That is what private companies are doing in space. The relationship between the space programme and interested companies in Britain is very important. The Government are putting money into space not simply so that British companies should get the money from the contracts and profit from the work, although we are glad when that happens. The justification of the Government's contribution is that, in addition to the commercial profit, there is some general economic spin-off and benefit to the nation, through technological advancement or access to other markets in other parts of the world.
That has to be a judgment. The judgment of supporters of some parts of the ESA programme is quite uncritical. Those wider economic benefits are not available from participation in this rather ill-judged project.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of this statement. I will endeavour to call every right hon. and hon. Gentleman who wants to put a question to the Minister, but could I ask for brief questions, as we have a heavy day ahead of us.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I am sure that I would be doing my right hon. and learned Friend a disservice if I did not convey my disappointment and dismay at some of his recent announcements on this subject, having recently returned from the Johnson space flight centre at Houston and having seen something of the industrial, commercial and scientific significance of space.
Does he agree that there are essentially three major groupings in the world capable of taking technology further to the general benefit of all—the United States,the Soviet Union and western Europe? Is it not perfectly clear that none of the old great powers of western Europe, including Britain, can possibly do that on their own? Therefore, there is only one possible way in which it can be done, and that is by a united, effective western European effort—which this country should lead.
Mr. Clarke: We are party to such a united effort, and always have been, through the European Space Agency. It is important that we stay at the forefront of space science and reap the technological benefits it can bring to a wider range of industries. That has been and remains our object throughout.
We need international collaboration, but we have to collaborate with those who are taking the right route to those major benefits. My hon. Friend would be the first person with any knowledge of the subject with whom I have spoken who thinks that the Hermes spaceship is the right route. I thought it was wrong that France, as the dominant contributor to ESA, should determine that the central thrust of the organisation should be turned to getting a manned spaceship into space at the turn of the century.
Dr. John Marek: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many Opposition. Members feel that it is a pity that the only words he can use are about industry—though that is necessary—and commercial return, and that words such as education,
578
research, knowledge and long-term progress seem unable to pass his lips? It does not matter how many highly misleading statistics and figures he gives — he gave us enough in his statement today—he will not get away from the fact that Britain is worse in space and scientific space research than any other developed country. What advice can he give to me, and to scientists in Britain who are deeply ashamed every time we meet scientists from abroad, of the policies of the Government and his philistine friends?
Mr. Clarke: Professor Bill Mitchell and I spent our entire time talking about science, industry and technology as well as the benefits that should come to European society from what we are doing. We also talked about devoting considerable sums of money but had to weigh up the advantages of spending it on other educational and scientific matters. We were being asked to pay £200 million a year into the project, which is nearly half as much again as total Government spending on medical research of all kinds in Britain.
We were arguing about science and, with respect to many of our critics, we are facing woolly stuff about the 21st century and the need to put a man into space, and general not quantified or clearly targeted talk about technological collaboration with our partners. We were keeping our eyes on the ball. By the time our partners have got three years further into this singularly ill-judged attempt to get a man into space, because the Americans did 30 years before, they will come back and start talking to us again.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the formula that he is using of commercial use could be used against other important subscriptions to Europe — CERN in Switzerland and Grenoble in France? Does he not also recognise that the major industrial countries — West Germany, France and Italy—support Hermes and that flowing from all those contracts will be important orders going to manufacturers, and that we stand a chance of losing the lot?
Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend said, we engage in much international big science, and it is important that we do. Space research is merely one of several areas where international collaboration is necessary and essential. We will get nowhere on our own, and we all understand that. If my hon. Friend talked to those in the academic and scientific community, I think that he would find that they agree that international big science should still be well targeted and properly run and that it cannot be allowed to run away with too high a proportion of total budgets that are much in demand in other academic areas. I cannot remember my hon. Friend's second point about contracts.
Sir T. Skeet: We will lose orders from Europe that will naturally go to European countries and not to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Clarke: We will, but my hon. Friend should not forget that we were only being offered in Ariane about 3 per cent. of the total project. Ariane 5 is 45 per cent. French and they are insisting that 45 per cent. of the work goes to French companies. It was designed for French political purposes and no large participation was offered to us.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister has rightly said that not many people disagree with his summation on Hermes. If we are to accept what the Minister has said today, he must answer a number of questions. He has to tell us what his alternative projects are. He has to identify those projects so that we can see exactly what our commitment will be to the European space initiative. He must also tell us how the reorganised British National Space Centre will operate. We have heard nothing about it today. At present, private industry is putting money into space research in the proportion of 3:1 How much more does he expect private industry to put in without knowing the extra support that he may or may not give it? He also has to make it clear that he is prepared to stand up and to fight for British industry. If he will fight for our industry, we need to know the various projects that he will fight for and give his support to.
Mr. Clarke: The alternatives are being looked at. The alternative that we think is required and that we were pressing is a launcher that is likely to be competitive in the 1990s, with the key role of launching satellites. There will be several such launchers in the world by the time Ariane 5 comes on stream. It is not wise to spend so much additional money on Ariane—in raising its payload and its safety levels to carry man—to put a spaceship into orbit, because other rockets will be designed more cost-effectively to put launchers up. Our great strength is in satellites and telecommunications. We are interested in cost-effective launchers and not one designed for political purposes.
I have discussed the data relay satellite, which is extremely important and an area in which we hope to go forward. We are still having discussions on Hotol. We are to have discussions with the industry, and if out of those discussions come some well-judged projects which, if they are justified, offer value for money across all the criteria we have to apply to space projects, we will consider backing them.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Has my right hon. and learned Friend sensed the fear that is abroad in industry and commerce that we are standing on the threshold of a vast commercial breakthrough in the use of space transportation and that the Government are afraid to cross that threshold? I think it would be most helpful if he could reassure the House and the country that he understands the dimensions of those opportunities and will visit the space facilities to see what we can do. Lastly, would he please tell the House, and reassure me, that it is not a philosophy of how little we need to spend but how much we must spend that should guide him?
Mr. Clarke: I think that we have rather a good position in some areas of space at the moment, particularly as users of space facilities, telecommunications and satellites, and in some aspects of Earth observation. When we look at the polar platform, we will be looking at its value for Earth observation and what we might derive from that. I do not believe that someone with my hon. Friend's knowledge of the industry would disagree with my proposition that we must not be drawn into purely political choices of objectives. Having a spaceship with one's flag on is a political objective that is in danger of distorting the whole European space effort.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In advising the House that the Hotol project did not have a cat in hell's chance of being
580
adopted, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirming that the British Government were not going to propose it and that therefore the private promoters of Hotol have to wait for the Dutch or Portuguese Governments to propose British projects at ESA meetings?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) raised it at the Rome meeting. Everyone in ESA knows about Hotol, but there is no interest in taking it on. It is not meant to be a criticism of my French colleagues, with whom I get on very well, but at the moment it is perceived by the French and the Germans as a competitor, and they do not want Hotol to go forward. [Interruption.] We have to consider with our own industry how to proceed, and it is not through the route of ESA at The Hague. I have encouraged British Aerospace to have discussions with the Germans and the Japanese, whose industries are interested. We will have further discussions but, as every hon. Member has urged upon me, there is no point in going it alone on a project like Hotol. If the European Space Agency is not a collaborator, there is no point in my throwing money down the drain into ESA on the Hermes project, which is a competitor. I have to continue the exploration for other international collaborators who might be interested in taking Hotol further.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government have got this totally wrong? Is he prepared to accept—I am not—that our nation will become a division 3 country, and that research and development in space will be relegated in the way that he has suggested? If that is the course that he will pursue, my constituents and I will not.
Mr. Clarke: With great respect to my hon. Friend, who is an old friend and colleague of mine, he is making the widest possible assertions based on the glossier public relations that surrounds the space industry—that this is somehow the future and the forefront of science. It could be, and parts of it are, and it is those bits on which we will collaborate. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the sum of money that we were being asked to contribute is a third of the total amount of all the research councils' funding of research of all kinds in all our universities and polytechnics. The amount represented the entire bill for school textbooks for England and Wales in every secondary school, or more than half as much again than what we are spending on medical research.
My hon. Friend, who is deeply concerned about science, ought to take note of the opinion of those in the Science and Engineering Research Council. That council said that it was quite unjustified to go into research on that scale, to the obvious detriment of the claims of the rest of the scientific and academic community.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in private industry who pay taxes and are therefore concerned how taxpayers' money is spent will welcome his insistence on value for money and agree that just throwing money at space is not the right way? What I believe he is saying is that expenditure and effort should be targeted in the direction where it is most likely to be successful. That is a hard-headed, not a hard-hearted, approach, which I believe will appeal to those industries that will have to pay the bill.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, we were dealing with the optional programmes, where there are choices to be made. We have opted to play a full part in user programmes, those concerned with telecommunications, which is probably the most dramatic area of all, and Earth observation. We wanted the users and industry to be more closely associated with the planning than they are. The ESA is another great governmental agency that is driven by Governments and the officials of the agency, and it does not have close enough contact with industry and users. Users includes the scientific community. That is what we are arguing for.
I still think that the ESA will have to come back to that eventually because the Germans, as an hon. Member mentioned earlier, have got themselves in the curious position of backing Hermes but saying that it should cost 20 per cent. less. I cannot imagine how they will get on with that. In my opinion, the estimated cost of Hermes is a gross under-estimate. Before they get the spaceship in the air, it will cost far more than they are talking about at the moment.
If the Germans think that they can go on without us and spend less money than they are being asked for at the moment, the German Government are in for a big surprise.
Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the clout that Britain carries in this sphere and that the extent to which British companies can play their part in space projects depends inevitably on the extent to which we are willing to make cash contributions towards their costs? Does he also agree that space technology involves not only the big companies but some 300 small companies, such as SIRA in my constituency, which are all doing a variety of work in space technology which has enormous potential in many areas apart from space? Does he agree that this work will be endangered and will not be able to continue unless we continue to play a realistic part in the European Space Agency programme? Will he take that into account?
Mr. Clarke: I will and do take that into account. Obviously I spend most of my time encouraging companies to fight for contracts. Among the reactions to the present news is the disappointment of the companies that expected contracts if we had gone into Ariane, Hermes and so on. We will have to to have more discussions with the industry and continue to explore ways for further international collaboration. Meanwhile, we are not cutting back on what we are doing. We remain heavily engaged in space industry of all kinds.
Mr. Richard Page: Although I understand the call to get industry more closely involved, can my right hon. and learned Friend say how we can ask companies to make long-term commercial judgments, bearing in mind their responsibilities to their shareholders, in areas that are by their very nature exploratory, where the benefits will be long-term and where those benefits might necessarily be unprotected? Other companies and countries within the ESA range are not asked to make such a contribution. Is it fair that we should do so? Bearing in mind that Columbus discovered America on state aid, should we not do the same?
Mr. Clarke: Columbus was not taking part in an international project so he probably had fewer problems
582
at the planning stage. What we are asking is fair in certain parts of the space programme. People tend to go on about space without defining clearly what objectives they are after. There is a mixture. Some is pure scientific research, research and inquiry. Some is to try to get spin-off from technological advances that might be applicable in other areas. Some is for pure commercial return. It can be extremely profitable to go into large sections of the satellite and communications data relay business. When satellite development has obvious commercial benefits, it is right to expect commercial contributions.
Technological spin-off is more difficult because it is difficult to get clear figures. Most researchers tend to be full of enthusiasm about potential technological spin-off but are not always clear about what it is. In pure science, we have to weigh up the claims on the budget with the claims of other areas. Pure research in space has seen a bigger increase in real terms in the last three years than any other area of pure science in this country. It is the combination of those things that one has to apply. That is what we are doing. I do not think that what was on offer at The Hague passed any of those tests satisfactorily.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again ask for brief questions, please?
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the ESA subscription is far from being the be-all and end-all of the Government's involvement in space research? Does he agree that the firm control which he is rightly exercising over that subscription creates room for worthwhile bilateral projects, such as Radarsat in Canada, which will themselves give British industry a greater depth of experience towards the ESA programmes like Columbus and the polar platform?
Mr. Clarke: I do. My hon. Friend is right; we have a national space programme as well. We are heavily committed to keeping in the forefront of space exploration and research and industrial applications. At The Hague meeting, a Canadian observer was pressing on me again, as the Canadian Minister had already done, the prospects of collaborating in Radarsat into which the Canadian Government are prepared to put a large amount of money and in which it wants British participation. There are endless projects of that kind but I ask the House to accept that we must choose. The bulk of British industry will probably agree that our choice at The Hague not to go into Hermes was correct. We should all get together now and find better alternatives.
Mr. Timothy Wood: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us are sceptical of the value of certain French-inspired space projects? Is he also aware that it is vital for the British space technology industry that we have a positive lead from the Government on the approach that should be taken by this country in space activities?
Mr. Clarke: As I say, we will have continuing discussions with the industry. I hope we can respond to my hon. Friend's challenge.
Mr. Rob Hayward: Is it not the case that the development of the air-breathing engine for Hotol is progressing? Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure

583
the House that, if that development comes to fruition in the near future, he would be in a position to put Hotol on the agenda at the ESA with the backing of some money?
Mr. Clarke: Work is progressing on the unique propulsion system of Hotol because the Government have been helping to finance it. That is how we have got to where we are on Hotol. The next stage will be more expensive, because it is enlarging the investigations. I think that we agree with the companies involved that we need international collaborators. If the ESA would collaborate on Hotol, we would have discussions with it. Meanwhile, we have to explore the position with others.
I expressed strong scepticism a moment ago about whether the European Space Agency would take Hotol on board. Apart from anything else, it has spent miles over the limit already — [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who understands these things very well, knows that the French will not put money into Hotol because they see it as a competitor to Ariane and to Hermes. The Opposition are urging me to put money into the principal competitor of Hotol, which is what we were being asked to do at The Hague meeting earlier this week.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: My right hon. and learned Friend is obviously aware that space is currently the fashionable area for public expenditure. I am sure that he will bear in mind also that every pound that we commit to speculative space projects is a pound less for other parts of industry, particularly the rest of the aerospace industry, in which we recently overtook French production and exports. Will he therefore bear in mind the fact that there are many demands on public expenditure and that we should not wade head first into unsatisfactory projects just because they are in a fashionable area?
Mr. Clarke: I agree. I also agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of committing ourselves to the British aerospace industry. We are heavily committed to Airbus, where we are working with the French, the Germans and the Spanish to ensure that Europe retains its own capacity to make large civil airliners. We are close together in discussions with the Americans to make sure that that is not thwarted. We are interested in a European fighter aircraft. I find that a very attractive suggestion. We are working on that with the Germans and the Italians. I regret that the French are inclined to go it alone and not join in on the European fighter aircraft.
If that aircraft does not go forward, we will have to look to the American industry to provide the bulk of all military aircraft for Europe. Those are areas where we are collaborating. Before we get too excited about what happened this week, it just happens that we do not agree with our French and German friends on this occasion that a spaceship should be added to the list of our other commitments to the aerospace industry or to the scientific community.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that the free enterprise culture which has done so much to restore our
584
economy does not yet apply to the business of space. With a Government lead it will, if it does not do so yet. He is aware that over 300 companies and most of our universities and research establishments are involved in space. In order to ensure that there is maximum effort in the right place, and no duplication of effort, will he please, under the auspices of his Department, arrange for proper co-ordination? If that co-ordination requires additional resources, can he assure us that those resources will be forthcoming?
Mr. Clarke: There are parts of the space effort with great commercial returns. There is private sector investment already in this country. There is a lot of private sector investment in America. There are areas where returns can be won. In other areas, the return is longer-term and Governments need to fund it. Frankly, other areas are not worth it because the commercial returns are nil and the scientific aims are illusory. We have to make a choice between them. Certainly we will have discussions with companies and others to try to co-ordinate our effort and make sensible choices.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister confirm that, had the decision this week been different, it would have meant more work for British industry and British institutes of technology? I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber on urgent business in the middle of questions on the statement. Will the Minister explain how he would square that with the hapless and hopeless readiness of the Government to agree immediately to contribute towards President Reagan's SDI programme, and to scuttle around Europe trying to persuade our European partners to do likewise? Is the Minister not leaning greatly towards American projects rather than to those which we share with our European partners?
Mr. Clarke: I have already referred to star wars. We are encouraging British companies to look for contracts there, but the programme will be paid for by the Americans, so that is a false analogy. My attitudes this week were not in any way governed by pro-American, anti-European feelings. I am an extremely enthusiastic supporter of closer European co-operation in this and many other respects. It was simply a difference of opinion about whether these were the correct optional programmes.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would have happened if I had agreed earlier this week. I suspect that the next time that he had a claim to make on behalf of Stockton, his region or shipbuilding, and I had started pleading difficulties with resources, he would have pointed out how cheerily I had just agreed to put £120 million a year into a spaceship programme because the Europeans were demanding it. I am not sure whether I would have won either way with some hon. Members.
Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I will take first the matter raised under Standing Order No. 20.

Nursing Staff (Intensive Care)
5.17 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the shortage of specialist nursing staff in intensive care units in west Midlands hospitals, affecting infants needing heart surgery".
This matter is specific because a north Staffordshire baby, David Barber, 34 days old and suffering from a hole in the heart and a missing valve, has now had his heart operation cancelled five times. The excellent Birmingham children's hospital has operating theatres available. It has surgeons who are ready and anxious to perform the operation. It has beds in the intensive care unit, but it cannot make use of those beds which lie empty because it has not the specialist nursing staff to service those beds.
This matter is important because it concerns not only the misery and anxiety which must face David Barber's family, but also the terrible choices facing hospital staff in deciding on which babies to operate. Above all, it concerns the crisis of nurse shortages which are facing the National Health Service after eight years of Government cuts and neglect. We know that 30,000 nurses leave the National Health Service every year because of a combination of low pay, poor conditions and very inflexible hours, and the Government are doing little or nothing about it.
This matter is urgent because, unless David Barber and other babies like him get the surgery which they so desperately need, his and their condition will inevitably deteriorate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and members of the public will be appalled that the Government have allowed the National Health Service to decline to the point at which infants needing heart surgery are denied treatment. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the shortage of specialist nursing staff in intensive care units in west Midlands hospitals, affecting infants needing heart surgery".
I have listened with the greatest care and concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I also listened to him earlier this morning on the radio. I regret that I cannot find that this matter should take precedence over the Orders for today, but I hope that he may have other opportunities of raising it.

Points of Order
5.19 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have been notified of a point of order from the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made some gratuitously offensive allegations about some of my hon. Friends. At this stage, it is not appropriate for me, or for any hon. Members, to debate the issues raised in the recent television programme in Scotland. I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North in his reckless course of conduct in that respect.
It should be put on record that no specific allegations were made about hon. Members in the programme. The procurator fiscal, who has the proper responsibility for these matters, has been asked to investigate any matters that may arise from the programme. Indeed, he was asked to do so some weeks ago by members of the Dundee Labour party and by my hon. Friends who were referred to in the outburst made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
I rise to make this point because I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will advise the House, as I am sure that you would want to, that it would be better in these circumstances if hon. Members—even the hon. Member for Tayside, North — showed a proper and decent restraint and were not tempted into making irresponsible speculation and provocative suggestions which can only complicate the task of those who are properly looking into the issues that have been raised. Such behaviour reflects no credit on the House or on any hon. Member responsible for such opportunism.
Mr. Speaker: I accept what the hon. Member has said about the matter. I hope that we can conduct the affairs of this House on the basis of mutual respect and mutual honour. I trust that we will not have allegations of that kind made across the Floor of the Chamber.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Wakeham): There was a suggestion earlier that there was a planted question on this point. I owe it to the House to explain the position, and I can do that perfectly easily. The position is that any hon. Member who tables an early-day motion in the House is entitled to expect the Government to consider it and that, when the Leader of the House comes to the House for business questions, he should come with an answer to that early-day motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) raised a question specifically on early-day motion 281. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised a question on early-day motion 282 and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised a question about early-day motion 214. I came prepared with answers to all early-day motions on the Order Paper and naturally I try to help the House. To do less would be a discourtesy.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will leave it at that.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think that we have exhausted that matter.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be well aware that "Erskine May", on page 254, states
"The efficient and smooth running of the parliamentary machine depends largely on the Whips"—
that is, Whips from both sides of the House. Page 445 states that, when an hon. Member persists in disorderly conduct, Mr. Speaker is "enjoined" under Standing Orders 42 and 43 to take action. "Enjoined" means basically that you. Mr. Speaker, are required to take action. Earlier this afternoon circumstances arose with regard to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as a result of which there was a vote, quite properly. That vote, I submit to you Mr. Speaker—I do not submit it, it is so obvious—was about your authority, the rules of order of the House and the provisions of "Erskine May". I am happy to say that—
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, I had to take an unpleasant decision. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Marlow: The point of order is that I am pleased to say that the Opposition Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) supported you, Mr. Speaker. However, the Opposition Whips, the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this is going down an unhelpful track. [Interruption.] Well, do not let us stir it up. I hope that both sides of the House will always support Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Marlow: I am seeking to help.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said enough for me to know that I am not anxious to hear any more.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. David Winnick: On a helpful point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am most grateful, but I think that we should get on.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was one of the tellers in the vote earlier on the naming of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The first person through the Aye lobby was the Prime Minister. If the complaint by my hon. Friend had been upheld, the Prime Minister might have had to relinquish the Prime Minister's job. As she would thereby lose money, she had some direct pecuniary interest.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on a totally different matter?
Mr. Hind: It is a matter of great importance.
Mr. Speaker: They are all matters of great importance, but is it a point of order?
Mr. Hind: This is a point of order on which you can rule, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance over the matter,
588
which is now outstanding, of how to deal with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). About 15 minutes after you ordered the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the Chamber I was walking from this building to Norman Shaw and I saw the hon. Gentleman with a television camera crew. It is clear that what happened during the business statement was set up for the purpose of cheap publicity on the hon. Gentleman's part.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this point. 'Will you take into consideration in the sentence that is imposed upon the hon. Member for Linlithgow — [HON. MEMBERS: "Sentence?"] Whether he is banned for one day or seven days, that should be regarded as a sentence. It is a disgrace, and let no one forget that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need any more help on this matter. I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is neither one day nor seven days. If he looks in "Erskine May" he will find that it is five days. I received a report from the Serjeant at Arms that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had in fact left the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
Mr. Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Hayward: I wish to make a suggestion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I cannot rule on suggestions. That would leave our proceedings wide open.
Mr. Hayward: The events of this week have unfortunately shown this House, both inside and out, in some of its worst moments. We can put some of that down to extreme exhaustion. However, many hon. Members regret that there has not been obvious support for the Chair from all sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker: We dealt with this matter yesterday and I have said today that I believe that what happened yesterday did not show the House in a good light. I hope very much that I shall have the co-operation of the House in ensuring that that kind of thing never happens again.

BILLS PRESENTED
  WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. John Major, Mr. Wyn Roberts and Mr. Ian Grist, presented a Bill to increase the financial limit which applies by virtue of section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to the general external borrowing of the Agency and certain other amounts: And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
  SCOTLAND
  Mr. Donald Dewar, supported by Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Bruce Milian, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Sam Galbraith, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly and Executive and for their functions and powers ; to make provision regarding finance; and to make consequential provision: And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Social Security Benefits
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on the three social security instruments. I remind the House that, pursuant to the order of the House on 6 November, they are all to be taken together.
5.27 pm
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move:
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker, with this we are to take the following:
That the draft Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
The motions enable us to debate today three main items —the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 and the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating (No. 2) Order 1987, which implements the up-rating announcement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 October. The first of the instruments sets out the detailed provisions for the new income support scheme, the basis for a more coherent and aligned structure for income-related benefits. The second set covers the rules across the range of social security benefits for claiming and paying state support. The third covers the general increase of social security benefits from next April. All are important. Since about 70 per cent. of the population of this country live in families who are in receipt of some income from benefit, the importance is underlined. Certainly, they fully justify the time that the House intends to spend debating them today. Indeed, I hope that the House will understand if I set out not in detail or chapter by chapter the coverage of the regulations, but at least the background to each of the sets in some detail.
The House will have noticed that the income support and claims and payments regulations contain two minor changes—in regulations Nos. 15 and 48 respectively— from the versions that were originally made on 3 November. The changes were required to meet legal questions that were raised prior to consideration of the regulations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The House will understand and appreciate that we moved quickly to clarify the areas of doubt in response to the concerns expressed and to re-lay the regulations to avoid any delay in the House's consideration of them.
The regulations are the outcome of the most significant changes in the patterns of income-related benefits that we have had since the end of the second world war. They follow a review that began in 1984 with consultation and oral hearings and proceeded through the publication of a Green Paper and further consultation in 1985. A White Paper followed later that year, and there were many hours of consideration in Parliament during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986. Since then, work has continued on implementation and especially on the detailed regulations that were made available on a wide basis in draft form in July this year.
The regulations bring together the main provisions of the new scheme in one set. They replace four complete sets

591
of regulations in the present scheme and parts of three others. The regulations are clearly laid out, with separate sections covering different parts of the scheme. We have produced—I hope that the House will find it useful—a detailed memorandum explaining the provisions. In view of that, I do not propose to provide a chapter-by-chapter description of the provisions. Hon. Members will have been able to read the details for themselves. Instead, I shall highlight particular points in the regulations in relation to the objectives for reform that we set for ourselves in the Green Paper.
In that document, we set out the aims of the reform. They were to produce a system that is easier for claimants to understand, to improve operational effectiveness to enable a better service for claimants, to target resources on those facing the greatest pressures, to encourage self-reliance, to ensure fairness between the position of people on benefit and others on low incomes, and to achieve greater alignment with other income-related benefits. All objectives are reflected in the regulations before the House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend will note that the one provision that gives rise to a great deal of disquiet on this side is the decision in real terms to lower child benefit. Inflation goes up but child benefit stays the same. My hon. Friend will know also that it is the intention of our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce taxation later this year. What the Government are doing — I hope not with forethought — is taking money from families with children and giving money to those families or individuals who do not have children. We are taking money from families and giving it to the dinkies: down the kids and up the dinkies. With double income and no children, one gets more money. If one has one income and several dependants, one gets less money. As a member of the party that believes in the family, can my hon. Friend give us some reassurance that the Government have taken note of the policy and intend to do something about that element of the tax-paying public—that family element of the tax-paying public—which is becoming worse off under this manoeuvre?
Mr. Scott: I am interested to learn that my hon. Friend perhaps has greater insight and greater information about the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than have even some Members in the Administration. Apart from that, if my hon. Friend can control himself for a little longer, before I come to the end of my remarks I shall deal specifically with the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to uprate child benefit. I know that the matter is important to all hon. Members, and I shall deal with it in due course.
The first two objectives that I outlined before I gave way to my hon. Friend provide a system that is easier for claimants to understand and for staff to administer. Those two things are linked. There can be no doubt at all to anybody who has anything to do with the operation of the system of supplementary benefit that the scheme is cumbersome and confusing. The difficulties are a barrier to claimants understanding their entitlement, to those who advise them and to the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security whose duty it is to administer the rules. The system has developed piecemeal over the years— like Topsy, it has just growed. New provisions have been
592
bolted on to the original structure, until the central purpose of the supplementary benefit scheme, which is a guarantee of a weekly income for claimants with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of efficiency, has been lost in the complexities.
It has often been said in the past that there are about 16,000 separate regulations governing supplementary benefit. That is not exactly true ; there are some gaps in the numbering. Certainly, when we get to the end of the instructions we get to the 16,000 mark. That in itself is a measure of the complexity and scale of the rules and regulations that have developed over the years. We should be concerned to simplify and clarify the provisions in any scheme that replaces supplementary benefit.
At the moment, the supplementary benefit scheme bases the amount of help given for normal living expenses on age, family circumstances, household status, length of time on benefit and potential entitlement to over 20 weekly extra payments. Because the permutations are virtually endless, there can rarely be a simple answer to the apparently straightforward question, "What am I entitled to?" All the evidence is that many claimants have little understanding of how their benefit is worked out. That lack of certainty must also serve as a barrier to take-up —no doubt we shall hear something about that matter this afternoon—by those, particularly pensioners, who could get help if they applied.
Under the new scheme, support for living expenses will be based on age, family circumstances, and the group to which the claimant belongs. That will usually be decided on the basis of routinely collected information — for example, receipt of other benefits. That is covered in part IV of the regulations and the associated schedules. Therefore, it will be far easier to explain to, say, a single pensioner or an unemployed couple with young children what level of support is provided for their living expenses. For staff, too, it will mean that decisions will be simpler and more straightforward.
The assessment of most claimants' needs will be simpler than it is now. I recognise that, of course, by definition, in an income-related scheme, there will have to be detailed rules regarding the treatment of income. If it is possible for a claimant to have a particular source of income, however rare, the rules must do their best to provide for it.
Also, in part V and the associated schedule, we have tried to do two main things in regard to resources. We have achieved some worthwhile simplification of the rules. For example, at present there is a special disregard of the first £1,500 of the surrender value of life insurance policies. That means that claimants and life insurance companies can be put to the bother and difficulty of working out the value to see whether it affects a claimant's entitlement to benefit. In the new scheme, such surrender values have been totally ignored when assessing benefit. Again, under the present system, if a local education authority makes a discretionary maintenance allowance for somebody staying on at school, there is a limit to the amount that can be ignored or disregarded—£7·50 for a school and £9·50 for a further education college. From April. all such payments will be disregarded without limit.
In future, payments in kind will be ignored. All the measures represent improvements for claimants and a reduction in the complexity of workload for staff.
Mr. Frank Field: One of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman hopes that the new scheme will

593
achieve is that it will give simple answers to possibly complicated questions. I ask one simple question, to which I should like a simple answer. Under the new scheme, will payments be made in advance or in arrears? It is unclear from the regulations.
Mr. Scott: I shall refer to the way in which we shall seek to align payments so that claimants will not have some benefits paid in advance and some paid in arrears. I shall outline in detail how those systems will be aligned.
Mr. John Fraser: Many of my constituents are concerned about housing costs. In Brixton, where the crime rate is regrettably very high, it is the understanding of people who manage homes that are being adapted for the elderly that the cost of door entry phones and burglar alarms will be disallowed from housing costs if they are not purpose-built. They cannot understand why, if we want to protect the elderly and disabled from crime, these security measures should be disallowed. Will the Minister comment on that?
Mr. Scott: Subject to business arrangements, next week we shall discuss housing benefit regulations. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, under the housing benefit regulations, alarm systems that have not been purpose-built—thus, the charges are not an integral part of a payment to the individual for housing — should be provided under the housing benefit system or perhaps by local authorities through personal social services. I am sure that we shall discuss this matter in detail in the debate next week.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I accept that there are complications with some benefits, but when the social fund is introduced will the Minister draw up a list of what people can claim?
Mr. Scott: I shall cover that matter next week, in particular the efforts that we shall be making to explain in clear detail how the new system will operate next April. Perhaps when I arrive at that part of my speech, the hon. Lady will ask me any questions that arise.
The second objective of the regulations is to provide greater clarity of difinition in other circumstances. The regulations on students' income, earnings from self-employment and attribution of income now incorporate matters that were previously included in guidance. More of the detail has been put on the face of the law. It will be of benefit to staff and claimants' expert advisers to have more of the detail brought together in the regulations.
Those changes will make it easier for advisers and hon. Members, who have a heavy case load in this regard, to explain the new scheme to claimants or potential claimants. Over the past few years we have made significant improvements — I am here addressing the point that was made by the hon. Member for Halifax— in the standard of our leaflets and other publicity material. An important objective of the reforms is to develop further this better information to claimants and their advisers. As part of the communications strategy, we are revising all the leaflets and claim forms for income support.
The information will be on a number of different levels. There will continue to be general leaflets explaining the broad outlines of the scheme for specific groups of claimants. In particular, during the reassessment of cases
594
from November, all claimants will receive a leaflet explaining how their new entitlement is worked out. That will address the point that was was raised by the hon. Member for Halifax. We are revising the claim form so that it will include more explanation of the rules for claimants and will be laid out in an uncluttered and I hope less intimidatory format. It is intended to reduce the need for follow-up questions, which delay benefit awards.
Finally, we shall produce a full guide to the main rules of the scheme. This will replace the old supplementary benefit handbook, with which many hon. Members will be familiar. It will cover much the same ground but it will be free and freely available to those who advise claimants. We believe that the freely available new guide will prove a valuable document for claimants who wish to find out more detail of the benefit rules and will be of considerable help to various individuals and organisations advising them.
Mr. Richard Holt: Most of the problems in this regard concern not the initial assessment but the subsequent appeal. Will my hon. Friend say something about the appeal mechanism, which currently is cumbersome and slow? Do the Government intend to revise that system, paperwise or mechanically, so that people who have been refused benefit in the first instance can obtain simplified information, such as that which is available to first-time claimants?
Mr. Scott: I hope that the simple application of the scheme in moving from supplementary benefit to income support will improve not only the original adjudication but the subsequent appeal. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's point and I shall address it in the changeover next April. The change-over itself should be of considerable help in that regard.
These measures are part of a dual strategy to make the system easier and to improve communications with those whom we are seeking to help. It is not realistic to argue on the one hand for improved publicity, a better service, a simplified system and further progress on take-up, yet on the other for the retention of every dot and comma of what most people would agree is an extremely complex scheme. Better communications, an improved service and changes to simplify the rules go together.
Mrs. Mahon: The Minister has not answered my original question. The social fund will be operated through the discretionary powers of a social security officer. I admit that, currently, benefits are complicated, but will there be a list of benefits that people know they have a right to, or will it be discretionary? If it is discretionary, one part of the country will receive different treatment from another. Will the information in the leaflets be specific about the matters that are basic and important to people on low incomes?
Mr. Scott: As the hon. Lady knows, elements of the social security system are regulatory, but provision is made in them for the discretionary loans system. We shall ensure that any publicity—leaflets and so on—will make clear the different aspects of the fund. There will be regulations covering the operation of the social fund, which will be subject to the negative procedure. I have no doubt that the Opposition Front Bench will seek to debate these matters in due course; I should be very surprised if they did not seize that opportunity.

595
Under the new scheme the main way that extra resources will be targeted on claimants with particular needs—this is another of the aims that I mentioned—is the system of premiums. The detailed structure and amounts are detailed in schedule 2. Extra help will be given to parents, lone parents, disabled people and, for the first time, from day one on benefit, to all families with children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced the proposed rates for next April and published a revised illustration of the impact of change. I am sure that the House does not expect me to repeat the changes that were announced in his statement.
Our plan is to spend more, not less, on income support than if supplementary benefit had continued and been uprated in line with inflation. There are particular improvements for families with children and those who are receiving the disability premium. The published illustration implies extra resources in real terms compared to the present scheme for those groups of over £100 million for families and over £60 million for people receiving the disability premium.
Mr. Frank Field: The Minister said that the Government will spend more money, but will he give some information that I have tried, but failed to obtain in parliamentary questions? Is he saying that the proposed scheme will involve spending more money that if the supplementary benefit system had been uprated, taking into account the fact that the number of claimants is rising year by year and that the new scheme will have to cover 20 per cent. of the rates? Taking into account those factors, is he saying that claimants will be better off under this scheme?
Mr. Scott: Taking into account the £200 million that we will be putting into transitional protection, we shall expect to spend more on weekly support for income support claimants than we would have spent had we uprated the supplementary benefits weekly payments in line with inflation, which would have been our alternative to introducing the new system. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.
Mr. Field: I am not sure what the Minister is saying yes to.
Mr. Scott: As I said, in 1988–89 more money will go into income support than would have gone into supplementary benefit uprated in line with inflation for the year 1988–89.
Mr. Field: With respect, that is not the question that I asked. I asked whether the sum would be more taking into account the facts that supplementary benefits would be increased, that during the year there would be more claimants and that the calculation must exclude the 20 per cent. on rates. That was my question, and not the more simple question to which he answered yes.
Mr. Scott: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is still yes. However, we can pursue the matter in correspondence if the hon. Gentleman has detailed points to raise. My assessment is still that more resources will be going into income support next year.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It would help the House to have clarification of the Minister's remarks. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that, taking into account the increased number of claimants and the fact
596
that people will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rate bills, there will still be more money because of the money that is being put into transitional protection.
Mr. Scott: The transitional arrangements account for part of the resources that we shall be putting into income support next year. On the number of claimants, it is worth making the point that we are already experiencing a fall in the number of those claiming unemployment benefit, and we hope that that will continue. In spite of that, I believe that extra resources will be going into the system of income support for the coming financial year.
Let me remind the House of what I was saying; in a sense it follows on from the interventions. Much of the discussion about the effects of the transition to income support — perhaps the Government have played some part in this — has centred round breaking down claimants into gainers and losers. Some may have gained the impression that, when the new arrangements are introduced on 1 April next year, individual claimants will lose in cash terms. That is completely misleading. Wherever hon. Members stand on the merits or otherwise of the change from supplementary benefit to income support, they—and, indeed, all those concerned with the matter—should be at pains to remove the doubts and uncertainties that some existing claimants still feel.
Existing claimants who need it will have the cash value of their benefit maintained. That should be made clear. Ratepayers will also be guaranteed—
Mr. Robin Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Scott: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished making this point.
Ratepayers will also be guaranteed cash in hand to meet the average value of the contribution to rates that they will be expected to make from next April. It is an inescapable fact that any significant reform on any realistic resource assumption must have different effects on different claimants' entitlement. I have described the structural change that we shall be making next April, but I emphasise once again that the transitional protection that we will give will be a major cushion to change for existing claimants.
Mr. Cook: The Minister will admit that those who have a cash benefit that exceeds their entitlement will get no increase next year. The 750,000 claimants whose cash benefit exceeds the entitlement by £5 a week are likely to get no increase in 1989 either. Moreover, if a claimant succeeds in re-entering the labour market but finds himself unemployed again at some stage next year, he will then receive less benefit than he received before he went back to work. How on earth can the Minister reconcile that with the known instinct of his Government to provide incentives for people to go back to work?
Mr. Scott: We are moving to a new system. If one moves from a system that has tended to concentrate on a complex process of deciding benefits against the background of thousands of regulations governing precise individual needs to a system that provides a basic personal allowance and premiums targeted on groups of people rather than on individuals, there is bound to be an unevenness of impact. New claimants will know the position and, as I said, extra resources will be put in overall. By the transitional protection arrangements we shall ensure that no existing claimants lose in cash terms.

597
As the schemes develop, hon. Members will have an opportunity if necessary to raise in the House the justice or otherwise of claimants who were receiving benefit before April 1988 being compensated in some way for inflation in future. That matter will have to be discussed on the Floor of the House. No doubt it will be discussed in terms of the way in which Governments allocate their resources from year to year. However, the Government should be given credit for providing comprehensive transitional protection for existing claimants as we move to a new system, which will be simpler and easier to understand and which, once bedded down, will be recognised as a great improvement on the existing complex system of supplementary benefits.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Scott: I almost feel as though other hon. Members are getting more of an opportunity to speak than I am. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Field: My point relates to the transitional arrangements. Has the Minister had a chance to examine the statement in which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the proposals to the House? I understood the hon. Gentleman to say in reply to one of his hon. Friends that whereas some people would be caught under the transitional arrangements and would not get an increase in cash terms this year they would get an increase in subsequent years because the transitional arrangements would be inflation proof. That puzzled me because that is not how I understand transitional arrangements to work. If they did, they would last almost indefinitely—until people stopped claiming benefit. Is he saying that while income support will be increased only in line with prices the transitional arrangements will be kept in line with those price increases?
Mr. Scott: I shall check back on what my right hon. Friend said. In essence, we are committed at the moment to protection in cash terms of existing claimants—except for disabled people who receive domestic assistance in excess of £10 a week, who will receive not only cash protection but inflation protection. Perhaps that is the point on which the hon. Gentleman has picked up.
The fourth aim of the reforms was to increase self-reliance. This will be done in part by giving claimants a set income for them to manage—in much the same way as others in society, many of whom are little better off than those on income support. The present scheme, with its implied detailed breakdown into this or that expense, undermines that aim. It cannot make sense these days to run a benefit system that has us asking claimants how much they spend each week on washing powder. In addition, the regulations in chapter VI of part V provide for important changes in the treatment of capital. At present, capital of more than £3,000 debars someone from benefit completely. In future, the upper limit will be doubled to £6,000, with reductions in benefit only for those with savings between the two amounts. The success of this Government in bringing down inflation has made saving much more worthwhile. The new rules for income support encourage that.
The level of part-time earnings that will be ignored for benefit purposes is being improved to £15 for people
598
receiving the disability premium, lone parents, and unemployed couples who have been on supplementary benefit or income support for two years. That is provided for in schedule 8. With unemployment now falling, we hope that this will encourage more claimants to regain contact with the world of work.
The last two objectives in the Green Paper—fairness across work boundaries and alignment with other income-related benefits — are also fully reflected in the regulations. The present mismatch of rules for help for those in and out of work or on similar incomes can leave someone worse off from taking a job or after meeting their housing costs. The last problem led to the creation of housing benefit supplement. Anybody who has had anything to do with that benefit will not see it as a sensible or easily understood benefit. The need for that will end next April.
The regulations we are considering today and those on family credit and housing benefit, which will be before the House shortly, achieve this by providing a common approach to the assessment of resources, based on net earnings. That is covered in part V. At the same time, we have taken the opportunity to align many of the detailed rules, ending, wherever possible, the differences—often quite small — that now exist between supplementary benefit, family income supplement, and housing benefit. As a result of those changes, under the new scheme people will be treated in a consistent way. In particular, housing benefit will be assessed on the same basis whether claimants are in or out of work. The maximum adult payment in family credit will be made at the level of the income support couple's personal allowance and, because of the planned increase in spending, more help will go to support low-income families in work.
That common approach in the income-related benefits has been generally welcomed, whatever other criticisms people may make of the transition to income support. It has been possible only because income support itself is less complex than supplementary benefit.
The House may be relieved to know that that leads me to my concluding remarks on the first set of regulations, those concerning income support. I believe that few hon. Members would argue that the present supplementary benefit scheme is the ideal model of a benefit system. There can be only one answer to the question, if supplementary benefit did not exist would anybody seek to invent it in its present form? I recognise that people have views and criticisms of particular proposals and of what we are doing as we move to the new system. However, it has been depressing for me, coming fresh to this subject, to feel that much of the logic of the criticisms I have heard has been a defence of the status quo, sometimes from sources that had been critical of that status quo until we decided to change it. That is a sterile approach and I believe that change is needed urgently if we are to produce a benefit structure more suited to modern-day needs.
That is the aim of the regulations before the House. We consider that the new income support scheme provided for in detail in the general regulations achieves a more coherent system, which is better able to direct extra help where it is needed, is more readily understood by claimants and paves the way for a better standard of service.
We are moving to a new system. The regulations set out clearly the basis upon which we will be embarking upon that. No benefit rules can be set in stone for ever. We, and I am sure Labour Members and the variety of

599
organisations which properly seek to defend the rights and interests of those in need in our society, will no doubt be monitoring the regulations with great care.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Scott: I believe that the provisions in the regulations provide the right structure for help.
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Scott: I will give way to my hon. Friend. I have never failed to do so.
As I said, they do provide the right structure for help. No doubt it will be necessary to develop them in the future in order to ensure that they are up to date in seeking to provide for the inevitable needs of society in the future.
Mr. Marlow: I am sorry if I appeared to be agitated, but my hon. Friend said "finally" on a couple of occasions and gave the impression that he was about to finish his sentence and depart from his speech. My hon. Friend said that he would tell the House the logic of the Government's decision with regard to child benefit, and we are waiting with bated breath for my hon. Friend to tell us. I know that one of the points my hon. Friend might suggest is that we want to target that benefit—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It might be helpful if we listen to whether the Minister does suggest that.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Scott: I am sure that I can be of assistance to my hon. Friend if he will give me a moment. We are discussing three different sets of regulations. I have just come to the conclusion of the first set, on income support, and I am now going on to deal with the next two sets of regulations. I hope that I will deal with them more briefly than I have been able to do so far because of the way in which I have given way to hon. Members here and there. I give my hon. Friend a solemn assurance that before I sit down finally I will deal with the point he raised earlier, which I undertook to cover.
I turn now to the draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987. They cover all social security benefits and set out the administrative rules—which are not unimportant when we consider a social security system —which we intend will operate from the start of the income support scheme. The Green and White Papers on the reform of the social security system expressed the intention to pursue common rules to bring about greater harmonisation and simplification. These regulations replace in whole or in part separate provisions in 10 existing statutory instruments. They represent a significant move towards a more easily understood benefit scheme.
There are four main changes from current practice. The first covers the time limits for claiming benefits. That is an essential element for efficient administration of the schemes. We asked the Social Security Advisory Committee to consider and report on the subject. Its report and the Secretary of State's response were published in March of this year and most of the committee's recommendations have been incorporated in the regulations. The general thrust is to move away from the complicated and often contentious concept of "good cause" for failing to claim earlier. For example, a person claiming retirement pension or widow's benefit will be able to receive benefit for up to the statutory maximum of a
600
year before the receipt of the claim, without having to give reasons or show "good cause" for the delay in claiming. That is a step in the right direction.
Secondly, there is at present a considerable mismatch between the periods for which benefits are paid. Contributory benefits such as unemployment benefit and the incapacity benefits are paid in arrears. Supplementary benefit is paid in advance. Consequently, someone receiving unemployment benefit with supplementary benefit receives payments which cover two separate and distinct periods. A vast majority of claimants find it difficult to understand how that comes about. Because it is difficult to understand as well as to administer, we propose to pay income support in arrears to nearly all claimants below pension age. Pensioners and widows will be paid income support in advance in line with retirement pension and widow's benefit. We will be bringing those two separate schemes into alignment.
Mr. Frank Field: I promise that I will not rise again during the Minister's speech. Will he take this opportunity to underline what a big change he has announced? His last statement was probably the most significant he has made so far. Does he realise the pressure that it will bring about in offices which already face pressure close to breaking point? Constituents will be turning up without a penny. They will be told that under the old scheme they would have registered and obtained benefit from that day forth but that now they may have to wait for seven days without any money. What advice will he give staff who may worry about their own physical safety under the new rules?
Mr. Scott: I sometimes give way with trepidation but never with reluctance to the hon. Gentleman because I acknowledge his skill in this subject, and the questions he raises may help to clarify the situation. Therefore. I shall never be reluctant to give way to him.
I think that the new system will be simpler and more clearly understood. It will be helped by the fact that, as part of the package, we will disregard last earnings, which were not disregarded under the previous system. They will be disregarded completely in terms of the calculation for income support. A clear majority of claimants come on to benefit from work. Claimants will now be able to use any final earnings to live on while awaiting their first benefit payment. They will no longer be excluded for the period covered by their last earnings. That is, I believe, a far more sensible arrangement than the present pattern. If there are particularly hard cases, I believe that the social fund will be able to operate to provide help. I think that the improvement that I have mentioned will deal with most of the hon. Gentleman's worries on the alignment front, and that it will be generally welcomed and will prove beneficial.
The third change is that it will be possible to make deductions from retirement pension, unemployment benefit and incapacity benefits when paid with income support if it has been decided that the direct payment of benefit to a third party is necessary—for example, to prevent the risk of disconnection for fuel debts. At present, if a pensioner's sole source of income is supplementary benefit, direct payment can be made to a fuel board. However, that may not be possible if the pensioner receives the same overall amount of benefit, but made up in part of retirement pension and in part of supplementary benefit. Again, I consider that a sensible arrangement.
Finally, we have introduced a new provision covering the suspension of benefit. In Committee on the Social

601
Security Act 1986, Ministers undertook to review the suspension rules, particularly as they applied to cases involving an appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. We propose that the social security appeal tribunal award may be suspended for a limited period only while consideration is given to an appeal to a commissioner. If within one month the claimant is not given notice that an application for leave to appeal has been made, the suspension will lapse.
Overall, the regulations will make for more effective and economical administration, and, I believe, will be more clearly understood by claimants.
We also have before us today the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order, which is of direct interest to a large proportion of the population at all levels of income. As I said at the outset, about 70 per cent. of the population live in families receiving some income from social security benefits. The most sizeable group of social security benefit recipients are pensioners. About 9.8 million people receive a retirement pension of some kind, at a cost this year of some £18.5 billion. The number of pensioners has risen by 1 million since the Government came to office, and will continue to rise fairly steadily to a peak of nearly 13.5 million in about 40 years time.
Let me deal with a point which has been raised across the Floor of the House. However desirable increases in the basic pension may appear, they cannot simply be viewed in the short term. Raising the level of the basic pension creates an obligation for the future which it would be irresponsible to ignore. For that reason, we took the view when we came to office that it was right to update pensions by the increase in prices rather than by the previous Government's formula of prices or earnings, whichever was the higher.
Ours is a guarantee that protects the pensioners' standard of living, but creates no long-term obligation which might arise beyond the country's ability to meet it. The order therefore provides for an increase in retirement pension of 4.2 per cent., in line with price movements between September 1986 and September 1987. That uprating will raise the basic pension by £2.65 for a married couple and £1.65 for a single person. Most people will receive a larger cash increase, because the uprating will also apply to graduated pension, which is received by two thirds of pensioners, and to earnings-related pension. The amount of earnings-related pension payable is increasing rapidly, and SERPS can add over £20 a week to the basic entitlement of a person retiring this year who has been on average earnings. I stress that, because many people persist in claiming that we have abolished earnings-related pension, a claim that its 1.8 million recipients would find difficult to understand.
The order covers all the contributory benefits and the non-contributory benefits for disablement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 October, it proposes an increase in all those benefits in line with the retail price index movement. I shall not take up more of the House's time in commenting on that, because I wish — to the great relief of my hon. Friend the Member from Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—to deal with child benefit, which is an interest shared by both sides of the House.
The House will know that the order does not propose an increase in child benefit on this occasion. It is important
602
for hon. Members to remember, however, that it does increase one-parent benefit to £4·90 and child dependency additions to £8·40. Regulations will also be laid before the House to increase the maternity payment under the social fund by £5 to £85. All those are benefits that go to families with some degree of special need.
The assistance for families on income support, and our proposals for family credit for low-income working families with children all concentrate help on those in most need. Child benefit, by contrast, goes to all families with children, regardless of income. The wives of hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight, or hon. Members themselves who have children under 19 in full-time education, will receive £7·25 a week from tax revenues as a result. Child benefit is, and will remain, a valuable contribution to the extra costs that every family incurs as a result of bringing up children. I must declare my own current interest in the matter! It will remain an important element in meeting those extra costs, and the purpose will continue to be met whether the benefit remains at £7·25 or goes up by 30p.
Mr. Marlow: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for intervening earlier.
My hon. Friend will be well aware that child benefit, although we are a much wealthier nation, now gives less to families than child tax allowance used to give 20 years ago. My hon. Friend rightly said that what we want to do is to target money to the poorest families. Conservative Members are all very much in favour of that, but if we are going to find and target that money, why are we taking it from other families, rather than from the general taxpayer?
Mr. Scott: We have identified families on low incomes, whether they are on income support or in work, as one of the groups that particularly need help. Government is about allocating priorities, and we believe that giving extra help to those low-income families is a higher priority than providing a 30p increase across the board. The saving is some £120 million. That has made a contribution—less than half, but still a contribution—to finding the extra £300 million that we are putting into benefits for families on low incomes.
Mr. Robin Squire: If I may use my hon. Friend's language of priorities, let me ask whether he accepts that a consequence of this order of priorities is that between 30 and 40 per cent. of families entitled to receive the new family credit will not be claiming it. This is a consequence of priority being given to chasing a relatively small sum from families who are relatively well off.
Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes several assumptions about take-up in the new system of family credit. The new scheme will, I believe, be generous. We are assuming that it will apply to twice as many families as have benefited—
Mrs. Beckett: That assumption is based on the most dubious grounds.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady will no doubt play her part, as we in the Government will play ours, in seeking to draw attention in the community at large to the new system of benefits. Already we reckon that it will go to twice as many families as before, and it will be much more generous. I believe that our communication strategy, and the fact that the general changeover to income support and the new

603
pattern of benefits that we are introducing in April next year will doubtless arouse considerable interest throughout the country, will help take-up.
Our experience on the take-up of benefits is that it is those who are entitled to comparatively small amounts who decline to take up benefit. Those who are entitled to the larger amounts on any particular scheme tend, on balance, to claim. I see no reason why that should change when we introduce the new scheme.
I emphasise that increases in child benefit would not have given an extra penny to those families who were most in need—those already on income-related benefits. What matters to them is the level of child support that comes through the income support scheme and family credit. That is why, as I said, we are putting an extra £300 million into those benefits next year against the saving—30p, not uprated this year — of £120 million which would have gone to the uprating of child benefit. That will ensure that the extra money available goes directly to those with the greatest needs, whereas the major benefit of an increase in child benefit would have been to people in the upper half of the income range.
It would not be right at this point to redistribute resources in that way. I hope that, on reflection, the House, arid, in particular, my hon. Friends who talk to me about this and who I know care passionately about this, will agree that our decision for 1988 is the right one. I commend the instruments to the House.
6.20 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: It may be for your ease of mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I assure you that the Opposition have no intention of trying to take the debate through the night. Unless seriously provoked, we shall not oppose the business motion at 10 o'clock. We recognise that it will he for the convenience of the House to reach decisions at 10 o'clock. One reason why it will be for the convenience of the House, and why it is important that the House should avail itself of that opportunity, is that the House should be given the opportunity to reject the income support regulations, which will leave 4 million current claimants, and over 4 million dependants in the households of those claimants, worse off.
The uprating order, as the Minister recognised, is significant chiefly because of the benefit that is not uprated —child benefit. When the Secretary of State made his uprating statement in the House, I teased the right hon. Gentleman with the promise in the Conservative manifesto that child benefit would continue to be paid as now. I then added that we were no doubt intended to take that observation strictly literally.
I offered that observation in jest. However, it has since emerged from some press reports that that line in the Conservative manifesto was carefully honed; that a decision had already been taken before the election that child benefit would not be uprated this year. Indeed, we are advised by Mr. Hugo Young that, in a briefing to Conservative party candidates, the then Secretary of State was informed by some candidates that they intended to ask him in open session what that meant and were requested not to do so because he was anxious not to tell the conference. If a decision had been reached by the Government before 11 June, not to uprate child benefit, that decision should have been shared with the electorate before 11 June so that it could have taken part in the decision-making process.
604
One reason why I find the decision not to uprate child benefit perverse is that this is a Government who are constantly and cheerfully cutting taxes without the same kind of anxiety about whether the benefits of those cuts in tax necessarily go to those most in need.
Child benefit is a replacement of a tax allowance. I have no doubt that if it had been retained as a tax allowance the Government would happily be uprating it in line with inflation, although the case for doing that is exactly the same as the case for uprating child benefit. Indeed, in a sense, the case for uprating child benefit is more progressive since, after all, an increase in a cash benefit is of greater value to low-income families, who may not be paying taxes, and of less value to high-income families, who will be obtaining the tax allowance at the higher rates.
The decision not to uprate child benefit has two consequences. First, it increases the poverty trap. The Minister ended by saying that one reason why the Government were persuaded not to increase child benefit was that increasing child benefit did not help those most in need — those on means-tested benefit. One of the ironies of the decision not to increase child benefit is that it will increase the number of people on means-tested benefit.
We are grateful to the Minister for replies to two parliamentary questions which tell us that another 10,000 people will qualify for family credit as a result of the freeze, and a further 5,000 will qualify for income support. In other words, another 15,000 households will be put into the means-tested trap—the poverty trap. Child benefit is the best single way of helping families out of the poverty trap, precisely because it is a benefit that does not go down as their income goes up and as they attempt to make their way in the labour market.
The second consequence is that the decision will tilt the balance of distribution of income in the household from the mother to the father. It is the mother who bears most of the cost of the children, and those costs are increasing. Next April, thanks to the Government's decision in the Social Security Act 1986, those families not on income support — not on means-tested benefit—will find that they no longer qualify for free school meals. Half a million children from families whose parents are in work will lose entitlement to free school meals next April. That will cost the mother in those families, on average, £3 per week per child. As the chances are that if such mothers have one child in that category they will probably have two, it is likely to cost many mothers £6 per week.
It is odd that, at the very time when the Government are to impose that additional burden on the mother, they should choose to freeze her child benefit, the one income that she can claim on her own. Labour Members cannot accept the claims of Conservatives to be the party of the family when they plainly are not prepared to be the party of family benefits. They cannot have their claim to be the party of the family on the cheap.
Child benefit is not uprated at all. The other benefits in the uprating order are, but they are uprated only in line with prices, not earnings, although earnings are going up twice as fast as prices. Let me respond to what the Minister said about the effect of that on pensions. He said that the effect of the order would be to maintain pensioners' living standards, but we must be more precise than that about the effect. The effect of uprating pensions in line with prices, not earnings, is to maintain the purchasing power of the pension, but it is also to make sure that those

605
pensioners who are dependent on the basic state pension do not share in the improvement in the living standards of the rest of the population. Indeed, they are left behind with a benefit that is constantly shrinking as a proportion of average income.
In 1979 the single pension was equivalent to 20·4 per cent. of gross male earnings. In 1988, as a result of the order, that proportion will have shrunk from 20·4 per cent. to a beggarly 17·2 per cent. I would not pretend that 20·4 per cent. was an adequate figure for the basic state pension —far from it—but at least under the previous Labour Government that figure did not shrink. It did not shrink because the previous Labour Government linked the pension uprating to earnings. That link, as the Minister acknowledged, was the first to be broken by the Government.
It was arguably the worst cut in benefit that we have seen from the Government, despite the many occasions on which they have broken benefit links. Had that link been retained, next April the single pension would, in cash terms, be worth £9·20 a week more and the pension for a couple would be worth £14·60 a week more. That may not qualify as serious money in the City of London, but it would make a big difference to the weekly budget of many British pensioners.
I note from the figures on the impact of these changes, which are published by the Government, that, on average, the income of those 3 million pensioners who are dependent on state benefits will go down. The average entitlement of people under 80 years of age will go down by £1 per week, and the average entitlement of those pensioners over 80 will go down by 30p per week. That will happen to some of the most vulnerable in our community.
An entertaining perspective to that reduction in entitlement was provided by the wit and wisdom of our Prime Minister. You may have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last week the Prime Minister did her Christmas shopping at a Marks and Spencer store, in the course of which she purchased a cashmere sweater. I note that she stated that she purchased the cashmere sweater because she is unable to wear wool next to her skin. I am touched to discover that there is at least one human frailty that I share with the Prime Minister. No doubt it is because of our thin skin.
On purchasing the cashmere sweater, the Prime Minister observed to the assembled throng of shop girls,
"As you get older you need your comforts—the comfort of cashmere."
I would not go so far as the Prime Minister and describe the comfort of cashmere as a basic need, or suggest that a loan should be available out of the social fund to pay for the purchase of cashmere sweaters, but I agree with the Prime Minister that as one gets older one needs some comfort. One needs the ability to pay for the heating in one's home, to pay for the use of public transport or to pay for the occasional treat for the grandchildren. As a result of the decline in the value of their pension, even those comforts are as far beyond the income of some pensioners as is the purchase of a cashmere sweater.
The other regulation that is of even greater contention is the one on income support. It scraps supplementary benefit and puts into place the new benefit system that was the centrepiece of the Social Security Act 1986. The Minister described the lengthy process behind the
606
regulation and the long period of mass consultation. I have difficulty in reconciling that with the reality of the reviews that were carried out by the previous Secretary of State, which took place in committees chaired by Ministers from the DHSS and were packed with the Government's friends from the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Directors. The Green Paper was written at a weekend conference held in a stately home. Even the agenda was classified "secret". One senior civil servant who was present made the diverting comment that the most open discussions were to be found in the gentlemen's room.
We have several fundamental objections to the structure of the income support system that is proposed in the regulations. The most fundamental is that the regulations sweep away all the additions that at present help claimants to get by. Those are the additions which the previous Minister of State, in a moment of Olympian disdain, described as "the twiddly bits" of the social security system. They may be "twiddly" to the Minister, but they are important to claimants. They include, for instance, additions for diet for those who suffer from diabetes or other medical conditions ; additions for laundry for claimants who are incontinent or who have children who wet the bed; additions for hot water for claimants who need more than the one bath a week that they are allowed under the supplementary benefit regulations and additions for heating for claimants who need additional warmth in their homes or who have the misfortune to live in one of the houses that were devised by architects who had lost the art of insulating houses, assuming that the tenant would be able to put up with constantly high fuel costs.
I noticed that last week the Prime Minister—no doubt in a fit of inadvertence—said that last winter heating additions totalled £430 million. She took pride in that fact and told the House that that was a "record" amount. However, she omitted to advise the House last week that tonight we would he invited to pass a regulation that embodies a structure that cancels every one of those heating additions and abolishes that £430 million additional help for claimants. We are invited to do so at the very time when electricity prices are to increase by 8 per cent. to fatten up the electricity boards for the private sector.
We are told that the change represents targeting. In fact, the extinction of all those weekly additions for specific and particular needs is the precise reverse of targeting. It is shooting blind without regard for the individual circumstances of claimants. It will undoubtedly leave behind many casualties who will be worse off.
I concede to the Minister that my hon. Friends and I are not enthusiastic about means-tested benefits, but we accept that there will always be a case for a means-tested benefit as an income of last resort. However, the Government are offering the worst formula of a means-tested benefit, entitlement to which will be measured by reference to income, but the benefit of which will not be measured by any judgment of the claimant's needs.
The needs of the claimant are to be met, and the additions are to be replaced, by the new premiums for certain categories, but those premiums will not compensate for the abolition of all the weekly additions. Any claimant who currently manages to obtain two or more additions is almost certain to be worse off. Some claimants, especially disabled people, will be spectacularly worse off. Several disabled claimants face a loss of

607
entitlement of up to £50 per week. There may be only a few hundred people in that category, but we know from the Government's own statement on the impact of the changes that 20,000 disabled claimants face a weekly loss of entitlement of more than £5.
That group should not be among the losers. It is blunt targeting that results in making worse off those in our community who are most in need of help. What makes their loss of entitlement especially offensive is that the House is asked to approve the change before the Government have received the results of their own survey of the needs of disabled people and the extent of disability in our country. If there is a case for changing the benefits of the disabled in a way that will leave so many people losers, that case should be made after, not before, the Government have received the results of the survey.
Mr. Scott: Would the hon. Gentleman argue, by the same token, that we should not have provided the extra resources that will help disabled people when we introduce income support? Overall, about £60 million extra will help to meet their needs. We are introducing a system under which 85 per cent. of people under the age of 60 who receive disability premium, will gain or be unaffected in real terms. About 44 per cent. will gain more than £5 per week. Would the hon. Gentleman have wanted that to be held up also?
Mr. Cook: If the Minister is to provide that additional help, of course it will be welcome. However, it should not he provided or paid for—as is happening under the change in income support—by reductions in the benefit of other categories, including reductions for other disabled people, 80,000 of whom will be worse off as a result of the change—20,000 by more than £5 per week. Moreover, the figure of 85 per cent. that the Minister quoted as the number of disabled people who will be better off relates only to disabled people who are aged under 65. As most disabled people who at present obtain weekly additions by reason of their medical or other disabilities are over 65 years of age, it is partial pleading to claim that most of those who are aged under 65 will benefit from the change. Most of those disabled people who are over 65 will suffer from the change.
There are other claimants who do not qualify for any premium. As we are discussing disabled people, let us consider the position of those who have given up work to care for a disabled relative. Many tens of thousands of women have left the labour force to work full-time looking after an aged relative. That is exactly the kind of step that I should have thought the Government would wish to encourage as part of their philosophy of care in the community. At present, those women qualify for the longterm rate of supplementary benefit. As a result of the change they will qualify only for the single person allowance, with no premium. They will be £5 per week worse off, even if they are not in receipt of any weekly additions. If they receive a weekly addition, they will be £10 or more worse off per week.
I know that we will be told that their benefit will be protected. However, in this case "protection" means that their benefit will be frozen and will not be increased, and because the drop in the entitlement of carers is so large, they are unlikely to receive any increase in their benefit until 1990. Moreover, those who choose to leave the labour force to care for a disabled elderly relative after
608
April next year will find that they obtain benefit only at the new reduced rate. They may find themselves living in the same street as someone in identical circumstances, who is providing an identical service, but they will receive £5 or £10 a week less. They will not find that fair or reasonable.
Carers who are currently in receipt of benefit and whose income is protected may take a seasonal job next summer —some people do if such work is available—and they will find it unreasonable when they return to claim benefit to discover that their benefit is £5 or £10 less than they had received in the spring of this year. That will not seem like progress or reform to them; it will seem plain daft.
There is another layer of discrimination in the regulations that deserves attention. The Minister pleaded that simplicity was one of the merits and virtues of the new system. However, one of the odd features of the system —I would hardly call it simplicity—is that there are now five different entitlements to benefit, depending on the age of the claimant or his or her partner. That seems a rather odd complication. In seeking to assist the Minister to achieve simplicity in the benefit system, I suggest that he could achieve greater simplicity by dropping the bizarre discrimination against single people under 25. Under the new regulations they will receive £7 less than a single person over 25. The social security system will now be the only system in the whole of our legislation that recognises a unique and distinct age of majority to be 25. That bears no relation to reality of life at 24.
It is possible that people who have worked for a number of years and who have left the labour force because of redundancy will discover that, after those several years of work, they have an entitlement to income support at the junior level only. It will be possible for service men to complete a term of engagement, to be discharged and find, if they attempt to obtain income support, that they are not entitled to the full adult rate.
Long before the age of 25 I was a separate householder, living in my own right in my own house. I should be very surprised if that was not the case with the Minister. Indeed, when the Bells call us for the Division at 10 o'clock tonight, I should be extremely surprised if the overwhelmingly majority of Members voting were not living by themselves or with their own families by the age of 25. Frankly, I think that it would be ludicrous for us to vote for a reduced level of entitlement for single people under 25. That plainly supposes that they are a reasonable, partial burden on their parents, despite the fact that most unemployed young people tend to be found in the households of low-income parents.
I note that the National Association of Probation Officers predicted—it is in the position to know—that the reduced entitlement for young people is likely to result in an increase in poverty-related crime. That would not be surprising because, in truth, this discrimination has no logic in the benefit system and, given the need of young people, no justification. The sole reason for this discrimination against unemployed people under 25 is that it is part of the many attempts by the Government to rig the labour market for the young unemployed and force them to settle for lower wages, worse working conditions and more insecure employment. We reject that discrimination.
We also reject the basis on which the system will create invidious distinctions between different categories of claimants. That was perfectly expressed by the Social

609
Security Advisory Committee, which was, after all, set up by the Government to advise them. With regard to the premium system, the committee observed that it represents
"a sophisticated variation on the theme of deserving and undeserving poor with higher rates going to sympathetic groups such as the elderly or the disabled and lower rates to groups such as the unemployed, whose plight is liable to evoke less popular sympathy."
Our benefit system should not be based on moral approval for people's reasons for drawing benefit. It should be based on their need for benefit and not by reference to the particular reason why they find themselves claiming it.
I have listed our objections to the structure of the new system. It should be admitted—I cheerfully concede it— that those objections have been put to the Government over the past three years since they first produced the proposals. However, we have failed to make headway in persuading the Government to amend the structure.
Tonight at least we have a new dimension to the debate. For the first time we have the figures to fill in the blank spaces in the regulations. Until the other week the only figures that we had for the level of income support were those in the annex to the 1985 White Paper. We were always told that those figures were purely illustrative. Indeed, in one sense they certainly were illustrative, because there was never any attempt to explain how they were derived.
The central weakness of the review carried out by the previous Secretary of State was that at no time during the review, and during the consultations before or after the publication of the Green Paper, did the Government attempt to measure the needs of the claimants. It was a nil-cost review, which simply consisted of redividing a fixed sum in a different way for the same number of people. We do not know whether the resultant figures are adequate for the needs of claimants. We do not even know how the present level of supplementary benefit has been put together.
We know what the level of supplementary benefit is supposed to cover, because regulation 4 of the current regulations tells us. The full list published in regulation 4 of the supplementary benefit regulations, shows that the benefit is supposed to cover
"food, household fuel, the purchase, cleaning, and replacement of clothing and footwear, normal travel costs, weekly laundry costs, miscellaneous household expenses such as toilet articles, cleaning materials, window cleaning, and the replacement of small household goods (for example, crockery, cooking utensils, light bulbs), and leisure and amenity items such as television licence and rental, newspapers, confectionary and tobacco."
All those things are to be covered by a weekly single person's allowance of £30·40. We do not know whether that can be done—nobody at the DHSS has attempted to demonstrate that it can. Indeed, the Government have shown a stunning lack of interest in whether what they claim is covered by benefit can be purchased within the terms of that benefit.
We are aware that £30·40 ostensibly includes a notional £11 a week for food. The DHSS has not attempted to prove to us whether it is possible to feed oneself on £11 a week. Frankly, I rather doubt whether many hon. Members, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, could feed themselves for a day on £11. Certainly when one Conservative Member tried three years ago to live for
610
one week on that level of supplementary benefit he was in darkness by the end of the week because he could not afford to turn on the light and was cadging free drinks in the pub because he could no longer stand his round.
Mr. Frank Field: Where is he now?
Mr. Cook: He is standing free drinks to hon. Members on a Sunday afternoon.
We have been assured that the figures in the White Paper were illustrative. There was always the hint held out to us that the real figures would be better. Time after time when we referred to the illustrative losers in the annex to the White Paper we were reminded that those were illustrative figures and that we could not assume that there would be as many losers when the real figures were unveiled. We now have those real figures, and they are worse than the figures in the 1985 White Paper.
Mr. Scott indicated dissent
Mr. Cook: The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that I will carry him with me before I finish, unless he wishes to get into real difficulty with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
To understand my argument it is necessary to take account of the alleged compensation for the cut in housing benefit. That cut in housing benefit arises from the exclusion of 20 per cent. of rates from coverage under housing benefit. Just before the election the Government, by the sheer stark unpopularity of their proposals, were obliged to commit themselves to compensate claimants on income support for that additional expenditure on rates. The additional burden of rates that claimants will face has been costed at £1·30 a week, but that is an average figure.
I was grateful to the Minister for his reply to my parliamentary question in which he admitted that "slightly under half' of all claimants will end up paying more than £1·30 per week. However, some of them will be paying spectacularly more than £1·30 a week. If hon. Members care to step outside the Chamber they will find themselves in the Inner London borough of Westminster. It is Conservative-controlled. The average weekly rates burden to be faced by those currently on housing benefit, but who will lose the entitlement to claim benefit for one-fifth of their rates, will be double £1·30.
In the Minister's own constituency of Chelsea the average weekly payment that his constituents will have to make for rates will not be £1·30—it will be £2·30. Even if they received the £1·30, they would end up £1 a week worse off.
Mr. Scott: ILEA.
Mr. Cook: With the greatest respect to the Minister, the source of that increase has vastly more to do with the way in which the Government have starved and garrotted local authorities in Inner London by the purse strings than with any spending decision that the authorities made.
Nevertheless, I shall leave aside the cavilling point whether £1·30 is fair or not. Let us accept the figure and turn our attention to how it is accommodated in the income support figures. A moment's reflection will demonstrate that it has not been accommodated in those figures. A parliamentary written answer to myself sets out a table providing for the uprating of the 1985 White Paper figures. It is perfectly clear that the working principle on

611
which the DHSS has proceeded is that of taking the figures in the White Paper and uprating them by the Rossi index —that is, the RPI, less housing costs.
It need not surprise us that the DHSS has chosen the Rossi index, because it is the lowest index of inflation that could be found, so it is to be expected that the DHSS would use it. All the premiums are uprated fully by the Rossi index; but if we examine personal allowances for couples, in particular, and if we assume that the 1985 figure was uprated by Rossi, and then look for the excess over Rossi, we find that the additional element that has been added to the personal allowance for couples is not £1·30 at all—it is a beggarly 30p a week. At some stage in the process £1 has been lost in the pipeline.
I want to turn now to the Minister's vigorous shaking of the head when I suggested that the £1·30 had not been compensated for. When I responded during the statement on uprating and accused the Secretary of State of misleading the House in this matter, he was very hurt and chided me for doubting his word and for suggesting that he would do anything quite so heinous as to mislead the House. Very well, then: I shall give the Minister the choice, and I shall be grateful if he will tell us what he prefers. Either he can say that the 1985 figures have been fully uprated, in which case the Department has patently not compensated the income support claimants for the additional and new rates burden, or he can say that the Department has compensated the income support claimants for the new rates burden, in which case he is obliged to admit that the 1985 figures had not been honestly uprated. The DHSS can have it one of those two ways, but not both. If the Minister is now trying to tell us that the £1·30 is completely present, he must admit that when I suggested earlier that the White Paper figures had not been fully uprated, I was absolutely correct. They had not ; £1 is missing.
Logically, if the net benefit in income support is now lower than in 1985, there must be more losers after we allow for the new rates burden. The Government are reluctant to admit that there are more losers, but they have at least admitted that there will be 3·7 million losers, three quarters of a million of whom will lose more than £5 a week. None of those 3·7 million will receive a penny increase in their benefits in April next year. The three quarters of a million who lose more than £5 a week are unlikely to receive a penny in their benefit in 1989, either. They will have to wait until 1990 for their next uprating. They will all face a new weekly charge for rates burden, averaged at £1·30—in many cases it will be double £1·30. They will all find that they have no entitlement to single payments, because those have been abolished. If they try to find a substitute for single payments, they will be obliged to take a loan from the social fund, for which repayments will be deducted from their benefit, leaving them with an even lower, more meagre income.
It is not surprising that, on that basis, income support has few friends. The Minister of State referred to the lengthy consultation process. One of the curious features of that process is that the review bodies never published the evidence they received. However, we have the evidence of the survey that was carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group. Of 50 organisations that submitted comments on income support, Child Poverty Action Group counted 47 that were either flatly against it or heavily critical of it. The group could find only three of the 50 that supported income support. They were: The
612
Association of British Chambers of Commerce; The Association of Independent Businesses; and the Monday Club.
I do not comment on whether those organisations might be politically favourable to the Government. I do them the charity of assuming that they came to the issue with open minds and allowed the free play of intellect to shine on those minds, coming to the conclusion that, on balance, they liked the proposal because it appealed to them intellectually. But those organisations are not conspicuous for representing claimants on benefit. The financial directors of those chambers of commence have no conception of the skills of budget management required by claimants to keep body and soul together from one week to the next.
My hon. Friends and I have that conception. We represent those claimants and work with the communities in which they are found in large numbers. We see them weekly. We know the poverty and the hardship that they experience. We know the loss of dignity and self-respect that comes from being unable to clothe their family or heat their home. We know that we cannot tolerate the level of benefit becoming worse, or the poverty growing deeper. That is why we shall vote against the regulations tonight.
6.58 pm
Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) certainly drew some blood, particularly on the subject of the disabled, but I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that the idyllic picture that he tried to draw of what happened to pensions under the Labour Government bore little relation to what actually occurred. The system by which he sets such store did not operate in 1976, or 1978, and had the Labour Government won the 1979 election, it would not have operated in 1979, either. At the most, the system had a one in two rate of striking, which was not very effective.
My hon. Friend the Minister made a convincing speech, which was fortunate, because we did not, therefore, notice that quite a lot of time was spent on it. Of course, he gave way generously to several hon. Members during that speech. He gave a convincing rationale why we are changing from supplementary benefit and moving away from the family income supplement. Indeed, he was so convincing that I shall not extol the benefits of the change any further, because he did that much better than I could.
I want to ask one or two questions about the disabled, and comment on one or two areas about which my hon. Friend's remarks leave me less happy, one of which is the future of child benefit. Of course, we all welcome my hon. Friend's statement that, as has been said before, we shall spend £60 million more on the disabled this year. However, the organisations that represent, look after or help the disabled are exceedingly worried about some aspects of the scheme. I was rather hoping that my hon. Friend might have been able to give us more reassurances than he has been able to this afternoon. I trust that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will put many of our minds at rest, and particularly those of the people who run the organisations for the disabled.
Is it really true that, as has been estimated by some of these highly responsible and respectable organisations, at least 40 per cent. of the newly disabled pensioners, and at least 50 per cent. of newly disabled younger people will he worse off under the new system than they would have been? Is it true that about 280,000 new claimants will be

613
worse off? If that is true, how do the Government justify it? If it is not true, perhaps my hon. Friend will give us the correct figure. I know that those people will not be worse off than they are now, because at present they are not getting the money at all, but I should like to know whether they will be worse off than they would otherwise have been. If they are going to be, that cannot be right at a time of tax cuts, because people who are about to become disabled beneficiaries should not be treated worse than their predecessors. I hope that my hon. Friend will have some interesting and heart-warming things to tell us on that subject.
I and many of my hon. Friends have been accused of having historical views about child benefit. I do not mind having historical views, because very often such views are rather good. Anyway, the Government are taking a more historical view because they are going back to the 1930s. The great word nowadays is targeting, which is really Orwellian Newspeak for means testing. When we say that it is better to have targeted benefits for families with children rather than child benefit, we are really saying that the means test is a good thing. I am not sure that many people take that view.
So-called targeting does not work. My hon. Friend was extremely optimistic about how many people would take up these new means-tested benefits for children. I welcome these benefits and congratulate the Minister on getting the necessary money and in a moment I shall turn to how the benefit will be paid for. However, I do not know why he is so optimistic about the take-up rate and why he thinks that there will be a greater take-up than there has been in the past. The Government's figures seem to show that only about 60 per cent. of people will take it up. Therefore, the Government's intention on child benefit will hurt about 40 per cent. of the worst off. The failure to increase child benefit will not make the worst-off people better off; it will make them even worse off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that it was good to have this extra £300 million, but he asked why it should be paid for, at least partly, by other families with children. The Minister did not altogether meet that point and an uncharacteristic element of waffle was contained in his answer. I was unable to discern a great deal of meaning in what he said. There is a logical fallacy here. If we are to give so-called targeted, which really means means-tested, money to families with children, where is the logic in reducing child benefit? The answer is that there is no logic there at all.
I do not know whether the Minister is reading a newspaper or studying child benefits. He said that the benefit goes to all children. Child benefit should go to everybody. That is why it is a good benefit. It is said that it costs £4·6 billion, but as my hon. Friend well knows, that is art accounting fallacy, because it is largely a tax allowance. At the very most it can be said to be public expenditure only in respect of those who pay more income tax than they get in child benefit. Therefore, the suggestion that it costs £4·6 billion is quite wrong.
Some of my hon. Friends and the Government seem to hold the view that it is perfectly all right to get any number of allowances in order to avoid paying tax. This takes in mortgage tax relief, married person's relief and single person's relief. That is apparently perfectly acceptable, but as soon as the money is paid out it somehow becomes
614
wrong. We all know that there are two sides to a balance sheet. Not paying in on one side is exactly the same as taking money out on the other side. I hope that we do not hear any more about the great mass of resources that is being put into child benefit, because it is not true. As I say, it is an accounting fallacy.
Child benefit is the best benefit that we have and has a far greater take-up than my hon. Friend with his great optimism about these matters will be able to match. It is paid to the mother and, above all, it does not deepen the poverty trap. It has been admitted that what is being done this year will increase the poverty trap. Another 15,000 families will be means-tested for benefits, and that is thoroughly wrong. I hope that that will never happen again.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is not quite correct when he says that child benefit does not contribute to the poverty trap. The need to pay for the benefit requires income tax thresholds that are much lower than they would otherwise be and income tax rates that are much higher than they would otherwise be. As income tax bites on levels of income that by any standards are fairly low, child benefit is not only a disincentive but an engine of poverty.
Sir Ian Gilmour: As I say, it is basically a tax relief. I do not know how that could be called a disincentive. As soon as the worst-off people earn any more, their benefit goes down and they are trapped. That does not happen with child benefit, and that is why it is such an excellent benefit. The failure to uprate it this year is a bad blot on the review. I hope that such a mean-minded and unjustifiable thing will not happen next year.
7.8 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my first speech to this House. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware that my predecessor was Mr. Michael Cocks, now Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. He represented Bristol, South for 17 years and during that time was Chief Whip in the Labour Government. In his maiden speech in 1970, he described Bristol, South as an industrial constituency with workshops, housing, transport and all the necessities required to enable a community to go about its daily life.
That is no longer the case in Bristol, South. Its industry is devastated to the point where there is only one major employer left. It is in the hands of Lord Hanson and we are not too optimistic about its future and his commitment to Bristol, South. Our housing is devastated and, as a result of deregulation, our transport services are poor and we have very few community facilities. I believe that new Members should bring to the House their experience of life and add it to the debates in order to make sure that people from all walks of life have their views reflected in the Chamber and in legislation.
As I say, Michael Cocks made his maiden speech in 1970, when I was 16. The debates on these regulations and the debates that we had last week on the Social Security Bill have caused me to reflect on what was on offer to me in 1970 and what is on offer now to our 16 and 17-year-olds. As other hon. Members have said, it is also interesting to note what is on offer for under-25-year-olds. I am not saying that in 1970 everything was rosy, but some things were different, including the opportunities open to

615
young people. The choices open to me as a 16-year-old were that I could stay on at school and obtain qualifications and go on to further education, apprenticeship or go into some form of full-time employment. Although we had criticisms of the opportunities that were available to us, the one thing we had was hope for the future and the feeling that we were moving forward and that things would improve.
When I look at young people's lives in Bristol, South, today, I see despondent, disappointed and rejected young people who believe that we do not value them as individuals in our society. Indeed, the legislation put forward by this Government confirms them in such views. Young people are denied financial independence and the proposals in the Social Security Bill will force them into work without choice through low-paid youth training schemes. They have problems of homelessness, alcohol abuse, and glue sniffing. We expect young people to deal with all the problems of our society without our help and support.
If we expect young people to respect our institutions and our values, to look to the future with hope, to take up and develop our values, we should show them the respect that is due to them as young people. If we do not, if we write off generations as we are doing, if we say to young people, "We do not care; go away; you do not count; you are not entitled to anything," which is what the Government are doing, we will store up a backlash for which we will all pay dearly. We cannot expect them to have our values if we are not prepared to value them as young people. We cannot say, "You are not entitled to choose your career."
The Government have said a great deal about freedom of choice and have employed a great deal of rhetoric in persuading everyone that they have the right to choose, yet under these proposals 16 and 17-year-olds are not permitted to choose their careers. They are not allowed financial independence if they refuse to be forced into YTS.
The Government are dealing with that age group in such a way because they are seeking to force down their expectations. That is part of an overall labour market strategy, to force down all wages and make us a low-wage economy. We should take every opportunity to point that out. If one looks at the jobs that are offered and advertised on television for the under-25s, time and again one finds that the wages are YTS rates.
Under the regulations being discussed today, 7 million adults and children will depend on the new income support scheme. Hon. Members have mentioned that the proposals for benefit will not supply the basic requirements that people need to live, such as a nutritionally adequate diet. The DHSS has issued advice to its adjudication officers on expenditure on food to be expected by a claimant family —that is two adults and two children of primary school age. That amount is £28·60 a week and was set without any consideration of whether one could provide a balanced diet with that sum. That amount is provided in paragraph 4736 of the S manual of the DHSS.
Separately, the Department has decided to educate people on eating well and on nutritious diets. Through speeches and advertisements it is encouraging us to eat a healthy diet and stating why that is important. The London Food Commission calculated that the cost of the recommended healthy diet was £48·04 a week for that same family of two adults and two primary school
616
children. Therefore, why is it that families on income support are denied the difference of £19·44 a week and are denied the opportunity to have a balanced diet? If one calculates what a family could buy with that money, the result is a diet that would be deficient in calories, with too much protein, low on fibre, high on fats and short on iron and calcium for children.
Why is it that healthy diets do not apply to people on income support? Why is it that the Government have two separate levels? Would it not have been a good idea if the two sections of the Department that proposed those matters had spoken to each other before they set the level of benefit for claimants? School meals were mentioned. In Avon, the county in which I have my constituency, parents have to pay 80p per day per child for a school meal. Those parents who will be taken out of the free school meal service will not only devastate the service and the people who work in it, mainly women; it will also mean that parents simply will not be able to pay that level of contribution.
Of the other items that one is expected to buy from income support, similar research by researchers Bradshaw and Morgan has been carried out on what families spend on clothing. The survey came out with absurd results of what people are entitled to buy. A woman will be able to afford a coat once every five years, a pair of shoes once every one and a half years and various items of underwear, one at a time, approximately every two and a half years. Perhaps some hon. Members make their clothes last that long, but it is a fact of life that the standard of clothing today is such that it simply does not last. The Government are saying to people that they are not entitled to eat properly or to dress in clothes that are adequate, because they are being used as pawns so that the Government can force down the wages of those in work.
In Bristol, South, because we are no longer the industrial constituency that we were, as a direct result of the Government's economic policies, many people claim supplementary benefit. The Bristol, South DHSS office is the second largest in our region. People in Bristol, South, whether or not the Government are making the system less complicated, understand clearly that the regulations will create a two-tier system, under which people will be forced back into low-paid jobs because the Government are too mean to give them the rights to which they are entitled. When young people look back on how they were treated, I hope that they will reflect that there were some hon. Members who said that they did not want them thrown on the rubbish tip, who did not believe that they were not valued in our society, who believed that they had a contribution to make and who treated them with respect. It is not the Government who will be remembered for doing that.
7.19 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) at the conclusion of her maiden speech. She represents one of the few Labour constituencies in the south, south-west or south-east of the country outside London, so the strain on her might be argued to be rather heavier than on other hon. Members. She delivered a fluent, assured, spirited and questioning speech which was of great credit to her and which I am sure will be held in great esteem by the House. It was a controversial speech but none the worse for that. No doubt she will find that

617
when she rises to her feet and makes similar contributions she might have a slightly more animated response from Conservative Members. However, I am sure that she will be able to cope with that.
One small but important quibble I have with the hon. Member's speech is that I would like to endorse, in stronger terms than she perhaps felt she could, her comments about her predecessor. Michael Cocks was well respected on both sides of the House as a man of considerable achievement. I put it on record that I thought he was an admirable parliamentarian.
I wish to concentrate on the uprating order and child benefit, and during my speech I shall quote from a couple of letters that I received only today from constituents. I welcome not only the way that my hon. Friend the Minister moved the orders but the uprating of the pension fully in line with our election pledge, which I am sure is welcomed by many of the elderly in my constituency. That uprating was regardless of the wealth of the pensioner.
I strongly regret, I know in company with many Conservatives both in the House and outside, the decision by the Government not to uprate child benefit this year. That loss of 30p a week may seem small to some people, but to poorer families and even some not-so-poor families it represents a sizeable sum. When it is, as an alternative, to be put into a means-tested benefit, it can only result in an increase of those in the poverty trap. We are told that 10,000 extra families will be dragged into the poverty trap. Those people will lose 70p for every £1 of net extra income they receive.
However others may interpret our election manifesto, I was quite clear as to what it meant and in this area not only was I in full support of what the Government were doing, but thought that it was fully in line with what we had been saying and carrying out during our years of government since 1979. Along with several other hon. Members, I received today a petition organised by the Save the Child Benefit Campaign, on which were some 40,000 signatures collected in a short time. I have no doubt that, had the organisers wished to extend the time of the campaign, they could have gathered many more signatures from all constituencies. Their concerns on child benefit are shared by hon. Members in all parties.
One letter I received today from a constituent was about child benefit. It states:
"I am writing to protest about the proposed freezing and ultimately abolition of the family allowance".
I hope that will not happen. The letter continues:
"The family allowance was adjusted, supposedly, to take the place of tax allowances for children and to put some money straight into the hands of the mothers of children instead.
The amount of money involved, especially in the case of these people who have two or three children is not small either, and is a necessary part of a family's income, even when one of the parents is employed. I know that in our family, even with my husband in a good job, the family allowance is essential for paying the bills and is not frittered away on luxuries."
Those are not my words but those of a constituent. She is right.
Had we not made the change from the tax allowance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has pointed out, there can be little doubt that the child allowance would have been increased. We can only guess at the sum, but since the
618
single man's allowance has been increased by 14 per cent. in real terms since 1975 and the married man's allowance by 17 per cent., we can make a reasonable guess that the child allowance would have been increased by about 15 per cent. That compares with a decrease in real terms.
Perhaps we are at a stage when tax allowances are good and benefits are bad. If so, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to redouble any efforts he is making and to consider reintroducing the tax allowance. However we tackle it, we must find ways of reaching out to people who will lose because of this decision.
I was pleased the other day to hear that the Government hope that the take-up of family credit will be 70 per cent. We all share that hope, particularly against the background of the family income supplement having a take-up of 50 per cent. Only last year the Government expressed the expectation that it would have a 60 per cent. take-up. So even before the benefit has come in, we are on an upward path. Let us hope that the reality meets the Government's expectation.
Whichever figure we take—I will stick to 60 per cent. —it is inescapable that a significant proportion of the poorest families will not benefit from the extra money which the Government are properly putting into family credit, because they will not take the benefit. That is the nub of the concern which I share with a number of my hon. Friends.
We rightly talk much about encouraging people to improve themselves, to gain work where they are unemployed or to get better paid work when they are poorly paid, but they need a platform on which to build. It must not be assumed that we wish to have a society in which every benefit is means-tested. That would be a bad society. I am backed in that view by a very good article a short time ago in The Times by Hermione Parker, who said:
"If you look at the arguments in favour of freezing out child benefits or pensions, you find they rest entirely on the immediate advantages of public expenditure savings, without regard for the effects on self-reliance, self-esteem and family life. Already a disproportionate number of families with children are forced to depend on means-tested benefits. Without child benefit still more families would be taxed into poverty during the vitally important years of child-rearing. We would be moving towards the American system where there is no child benefit and where over-reliance on means-tested welfare has produced a massive ever-increasing underclass. To allow the US experience to be repeated in Britain would be unmitigated folly."
I have suggested in the past, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that we examine ways of reform. If we do not revert to tax allowances, perhaps we should consider taxing the 5 per cent. of taxpayers who pay at the higher rate. It is only two years since the Government's Green Paper appeared, so we know that the arguments for taxing at the standard rate are not good. The Government rightly dismissed the proposal only two years ago because of the extra administration, among other reasons, and also because it would represent a massive switch of resources from those with children to those without.
I urge some of my hon. Friends not to get too hung up on the elimination of all benefits. There are many more obvious targets—company cars and mortgage interest spring immediately to mind—which go much more than child benefit to the better-off.

619
Last year even The Economist—scarcely an organ of other than rectitude in spending—pointed out in its conclusion to an article on the whole question of benefits and taxation:
"There is only one way to raise take-up and reduce … marginal rates : give the same benefit to everybody. The snag is that some of the cash goes to those who do not 'need' it. True: but three-quarters of families with children have a household-income-per-head that is below average."
Hon. Members who still wish to see child benefit phased out have to take that into account and have to find a way, which I certainly would applaud, of increasing the take-up of any means-tested benefit until it is at or near 100 per cent.
Another area of child benefit which concerns me is the role it plays in many families as an assistance to the woman in the household; sometimes, indeed, it is her only income. Again today—it must be my lucky day—I received a letter from a constituent on this point. She wrote:
"This is not a heart-wrenching letter of woe or dire poverty, but a letter from an ordinary constituent, who is also the mother of children under five, asking you not to phase out, means test or tax child benefit. I do not desperately need the money to feed my starving children. I need it for my own sense of pride. It is the only money I can call my own to spend as I want, without prior consultation to my 'bread-winning' husband. The only money I do not have to ask for. Example: 'Pete, the children need new shoes and I need some tampons. Can I have some extra money?' Answer: 'Do they need new shoes again already and I thought you bought some tampons last month.' This is why I want my child benefit (which, incidentally, I think I more than earn). The only alternative is returning to work, If I can find a child-minder and if I can find a job. Anyway, I thought your party wanted to preserve family life."
That constituent, who apparently does not support me, writes in tones that I can endorse and with which I think many of my hon. Friends will find sympathy.
Those of us who support child benefit do not regard ourselves as stuck in the past, to quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said recently. We regard ourselves as willing to embrace new ideas but those ideas must not and cannot be at the expense of some of the poorest in society. For those reasons, sadly I say to my hon. Friend that I shall be unable to support the instruments.
7.32 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) who gave us a clear understanding of the problems of young people in her constituency. I am sure that we shall hear much more from the hon. Lady. She will be an asset to the House.
By far the most disappointing feature of the uprating order is the decision not to increase child benefit. Many hon. Members have already spoken about that decision, but I should like to emphasise the point. Child benefit is currently £7·25. I am perplexed by the attitude of the Secretary of State, who has made it abundantly clear in speeches and interviews that he wishes to encourage individual independence. The decision not to increase child benefit will have exactly the opposite effect. It undermines the future of child benefit and I believe that it represents a move towards the Secretary of State's preference for means-tested benefits.
The freeze will mean a loss of 30p or 4 per cent. in real terms. To keep up with inflation, the benefit would need to be increased to £7·55. To make up the 35p cut in November 1985, it would need to be increased to £7·90.
620
The latest cut seems to be the death knell for child benefit. The Government fail to understand that child benefit is an aid to self-reliance because it acts as a base on which families can build. The freeze will draw an extra 10,000 families into dependence on means-tested benefits.
When the Secretary of State announced the shameful decision to peg child benefit at £7·25, he attempted to justify his decision by increasing the funds available for family credit and income support, but families on family credit will not receive extra resources and they will be no better off than if he had decided to increase child benefit in line with inflation. Those on income support will also be compensated for the freeze in child benefit, but, worryingly, in two-parent families this will probably mean a transfer from the mother to the father. One of the best features of child benefit is that it is payable to the caring parent, usually the mother, thus ensuring that the children are really helped by child benefit. Widespread research has shown that problems can arise and that children may not receive the money if the benefit is not paid to the mother.
I am also greatly concerned that the transfer of resources to means-tested benefits will significantly reduce the take-up rate. Another of the good arguments in favour of the retention of child benefit is that it has a remarkable take-up rate of 100 per cent. By contrast, two out of live eligible families will not claim family credit, according to Government figures, and take-up for income support will also be much lower.
I urge the Minister to recognise the merits of child benefit, especially its ability to provide stability despite the fluctuating circumstances of the family's income, and the protection that it provides to children by providing a measure of independent finance for mothers. If the Minister persists in his attempts to move towards means testing, or if he really is contemplating the eventual abolition of child benefit, he will make families more dependent on state benefits, rather than achieving his avowed aim to encourage self-reliance.
My next point deals with the income support flat-rate premium set out in regulations 17 and 18 of part II. The greatest worry to me in the income support scheme is the flat-rate premium system. This will adversely affect thousands of people with disabilities, who will receive less money from income support than they do under the present supplementary benefit scheme. I am not satisfied that the disability premiums will be adequate replacements for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and the loss of weekly additions.
The main problem with the flat-rate system is that it is geared to the needs of bureaucrats and the convenience of their computers, not to the daily needs of people living with a disability. Will the Minister accept that life is not as neatly ordered in the real world as it is in Whitehall? The real world is filled with individuals with different needs and problems. That is nowhere more true than with disabled people and their difficulties. These various difficulties, whether of a medical nature or concerning their personal circumstances, cannot be accommodated by a flat-rate system. It simply means that some people will inevitably lose and will face great hardship and misery as a result.
The change to income support will mean a loss of between £5 and £50 for thousands of people with disabilities and it will hit the severely disabled worst of all. The restrictive nature of the severe disability premium will cause great difficulties. Many carers will not claim

621
attendance allowance because that would make the disabled person ineligible for the severe disability premium.
There is a suggestion in the Social Security Bill that, if anyone over the age of 18 stays at the house, the severe disability premium will not be paid. That is quite distressing. The narrow qualifying conditions for disability premiums will disqualify many thousands of people who can claim weekly additions at the moment. I ask the Minister to think again and retain a more flexible and fair system of weekly additions for people with widely differing needs.
According to Government figures, 80,000 people classified as sick and disabled claimants will be worse off as a result of the change to means-tested benefits. If disabled pensioners and disabled people who are unemployed are taken into account, that figure rises to about 500,000 people who will lose as a result of the changes in supplementary benefit. I have been told that there will be more than I million losers as a result of the Social Security Act 1986. That is sad enough, but the fact that so many thousands of those are disabled people, many severely disabled, is an outrage and presents a poor reflection on a supposedly civilised society.
Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fearn: I am just concluding my remarks.
For the reasons that I have given, we will be voting against the instruments.
7.41 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Like the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I first became a Member of the House in June. In common with other hon. Members, I have found that one of the greatest difficulties arises in addressing cases in my surgery, and especially cases involving social security matters. I have come across the very complex regulations and the 16,000 numbered clauses that apply to supplementary benefit. I find it very difficult to understand the regulations and so decide whether the constituent concerned has been treated fairly and in accordance with them. If I could not discover whether my constituent was being treated fairly, what hope had my constituent? Invariably, those constituents are in some difficulties and are not necessarily familiar with so many volumes of regulations and the thousands of clauses.
In the Government's proposals tonight, I am attracted by the opportunity for simplification of the way in which we handle the social security system. I particularly commend the proposals for family credit and its sister benefit, income support. Both those benefits provide a far more comprehensive system of support for those in need in the community. I have examined the various projections and note that the benefits would be at the disposal of no fewer than 470,000 families, which is double the number of families covered under our present system of family income support. That will gather into the net more of those in need on the margins than we provide for at present.
The new system will allow us, in addition, to concentrate resources on those most in need. Now that the figures are coming before the House, it appears that the Government intend to include an additional £200 million in the operation of the two benefits to which I have
622
referred. That is money over and above the amount that would have been put in had we simply uprated the present supplementary benefit system next year. Any change to a major new system of social security benefits obviously brings gainers and losers. I have been encouraged by the fact that the Government have made detailed provisions for the protection of those who would not be entitled to as much benefit under the new system as they are entitled to at present. Some £200 million will be earmarked for that specific purpose to ensure that those people are not adversely affected.
It is significant that, according to the proposals, more than two thirds of those currently on social security benefit will gain or not be adversely affected by the new system of benefit. Indeed, it is far more interesting to note that one fifth of those on benefit—880,000 people—would gain at least an extra £3. That is a very significant funnelling of support for those most in need. It is also significant to note that one tenth of those families benefiting from social security—430,000 people—whom we could quite rightly describe as the most needy, would gain in excess of £5 a week per family from the Government's reform. That is significant. If we are a nation with a conscience, we should concentrate more resources on those most in need.
Many hon. Members have expressed concern tonight over the non-uprating of child benefit. I must admit that when I heard that child benefit was not to be uprated I regretted that greatly. I assure the House that my wife regretted it even more than I. However, I hope that other hon. Members will ask themselves the question that I asked myself, "Should we as hon. Members, and as well paid people, indiscriminately benefit from uprating, regardless of our income and need?" I have a sneaking suspicion that my family and other better-off families should not necessarily benefit from the resources available to those in need.
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises, in view of his remarks about child benefit, that although he refers to families "indiscriminately benefiting" from the award of child benefit, if instead of child benefit the money is put into tax allowances in relationship to children or in other areas, people like the hon. Gentleman would do a great deal better out of that than out of child benefit? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is crying crocodile tears.
Mr. Arnold: That intervention presupposes, if not giving an increase is deemed to be saving, that the resources thus saved are being ploughed back to those least in need. One can go into semantic arguments about the Budget and tax treatment, but when we consider the social security budget now and next year—the subject of this debate—it is significant to see where the increases are to be applied.
I do not see why well-off families should indiscriminately receive the same increase in the same benefit as those families that are most in need. Every hon. Member knows of needy families in their constituency. If the increase was to benefit those most in need, perhaps it would be justified. However, the families most in need which already receive income-related benefit would not benefit from an uprating of child benefit. They would lose pound for pound on their income-related benefits for the increase in child benefit. With the proposal not to uprate, we are not giving an indiscriminate increase to those in

623
society who are better off, and we are not failing to give an increase to those who are at the bottom of the pile and rely on income-related benefit. Bearing in mind the assumption that the so-called saving will be ploughed back to the rich through the tax allowance, it is significant that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not take account of the fact that the concentration of benefit on those most in need in the next financial year is proposed to be £300 million. Against that, we should offset only £120 million for the amount that would have been spent on paying the uprating of child benefit. Not only is the saving going directly to families most in need, but the Government are applying additional resources. That is significant.
When the country, in all conscience, provides resources for families in need and adversity, it is vital to concentrate such resources on those most in need rather than carry out the impossible task of spreading money over the entire community, in the desperate hope that money will somehow find its way through to the needy. It is far more relevant to try to find humane and effective ways of getting benefit to families most in need.
7.51 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak tonight as the new Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. Despite its difficulties, my constituency is well-kept, lively and diverse. Its tradition of inventiveness and skill is equally diverse. Our turbines and one or two beverages are famous. It is not generally known that my constituency gave Andrews liver salts and Lucozade to Britain. I have to report that the Lucozade factory was recently closed down. My constituency still retains a presence in many important aspects of research and enterprise.
The main problem that my constituency faces is under employment. Those who are in work and those who are out of work are well qualified but are not performing at the level of their potential and capacity because there are no plans to realise it. Therefore, the assumption that those on benefits are part of a benefit culture, as the Minister expressed it last week — a sort of lost tribe of the feckless, the incompetent, the dependent and the incorrigible—is deeply objectionable. How can I explain to a highly qualified researcher in my constituency, who, after years of benefit, gets three hours of work a week in a lab and loses all her benefits under the full extent normal rule, that the present Government believe in incentives and the work ethic?
Many of those on income-related benefits do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Only recently, the Minister revealed that there are 4 million new supplementary benefit claimants each year. The total number of those on income-related benefits is only 8·5 million. The matter could not be clearer. Claimants are reluctant to claim. They stop claiming as soon as they can.
I am sure that many hon. Members will want to join me in wishing my predecessor, Piers Merchant, well in his new post as director of publicity for Northern Engineering Industries, one of our great Tyneside firms which, according to the statements made last week by the Secretary of State for Energy, is a sunrise industry—or so we hope. At almost exactly this time last year, my predecessor was engaged in his famous experiment of spending a week on the dole. He served his party loyally,
624
faithfully and well on the Standing Committee which examined the Social Security Bill 1986. When his week was over, he said—all honour to him for saying it—that the key parts of the Bill and the present benefits system were a matter of regret to him.
His conclusions closely bear upon the regulations. He wanted the ill-named long-term rate of supplementary benefit—£12 a week more than the basic rate—to be a true long-term rate. That rate has always been denied to the able-bodied in that wonderful spirit of medieval poor law that is the true ancestor of the regulations. He did not want it to be confined to those who could he regarded as vagabonds. After only a week, Piers saw that extra resources were needed to restore the morale and motivation of the long-term unemployed and that the extra cash would not destroy their work ethic but preserve it.
Regulations 10 and 22 spell out all too clearly the Government's distrust of those on benefit — a distrust which finds expression in high marginal rates of taxation by benefit withdrawal, which have steadily increased during the life of the Government. Such high marginal rates of tax on the least well off are neither fair nor efficient in terms of the workings of the labour market. A Government who pride themselves on deregulation should surely be prepared to deregulate the least well-off. Cuts in single payments will mean more dependence on hostel accommodation and board and lodging, even in the face of the cuts in benefit to the under-25s, yet the possession of a permanent home is a key step to anchoring all of us in the community and restoring us to full membership in it.
Perhaps I should have said, a warm home. The regulations end all the heating additions on which many people, particularly those in the north, depend. My constituency benefits from one of the most sustained local authority heating improvement programmes in Britain. The regulations, on top of the cuts in heating additions of 1985, will make sure that many new radiators will stay switched off.
Piers wanted also to raise the earnings disregards from their present low levels. It is true that the regulations raise the disregards from £4 to £5 a week. That is the first increase for over 10 years. A special disregard of £15 is being introduced, but it is limited to those whom the Government are willing to spare the worse effects of their prejudices—the over-60s who have been on benefit for more than two years, the disabled, and the wonderful collection of special individuals: part-time firemen, auxiliary coastguards, persons engaged part-time in the manning or launching of a lifeboat and a member of any Territorial Army or reserve force. In the interests of simplicity, work incentives and labour market flexibility, why could not the disregards be extended to all?
After one week, Piers Merchant realised that the black economy might be the last refuge of enterprise and motivation for the long-term unemployed. The regulations end the disregard for child care costs, on which the incentive to work of so many low-income women depends.
The Government have already admitted that the projected cuts will introduce a marginal tax rate of 85 to 89 per cent.—94 to 96 per cent. if national insurance contributions are included. That is how the Government seek to imprison people who are on benefit and punish people who have a few savings, a small work pension or

625
a small income. Will somebody tell me where the 20·8 per cent. net return on capital that is implied in the tariff income schedule of the regulations will be obtained?
Since October 1986, 4 million people have signed on for unemployment benefit and 4·3 million people have signed off. There could not be greater proof that, even where unemployment is highest and of the longest duration, the will to work and some kind of grey labour market is still functioning. Even if it means losing the transitional protection from these regulations, thousands of my constituents will take up short-term employment and, as a consequence, lose their protection. Their lost benefits will swell the coffers for tax cuts for the most wealthy. The Government accord the wealthy incentives that they destroy for the least well off. Without this transitional protection, the structure of benefits makes 43 per cent. of present claimants worse off, according to Government figures, and that includes 700,000 families with children.
These regulations attack the incentives to work and basic neighbourly comforts and principles; they punish savers, deny the respectability of those on benefit and subject their pride and endurance to ever harsher tests.
Conservative Members are concerned about the future of Latin. They will know that radicals go to the root. The Tory radicalism implied in these regulations is tearing up the roots on which British Conservatism depends. As good Socialists, we shall vote against these regulations, but I hope that wise Conservatives who have an eye to the future will join us in destroying them.
8.2 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for a number of personal reasons. First, it seems only a short time since I made my maiden speech; secondly, I have considerable affection for Newcastle; and, thirdly, he paid such a generous and extended tribute to his predecessor, Piers Merchant. It is some index of my newness in the House that I do not remember Piers, but the hon. Gentleman could not have quoted him or brought him to our attention more clearly. The hon. Gentleman made a model speech; it was clear, elegant and not without controversy. He was trenchant and put his points in a manner that we enjoyed. We shall look forward to hearing from him in the future.
Although she is absent, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on her maiden speech. She also was clear and we look forward to her presence on the Social Security Bill in Committee as well as in the Chamber.
In the short time that I have been here I have spoken once on social security regulations. It was seasonally inapposite, because we were discussing the Christmas bonus in the middle of July. I hope to return to that subject in the future, but on that occasion I made some remarks about the principles of uprating.
I shall begin by discussing the issues on the uprating order and then make one or two more specific, targeted points about particular aspects of the regulations.
Uprating is bound to be our main concern, because it is our most expensive. This represents a straightforward, proper and adequately foreshadowed benefit increase, unlike the measure of tergiversation of system that
626
afflicted Opposition Members when they were in government, as to whether to estimate in advance or rectify in arrears. In both cases they fell behind.
There have been two significant changes in our approach to social security upratings and overall upratings in particular. For many years—probably since 1909 and Lloyd George—we have been dominated by the Lloyd George model of retirement provision. We have considered matters in terms of a state-provided basic pension, without considering the overall income position of retired people. The position has changed with the growth of the occupational or state earnings-related pension. These additional elements now amount, on average, to about half the total provision for pensioners and have almost caught up with the basic retirement pension. In a year or two, they will cross over, which is why the real increase in pensioners' incomes of 2 per cent. per year has been greater than that of the population at large, although both have been significant.
When that happens, we will have to acknowledge that it leaves a problem for those who are dependent on the basic retirement pension. We all met such people during the election campaign, and we hear from them now. By definition, they tend to be older pensioners who have retired for a longer period. I hope that, in the long term, Ministers will consider uplifting pensions with that target category in mind. Perhaps we could consider an increase in pensions at the age of 75, when the chances of part-time work are reduced but when costs are increasing and mobility diminishing. Perhaps we could consider clawing that back on a tapered basis against occupational pensions.
The second general matter is the inexorable onward march of demographic factors. I received a helpful written answer from the Minister this week. I asked him about the number of pensions in payment and their average amount ; the figures were rather striking. I asked the Minister to take the period 1979–80 and estimate its comparison with 1988–89 on the uprated basis. In the earlier period, among men, there were 3·04 million retirement pensioners receiving an average of £21·13 a week. There are now some 200,000 more—3·22 million—receiving £40·80 a week. Among women—these figures are not invidious but remarkable—the number of pensions in payment have increased from 5·47 million at an average of £19·94 a week to 6·12 million at an average of £38·40 a week. There has been a substantial increase in the number of retirement pensions. That partly accounts for the Government's problem of not being able to uprate more than to keep pace with inflation.
I shall put the figures on a weekly basis, because that brings out their salience for individuals and for the Government. The weekly cost has gone up from £179 million by 104 per cent., so that retirement pensions now cost £366 million a week. In 1979–80, the average payment was £21·01. A further 825,000 people now receive a pension, and the average payment is £39·22. If those people, God bless them, had not appeared on the scene and the money had been redistributed to the number of people receiving pensions in 1979–80, we would now be in a position to pay a basic retirement pension averaging out at £43–02 a week—which would put pensioners nearly £4 a week ahead in real terms.
Let me put those figures in global terms and annualise them. The cost of the completely unacknowledged, unvoted and inevitable increase in the number of

627
pensioners has been approximately £1·7 billion a year in additional pension provision. That is why it is difficult for any Government to promise large increases in the overall retirement pension.
I come now to the more detailed points that I wish to raise—
Mr. Tom Clarke: The figures that the hon. Gentleman provided from the Minister's letter were extremely interesting. To give the House the complete picture, can the hon. Gentleman tell us the contributions that those pensioners made? After all, he is talking about a contributory pension scheme.
Mr. Boswell: That is a relevant factor because, as we all know, we pay as we go and have done since Lloyd George the general issue is that, for a number of reasons— including reasons to which Opposition Members have drawn attention, although they may be less ready to do so today—the number of contributors at any one time has not increased. We are paying more, on a more or less static base. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, the figures are in the written answer, to which he may wish to refer.
Let me again put down a marker regarding haemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus. One of the requests of the Haemophilia Society is that there should be a measure of weekly payments to such people. As the House knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has a prominent interest in the matter. With a number of supporters from all parties he has tabled a early-day motion as part of the pressure on the Government, to which there are now signs of a helpful response. I know from experience the arguments that officials will advance about the dangers of setting a precedent. I am certainly prepared to concede to the Government the principle that the settlement must take place but should be ring-fenced so that it does not create a precedent.
I note that the regulations provide for a proper regime of deductions direct from benefits in cases of debt—for example, to electricity boards, or electricity companies as they may well be in the future. I welcome that, while making the point that it is generally better to pay people their entitlements and get them to settle their obligations. We have a problem with my very go-ahead local electricity board the East Midlands electricity board, which will supply card meters so that people can work out their budgets for themselves. Unfortunately, one of my district councils will not have the meters installed in its houses because it is frightened that if they are not recharged with a prepaid card the gas central heating system will be interfered with. The provision is a second best, but the Government are right to make it.
I have two points that have a bearing on various kinds of disability. I understand that there can be a substantial administrative delay in paying invalidity care allowance, which has a knock-on effect on social security. One of my constituents retired in August and his pension entitlement in respect of his wife was reduced because his wife had received an invalidity care allowance for a few weeks in February. For some reason, those payments were still in the computer and the local office had to make a temporary adjustment, but the matter has still not been put on a formal basis.
Finally, I refer to the problem of a constituent of mine in relation to benefit payable to people in nursing homes.
628
The House will bear with me if I do not cite the details, for reasons that will become apparent. My constituent has, and had before retirement, spinal arthritis, and is effectively completely immobilised. She went into a home in my constituency in January. The DHSS was paying her the full uplifted benefit of £230 a week. Her son-in-law and family wished to move elsewhere. It was discovered., I think, in anticipation of that fact, that she should have been paid the lower rate of £175. There was no question of the local office—with which I have had no difficulty —reducing her benefits to the lower rate retrospectively, but the office properly said that it could not pay out benefit at an incorrect rate and wished to make the adjustment with immediate effect.
The lady was extremely ill and that would have meant moving her to another home and moving her again when her family moved elsewhere. The alternative was that the family be saddled with a debt of £55 a week. I am afraid that the problem was overcome by the expedient—if that is the right word—of recertifying her as terminally ill, which is why I did not wish to give her name. It would help if, without setting a precedent, such cases could be dealt with with some administrative flexibility in local offices, to avoid automatic deductions.
Social security is now a gigantic business. One third of our total budget is committed to it. The onward march of demography makes it inevitable that there will be an onward march of cost. We cannot find resources for additional measures such as those to which I have referred, without at least considering the possibility of making changes elsewhere, which may reduce expenditure in certain respects. If that is done because the needs have changed, I welcome it, and I welcome in particular the Government's readiness to grasp some of the nettles and make some necessary changes.
8.17 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I apologise to the House for not having heard the opening speeches, so I cannot really comment on them. No doubt the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) received a helpful reply from the Minister.
While I was preparing for the debate I sought some information from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked whether I could have a table relating to Northern Ireland such as has been supplied in respect of Britain. I received the unhelpful answer, "We don't have those figures in that form. We shall be applying the scheme in Northern Ireland in the same way as in England arid Wales but with a little bit more emphasis on the family." That seems rather absurd, as I understand that social services are applied equally throughout the kingdom.
I recognise the last point made by the hon. Member for Daventry. It does not seem to be an isolated use of the practice of classifying people as terminally ill. That highlights one of the problems of our social security scheme. I know of a nursing home that had to increase its tariffs. The DHSS was not in a position to pay the higher rate until a kindly local doctor certified the resident concerned as terminally ill. I submit that we are all entitled to receive such a diagnosis because we are all under a sentence of death. That highlights a problem of equality and the proper use of funds in social service provisions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his maiden speech. H e shared with us some insights into his constituency. I have

629
to admit that I would have preferred to see some of the other bottled stuff go to the wall rather than Lucozade. The hon. Gentleman's tribute to his predecessor was well made. I do not know whether I would be right in hoping that he might receive the same sort of promotion as his predecessor. I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman's argument on behalf of his constituents and the people who need social security will not merit the same fate at the polls as Piers Merchant received.
I see two particular problems. First, an increase of funding for social security has been mentioned and I understand that there seems to have been a fair bit of clawback in the past because funds have not been used. When we make apparent provision, are we really making sure that those who require it and ought to have it are receiving it? Secondly, how is it that so many of us in the House, especially Conservative Members, seem to be persuaded that we are benefiting the most needy in our society, when those who labour in voluntary societies and care groups tell us that it is at that level of provision that the most needy will be suffering?
During the Secretary of State's statement on the changes I asked him whether he thought it wrong that in April 1988 people would be worse off than they are now if they seek to make provision for the needy. He responded with a reference to the upgrading of the provision which a person is entitled to receive before becoming ineligible for supplementary benefit. However, I was dealing with a problem that I am convinced all hon. Members have had to face in the past and, I suspect, will have to face in the future. With the upgrading of the pension, some people will be brought out of the range of housing benefit and other assistance. Therefore, in April 1988 they will be worse off than they are now, but the Government have said that there has been an increase in inflation. Sooner or later we have to grapple with the problem of how we can provide for those in genuine need without penalising others and making them less well off.
It is nice in the Chamber when we talk about the provisions we make and argue that we do not need child benefit and so on. However, in the world outside, there are many who do need that. I hope that before long, as the scheme comes into operation, we will bend our minds in an effort to provide aid for those who need it and not clawback or make provision on the cheap.
Reference has been made to the clawback provision for invalid care allowance. A woman who provides support in the home is entitled to invalid care allowance. However, if her husband claims for invalid care allowance she will not receive it. Therein lies a failure of the past that should be rectified in the future. It is desperate that an enlightened society should say glibly that it is doing its best to help the needy in society. The best is not good enough. We ought to do better. When we are seeking to remove funds from some sections to help others I suspect that we face the condemnation of the Master himself who said:
"These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
I plead that we care for the needy.
8.25 pm
Sir George Young: I should like to underline the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth), who congratulated the two
630
maiden speakers. The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) both spoke with a confidence and composure that few of us can recall displaying when we made our maiden speeches in the House, whenever that was. I look forward to hearing from them both in the near future.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the state retirement pension. My hon. Friend the Minister made the point well that, as occupational pension schemes bite, as more people are able to make provision during their working lives for their retirement, and as the value of savings increases, so fewer pensioners are totally dependent on the state retirement pension. Perhaps I was just unlucky during the recent election campaign, but all the pensioners on whom I called happened to be among the minority who still depend solely on the state retirement pension.
One has to remember that in 1979 we told that group that the country was going through a difficult time, that we were trying to get the economy right and that we would uprate their pensions in line with prices so that there was no deterioration in their standard of living. Happily, things are now better. They can see that the economy has improved, and I hope that at some time in the years ahead we will enable those whose only income is the state retirement pension to enjoy the living standards that the economic policies have brought about and which nearly everyone else is now enjoying, but which they cannot enjoy because they are too old to return to work. The scheme floated by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry is worth exploring, because that section of our community is in danger of being bypassed by the economic prosperty that is beginning to flow over the rest of us.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on child benefit. I underline some of the reservations of at least two of my hon. Friends. The Minister made the best possible defence of the Government's decision to freeze child benefit, but it was incomplete, because, inevitably, he looked at it through the eyes of a Minister responsible for social security who has a large number of claims on his budget and is under pressure to keep public expenditure down. Therefore, he is obliged to try to "target" his budget as effectively as possible. It is wrong to look at child benefit solely through the eyes of such a Minister.
One has to look at the origin of child benefit, because it is not just a social security benefit. It was a child tax allowance. I was one of the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the Conservative party when the child benefit was introduced. In fact, it was the first leg of a tax credit scheme devised by the outgoing Conservative Administration in 1974. Certainly it was never in the minds of those who spoke for the Conservative party in 1976 that the new child benefit would be viewed narrowly, as it is apparently being viewed now as a social security measure, totally disowning its ancestry as a tax allowance.
The political litmus paper turns one colour if we say that the money is really a child tax allowance, and another if we call it part of public expenditure. We have become slightly confused by the fact that child benefit is lumped with social security. Its treatment is dealt with during the autumn public expenditure round instead of, as would have happened if it were treated as a tax allowance, in the more expansive mood that seems to come over the Government during the spring when they draw up their Budget proposals.

631
If we look at child benefit, we see both its tax parentage —it is tax-free and universal—and its social security parentage—it is a cash payment paid by the order book through the post office. My hon. Friend the Minister was right when he said that if it is a social security benefit it should be targeted. However, that prompts the question whether it was ever right for it to be a child tax allowance. I am very much of the view that it was.
It is a basic principle of taxation that no individual should begin to pay tax until he has managed to discharge his basic obligations to house, clothe and feed himself. Hence we have the personal allowance of about £2,500, below which no one should pay tax. When a person marries and his wife does not work he receives the married person's allowance, which recognises the additional obligations that he incurs if he has a wife to support. Child tax allowance was a wholly logical extension of that principle, recognising that a taxpayer with children had responsibilities and obligations, and that his ability to pay tax was less than that of another taxpayer with no such responsibilities. That important principle was maintained when we introduced child benefit — a principle of horizontal equity between taxpayers with children and those without. Now it is in danger of being eroded by the decision to freeze child benefit.
I understand that that was a pragmatic decision, in the rather narrow context of how we should spend the resources available within the social security system. However, there is no logic behind it. If we say that it is a child tax allowance, it should be uprated in line with the personal allowance or the married man's allowance. If, on the other hand, we consider it a social security benefit, we should target it and progressively phase it out. The party seems to be marking time while it decides on the future of child benefit.
While the money at stake this year may seem relatively small — 30p a week — there is an important principle behind it. Many Conservative Members share my anxieties. I hope that that principle of trying to secure equity between taxpayers with children and those without will not he entirely abandoned, because I fear that that would lead to inequity in our society.
I leave those thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister, who, I know, fights his corner as hard as he can. Many of my remarks are addressed to the Treasury rather than to my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, as well as that 30p, an important principle is at stake.
8.32 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on their excellent maiden speeches. I was particularly impressed with their defence of people who will really need champions when the regulations come into force.
I listened carefully to the Minister when he talked about significant changes, which he said were necessary. I wish to challenge that: I think that they represent one of the most vicious attacks on the welfare state and the benefit system that we have witnessed since the war. There has been a steady erosion of benefits, coupled with growing unemployment and more people falling into poverty. For a time, there was a kind of consensus; now it has been
632
broken. The Green Paper that led to what we are discussing tonight heralded the change. It warned us of the return to pre-war conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) highlighted a point on which I interrupted the Minister: the complicated nature of benefits. My hon. Friend observed that there were five different claims according to age. Yet, when I asked the Minister about the social fund, he said that it would be easier and simpler. I have been talking to social workers who are horrified at the proposed changes. They say, along with most of the groups representing benefit claimants — the Minister has not convinced me that they are wrong and he is right—that, although the present system is not perfect and is certainly far too complicated, it is at least possible to look up one's entitlement in regulation. That will not be possible with the social fund. Benefit will then be discretionary, and we shall become involved in definitions of the deserving and the undeserving poor. Let me give some examples.
I keep asking myself what the young have done that the present Government find so horrific. The attack on them is unbelievable. A young, unemployed single woman who moved into privately let unfurnished accommodation last summer, who was in receipt of supplementary benefit, had no savings and had previously lived with her parents, applied for a single payment for a cooker, bed and bedding. Her application was refused. Cookers, beds and bedding can still be claimed by those whom the Government consider deserving, but the young seem to be caught in the trap that the Government have set for them.
Another example brought to my attention concerns a woman confined to a wheelchair. She was a paraplegic, and she needed a new carpet. Wheelchairs wear out carpets very quickly. She was told that miscellaneous items such as curtains, floor coverings, tables and chairs must now be paid for out of the fixed £75 miscellaneous furniture grant, and that she therefore did not qualify. In 1988, when the regulations become law, we shall enter an era in which that will become more and more common.
The Minister talked about extra help for pensioners, but the reality is different. I have a note from the various groups who look after pensioners and the disabled. There is a list of seven groups: the Disablement Alliance, Mencap, the Spastics Society and other reputable voluntary organisations whose employees have devoted a lifetime to trying to improve conditions for the elderly and those with disabilities. The note says:
"It is clear that many disabled people who register after April 1988 will be trying to manage on less money than those in identical circumstances who are claiming before that date. This is mainly because of the abolition of the long-term supplementary benefit rate and the weekly additional requirements payments, many of which are related to ill health or disability."
The next bit reminds me of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston:
"Working on the expected assumption that 40 per cent. of pensioners are disabled, disability organisations calculate from the Government's own figures that at least 40 per cent. of newly disabled pensioners and at least 15 per cent. of newly disabled younger people will be worse off under the new system."
The note then mentions a staggering figure:
"236,000 newly disabled pensioners will lose up to £5 a week and 44 newly disabled pensioners will lose £5 a week or more."
When I first read that, I thought that it could not be true, but those are the facts. That will be the result of what we

633
are talking about tonight. That is the real world for hundreds of thousands of people who look to us in Parliament to do something for them.
The Minister talked about our sterile approach, and said that Labour Members were defending the status quo. I refute the former, but agree with the latter. The present benefit system is inadequate. Many millions of people have fallen into poverty, sometimes into dire poverty. Those who have served on local councils will have listened to the problems of many people with rent arrears. I once heard poverty described as being like standing up to one's neck in water: if a wave came, one drowned.
Anyone who hears a constituent blame his rent arrears on the need to travel to the other end of the country for a funeral will know that a rail fare can mean the difference between somebody coping and getting into debt. If Conservative Members came face to face with such cases and knew of the choices that people living on benefits have to make, they would have some understanding of their problems and would certainly join us in the Lobby tonight.
I took part in the consultation group for the Green Paper on the so-called reform of social security. Our council—a hung council—was persuaded that people should be alerted about what would be one of the most fundamental changes to the benefit system. Nobody whom we consulted thought that this so-called reform was a good idea, and, as the months and years have gone by, many more people have come to that conclusion.
Conservative Members have admonished the Minister for not uprating child benefit. It will be interesting to see whether they have cried crocodile tears or whether they will join us in the Lobby tonight. I am a great believer in people acting according to the beliefs that they have declared publicly. I may be cynical, coming from a hung council where I have had to listen to opposition parties who have always run my local council, at least for the past eight years, saying one thing in a public place and then voting the other way. It would be the height of hypocrisy if those Conservative Members who have spoken against these measures do not vote with us tonight. They have made their representations on behalf of many of their constituents who will be desperately worried because child benefit is not being uprated.
The Government's shameful treatment of young people has already been well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South. The young are the precious seedcorn of Britain's future. They are the seedcorn upon which our very prosperity is based. What kind of values do we offer them, when we say that they are not even human beings in their own right but dependants? Young adults are being treated as dependants and that is shameful, as well as giving them a most undignified status.
I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he had on the number of people who had died during the last year while an application for an attendance allowance was being considered or was in the process of appeal. I was told that that information was not recorded as a matter of course and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost. I suspect that that disproportionate cost has meant death to quite a few people in that queue.
On behalf of the millions of claimants in Britain, I pledge that the Labour Party will fight these proposals every inch of the way. We will fight them line by line and
634
we will expose Conservative Members' hypocrisy every time they stand up and say that they are in favour of uprating child benefit if they do not vote with us.
8.45 pm
Mr. Stephen Day: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his eloquence. His sincerity was obvious. I found one part of his speech particularly interesting and I shall allude to it later.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is a caring individual. That was obvious from what she said. However, it is distressing to be told that the benefit system is inadequate. That allegation is always made from Opposition Benches. Whatever any Government do, it is always too little. I remind the hon. Lady that the system that the Government are trying to reform, with all its faults, is largely the system that previous Labour Governments have tolerated for years.
Mr. John Battle: Have not the recent Social Security Bill and some of the regulations now being presented been introduced precisely because the Government failed when they passed the Social Security Act 1986? Members of the other place advised the Government that if they did not amend that measure they would have to revise it again and again. Is that not the source of the present discontent?
Mr. Day: No, that is not the case. That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of events. I was referring to the long history of social services provision in Britain, the bulk of which, in many areas, is as it was under various Labour Governments.
The regulations and the reforms that the Government have in mind are long overdue. I hope that Opposition Members will at least be able to agree with me on that. We need a much simpler system for claimants. Many of us know from our surgeries of the difficulties of our constituents in understanding the system, and, when they have mastered that, the difficulties that arise from making claims. We must do our best to alleviate such problems. One of the aims of the new provisions is to try to improve that situation.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: How will the hon. Gentleman answer his constituents who make claims on the social fund only to be told that, although their claims are justified, there is simply no money left? Many of us would be grateful for some advice, because we do not know how to answer such people.
Mr. Day: I should have thought that Labour Members would have no difficulty in answering such questions. They will undoubtedly exploit the situation to achieve the best possible advantage. When people come to see me and state such cases, I shall refer them to the local offices, which are extremely helpful about such matters.
I must add that one of the reasons why I wish the reforms to go through is that I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describe the present system as intimidatory. That is one of its big problems. The system is difficult not only for people who wish to receive benefit but for those who work in the Department and deal with claimants on a day-to-day basis. They try to present to them their claims and benefits as they would wish them

635
to be offered to them — as a civilised and humane service. The Bill and its reforms are important in that regard also.
Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Day: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way again.
The new system will assist many people who are currently caught in the so-called poverty trap, which undoubtedly exists. It will remove the disincentives to working that result from that trap. I do not blame anybody who chooses not to take a job if he can gain more from benefits. We must be able to encourage people to take work if we can.
I have argued on many platforms, not least during the general election, that the benefit system should exist for those who need its services and not for the convenience of those who draft legislation and those who must work it. Too many of the present schemes that supposedly assist claimants have become almost sacred cows to many Opposition Members, sanctified not by their efficiency and effectiviness, but by the fact of their existence. Therefore, I welcome the Government's courage in setting about the reform of our benefit system in such a serious and, more important, practical manner.
It is an unavoidable consequence of any reform that some will gain but some will lose. The system has not yet been devised—it will never be devised—that provides extra benefits for everybody.
Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman has stated repeatedly that the system has not been revised, but his own Government make great play of the fact that they have given us the biggest review of the welfare state since Beveridge. These instruments simply implement the review. Either there has not been a review and we should start again or the hon. Gentleman is challenging his own Minister to say that the review was a failure, which is our point.
Mr. Day: If the hon. Gentleman has inferred from what I have said that there has not been a review, I must say that I cannot find anywhere in my address where I said that. That is a lax interpretation of what I have been saying.
As I have said, an unavoidable consequence of any review is that we cannot devise a system where everybody will gain. I am sure that, if anybody could have devised such a system, some politician somewhere would have thought of it. However, that is not the case.
When I consider the details of the reforms and the net beneficiaries, I am pleased to see that on the income support scheme nearly two thirds of claimants will gain or be materially unaffected by it; nearly one fifth—more than 750,000 people—will gain by more than £3 a week and nearly one tenth of claimants—500,000 people—will gain by £5 per week or more. That is important because the emphasis of the reforms is to see that the extra money goes to those who need it. I shall back that all the way. It is one reason why I shall support the Social Security Bill. It is right that the people who are most desperately in need should be the ones who receive the benefit. That is what the Bill is designed to do.
Although Opposition Members have said that 40 per cent. of pensioners will not be direct beneficiaries, 60 per cent. will gain or be unaffected. Despite what Opposition Members have said, I welcome that fact. More important, I welcome especially the proposal to increase from £3,000
636
to £6,000 the amount of savings that somebody is allowed to have and still receive benefit. That must be welcomed, because time and again people come to me who cannot receive benefits because they have been careful and prudent and saved for their retirement. One of the big problems that many pensioners face is that during the years of the previous Labour Government they found that their savings had reduced in value to almost nothing.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: You are joking.
Mr. Day: No, it is a fact. I am not joking at all. If Opposition Members are saying that they do not have many pensioners coming to see them to say that their savings have been destroyed, especially during the 1970s, pensioners must not be going to see them for some reason or another.
Mr. Frank Field: When pensioners come to our surgeries it will be useful for us to know the answer that the hon. Gentleman will give to those pensioners who have saved a capital sum but who find themselves now disqualified from housing benefit.
Mr. Day: Raising the amount will mean that many pensioners will be much better off. There are no two ways about that. I am not sure of the exact number who will be affected, but many pensioners will receive benefit who have not done so before because they were disqualified. That must be good, and I would support the change if only for that reason.
I welcome the fact that the Government have honoured and are honouring their pledge to maintain the value of the state pension. Conservative Governments have improved the state pension in real terms since coming to power in 1979. I am well aware of the criticism from Opposition Members—not least because they are concerned about pensioners — that we have not assisted pensioners. However, the facts speak for themselves. By and large, pensioners are almost 10 per cent. better off in real terms than they were when the Government came to power. 'That is taking inflation and everything else into account. Whatever criticism Opposition Members may have about that, the Government's record on state pensions stands the test against that of the previous Labour Government.
The Labour Government based their upratings of state pensions not on actual prices, but on the amount by which they expected prices to rise. As I have already mentioned, we all know what happened to prices under the previous Labour Government. Consequently, pensioners fell constantly behind. Indeed, it is tempting to reflect that the party that constantly accuses us of not caring has, in many areas of welfare, a worse record than ours. To say that one cares — I do not dispute for a moment that Labour Members care—is not enough. I believe that Labour Members should at least give us credit and agree that we also care although we may disagree about the ways in which to achieve the results that we should all like to see.
A Government who supposedly did not care would not have fulfilled their pledge to maintain the value of pensions or increase spending on benefits for the elderly in real terms by some 29 per cent. since coming to office. We may argue about the details, but it is an unchallengeable statement that the Government are spending 29 per cent more in real terms. I notice that Labour Members rarely allude to that side of the equation.

637
I applaud the regulations and the reforms, but there is one desirable provision that I feel has been omitted and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give some thought to it. I trust that the Government will look at the specific needs of the long-term unemployed, especially those who are of an age when they desire to work—I believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central alluded to this — and have the ability to work, but have only a slim chance of gaining work in anything except in a part-time job. However, in such a job they will lose the benefits available to them. In an age when we see a widening gap between the official retirement age, especially for men, and the effective retirement age, I hope that the Government will look at that problem in a favourable light.
9 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister claims that the regulations will allow benefits to be targeted, especially for the disabled. I have studied the regulations and I have talked to disabled people—a teenager with spina bifida, a couple with two mentally handicapped children, a kidney dialysis patient, and pensioners with arthritis or bronchitis—who will lose. They are the very people at whom the Government seek to target benefits but all of them will lose if any claim is submitted after April.
On 27 October 1987 the Secretary of State made a statement to the House. When I claimed that disabled people claiming after April stood to lose substantial amounts, he said:
"disabled organisations—will have noticed that there is a substantial overall increase for the disabled from this restructuring."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 194.]
It is a pity that the Secretary of State is not here to confirm that he has received letters from such organisations repudiating his statement.
The Secretary of State claims that his proposals have the support of organisations representing the disabled, but not one organisation that has studied the regulations supports the Secretary of State, and the reasons are plain to see. From April, as a new claimant, an 18-year-old spina bifida sufferer in a wheelchair, currently eligible for help with heating, clothing, baths and laundry, will lose £5·90 a week from her personal allowance and £4·70 from the total package of incomes to which she is currently entitled. The Government call that caring.
Let us look at a pensioner couple. One has Parkinson's disease—there are quarter of a million sufferers—and the other has arthritis and bronchitis. Currently they can claim £113 a week, including paid help for a couple of hours a day. I have studied the Government schemes, and even at their most generous they will provide such a couple who claim after next April with £70.05. The Government are robbing them of £2,236 a year and call it targeting.
What are the Government going to do for the mentally handicapped? A couple with two mentally handicapped, hyperactive children, who are not disabled, can currently claim £110 in allowances. How much more will the Government give them under the income support entitlement? Will it be £5, £10 or £20? Sadly, no. That couple, claiming after April, will lose £15 for each child—£30 in all.
638
In effect, more than 1 million disabled people will lose. That is not my opinion, but that of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Arthritis Care, Mencap, the British Deaf Association, the Renal Society and over 70 other organisations in the Disability Alliance.
On the day of the statement, the Secretary of State said that my points were reasonable. Perhaps he will now confirm that they are also true. In future years, new claimants will suffer considerable cuts. More than 360,000 people now receive laundry allowances. There will be a saving of £42 million if those are abolished. Sixty-nine thousand people receive allowances for baths; nearly £7 million will be saved by the Government cutting that. Sixty-three thousand people get help with clothing; more than £5·5 million will be saved. Six thousand people visit relatives in hospital, and £1·5 million will be saved on that. One hundred and sixty-four thousand disabled people receive heating help. That now costs the Government £49 million, and represents part of a £400 million cut. Two thousand eight hundred people on kidney dialysis receive help with their diets, and more than £1·5 million will be saved on that as part of an £18 million cut that is being forced on the disabled. Four thousand five hundred people and more will lose up to £48 a week for domestic assistance if the Government's cuts go through. Three thousand five hundred blind people will also lose.
None of this comes as a surprise to any of us. We know the origins of today's regulations. They are to be found in a book written in the 1970s—the bible of the blue rinses, the handbook of the hatchet men. It is called "Down with the Poor". Its author, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), received a knighthood for services to his cause. He is the architect of Tory social security policy today. His hon. Friends are giving a clear message to the handicapped: "We cannot afford the costs of your disability." To the kidney patients on dialysis they are saying: "Your diet and laundry allowances are too costly." To the frail pensioner they are saying: "This country cannot afford your heating or your baths."
We say to the Government that people who do not have work want support, not suffering, and that people who are disabled deserve a decent standard of living. The Government are not providing that, and they have no intention of doing so. It is not that they do not have the money. They have funds with which to give shareholders a shelf and they have cash to cut taxes for the wealthy. They have pounds to promote privatisation, but nothing for the poor, the sick, the disabled or the elderly. That is why we reject these spiteful, penny-pinching regulations —and so does the country.
9.3 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I was interested by the reference made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to a splendid book that I remember from the days of my youth — "Down with the Poor". It appears that he did not get much further than reading the title, which was taken from something said by George Bernard Shaw, who looked forward to the abolition of poverty. So my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) meant that he looked forward to the day when we could eliminate poverty altogether. That is the aim behind the scheme adumbrated in the book, and I believe that the Government's proposals go some way towards achieving it.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the title. Perhaps he would like to interpret the following statement :
"There is also encouragement for the lower paid with large families to become unemployed or to go sick".
Mr. Hamilton: Most people in this country would regard that as a commonplace truth. Even under the reformed regulations for social security, we still have what is called the poverty trap. There is a considerable disincentive to work at certain levels of income. It is still possible to be worse off in work than on benefit. It is a tribute to the vast majority of people in this country that so many of them continue to work when they might be better off on benefit. That is a great tribute to what we used to call the working classes.
I want to provide an even greater incentive for people not to be subject to what Mrs. Hermione Parker has called the "moral hazard" of being on benefits. What we are trying to do in the reforms that we have introduced, which I hope will go further, is to encourage greater independence and re-create what I believe to have been the great Victorian values of long ago, when people were able to look after themselves without being dependent on charity and could take decisions for themselves rather than receiving benefits in kind. The social security reforms that we have already produced go a long way towards achieving that.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has said some things on which I might take issue as a matter of practice. If he feels, as I do, that it is wrong for people to be dependent on what is, in effect, charity and that they should rather have independence and rights, may I recommended that he reads the social fund manual?
Mr. Hamilton: I am sure that the hon. Lady's interpretation of the social fund manual would be slightly different from mine. We still have some way to go before we achieve the objectives that we have set ourselves. The problems with the welfare state is that we still adopt the blunderbuss approach rather than the more targeted approach. We have gone a great part of the way towards ensuring the efficiency of the welfare state by targeting benefits at those in greatest need.
We will never have a system of 100 per cent. perfection, but we have made significant improvements that will bring about a considerable rise in the standards of living of people on the lowest incomes. I welcome the income support regulations, because overall they will considerably benefit people on the lowest incomes. Nearly two thirds of them will either gain or be unaffected in real terms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) said, almost one fifth—that is nearly 900,000 people—will gain £3 or more in real terms and one tenth—almost 500,000 people—will gain £5 or more in real terms.
These regulations target the benefits more to the needs of families with children. From the comments by the Opposition, one would never dream that we were doing that. One or two of my hon. Friends have also made such comments and I propose to devote some attention to them. We are targeting benefits more on families with children. The effect of what we propose is that 86 per cent. of couples below pension age and with children and 67 per cent. of single parents will gain in real terms or will be unaffected. That is a considerable achievement and a
640
tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I welcome back to the debate, and to my other hon. Friends in his Department.
The regulations will increase spending that would have taken place by more than £200 million. Therefore we are doing a great deal more than simply uprating the supplementary benefit weekly payments, and that will be of great assistance to people on the lowest incomes. In addition, we will provide another £200 million to cover the transitional period. The scheme of income support is greatly superior to the scheme that it replaces, because it provides a real incentive to people to become independent of state provision. There was very little incentive for that up to now. However, people who still depend on state provision will receive it in a way that is not a considerable disincentive to work.
The principal change is the one for the calculation of benefit on the basis of net earnings rather than gross earnings. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said about the change in the capital regulations. For years, one has heard complaints about inflation from people in surgeries and especially from people one meets when canvassing on doorsteps. These are people with relatively small nest eggs built up in times when a pound was a pound. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle ably said, at one time a pound in one's pocket was worth a pound but we all know what happened to it in the 1960s and the 1970s, under Conservative as well as Labour Governments.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that it was a joke to say that people's capital had been whittled away over the years. We know very well that today a pound is worth only a tiny fraction of what it was 40 years ago. Many pensioners have been able to save and accumulate a tidy nest egg in money terms, but its value has been whittled away almost to a valueless sum as a result of the inflationary policies of successive Governments — though, happily, not the present Government.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friends, should take note of what hon. Members actually say. I said, "Is the hon. Gentleman joking?" I did not say that some people's money had been whittled down and that their savings had gone. Unfortunately, in the last few weeks some people who were kidded into buying shares have suddenly found that some of their money has gone. The people who will really suffer under these regulations are ordinary working people who by their labour and because of Britain's strength in the past have built up a nest egg. They have still ended up with no real finances. They are the people who will suffer because of the Government's policies.
Mr. Hamilton: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am one of those whose net worth has declined in the past few weeks, having, with my usual efficiency, filled in my application for BP shares on the very day it arrived and posted it on the following Monday morning, before I turned on the midday news which announced the stock market collapse. I am now the proud owner of 2,000 BP shares which are worth less than when I applied for them. I therefore understand the force and vigour of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and agree with him, on that if on nothing else.
The child benefit regulations have caused some disagreement among Conservative Members, as well as,

641
among the Opposition. Today, we have seen an alliance of the baronetcy and the squirearchy, if I can put it in those terms. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). He must have been attracted by my name on the annunciator.
In alliance with my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham attacked the Government's decision not to increase the amounts payable in child benefit. I cannot understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends take such a view, because the enormous amount of money which is paid out in child benefit does very little to alleviate poverty. With the change in income support regulations and the introduction of family credit, it does even less today than it would have done formerly.
It cannot make sense for Conservative Members who give birth to children—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) became a father in the past week, although I believe he was expecting an autumn election when he took that decision, but at least that demonstrates the importance of correct targeting in areas other than the welfare state—to receive child benefit as well as those on the lowest incomes in Britain. The higher one's income, the greater benefit one receives. It must make sense that benefit should be targeted in a better way.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: Time is pressing on, and I want to give the Minister a chance to reply.
I agree with my hon. Friends in one respect. I too believe that there is not a great deal of logic in freezing child benefit. We must make the decision one way or the other. We must either phase it out altogether and go back to a system of allowances—which is what I wish to see —or we should continue uprating it in order to preserve it. I propose that it should be retained as a cash benefit for those below the income tax threshold and phased out and converted into a tax allowance for those above that level. That would be a compromise which would attract support from both sides of the argument within the parliamentary Conservative party. It is only by targeting benefits more, and saving, in the case of child benefit, probably £3·5 billion, that we can contribute to lower taxes and higher tax thresholds, which would help many people put into poverty by the tax system, and to the greatest extent raise the living standards of those on the lowest incomes.
9.18 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: There is no doubt that the right way to measure the Government's income support package is to judge it against the words that I uttered in the Chamber a few weeks ago, when I quoted the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the former Secretary of State for Social Services, who, on 3 June 1985, said:
"We shall ensure that the structural changes will not result in cash losses by those who are now in receipt of supplementary benefit"—[Official Report, 3 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 49.]
That is the measure. By that measure this package fails, because we have the abolition, not only of long-term supplementary benefit, but of the weekly additional requirements payments.
642
Additional requirements payments might be messy administratively, but there can be no doubt that they are related directly to ill health or disabilities. The withdrawal of those payments will mean that 40 per cent. of newly disabled pensioners and 15 per cent. of newly disabled younger people will be worse off. In addition, 236,000 newly disabled pensioners will lose up to £5 a week, and 45,000 will lose over £5 a week. That is indisputable.
The Government claim that newly disabled people will not lose cash. Of course not; they will not get it in the first place. The Government are proceeding according to the adage that what one never has one does not miss. Whether people already receive disability benefits, or whether they will be newly disabled after April 1988, the costs of disability will not disappear.
In contradiction of the words of the former Secretary of State for Social Services, we have those of the present Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. On 2 November he said:
"People who would otherwise have received many additional requirements will receive less benefit than their predecessors receive at the moment. I am conscious of that. However, we are referring to very few people."
The Spastics Society has informed me that this provision will affect thousands, not hundreds, of people. Anyone who received £6·50 or more in additional payment under the old system will fail to qualify for severe disability premium and will be worse off, yet we are told that the new proposals are targeted at the very poor.
The only time that the Government are successful in targeting is when they target benefits for the rich. They do not talk about targeting when they talk about moving from direct to indirect taxation, or when they manoeuvre the income tax to give the greatest margin of benefit to those who donate to the funds of the Tory party. We are being asked to approve regulations before we receive details about how the severely disabled will be protected.
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled also said on 2 November:
"However, I am seeking ways in which it may be possible to address the particular circumstances of that small group of people."—[Official Report, 2 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 743.]
It is not a small group of people. The Minister should tell us tonight what he has planned for the severely disabled. The Government claim that most sick and disabled people will gain, but this rests upon their definition of disabled, which is
"those who are of working age who are incapable of work." That definition ignores pensioners, and 66 per cent. of the disabled are pensioners. Pensioners are not qualified to work, but they are not in the figure that the Government have bandied about.
The Government ignore children with disabilities, who are not capable of work, and disabled people who register as unemployed. It is not a few hundred, or even a few thousand, but half a million people who are likely to lose under the Government's arrangements. The Government have promised transitional protection for existing claimants, but the freezing of benefit levels until income support catches up will lead quickly to a drop in people's standards of living.
The Government claim that they spend more on the disabled. They claim that there has been an increase of £2·5 billion in real terms in aid to the disabled since 1979. I should like a breakdown of that figure. I suspect that most

643
of that expenditure is the result of hard work through take-up campaigns such as the Merseyside welfare rights campaign and the work done by the metropolitan counties and Greater London council before the Government decided that they were being too successful in helping the poor, and abolished them.
The Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that there would be maximum publicity through leaflets and so on. I issue a challenge to the Government. They are good at advertising when it suits them. Not long ago they spent thousands advertising British Gas shares, and everybody, even the poorest pensioner, had heard of Sid. Let us have a comparable campaign, not to put more into the pockets of those who possess much, but to put some money into the pockets of those who are suffering.
Are the Government really suggesting that this package of measures on social security will improve things? Is it not the case that every Minister in the Government is an agent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, and that the sole purpose of all the legislation is parsimony in public finance? I hope that the campaign that we are waging against these upratings, which are really downratings, will be carried on outside the House. The frontiers of poverty for the disabled are not from the Wash to the Bristol channel. There are plenty of poor people in the constituencies of Conservative Members. I hope that the voice of the Opposition will get through to those people and that they will realise what sort of Members they have elected.
9.27 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful for having been called to speak. My only regret is that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is not here. I wish to present in two minutes the one lesson, that in life things do not always come as simply as one would like. Listening to the hon. Gentleman I was reminded of a statement made by, I think, Aneuran Bevan about Neville Chamberlain ; if he did not make it, I am sure he would have done had he thought of it. He said that listening to the Prime Minister was like a trip round Woolworths; everything was in place and nothing was priced over sixpence. As we know, in life things do not come simply in nice little packages.
In the welfare state we cannot choose just one objective and ignore the others. Although the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that child benefit does not target—by definition it cannot target because it is universal—it has othe advantages. In the period when the Government may be reviewing the future of child benefit, Conservative Members have to weigh up the disadvantages that they see about non-targeting against some of the advantages. Child benefit will remain an important benefit and Ministers will have to defend it from the Treasury. I remind the House, the hon. Member for Tatton in his absence and Ministers of the advantages of non-targeting.
Hon. Members who are serious about creating incentives to work — a point on which the Prime Minister has fought three elections—will support the maintenance and improvement of child benefit because, as child benefit increases, the greater becomes the income of people in work compared with that of those on the dole. Child benefit is maintained when a person is in work, but is deducted from social security payments.
644
Hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, who attach importance to the strengthening of the family, should advocate maintaining and increasing the real value of child benefit. All hon. Members who want to see the increased independence of women in our society will also advocate child benefit because it is the only substantial benefit paid to women in their own right.
Those who are keen to eliminate child poverty, and not just talk about its elimination, know that this is the only safe way of doing so. We heard from the Government today that, even with the new super-benefit for poor families, four out of 10 will not claim.
Finally—this is the most important point that I can address to the hon. Member for Tatton and other Conservative Members—those who wish to maintain tax equity between those with children and those without know that the only way to increase the tax threshold for families with children is to increase child benefit. If we do not do that and come up instead with a measure which freezes child benefit and increases the premiums for single-parent families, an absurd situation will develop. A Tory party committed to normal families. as it calls them, would put families with only one parent at an advantage ever those with two. That makes nonsense of the principles for which Conservative and Opposition Members stand.
9.32 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We have had an interesting and constructive debate. I want to say a little about the claims and payments regulations about which most hon. Members spoke. I do not wish to invite the Under-Secretary to dwell on these matters, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the strictures of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the way in which the House and another place have been given insufficient time for the scrutiny of the regulations. The strictures refer to the whole package of regulations, including income support. That may account for some of the more peculiar comments from Conservative Members who do not understand what the Government are doing, and who might have understood better if, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments suggests, they had had more time to study the matter.
I should like the Under-Secretary to elucidate a point touched on by the Minister who opened the debate. If I understood him correctly, he referred to the regulations put forward by the Social Security Advisory Committee and to the fact that the Government have accepted most of them in respect of the changes in the payment of benefits.
The SSAC recommended a series of proposed timetables for the handling of back claims. It does not appear to approve of the Government's proposal for some benefits to be paid a week in advance and others, including those to the most needy, to be paid a week in arrears. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to mislead the House and I may have misheard what he said, but I should like to hear confirmation from the Under-Secretary that, although the Government usually go for simplification, in this case they are happy with complexity. Do the Government expect to make savings through this change at the expense of the needy and, if so, to what extent will those savings be revealed?
I wish to deal now with the uprating regulations and to touch on one point raised only briefly in the debate— the lack of uprating for most of those people living in

645
residential care or nursing homes. According to the uprating statement, only two groups of people have been given any increase — the very dependent elderly, although an additional £10 may not go very far, and people with a mental handicap. Many hon. Members who have expressed concern about the inadequacy of the payment that the Government are willing to allow to people in residential or nursing care will, when they have had a chance to scrutinise the effects of these upratings, much regret that the Government did not feel able to be more generous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made several clear points about the way in which the Government have been — to put it mildly — less than generous to pensioners. It is not easy to work out the overall sums that the Government are saving by ceasing to uprate pensions in line with earnings, and that takes no account of the fact that they have broken the commitment that was clearly intended at least to make an uprating from time to time. I believe that the savings that the Government are making in that respect must be running at about £3,000 million a year.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on that figure. It casts into some relief the way in which Conservative Members, the Prime Minister and her ministerial colleagues congratulate themselves on their generosity in spending about £400 million on heating allowances— leaving aside the fact that the Government have just abolished those—when we consider the sum of £3,000 million a year in savings. Clearly the Government are making substantial savings at the expense of many pensioners.
Of late, it has been the practice of Ministers to draw attention to the results of the family expenditure survey data which show that the average pensioner household is now doing rather nicely. It has been the practice of the Opposition to draw the Government's attention to the steps that they have taken to weaken that position. A recent study has shown that, apart from that argument, it is especially misleading of the Government — and I cannot help thinking that Ministers are aware of this— to use the figures for average pensioner households when they try to show that there is no problem in not uprating pensions in line with earnings because pensioners are doing very nicely, thank you.
Although the average for all households shows that pensioner incomes have risen, the top 20 per cent. have more than twice as much income as the 20 per cent. immediately below them and more than three times as much as occupational pensioners. Through the excessive gains that those at the top have made, they manage to create the impression that average pensioner households are doing better. People in the bottom 20 per cent. and even those in the 20 per cent. above the bottom section —where a poverty trap is created by the way in which benefits clash with small additional occupational pensions —are doing just as badly as many of us had feared.
The overall effects of the massive increases given to the best-off pensioners are skewing the average so that it gives a misleading appearance of the wealth or poverty of pensioners as whole. It is useful to draw attention to that while we are talking about the Government's refusal to uprate pensions properly.
646
We have had a particularly interesting debate on child benefit. I welcome the remarks of a number of Conservative Members who have had the courage to tell the Government that they are getting it wrong. They have drawn attention to the fact that, although the Government make much of the compensation that will go to some families who draw family credit, even on Government figures—and there will be another debate in which we can draw attention to the inadequacy of those—at least 40 per cent. of the poorest families in work will lose from the decision not to uprate child benefit. It would be invidious to single out more than one Conservative Member who spoke in defence of child benefit, but I am confident that those hon. Members are more at ease with their consciences than are many of those who spoke in other respects.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I must tell the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—who is still not present in the Chamber— that it is noteworthy that when Conservative Members such as he talk about the need to target benefits on the poorest, they are always very keen to see that switch coming from those who are slightly less poor. When it comes to asking them to vote for an increased family premium for which the resources might come from the wealthiest taxpayers, or when we ask them to vote for an additional premium for the unemployed, they have no interest. They always vote against such proposals and usually speak against them as well. Only when people on low incomes, and not people like Conservative Members, are going to pay are they in favour of targeting help and giving more to those in greatest need.
I want to consider briefly the cost of the simplification that the Government claim is one of the principal benefits for income support and also consider who is paying it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) made one of the best maiden speeches that I have heard. It was equalled only by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). They drew particular attention to the problems of the young.
It became clear throughout the debate that, when the age of majority has gone down to 18, there is no defence for the Government, in practice, through the system of income support, and, indeed, the concomitant benefits, raising the age of majority to 25.
There are particular problems for those in low-paid or part-time work. About 60,000 single parents—a group whom otherwise the Government seek to help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned—in part-time work will lose substantially through the Government's decision not to allow them to take account of their work expenses before their benefit is calculated, as is the case at present. Such single parents are likely to lose around £19 or £20 a week. That is a substantial disincentive to remain in work. Indeed, for many, particularly young mothers, it is perhaps the loss of the last chance that they have to retain their contact with the labour market, their independence and their dignity, and to stay, as the Secretary of State would apparently wish, out of the benefit culture. The Government's action is forcing them into the benefit culture, instead of offering them the chance of independence which will take them out of it.
The decision to count the average hours of work that somebody puts in, rather than their average earnings, and

647
the decision that someone with a partner in full-time work should not be able to claim benefit, no matter what their income is and no matter if the family income is well below the poverty line, are creating a further disincentive to work. Again, the Government are forcing people back on to benefits because the losses that are likely to be incurred in many cases are more than most families could sustain.
The problems of the disabled have been clearly highlighted by many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, by some Conservative Members, notably the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). Whatever the Government may say about the number of disabled people who are being assisted by their overall scheme of income support, there are many serious and heavy losses, and not only—not that it is defensible— among the most severely disabled. The Government seek to suggest that they hope to tackle the problem, but they have had nearly two years since the proposals were first put forward and it is a little weak, to put it mildly— although it is welcome as far as it goes — that they should now argue that they can take that step.
When we discuss the losses that disabled claimants are likely to incur, the Government's answer is always that there will be transitional protection. By definition, there is no transitional protection for new claimants. It is no answer to the point that many disabled charities make over and over again about the substantial fall in the standard of living that will be experienced by people who become disabled after the regulations and the Act to which they refer are on the statute book to say that it will be all right for those who are disabled now.
To say to someone who, perhaps, moves into a new flat in which there is an expensive heating system and who has a couple of other minor entitlements to additional allowances, which is the experience of many people who are not particularly disabled, that they will lose £4 or £5 a week from their benefit, and to add, "But those who are already drawing benefit are being protected," is just not an answer. It has no relationship to the problems that they face. Their standard of living is significantly below that of disabled people. The Government have never attempted to deny that. All that they do is talk about people whose standard of living will fall only steadily over several years rather than at once being substantially below present levels.
Any severely or otherwise disabled person, perhaps such as those on kidney dialysis—many societies which deal with such people have drawn our attention to the problems that they are likely to face—who finds himself with a more serious patch of illness, as is most likely to happen, and has to go into hospital for some weeks, so that his circumstances change, will lose his transitional protection at a stroke, to coin a phrase.
The Minister of State and the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that they hope to avoid the worst losses for the most severely disabled by inflation-proofing the domestic assistance addition, which is the most significant single sum that can be added to such a person's benefit. We welcome that, but it was disgraceful that it was not proposed from the beginning. Inflation-proofing the domestic assistance addition will be of no value to people who have a break in the benefit that they are claiming because they are going to hospital or for some other reason. They will lose the increase that the Government claim will be protected.
648
The then right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, Mr. Francis Pym, said that the Government had begun from the wrong point. Unlike Beveridge, they did not set out to study the market or to see how claimants' problems could be met. They started halfway through, with a system of review, and considered the system as it then stood. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said, "Yes, we are looking for a simplified system and an improvement, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society." The Government have claimed that they are making the most important reforms since Beveridge, as they are, but to make them at the expense of the most vulnerable in society is a disgrace.
9.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on her maiden speech. She succeeded Michael Cocks, who will certainly be missed by Conservative Members. I was a little worried when the hon. Lady was elected, because she has a foreign surname that begins with a P and ends with an O. I could foresee confusion with the Post Office, but fortunately that has not occurred so far.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his maiden speech. His predecessor, Piers Merchant, will be missed, but we hope to welcome him back to the House shortly. While I am dishing out congratulations, I congratualte my hon. Friend the Minister on being able to claim another £7·25 a week, due to the arrival of a child.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke at length about retirement pensioners and the Labour party's record. We heard the usual claims that the only way to give pensioners a decent standard of living is to uplift the basic pension in line with earnings rather than by matching price rises—a point that was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). For pensioners, the state pension constitutes only one half of their net income. In 1985, on average, pensioners received incomes equivalent to about 60 per cent. of the incomes of those in full-time work. That proportion has increased significantly since 1979.
Pensioners' living standards have increased under this Government relative to the living standards of others. Under the last Labour Administration, with their policy of earnings-linked pension increases and poor control over the economy, pensioner living standards fell relative to those in work. That is a record of which the Labour party is proud.
Policies to assist elderly people that concentrate on the pension alone are doomed to failure. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government increased pensions in real terms—a meagre 3 per cent. increae in total income after five years. Pensioners were particularly badly hit by rampant inflation under that Government, whereas under this Government inflation has been firmly under control. As a consequence, pensioners have done well.
Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the tables in Economic Trends from which his figures are drawn show that the increase in occupational pensions is confined to the top quintile of pensioners and that the bottom 60 per cent. of pensioners derive 80 per cent. of their income from state pensions. It is the bottom 60 per cent. who have been cheated by this Government.
Mr. Portillo: I was clearly wrong to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I was coming to exactly that point.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thought she had discovered something. In fact, the figures show that the average annual increase in the incomes of the lowest quintile of pensioners was 2·8 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1985 against 2·9 per cent. for those in the highest quintile. That is the great point that the hon. Member for Livingston thinks he is on to—a 0·1 per cent. difference between the top and the bottom quintile. What really matters is the number of pensioners who now find themselves in the bottom quintile, and that has fallen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 25 per cent. on the latest figures.
I sympathise with my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in the argument about the needs of older pensioners. However, I emphasise that those pensioners, too, have benefited from the improvement in their savings since inflation has been under control. My hon. Friends should not forget that the over-80s are getting the special over-80 premium under income support—probably the sort of measure that my hon. Friends seek.
Today's debate seems to have been about the abolition of child benefit, which is not a matter before the House and does not arise from the regulations. There was a good deal of tilting at windmills, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton made convincing hidalgos and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made a fair Sancho Panza. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that he took a historical view. That is fair enough, but I would like to get the history straight. It is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) alleged, that child benefit is now less valuable than child tax allowance and family allowance 20 years ago. For a person on average earnings, the opposite is true. Child benefit is now more valuable to someone in that position.
We have heard a great deal about the apparent drawbacks of income-related benefits and the advantages of universal benefits such as child benefit. However, we should preserve a sense of scale. We are talking about 30p —the difference between what child benefit would be if the Government uprated it from April and the £7·25 that it will be. The effect on the numbers receiving income-related benefits has been alluded to. It is a small effect. Perhaps 10,000 families that would not otherwise have qualified will qualify for family credit and perhaps another 5,000 will qualify for housing benefit. Therefore, hon. Members have been arguing that, for the sake of 10,000 families on the one hand and 5,000 on the other, we should have committed £120 million of public money to uprating child benefit in line with inflation.
I understand the arguments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about poverty traps, but I must say to him and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham that scale matters in all this. It is important to remember that we are talking about 4p per day per child on the one hand—that is what all the fuss is about—while on the other we are talking about the possibility of putting £200 million extra into family credits to help families that are particularly in need. I do not believe that those who have so passionately defended child benefit this evening are really concerned about that 30p.
650
The truth is that they would like to have a very much higher level of child benefit and to use that increase as a way of floating people off income-related benefits.
That point of view is fair enough, but it needs to be examined. If child benefit were doubled next April, only about 80,000 families would be floated off income support, and some of those would still be receiving housing benefit. The net cost of achieving that would be £3·5 billion. I cannot agree that that would be the best use of £3·5 billion. I recognise the vital role that the state can play in helping families. The Labour party always makes the mistake of equating with cash the help that can be given to families. The help and support that the Conservative party gives to families is much more than cash support. We give vigorous moral support to the family ; that is what is lacking from the Labour party.
There has been a great deal of talk about the position of the disabled under income support. They have benefited significantly under this Government. By 1986, 52,000 people on supplementary benefit were receiving mobility allowance and 181,000 people on income maintenance were receiving attendance allowance. A great deal of the debate this evening was conducted as if those two benefits did not exist and as if there had not been a tremendous increase in their take-up.
The revised figures we have published for income support show a real-terms increase, on average, of £4·80 for the 270,000 claimants receiving the disability premium. That implies increased spending of over £60 million, which is the figure to which we have alluded several times. It is better than the £50 million we quoted at the time of the technical annex published in 1985. In addition, we will be providing—these figures are not in the technical annex —a severe disability premium of £24·75 to about 7,000 claimants. That compares with about 4,500 people who currently receive domestic assistance additions whose average is only £6·35 at present. That is the comparison that the Opposition so signally failed to make.
It is important to bear in mind, as I have already said, that the benefits about which we are talking come on top of the payment of attendance allowance and mobility allowance. Someone receiving an attendance allowance will receive support of £68.45 if they are on income support and over the age of 25. Someone receiving the servere disability premium will receive £93.20 and in addition they could receive a mobility allowance and perhaps maximum help with rent and rates.
I would like to answer specifically the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I hope that he will not dispute, now that he has heard the figures, that in general the disabled will be benefiting from the package of measures that we are debating. He said that 40 per cent. of disabled pensioners would be losing under the reforms. That figure is based on a false inference. The implication of what he was saying is that all pensioners are disabled. [Interruption.] That is the way the figures have been drawn.
Mrs. Beckett rose—
Mr. Portillo: I will not give way, because I have only three minutes left.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South and several others mentioned the problems of the young. The hon. Member for Bristol, South rather surprised me. She said that she looked back to 1970 and wondered what opportunity

651
young people under 16 and 17 had then. I can tell her the opportunity that they did not have. They did not have the opportunity of participating in the youth training scheme, which is a guarantee that this Government give to every 16 and 17-year-old. That is an important opportunity that she chose to ignore entirely.
The hon. Member for Livingston also chose to ignore the fact that 60 per cent. of young people under our new proposals will be gainers or will be unaffected in real terms by the changes we are making. He also ignored the fact that there are 200,000 young people who will be gaining £3 or more.
The Opposition have failed throughout the debate to say what they would do if they were in government. What they have done has been entirely negative, although the former Opposition spokesman for social services accepted that supplementary benefit was not a benefit that he wished to see continue. The attitude of the Opposition throughout the debate—has been confined to opposing the measures that we are bringing forward. We have had no coherent version of what the system should be. We are producing a better system, which is easier to understand and to operate. It will also be better explained to claimants, who will know what they qualify for.
I commend the changes to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.

INCOME SUPPORT
Motion made and Question put,
That the draft Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 190.

Division No. 69]

[10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Alexander, Richard

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Allason, Rupert

Buck, Sir Antony

Amess, David

Burns, Simon

Amos, Alan

Burt, Alistair

Arbuthnot, James

Butcher, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Butler, Chris

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Butterfill, John

Ashby, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Aspinwall, Jack

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carrington, Matthew

Baldry, Tony

Carttiss, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Cash, William

Bellingham, Henry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bendall, Vivian

Chapman, Sydney

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Chope, Christopher

Benyon, W.

Churchill, Mr

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Colvin, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Boswell, Tim

Cope, John

Bottomley, Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Cran, James

Bowis, John

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Curry, David

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brazier, Julian

Day, Stephen

Bright, Graham

Devlin, Tim

Brooke, Hon Peter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Dicks, Terry

652

Dorrell, Stephen

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Moss, Malcolm

Dunn, Bob

Moynihan, Hon C.

Dykes, Hugh

Mudd, David

Eggar, Tim

Needham, Richard

Evennett, David

Nelson, Anthony

Farr, Sir John

Neubert, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Newton, Tony

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Nicholls, Patrick

Fookes, Miss Janet

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Onslow, Cranley

Fox, Sir Marcus

Oppenheim, Phillip

Franks, Cecil

Page, Richard

Freeman, Roger

Paice, James

French, Douglas

Patnick, Irvine

Fry, Peter

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Gardiner, George

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Pawsey, James

Gill, Christopher

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Porter, David (Waveney)

Goodlad, Alastair

Portillo, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Powell, William (Corby)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Price, Sir David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Raffan, Keith

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Redwood, John

Grist, Ian

Renton, Tim

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Riddick, Graham

Harris, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hind, Kenneth

Roe, Mrs Marion

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

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Rost, Peter

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rowe, Andrew

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Ryder, Richard

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Knapman, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Scott, Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Latham, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lilley, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lord, Michael

Speed, Keith

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Speller, Tony

McCrindle, Robert

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacGregor, John

Stanley, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, David

Stevens, Lewis

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Madel, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Major, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

Malins, Humfrey

Summerson, Hugo

Mans, Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maude, Hon Francis

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thorne, Neil

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thornton, Malcolm

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, lain

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Miscampbell, Norman

Tredinnick, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moore, Rt Hon John

Viggers, Peter

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

653

Waldegrave, Hon William

Wilkinson, John

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas

Walters, Dennis

Wood, Timothy

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Woodcock, Mike

Warren, Kenneth

Yeo, Tim

Watts, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whitney, Ray

Mr. Tony Durant and

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Mr. David Lightbown.

Wiggin, Jerry

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

Allen, Graham

Dewar, Donald

Alton, David

Dixon, Don

Anderson, Donald

Dobson, Frank

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Doran, Frank

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Douglas, Dick

Ashton, Joe

Duffy, A. E. P.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dunnachie, James

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Eastham, Ken

Barron, Kevin

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Battle, John

Fatchett, Derek

Beckett, Margaret

Fearn, Ronald

Beith, A. J.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bell, Stuart

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Flannery, Martin

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Flynn, Paul

Bermingham, Gerald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Foster, Derek

Blair, Tony

Fraser, John

Boateng, Paul

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Bradley, Keith

Galbraith, Samuel

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Galloway, George

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

George, Bruce

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Buchan, Norman

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Caborn, Richard

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Callaghan, Jim

Gould, Bryan

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Graham, Thomas

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clay, Bob

Hardy, Peter

Clelland, David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cohen, Harry

Heffer, Eric S.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Henderson, Douglas

Corbett, Robin

Hinchliffe, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cousins, Jim

Holland, Stuart

Cox, Tom

Home Robertson, John

Crowther, Stan

Hood, James

Cryer, Bob

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Cummings, J.

Hoyle, Doug

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Darling, Alastair

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Illsley, Eric

654

Ingram, Adam

Quin, Ms Joyce

Janner, Greville

Radice, Giles

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Randall, Stuart

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Reid, John

Kilfedder, James

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lambie, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lamond, James

Robertson, George

Leadbitter, Ted

Robinson, Geoffrey

Leighton, Ron

Rooker, Jeff

Litherland, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Livsey, Richard

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Salmond, Alex

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

McAllion, John

Sheerman, Barry

McAvoy, Tom

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McCartney, Ian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Skinner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McLeish, Henry

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

McTaggart, Bob

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Madden, Max

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Spearing, Nigel

Marek, Dr John

Steel, Rt Hon David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steinberg, Gerald

Martlew, Eric

Stott, Roger

Meacher, Michael

Strang, Gavin

Meale, Alan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michael, Alun

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Turner, Dennis

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Vaz, Keith

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wall, Pat

Morgan, Rhodri

Wallace, James

Morley, Elliott

Wailley, Ms Joan

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Wareing, Robert N.

Mullin, Chris

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Paul

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Nellist, Dave

Wilson, Brian

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Winnick, David

O'Brien, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Patchett, Terry

Worthington, Anthony

Pendry, Tom

Wray, James

Pike, Peter

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Noes:

Prescott, John

Mr. Frank Cook and Mrs. Llin Golding.

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS)
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, which were laid before his House on 10th November, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Supplementary Estimates 1987–88 may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Supplementary Estimates 1987–88
CLASS XIX, VOTE 16
Supplementary Estimates 1987–88

  BP Share Issue
  10.13 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Treasury in connection with the purchase and sale of shares in BP plc.
  First, may I welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to the Opposition Front Bench as a shadow Treasury spokesman. Secondly, may I explain the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate, because it is extremely narrow.
  The purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to provide for the gross cost of the Government's subscription for new BP shares and to appropriate in aid of this expenditure virtually the same amount of receipts from the sale of shares so as to enable drawings on the Contingencies Fund to he repaid. The net result of these two transactions is that the Estimate provides for no more than a token £1,000 additional expenditure. This is the minimum sum which the House is asked to vote tonight.
  The subscription for BP shares arises from the decision to combine BP's rights issue of some £1·5 billion of new equity with the Government's sale of their remaining holding of BP shares. It would not have been sensible for these two exercises to proceed separately. A separate issue of new equity by the company could have clashed in time with the Government's sale, and would have been confusing. We therefore agreed with BP that it was in both our interests to have a combined offer.
  As part of this offer the Treasury agreed to subscribe for BP's new shares on a fully-paid basis, and immediately to sell the shares together with the Government's existing shares. The cost of the subscription was more than offset by the proceeds of the first of three instalments from the combined offer. The decision to proceed in this way was announced to the House in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 21 July.
  The Estimate that we are considering tonight covers solely the costs of the Government's subscription to the new BP shares—the rights issue—and the appropriation of receipts to pay for that subscription. It does not cover the sale expenses of the combined share offer, nor the Bank of England buy-back scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29 October. Those will be the subject of separate Supplementary Estimates. This Estimate is entirely about paying BP for the rights issue. In that sense it is a transfer. The Government's intention to present a Supplementary Estimate was made clear in my written answer on 21 July.
  The Supplementary Estimate was laid before Parliament on 2 November, the first day of parliamentary business after dealings commenced in the partly-paid shares on 30 October, and after the underwriting
  656
  agreements became unconditional. Since the Government were obliged to incur the expenditure of £1·513 billion immediately the BP offer went unconditional on 30 October, the costs were met, in anticipation of Parliament's approval, by an advance from the Contingencies Fund.
  The statutory limit on drawings from the Contingencies Fund is 2 per cent. of the previous year's Supply Expenditure, which amounts to just over £2 billion. 'The advance for the BP subscription, together with other advances, accounts for a large proportion of this total. 'The Consolidated Fund Bill giving effect to the normal winter round of Supplementary Estimates usually gains royal assent just before Christmas. It would be imprudent to leave a relatively small balance in the fund to cover all contingencies until that time.
  The Government will therefore ask the House to approve a special Consolidated Fund Bill, taken out of turn, to appropriate the funds to repay the advance from the Contingencies Fund for the BP subscription as quickly as possible. The Consolidated Fund Bill will be introduced immediately after this evening's debate. Further Supplementary Estimates will be presented shortly, and will follow the usual timetable and procedures for the winter round.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Minister for his courteous welcome. When I transferred from my tutelage by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) I thought that I might escape late-night debates. I am sorry if I have brought the Minister bad luck in that regard.
  The Opposition sought this short debate on the Supplementary Estimate because it provides an opportunity for hon. Members to raise matters connected with the BP sale and the provisions in the Estimate for repayment to the Contingencies Fund.
  The Treasury has spent some £39 million of public money on marketing the sale. That makes it one of the most expensive share launches in history, at £144 per investor. One cannot help but wonder whether some of the investors would rather have just had the cash. That must apply particularly to the some 5,000 individuals who originally applied for BP shares, but have defaulted, mostly by bouncing their cheques. At some stage the Treasury must decide—I accept that the decision may not yet have been made—whether to prosecute those individuals to enforce the contract of sale. No doubt the House will be told that decision in due course.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What about multiple applications?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman mentions multiple applications. I do not think that it is yet compulsory to make them, but who knows what may come? If individuals end up as unwilling participants in popular capitalism, it is legitimate to ask whether they will also receive direct mail-shot letters inviting them to make a financial contribution to the cost of developing the Conservative party's new strategic thinking. I offer the idea to the Minister, who may take it up—or not—as he likes.
  More seriously, the Government still own about 69 million shares in BP, which were being retained for a loyalty bonus. They will not all be needed for that purpose,

  657
  and the Government will have to say at some stage what they intend to do with them. The redundancy of the loyalty bonus issue highlights a broader point. The number of British citizens who own shares is now in decline. The true figure is probably around 7 million, and falling. The failure of the BP launch is a tangible setback to popular capitalism. It is also much more than that. The psychological jolt that it has delivered will prove to be far more important in the long run. It will encourage speculators to be more discerning — I am not sure whether that is a good thing; I suspect not—especially between privatised monopoly utilities and privatised trading companies, to the trading companies' detriment.
  Also abandoned is the philosophical approach of leaving matters to the market place without intervention by the Government. Whatever the arguments about the wisdom of the speculators' safety net, it is clearly a Government intervention in the market place. There are other problems with a safety net — not least those involving its withdrawal. It is difficult to tell how much of the present dealing in BP shares is deliberately short term, but, no matter how many times the shares are bought and sold, the Government guarantee to take them back into public ownership, even if that means paying more than their market value, which cannot be called popular capitalism. I hope that there is not chaos on the day before the safety net is removed, but the potential for trouble is plainly there, almost built into the arrangement. The resultant damage to BP's share value in the short term cannot be in anyone's interests — certainly not in the Government's, who would then be substantial shareholders again.
  All this leads me to the possibly unworthy thought that the Government might seek to avoid the safety net coming into operation by authorising the Bank of England discreetly to deal in BP shares in the market place to help the price stay well above 70p. Perhaps the Minister will address that point.
  Another point that needs clarification is the Government's attitude to bed and breakfasting in the BP sale. Bed and breakfasting is a tax dodge, whereby major share owners sell themselves their own shares at a loss, solely for tax purposes. Arguably, the Finance Act 1985 has made that easier, and the opportunities for abuse when the Government have fixed a minimum share price are self-evident. I hope that the Inland Revenue have the Government's encouragement to pursue such abuses with vigour.
  A detail in the Estimate deals with a matter that was first raised in the House a fortnight ago. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asked:
  "Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to confirm— he denied it on Tuesday—that he has to pay for the rights issue from BP at 330p and that he will have to hand over the money tomorrow?" — [Official Report, 29 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 436.]
  The Chancellor replied:
  "The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the lastpoint on Tuesday and, as he knows, he is wrong." — [Official Report, 29 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 436.]
  In spite of that, we are today debating an Estimate which, in part II, under the heading
  "A3 Subscription for new shares"
  states:
  658
  "As announced on 21 July (Official Report column 111) the Government subscribed for new BP shares, fully paid, conditional on the sale of new and old BP shares under the offer. When this condition was met, upon completion of the sale, payment was made to BP for their new shres at the UK fixed price."
  The Estimate sets out the sum paid, and by dividing that sum by the number of shares purchased—which I can just about manage—we arrive at a figure of 329·7p per share. The implication of the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East was that the Chancellor was buying the shares for more than the price at which he intended to sell them. The Chancellor refuted that by saying that of course he was not.
  I accept that 329·7p is not quite 330p, but if that is all that the Chancellor meant when he vigorously denied the purchase, he was being less than straightforward with the House. The truth is slightly different and the point that my right hon. and learned Friend was trying to make was correct. It would have done the Chancellor more good if he had acknowledged that fact instead of retreating behind what I can best describe as mathematical semantics. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene to clarify the point once and for all, but perhaps he will do so if I have got it wrong. The matter needs to be clarified because, as it stands, its substance reflects badly on the Chancellor.
  The Conservative party is proud of being the party that best understands the City and knows about financial management, yet it managed to sell Britain's best-known company at the wrong price and at the wrong time. The 5 per cent. Kuwaiti shareholding provides an opportunity to commemorate the Government's involvement with BP by changing the name from BP to KP—after the nuts.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I suspect that the House will need to return to this matter on more than a few occasions. It is obviously appropriate for the Government to start to give us some idea of what might be in store. At this stage nobody really knows.
  I reiterate what I have said on numerous occasions, that it certainly gave me no satisfaction to see the BP share offer getting into difficulties. As I think the Government know, I and members of my party supported in principle the sale of the BP shares and were certainly in favour of the objective of wider share ownership that it was designed to achieve. A couple of matters arise from that and go back a few years in the privatisation programme.
  The stated and glorious objective of the Government to achieve wider share ownership, which if done the right way I can fully support in principle, was subordinated to the realisation by the Government that they could secure substantial sums of money that were transferred from the private to the public sector. They realised that they could use that money to finance their tax cuts and/or their public spending requirements. It is regrettable that, when it became apparent that the BP flotation was in difficulty, that commitment by the Government to secure extra revenue and the necessity to overlook their previously stated first objective of wider share ownership.
  Clearly, wider share ownership could not be achieved by the flotation at that time and has not been achieved. The proper thing for the Government to do was to suspend the flotation in spite of the difficulties that that would cause. The Chancellor came to the House and, to great

  659
  acclaim from the Government Benches, produced what was apparently a salvation formula for the share offer. The full implications have not yet worked through.
  The Bank of England has undertaken, up to the extension of the deadline for the safety net, to buy any shares that are offered to it at 70p, against a part-paid value of £1·20. I would appreciate it if the Minister would confirm that, on the day that the safety net is withdrawn, it is conceivable that all the shares will be offered to the Bank of England and it will be obliged to stump up the full 70p for them, which I calculate to be about £1·4 billion. That is only the beginning of the problem, because it means that that money will be tied up within the Bank of England and the bank is stuck with the problem of when to offload those shares. That will depend on what happens with the stock market and for how long it moves in the wrong or the right direction.
  The Government are taking a substantial gamble, involving large amounts of public money. I appreciate that the £1,000 in the Supply Estimate is a technical device, but I think that it will he an ironical £1,000 compared with what might happen at the end of the day. It is a complex and difficult matter, and I do not confess to understand all the interactions and inter-relationships that follow, but it seems to me that the public are being stung twice— first as taxpayers, and secondly as contributors to savings or pensions schemes.
  It is suggested that the loss on the shares is restricted to the 255,000 people who were either so farsighted that they had a different view from the rest of society, or so stupid that they did not realise the commercial realities that they were entering into. The reality is that millions of people suffered a loss on the flotation of BP because the institutions were either directly or indirectly underwriting it. That loss is built into the consequent adjustment to unit trusts and pension funds.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) mentioned the Kuwaiti interest that has been acquired. It would be appropriate if the Minister advised the House what safeguards there are in the system to prevent a substantial increase, given the depressed state of the market, in foreign shareholdings in BP, not all of which would be regarded as necessarily friendly in intent. The middle eastern interest in BP is a fairly obvious one.
  I now raise a serious constituency matter, which I regard as poor custodianship by the Government on behalf of other shareholders of BP. British Petroleum is the largest employer in my constituency. It has its North sea operational headquarters there and approximately 2,700 people operate out of that office. We are glad to have those headquarters there. BP is one of the major oil companies operating in the North sea and Aberdeen area. It is regrettable that BP is in the process of transferring 300 technical staff from Aberdeen to the City of London, contrary to all intelligent market interpretations, at a cost to its shareholders of tens of millions of pounds.
  A new office block has had to be acquired in addition to Britannia House in the City of London, where the Minister will know that office rentals are about 12 or 15 times the cost of office accommodation in Aberdeen. In addition, all removal costs, legal expenses and any loss incurred by the staff on their houses will be paid for by BP, and, therefore, indirectly by its shareholders. I resent more than anything the extent to which BP's actions have adversely affected the property market and many other
  660
  people in Aberdeen who do not have the advantage of a company to step in and pick up the financial consequences of such a decision.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Is there not a case for saying that a company the size and stature of BP should at all times retain an office in the City, where it can be on top of current issues?
  Mr. Bruce: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of the background to what I am talking about. BP has a huge office in the City of London, bigger indeed than those of most of the banks. Quite why an oil company needs to have so many engineers based on the most expensive square mile of office accommodation in the United Kingdom beats me. If the company was not so big, and if its shareholders were not so complacent—this is the context in which I am criticising the Government— questions might have been raised as to whether that expenditure was in the best interests of the shareholders. I suggest that it was not.
  What happened when the Chancellor came up with his rescue operation—if I may call it that—for the BP share flotation will be seen as a turning point for what has been known, even by the Prime Minister, as Thatcherism. A major share flotation got caught in a bear market and the Government had to change tack. No more will hon. Members on the Opposition Benches or people outside the House take self-righteous, smug, complacent lectures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the merits of nonintervention, about letting the market operate or about not using taxpayers' money to bale out companies, individuals or communities when they get into difficulty.
  We are discussing a potential investment of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money which has been triggered by direct intervention in the market by a Government who claim that such proceedings are not acceptable and are not the way to operate in a free market. This will have implications for further major share sales. As and when we come to the privatisation of electricity, I believe that the Government will be forced to carry that out in a much different way from previous flotations. It would be absolute madness to try to float the electricity industry as a one-off, single sale like British Telecom or British Gas. It would be a disaster.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the Liberal party would privatise the electricity industry?
  Mr. Bruce: This debate is not about how we would privatise it. It is the Government who are proposing to privatise it. We have made it clear that the Government have made no case so far that convinces us of the merits of privatising electricity. The Government themselves do not know how they are going to do it. That was revealed only a week or so ago. This is a serious point. If the House does not appreciate it, I am sure that people outside, especially those employed in the electricity industry, do. If an £18 billion flotation were to come to the market in a single tranche after the experience of BP it would mean that the Government had learnt absolutely nothing from this exercise.
  The Government will have to think seriously about how the programme continues. Regrettably, the BP share sale was not in that category. One of the mistakes that the Government have made is in selling public monopolies in

  661
  one, centralised unit as private monopolies, without proper competition or regulation, at a discount, with accounts massaged and underwritten by the taxpayers. Some of us have different priorities from the Government about the need to spend money. For instance, we believe in providing adequate benefits for the poor. The Government tell us that the money is not available and that we are irresponsible to call for such expenditure. Yet here we are debating what could ultimately lead to a massive investment of public money to bale out the failure of the Government's share deal.
  I conclude as I began, by saying that that failure gave me and my hon. Friends no pleasure at all. The way in which the Government have responded, and the open-ended commitment that they have entered into, may mean that they will have to come back to the House on many occasions, and it could cost the public, savers and investors very dear indeed. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the points that I have raised, but I realise that many of them he cannot, because he cannot see into the future any more surely than I can.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) feels that the share sale should have been suspended and I am surprised that that is his view. Given the fees that had been paid to the underwriters, not just on this privatisation but on so many others, it would have been a grave mistake for us to suspend the sale. It would have called into question the whole purpose of underwriting if, when the markets were in difficulty, the underwriters had been let off the hook. We have been criticised time and again for the size of the fees paid to the underwriters and it is extraordinary that in this case we should be urged by the hon. Member for Gordon to let the underwriters off the hook.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when Labour sold 50 per cent. of BP shares in 1977 there were headlines that stated
  "BP shares bungle costs millions"?
  Labour sold 50 per cent. for £600 million and indemnified the underwriters against loss; for 35 per cent. of the shares we get £6 billion. Surely that is how we should deal with our investments in British Petroleum.
  Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes an extremely good point.
  The hon. Member for Gordon asked whether it was true that the Bank of England might have to buy back all the shares that have been offered. In theory, that is the position and in theory I suppose that we could end up owning what we owned of the company before, plus a bit more from the rights issue, but at a much lower cost. That is why it was described as one of the greatest short sales in history. However, we do not expect that to happen.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about the Bank of England's involvement and whether it might be discreetly buying BP shares to keep them above the 70p limit. Under no circumstances will the Bank buy BP shares other than under the arrangement announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) raised the point about the bouncing cheques—
  Mr. Lamont: I am coming to that.
  Mr. Allen: When the Minister comes to the bouncing cheques, can he tell us what will happen to those who have bounced those cheques? Does he have more sympathy for those who bounced cheques or for the poor unfortunates who did not bounce them?
  Mr. Lamont: I am doing my best to answer the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and I will come to them one by one. He suggested that there was evidence of a decline in the past few weeks in the number of people owning shares. I believe that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has written a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—
  Mr. Gordon Brown: He has not replied.
  Mr. Lamont: I am not sure whether the letter has arrived. We cannot pick up a newspaper without reading about the hon. Gentleman's letters. Some of them arrive and some do not. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is joining the Liberal party, because letter writing is normally a tactic employed by Liberal Members. However, I think that the particular letter alluded to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East may have arrived. I can tell him that we have no evidence, on the basis of the surveys that we have carried out or the figures that we have announced to the House, that there has been a decline in the number of people owning shares. The hon. Gentleman was quoting from a different survey based on different assumptions. However, even the hon. Gentleman's figures in the letter show a considerable increase in share ownership in this country. We profoundly welcome that and intend to pursue that aim.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred to bed and breakfasting. Of course I cannot comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers. Bed and breakfasting is perfectly legal provided that it complies with certain criteria. Where it appears that it has not been done on arm's-length terms or at open market value, the Inland Revenue may make inquiries. We have all noted the recent press reports, which I am sure are what inspired the hon. Member's comments.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: My comments were inspired by concern for the Inland Revenue. There were clear opportunities for abuse. I am seeking from the Minister a clear commitment that the Government will encourage the Inland Revenue to look for and clamp down on abuse, particularly in the context of the BP sale.
  Mr. Lamont: I do not think that the BP sale has given rise to anything that is not already perfectly legal. Even without the Bank of England scheme, there were large losses and opportunities for bed and breakfasting. Bed and breakfasting must fulfil certain criteria, and I am sure that the Inland Revenue will note what the hon. Gentleman said and the recent press reports.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gordon mentioned an alleged 4·9 per cent. purchase by the Kuwaitis' investment office. I have no information about that; it is a matter for BP. There is no limit in BP's articles

  663
  of association on individual or foreign holdings. It was with BP's agreement that the Government did not retain any share in the company.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked about stopped cheques. When investors signed their application forms they agreed not to revoke their applications, so they should not have stopped their cheques. Those who did so have been asked to pay, but if they do not we shall consider what action to take.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East raised a point that was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about the BP rights issue and the 330p price. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking whether the Government had to buy at the price of 330p from BP, whether the sale was pulled or not. My right hon. Friend said that that was not the case. If the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard he will see that that was what his right hon. and learned Friend's words appeared to mean. If he is saying that the question concerned the price of 330p rather than whether the Government were obliged to pay, I should tell him that 330p was the price for the rights issue and also the Government's sale price. I do not think that there could be any implied criticism, even if the question were answered on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman says that it meant, in buying the shares at 330p from BP because, like the other shares, they had been underwritten at that price. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the shares were worth something else the implication is that BP should not receive the money that it wanted to raise through the rights issue. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not seek to imply that BP should not receive the agreed price that had been underwritten. I hope that I have clarified the matter and explained what my right hon. Friend meant when he answered the question.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point perfectly. I am sure that he is right about the 330p, but I am not so sure that he is right about what the Chancellor meant. The Chancellor said :
  "The right hon. and learned Gentleman"—
  my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—
  "then asked me whether it was true that the Government were obliged to purchase a large number of BP shares at 330p per share. I can tell him, of course, that it is not true." — [Official Report, Tuesday 27 October 1987; Vol. 121 c. 171.]
  I agree that that bears the possible interpretation that there was no obligation to buy if the sale did not go ahead. Of course I accept that. However, it also bears the interpretation that there was no possible commitment to buy at 330p a share. While I accept that the way in which the question was phrased on the Tuesday was ambiguous, the way in which it was phrased the following Thursday during Treasury questions was not ambiguous. Still the Chancellor brushed it aside. He had had two days to read the debate and to consider the Government's position. He must have known that the question would be put again and it would have reflected more credit on him had he said that the Government were not obliged to buy if the sale did not proceed but to set out — as the right hon. Gentleman has correctly set out—the position if the sale did go ahead.
  That is important because the thrust of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument was that the Government
  664
  were purchasing shares at a price higher than that at which they intended to sell shares. That argument should have been met on its own terms rather than having a different interpretation placed upon it.
  Mr. Lamont: I am not sure that the point is worth pursuing but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor interpreted the question in the way that I described. I assure him, too, that my right hon. Friend was aware of the price at which the shares were being sold; it would be pretty astonishing if he were not.
  Question,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Treasury in connection with the purchase and sale of shares in BP plc.
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. Peter Lilley.

  BP Share Issue
    CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
    Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1988; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 9 of Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of Public Business) and the Order of the House of 30th June relating to business of the House, the ballot for Private Members' Notices of Motions which are to have precedence on Friday 27th November shall be held after Questions on Tuesday 17th November.
    That, at the sitting on Monday 16th November, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) (b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Walker and Mr. Secretary Rifkind relating to Public Health not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon. — [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

      EDUCATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
      Question agreed to.

      BUILDING SOCIETIES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Building Societies (Provision of Services) (No. 3) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Rating Reform
    11.54 pm
    Mr. Gordon Brown: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of Dunfermline district council in the name of the provost, Councillor Mill. The petition protests against the proposed implementation of the community charge, or as it is properly known, the poll tax, which is considered unfair, unjust and inequitable in my constituency. It will make 30,000 of my electors worse off, is a clear intrusion on the civil liberties of those electors and has no supporters in Scotland outside the Conservative party. The petition states:
    "Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall take immediate steps to repeal the legislation which introduces the poll tax-community charge and remove the burden of unfair taxation which the people of Scotland firmly rejected in the June 1987 election and replace this proposed regressive tax system with a method for raising local revenues to meet the justified needs of local expenditure more in keeping with justice and with equity."
    It gives me pleasure on their behalf to bring the petition to the House and ask that the Government take seriously what is said within it.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I wish to discuss the transport needs of the disabled in Greater London. I should like to say how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker. I know that Mr. Speaker chooses the subject for the Thursday night Adjournment debate, so I am extremely grateful to him. I pay tribute to his interest in the subject. I know of his close involvement, as a constituency Member of Parliament, with Dial-a-Ride in Croydon. I believe that what I have to say will earn support from both sides of the House. Many colleagues representing other constituencies in Greater London have said how much they welcome the debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has asked to be associated with what I have to say.
  Much has happened in recent years, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss what has to happen with the various schemes and the availability of transport for the disabled. Now is the time to assess what is available for the disabled and what growth in services is feasible and desirable for them.
  Why do we need to consider the matter at all? Anybody who has tried to go on a journey, or has been on a journey with a disabled person, particularly a person in a wheelchair, will recognise that preparing for any journey —journeys which most hon. Members would take for granted—is like planning a military exercise. One has to know everything about every aspect of the journey to be undertaken. Taking two trains or two buses is not on the cards for many of our fellow Londoners. Many of those people are still trapped in their houses. If one speaks to the people who have been able to take advantage of Dial-a-Ride, taxi-card or the mobility buses, they will say that they have experienced a sense of freedom that has been absent for them for many years, and for some of them for all their lives. Some of the people who wanted to attend this debate from my constituency and across London cannot do so, not because they could not get in to hear the debate, but because they simply could not guarantee that they would be able to get home afterwards. That is something that any other Londoner would take for granted.
  Dial-a-Ride has been with us for only a short time, but it has made a huge impact across London. It was started initially by the Greater London council and is now financed by the Government. I and other Conservative Members have never been slow to point out the dreadful atrocities carried out by the GLC, particularly its rate increases, but it is because of the GLC, especially the then chairman of its transport committee, Mr. Dave Wetzel, that the scheme got off the ground in the first place. We should never be too ungenerous to give credit where it is due.
  It is the volunteers who substantially run and organise Dial-a-Ride who deserve the credit, and I hope that the House will pay tribute to them for their work. It is almost entirely because of their efforts that the previously housebound have seen their horizons extended and their

  667
  lives transformed. Because of that, Dial-a-Ride has become the victim of its own success. It simply cannot keep up with the demand.
  Dial-a-Ride has 50,000 members, yet London has about 250,000 disabled. No one can say exactly how many disabled there are. One survey last year even put the number as high as 500,000, and 30,000 Londoners are permanently in a wheelchair. Yet of those, only 38 per cent. of the transport handicapped have even heard of Dial-a-Ride, and only 2 per cent. have used it, according to a 1986 survey. In short, its facilities have been swamped.
  The telephone booking system, under which each Dial-a-Ride has only one telephone and tries to take all the bookings for its vehicles, has put people off. In particular —if I may allude to one group that feels itself frozen out of Dial-a-Ride—the elderly frail, having tried and tried to telephone Dial-a-Ride, simply give up in the end and become housebound once again.
  Two questions arise. How much money does Dial-a-Ride need to improve its service, and what is the demand? Nobody can answer those questions specifically. One must consider the demand on a regular basis. If we gave Dial-a-Ride in London extra money to buy, say, one vehicle per Dial-a-Ride and to improve the telephone system, how much difference would that make?
  The taxi card was also initially the responsibility of the GLC, and it now comes under the local authority. It has come in for a lot of criticism because it is expensive, but I want to make it abundantly clear that it is good value for money. Its maximum subsidy of £6 is only half that of the average subsidy for Dial-a-Ride, yet a 1986 survey showed that only 6 per cent. of London's disabled had a taxi card. In my borough, and I think in most London boroughs, there is a waiting list of the disabled who want the taxi card service.
  Why does taxi card have its opponents? It is simply because it is an open-ended financial commitment for the boroughs and it is subject to abuse. Yet, as I have said, it is vital to those who use it. Most people use it sparingly, and less than half use it more than once a month. I urge every London borough council to have patience with taxi card, to recognise what it is doing for the people who live in their boroughs and to recognise that they must continue to make a financial commitment to it.
  Some taxi drivers feel that taxi card holders are sometimes more able bodied than they expected when they pick them up. One hears stories of a taxi turning up at a house and a theoretically disabled person bounding out of the house and jumping into the taxi. Whether such stories are far-fetched or true is not for me to say, but those who feed on such stories must recognise that, for instance, multiple sclerosis sufferers have good and bad days. One day a sufferer may be in a wheelchair and the next day be walking fairly satisfactorily. We cannot deny assistance to those people simply because they are better on some days than on others.
  Thirdly, I want to talk about the impact of public transport. London Regional Transport in particular, and British Rail, have worked hard recently to improve access to their services, to promote new services and to publicise what is available. Improving access is extremely important, and only today my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has launched — if that is the right word—the new airbus service that takes five wheelchairs between Victoria station and the airport. The service from
  668
  Euston to the airport will be available from about next January and will be of tremendous help to many wheelchair-bound people who want to go on holiday.
  There are 260 new double-deckers with a lower and easier entrance and exit steps, and existing buses are being altered. There are also better handrails on buses and at underground stations. Visual signs accompany the bell to help the deaf. There are talking bus stops—that sounds like something out of a child's book — but they are extremely important to those who cannot read what is printed at the bus stop. Induction loops at station booking halls help the hard of hearing. Audible door buzzers have been installed on new central line trains. Most interestingly, the docklands light railway has wheelchair access from station to platform at every station.
  Why, then, does only one underground station have the same facility? It is essential for London Regional Transport to consider the shallow run lines especially and have a core system of stations so that disabled people know that they can get to the trains at some of the stations, and that they can get off at a selected number of stations. I recognise that the deep lines would be more difficult, and that some of them would be dangerous, but more could he done on the shallow lines than has been done up to now. We must see some progress.
  So far as new services are concerned, the mobility buses have made a big impact by taking people from outlying areas to the shopping areas. Equipped with lifts, they now operate in eight boroughs. I should like to see those services running in all boroughs, including in my borough, where people would perhaps like to go to the new shopping centre on a particular day of the week.
  Dial-a-ride could work with the new mobility buses. It can and would like to be able to feed the mobility buses. For example, if one knew that on a Thursday, a bus would run from one's estate at 10 o'clock in the morning to the shopping centre and return in the afternoon, Dial-a-Ride could pick up people and take them to that mobility bus and collect them in the evening. Such a service would transform the lives of many people who are now trapped in their own homes. It could be cost-effective and improve the cost-effectiveness of the Dial-a-Ride service.
  Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable interest in the debate that he has initiated, not least in the London borough of Ealing, and that Ealing Dial-a-Ride is anxious to try to meet more of the demand that it is facing. Towards the end of his speech, will my hon. Friend make some suggestions about how the voluntary organisations might be able to meet more of the demand if they had more resources?
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He is my Member of Parliament. I voted for him, and he is a very good Member. His interest in and concern with such matters is well recognised in the area where I live. I hope to deal with the point that he made, and if I do not I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it in his speech.
  There is plenty of scope for new services and an imaginative approach by London Regional Transport, and the voluntary sector could come up with new ideas that would be cost-effective. The advice that London Regional Transport gives to its drivers recognises that there is a big market to be tapped. Its "Information for Drivers" leaflet states:

  669
  "Elderly and disabled people … bring revenue to London buses …
  Lots of these passengers are regulars; they travel every day, and really are grateful to staff who help them."
  It is important to recognise that the fact that people are disabled does not mean that they are not customers. They must be dealt with as customers. They are also ratepayers and taxpayers and deserve their share of what is happening in transport.
  The other area in which the public transport services have helped is information. There is no point in putting on a service if a customer does not know whether he will be able to use it. There is now a proliferation of information leaflets and large print maps have been produced by London Regional Transport and British Rail. The disabled passenger unit at London Regional Transport encourages input by the customers on what is planned.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton about the voluntary organisations. The big thing about Dial-a-Ride is that it is customer orientated and is run by customers. They have had a huge input into what has been achieved. We must not lose that input in any of the changes that may be sought.
  We are seeking a co-ordinated future. Demand will grow and the supply of money must grow with it. We must recognise that, at present, we can see only the tip of the iceberg. As more people are able to use the services, the demand will grow and people will want to use them on a regular basis. In the long term, I hope that the Government and the Department of Transport will accept that we need to increase, in a staged manner, the amount of funding given to the organisations involved and the amount of money put into the services. In that way we will be able to see a real return, not just in terms of value for money, but in the effects on the lives of Londoners.
  London Regional Transport and the Department of Transport must co-ordinate all the services, and LRT is in a good position to do that. One service affects the others, and LRT and the Department must take that into account when considering the pressure to bring in different services.
  The telephone system for Dial-a-Ride is inadequate. Currently there are 1,724 members per telephone, and what we need is a sub-regional exchange system so that members can ring more easily and get their call answered. We must price the improvements schemes and ensure that staged growth takes place. When considering the different Dial-a-Ride schemes, we must not be too limited in setting the ground rules. Traffic speed and density influence the cost of each service, and we must not be too rigid.
  We must set a date by which new taxis are able to take wheelchairs, and we must urge taxi and mini-cab operators to grasp the commercial opportunities that are available, by buying suitable vehicles. We must ask voluntary organisations—as the Harrow Association for Voluntary Services is doing — to raise money to convert taxis so that we can increase the number of taxis available locally.
  I do not ask my hon. Friend for answers to all these matters tonight, but I hope that he will consider them in the long term. No one must assume that what has been achieved is enough. No one must assume that he can assess what the real need is or will be. I hope that my hon. Friend will show his customary open-mindness to future developments and recognise that we have only scratched
  670
  the surface of the problems. If the Government recognise that and act upon my recommendations, they will transform the lives of Londoners in a tremendous way.
  11.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): First, may I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being here for this important debate. We are aware that in your service to your constituents you would echo many of the things that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).
  I recognise the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has had from colleagues on the Conservative Benches. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) is interested in the subject even though he represents an out-of-London constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has been here throughout the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), although he is not contributing to the debate, has a keen interest in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has contributed. I also acknowledge the help that has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who has a keen concern about all transport issues also and who has the interests of the disabled at heart. I would list the hon. Members on the other side of the House if they were present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has done a great job in continuing his services to Londoners, formerly as a member of the Greater London council, and now in this House. He has raised a subject that is seriously considered and supported by most hon. Members who have either the eyes to see or the personal experience to know what it is like to be immobile because of some physical or mental attribute. Such mobility handicap does not apply only to those who are conventionally recognised as disabled. It can be argued that 10 per cent. of us suffer from a mobility handicap at some stage in our lives. It may be because they have children, or have a physical disability —permanent or temporary—or it may be due to fraility or age. There are many reasons why many of us pass through a stage of difficulty with moving around. So, making sensible and greater provision for that is important.
  I propose to start by discussing Dial-a-Ride, and then cover other issues if there is time. Perhaps we can cover more of the subject during another debate in the future, because it deserves more than the half hour that it is now receiving through the good offices of my hon. Friend. The Department of Transport has been well served by Sir Peter Baldwin's committee, which now has a statutory responsibility to advise the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of London Regional Transport's unit for disability, and I am sure he will not mind my adding the disability unit of the Department of Transport itself, which could be described as the sometimes unseen link between all of us with an interest in the subject.
  I also pay tribute to the work of the people who established Dial-a-Ride, and to London Regional Transport, which, through its specialised unit, is promoting the effective development of Dial-a-Ride services throughout London. I do not want to spend too much time tonight on the one-trip-a-week campaign.

  671
  Those who read the London Regional Transport report —issued last month—will see that there are almost 10 times as many journeys as there are people registered for the scheme. I do not rest any case on that, as, obviously, more people could be registered, and we could probably discover, as the LRT report on taxi card shows, that if one culls through the list of those who are registered, one may also discover a fair number who have dropped off. We should not play the numbers game if we are trying to meet and increase the demand, because information is important to meeting people's needs in a cost-effective way. No one would wish to pretend that the level of Dial-a-Ride services that is currently available is sufficient to meet all the transport needs of the people who depend on them, let alone the growing number who are likely to become members.
  It is worth noting that, besides asking for more money, we must go for improved efficiency. If I had been able to announce an increase in Dial-a-Ride funding of 10 per cent. a year ago, with a further 10 per cent. this year, most people who support or use Dial-a-Ride, would have said that that was welcome. The Government did better than that ; they provided a 20 per cent. increase a year ago, and that accelerated funding has made it possible to obtain extra vehicles and put money towards the capital investment in the communications system to which my hon. Friend referred. The LRT report shows that there are six Dial-a-Rides whose cost per trip is less than £10, and three whose cost per trip is more than £15. That scatter is not fully explained by the different geographical location or history of the organisations. There are substantial efficiency gains to come, and I hope that all those who work for Dial-a-Ride, in the management committees and for LRT, will work together for continued efficiency improvements. That is the best way of getting the best value for money now and of justifying future increases. We want to approach Dial-a-Ride development in an incremental way, so that at each stage we can ensure that the best possible service has been provided for the greatest number of people.
  Let us examine the future development of the other services that are available in London. London has the best overall provision for people with mobility handicaps of any capital city in the world, not only because of the LRT introduction of the airbus service, which has been adapted so that people in wheelchairs and frail people can now travel from Victoria to Heathrow on the ordinary buses —although that is important. However, I shall use that example to demonstrate how value for money can play an important part. Alder Valley sensibly introduced a Careline service so that people in wheelchairs could go from London railway stations to Heathrow. It found that it was not possible to continue the service, which was costing £7,000 a week. There were calls for that service to be funded directly by central Government. I pay tribute to people in British Airways, in the British Airports Authority and in British Rail and to the many groups of people, including the Baldwin committee, who came together on the problem.
  It was discovered that London Regional Transport could adapt the ordinary airbus fleet to enable people in wheelchairs to travel in integrated transport. That bus conversion takes eight seconds and in that time the lift can be opened and the stair lowered. I pay tribute to LRT for
  672
  Mr. David Lightbown.its training and for the positive way that its drivers are carrying on the work pioneered by Alder Valley. That kind of service helps.
  The work that the Department of Transport has done towards adapting the conventional London taxi means that not only is a reasonably low-cost conversion available for the FX4, but that the Metro-Cammell taxi is now available. This means that the converted FX4 and the Metro-Cammell can now take wheelchairs. It is not just a matter of trying to concentrate all the demand on Dial-a-Ride. We must also try to make the ordinary services more easily available to those in wheelchairs.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the adaptations to the London buses. New London buses have many simple changes — differences that may not he noticed by everyone comparing the new buses with those made 10 years ago. On the new buses there is a lower step and the grab rails are in the right place and in distinctive colours. There are some other changes, but I do not have time to go into them in detail. These things show that those who hold the stewardship of transport for Londoners are trying as far as possible to make it available to all Londoners rather than just to those who are fit and able.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the difficulties of converting the London underground, or at least the trains on the deep-line services. He recognised, for example, that the docklands light railway has such adaptations. They are built in. It is always better to build things in than bolt them on, but where things are not built in, perhaps we can bolt them on.
  More changes are coming and we must praise those who have brought them about, as well as look for better ways of moving forward. The fundamental change is the recognition in London, throughout the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout Europe, that people with disabilities are a legitimate part of the travelling public. That applies not just to them as passengers but to them as customers. More taxi drivers are seeing the benefits of the taxi card service.
  It is also worth recognising, as the number of taxis to take wheelchairs increases, that the average cost of a taxi card ride is less than £6 and the average cost of the Dial-a-Ride service is, I think, getting on for £12. Perhaps we can move some of the demand presently met by Dial-a-Ride to a cheaper and more effective service that can overcome the limitations of 1,000 people trying to ring the same telephone number—even if more telephones are installed. We must try to get the pattern dictated by the customer rather than have the service dictated by the form of provision often set up by disparate groups. The present levels of provision are a tribute to the people who have been working in this area for longer than I have.
  I have said that when we talk about disabled people we are not talking about a small minority or exclusively about people confined to wheelchairs. Anyone who has used a bus or the London underground while carrying luggage or heavy shopping or with small children with prams or pushchairs, knows what it means to be mobility handicapped. Transport providers have now recognised that getting it right for people with disabilities means that they are getting it right for a larger group of people with mobility handicaps.
  Some people need more specialised provision and, of course, Dial-a-Ride is important in that respect. I suspect that we shall meet a growing demand every time that we make more forms of transport available to people with a

  673
  mobility or a disability handicap. We will find that Dial-a-Ride's places will be more than taken up by people who have not yet had the information or the confidence or are not yet within reach of Dial-a-Ride.
  Having put Dial-a-Ride into the broader context, I now look forward not only to growing use of previous innovations but to further innovations. There may be many things that we do not yet know how to achieve, but the opportunity will come and, if we take it, we will find that we have done our job better and that more people will have opportunities to move around.
  I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. I can tell the House that we intend to circulate information on self-propulsion to millions of people. MAVIS is not one of my girl friends but our advice centre at Crowthorne, Berkshire, for people who want to be able
  674
  to drive. Many disabled people who have the ability to drive have not yet found a centre. MAVIS is not the only centre that can provide assessment, because there is a centre in Banstead and centres in other places. However, MAVIS is probably the best-known one.
  People can come to those centres for assessment to see whether they will be able to drive themselves. Using either their own money or mobility allowance, they can go for self-propulsion. That option is not open to everyone, but it is possible for more people.
  I hope that we shall be able to return to this subject and have more time to cover it in more detail so that we can carry out our responsibilities better and spread knowledge of what is already available. I am glad that London is doing better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Action for Account of Profits
  Action for Account of Profits
PRIME MINISTER
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Stoneleigh
  Stoneleigh
  Brighton
  Brighton
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  MI5 (Counsellor)
  MI5 (Counsellor)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  "Spycatcher"
  "Spycatcher"
  Engagements
  Engagements
WALES
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  National Museum of Wales
  National Museum of Wales
  Pupil Statistics
  Pupil Statistics
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  A5104
  A5104
  Education Act 1981
  Education Act 1981
  Private Nursing Homes
  Private Nursing Homes
  National Library of Wales
  National Library of Wales
  Dyfed Bridge
  Dyfed Bridge
  Bridge Safety
  Bridge Safety
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Deeside Waterfronts Scheme
  Deeside Waterfronts Scheme
  Education Statistics
  Education Statistics
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Industrial Support and Development
  Industrial Support and Development
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  School Days (Duration)
  School Days (Duration)
  Examination Statistics
  Examination Statistics
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Science Budget (Research)
  Science Budget (Research)
  Joint Research Centre
  Joint Research Centre
  Teaching Facilities, Dewsbury
  Teaching Facilities, Dewsbury
  Sheffield University
  Sheffield University
  Advanced Further Education
  Advanced Further Education
  School Governors (Training)
  School Governors (Training)
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Institute of Hearing Research
  Institute of Hearing Research
  Education Bill
  Education Bill
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Income Tax
  Local Income Tax
  Women in Universities
  Women in Universities
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Audit Commission
  Audit Commission
  London City Airport
  London City Airport
  Rate Capping
  Rate Capping
  PRC Homes Ltd.
  PRC Homes Ltd.
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Sheffield
  Sheffield
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Cemeteries (Sale)
  Cemeteries (Sale)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Housing (London)
  Housing (London)
  Housing
  Housing
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Estuaries
  Estuaries
  Unleaded Petrol
  Unleaded Petrol
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Polluted Seawater
  Polluted Seawater
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
  "Tenants' Choice"
  "Tenants' Choice"
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Caravan and Tent Site Licensing
  Caravan and Tent Site Licensing
  Green and White Papers
  Green and White Papers
  Caring Institutions
  Caring Institutions
  Sport and Leisure Facilities
  Sport and Leisure Facilities
  Cricket (Ministerial Visit)
  Cricket (Ministerial Visit)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Court Buildings (Vandalism)
  Court Buildings (Vandalism)
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Street Lighting (Crime)
  Street Lighting (Crime)
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Prisoners (Racial Discrimination)
  Prisoners (Racial Discrimination)
  Advertising
  Advertising
  Taxi Drivers (Tests)
  Taxi Drivers (Tests)
  Identity Parades
  Identity Parades
  Superintendent Ganley
  Superintendent Ganley
  Stonebridge Estate
  Stonebridge Estate
  Trials (Police Information)
  Trials (Police Information)
  National Drugs Intelligence Unit
  National Drugs Intelligence Unit
  Football Matches
  Football Matches
  Exclusion Orders
  Exclusion Orders
  Refugee Centres
  Refugee Centres
  South African Visitors
  South African Visitors
  Breath Tests
  Breath Tests
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Eksund (Arms Find)
  Eksund (Arms Find)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prison Officers (Statistics)
  Prison Officers (Statistics)
  Prison Service (Racism)
  Prison Service (Racism)
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Credit Facilities
  Credit Facilities
  Post Office
  Post Office
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Exports (Latin America)
  Exports (Latin America)
  Copyright
  Copyright
  European Space Agency
  European Space Agency
  Thanet
  Thanet
  Property
  Property
  Commercial Operations
  Commercial Operations
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Press Advertising
  Press Advertising
  Eastern Bloc (Telephone Calls)
  Eastern Bloc (Telephone Calls)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENTS
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Information Services
  Information Services
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Poultry
  Poultry
THE ARTS
  Scottish Arts Council
  Scottish Arts Council
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  BP Shares
  BP Shares
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Central Office of Information
  Central Office of Information
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue
  Developing Countries (Tax Relief)
  Developing Countries (Tax Relief)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Availability for Work
  Availability for Work
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Secret Ballots
  Secret Ballots
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Fit for Work Award
  Fit for Work Award
  Tourism (Sports Facilities)
  Tourism (Sports Facilities)
  Miss V. A. Culnane
  Miss V. A. Culnane
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Settle-Carlisle Corridor
  Settle-Carlisle Corridor
  Factories Inspectorate
  Factories Inspectorate
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Information Division
  Information Division
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Holiday Advertisements
  Holiday Advertisements
  Child Labour
  Child Labour
  Dock Labour Scheme
  Dock Labour Scheme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Security Conference (Vienna)
  Security Conference (Vienna)
  Fiji
  Fiji
  Anglo-Irish Council
  Anglo-Irish Council
  Tibet
  Tibet
  Chile
  Chile
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Syria
  Syria
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Belau
  Belau
  Military Cathode Ray Tubes
  Military Cathode Ray Tubes
  Flexitank
  Flexitank
  BBC (External Services)
  BBC (External Services)
  Mr. Arthur Gilbert
  Mr. Arthur Gilbert
  Intermediate Nuclear Forces
  Intermediate Nuclear Forces
  Food (Radiation)
  Food (Radiation)
  Settlers
  Settlers
  British Embassy (South Africa)
  British Embassy (South Africa)
  Mr. Mustafa Natchew
  Mr. Mustafa Natchew
  VAT
  VAT
  North Sea Pollution (Conference)
  North Sea Pollution (Conference)
ENERGY
  Opencast Mines
  Opencast Mines
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
TRANSPORT
  MOT Test
  MOT Test
  Ferries (Safety)
  Ferries (Safety)
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Cambridge Park, Wanstead
  Cambridge Park, Wanstead
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Anti-Lock Brakes
  Anti-Lock Brakes
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Abb Scott Lane, Bradford
  Abb Scott Lane, Bradford
  London Buses
  London Buses
  Airline Competition Policy
  Airline Competition Policy
  M1
  M1
  Motorways (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Motorways (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Stimulants (Research)
  Stimulants (Research)
  A607 (Croxton Kerrial)
  A607 (Croxton Kerrial)
  Cars (Registrations)
  Cars (Registrations)
  Defective Tyres
  Defective Tyres
  Traffic Lights
  Traffic Lights
SCOTLAND
  Sport (Violence)
  Sport (Violence)
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Police Establishments
  Police Establishments
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Elections (Psychiatric Patients)
  Elections (Psychiatric Patients)
  Health Service
  Health Service
  Rivers
  Rivers
  Water and Sewerage
  Water and Sewerage
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Cytology Services
  Cytology Services
  Scottish Film Council
  Scottish Film Council
  Private Health Services
  Private Health Services
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Motherwell (General Hospital)
  Motherwell (General Hospital)
  Lanarkshire (Hospitals)
  Lanarkshire (Hospitals)
  Forensic Science Laboratories
  Forensic Science Laboratories
  Cancer Screening
  Cancer Screening
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Springburn Initiative
  Springburn Initiative
  Mortality Statistics
  Mortality Statistics
  Patients (Readmissions)
  Patients (Readmissions)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Cancer Deaths
  Cancer Deaths
  Life Expectancy
  Life Expectancy
  Cook-chill Kitchens
  Cook-chill Kitchens
  Community Medicine
  Community Medicine
  NHS (Consultants)
  NHS (Consultants)
  Doctors (Lists)
  Doctors (Lists)
  Junior Doctors
  Junior Doctors
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Doctors (Patients' Choice)
  Doctors (Patients' Choice)
  Rents
  Rents
  School Boards
  School Boards
  Mortgage Defaulters
  Mortgage Defaulters
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Housing
  Housing
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Special Housing
  Special Housing
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  MSC Schemes
  MSC Schemes
  Hunting
  Hunting
  Social Security Fraud
  Social Security Fraud
  Fuel Disconnections
  Fuel Disconnections
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Blood Products
  Blood Products
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Whipps Cross Hospital
  Whipps Cross Hospital
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Industrial Diseases
  Industrial Diseases
  Elections (Psychiatric Patients)
  Elections (Psychiatric Patients)
  War Widows (Pension)
  War Widows (Pension)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Speech Therapist
  Speech Therapist
  Health and Community Services (Expenditure)
  Health and Community Services (Expenditure)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Doctors (Career Structure)
  Doctors (Career Structure)
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Trainee Social Workers
  Trainee Social Workers
  Social Work Students
  Social Work Students
  Children's Hospital, Birmingham
  Children's Hospital, Birmingham
  Sick Children's Nurses
  Sick Children's Nurses
  Maternity and Funeral Payments
  Maternity and Funeral Payments
  Supplementary Budget
  Supplementary Budget
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Wakefield District Health Authority
  Wakefield District Health Authority
  Tax Benefit Model Tables
  Tax Benefit Model Tables
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Deaths)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Deaths)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Salaries)
  Members (Salaries)
  Select Committee on Welsh Affairs
  Select Committee on Welsh Affairs
  Security Vetting
  Security Vetting
  Recycled paper
  Recycled paper
DEFENCE
  NFR 90 Frigate
  NFR 90 Frigate
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Arms and Ammunition (Security)
  Arms and Ammunition (Security)
  Search and Rescue Service
  Search and Rescue Service
  Noise Insulation (Leuchars)
  Noise Insulation (Leuchars)
  Foxhunter Radar
  Foxhunter Radar
  Trident
  Trident
  Aldermaston
  Aldermaston
  RNAD Milford Haven and RAF Trecwn
  RNAD Milford Haven and RAF Trecwn
  Military Personnel (Private Activities)
  Military Personnel (Private Activities)
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Hunting and Polo
  Hunting and Polo
  Gulf
  Gulf
  BP Flotation
  BP Flotation
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Battlefield Artillery Target Engagement System
  Battlefield Artillery Target Engagement System
  Civilian Workers
  Civilian Workers
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Intergovernmental Conference
  Intergovernmental Conference
  "Elected Representatives and the Democratic Process"
  "Elected Representatives and the Democratic Process"
  Equal Opportunity
  Equal Opportunity
  Security
  Security
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Employees (Religious Beliefs)
  Employees (Religious Beliefs)
  Maguire Family
  Maguire Family
  Kincora Boys' Home
  Kincora Boys' Home
  Shoot-to-kill Policy
  Shoot-to-kill Policy
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Youth Training Programme
  Youth Training Programme
  Jury Trials
  Jury Trials
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Salmon Farming
  Salmon Farming
  North Down (Hospital Facilities)
  North Down (Hospital Facilities)
  Housing
  Housing
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Explosives
  Explosives
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Meeting)
  Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Meeting)
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Road Bridges
  Road Bridges
  Democracy
  Democracy
  Widdicombe Report
  Widdicombe Report
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Terrorists (Escapes from Custody)
  Terrorists (Escapes from Custody)
  River Roe
  River Roe
  Cullycapple Road (River Bridge)
  Cullycapple Road (River Bridge)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury The Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Took the Oath.

Victoria Cross Award
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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, in the light of the indications of hardship given by the sale of the Victoria Cross by holders of this decoration, they are giving consideration to the award of an adequate pension to the holders of this unique award.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, there are no plans at present to review the annuity, which is a token of esteem rather than a pension or income.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. While appreciating that these splendid people are, on the whole, not seeking any improvement in the curious figure of £100 a year now paid to them, is my noble friend aware that some of us feel a little shame and embarrassment when one of them is compelled to sell the decoration handed to him by Her Majesty or her predecessors?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is always extreme financial difficulties which necessarily cause recipients to sell the award. However, where that is so, it is right that they should have the benefit of all the other support that can be provided, notably the war pension scheme and the various allowances available from other sources.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his solicitude. Is the Minister aware that an adequate pension for all holders of the Victoria Cross is unlikely to be an effective deterrent in the very exceptional circumstances in which a holder is minded to offer his decoration for sale? Furthermore, is he aware that the great majority of holders of the VC, believing, as he has rightly said, that the value of their award cannot be measured in monetary terms, would not wish for an increased pension on the grounds proposed by my noble friend or indeed on any other grounds?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that the view expressed by my noble and gallant friend is one which is widely held by those of his colleagues who hold that fine decoration.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I believe that Members of this House will yield to no in their admiration for the courage and devotion of those men—I believe there are only men now—who have earned that coveted award. May I draw attention to the fact that we have with us today, in the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, a Member who not only has the Victoria Cross but also has the great distinction of being a Knight of the Garter. It is an honour for us to be associated with him in this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, may I also say—
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord if he is aware that the question of money is a very delicate matter? Many holders of the Victoria Cross feel that they hold that honour in trust collectively for those who supported them and often died in the act of courage which led to achieving the distinction. Indeed, the latest person to sell his Victoria Cross, Mr. Tommy Gould, would not, I understand, have been influenced by the amounts of money of which we are speaking. However, if the Minister is going to act on that matter, will he consult the Victoria Cross Association which will give a full picture of the feelings of the members of that association?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we keep in touch with the Victoria Cross Association on that matter. I believe that the association also takes in members holding the George Cross, and very similar considerations apply in that case.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a very touching and moving subject has been introduced in this Question? That is especially true in terms of those who may have been associated with those tremendously gallant people who were awarded the VC, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Irving. Is he prepared, because of the slightly broader circumstances, to get in touch with the senior officers of the Royal British Legion who will surely be of great help to the Minister in doing the right thing by those very remarkable people?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the principal body representing the interests and views of those people is the association which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Irving. However, we keep in touch with the Royal British Legion on a whole range of matters.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some precedent for such action? If he cares to look back to the times of British India and the old Indian Army, he will find that gallantry awards included an extra pension and there was occasionally some land given. Therefore, such awards have been made by the British in the past.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is right. However, the Answer I gave was in the context of the United Kingdom and of all the other benefits available to citizens of this country.

Hospital Patient Waiting Lists
3.13 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards fulfilling their commitment to reduce hospital waiting lists.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, our continued determination to pursue our drive for significant improvements in waiting times, backed by additional funding, has not lessened. Most of the 350 projects currently being supported from the first £25 million allocation of the waiting list fund are now under way. These projects involve the treatment of some 100,000 additional patients from the waiting list. Many have already been treated. For next year we have increased the waiting list fund to £30 million.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the statement that has been made. I very much hope that in answer to this supplementary question the Minister will say what the current figures are on the waiting list. Is the noble Earl aware that in March of this year there was a significant increase over the previous year? Is the Minister also aware that there are health authorities across the country which are having to reduce the number of beds available or close wards or close units? In the case of one of the London hospitals, it is necessary to close theatre units for one week in five. Is not the noble Earl aware that this is a growing problem across the country, and is he satisfied that the announcement which the Minister has made is going to bring the long waiting lists steadily down?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we shall never be satisfied with the numbers on the waiting lists until we have been successful in reducing them further.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, perhaps I may say that the latest figures, for March 1987, show that on waiting times (which is what matters most to the individual patient) we are continuing to make progress. The number of people on the list for over a year fell by 2,085 since September 1986. It is the lowest proportion since this figure was collected. At the same time, however, the total list size rose by just under 1 per cent. These figures emphasise the need for our continuing commitment to make improvements. They reflect the position before the start of the projects we are supporting from the waiting list fund. Those will be treating, as I have said, an extra 100,000 waiting list cases in 1987–88.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock My Lords, it is good news that the Secretary of State has increased the waiting list fund to £30 million per annum. Can the noble Earl say whether any encouragement has been given out of that fund to cross-boundary trading between health
1466
authorities? Is he aware that one of the difficulties here is the extreme delays in the financial compensations for cross-boundary flows? If those can be speeded up, much more of that traffic could take place in the manner pioneered by St. Thomas' Hospital and Guy's Hospital. Can the noble Earl say a word about that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is that among the regional health authorities there is a competitive spirit from the point of view of tendering and where the money would be most appropriately spent.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the Government stimulate this process out of the fund which the Secretary of State has set aside for this purpose?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only take note of the noble Lord's comments.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that some contribution to this difficult problem might be made if health authorities were encouraged to make fuller use of beds in private hospitals, many of which are not filled at the present time?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are funding a number of projects proposed by regions involved in the private sector. The cost-effective use of private facilities will allow NHS patients to be treated more quickly than would otherwise be the case. That clearly makes sense.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the original Question and the supplementary questions are only examples of a whole range of areas where the National Health Service is demonstrably unable in its present form to cope with the growing problems which face it? Is there not now a case for a complete and fundamental re-think of the whole National Health Service going back to first principles and ignoring the herds of sacred cows that roam around it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect, I think that is somewhat wide of the Question.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I refer to the Minister's reply about waiting times. He is perfectly right of course that the waiting times are more important. Has the noble Earl had an opportunity to read recent press reports about waiting times at the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, where there are something like 2,500 people waiting for surgery? That means a two-year wait. There are a further 3,100 people waiting for first appointments. The estimated time for a first appointment is anything up to 60 weeks. Does that not knock holes in the Minister's argument about the Government's attempts to reduce waiting lists to an acceptable degree? Will the noble Earl look at the question of the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of the particular circumstances to which the noble Lord refers. Of course the situation is regrettable. Each

1467
area has its own individual problems and I shall draw the comments of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say why he says that the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is wide of the Question on the Order Paper?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect, because I deemed it to be so.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is not the point of my noble friend's original Question illustrated by the sad news, which was announced on a radio programme this morning, of the young lad who has been called for an operation on five occasions. Five times the operation could not be carried out because, although the consultants and technical staff were available, there were insufficient nursing staff in the emergency wards. Is not that one of the problems raised by my noble friend's Question?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I regret I do not know the exact and precise circumstances of the case which is mentioned. Of course it is regrettable, but once again I must repeat that there are regrettable circumstances across the country. Each district authority is aware of them and is doing its best to put them right.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, further to the point made by my noble friend, is the Minister not aware that the problem of waiting lists will never be properly solved until adequate steps are taken to provide good accommodation, pay and conditions for nurses and a stop is put on the wastage of NHS-trained nurses to the private sector?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think it is clearly understood that everyone is aware of the nurses' situation. At all times my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking at those particular circumstances to see whether, and if so what, improvements can be made.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a vast army of men, women and children awaiting operations who should have been operated on not weeks ago but months ago?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the situation is this. Of those who require admission into hospital 50 per cent. are admitted immediately and the remaining 50 per cent. are admitted within eight weeks. It is the final 50 per cent. to which we are giving special attention.

Westminster Hospital
3.20 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that the Secretary of State for Social Services will not approve any proposal to close Westminster Hospital.
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords. If such a proposal comes to be decided by Ministers, it would only be endorsed after the most careful scrutiny.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that assurance. Is the noble Earl aware of the outstanding record of Westminster Hospital as a centre of excellence, being efficient, economic and caring? Is he aware that over the past 10 years, to my knowledge, there have been repeated proposals for the closure of this great hospital which successive Secretaries of State have refused? Does he understand the very serious problem of morale in the hospital when it is constantly being suggested that its future is uncertain?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am, indeed, aware of the great contribution that the Westminster Hospital makes to London. The simple point is that no decision has yet been made about the closure of the hospital and in those circumstances I think it is difficult to answer more questions on that point.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact that I, in a professional capacity, have had occasion to send several noble Lords to the Westminster Hospital, and I am delighted to see two of them here today fully restored to health and vigour? In those circumstances, does not the noble Earl accept that any closure of the Westminster Hospital will have very serious consequences for your Lordships' House?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, and I am very much aware of the great services that the Westminster Hospital gives to the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Wise: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I can verify the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, because this time last week I was in fact lying in the Westminster Hospital after being taken there hurriedly from this building during the morning? Is my noble friend aware also that the care and attention I received and the kindness shown to me during the whole of my stay there could not have been bettered anywhere in the world?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am aware of many wonderful, similar cases such as my noble friend has mentioned and I hear of circumstances the whole time which bear out precisely what he has said.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Minister's reassurances are certainly encouraging. Does not the Minister agree that there is a great strain imposed on the finances of the Riverside authority by its leading role in the treatment of AIDS, particularly at St. Stephen's? Does not the Minister further agree that if sufficient money is not provided for this purpose it will have an adverse effect on the authorities of other hospitals and this could possibly feed through, in the long run, to Westminster?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect, the Question on the Order Paper relates to the possible closure of the Westminster Hospital.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are more than two noble Lords who have survived the attentions of my noble friend Lord Winstanley? Speaking as one who has benefited greatly from this excellent hospital, will the Minister bear in mind that not only is it excellent in itself but it covers a considerable part of London and a very large transient population of patients who have benefited greatly from it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am indeed aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has just said.

Schools: Pupil Governors
3.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether students in sixth form colleges will be able to be members of the governing bodies of their colleges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the requirements of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 concerning the composition of school governing bodies, which means that only in circumstances where pupils are co-opted will there be pupil governors in sixth form colleges.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the disappointment that that will create among sixth form students? Does she agree that the Government are missing an excellent chance by not giving them the right to places on the governing bodies in a day and age where we are constantly telling young people to take more responsibility and be better citizens for it? Will it not be a tragedy if the Government miss this chance to show that they have faith in the younger people of this generation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's view, which was stated on a number of occasions during the passage of the 1986 Act, is that it is not generally appropriate for school pupils to be
1470
members of the governing body of their schools. Were they to become members, it would be necessary to exclude them from consideration of a substantial number of issues and this would detract from the principle that the governing body should act collectively.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the position of students in sixth form colleges is slightly different from that in other schools? Student governors are probably appointed in their second year of the sixth form when they may very well be 18 and considered responsible enough to vote at that age. They consider that it is quite insulting that they are not going to be allowed to be made governors. Is the Minister aware that I am a governor of a sixth form college? The students are extremely cross that they are no longer going to be able to be governors and I hope that with the new Education Bill coming up there will be a chance to rectify that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness is able to speak from her own practical and personal experience. I am sorry to hear that there is this feeling among the students at sixth form colleges. Nevertheless, we believe that the decision (which as I have said was fully debated during the 1986 Act) was the correct one. However, we feel that schools should encourage the participation of senior students as much as possible in the general running and considerations of the welfare of schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the students like to have a vote?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel sure of that and I hope that once they are 18 they will exercise that vote in the many opportunities that are available to them.

European Space Agency Meeting, 9th–10th November
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall arrange for a Statement on the European Space Agency meeting on the 9th and 10th November, which is to be made in another place this afternoon, to be printed in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement by The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (The Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke):
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the outcome of the European Space Agency Council meeting at The Hague on 9th–10th November.
"The 13 ESA member states met to discuss wide-ranging proposals for the agency's future development. This was the first ministerial meeting since the Council in Rome in 1985 when members agreed on a balanced long-term plan for the next decade with the aim of moving by measured stages towards a wider European space capability. We

1471
have since underlined our commitment to ESA by the significant increased funding we have provided—no less than £85 million this year alone.
"Since the Rome ministerial meeting, our commitment to European co-operation in space has not changed. What has changed, however, is the scale of ESA's aspirations. Overall, the total cost of the proposals put to us at The Hague would increase spending on space by more than two and a half times over the next five years. For the UK, agreement to these programmes would have meant an increase to over £200 million—the equivalent of more than a dozen new NHS hospitals—every year.
"Our objection is, however, not solely that the bill is so huge. We recognise that space research is expensive. It is that we cannot see sufficient scientific, industrial or commercial benefits to justify such a huge increase. My approach at the Council was therefore to press for a reassessment of priorities under present-day conditions and to develop a strategy designed to achieve worthwhile aims which would yield solid returns.
"Three major new optional programmes were presented by ESA: Ariane 5, a new heavy lift launcher capable of putting three satellites into orbit; Columbus, the European involvement in the international space station project; and, at French insistence, the Hermes manned spaceplane. I made clear at the outset that I could not endorse the grandiose ambitions of the Hermes programme to put man in space by the year 2000. At enormous expense this would only achieve capabilities which the United States would have achieved 20 years previously. There was considerable sympathy for my view from a number of other member states and it remains to be seen whether they will formally sign up to this programme in its entirety. At the moment only six countries out of 13 have committed themselves to making a contribution to the first phase of development.
"On the Columbus space station programme there has been no satisfactory conclusion yet to negotiations with the Americans about European participation. I declined to agree to proposals that Europe should in any event go ahead with a separate and autonomous version of the Columbus programme if agreement with the US could not be reached.
"I said we would consider further the proposal for a polar platform associated with Columbus. This would be an unmanned space vehicle, primarily for earth observation, that would be complementary to a similar US platform. Our final position on this will depend on further discussions I shall be holding with UK companies, including the financial contribution they would be prepared to make to ensure their participation either in contracts to which they attach significance or as users of the platform.
"My approach to Ariane 5 launcher proposal was that emphasis should be given to ensuring that ESA has a fully commercial launch capability. It is important to give European industry ready access
1472
to a launcher for telecommunications and other satellites. Again, however, I had to question the increase that some other members wanted to see solely in order for Ariane 5 to be man-rated and to enable it to launch spaceships as well as satellites.
"The ESA Executive also brought forward proposals for increases in the mandatory science and general budgets. These had already enjoyed major increases since the Rome ministerial. The science budget will have increased by some 27 per cent. in real terms between 1985 and 1989. ESA proposed a further increase of 5 per cent. per annum in real terms up until 1992. Professor Mitchell, the Chairman of SERC, and I had to make clear that there could be no justification for such a proposal. In our opinion, ESA could and should achieve the agreed scientific objectives within the currently agreed funding level. I could therefore not endorse the proposed increase.
"Throughout the proceedings I emphasised the need to take a fresh look at some of the new and hugely expensive ESA proposals which largely derive from a desire to follow the Americans into manned spacecraft. I confirmed our substantial support for those parts of the established programme which gave due weight to industrial, economic, commercial and scientific considerations. I also argued for greater involvement of industry and users in the planning and financing of programmes. There was support from a number of other Ministers for these aims—indeed several of them were incorporated within the final Council resolution.
"The UK remains one of the major participants in European space programmes. We have a budget of over £110 million a year and we will continue to ensure that this is used as effectively as possible. We will continue to play a constructive role with our European partners and I shall be holding meetings with UK companies to see how this can best be achieved".

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Sherfield set down for 18th November shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

1473
This Bill is a pure consolidation of certain enactments relating to income and corporation tax and is the first consolidation on this subject since 1970.
With the permission of your Lordships, I should like to take a moment to pay tribute to some of those involved in the preparation of this Bill. First, I should like to thank the draftsmen who, I understand, have been working on the consolidation for some four years or more. The exercise has been extraordinarily difficult in that each year a new and massive Finance Act has had to be incorporated, culminating this year in a pre-election Act and followed by a further large Act after the election. I am sure your Lordships will agree that to have completed the consolidation of such an enormous body of complicated and constantly changing law at all is a phenomenal achievement.
Secondly, and more unusually, I should like to thank Her Majesty's Stationery Office which presented us with what I believe to be the largest Bill in recent times, numbering well over a thousand pages and running into three volumes. This has been a major test of the new technology now in operation in the Stationery Office and the sheer logistics of handling a Bill of this size have been formidable. Nevertheless, the Bill was ready. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on the consolidation of Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the tributes that have been paid by the noble and learned Lord to the draftsmen and to all those who have participated in this mammoth task of consolidation. That, of course, includes members of the committee which dealt with it as well as the other officers of the House.
It may be permissible to say that the Bill is 1,041 pages long. I can well remember in my early professional career having to deal with the Income Tax Act 1918, as amended in subsequent Acts, which resulted in a small textbook half an inch thick. It dealt with the whole of our tax affairs until the outbreak of war. We now have this colossal Bill. And the text books occupy roughly a yard instead of half an inch.
I respectfully suggest that when the Government get down to the whole question of taxation simplification they should bear in mind these physical matters and the tremendous complexity of the clauses. Those of your Lordships who have been associated with taxation statutes will agree that our taxation laws are among the most complicated in the world. That situation, we hope, will soon be rectified.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we should like to associate ourselves with this valuable consolidation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I apologise for intruding when noble Lords are awaiting the main business of the day. I shall not carry on the debate for more than a moment or two. I understood that consolidated Bills were taken formally. I was getting ready to make a full apology to the House for speaking at all.
This is a unique Bill. It is worthy of notice on any count. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill referred to its size and weight. It must be the heaviest Bill of this century. I do not remember anything approaching its size. I hope that noble Lords will not walk about the House with it because it is a safety hazard. It weighs 2·5 kg. It costs £2·45 to send by parcel post. I do not think that there has been anything like it before.
One feature worthy of note concerning this biggest ever Bill is that your Lordships played no part whatever in its contents. Everything, from beginning to end, was held in the bondage of the Parliament Act 1911. Your Lordships sat in the House as helpless observers while the biggest piece of legislation—fiscal expropriation—was passed. Your Lordships had no power to alter it by a jot or a title. I cannot get over the shame that the Liberal Government of 1911, aided and abetted by the Irish Nationalists, inflicted it upon Parliament. We have suffered from it ever since.
Another feature of the Bill is that the Taxes Management Act 1970 is not included. I understand that. The Taxes Management Act is not a charging taxation Act; it is a management and enforcement Act. At the time, it was not a Money Bill. It was dealt with by your Lordships' House, but successive governments have included in successive Finance Bills amendments to the Act on enforcement and the liberty of the subject. They have thereby excluded your Lordships from discussing draconian powers which are placed in the hands of the taxing authorities.
With VAT, a great collection of new weapons was in the hands of the Customs and Excise. Indeed, the Customs and Excise has a law of its own. If the House is confronted with the recommendations of the Keith Committee on income tax, we shall have another large incursion into individual liberty which we shall not be able to touch if included in a Finance Bill.
As the Bill has taken so long to prepare, I wonder whether it is the time to be consolidating at all. I thought that we were on the threshold of major tax reforms. We have waited 17 years for this Bill. I am not surprised that it has taken four years to prepare. We should offer our deepest sympathy to all who have been engaged in this tedious task. It is the most complicated legislation in the world. It constitutes a serious obstacle to the conduct of business and normal relations between the citizens and bureaucracy.
Another point about the Bill is that when a consolidation Bill is introduced, practitioners, both in the department and outside, have to begin to learn chapter and verse all over again. The income tax Acts are like a Bible to practitioners and the profession. They always want to be able to quote chapter and verse. If we present them with a revised version of

1475
"the Bible", they are all in difficulties. They have to learn afresh. Shall we put them through that difficult task more than once in the next few years if we go on with consolidation now? We should have waited for the final task of consolidation until the end of this Parliament. After all, consolidation Bills do not take place in the middle of a revolution. And that, we are assured, we are in the middle of now.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has just said, in particular his reference to Customs and Excise who can flaunt your Lordships by slipping administrative legislation through by way of Finance Bills—it has done so for several years now—which your Lordships cannot change. That is most disgraceful. I trust that the Government will have a look at the matter to see whether that sly way of getting legislation through Parliament should not be brought to a a close.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I speak as a member of the consolidation committee. Consolidation is a purely mechanical exercise whereby the committee, which is a joint committee of both Houses, considers the Bills which are consolidated. It hears evidence given by the departments and sometimes by learned counsel. Its job is to ensure that nothing is slipped into the Bill which is not already contained in the Bills which are consolidated. It is a purely mechanical exercise. No one is trying to swing anything on anyone.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as a member of the consolidation committee, may I thank the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, for what he said. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for expressing their thanks to the committee. It is a difficult job for the advisers who come before the committee. I was going to make it clear—but the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has done so—that it is a joint committee of both Houses. I hope that the other members of the committee in the other place will be thanked accordingly.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Unfortunately, the Parliament Act is on the statute book. What we are doing here is combining in one Act, Acts which have been put on the statute book over a period of 17 years. As noble Lords will recognise, in consolidation a Bill must obey the natural law of conservation of mass. It is, as I say, pure consolidation, as noble Lords have already pointed out.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill which I commend to the House today is long and often technical. However, it is concerned with a most important subject; namely. intellectual property. It has been observed that nothing can be more properly described as a man's property than the products of his mind, and over the years a system of law has been established to protect ideas—patents for inventions, copyright for literature and art, and so on. The intellectual property system has served us will by encouraging creativity and innovation and the spread of ideas.
Intellectual property is of substantial economic significance. It forms the foundations of major industries. Without copyright law the publishing and record industries could scarcely operate. The entertainment world would be in chaos. How would the pharmaceutical industry operate without patent and trade mark laws? A recent study concluded that 2.6 per cent. of GDP is generated by copyright based industries. If one were to take into account industries which rely heavily on patents and designs the figure would obviously be higher still.
Our future prosperity depends on the people who make things happen, the people with ideas and those who apply them. The larger, more open, more competitive market for which we are working must be one in which innovative talent can thrive if creativity is to be encouraged. To achieve this we must enable people with ideas to protect those ideas from any who would steal them. But at the same time we must ensure that we are not overly protective in a manner which hinders competition or which introduces yet more unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation into the market place.
Those with ideas deserve a fair reward for their labours but they cannot expect to be completely sheltered from the real world. This would stifle rather than stimulate creativity. In drawing up the Bill we have sought to provide a fair return for creative talent and those who develop and use their work, while ensuring that ideas are not locked away but are accessible to society as a whole.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill follows much research and consultation and is largely based on the White Paper we published last year. We have set out to restructure the law on a more logical and consistent basis than the often criticised existing legislation. There have been three other factors to consider. First, we have had to bring the law up to date with the latest technological developments. In the computing, broadcasting and photocopying fields there have been tremendous advances which could not possibly have been foreseen at the time of the 1956 Copyright Act. We have had to accommodate these changes and allow for future development. Secondly, we have been mindful of our international obligations. In particular, we aim to be in a position to ratify the latest text of the Berne

1477
Copyright Convention. Thirdly, we have tried to remove unnecessary obstacles to the use of intellectual property and the exercise of rights, making the whole system more user friendly.
I should like now to outline the Bill's provisions for the benefit of the House, picking up some of the factors that I have just mentioned. The Bill is in seven parts. Part I reforms and restates the law of copyright and will provide the substantive law in this area. It is by far the largest part, making up over half the Bill. It is subdivided into 10 chapters and presents the law in a very much more ordered way than the 1965 Copyright Act which it is to replace.
The first three chapters define the works that are to be protected by copyright; who is to own copyright; what the rights are; how long they are to last, and the exceptions to copyright. Copyright will continue to protect original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works as well as sound recordings, films, broadcasts, cable programmes and the typographical arrangements of published editions. The provisions relating to ownership and duration are largely unchanged, as are the rights themselves.
We have, however, taken account of technical advances since 1956. For example, it may already be feasible for a computer to generate works to which it would not be possible to ascribe human authorship. In order to ensure that such potentially valuable works enjoy copyright protection, the Bill makes provision to ascribe authorship in cases of so-called computer generated works. We believe this to be the first copyright legislation anywhere in the world which attempts to deal specifically with the advent of artificial intelligence.
There are a number of exceptions to copyright, so that copyright material may be used without permission in circumstances where it is reasonable to do so and where the economic interests of the copyright owner are not damaged. In particular, the exceptions set out in Chapter III ensure that copyright considerations will not unduly hinder the processes of education, or public administration, or the working of libraries.
Several of the exceptions are new. For example, there are exceptions which will allow any broadcast to be recorded by schools for educational purposes and by organisations working for deaf people for subtitling purposes. One particularly significant change is a limitation in the free copying allowed for private study and research. This allowance is to be restricted so that it will no longer cover free copying for commercial research. Modern photocopying techniques permit ready copying of copyright material, and industry and business now makes considerable use of photocopied copyright material for their research purposes. It is anomalous that a business should be able to use another person's property without paying for it, particularly when the scale of the use may conflict with the direct exploitation of the work by the copyright owner. Under this Bill, copyright owners will be able to license photocopying and be remunerated for the extensive use of their works in commercial research.
1478
I should now like to refer to Chapter IV. 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. Moral rights are of great importance to authors and other originators of copyright works, who value their artistic reputations as much as the financial rewards for their works.
Chapters V and VI of the copyright part cover dealings with rights and the remedies for infringement. Except in one or two areas, the law is not significantly changed. There are several measures aimed at easing the burdens on copyright owners in establishing subsistence and ownership of copyright. On the other hand, a provision which sometimes led to awards of damages which were out of all proportion to the damage suffered by the copyright owner will no longer be available in copyright infringement cases.
We continue to take a very firm stand against piracy and counterfeiting. The stricter powers already introduced in respect of computer software and record and video piracy are to be extended across the board to all other works covered by copyright law. In industry, we are stepping up the fight against the counterfeiting of goods by making the fraudulent use of a trade mark a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment. We want free and open competition in the market, but competition must be fair. I want to give warning in the clearest possible terms that the cheats, those who steal other people's property and ride on the backs of the good names of reputable businesses, will get no sympathy from us. I am sure that all sides of your Lordships' House will agree that piracy and counterfeiting are practices which must be stamped out.
The Bill acknowledges the increasing practice of collective administration of copyright and contains a number of provisions to regulate the operation of collectively operated licences. The jurisdiction of the Performing Rights Tribunal is to be expanded to supervise this.
All these provisions add up to a balanced package ensuring that the copyright owner is adequately protected and can get a fair return, while the users are not unreasonably denied the use of copyright material.
Part II of the Bill deals with performers. Performers do not at present have a copyright or any statutory civil right in their performances. The Performers' Protection Acts 1958 to 1972 protect performers from the making of unauthorised films, recordings, broadcasts or cable transmissions of their performances by creating criminal offences. The Court of Appeal has recently considered a case involving the use of clips and out-takes from the "Pink Panther" films starring Peter Sellers to make a further film in the series after Sellers' death. The Court held that the performer does have a civil

1479
remedy, deriving from offences under the Performers' Protection Acts, which survives the performers' death, so conferring rights on his personal representatives. In so finding, however, the appeal court recognised formidable arguments against conferring private rights of action since this gave the performer a right which was not subject to limitation of term or the exceptions which apply to the copyright.
Part II of the Bill provides a statutory framework of civil law for performers' protection which meets the appeal court's criticisms. The existing criminal law in this area is retained, although remedies are brought into line with those for the corresponding copyright offences. New civil rights are also provided for persons having exclusive recording contracts with performers.
I turn now to Parts III and IV of the Bill, which deal with designs. The House will be aware that this has been a contentious issue over many years. We take the view that all original designs deserve a limited amount of protection, quite simply because it is unfair to the designer if his new product can be copied in its entirety as soon as it comes on to the market. Where is the incentive to invest time, money and effort in producing a new product when others can hitch a free ride? We are therefore providing a new right for original designs which will give protection against copying for a 10-year period.
This will ensure that the original designer has a head start over those who wish to copy the design. However, we do not wish to keep competition out of the market for as long as 10 years and we have therefore provided that licences will be available as of right after five years, and even earlier if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission finds that the right is being exercised against the public interest.
Even this, however, does not deal completely with the problem of spare parts where the customer is a captive one. Because spare parts have to fit, they must to some extent be copies of the original designs. Consequently, the Bill will allow copying where there is no design freedom. This will apply whether there is no design freedom for functional or aesthetic reasons. Of course, where there is design freedom, competitors will have to create their own designs. This will ensure that designs are protected from unfair copying. But competitors will always be able to copy as much as they need to.
The Registered Designs Act will be amended to avoid its being used as a back-door method of protecting spare parts and so that protection will only be available for truly aesthetic, stand-alone designs where competitors do not need to be able to copy such designs in order to compete effectively. On the other hand, to ensure that design effort is encouraged the term of protection for registered designs is to be increased from a maximum of 15 years to 25 years.
These measures taken as a whole mean that, as in copyright, we have provided a balanced package which will encourage creative design effort without inhibiting competition.
We are making changes by way of Parts V and VI of the Bill to open up the intellectual property system
1480
and to make it more accessible to its users. The exclusive right of registered patent agents to act for inventors in dealings with the Patent Office is to be abolished and in the future anyone will be able to represent them. Existing restrictions on mixed practices (for example, of patent agents and venture capital advisers) will be relaxed. The proposals on patent litigation will do much to make the system more accessible. At present, patent litigation is undertaken in the High Court and many innovatory smaller firms find that the cost and complexity of proceedings are such that their patent rights are effectively unenforceable. Equally, they find they are unable to defend themselves against allegations of infringement.
The particular White Paper proposals were criticised, but there was general agreement that something needed to be done. On reconsideration, we have concluded that a new county court jurisdiction with special procedures will reduce the cost and complexity significantly, enabling the smaller firm to compete on a more level footing with the larger companies. We will also amend the Patents Acts to remove anomalies and simplify procedures.
The House may recall that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, introduced a Bill in the last Parliament concerned with the licensing of certain pharmaceutical patents. That Bill, which we supported, had passed to another place when it fell on Dissolution. The present Bill includes provisions which closely follow those in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, as it left this House, but now includes powers to extend by order the provisions to non-medicinal products. The effect will be that licences will not be automatically available to manufacture certain existing patented pharmaceuticals in the last four years of their patent life.
Finally, I remind the House that the Government are continuing to press the case for London to be the site for the European Community Trade Marks Office. Part VII of the Bill will provide the necessary statutory authority for financial assistance to be given to this office if it is located in London.
As I said at the outset, this is a very long, technical Bill. But I believe that it will provide us with a new framework of intellectual property law, particularly in the field of copyright and designs, which will see us in good stead for many years to come. It takes account of the very latest developments in modern technology and it will make the intellectual property system more accessible and more relevant to the needs of British business. This Bill will encourage creativity and enterprise and the growth of fair competition. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
3.56 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, my first duty is to express regret that a family bereavement has prevented my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel from taking part in today's debate and to assure the House that he will be taking a full and active part at the Committee stage.

1481
From this side of the House we have a general but rather guarded and cautious welcome for the Bill, which is in fact two or three Bills in one. We are rather more favourably disposed towards the copyright part of the Bill than towards the design and patent parts. We welcome it because it aims to bring up to date and to reform areas of the law which are of considerable importance to industry and business. Our welcome is cautious because of the extreme complication and technical nature of the Bill, which must be intended to last for at least 30 years. This means that the Bill will require close scrutiny in Committee and will entail, I am afraid, many clause stand part debates, for which we apologise in advance.
Two major issues which were proposed in the White Paper have been omitted. We welcome the omission of the proposals to extend the jurisdiction of the controller of the Patent Office. We consider that those proposals were mistaken, and it is good to see them disappear. The other important omission is the blank tape levy. Here we are not sure which way the Government are facing. Certainly the omission of this provision may save some time in Committee, but it is difficult to see that it is right to leave things as they are, where the owner of the copyright in a sound recording does not have or appear to have the same protection and return as the owner of copyright in a printed work and where the private taping of records and tapes, which does go on, is apparently to remain illegal but uncontrolled. We do not think it right that that matter should be left in the air. Are the Government bringing forward proposals about taping or will they just leave it? If there are to be proposals, what form and what direction is it intended that they should take?
Turning to the different parts of the Bill, we welcome the re-statement of copyright law, which had reached a level where it was almost wholly incomprehensible. However, many points of detail remain on the question of meaning, and it remains doubtful whether it could be understood by an intelligent layman even as drafted in the Bill.
The Government's proposal to introduce moral rights is welcome and in keeping with the obligations under the Berne Copyright Convention. It is therefore regrettable that the new moral rights announced in the Bill are for most practical purposes quite useless. The first moral right proposed is the right to claim authorship, the right to put your name on something, whether a painting or a publication, which you have created. That is fair enough.
The Bill then proposes that this right shall exist only if it is first asserted by the author. He must have prior knowledge of the dissemination of his work through publication, exhibition, sale or broadcast in order to be able to assert his moral right to authorship. That is a curious right. It can hardly be said to exist as a right for the persons for whom it is intended unless there is an obligation on the publisher or exhibitor to assert the right of the creator in advance; otherwise the burden on authors and other creative people is unfair.
The remedies proposed for breaches of moral rights are pinned solely to economic loss, yet moral
1482
rights are concerned with the protection of reputation and integrity and are not the province of economic rights. Economic rights are covered by the law of copyright, so to allow a remedy for breach of moral rights only when it can be shown that economic loss has been sustained is to confuse two distinct branches of the law on two different sets of rights. Surely the remedy for authors lies in proof of damage to their reputation, which is a general damage not restricted to economic loss.
It is difficult to see how Clauses 63 and 24 are to fit together. How do you prohibit in effect all video recorders and tape recorders and yet allow the private taping of broadcasts? It appears to be the case that if somebody privately tapes a record of, say, a symphony, that is an offence and is illegal. But if that same recording is broadcast on Radio 3 it can be taped legally. That seems to be an odd result and no doubt it can be cleared up. It is difficult to see why there is to be a different approach to the ownership of copyright in Clause 11 compared with the ownership of design right in Clause 194. It is also difficult to see why the periods for copyright in photography and films and for copyright in written work are to be different.
There are problems in the defences in Clauses 29 to 31 dealing with permitted actions. Is fair dealing to be restricted to the activities mentioned in these clauses of the Bill, or is it to be a generally permitted defence? Commercial research is defined in Clause 161 in such a way that it is difficult to see exactly what it does not cover. Commercial research is defined as:
"research done for the benefit of a trade or business carried on for profit".
The question then arises: at what time? If somebody is doing pure research without concern for profit and then halfway through it discovers that there may be some commercial application, is the copying he has done for that retrospectively illegal? What is the position to be?
On the copyright tribunal, we welcome the extension of jurisdiction and the provisions in general. As a Scot I am pleased to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is to be consulted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on almost everything. Quite why it is necessary for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consult the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to find out whether somebody has gone bankrupt I am not certain, though no doubt there is some reason for it.
We welcome the provisions on rights in performance, but should not these rights be copyright and be stated to be copyright rather than some form of subsidiary right? The design right provisions are, as the Minister stated, a very difficult area and one of fundamental importance to industry. A new right is being created. There are obvious problems in the relationship between the design right and the copyright. It is important that we get this part of the Bill correct and a principle clearly defined, or at least as clearly defined as possible. One of the offences that was spoken to as being the aim of these provisions relates to counterfeiting, but counterfeiting and copying are not coterminous

1483
words and there is a considerable distinction between the two.
On patents, the difficulty has always been the cost to the small and medium-sized inventor who cannot afford to fight the large companies. The county court provisions are interesting but will depend almost wholly on the rules and how they will work. We have not seen those yet. It may well be that the adversarial system in the courts to which we have been accustomed is the cause, or one of the main causes, of the excessive cost of litigation and in this sphere we may have to move into something more akin to the inquisitorial system.
On the licences of right provisions, the abolition regarding certain pharmaceuticals was, as the Minister has already said, previously included in the Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lord Northfield which fell in the last Parliament. The crucial issue there was the expected cost to the National Health Service. As the estimate in the Financial Memorandum seems to be different from the estimate given at the time my noble friend's Bill was being discussed in the House, we shall require to explore this matter carefully in Committee.
The Bill is important because a balance must be struck between civil liberties and the protection of rights to intellectual property. It is important that the right should be protected sufficiently to encourage research, innovation and production of new articles but it appears that over the past years breach of these rights has tended to become a criminal offence rather than a matter of civil remedy. We are not entirely satisfied that that approach is necessarily right. The theme that will run through our scrutiny of the Bill is whether this balance is correctly struck.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, congratulate the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his concise and clear summary of the main proposals of the Bill. It is a massive Bill. It has 277 clauses, seven schedules containing 183 paragraphs, many of them running into seven to 10 subparagraphs, and occupies hundreds of pages. I agree with the Minister that this is an important Bill. It has substantial economic importance and is a step forward in the encouragement of creativity.
In a press release on 30th October, only a matter of a few days ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Bill:
"will make the intellectual property system more accessible and relevant to the needs of British business. This Bill will encourage creativity and enterprise and the growth of fair competition".
It affects hundreds of advisers to industry and hundreds of members of British industry.
I am sorry to have to cast a little pebble against the usual channels but this Second Reading debate comes today when it was scheduled to take place on 17th of this month. A large number of Peers from all sides of the House have told me that this has made life rather difficult for businesses and their advisers on this important Bill. My post this morning was over six inches high, and even as I was sitting here I had contributions from persons who had hoped to make representations during the next five days but who unfortunately have not been able to do so.
1484
Perhaps I may remind Members of the House that we had an interesting debate on the working of the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out that when we have massive Bills like the Criminal Justice Bill, with 137 clauses, we ought to have more time to consider these important matters. This Bill is twice as long as the Criminal Justice Bill and we have lost five days on which we could have had consultations. However, I really must not pursue this matter because I have had a full confession from the Leader of the House, who expressed to me personally, in a letter I received this morning, how sorry he was that he had inconvenienced me and members of industry by having deprived us of five days of consultation.
I must therefore ameliorate in some way my criticism in this matter by saying, in declaring my interest, that almost the whole of my adult life has been devoted professionally to questions of intellectual property, internationally as well as nationally. When we read the foreword signed by the Prime Minister to the Green Paper, Cmnd. 9117 of 1983, many of us were delighted that the Prime Minister had taken such interest in intellectual property and had stressed the great importance of intellectual property for the creation of wealth when adequately understood and adequately operated, as the Minister has said. She pointed out there—and I have noticed it during my experience—that in the field of intellectual property there is a lack of knowledge as to how to operate the mechanics of it. We are still a long way behind the Americans, the French and the Germans in creating wealth through their methods of intellectual property.
I also express through the Minister the sincere thanks of many persons in industry, in associations and in various bodies, to the civil servants in the department and their advisers, who have been so helpful to persons like myself closely associated with these highly technical matters of intellectual property. Finally, I should like to mention members of the Minister's staff who have been so kind and helpful to Mr. Geoffrey Proudlove, who has done a great deal of work here; also to Alistair Wilson, Queen's Counsel, who is a member of my old chambers. In particular, I should like to thank Mr. Victor Tarnofsky of the Patent Office, and also Mr. Ivor Davis, who did such splendid work at the Patent Office when he was the Comptroller-General of Patents. As the Minister said, this is a highly technical field, and we are deeply grateful to them.
I should like to conclude my list of thanks by mentioning the Minister, John Butcher, from the other place. He has borne the brunt of complaints and requests for information in relation to the White Paper over a number of years, and many people have tried to persuade him what should be in the Bill. He has done a great job, if I may say so, in avoiding a lot of the problems that might have arisen had not the Government been so kind as to allow such consultations and to prevent this Bill being once more a playground for lawyers and not clear in its parts.
There must be a great deal of tightening up of the Bill in the course of the Committee stage. I am not going to deal with minor matters, but there are a

1485
number of points that I wish to put to the Minister. I wonder why there has been an omission in the Title of the Bill. It is a trade marks Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to "patent and trade mark agents", and makes certain comments on trade marks, but that is omitted from the Title. Small chinks let in much light. This is another example of people not understanding the difference between patents and trade marks. There are great differences. They are both extremely important as limbs of intellectual property. In their different ways they are able to make a great contribution to the economic welfare of this country.
There is another omission. There is no reference in this Bill to the rights of an employee designer in industry. In Section 40 of the Patents Act 1977 there is a reference to the rights of the employee inventor. I laboured for years to get into the Bill, when the Labour Party was in power, that employee inventors should have rights in relation to important inventions, and that was put into the 1977 Bill in respect of patents. I suggest that the Government ought to consider whether the position for the employee designer should now be considered for inclusion in the Bill.
When I was consulting representatives of various directorates in the EC, I understood that there was to be harmonisation of the copyright laws of the EC. We have not heard very much so far—if anything—in the Explanatory Memorandum as to whether the Government are proposing any harmonisation in the Bill. There were two anomalies which were raised some years ago, and I am glad to see that one of them has been removed. One of the serious anomalies in copyright law was that if there was an infringement of copyright you could have much greater damages—technically known as conversion damages, which could come to a very high amount—quite different from the damages which arose in patents and in trade marks. I understand from my reading of the Bill that Clauses 86 and 87 are directed to dealing with conversion damages and to reject them from our jurisprudence. It should be made much clearer that that is the position of the Government in Clauses 86 and 87.
Another anomaly that was raised in those discussions I had with the EC directorates was the period of copyright protection. On reading the Bill, particularly Clause 12, I am not sure what the Government propose should be the period of rights which you can have in copyright. Is it 50 years? It should be made clear that it is 50 years. Up to the present it was possible—and this is another anomaly of the English law—that an astute owner of a copyright, aged, say, 60, could join with him a young man of 20 as a co-owner of the copyright.
If it extended to 50 years after the period of his life it was thus possible to get something like 80 or 90 years for the term of the copyright, which from an international point of view was quite absurd. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate—not today but at some later time—the precise term of this copyright.
I should like to mention moral rights, which the noble Lord who has just sat down also mentioned. I
1486
have had today a memorandum from the Arts Council, who asked me to commend the Government for having taken heed of much expert advice of the Arts Council in the preparation of the Bill. But they say that so far as concerns Clauses 69 to 79 the right of authorship is untenable as drafted in the Bill. According to the Bill, the requirement to assert the right before it can be enjoyed by authors is not merely against the spirit of the Berne Convention, whose provisions on behalf of authors the Bill is supposed to enact, but is also unworkable in practice.
They give this example. Imagine that an exhibition of one's own painting was held in a gallery but one's name was left off. Under the Bill that would be a breach of one's moral right. However, imagine that on complaining to the gallery the reply was, "But you did not assert your right in advance." What kind of right is that? It is no right at all but a provision which serves to protect not only the producers of creative works but the consumers. Yet the galleries, like publishers and broadcasting companies, are already able to protect themselves by contract if necessary. In my view, that is a serious defect in the clauses on moral rights with which no doubt the Government will be good enough to concern themselves.
I should like to turn to Clauses 264 and 265 which are directed to reducing the cost and delay in patent legislation. I approach the matter with cautious approval and I understand that Sir Patrick Graham, who was a judge of the High Court dealing with patent matters, has sent a memorandum to the Lord Chancellor on the matter. I hope that it will not be considered discourteous by the House if I do not read the memorandum which I received only this morning. I am sure that matters contained in the memorandum can be made available to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, through the offices of the Lord Chancellor.
I should like to say something which may be a little provocative. The Comptroller-General of Patents always had jurisdiction to deal with infringement of patents. I do not know that many such cases have been heard in the Patent Office, but I agree with Sir Patrick Graham that it is now a dead letter for the Comptroller-General of Patents to have that jurisdiction.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with several major points which arise. Clause 89 grants draconian powers for the seizure of the rights owners. That power is opposed and in our view the clause should be deleted. Clauses 94 to 97 deal with presumptions—a matter of considerable importance. Clause 94 prevents the plaintiff being put to proof of the subsistence of, and his title to, copyright in cases where the defendant has no evidence to justify putting those points in issue. It is totally unprecedented for a plaintiff not to have to prove his own case. Often the only person who knows the true position as to the ownership of copyright is the plaintiff. If he truly owns the copyright, it is not normally a difficult task for him to prove it.
In reality, the problems experienced by plaintiffs who are required to prove their title arise because, in the course of the case, they discover that they are not the owners. For example, it is frequently discovered

1487
that a third party designer was the true owner and not the plaintiff in the case. The plaintiff then has to obtain an assignment and that may be difficult. Therefore, the presumption that the defendant must justify issues in the matter, but the plaintiff not, is quite wrong.
The provisions of Clauses 94 to 97, as drafted, may allow the Act to be used as a vehicle for the suppression of honest competition, especially in industries producing articles which are primarily functional but in the design of which there is nevertheless a certain degree of freedom.
Dealing with another important matter, the Minister referred to the desire, with which I agree, to suppress piracy and counterfeiting. The penalty of imprisonment has been introduced for those found guilty. I suggest that the sanction if imprisonment in those circumstances should be deleted. In line with trade marks and registered designs, criminal sanctions for infringement of copyright should be abolished. In my submission, criminal penalties should be confined to counterfeiting from overseas outside the EC.
There is little more of a general nature that I wish to put before the House. I have considerably exceeded my time but I should like to support the Minister's remarks as regards the financial provisions to be made available for the setting up of the Community Trade Marks Office in London. That sounds a promising title but I ask rhetorically whether the efforts that have been made to establish that trade mark office have been successful.
I should like to make a further plea. Large numbers of businesses and their advisers are anxious to help in improving the Bill. I make an earnest plea for a longer interval of time before the Committee stage. I realise that the timetable of the Government is difficult but I believe that an exception should be made of this massive Bill and that a longer time for consideration should be given between Second Reading and Committee stage.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to the copyright section of this massive Bill. I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for being in the happy position of introducing major reform in our copyright law. It is true that it has taken 10 years to produce the result. The Whitford Report was made public in 1977. After the publication of a Green Paper in 1981, I had the privilege of introducing a Motion in your Lordships' House, which some noble Lords may remember, in which I expressed regret that five years had already passed. I wondered how many more years would need to elapse before the final product was presented. We now see it after a further five years. Nevertheless, we can rejoice at the outcome in so far as the Bill achieves its objective, which in the main it does.
I find particularly pleasing the fact that the draftsman, and those directing him, have recognised a point that I made in the Motion in 1982. It was that the whole law needed recasting and that an amending Bill was insufficient. Rather surprisingly, we now benefit from the redrafting of the whole of the 1956
1488
Copyright Act. The Whitford Report pointed out the fact that the 1956 Act was a nightmare for those trying to understand it. The call for a fresh start has been heeded and it is a matter for congratulations.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, will he dissociate himself from the somewhat ungraceful reference to the Copyright Act 1956 from the Front Bench opposite? It was my privilege, or task, to take that Bill through the House of Commons. I venture to ask the noble Lord to say that the Bill has served its purpose well albeit, as with most Bills of that age, it now requires improvement and amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, it always gives me pleasure to express commendation of any course that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has taken and I am sure that those of us who have had to practise and operate under the 1956 Act realise that it was in itself valuable legislation. This is not to say that its drafting was entirely satisfactory, as I am sure the noble Lord would be the first to concede. I suspect that, if he has had an opportunity to read the massive amount of succeeding legislation, he would agree that the Bill is in a much more satisfactory form.
Whereas the previous Bill started off with a complicated discussion about what constituted a "qualified person" for the purposes of the Act, that aspect is now relegated, quite properly I think, to Chapter IX; and the opening chapter deals logically with the whole position of what amounts to copyright.
I want to express some regret that this Bill has had tacked onto it bits and pieces of reforming legislation regarding patents and designs. This is an unnecessary complication. Copyright, although admittedly part of our general law of intellectual property, has always been treated as different from patents. Now that we have major legislation in the copyright field summarising the reformed law of copyright, I think that it is confusing to have tagged onto it bits and pieces of other intellectual property provisions that would be more satisfactorily dealt with separately. No doubt the tacking-on process is for parliamentary convenience, but it is not very good for the general framework of the law.
As we know, the copyright law has to strike a balance between creative workers and the great industries that support them, on the one hand, and the consumers who enjoy the fruits of those creative workers on the other. To achieve this result maximum access has to be given to the public compatible with the fair rights of authors. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, pointed out, copyright is a form of property. I am glad to see that in Clause 1(1) the specific point is made, "Copyright is a property right". One must realise that it is a form of property which is as much entitled to protection as are our homes, factories, personal goods, and so on. The public do not always appreciate this point, particularly in regard to matters like home taping. It is on that aspect of the Bill that in the main I wish to concentrate.
A curious feature of the opening speech of the Secretary of State, if I may say so, is that he made no

1489
reference to this subject. In the White Paper the Government adopted the policy of imposing a levy on blank tapes to compensate people who had their copyright material illegally and privately taped in other people's homes. They recognised that the only way in which to deal with the problem was by way of a levy on blank tape. One then suddenly finds this tremendous lacuna in the legislation of a feature given great prominence in the White Paper.
I wish to retrace a few of the steps that the Government have taken in their consideration of the problem to show how surprising the outcome is. To go back to Whitford 10 years ago, they already recognised the problem that control of taping was unenforceable so far as home activity was concerned and that the only solution was to impose a levy on either equipment or blank tapes. Then came the Green Paper of 1981, which said that there was a great need to do justice to copyright owners. In the absence of a spoiler system, that is, some built-in technology enabling the tape to fail to record copyright material—it is true to say that not even the ingenuity of Japanese technology has yet devised such a system—the Government said that the only solution was a levy on blank tapes. They agreed to do this in the case of audio tapes, although they rejected it in the case of video cassettes of feature films, rather blandly taking refuge in the statement that they were not convinced that the film industry was being harmed. That was a different view from that taken by the film industry itself.
Then came the Green Paper of 1985. That made a considerable advance on the Government's position and aroused new hopes in the minds of copyright owners, including those of feature films. In the Green Paper a levy on blank audio and video tapes was proposed in return for legalising home-taping. It was agreed that this involved some rough justice and that there should be various exceptions in regard to blind or disabled people and certain organisations. Nevertheless it was said that the difficulties could be overcome and the levy could be collected by collecting societies on the model of the Performing Right Society. In the Green Paper the Government even went so far as to recognise that the film industry was affected. The Green Paper says:
"One possibility might be for film proceeds to be diverted to a central fund to support production."
Hopes rose considerably when that passage was read.
Subsequently, however, came the Films Act 1985. As some of your Lordships at least will know, there were protracted battles on this matter regarding a video levy. I note with pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is to take part in the debate. As the Minister of the Government then responsible he will of course recollect the sturdy resistance that he put up to any suggestion of a video levy. As a result, in my view—I believe that at the time a good many people shared my view—a golden opportunity was lost to place the finances of the film industry on a sound basis, perhaps for the first time, and at no cost to the Treasury. I shall not rake over the embers of that past conflagration. One recognises that the battle has for the time being been lost. I confine my observations now to audio tape.
1490
So far as concerns audio tape, after the resounding proposals of the Green Paper of 1985 there appeared the White Paper of April 1986, in which the Government accepted positive recommendations for a levy on blank audio tapes and at the same time legalising home taping, on the basis that there was no realistic alternative. They then put forward firm proposals to solve the problem along the same lines as measures successfully adopted in many leading European countries, including Germany, France, Austria, Norway and Sweden. Behind the Iron Curtain, even Hungary has introduced a system of levying on tapes.
After that most interesting disquisition in the White Paper, following the earlier proposals, rumours began to spread which unfortunately have proved all too true; namely, that the Government were yielding to persuasion—lobbying or whatever it is called—and were changing their views. It was rumoured that they intended to drop the scheme; and so it has proved. We have a great and manifest lacuna in this legislation, and by following the Government's own principles it appears that justice will not be done. Apparently the Government will acquiesce in, if not actually encourage, daily acts of theft; namely, the deliberate seizing of the products of other people's brains by people in their homes, where there is no conceivable possibility of enforcing existing law. There will be created a situation not of rough justice but of flagrant injustice, which will be on a massive scale because the process is going on in millions of homes.
One can only express a faint degree of surprise, if not astonishment, that a government who set themselves up as the champion of a property-owning democracy should show such total disregard of claims on a legitimate form of property as enshrined in the very first clause of their new Bill. It is property, after all, which is of immense significance to both the culture and industry of this country, as the Minister pointed out. The reasons that are given are manifestly insufficient—at least so far as they appear in the press, which is all I have read.
As I have said, the Minister did not make any reference to the question. In the press it has been suggested that the Government's view is that the result of such a measure would be to levy a new tax. In the Green Paper of 1985, on page 5, the Government stated:
"The levy would constitute a royalty collected and distributed, after administrative costs, solely on behalf of owners of copyright in material subject to private copying. It would not be a tax, but would be provided solely as a means of transferring royalties from users of copyright material to copyright owners".
A similar passage appears in the White Paper and I shall not take up the time of the House by reading it.
It has further been said that the Government are coming down in favour of consumers. One must concede that there are a great many more consumers than copyright owners, so if it is a question of securing popular support I suppose it can be assumed that everyone likes to have something for nothing and that home tapers would rather obtain free material than have to pay a little more for their blank tapes. That does not seem to be a fair way of looking after the interests of consumers.

1491
On this Second Reading of the Bill I venture to urge the Government to think once again about this vital matter. On various occasions already they have placed themselves on record as strongly supporting the need for justice in this matter and have indicated that there is a practicable and sensible way to achieve it. It is something that has been achieved in many other developed countries. I think it is a sad day when there is such a blemish on a valuable piece of legislation.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, does the noble Lord seriously argue that the payment of a levy of lop should legitimise theft of another person's copyright; or alternatively that a charge should be made, by means of a levy of lop on a tape that is not used, for the purpose of legitimising theft of another person's copyright?
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what point the Minister is seeking to make. Is he saying that there are certain people—I do not doubt that there are such people, although they must be in a small minority—who possibly use tapes for purposes other than copying copyright material? That is part of the argument that the Government themselves have referred to as rough justice, and there is some element of rough justice in that. Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that up to 95 per cent. of home taping involves the taping of copyright material, and there are ways—the Government themselves have indicated them—in which those exceptional situations may be met.
It had been my intention to make some brief comments on other aspects of the copyright Bill, but I am afraid I have already exceeded what might be regarded as a reasonable time for speaking in this debate. Admittedly, to some extent—I make no complaint about it—that time has been encroached upon by interventions, which I am sure were very helpful.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would agree that the interventions brought forth the best part of the speech.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, feels that that has occurred in this instance as well as others. Be that as it may, I should like to conclude by saying that while one welcomes the Bill as a very important contribution to our intellectual property law, one hopes that the grave lacuna that I have ventured to point out will be given serious attention by the Government. I hope that at least in the course of later debates on this Bill—not necessarily in this Second Reading debate—they will throw further light on their intentions.
A large section of industry in this country is extremely anxious about the situation. I do not speak on its behalf. I have no interest in it whatsoever. I have no interest to declare and therefore do not declare any. I am concerned solely with the general principle that is involved. I therefore confine myself for the moment to those observations.
4.48 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, it has always been a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. He has done more for the British cinema industry than any other man I know of, and one must always listen to him when he is speaking about pictures in any form. Having said that, I do not quite agree with his remarks; but that is no matter.
The question of copyright raises a very old conflict between authors and publishers, on the one hand, and users of their material, on the other. There must be rights for authors so that they can protect their material and control the way in which it is used, but obviously the question arises as to how restrictive those rights are to be. I think all noble Lords would agree that a balance has to be struck between the creators of intellectual property and the public who use that property.
I regret that I have not had enough time thoroughly to investigate the whole of this very important Bill, but from a cursory examination I believe that a fair balance has been achieved, with one very important exception. Before I come to that defect I should like to thank the Government for Clause 42, which makes it legal to photograph manuscripts in order to facilitate their preservation. This relaxation will enable rare book libraries better to preserve large quantities of documents, papers and pictures. From bitter experience I know that in the British Library the reader is the principal enemy of the manuscript and the book; the more the reader handles such fragile material, the more damage it suffers, so exact copies, which can now be made, will help to avoid the deterioration becoming a disaster.
I now come to the defect in the Bill. I, and many others more knowledgeable than I, should like to see the words "other than commercial research" in Clause 29 and Clause 38(2)(a) deleted. The effect of these words is to impose a new restriction on access to the information of use to trade and industry. We are very lucky in this House to have the Secretary of State himself in charge of this particular Bill. Who does not applaud the efforts of my noble friend to make British industry more efficient and more competitive? He is doing a lot to remove handicaps which our rivals in other countries do not have to bear. Therefore, when I read these words in the Bill I felt that I must put the blunt question: is my noble friend on the side of half a dozen publishers who are already doing very nicely out of their high-priced journals and constantly raising the price and making discriminating prices; or is he on the side of trade and industry?
This is not only a question of requiring firms, or their agents, to pay for what they are accustomed to obtain without a royalty. The really important question is this: how easy and quick is it to secure the information which is useful to both large and small firms? I know that my noble friend is much interested in small firms; these are the people who do not have the resources easily to get hold of information of first-class importance to them.
The Bill would make access a much more complicated, laborious and time-consuming business than it is now. I ask the House to look for a moment

1493
at Clause 38(2)(a). Noble Lords will see that the librarian—poor man—has to be satisfied that the person requesting the information requires it for private study or research, and not for commercial research. The librarians I know—and I have moved among them for a very long time—will tell you that they have no means of ascertaining with certainty the purpose for which a piece of information will be used or passed on; of course, republication is prevented because there is a penalty.
However, suppose someone comes to the British Library and asks for a copy of an article dealing with the ethnic origins of the population in a district of Manchester. What does he want that information for? Is he a sociologist, interested in where our nonwhite citizens are living? Or, is he a market researcher, interested in discovering whether his particular product is likely to sell in that particular area? He could, of course, be both and I am told that sometimes he is. The librarian can hardly be expected to be satisfied about the use to which the information will be put. Perhaps I may just read the short words in Clause 38 because they really are extraordinary:
"The prescribed conditions shall include the following—
that copies are supplied only to persons satisfying the librarian that they require them for purposes of private study, or research other than commercial research, and will not use them for any other purpose."
The fact is that no one can draw a clear line between academic and commercial research and yet, if the Bill becomes law as it stands, that is exactly what the librarian, overworked and probably not an expert in this field, will have to decide in case after case, over and over again. This is a new obstacle to commercial research. It would not only handicap industry, but the methods proposed to operate the restriction would not work in the most sophisticated libraries—and I can certainly say that of the British Library which issues several million copies of this kind every year.
In order to provide a little more profit for Messrs. Robert Maxwell, Butterworths, Blackwells and a few other publishers—not to mention the many foreign publishers of intellectual journals—it is proposed to get round the difficulties of the unfortunate librarian by setting up licensing agencies to collect royalties from commercial researchers. So far as I know, the United States is the only country in the world where such a system is being tried. But how does the American system work? In the first five years of operation all the fees collected by the United States Copyright Clearance Centre were consumed by administrative costs. This year a few royalties are said to have been paid out, but the time-lag between the making of the copy and the payment of the royalty also happens to be five years. I doubt whether the authors would ever get anything. Whether British agencies would do any better I cannot say, but it is certain that the complications and the time required to operate agencies would be an expensive and harmful restriction on the use of the information by industry.
It is worth noting that it is the publishers, and not the authors, who are campaigning for extra money. Authors of articles in learned journals—so I am informed by the library—do not seem to want royalties. Can your Lordships imagine a doctor who
1494
has contributed an article to a medical journal having to refuse to allow a member of his own profession to use that article until some royalty has been collected by the agency set up by the publishers? I can assure the House that my own father, who wrote a lot of articles in medical journals, would have been horrified at the idea that something he had written was not free for anybody to make use of.
When this Bill comes to Committee I shall be on the other side of the Atlantic, and therefore all I can do is hope that your Lordships can persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to drop a provision which damages the causes he has at heart and harms the clients, both big and small, for whose well-being the title of his office makes him responsible.
5 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna gave a cool but cautious welcome to the Bill. I should like to give a slightly warmer welcome. I think the reason may be that I have been waiting for it a lot longer than he has. In fact I feel rather like somebody who has been standing at a railway station on a cold winter morning for a very long time and when the train eventually arrives I do not really care whether it has a buffet car or first class carriages as long as it is there. So I welcome the Bill and I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken about its key importance.
British copyright has long been a model throughout the world. Therefore it is tremendously important that we should get this Bill right, because it will have consequences not only here but elsewhere. I have to declare an interest as an author. My ownership of copyright puts cornflakes on my table every morning, so I cannot complain about that. I am also president of the Authors' Licensing and Copyright Society, which has done sterling work in collecting royalties and other payments for authors in this country.
I welcome very much the statement in the Bill about moral rights and the establishment of those being enshrined in legislation. I regret very much that, having given with one hand, the Government appear to take away with another in Clause 77, where there is a waiver of those moral rights. On the other hand, in the spirit of what I said when I began, the Government have not got it all right—it would be astonishing if they had got it all right in such an immense Bill—and I want to pick up one or two points which will have to be looked at in closer detail in Committee.
I want very strongly to press home the case that my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead made about home taping. It is absolutely astonishing that after the case made in the White Paper this should be now left out of the Bill. Although the noble Lord, Lord Young, is not in his place at the moment, he interrupted my noble friend to ask whether it was fair to put a 10 per cent. levy on tapes, even though some of those tapes may not be used for home taping purposes and might be used instead for private filming, private video taping. All the experience shows that a 10 per cent. levy on audio or video tapes would not disturb the market one iota; it would be

1495
subsumed and taken up by the consumer without a hiccup.
Let us assume that 10 per cent. of the use of videotapes is by people who want to take pictures of their children, their grandchildren and so forth and to have video records of their families. There is still 90 per cent. home taping going on, and, whatever way you look at it, that is theft. It is theft of property. If you have a television set you have to pay for a licence to operate it. If you do not have a licence you are breaking the law. So on the one hand we have a law which says that to have a set in the corner you must pay a licence fee; otherwise you are breaking the law. On the other hand, once you have paid your licence fee you can steal everything you want off the box. Whatever the BBC puts on, whatever ITV puts on, you can put it on home tapes and steal it without paying a penny.
Of course it is impossible—we all know that, and various governments not only in this country but abroad have recognised this—to enter people's homes and say, "You are home taping. Pay a penalty". What is the simplest way? The simplest way is the way they have found in France, Germany, Portugal and Spain—put a levy on blank tapes.
The Government may worry that they have a big problem. They have even suggested that this might be thought of as a tax. We know that it is not a tax. It is a levy. The Government would not have to distribute it. There are perfectly adequate distributing societies in this country, both from the publishers and from the authors, which could distribute this money to authors. It is being done elsewhere. Why do the Government not study how it is being done elsewhere? Why have they gone back on what was outlined in the White Paper on this point? I stress that I hope the Government will come back to this because it will not go away. It is a problem that will increase and it is totally unfair.
The same problem applies to the rental of tapes, videotapes and others, in the high street. We recognised, after a very long struggle in this House and in the other place, that authors should be compensated for their books that were being borrowed from libraries. So we now have a very reasonable and good system whereby, if you go to a library and borrow a book, that is clocked up by means of a computer and at the end of the year some money goes to the author for the use of his book. Nobody in this House would disagree with that principle. It is perfectly fair.
But you can go to the same library and get a videotape. You do not get it free. You actually pay money to the library to hire that videotape or that audiotape and the author gets nothing. The composer gets nothing. Nobody gets anything from it except the library, which makes money from it. I am not criticising libraries. I love libraries and I think they are perfectly entitled to hire out these tapes. But it is absolutely wrong that you should be able to take a book out and the author gets something from it, but if you take that same book, which has been dramatised, adapted and developed for television and put on a videotape, the author gets nothing. So I
1496
think that the Government should look again at this point, and there should be a rental right, not paid for by the Government but paid for by those who make money by hiring out videotapes.
In other countries they have solved the problem by licensing video shops that let out these tapes. The same could be done with libraries, and a percentage of the money that they take could be paid to the collecting societies of the authors, the publishers, the musicians and so forth. There would be no problem. I hope that the Government will consider that.
I should like to make just one or two very brief points. As regards Clause 35, I certainly do not think that educational establishments should have the right to record without payment if there is no licensing scheme in operation. I should like to ask the Government a specific question. Is this proposal not contrary to the Berne Convention? Will the Government not be contravening the Berne Convention on Copyright with Clause 35? Clause 130(4) empowers the state to impose a licence fee free of royalty. That would penalise copyright owners. Is that also not contrary to the Berne Convention?
I come to a more serious point, the problem of the first ownership of copyright. The first ownership of copyright must clearly and logically lie with the creator, but the Bill proposes that the employer is the first owner in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. I ask your Lordships to imagine what this does to a writer who is on the staff of a television, a broadcasting or a film company. He is actually on the staff and is being paid a salary. According to the Bill, the copyright of anything that he creates will be owned by the company and not by him. I think that that is not only contrary to moral rights; it is contrary to the Berne Convention.
Copyright by its very nature is intended to protect the creator. In fact the White Paper said:
"Moral rights will be independent of the economic rights and will be exercisable only by the author".
What is in the Bill is a direct going-back on what was said in the White Paper. I urge the Government to look at that again, because the proposals as they now stand would penalise writers who work on the staff of advertising agencies, film companies, television companies and so forth. They would penalise photographers, artists, designers and a whole host of other people.
Photographers in general have been given a very rough ride in this Bill, because Clause 12 singles them out for some really special treatment by proposing that copyright in a photograph should last not 50 years from the death of a photographer but 50 years from the year when a photograph was taken. I find that incomprehensible. Why have the Government chosen to treat photographers differently from authors and other people? What is the reasoning? There is no reasoning in the Bill. I should like an answer to that point. Why is there different treatment?
I ask the Government to look again at Clause 192, because subsection (3)(c) seems ill-conceived. It can only benefit the pirates and the barnacles who contribute no design or technical input of their own. That could have serious economic consequences for

1497
organisations which have spent huge sums on design development in that they may have their product stolen. A classic example of that is the motor industry. I am told that the Ford Motor Company believes that, if the clause goes in as it stands now, it will lose a large number of jobs and sales and its business will be seriously affected. I should like the Government to look at and comment on that matter.
I have briefly picked up a few points which we shall return to. However, I have also asked several specific questions and I should like the Government to reply to those. Above all, I hope that the Government will think seriously about the levy on blank tapes.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with a great deal of humility, knowing what an enormous contribution he has made towards getting the Bill on the statute book—if it actually gets there. It has already been said that this is a massive Bill and that it is larger than the Criminal Justice Bill. I think it is worthy of a mild protest that it was published on 28th October and is now having its Second Reading in less than two weeks. No outside organisation has had a proper amount of time to judge or comment on it. Nevertheless, it is a most welcome Bill. It seems on a quick reading that it has a greater clarity and orderliness of drafting than was shown in the Criminal Justice Bill.
I shall confine my observations to those provisions in the Bill which affect the authors of artistic works as defined in Clause 4, which concerns visual artists and architects. I wish to judge that area of the Bill with two statements of principle in mind. First, Article I of the Berne Convention states:
"The countries to which this Convention applies constitute a union for the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works".
Secondly, paragraph 16.3 of the Government's White Paper states:
"Variations from the simple fundamental principle that the author owns copyright are justified only when convenience and national justice clearly point in this direction and where the exception can be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms".
We are thus concerned with the persons who create the work and not with the works themselves and with the expression of ideas and not ideas as such. Clause 11 is the central clause in that area. Clause 11(1) is to be welcomed when it states:
"The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it",
largely for the things that it does not say. By that I mean that clearly copyrighting commissioned work is not made an exception and it will henceforth be owned by the artist who created it. The Whitford Committee was split on that matter and the White Paper seemed to favour the status quo of the exceptions set out in the old Act, which should perhaps be called the Lord Broxbourne Act. I should like to congratulate the Government on that decision and give great credit to the Arts Council, which fought so hard for the rights of the artist in that area.
1498
Clause 11(2) is disappointing. Copyright in creative work by an employee in the course of his employment remains the property of the employer. That preserves the effect of a long series of English cases whereby what a workman produces by the strength of his arm, the skill of his hand or his inventive faculty belongs inevitably to the person for whom he works. He must substitute the employer for himself as owner of all the benefits flowing from the performance of his contractual obligation. I cannot help feeling that we have now reached a stage in the relations between worker and employer when the onus should be reversed. Surely natural justice calls for that. It has been reversed as far as commissioned work is concerned; surely it should be reversed in this area as well.
At paragraph 560, the Whitford report said:
"Plainly the simplest solution to the question of ownership is to leave copyright where it naturally lies, that is, with the creator of the work, and leave everything else to contract".
The law would then be perfectly clear and everybody would know where he stood. I say "Amen" to that. But alas, as so often happens with high powered committees, it was unable to endorse the simple solution. Nor does that solution occur in Clause 11(2), and that is much to be regretted.
Turning to moral rights, that is the English version of the droit moral as espoused by our European friends. As we have heard, it has to do with reputation and not with morality. Indeed, if the Bill had existed in 1928, D. H. Lawrence would have been entitled to identification when Lady Chatterley's Lover was first published, though I have some doubts as to whether he would have asserted that right in 1928.
Under Clause 76, moral rights continue to subsist so long as copyright subsists, whoever may at any time own the copyright. No matter what happens to an original work of art, the author has moral rights in regard to it for his lifetime. Those are the rights to be identified, not to have the work unjustly modified and not to have someone else's work attributed to him.
All that is excellent and it is to be welcomed. However, how do those rights become effective? They do so when the work is published or exhibited. But an infringement can be brought home to the perpetrator only if the right has been asserted to him in the manner set out in Clause 70. There has already been a reference to that matter. The person who fails to identify the artist has to be a person who has been personally bound by the artist's assertion if he is to be brought to book. What do the subsections in Clause 70 really mean on the matter of assertion? Subsection (2) states:
"The right may be asserted on an assignment of copyright of the work by including in an instrument effecting the assignment a statement that the author or director asserts in relation to that work his right to be identified".
Is it envisaged that that document is passed on on each transfer of ownership of a work?
Subsection (3) states:
"The right may also be asserted by an instrument in writing signed by the author or director".

1499
Again, is that instrument to be kept by the artist? How will it be promulgated to all those who come by the work later on? Subsection (4) states:
"In either case"—
presumably that refers to subsections (2) and (3)—
"the right may be asserted generally".
I find it very difficult to understand what that means. How can you assert a right generally in relation to a specific work? Again, how is this going to be promulgated to future persons who come into possession of the work?
The exhibitor in the gallery or the museum or the editor of a periodical has no obligation whatever under this Bill to the artist unless he has been personally bound. One asks how the artist can do this when he may produce hundreds of works over the years disseminated countrywide or indeed worldwide.
I ask why this distinction is made between the artist's right to protect his property and the artist's right to protect his reputation? Should not the onus be placed squarely on the shoulders of the consumer in both cases? I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us as to exactly how it is thought that the provisions of this clause are workable. What are the artist's remedies if there is an infringement under Clause 93? He may obtain damages, but, where the ground is failure to identify, only in so far as he has suffered economic loss. I think it has already been said that moral rights are not geared to economics; they have to do with reputation, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out.
If, for instance, the artist enters the Tate Gallery and is confronted at a major exhibition of British art with a great sculpture in the main hall and it is also illustrated on the front of the catalogue and there is no mention that this sculpture has been made by its creator, the artist, what does he suffer? He suffers a great injury to his reputation but he suffers absolutely nothing to his pocket. If, on the other hand, he walks into the Tate Gallery and there is a great work of art, a sculpture, in front of him which is by another artist and if in his view it is by a third-rate artist and it has been wrongly attributed to him, then as far as I can see under Clause 73 he can recover damages even though the visitor might think the piece of sculpture was supreme.
Perhaps the Minister can explain why there is this distinction between the three forms of moral right and why the Bill does not require damage to reputation to carry with it any economic loss at all. Cynically of course some might believe that the explanation is quite simply that within the philosophy of this Government, as with so much else, they can recognise injury only in terms of money.
I end what I have to say by mentioning two short matters. I regret that nowhere in the Bill is there provision for a resale right, or a droit de suite as it is called in Europe, whereby the artist receives a small percentage on each reselling of his work. A redress of this injustice would give the artist some benefit from a later recognition of the merit of his work. I ask the Minister whether this was considered by the Government and, if so, why it was rejected.
1500
Lastly I refer to Clause 58, which causes me a certain amount of confusion. It comes under "Miscellaneous" and it states:
"The copyright in an artistic work is not infringed by the making of another artistic work by the same author if in making the subsequent work he does not repeat or imitate the main design of the earlier work".
Does this clause deal with the creation of a new work by the artist as opposed to copies of an original? It seems to me that copies appear to be covered in the earlier Clauses 16 to 18. It is presumably under those clauses that, for instance, casts from an original sculpture would be covered.
What copyright in Clause 58 are we dealing with? Is it the copyright which the artist has assigned to somebody else? Surely if that is so no artist can be restrained from creating numerous versions of the same theme. All through the ages artists have created versions of the same theme. Indeed, artists almost always become obsessed with one particular subject. I find Clause 58 quite incomprehensible. At the moment I cannot understand to what copy or to what second version it is supposed to refer and why it is sought to restrain an artist from creating a number of versions of the same theme in his work. The idea of an artist imitating his own earlier design seems to me fanciful in the extreme. I should be grateful for some elucidation on this clause.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend the Secretary of State for the introduction of this vast Bill. I also welcome the Bill for bringing up to date the law on these subjects after quite a long time. There are many who say that perhaps the Bill is overdue. I like to think that there is much in it which is acceptable to a vast number of your Lordships. All of us can find some parts of it which need correction and I hope that those corrections will be made here. That is necessarily the case for a Bill of such size. One cannot expect it to be perfect at first sight.
I may have to ask the indulgence of your Lordships in general and of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook in particular if I leave before the end of the debate to keep an appointment which cannot be forgone.
The range of the Bill is vast. I propose to limit my consideration to its application to computer software and industrial design. On these subjects I am advised by the Business Equipment and Information Technology Association and the CBI. The Bill naturally endeavours to be as up to date as possible. Indeed my noble friend the Secretary of State has said that it is. However, it needs to look into the future as well, especially if it will be another 30 years before the subject is again reviewed comprehensively.
This is especially the case in matters concerned with information technology where technical advances continue to come fast and furiously. There is no sign that this will end in the near future. Even though I am tackling a relatively small part of the compass of the Bill, I propose to touch upon only four aspects of my selected subjects. These are the protection of copyright works held in databases, importation of copyright works, a possible rental

1501
right for databases and the protection of industrial design rights.
There are several related matters which will in due course be the subject of amendments which I shall propose. Sadly, time does not permit their inclusion at this stage. Normally, I like inisters—one hopes that their attitude will be friendly—to know all my proposals at the beginning with a view to their being accepted. That is not possible on this occasion.
To start with and by way of example, I choose two problems faced by databases in the Bill. First, modern communications ensure easy access to computer storage, that is to say, a database. The information stored belongs to its originator in the same way that the text of a book belongs to its author. The author obtains royalties on the sale of his book. The originator of a database could reasonably expect the same. Thus, one might expect the Bill to provide for access to the database to be controlled and recorded in some way so that a royalty can be claimed in the way I described. However, Clause 17(7) appears to have the opposite effect because it says that viewing a work stored in a computer is not infringing copyright.
The second problem relates to the definition of a cable programme service in Clause 7(1)(a). This definition, by its phrasing, describes more or less exactly a database. Thus, unless steps are taken to correct such an interpretation, various consequential clauses, like, for example, Clause 63(1), might be argued as applying to databases to the detriment of the rights of their originators.
All copyright work, from books to sculpture—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is not too offended when I refer to sculpture—can be described by a succession of binary digits and transmitted electronically with ease across national boundaries. It does not appear that Clauses 22 to 24 recognise this potential method of secondary infringement of copyright. It would therefore be good to make certain that those modern developments are reflected in all parts of the Bill where there might be an effect. My advisers and myself will do our best to unearth the places where modern technology could have an impact. I hope that the Government will do so, too. It does not appear to have happened yet.
Returning to the analogy of the originator of a database being as entitled to a royalty on his work as the author of a book, likewise in these modern times, he requires the equivalent of the recently introduced public lending right to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred. No doubt the noble Lord agrees with this proposal. I suggest that the Bill needs to cater for that.
However, my last example will perhaps not appeal so much to the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It relates to the protection of industrial design rights. Comparing Clause 12 with Clause 195 one has the impression that a photograph might have a copyright for 50 years while an industrially produced holograph—perhaps an even greater work of art in its own way—might be lucky to have a design right for 15 years. More likely, it would be 10 years or, if I heard my noble friend the Secretary of State aright, only
1502
five years. This sort of discrepancy needs to be cleared up. In any event, a period of 10 years is far too short to provide protection for some industrial designs. Protection over 20 to 25 years is needed.
My noble friend the Secretary of State spent a long time explaining how he thought these time limits were right in order to ensure fair competition. But it is terribly difficult to make a difference between what people generally understand as art, talking about it in terms of 50 years, and industrial design which is perhaps not as appealing to everybody but certainly is as appealing to the experts for whom it is designed. The question of competition is a very difficult one to measure between the two examples.
In welcoming the Bill I look forward to endeavouring to persuade my noble friend the Secretary of State that it requires tidying up in relation to the subjects to which I have referred and, indeed, associated matters. The Bill must provide the necessary protection for high technology invention for many years to come.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him down that mysterious path where the binary digits are lurking among the databases. I am not even sure that I know what they are.
I must start by declaring a modest interest. I do some freelance journalism and I am a life member of the National Union of Journalists, which is concerned about the effect of the Bill on its reporters, writers and photographers. I intend to mention one or two of their concerns and also the anxieties of some librarians.
This is a long and difficult Bill—four or five Bills rolled into one. We must not blame the draftsmen for its complications. They are inevitable in a Bill which seeks to do justice between the individuals whose creative work it protects, those who produce or publish those works, and the reading, viewing and listening public. Perhaps we shall be able to clarify the Bill during its passage through Parliament so that, for example, writers and photographers can understand what their rights are and how they can be safeguarded.
Just before coming into the Chamber I was told that the department has issued a layman's guide to this Bill, but I could not find anybody who has a copy. I am now glad to see that at least one noble Lord has a copy. I thought my former colleagues sitting in the Gallery were better informed than some of us in the Chamber. I think that nobody on this side of the House has seen this very necessary explanation.
I welcome the Bill. I do not share the outrage of my noble friend Lord Willis or the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, about the failure to put a tax on tapes. My noble friend Lord Stewart told me recently of a girl who boasted that her school had a Latin motto: "Audio, video, disco"! Most of us would hesitate to risk our arthritic limbs in a discotheque, but I believe that we are concerned with audio and video.

1503
A tax of 10 per cent. will increase the cost of a tape by considerably more than the nominal 10 per cent. and will be unfair to those of us who use tapes for purposes unconnected with music. For example, I tape important radio talks which I do not have the time to listen to, such as the analysis programme recently on the functioning of the House of Lords. I use tape to record notes and for language studies. The Government were right, after playing with the idea of taxation, to resist the alternate bulldozings and blandishments of the record companies and the pleas of some millionaire pop stars for social justice. I am sorry for the humble musicians, who have a terrible life, and I am sorry that we cannot find a way of rewarding them for their work which is recorded without authorisation.
I do not see it as theft. It is more like borrowing a motor car for a joyride. There is a difference between that and stealing a car, which I believe the law recognises. I can see it would be theft if I were to say to my neighbours, "Do not go to the cinema tomorrow. Come to my house and see a couple of video films. I will give you a nice cup of coffee in the interval and you will give me five bob at the end of it".
That would be theft. It would be theft if I were to record a product on tape and sell it to someone else. But if there were something on television tonight that I wished to see but was unable to see because I am detained here, it could be recorded on video—if I had the controls right, which I do not always do—watched in the morning and then wiped out. Where is the theft in that? That is what I do not understand.
I shall return to my union's problems. First, there are the photographers, who have already been mentioned. They are the only people who have copyright that expires, not 50 years after their death but a mere 50 years after the year in which the picture was taken. Thus, a photographer could within his lifetime lose the copyright of the pictures that he took as a young man. An elderly photographer today would have no copyright in the pictures that he took of the Abyssinian War, the advent of Hitler or the Spanish Civil War. They are historical pictures which may still have considerable value.
Another photographic problem arises out of Clause 30, which provides that fair dealing does not infringe any copyright in connection with the reporting of current events. The limitation of fair dealing can seldom apply to photographs. As a rule, the whole of a photograph is used and not merely a small part.
Journalists are worried about part of Clause 11 which makes their employers the first owners of copyright in anything they have written for their employers. After publication, articles are often syndicated by newspaper companies at considerable profit, and the journalists, compilers of crosswords or bridge problems and photographers have no rights in the syndication unless they have managed to negotiate a special contract. They would be weak parties in such a negotiation as the employer is already the owner of the copyright.
Authors are gratified that for the first time the moral rights of a group of people are to be
1504
recognised. In certain circumstances, their work may not be modified. So far, so good; and yet they fear the provision which permits that moral right to be waived. It would mean that the publisher or producer might stipulate that he would accept a work only on condition that the author's moral right to resist modification were formally waived. That would give the producer and the publisher too powerful a bargaining weapon.
Photocopying is the libraries' major problem. It has become easy. All those years ago when I was at primary school, teacher had to write out poems in special ink. That then had to be transferred onto what was called a jelly-graph. They tediously had to roll off each copy as it was needed. Today, photocopying is so swift, efficient and easy that it invites abuse. Most libraries have a machine which the public can operate themselves on payment of a fee. In appropriate circumstances, libraries can copy something for members of the public.
Under the Bill, licensing bodies are to be set up in the fashion of the existing Copyright Licensing Agency which has made agreements covering reprographic copying for school classes. "Reprographic" merly means the copying of printed matter. That body is soon to start an experimental scheme for universities. I think that it has already collected over £1 million from local authorities.
The Bill provides that the proposer of a licensing scheme may seek certification for educational purposes from the Secretary of State. The Libraries Association believes that certification should be compulsory for all purposes. What are needed, it says—it speaks from experience—are blanket schemes with simple instructions which avoid the need for the copier to consult lists of excluded items. It is dismayed by the Bill's provision of a free allowance for the copying of a mere 1 per cent. of an original over a period of three months. How could a library with a self-service machine monitor that percentage? How could it police the frontier, as it were, between culture and anarchy?
The Bill retains the concept of fair dealing and yet makes no attempt to define it. The Americans have a useful phrase for it. Their concept is fair use, which they define as a use which is considered not to damage the market of the copyright owners. I am told that in most developed countries the concept of fair dealing allows an individual to take a copy of one article in a journal, but in the Bill commercial research is excluded. What is commercial research, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked? Today, an academic research project may have commercial links. What about the small businessman in search of information? Is he a commercial user? Who in a library is to decide that?
The Bill reaffirms a library's right to copy a reasonable proportion of material other than journals. Again, what is "reasonable"? At what point does the proportion cease to be not unreasonable and become the forbidden substantial part? Once there were guidelines, but they seem to exist no longer.
Finally, libraries want the responsibility for the use of self-service machines laid upon the individual user and not the library, so that the user operates the

1505
machine with all the responsibilities he would have if he bought a machine for use in his own house. The libraries claim that individuals should have that responsibility provided that there exist, alongside the machine, rules which tell the user what he may not do. That is a reasonable point of view.
These matters may not seem of great moment, but they mean a great deal to the people concerned. We must not in any way stint the time that we are willing to give to subsequent stages of the Bill. The consequent Act will be with us for many years.
5.48 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, at this stage of the Bill I should like to confine my remarks to two subjects, both of which are of great concern to the record industry, and which are not contained in the Bill much to everyone's surprise. I should also like clarification from the Government on Clause 24 which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, mentioned. I shall return to that point.
The first of those two subjects is the levy. The second is concerned with record rentals. My first task is to compliment the Bill's drafters on the clarity of language that runs throughout its considerable length. Even I can understand it. I have an interest to declare. It is that of the record industry as a whole; and, in particular, that of the British record industry. That interest however is not expressed by any financial remuneration that comes my way from the industry. That is not the interest I have in mind. My interest is a long-standing one. It goes back 40 years or so. For all that time, I have been an avid collector of records. I suppose that I am one of the industry's best customers. I am certainly one of its most ardent fans. The quality and variety of the product is second to none in the world. For 15 long years the British phonographic industry has been campaigning for some kind of levy to be applied to blank audio tapes. This I fully realise is seen by some people as being unfair, a restrictive practice, a tax on young people, rough justice and unnecessarily bureaucratic. They may be right but I do not think so for the following reasons.
On the charge of its being unfair, I ask: unfair to whom? Presumably it is to the consumer. The truth of the matter is that all the record industry is asking for is a levy of lop on each 90-minute blank tape which costs about £1 retail. I do not consider that too great a burden for the blank tape importer to bear. There are no manufacturers of blank audio tapes in the United Kingdom; they are all imported. It may well be that the importer will pass this small charge on to the consumer. So what, my Lords? Nor do I consider an extra lop per tape too heavy a price for the consumer to bear in order to offer some return to the copyright owner to which he is legally and morally entitled.
Every time a record is copied a theft takes place. I agree totally with what several noble Lords have said on this subject before. Such theft occurs on a massive scale and there is not much that can be done about it, because to police it would be utterly out of the question. Therefore I suggest, as Mr. Preston of RCA
1506
Records said today in his admirable letter to The Times, that it is grossly cynical of the Government to leave this Bill unchanged in respect of tape copying and by dropping the levy which was mooted in the White Paper of April 1986. This is quite extraordinary. Noble Lords will remember that the levy was also contained in the gracious Speech earlier this year.
There are several viable suggestions as to how this levy could best be distributed. One of these would comprise a three-way split between the performer, the producer and the Musicians' Union, each receiving one-third. Therefore from every blank tape sold each would finish up with 3⅓p However, the Musicians Union would further divide its 3⅓p into two equal parts, one part going to the union and the other into a pool which could be used to fund musicians just starting out on their careers. I thoroughly support this idea as it is a positive and helpful commitment to youth and the development of undiscovered talent.
Another charge is that it is a restrictive practice. An absence of a levy places severe restrictions on to the flourishing British record industry. It has severe and far-reaching implications for the level of investment within that industry. Many people have an unflattering image of the average record producer. They are often seen to be "fat cats" sitting in plush offices in the West End living off the gigantic profits of the performers and artists in their stable of popular music stars. Nothing could be further from the truth.
However much some noble Lords may dislike—and often despise—the form of music that is popular today, there is no doubt that it generates enormous sums of money for this country. Twenty-five per cent. of hit records worldwide are of British origin. In 1985 British sales accounted for over £2 billion. Due to the massive success of British popular music, both at home and around the world, British popular music is effectively funding all other forms of British music, be it classical, jazz, folk or ethnic, as these last types of music are not popular and have a limited audience. Nevertheless, the record industry feels that these are very important to us as a nation, to our culture, and not least to maintaining our position as world leader in record production and sales in terms of both quality and quantity. Therefore in my view the music industry of this country needs protection, not protraction which I believe will result from a lack of a levy.
In 1985 the overseas earnings for the UK provided by the domestic record industry amounted to a staggering £400 million. The industry invests very heavily in new technology and it also invests heavily in new British talent. Last year this investment amounted to £40 million. It employs directly and indirectly 26,000 people in real, unsubsidised jobs. It constantly breeds new, small businesses in the form of independent record companies of which there are now many hundreds. Over £300 million is lost annually to the copying of records in the UK. The levy would produce a modest £6 million, and it would help.
Another charge often levied against a levy—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—is that it is a tax on young people. Yes, it probably is; but, again, why not? It is known that about 90 per cent. of all

1507
music copied on to blank tape is in the popular music field. Therefore it can safely be assumed that young people do most of the copying. Why should a copyrighted product be pirated on such a huge scale for free? No doubt when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry retires from Government we shall all be treated to his memoirs—an event I, for one, shall look forward to. But I should like to ask the noble Lord how he would feel if his book was pirated by certain gentlemen in some far off country without a penny being paid to him in royalties? Not very happy, I imagine, my Lords. This applies to any noble Lord, or indeed anyone, and can be instantly arranged.
Let us look at the charge of rough justice. Perhaps it is rough justice; I would agree. But I feel that rough justice is better than no justice at all. We all pay a collective price one way or another for the actions of others.
On the charge of being unnecessarily bureaucratic I say that that is not so, my Lords. There is already in place an organisation which has been handling and distributing royalties for many years. In fact, there are two bodies that could easily cope with the levy on blank tapes: the Phonogaphic Performance Limited and the Performing Right Society. It appears once again that we shall be out of step with the rest of our European partners on the question of a levy. West Germany, France, Spain and Portugal have levies in place and operating. Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are preparing legislation. There is a European Commission Green Paper imminent that will, without a doubt, propose a common system for all member nations of the EC. It is my opinion that the Government are being somewhat sly over the levy question. Could it be possible that for populist reasons they are ducking the levy issue? Then when the European Commission produces its long-awaited Green Paper the UK Government can hide behind Brussels and tell us all that it was not them that hoisted this evil on us; it was that lot over there. I am not very surprised that the Government went ahead with this Bill without waiting to see what came out of the European Commission.
Turning to record rental—this is a problem that has been touched upon very slightly—it poses a very serious potential problem for the record industry in this country. On first sight, I am sure that there are many noble Lords who would welcome and support the establishment of new businesses and enterprises, and that if someone wanted to open a shop specialising in renting records, especially compact discs, to people who could not afford to pay the retail price of compact discs (which currently stands at an average of £10) they would say, "Great; more power to them!"
I ask your Lordships to allow me to outline what this seemingly innocent commercial enterprise is all about. My remarks are based on knowledge acquired first-hand earlier this year on two separate trips that I made to Japan. The first of these trips was partially connected with the record industry. The second was totally on behalf of the industry and was specifically made to investigate the havoc that record rental shops have wrought on the international record industry in Japan.
1508
Since the introduction into Japan of the compact disc in 1983, nearly 4,000 record rental shops have been established throughout that country. Compact discs and their development represent probably the single most important technological advance that the record industry has ever made in its long history, going all the way back to Edison and the first gramophone. They possess three great attributes: the quality of sound is perfect, even to a layman's ear—it is quite remarkable. Secondly, they are almost indestructible. Thirdly, they are indeed compact. They take up very little shelf space when compared to the more common 12-inch vinyl long-playing record.
The research and development of compact discs represents a colossal investment made by individual record companies. Their production employs many thousands of people all over the world, a considerable number being employed in the United Kingdom. In Japan, foreign musical works receive limited copyright protection. In retail shops the period covered is 20 years from the original date of release. In record rental shops there is no protection whatsoever for foreign musical works. This perhaps is due to the fact that in a largely Buddhist society the product of the human mind is generally regarded as being for the benefit of society as a whole. But, to their credit, the Japanese Government have realised that this appalling situation has to be changed and they are currently working on their own White Paper which will give full protection to all Japanese and foreign musical works, both in retail and in rental shops.
On my last visit to Tokyo in May I went into three large downtown record rental establishments to observe what was going on. The experience was hair-raising and it is not at all difficult to see exactly the same operation taking place in Oxford Street or anywhere else. The repertoire carried was huge. Japan produces more compact discs than anyone else anyway. But even taking that into account, the shelves were far more extensively stocked than even the largest retail shop that I had visited. The shops were invariably packed solid with people renting records for the equivalent of 50p for 24 hours. It might be worth mentioning that one shop was organised like a large supermarket with a row of checkouts and cash tills. By the side of each cash till copying machines were available to copy the compact disc for an additional fee of roughly £1. These machines were the latest tape machines capable of reproducing compact discs to perfection. Also available at every checkout counter was a vast pile of the latest high-quality blank tape which a customer could purchase to make his copy. Having done this, the compact disc was returned to the shelf to await the next client—and there was never any shortage of clients.
The international record industry is losing millions of pounds' worth of revenue to these operations. The British share is roughly 25 per cent. of that, and our losses have been cautiously estimated at around £12 million per annum. Can I have an assurance that the Government will address themselves to this potential minefield and return at Committee stage with an additional clause to the Bill to prevent this sort of operation from taking hold in the United Kingdom?

1509
Finally, will the Government clarify what is intended by Clause 24? This has already been mentioned once, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Morton. Whatever the intention, I submit that the interpretation will be that the clause effectively makes it illegal to sell, hire or import into the United Kingdom any tape recorder, particularly those having a twin-deck capacity, all photocopiers and duplicating machines—not to mention printing presses and photographic printers which can reproduce copyrighted photographs. All tape recorders are designed to do two things: one, to copy; and, two, to play back the copy. That is surely ludicrous, and I cannot believe that that is what is intended by the Government. I am sure I must be mistaken, but I should like clarification.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken in your Lordships' House since resuming my place on these Benches, perhaps I should declare commercial and financial interests in a wide area which are substantially affected by matters across the content of the Bill.
I too welcome the Bill. That welcome is tinged with a certain sadness that it has been a long time coming. Here we are, half-way through the list of speakers—in fact, we are now into the second half—and we have already identified that there are a number of areas in which clarification will be needed because the Bill is very technical and somewhat complicated. I fear that I shall not be able to relieve my noble friend on the Front Bench from even more demands for clarity and explanation.
I want quickly to turn to the Bill itself. I particularly welcome Clause 35 permitting educational recording. However, I take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said in this regard because there may have to be some consideration as to licensing arrangements. I welcome Clauses 98 to 101, those which improve measures to combat copyright piracy, as I do Clause 272 relating to counterfeiting.
I ask my noble friend the Minister who is to reply whether those two provisions in the Bill, coupled with the intention to ratify the Berne Copyright Convention, will in any way strengthen the Government's hand in dealing with the great problems of international piracy and international counterfeiting, which were matters that came fairly high in the agenda of the recent Uruguay GATT round. If there is domestic resolve shown by the Government and this can be translated into negotiations in GATT, I believe it would make a considerable difference.
I want to turn now to Part III, which deals in Chapter I with design rights in original designs. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I welcome this section, as do many parts of the retail motor industry, notably the Motor Factors Association, the Motor Panel Manufacturers and Distributors Association, the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association, and others. They are particularly pleased, as I am, to see in Clause 192 exceptions to those industries provided
1510
for in subsection (3)(b) and (c)—the so-called "must fit" and "must match" exceptions. If the noble Lord, Lord Willis, were to debate those matters further I should be bound at that time to challenge some of the assertions he made in his speech this afternoon.
The exception provisions in Clause 192 will not only provide for a very much more competitive regime but will also lead to less expensive replacement parts and panels. They will also provide an opportunity for United Kingdom producers to compete more evenly and fairly in Europe, where the market is dominated by Italian and Spanish manufacturers, and give United Kingdom manufacturers an opportunity to stem the rising tide of imports from the Far East.
There are, however, some difficulties, particularly in Clauses 243 and 244, which deal with the transitional arrangements. In the first line of Clause 244 there is a technical error of which I believe the Government are aware. Subsection (2) provides that an existing registered design shall expire 10 years after the commencement of Part IV of the Bill, even though the current right expires before that 10-year period. So there is something of an anomaly here. In addition, there is an inconsistency in subsection (3)(a) in that the general principles embodied in Clauses 192 and 51 are cancelled out to an extent by the transitional arrangements. I shall want to return to that point at a later stage.
There is some rather odd drafting in these clauses. I refer momentarily to Clause 51, from which stems Clause 192, and thereby Clauses 243 and 244. Clause 51 states:
"It is not an infringement of any copyright in a work which is, or so far as it is, a design document or model recording or embodying a design for an article which is not an artistic work".
I then turn to Clause 4, which defines "artistic works". It says:
"In this Part 'artistic work' means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph or sculpture, irrespective of artistic quality".
So there are some difficulties with Clauses 4, 51 and 192 which we may have to look at later.
I now turn to the part of the Bill that deals with the pharmaceutical industry. I refer specifically to Clause 266, which effectively deals with the repeal of licences of right. There is a long and tortuous history to this matter, going back if not to the Registered Designs Act 1949 then certainly to the 1977 Act and the European Patent Convention. The Patents Act 1977 came into force in June 1978. In retrospect, that Act was something of an unhappy compromise between the provisions of the 1949 Act, the European convention and that which a number of people particularly wanted. In the end, it was a mish-mash which satisfied nobody.
At a later stage in our deliberations I shall fill in the important statistics of that industry—manpower investment, sales, research and development, and so on—because when we come to that clause and the provisions for the repeal of licences of right it will be necessary to ensure that there is an absolute understanding of what the industry does.
In 1985, the then Secretary of State said that if the industry could prove an erosion in the effective time

1511
that its patents were running for a repeal would be inserted into legislation. This was proven and accepted in 1986 and subsequently efforts were made to implement the Government's intention. The industry had reasonably planned its future commitment to research on that basis. It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom was the only country in the Community which did not accede in full to the European convention of 1977.
This firm and oft-repeated commitment to repeal is now embodied in the Bill. That is laudable, but if the Government's commitment to the pharmaceutical industry is to be worth anything at all the repeal must be effective from the earliest possible date commensurate with fairness to all. That date is the date of introduction of the Bill in your Lordships' House on 28th October this year. To allow the effective date to drift even further—possibly even as far as the autumn of 1988—would be unjustifiable since the mischief the repeal seeks to remedy is continuing day by day. I hope that in later stages we may be able to agree the best way to remedy this mischief.
As the Second Reading of the Bill was brought forward at somewhat short notice from 17th November to 12th November, it might not be unreasonable for the government business managers to look at the timetable to see whether we can bring forward a little further than is currently proposed the first day of the Committee stage, which I believe is the 30th of this month. I hope that my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip will urge upon his managerial colleagues some flexibility in their attitude on this matter.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to a consideration of those clauses in the Bill which relate to the ways in which educational establishments are permitted to use copyright material for teaching and research. The intention of making special provision for educational needs is admirable but the practice as currently defined falls perhaps a little short of that standard and I hope that it can be suitably amended at a later stage.
Education has two main needs. First, it needs the ability to record broadcast material off-air and to show it at a later date to students. Secondly, it requires the ability to distribute copies of the textual material to students. Neither of these actions is done for commercial gain. The first of these needs arose, in my experience, when the Open University first started to operate, because a large number of other educational establishments in the country wanted to record Open University broadcasts for subsequent use.
Even if our Open University students were prepared to get up at 6.30 a.m. in order to watch the broadcast, such unsuitable hours were not available for teaching classes in conventional establishments. On the other hand we felt that it was wholly desirable that they should be free to make such recordings and to use them at a later date, because we believed that this could only improve the overall standards of education.
1512
What actually happened was that we devised a system of blanket licences on a voluntary basis whereby any educational establishment for an annual fee—not a large one—was free to record off-air. The stipulation was that the recordings be deleted after 12 months, and this was intended as a protection to the authors against the possibility of license holders continuing to use material already discarded by the authors at the Open University as out of date. An agency was established to collect the licence fees. This, I am glad to see, is in essence what the Bill proposes for educational establishments in relation to recordings of broadcasts, and I hope that it will present no particular problem.
The position in relation to the copying of textual material is unfortunately not so good. It would be much better if this too were handled by a similar system of blanket licences. Clause 32 of the Bill allows copying of textual material by teachers or students, but only if it is not done by a reprographic process. It is a futile waste of time and energy to copy these days by any other means, and it achieves nothing whatsoever. What is needed is a clause that permits reprography when there will be no damage to the copyright owner's economic rights.
Let us assume just for a moment that I have written a book that is adopted as a set text for a university course. I and my publishers can expect that many students will buy a copy, and we shall collect the royalties. The university, however, decides also to issue students with reprographed texts. These will never be the set book. They will usually be extracts from learned journals of articles written on a similar subject, and I myself may have been the author of some of these articles so chosen. But neither I nor any other author of such an article is normally paid for writing it; we do not get a royalty on it, but we get a royalty on books.
If the university is forced to pay heavy royalties through a licensing system for articles—and the current rate of the Copyright Licensing Agency is, I understand, 2.4p per page per copy—these large costs would be passed on to the students, and as your Lordships well know students have limited funds. If they pay a lot of money for copies of articles that are passed out they will not have so much money to buy my book. There will be a redistribution of student purchasing money away from me and my book publisher and in favour of the publishers of the journal.
Since the price of many journals is already grossly inflated because it is expected that these articles will be photocopied, the publishers of the journals will make a killing twice over. But I, as an author of the textbook and of the articles, get even less reward for my efforts, and it is not sensible. Let me quickly say that I am not in the position of earning any money from either at the present time.
On the other hand a blanket licence at low cost permitting reprography of a defined range of articles from journals, or of short extracts from other publications, could achieve the same reasonable compromise that is used for off-air recordings. I hope very much that the Bill can be amended in this respect.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to give the Bill the most enthusiastic welcome and my unqualified support. During my life in the law I have been much concerned with copyright. In my chambers when I was a junior at the Bar I had as a pupil one John Whitford. That was 50 years ago. I am glad to say that 40 years afterwards he presided over this important committee which dealt with all the problems of today in an exemplary manner, its recommendations forming the basis of the White Paper which in turn formed the basis of the Bill before your Lordships. Indirectly, through my pupil, I have had some connection all the time with the present Bill.
Intellectual property is one of the most important property rights to emerge this century. It has not been founded on the common law. It is entirely founded on statute passed by Parliament; first, the Copyright Act 1911, and then the Copyright Act 1956 with which my noble friend Lord Broxbourne had a good deal to do, very effectively. However, in the last 30 years, there has been a revolution brought about by modern technology.
Copyright gives the author the sole right to make copies of his work or to reproduce them. What happens to that right when copies can be made by a machine running off a thousand at a time? The composer is the first owner of the copyright in a piece of music. No one can reproduce it without his consent. What happens to that right when it is put on tapes and played in every home and the like? You can see at once how important are intellectual property rights, and how they should be protected in support of the owner but also bearing in mind the user.
Take, for instance, the vexed question of tapes made at home. Of course, the owner, or anyone for him, cannot prevent what is done in the home or in the university. He cannot sue for any infringement of his copyright without permission. There is no recourse in that way by the owner against the home user, the educational user and the like. The Whitford Committee followed by the White Paper suggested, "Let us have a blanket fee when equipment is supplied—so much per cent. on the equipment or the tapes payable as a fee irrespective of whether it is afterwards used on a particular copyright or not." Mr. Justice Whitford saw no other way of getting any reward or more remuneration for the owner of the copyright for all his work that was being reproduced.
That step, taken in Germany, was approved by Mr. Justice Whitford's committee and the White Paper. Now the Government have said that they do not think it is a practical proposition. I can see a good deal in the Government's answer; they may well be right. However, the matter will be raised in debate at a later stage of the Bill. It is one of the most vexed questions that will arise.
The next provision of fair dealing in connection with the work is admitted by our present law. In America it is known as "fair user". It can be used for the purposes of study or research. But the Bill goes on to state:
"except for commercial research"
1514
The person who uses it for commercial research will have to pay. Is that a practical proposition? My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to his father writing a scientific article. My son at Oxford writes scientific articles and I am sure that he does not mind anyone using them for the purposes of research, commercial or not. The provision of fair dealing needs to be considered further.
The question of moral rights intrigues me. In the English language, to talk about moral rights is almost a contradiction in terms. We know in law what is a legal right. As to moral rights, we are speaking of something which cannot be enforced in law. I do not like the title "Moral rights". It comes somewhere from the French. On the other hand, a good and new right is established by the Bill, enabling the author to have stated on the reproduced work that it is that of Mr. A., Mr. B., or whoever. His name appears on the work; it is attributed to him; he is identified with it. It is a right that he should have. It should not be whittled down by the qualification that he must first claim it. An important new right is being introduced into our law.
I am also pleased to see the rights of the performers. In court cases the performer on the stage, or playing music, had no right to protect the material himself. He was merely the player; he did not write the music. He was protected by the criminal law but that provision has been removed and the performer's right is now recognised in law in terms equal to the ordinary copyright in writing. That is another important new right introduced into our law.
I shall not go into further detail. I should like to say that this is a good Bill which brings our copyright, designs and patents law up to date in a way that I hope will last for at least another 30 years and guide our destinies during that time.
6.34 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, in welcoming this Bill I am intrigued by the fact that my grandfather was involved in the debate in another place on the 1911 Bill. However, I have not checked Hansard to discover the difference between what he argued and what I shall say today.
I should also point out that my partner, Rosina Harris, served as a solicitor on the Whitford Committee with the ex-pupil of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Therefore my firm has had a number of dealings with the law of copyright and it is on the subject of copyright that I shall be addressing the House.
As has frequently been said, this is a large and complex Bill because of the changes in technology that have taken place over recent decades. It is vital that the Bill strikes the right balance between the legitimate interests of the creators of the copyright on the one hand and the users and consumers on the other. The difficulty arises in striking that balance. The earlier Bill was called an authors' charter and, as the Minister said in his opening speech, this Bill tends to favour the user and consumer much more.
It is important to remember that the creators of ideas and other forms of expression covered by copyright must be encouraged. We need their cultural

1515
contributions to enrich our lives. The country also needs the economic benefits that arise from their work, including foreign earnings. Therefore they must be encouraged to carry out their work and exercise their gifts, and to do so in this country. International conventions emphasise the author's exclusive right of licensing the use of his works. The law of the UK cannot conflict with that right and nor must we prejudice the legitimate economic interests of authors.
I should first like to mention the exemptions in Chapter III, because they appear to be broader than in the earlier copyright legislation. A copyright owner does not receive equitable remuneration from those exemptions. The use of the exemptions has been argued in the debate and I am not questioning it; I am pointing out the fact that they appear to be broader and we need to recognise that.
I also have fears that the commercial exploitation of exempted copies could follow from this, and that possibility must be clearly prohibited by law. Why should a library be able to rent out videos and records without paying any fee to the copyright holder? That contrasts with the system of public lending rights for books. In that case the author of the book receives a royalty but in the case of a video or record there is no such remuneration for the owner of the copyright.
I should like to point out, as has already been said, the ease with which a record, particularly a compact disc, can be copied in the home while being rented from the library over a weekend. That provides no benefit for the copyright owner or the library. Exemptions for education proposed in the White Paper were in the context of the blank tape levy. Without a blank tape levy there is no remuneration for authors or composers.
I turn to deal with the first of the two major omissions from the Bill. The first concerns home taping. In the White Paper the Government concluded that copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material by those who tape it at home and that there was no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tapes. On 25th June the press office at 10 Downing Street announced that the Bill would:
"legalise home taping in exchange for a 10 per cent. levy on blank audio tapes".
I understand that the department has been given details of the way in which the scheme could be administered and the levy distributed without undue cost and with no expense to central funds. That is always an important point in the Government's consideration. A system of rebates could also be devised for those registered as blind. I ask the Minister, when replying, to state his view on the commitment already given by the Government and to say whether any amendments of that kind are to be considered.
Then there is the question of rental, on which I have touched. The renting of videos, films and sound recordings is an established commercial activity. Can the Minister say why this country should not follow the example of the United States and Japan and make rental a restricted act? With an ever increasing volume of sophisticated hardware available for use in
1516
the home it is both just and fair for the Government to legislate in these areas. The aim must be to establish the right balance between the creators and the public interest. This will not be achieved by continuing to permit the public to record at will or by allowing equipment manufacturers to ignore copyright.
With those thoughts in mind and with amendments along the lines that I have indicated, the Bill is to be most warmly welcomed.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken so far in the debate, I must start by declaring an interest, having earned my living almost exclusively for exactly 40 years by creating, to use the language of the Bill, "literary and artistic" works which in my case mean books, articles and photographs whether as a freelance or, less often, as a staff reporter. The employer who owned the first copyright in everything that I wrote when I was a staff reporter for some years was the grandfather of the Minister who will reply to the debate. I confine my attention to Part I, which to a great extent restates the existing law of copyright but with certain significant changes, and in particular to its impact on writers and photographers.
The Bill is supposed to make the law more logical and consistent than before; but in this I fear that I cannot share the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who gave it such an enthusiastic welcome, because I do not find it to have been particularly successful. Many apsects of its drafting I find unfortunate. I shall delay any comments on this until Committee stage.
I mention now that I find it curious that in this age of high technology there should be references to something called "wireless telegraphy—a phrase that I cannot remember using or indeed hearing since I left the Navy in 1945—and even to "moving pictures", which seems to belong to an even earlier era. Even Part I of the Bill deals with a very large number of exceedingly diverse matters, and I find it difficult to speak in the general terms that are supposed to be employed on Second Reading. I have three of four specific matters to which I wish to draw particular attention.
The first is the definition of "author" in Clause 9. It is the author of course who is the first owner of the copyright in a work—the book, the picture or whatever it may be—so this is a matter of importance. We are told that the author is the person who "created" the work; but what is meant by "create"? In the case of a book, the first owner of the copyright should certainly be the person who wrote it and no one else—but can he be called the sole creator of the book? We are given no guidance, and the question does not arise in the present Act. How about the printer of the book, the editor and even the binder of the book, who all take part in the creation?
In the case of a photograph, it is even less clear because the cameraman is the person who should own the copyright; but he may do no more than expose the film, which he may then send undeveloped for processing. No picture exists, no picture has been

1517
created, until it has been developed and, if it is a black and white negative, printed.
As for a motion picture—or should I say a moving picture?—we are told that the creator is,
"the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the recording or film are undertaken".
Who on earth is this person? Is it the director? Is it the producer? Perhaps it is the producer's secretary, her assistant or her PA. Many individuals undertake the arrangements necessary for making a film. The question of the definition of "author" needs to be clarified.
My noble friends Lord Willis and Lord Ardwick have both referred to Clause 12, in which the copyright in a photograph under the Bill would expire 50 years after it was taken. The injustice of this was mentioned by both my noble friends. However, they did not mention that this injustice exists already and has existed at least since the present Act became law. The photographer has always been under this disadvantage in that the copyright expires 50 years after the picture is taken, not 50 years after he dies. The copyright of a photograph under the Bill would expire 50 years after it was taken. Under existing legislation, it is 50 years after it was published. That period is to be made somewhat shorter, therefore, perhaps only by a day or two, perhaps by several years, and pictures that have never been published are included in the exemption for the first time. Although this is a continuation of something that is wrong at present rather than a new injustice, I believe that photographs should be put on the same basis as other copyright works.
I wish to draw attention to Clause 25, which deals with secondary infringement. This is a new provision; it does not exist in the present Act. I cannot believe it to be right. It states that:
"The copyright in a … work is infringed by a person who permits a place of public entertainment to be used for a performance which infringes the copyright in the work".
However, it continues to permit the defence that the person responsible did not know and had no reason to believe,
"that the performance will infringe the copyright in the work".
It has always been the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence. I see no reason for exception here. There is great danger also in the further defence permitted that there was no charge for admission or that the charge was no more than would cover expenses. This means that I can take the Albert Hall, fill it with an audience and put on a performance of any copyright work that I like without paying or even notifying the authority providing that the price that I put on the ticket is no more than will cover the cost of renting the hall, the cost of the performance, and so on. I do not feel that that can possibly be intended.
Finally, I wish to refer to Clauses 29 and 30, which concern fair dealing. It is a matter that has been mentioned before, but for no good reason that I can imagine it has not been pointed out that artistic works are for the first time included in the provisions. Artistic works are not covered by fair dealing under the existing Act.
1518
Often, perhaps usually, the artistic works in question will consist of photographs. I do not see how photographs can possibly come within that concept of fair dealing. However that may be, surely it should not be the case that the use of a photograph for the purpose of reporting current events—as the Bill puts it—should be an occasion on which fair dealing should apply. That seems to be so obvious that I think a drafting error must have occurred. I should be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that matter when he replies.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, today your Lordships have been called on to give a Second Reading to a Bill which contains 277 clauses and seven schedules and which was published just a few weeks ago. A formidable task faces your Lordships' House in the future stages of this Bill, which may prove daunting even to those Members who are lawyers and directly concerned with copyright and patent law.
I must be one of the very few speakers in this debate with no interest to declare. I do not own any record companies nor am I an author or anything of that kind. I confess to your Lordships that I have never in my life taped a record. For a 25th wedding anniversary present, the children gave my wife and me a music centre. As a music lover and former chorister, I am an avid collector of gramophone records and I also possess a few tapes, though not of course blank tapes.
I approached this Bill with an attitude which may perhaps be termed somewhat machiavellian, or piggy in the middle, if you like. One has to sort the wheat from the chaff. There are two points of view: one held by those who are concerned with the record industry and the other held by those who are the consumers. I approach the Bill primarily from the point of view of the consumer.
It should be borne in mind that when the 1956 Copyright Act was passed, just a year before I entered your Lordships' House, there were no videos, no tape recording and, I think I am right in saying, no stereophonic records. I believe that all long-playing records were monophonic. As regards recording, this Bill is the first in the modern technological age to come before your Lordships' House. So far as concerns the record industry, and recording on blank tapes—I shall confine my remarks to that issue in the Bill at this stage—first of all we must consider the ordinary consumer who entertains a few friends at his house and tapes merely for home consumption, in contrast with persons who tape for commercial purposes, which obviously means for pirate purposes. It may be that the present law is an ass and that much of our legislation may be so described but we should be trying to educate young people into an appreciation of the arts and particularly, I hope, music.
It seems to me that home taping for domestic purposes only when done in one's own home creates a very different situation from that obtaining in the sphere of rental. I believe that the record industry and other industries concerned with the arts have a very strong case to make in that respect, because if a video

1519
recorder is being rented for, say, four weeks and indiscrimate taping takes place, then surely piracy is involved.
There are many anomalies created. For example, I imagine that many people taped the Royal wedding that took place recently. At that wedding, the splendid singer Felicity Lott sang an anthem or two very beautifully. My noble friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is illegal to tape Felicity Lott or my good friend Kiri Te Kanawa, who sang at the wedding of the Prince of Wales, because they are under contract to a recording company and it is fair that such recordings should be copyright. Obviously that is something that those who are better versed in this matter than I am may well have to consider when the Bill goes through its Committee and remaining stages.
Lord Willis: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would condone the non-payment of television licences?
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who is much more experienced in this matter than I am; but, with respect, the House is discussing a rather different situation. A television licence is valid for only one year. However, no doubt we can pursue that point during the further stages of the Bill.
If the levy is introduced, a question arises as to how the artists will benefit. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, raised an interesting point when he mentioned tripartite allocation of the levy. Even in that case, however, it seems to me that the artist will receive a very small slice of the cake. It may well be that "levy" is an unfortunate word to use, because it is one that is regarded with cynicism. It gives the impression of a tax—which obviously it is—and people do not like paying taxes. It might help if another word could be substituted.
Finally, I turn to the position of the handicapped members of our society. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister, if not now then perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, can give an indication of what will happen in the case of blind people. My understanding is that blind persons use blank tapes for a number of purposes other than recording music. I cannot see anything in this very large Bill—though I must confess that I have not had time to digest all of it—that will help the blind. Near to the place where I live in Surrey is the Royal institute for the blind. I have not consulted that organisation about this Bill but I feel that an aspect which needs to be considered very carefully is its impact upon blind people.
At this late hour and with other speakers to follow, I shall not delay your Lordships further. I sympathise with my noble friend the Minister in the mammoth task that is before him, but I believe that it is essential for your Lordships' House to give this matter a very thorough airing when the Bill goes through its further stages.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on the Bill before your Lordships' House. The general re-shaping of the law of copyright into a logical framework and in plain clear language is welcomed by all connected with the creation, dissemination, and protection of intellectual property
As the chairman of a publishing company of both books and learned journals which, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, do pay their contributors, and a member of the Council of the Publishers' Association, I have an obvious but, I trust, not conflicting interest.
May I also thank my noble friend the Secretary of State for his masterly exposition of what is a complex and highly technical Bill. The importance of the major copyright industries—literature, music, sound recording, films and video, broadcasting and the theatre, architecture, computers and functional designs—cannot be over-emphasised. For they contribute almost 7·5 per cent. of GDP. As Jennifer Phillips, author of a study, The Economic Importance of Copyright, put it in 1985:
"The major copyright industries taken together form a substantial part of the economy, greater in size, as conventionally measured by value added, than any manufacturing industry, including food, drink and tobacco or the motor industry."
It is therefore vital that everyone, not just lawyers, should understand their rights and obligations in copyright law. The role our society gives to copyright is to stimulate creativity and to protect investment in that creativity so that authors of all kinds, and their various business partners, are encouraged to create, produce and publish on behalf of us all.
As my noble friend Lord Brentford pointed out, the protection of such creativity is the protection of a national asset. So the House, I am sure, agrees that copyright is dramatically significant. The effectiveness of copyright depends on the interaction between the state of the law and the state of communication technology.
The revolution that has taken place in communications since the Acts of 1911 and 1956 has been spelt out by my noble friend Lord Auckland. Now 30 years on, we must ensure that this Bill locks into the technologies of today and anticipates at least some of the developments of the early part of the 21st century.
Notwithstanding the strictures of my noble friend Lord Aberdare in the debate last week on the workings of your Lordships' House, I hope I may be permitted a last Back-Bench canter through those parts of the Bill which are of particular interest to the book and learned journal industries. I must here pay tribute to the invaluable assistance of my colleagues in the trade and their organisations, in particular Mr. Charles Clarke of the Publishers' Association, as well as many individuals whose experience and expertise have already proved invaluable.
In Chapter I of the Bill the publishers of software welcome the unequivocal placing of the computer program as a literary work in Clause 3(1). It also recognises the special nature of the program in, for example, Clause 21(4) which concerns acts of

1521
adaptation. It may be that access to a programme through a VDU should also be restricted by copyright, with possibly appropriate fair-dealing exceptions. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Minister to the views of the Australian Copyright Council. I quote:
"It is illogical that hard-copy computer print-outs have the potential for infringing copyright, whereas visual displays which perform precisely the same function, and convey the same information, do not."
The recognition in Clause 3(1) of a "compilation" as a literary work is important, for it accepts the concept of recognition in copyright of a database, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and the far-sighted incorporation of computer-generated works in our copyright system will allow investment in artificial intelligence systems, in the future, to be made with confidence.
In Clause 11, I have to welcome the retention of the prescription in favour of the employer as the first owner of copyright works made by an employee in the course of his or her employment. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I saw nothing wrong in this when I was writing for the Daily Telegraph and was happy that the copyright in my words belonged to my noble friend Lord Hartwell—for all the good that may have done him. The position of the freelance, or independent self-employed writer, is different. Such copyright properly belongs, in the first place, to the writer who has, in the words of James Cameron,
"preferred the putatively higher rewards of the 'trottoir.' over the dubious security of the 'maison clos'".
This is a matter to which I shall return when considering moral rights under Chapter IV.
In Chapter II, relating to the rights of copyright owners, I must congratulate the Government that at Clause 27(3) they have enshrined the reversal of the Charmdale decision. At the same time, I must express serious concern at the premise of subsection (5) of the same clause. It could hardly be more unhelpful to British publishers, and authors alike, for the Government to incorporate into the Bill a proviso which may cut the ground from any attempt to persuade the EC that the British book trade needs special treatment. It is the only world language book trade in the Community which is faced with an alternative manufacturing and publishing trade outside Europe.
The American trade is capable of flooding, and is ready to flood, the UK market with its editions imported from, say, Holland, in accordance with the EC dogma of "free trade within member states" and in flat defiance of UK publishers' licensed territorial rights.
I can hear the Minister say that this Bill, when enacted, will be liable to be construed within the ambit of the European Communities Act 1972. But that Act will not take effect as part of any domestic, regional, or international copyright law, and I can see no justification for incorporating in Clause 27 "free trade area provisions" which are not framed in copyright at all. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider this point when we come to Clause 27 in Committee.
1522
The provisions made in Chapter III on acts permitted in relation to copyright works does, on the whole, balance very fairly the interests of the copyright owners with those of the copyright users. In particular, I welcome the firm intention of the Government to exclude commercial research from the ambit of fair-dealing under Clause 29, and in this I have to differ from my noble friend Lord Eccles. The cost of photocopying articles in specialist journals is simply another cost like that of heat, light, salaries or equipment that is reflected, ultimately, in the price paid by the customer.
No publisher of specialist journals seeks to impede the flow of research information and knowledge. It is simply that, as the Government have recognised, research for commercial purposes ought to be paid for. How that is done, at what rates and with what safeguards for security, is a matter for negotiation between the relevant collective licensing agency—here the copyright licensing agency—and the relevant representatives of industry. I would assure my noble friend Lord Eccles that the record of the copyright licensing agency far surpasses its opposite numbers in the United States in both speed and efficiency. A major purpose of Chapters VII and VIII of the Bill is to facilitate such negotiations and to have the new copyright tribunal in place for dispute settlement.
I also welcome the fulfilment of the pledge by the Government in the White Paper to exclude systematic copying from library privileges, embodied in Clause 40. However, I feel it is vital that the substance of subsection (2) of that clause must also be incorporated in the "fair-dealing" provisions of Clause 29, especially if subsection (3) of that clause is to stand as part of the Bill. Clause 29(3) will otherwise open the door to widespread abuse of the fair-dealing provisions. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will address himself to this inconsistency at the Committee stage. Incidentally, I think it is fair to point out that the American concept of fair use is very different from fair dealing as outlined in the Bill.
It is not my intention to oppose in principle the incorporation of the moral rights of paternity and integrity into UK copyright law as laid out in Chapter IV. However, I must tell your Lordships that I have some reservations. If publishers feel uneasy with the practicalities of moral rights, their unease does not concern the seeking of waivers in contracts with authors of commissioned typescripts as much as the seeking of waivers in contracts with freelance writers, with "ghosts", with contributors to composite works and with editors and rewriters.
Of course, the right of waiver, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is essential to the practical working of moral rights. Further, whatever accords may exist between individual writers and publishers, I know that I speak for the publishing trade when I say that I can see no sense in the right to paternity being available for employees. I have to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on this point.
The terms of paragraph (b) of Clause 73 should be applied to cover the right of paternity as well as the right of integrity with consequent amendment to Clause 71. Publishers of composite works, such as encyclopaedias and other works of reference, partly

1523
or wholly written by employees, are as concerned on this point as they are over the waivers in contracts with purely freelance workers. It may be that the industry will seek to have composite works excluded from both of the moral rights of paternity and integrity as has been granted to computer programs.
In Chapter V, the provisions for dealing in rights, especially those in Clause 82, are very welcome since publishers often hold exclusive rights from their authors and here and elsewhere—for instance, in Clauses 90 and 91—the status in copyright of the exclusive licensee is recognised and helpfully strengthened.
Turning to Chapter VI, like my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth I am happy to note that the Government have recognised the part that has been played by the trade in fighting infringement of copyright, by strengthening the industry's hand in both the substance of the provisions and the presumptions in favour of copyright holders in civil proceedings. May I, however, put down a marker to express my dismay, in regard to the new offence of possessing "in the course of a trade or business", at the introduction of the words,
"with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright".
I feel strongly that in Clause 98(1)(c) these additional words weaken the new offence of possession introduced into the clause.
I come now to Chapter VII covering licensing schemes and licensing bodies. I have to say that—to put the matter mildly—this is not an easy read. The complexities of both intent and expression are in great contrast to the pellucid qualities of other chapters of Part I of the Bill. Clause 105 establishes criteria for a collecting society to qualify as a "licensing body". This body then operates "licensing schemes" and/or grants "licences". In respect of photocopying by educational establishments, there are important provisions for bringing into the scope of licence both individual works or classes of works, the availability of which through collecting societies' repertoires may be educationally important. It is not clear whether this inclusion is in accordance with, or in defiance of, the Berne Convention.
For the purpose of Clause 130, it will be important that the "licensing body" has in place a scheme capable of being "certified" by my noble friend the Secretary of State. I accept that your Lordships may not find this a suitable moment to enter into technical detail. But do the provisions of this chapter need to be so complex? Why distinguish between "licensing schemes" and "licences"? I would ask my noble friend the Minister to take a look at the whole of Chapter VII, for I fear that it may end up being comprehensible to the very few whereas its subject matter is so fundamental to all copyright owners and users that it needs to be as comprehensible to the many as the rest of Part I.
The establishment of a copyright tribunal under Chapter VIII of Part I of the Bill is, on the other hand, wholly welcome for the industry has always accepted that there is an inherent tendency in the nature and operation of any collecting society to become a quasi-monopolistic body. So a measure of
1524
supervision through an arbitration mechanism is appropriate.
Chapter IX covering the qualification for and extent of copyright protection may need some attention in Committee and I note some of the wording; for instance, the detail of provision at Clause 143(1)(a) for qualification by reference to author and the new transitional provision at Clause 147(3) for a colony ceasing "to be so". This latter is of concern to those of us who do business in Hong Kong. It is important not to extend copyright protection in the United Kingdom to the works of nationals of Commonwealth countries that do not extend reciprocal protection to the works of qualifying British authors.
I will not stress your Lordships' tolerance by going into the detail of Chapter X, save to point out that a number of topics, including the territorial provisions and savings of Schedule I concerning moral rights and the expressions defined in Clause 161 concerning "reprographic process", affect directly the relevant substantive clauses of the Bill.
Perhaps I may turn to what is not in the Bill. Like the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and other noble Lords, I fear that the omission of a royalty to be paid by a blank tape levy will not make the problem go away. The reconciliation of rewards for creativity with the convenience of private and undetectable use implicit in the new technology remains the nub of the problem. The Government have also failed to take the opportunity to incorporate into the Bill a rental right as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea.
Thirdly, and rather more specifically, the Government—through perhaps deliberately unclear wording—at Clause 45 have put the publishers of law books and others in a difficulty. It must be important as a matter of public policy that statutes and judgments should be widely and quickly available. Ignorance is no excuse. The Bill does not follow the recommendations of the Whitford Report, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. In paragraph 591, Whitford says:
"So far as judgments, written or extempore, are concerned, it is arguable that they are not entitled to copyright. The same might be said of Acts of Parliament and other forms of legislation. The statutes and judgments embodying as they do the law, should on the face of it be free of any possible copyright restriction".
Finally, on behalf of the many people who have an interest in the protection and creation of intellectual property I welcome the intent, the timing and much of the drafting of this Bill. To nourish creativity through a new copyright Act fit for the year 2000 and beyond is a truly democratic and significant act of political will, and one excellently suited to the major theme put forward by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran; namely, the need for the United Kingdom to exploit its brain power especially in small and medium-size businesses. In other words, in the words of the 1986 White Paper:
"The United Kingdom relies heavily on getting value for its intellectual property".
Only a major new reforming copyright Act can ensure and enhance that value for the future.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the subject that we have been debating for the last few hours is an important one and as many noble Lords have said is extremely complicated. In my view, there is much in it which is controversial but little that is party political. Indeed having sat through the debate I not surprisingly agree with quite a few of the remarks I have heard from the opposite side of the House and have not been entirely convinced by everything that I have heard from my own side. Clearly the Committee stage of the Bill should not be hurried. It is too easy to make mistakes and we are talking about legislation which we hope will last for many decades.
Following on what I have just said, almost every problem for discussion has two valid sides to it. It is indeed typically the economists', "On the one hand, this, and on the other hand, that". Let me add, in connection with all that, that I hope we can take a rather robust view of some of these topics. It does not seem to me that the issues are quite as black and white as some people have suggested. Also by way of a preliminary remark let me say how much I agreed with the Secretary of State's opening remarks on how much the future of our country and our economic system depends on the creation of intellectual property and of course also on investment in human beings. The two go together. Indeed, I am grievously disappointed that the Secretary of State is not present to hear me say that. However, perhaps he would find the strain too much for him! I hope that the Minister will convey my remarks to him.
Perhaps I may make another comment concerning the debate. This has surprised me as someone new to your Lordships' House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, mentioned that he had received some six inches of pressure group material. Perhaps I am regarded as being much less important than he is, because I received considerably less. However, it seemed an immense amount. Looking at the material and listening to the debate, I am bound to say that one matter which concerns me is to note the extraordinary extent to which the producers' side of this argument has been represented when hardly a word has been said on the consumers' side. I find that lack of balance less than satisfying.
In considering each of the topics, I may be rather disparate and incoherent. It is difficult to sit down and write a smooth and rounded contribution to the debate as one listens to it. However, let me start with my series of incoherent points by making one in the general area of publishing. I do not think that one should make the assumption that publishers' and authors' interests are always the same in this field. One or two people have taken that for granted and, with due respect, that is not quite right. Perhaps I may declare the first of many interests at this point, in that I am an author. However, I assure your Lordships that I should starve if I had to live on the royalties which I have earned from my writing.
I for one do not worry about copying of my work. On the contrary, I want my work to be copied and I want people to read it. I do not in any sense resent the knowledge that students all over the country have xeroxed copies of the things which I have written and I should find it quite a wrong state of affairs if we
1526
went too much to the other extreme and interfered with students and others whom I would regard as legitimate copiers of work which I have written especially for them to read.
Turning to the question of the tape levy or (as I do not think that the terminology matters a great deal) the tax, let me say that, speaking for myself, I am very open-minded on the issue. I am a trifle worried about the vehemence expressed on both sides of the discussion. Those who are concerned with the producers' and artists' side rather exaggerate the degree of what they call "theft" which is involved in copying. Equally, I am bound to say that on the other side it cannot be true, as some people seem to suppose, that the Deity would not have sent down twin cassette recorders and a plentiful supply of tapes if he did not want everybody to copy everything that is going. I look forward to the Government's positive and explicit statement on their position regarding what is apparently a change of view on tapes. I think that there is a need for reform in that area.
I also think that it would be a good thing if home taping were made explicitly lawful. Equally, I entirely take the point that the artists concerned would like some reward in connection with that. I personally do not like the idea of a tax on tapes because it would mean that they would cost 10p more than I might otherwise pay. However, I cannot think of another solution. I shall be interested to know whether the Government will be coming forward with one.
In that connection, for those who exaggerate the nature of the problem, I think that the simple economics of the matter, which are well established, should be recalled. A great many things are sold on the assumption that they will be copied. It is at least theoretically possible that the sale of some products, including those in the audio field, will be greater because they can be copied than would otherwise be the case. It is not true, and there is no economic presumption that it is true, that the authors and the publishers get nothing. A rational pricing policy will certainly take into account to some degree the fact that something might be taped. I am not saying that authors, publishers and artists get enough. However, the statement that they get nothing is wrong economically.
Turning to the question of copying for educational purposes and to some extent private purposes, I very much follow the noble Lord, Lord Perry. Like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I cannot claim to be expert at reading legal documents and I cannot be totally certain that this matter is in the Bill. But it seems to me that the Bill leads toward licensing fees and licences. Again, taking a robust view, it is better to have a blanket licence which covers everything rather than all sorts of detailed provisions for specific cases. That is especially the case where there is really no damage to the rights of the copyright owner with respect to a good deal of reprographic copying because so much is done for convenience.
Even after joining your Lordships' House, I still occasionally find the time to read academic journals and I occasionally copy articles photographically for two reasons. (I must not say that I "Xerox" them because that is a trademark.) The first reason is that

1527
I would prefer to read the article at my convenience rather than while sitting in the library, which in our case is quite crowded. The other reason is the rather more neurotic one that there is quite a lot of stuff which I think that I should like to read one day and therefore I copy it. I must tell your Lordships that I often end up never reading it, which is a source of great disappointment to me. But under no circumstances was I ever going to buy the journal from which I took the copy. I do not believe that the authors of whom I am speaking have a different view.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Lord. I object strongly to what he is saying. Authors do object. What he is saying is that authors do not get paid for what they are doing. I have no objection to the noble Lord taking copies of articles, short stories and whatever he likes by means of reprography. However, there should be some central payment and licensing for that. If we do not have that, it is theft. Do not come on with that stuff!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord. It is not theft.
Lord Willis: I do not mind the noble Lord disagreeing.
Lord Peston: I am saying that it is not theft. I am providing the noble Lord with a specific example. I write quite a lot—
Lord Willis: And you give it away!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am not writing in order to get anything. I want the people who are concerned to have it. I do not deny that there are other authors, especially in the field of fiction perhaps, who have a different view. I am simply pointing out that it is not quite as simple as those who say that it is theft would like to believe. In many cases it is not; in other cases it may be. My only point was to get a sense of balance in the matter, perhaps excessively since I am an economist. I have no doubt that some writers feel very strongly that they do not want their work copied. But I must say that a large number of us who are academics have exactly the opposite view. I am certain that I am reflecting that view. I do not doubt that the noble Lord is reflecting another view.
To summarise, I think that so far as academic journals are concerned it is entirely reasonable that academics and students should be able to copy from them. The alternative is not that they will buy the journals but rather that they will read them less.
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, although he has never actually published a whole book of mine, may know that I have been included in books which he has published. I think that I have had minuscule royalties on occasion. But then I do not write the sort of work which would produce larger royalties. I do not know whether the noble Earl pays authors in the academic journals. However, there are many of them and again it seems to be my bad luck that the ones I write for do not pay authors. But we are not in the business of being paid. We are in the business of
1528
seeing our names in print and claiming something rather like a moral right. We want our papers to be recognised and read. I am simply arguing that there are two sides to the question.
There are aspects of the position on copying that seem to me to be illogical. However, I may have them wrong. I am not entirely clear concerning the Bill on this matter, but as I understand it the position at the moment is that individual students can make for their own use copies of material in journals.
The library itself at the moment cannot make a copy for general use either without permission of the author or without approval under the licensing scheme. I am currently teaching monetary economics until I retire and I have 30 students. Although they have no need for individual copies of some of the things I recommend, 30 copies are made because the library tells me that I cannot place a single copy in the library for general use without permission. I think that is an absurdity. There are many other absurdities going on in the academic world at the moment. With luck, when we properly interpret the Bill and amend it we shall be able to deal with those matters.
I am speaking for longer than I intended. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the question of commercial research. Logically, it is so difficult to decide—as the noble Lord rightly points out—what is commercial and what is not. If I read an article for my own purposes in a journal of financial economics I assume that is academic. If the BBC then asks me to comment on the current state of the stock market in which I make use of the material that I obtained from the journal, because I have now learned something, and the BBC pay me a minuscule fee, that would then seem to be commercial research. The whole thing is nonsensical.
To return to what I was saying, I think that in many of these areas we really ought to have a rather robust view of these issues and not try to draw too precise lines in these matters. It does not make a lot of sense.
I am very sympathetic myself to the problems of the artist concerning non-attribution or incorrect attribution. I think it is only right that the question of moral right ought to be moved forward, as I understand it is. Again, I hope that we do not exaggerate this kind of thing. There is so much about this Bill and the debate on it which seems so full of fuss. I suppose all of us who write occasionally see something and recognise it as one's own. There is no footnote which says where it came from. One feels a bit annoyed, but one gets over it fairly rapidly. I have certainly seen my work mis-attributed to other people. Indeed, since my name is very frequently spelt wrongly, it is often attributed to a chap called Preston. Therefore, whenever I open a book I always look first at the index to see if I am mentioned. I have now learnt not to be too disappointed when my own name is not there because I then look for the other chap and sometimes I am lucky because he is there. If your material is in the book and it is not quoted, you are unhappy about it, and you may claim that you ought to have been quoted. Again I think that somehow the hurt that many artists claim to receive from this can to some extent be exaggerated.

1529
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to licences of right, and declare an interest since I am a member of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I am a Privy Council member who is supposed to represent the public interest. This is an interesting problem although one should not exaggerate its significance. The central issue is that if we abolish licences of right, what would be the cost to the NHS? One of the problems here which I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us upon either this evening or subsequently is this. There seems to be no agreement on what the cost will be to the NHS. There is not only no agreement, but the range seems so enormous between an original suggestion of about £1 million to £5 million. One communication from a pressure group which I received told me that the cost to the NHS of abolishing licences of right would be £250 million. Even within my kind of work one should be able to narrow the gap down a little more.
I think abolishing licences of right would reduce the competition in pharmaceuticals, and prima facie on that ground I should not like it. If the cost is at the very lower end, and if it is demonstrated that that would damage the important research activities of the pharmaceutical companies, then of course one would say that it is a good idea and we ought to move along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others suggested. If the cost is of the order of £250 million and it is not demonstrated that there is no research lost, then, rather pragmatically, I would not be in favour of abolition. I certainly think that the Minister ought at some stage to reassure us one way or the other on this matter.
Very briefly, I may say that all noble Lords are very sympathetic to the point about photographs. It seems to me that the obvious solution is that photographs ought to be treated as any other form of copyright. It seems so obvious that I do not quite understand what is the problem.
I actually believe that the copyright law of this country is incredibly generous. There is no point in saying that because we have the Berne Convention, we have to stick to that. I am frequently rather shocked to hear people criticising; but I think we are extraordinarily generous in the provision of copyright. The least that we can do for photographers is to offer them exactly the same as we offer everyone else.
There are one or two other general points I should like to make, and take a little more time and try your Lordships' patience a little longer. I am a little worried about the freedom of exchange of ideas in higher education. Recognition of originality and authorship has always been important. Higher education is an area in which researchers obviously compete with each other to get to the answers but they also co-operate with each other.
Until now, most of us in our pathetic attempts at research have not paid a lot of attention to the intellectual property side of this problem. It may well be right that we ought to pay more attention to this subject. I hope we do not go too much to the other extreme where every time we go into the common room we do not join in a discussion on a subject in case we are transferring some property to a colleague that we might want to keep for ourselves.
1530
This is a trivial matter in economics, but I do not regard it as a trivial matter in the case of the natural sciences or in engineering. Therefore I hope that that point is borne in mind.
There is another matter that I wish to deal with in response to one of the contributions. From the economic point of view, intellectual property is not the same as other forms of property. The point about the economics of it is that intellectual property is fundamentally different from other forms of property, generally because the use or appreciation of intellectual property in no sense diminishes it. The use of it by one person in no sense takes it away from another person. It is quite a different form of property, and that is why one has this particular area of discourse. It is not the same sort of thing. I do not want to start the same row going over again; but that is why the issue of theft is rather more complicated than the simple statement that it is theft. I believe that the economics of the problem are reasonably straightforward. There is the need to provide incentives in the intellectual property field and reasonably recompense those who create intellectual property.
There is also the public good to be taken into account. The creators of intellectual property of all sorts make use of and build on what is in the public domain. It is perfectly fair therefore that some benefit should accrue to the public domain from their efforts. Essentially, what I am saying is that intellectual property is a form of public good, and it is very difficult to exclude others from using it. That is why the subject of intellectual property law is so difficult. Nonetheless, to argue that it has simply a private interest side is not quite right.
I should like to add a couple of further points before I sit down. They relate partly to design rights, which have intrigued me as indeed has the whole nature of this subject. When I read the material I have at hand I did not quite understand the point.
Perhaps I may put it this way. If noble Lords believe, as I certainly do, in competition as one of the key driving forces in the economy, and if one considers what competition is about, it is essentially about the ability of other producers to produce something similar to what is currently being produced. That is the whole point of it.
On the other hand, the creation of intellectual property in some areas creates a monopoly. Where does one draw the line between the exact copying of something and, as it were, the production of something rather similar? I am not quite clear what the answer is to that particular question because it is rather a difficult one. In all cases where we grant intellectual property to a person or a firm, what we are granting to them is a monopoly, albeit a monopoly over a person's intellectual property or a firm's intellectual property. None of us is remotely saying that that should not be done. On the contrary, it must be done. However, it should certainly never be done lightly or without consideration of the public interest.
I conclude by repeating that the Bill is important and is welcome. I also reiterate the point that it must be discussed most carefully, and in detail, in

1531
Committee. I hope that the eventual outcome in Committee will reflect both the contribution of noble Lords and also what one might call the tensions that clearly exist between, on the one hand, the private interest and, on the other, the public good. Both must be taken into account. I hope that the Bill, as it eventually emerges, will reflect the interests not only of the original producers but also of consumers.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is inevitable that a Bill of this size and complexity will contain measures or will have omissions which do not completely find favour with every one of your Lordships. However, I am greatly encouraged by the welcoming and constructive tone of the debate this evening. I expected no less from your Lordships' House and this augurs well for our forthcoming deliberations on the details of the Bill. I know that my noble friend the Secretary of State wishes to join me in thanking in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for being so generous with his great experience in this field.
Intellectual property law has the reputation of being an arcane subject best left to the specialist. It is certainly complex, but that can be no excuse for failing to recognise its importance or giving it the attention it deserves. The debate we have just heard is an indication of just how many different interests are affected by this Bill. There is scarcely an industrial, commercial or cultural activity which is unaffected by its provisions. We shall be establishing rules with which the creators and users of art, music, literature and industrial products of all kinds will have to live for many years to come. Our task is not only to bring the law up to date but to provide a framework of law which will accommodate the technological changes which are certain to come in the life-span of this legislation. Indeed, it is an irony that the challenges to intellectual property law often arise from the results of just that creativity which the law is designed to encourage.
We have therefore a considerable task ahead of us as we go through the provisions of this lengthy Bill. Fortunately, there are many noble Lords who are eminently qualified for the task. Many of them have spoken in today's debate and I will take a few moments to comment on the points they have made. Before dealing with the individual issues, however, I am pleased to note the approving comments which have been made by many noble Lords on the drafting and layout of the Bill.
It is easy to underestimate the size of the task the draftsman was faced with in rewriting the whole of the existing law on copyright on a plain and uniform basis, as the Government expressed their intention in the recent White Paper. Your Lordships' comments parallel those which the department has received from many copyright experts and other parties with an interest in the Bill. This is a considerable tribute to the skill of the draftsman and, if I may say so, to the determination of the Government to ensure that so far as possible the resulting statute will be comprehensible outside the realm of the specialist lawyer.
1532
I turn now to some of the points that have been made by noble Lords during our debate today. The noble Lords, Lord Morton, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and Lord Willis, the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble friend Lord Brentford raised the matter of the blank tape levy. The blank tape levy issue is perhaps the most debated in copyright and the Government are very conscious of the strong feelings it arouses on both sides. This is why we have looked very carefully at the matter.
These proposals went beyond the principle of the Government providing legal protection to the intellectual property of a creative artist. They involved the Government in the collection of a new tax to provide the copyright owner with financial reward for his work. A new bureaucracy would have been required to collect and distribute the proceeds of the levy. The cost of administration of the scheme would have been disproportionate to the amount of money concerned.
We were also unhappy about the rough justice element of the levy proposals. Not every blank tape is used to record copyright material, many noble Lords have pointed out, and so the levy would have been an unfair imposition on many people. Even those who would be entitled to a rebate of the levy would have been put to the inconvenience of making a claim. This would have been particularly hard, as my noble friend Lord Auckland pointed out, in the case of the blind and visually handicapped people who make extensive use of blank tape in their everyday lives.
A levy could well have been marked up in the retail chain, with the result that the burden on the consumers would be considerably more, with those in the retail chain standing to gain almost as much as those for whom the levy was intended. For all those reasons we have decided not to proceed with the levy. It is a question of balance, and on this question we have come down on the side of the consumer.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, asked what the Government intend to do about enforcing the right to prevent private copy. These are private rights, not rights requiring government action. Indeed, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Morton, to say that he was concerned that copyright should in general remain a civil matter. My noble friend Lord Auckland asked about rights relating to the recordings of performances. The recording of a performance by such performers will be covered by performers' rights, even if they have exclusive recording contracts. Their recording companies may also have rights and if the works are still in copyright—much good music, of course, is free of copyright—the recording would infringe that copyright.
On the subject of rental, my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Auckland, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, all spoke in favour of what is known as a rental right. Rental, rather than sale, is the predominant method of distribution of videograms. It is possible that rental will become significant in the compact disc market, although this is not so at present. The suggestion has been made that the owners of copyright in sound

1533
recordings and videograms should be given the right to control the rental of records and videos. This was a matter on which we invited comment in the 1985 Green Paper The Recording and Rental of Audio and Video Copyright Material.
The evidence we received in response to the 1985 Green Paper was not sufficient to persuade us that a sufficiently serious problem existed to justify the introduction of a new right which could act against the public interest by depriving the consumer of the possibility of rental and forcing him instead into an expensive purchase. We accept, however, that in general it is right that copyright owners should receive payments when their works are commercially exploited on a large scale. It appears that at present the owners of rights in films are already receiving considerable revenue from video rental. If so, the same situation could apply in future to record rental should this develop on a significant scale. However, we are prepared to look at ways of ensuring equitable remuneration from rental if there is evidence of a real problem.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone mentioned the problem of access to databases. Some have argued that there should be a copyright in databases which is equivalent to the publisher's copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published edition. We have looked carefully at this matter and we do not think that this is necessary or desirable. There will be a copyright in the database as a compilation in the same way as there is in, for example, a street directory. Furthermore, unlike books, electronic databases are centrally organised and located and publishers can therefore control access to them by appropriate technical and contractual arrangements. We feel that databases can be adequately protected by those means without the complication of a new and possibly legally complex right.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and my noble friend Lord Brentford asked me about ownership of copyright in a number of aspects. The question of who is to be the first owner of copyright in a work is clearly of fundamental importance. The general rule that the author should be the first owner of copyright is, I think, generally accepted. It is in the exceptions to that general rule where the arguments begin.
We have made one significant change in this Bill on the question of ownership. The copyright in all commissioned works will now vest in the author. The provision in Section 4(3) of the 1956 Act which vested the copyright in certain works in the commissioner was anomalous and we have been persuaded not to re-enact it. The commissioner can always acquire the copyright contractually if he needs it.
The Bill, however, retains two other special provisions on ownership. Clause 11(2) echoes Section 4(4) of the 1956 Act and provides that where a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment the first owner of the copyright is the employer. There are those who argue that the employed author should own the copyright and that the employer should acquire it contractually. We do not accept that. To do
1534
so would be to put an unreasonable burden on employers who are entitled to expect that they should have the benefit of what is produced by their employees.
The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, asked for some assistance on Clause 24. I can assure him that it does not affect the manufacture or import of tape recorders, photocopiers or other similar devices, or trade in them. It is limited to articles specifically designed or adapted for making copies of the work in question. In other words, it is limited to articles the only use of which is the making of copies of particular works, such as a computer program on tape which can be used to make copies of copyright engineering drawings.
My noble friend Lord Eccles, the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Kilbracken, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, among others, mentioned fair dealing, especially with regard to photocopying and commercial research. I have noticed the concerns that have been expressed about the change to the so-called fair dealing exceptions that will affect commercial organisations which make photocopies of copyright material for research purposes. At present, such photocopying is allowed without payment and without the need for the copyright owner's consent, if the extent of the copying is fair. This is usually taken to mean the taking of single copies of parts of complete works or single copies of journal articles.
However, since the exception was framed the amount of such copying has increased enormously and the Government feel that it is anomalous that copyright material should be used on this scale by commercial organisations without payment. The intellectual property embodied in the photocopied extract or article represents a valuable raw material for the research-based firm and, like all other raw materials resulting from someone else's endeavour, should be paid for. I am aware that fears have been expressed over the terms and conditions which copyright owners might demand when granting licences to make such copies, but I remind your Lordships that licences of this nature will be subject to the control of the Copyright Tribunal, which will ensure that the terms and conditions are reasonable.
My noble friend Lord Eccles and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, asked how librarians could be expected to be satisfied about the purpose to which photocopies can be put. Under existing law, libraries must already be satisfied that photocopies will he used for private purposes or research. They do that by requiring the person requesting the copy to sign an appropriate declaration. In future, the declaration will have to cover the question of commercial research, but there will be no greater obligations on the library.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, referring to photocopying, asked what the position of educational establishments was. He said that perhaps the photocopying should be free unless it can be shown to be damaging to the publisher or owner. He suggested that photocopying in schools and universities can damage publishers. I do not think that is necessarily the right approach. Photocopying, for instance for educational purposes, is a large-scale

1535
use of copyright material, and rights' owners are entitled to payment for it without having to show in each case that it is damaging. Any disputes over licences can be taken to the new Copyright Tribunal, as I have already said. That will act as a control to ensure that terms are reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked me about Clause 25. He is mistaken in believing that Clause 25 is a new provision. It is identical to Section 5 (5) of the 1956 Act. He also referred to the fair dealing provisions in Clauses 29 and 30. He suggested that their application to artistic works was new. That is so only in one respect; namely, fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events. In all other respects, the clauses follow Section 9 of the 1956 Act, subject of course to the commercial research point.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Ardwick, asked whether the fair dealing provisions in Clauses 29 and 30 were all that the Bill had to say on that subject. The answer is, yes. There are not to be any more general exceptions for fair dealing than there are in the present law.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, made the point that the definition of commercial research was not clear. We believe the definition of "commercial research" in Clause 161 is clear. Taken with the exception in Clause 29, the effect will be that a photocopy taken by or on behalf of a profit-making body will need to be paid for. The relevant time that that falls to be decided will be the time of making the copy.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton, Lord Lloyd, Lord Willis, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and Lord Ardwick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, mentioned moral rights. It is natural that moral rights should have attracted the attention of your Lordships. They are very much a novelty in United Kingdom statute law, and the new always brings with it a period of adjustment and uncertainty. However, we must not imagine that such provisions are launching the United Kingdom into uncharted waters. In many countries it has been accepted for a long time that authors have rights in their works quite apart from the economic benefits that may derive from their exploitation. The Berne Convention has codified these principles into two basic rights: the right to be identified as the author of a work and the right to object to distortion of one's work.
In all the countries which expressly provide such moral rights newspapers get published, films get their release, and television programmes are shown without dramatic conflicts over moral rights between the newspaper editor, the broadcasters or the cinema distributors, on the one hand, and the journalist, the film director or the programme contributors, on the other. The Government believe that the Bill frames the rights in a way which achieves a balance between authors and their employers. For example, reasonable editorial practices in newspapers will be able to continue without undue hindrance. Films will be edited to make them suitable for broadcasting, just as now, unless the director can show that any cuts were not reasonable in the circumstances and were prejudicial to his honour and reputation.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Hutchinson, mentioned two further points about
1536
moral rights. It was suggested that an author would have to know in advance about the commercial exploitation of his work before exercising his rights. I assure noble Lords that that is not so. That may reveal a misunderstanding or an error in drafting which we should explore in Committee. Both noble Lords also questioned the limitation of remedies for breach of moral rights to economic remedies. I can say with confidence that there is here a misunderstanding. All we are seeking to do is to exclude damages for injured feelings, if there is an infringement of the right to be identified as author of the work. The point arises on Clause 93. I hope that we can return to that point in more detail in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked how the provisions for assertion in Clause 70 would work. That is relevant only in respect of the right to be identified as an author. When an assertion is in an assignment, it is for the assignee and his successors in title to keep themselves aware of it. The author may rely on it for ever. Any other assertion must be drawn to the attention of other persons for them to be bound. How the author achieves that is up to him, but in that case it would not be right for others to be taken by surprise by an assertion of which they are unaware.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, questioned the value of a moral right which has to be asserted in advance. It is a complicated matter, but assertion is relevant only to one of the three moral rights; that is, the right to be identified as the author. Assertion may easily be achieved under Clause 70, either when the author parts with his copyright upon assignment or, at any other time, by notice in writing. The purpose of requiring assertion is to avoid the need for copyright owners to worry about identifying the author in a large number of circumstances in which the author, having been paid, does not care whether he is identified and does not make his indifference known.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked why damages for non-identification as author are limited to damages for economic loss. The intention is to exclude damages for injured feelings. I emphasise that that does not exclude damages for loss of reputation, because an author or artist lives on his reputation. Any loss or damage to it is an economic loss. I shall be happy, however, to return to this point in Committee because it is obviously a point of some concern and we must be sure that damages are indeed reasonable for loss of reputation.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth touched on the matter of designs and spare parts. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned it in the context of jobs. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned it in relation to the motor industry. This is another very important and hotly debated issue addressed by this Bill. Few would argue against designs of industrial articles being taken out of copyright, and Clause 51 of the Bill achieves this. However, views diverge, as we have heard this evening, over whether any new form of legal protection is required once copyright has been removed.

1537
The Government consider that such protection is required in order to encourage investment in design in all its forms. We do, however, need to ensure that the new protection does not stifle competition in the supply of replacement parts or components and we believe that this too is achieved by the drafting of appropriate exceptions in the Bill. These important exceptions will be found in subsection (3) of Clause 192 of the Bill. My noble friend the Secretary of State outlined the purpose and effect of these exceptions in his opening speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, referred to the matter of patent litigation. Clauses 264 and 265 of the Bill particularise changes to the way in which patents are currently litigated. However, I must make clear to your Lordships that these clauses of the Bill are not as yet fully worked out. As many noble Lords may know, the reason for this is that the whole question of the reform of patent litigation has been under consideration by a committee under the chairmanship of the permanent secretary to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Although the report of this committee has not yet been finalised, it is clear that the main thrust of its recommendation will be that patent litigation shall be undertaken in a county court.
The Government firmly believe that reform is necessary, and accept that the county court solution will result in significant savings in time and cost involved in patent litigation. Consequently, the two clauses in the Bill signal our acceptance of the principle of such a new jurisdiction and pave the way for government amendments when there has been time to consider the committee's report fully.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if that is the position and the report of the committee is not finalised in time, I trust that the Government will allow these clauses to be recommitted. It is very unfortunate—it happened in the Financial Services Bill—if the Government produce a large number of amendments to new clauses at a very late stage in the Bill. It destroys any purpose of having the Bill properly discussed.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have acknowledged that we are not yet fully decided on this matter. I am sure that we would want to be as co-operative as we possibly can in this matter in order to try to get it right. But we shall be giving careful consideration to all the points raised by your Lordships today before bringing forward our amendments.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned the matter of pharmaceutical licences of right. We believe that the likely extra cost to the National Health Service which will result from the provisions in the Bill which will exempt pharmaceutical patents from the licence of right provisions in the Patents Act will be between £5 million and £8 million spread over the next 10 years. However, this must be seen in context. Since the Patents Act was enacted in 1977, the time taken for the necessary and proper process of testing new drugs before they are put on the market has increased
1538
significantly. The result is that the research based companies have a shorter period in which to benefit from their patents. The Bill will compensate these companies for this loss and ensure that they can continue to invest in the very expensive and vital programmes of research which are an essential part of the search for new drugs.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Kilbracken, advanced the argument that the copyright term for photographs should last for life plus 50 years as it does for other artistic works. The Whitford Committee rejected this in 1977, pointing out that the present term is adequate to ensure a fair return. The 50-year term of copyright for photographs is consistent with that provided for films and well in excess of the 25-year term specified by the Berne Convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested that Clause 63 is inconsistent with other provisions of the Bill in allowing the making of a recording of copyright work if the recording is made from a broadcast. I am afraid that that is a misreading of Clause 63. All that that clause allows is a recording of a broadcast without infringing copyright in the broadcast itself if the recording is made for private purposes. It does not allow the making of recordings of the works, films and sound records involved in the broadcast. Thus it is a very narrow exception. Incidentally there is an identical exception in the existing law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, mentioned presumptions in civil proceedings. Objection has been raised to the presumptions which are to be made in civil proceedings for infringement of copyright. Clause 94 provides that it shall 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 the provisions of Section 21 of the 1956 Act although only until the defendant puts them in issue. Under the present law, it is enough for the defendant merely to raise the point in his pleadings without any evidence for the plaintiff to have to prove subsistence and ownership. Under the Bill he will have to back his challenge with some evidence in order to put the plaintiff to proof.
Unlike patents, registered designs and trade marks copyright is not registered in any way, and so establishing subsistence and ownership of this intellectual property right is less easy. Throughout the long period in which copyright law has been under review 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 occupy the court unprofitably. Can it really make sense to occupy valuable court time to establish that copyright subsists in the latest blockbuster film from Hollywood? The out and out pirate will no longer be able to use this delaying tactic.
This change will affect only the blatant infringer, the person who knowingly infringes. Other defendants will not be affected since either the question of subsistence and ownership is not in contention or the defendant will have evidence

1539
relating to subsistence and ownership which led him to believe that he was entitled to carry out the act complained of. This will be sufficient to put the plaintiff to proof in the normal way.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, asked me whether Clauses 35 and 130(4) are contrary to the Berne Convention. We believe they are not. The convention allows exceptions in special cases. Educational recording of broadcasts is one such case and we have taken care to ensure that copyright owners can obtain payment for this recording by setting up licence schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked me about a right known as droit de suite. This would enable an artist to share in the profits from every sale of his work taking place during the term of his copyright. On the other hand, such a right could have serious adverse effects on the art market and on artists themselves by driving sales underground to avoid the new payment. Also, administration of the right would be complex and expensive. For those and other reasons the Government do not intend to introduce a right of this kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, also asked me whether Clause 58 refers to new works or to copies of existing works. It applies to new works. This clause is a simplified version of the existing law—Section 9(a) of the 1956 Copyright Act. Its purpose is to allow an artist to repeat parts of the design of his earlier works without infringing copyright.
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, made a point about imports from the European Community. As the law stands following the so-called Charmdale case, a publisher who has an exclusive copyright licence for the United Kingdom cannot use copyright law to prevent imports of books from, say, the United States when those books have been made with the copyright owner's authority. The Government said they would rectify this and have done so in general terms in Clause 27(3)(b). This provides that an imported article such as a book infringes copyright if its making in the United Kingdom would have breached an exclusive licence. However, we have to take account of our obligations under the treaty establishing the European Economic Community, which is why Clause 27 goes on to say in subsection (5) that articles which may be lawfully imported under a Community right do not infringe copyright.
We believe that this formulation is a flexible one leaving the question of infringement by importation from member states to be decided in the light of Community law and jurisprudence at that time. We certainly do not see it as prejudicing any case that publishers may make for exemption of territorial licensing of books from some or all provisions of the treaty.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will forgive me this evening if I do not answer in detail the points that he made. I shall undertake to write to him, if I may, because time is now running rather short and I am conscious that I have been speaking for rather a long time.
I believe that I have answered as many of the major points as I can this evening and I hope that many of
1540
the smaller points that your Lordships have brought up can be dealt with in Committee. We have had most useful and constructive debate on the Bill, which bodes well for future discussions in our Committee stage.
The whole subject of intellectual property is of vital importance and it is not debated in this House as often as perhaps it should be. The undoubted complexity of the subject may sometimes deter us but I hope that our discussions on the Bill will lead to an increased awareness, both within the House and outside, of the important contribution that intellectual property makes to the economic and cultural life of the country. The dissemination of ideas and creative works benefits society as a whole and stimulates further creativity. But that can only take place if those who write, compose, design, invent and come up with a new idea can be confident that they can tell the world without fear of having their brainchild stolen. The process of review of the law in this field has been a long one but we are now in a position to bring our law up to date. The Bill may sometimes have seemed a long time coming but I believe it has been worth it. It will provide a fair and workable law in the field of copyright, performers' protection and designs which will stand us in good stead for years to come. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.12 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is the Government's response to the Scottish Law Commission's Report on Corroboration, Hearsay and Related Matters. The report is part of the commission's consideration of the law of evidence included in its first programnme of law reform. The report was published in May of last year. Those noble Lords who have had an opportunity to study it will have been relieved, I imagine, to see that it was somewhat thinner than the last report which we had to consider. I refer of course to the report on diligence and debtor protection. I should, however, say to noble Lords that in considering the Bill before us today we are nontheless dealing with what I believe are important reforms of the law. I must record my thanks to the Law Commission for the careful work that has gone into the production of its report. The report itself takes account of views submitted to the Scottish Law Commission as part of its usual wide consultation process. When the report was submitted to me I also arranged for consultation to be carried out on my behalf. That consultation asked for views on the commission's main proposals, which were to abolish in civil proceedings the requirement for corroboration and the rule against hearsay. I should take again this opportunity to express my appreciation of the efforts of those who submitted comments whether to the commission or more recently to me. The Bill before us today has benefited considerably.

1541
The proposals made by the commission in its report are based on two guiding principles: first, that the law should be simplified to the greatest degree consistent with the proper functioning of a law of evidence; and, secondly, that as a general rule all evidence should be admissible unless there is good reason for it to be treated as inadmissible. I am confident that noble Lords, particularly those of us who at one time or another have practised in the courts, will agree with those principles.
I should perhaps take this early opportunity to emphasise that the Bill deals only with civil proceedings. It does not in any way affect the existing requirements on corroboration and hearsay in criminal cases.
Returning to the main principles which I have already mentioned, the commission in applying those principles to the existing law found that the requirement of corroboration and the rule against hearsay were not in the interests of justice since they presented what might be regarded as technical barriers to an otherwise good case. This Bill seeks to ensure that in general terms a court will have available to it all the relevant evidence in a particular case.
I shall now deal with the Bill's first main proposal, which is implemented in Clause 1. The proposal is to abolish the requirement for corroboration. The requirement has already been removed in important categories of case-actions for damages for personal injuries and certain classes of undefended divorce actions—and the commission considered that there were good reasons for removing the requirement altogether. This recommendation received broad support from those who were consulted.
Clause 1 removes the requirement for corroboration in civil proceedings and will therefore enable a case to be put to the court which, although it is otherwise cogent and credible, would be bound to fail in the absence of corroboration. Although there will no longer be a requirement for corroboration the court will still have to be satisfied with the evidence before it can find the fact in question proved and the burden of proof (on a balance of probabilities) discharged. The clause also removes the highly exceptional rule based at best on a doubtful doctrine whereby in actions to establish paternity, denial by the defender of a material fact, later proved to be true, may be accepted as corroboration of the pursuer's evidence.
The second main proposal relates to hearsay evidence. The commission concluded that the existing law offended against its main principles by being unduly complex and excluding potentially valuable evidence. The current rule is that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible but is subject to certain exceptions. I agree entirely with the commission's broad conclusion. However, noble Lords who have compared the draft Bill annexed to the report and this Bill will have seen that the Government have tackled this problem in a way different from that proposed by the commission.
Briefly, the commission proposed that, while the rule against hearsay should be relaxed, a party wishing to rely on hearsay evidence might still have to convince the court that it was not reasonable or
1542
practicable to bring along the maker of the hearsay statement to give evidence. If the court were not convinced that this was so, it could refuse to admit the hearsay evidence. As an adjunct to this proposal the commission's Bill contained a notice procedure. This enabled a party to notify his opponent that he intended to rely on hearsay evidence. Unless his opponent served a counter notice objecting to the hearsay evidence he would lose his right to object to the proof itself.
It is fair to say that the proposals on hearsay gave rise to a number of substantial comments and criticisms. There were those who considered that the rules on hearsay should remain. As I have already said, however, I am convinced that some reform is needed. Other commentators were of the view that, while there should be reform of the law, the proposal to allow the courts to retain a power to refuse to admit hearsay evidence together with the associated notice procedure could arguably have the effect of simply reintroducing the rule against hearsay. I have found myself persuaded by this argument.
The Bill therefore adopts the direct approach of simply abolishing the rule against hearsay and Clause 2(1)(a) provides that evidence cannot be excluded solely on the grounds that it is hearsay. I should make it clear that this leaves untouched any other means whereby evidence might be regarded as inadmissible. For example, the evidence might be considered to be irrelevant and could be excluded on that ground.
The clause also makes it clear in paragraph (a) that the court retains its power to attach due weight to the hearsay evidence led before it. It is important to keep this in mind. The Bill does not in any way erode the court's powers to consider and evaluate evidence. It simply seeks to ensure that potentially valuable evidence is not lost to the court resulting in injustice to any of the parties.
While we are dealing with hearsay evidence I should perhaps mention that in letting me have his views on the commission's proposals the Lord President of the Court of Session indicated that civil juries in Court of Session cases might have some difficulties in evaluating hearsay evidence.
Given that juries do not give reasons in reaching their verdicts, unlike judges sitting alone, and in particular do not set out their evaluation of evidence as do judges in such cases, I appreciate the problem. It seems to me, moreover, that in view of the very small number of cases heard by civil juries in the Court of Session—only four in 1985, for example—there is room for discussion on whether the use of juries in civil proceedings should be abolished as has already been done for the sheriff courts. I intend to consider this matter further but I shall of course consult interested parties before aiming at any conclusions. Much of the remainder of the Bill in Clauses 3 to 8 deals with matters related to the main proposals on corroboration and hearsay.
Clause 3 deals with prior statements. At present the credibility of a witness can be attacked by reference to a different version of evidence given by him on another occasion. However, the witness's credibility cannot be supported by reference to previous statements consistent with his evidence in the witness

1543
box. The Bill corrects this anomaly by allowing previous statements to be used for the purpose of attacking or supporting credibility. An important exception to this broad rule is made for statements contained in precognitions, which are of course simply accounts prepared by another person of the evidence likely to be available from a witness. This clause when read with the definition of "statement" in Clause 9, which excludes a statement in a precognition, makes clear that precognitions cannot be used to attack or support credibility.
Clause 4 of the Bill ensures that the fact that a person has been present in court during the proceedings does not preclude him from being called or recalled to give evidence to clarify hearsay evidence admitted under Clause 2. Clause 5 makes important reforms in respect of the proving of documents. I think we are aware of difficulties encountered by parties and their legal advisers in having to bring to court witnesses to speak simply to the fact that they were involved in the preparation of documents which are part of the productions of a case. This can at times lead to unnecessary delay and expense. This clause permits a document of a business or undertaking and any statement in that document to be proved in court without the need for a witness to speak to it.
Clause 6 will also assist someone who has to rely on documentary evidence. It enables a copy document, duly authenticated, to be admitted and treated for evidential purposes as if it were the original. In both Clauses 5 and 6 the Bill retains the power of the court to direct that a document should be spoken to by a witness or that an original document should be produced. This is important to enable an opposing party to challenge or inquire into the document's origin or authenticity.
Clause 7 deals with a potential problem, although the commission noted that the particular problem does not seem to have arisen in Scotland. It is this: in civil proceedings it may be necessary to prove that a particular record does not exist. This clause admits the evidence of an officer of a business or undertaking as to the absence of a record without the need to produce the existing records. Without such a provision it would be necessary to indulge in the wasteful exercise of producing and examining all the records of an organisation simply to establish that there is no relevant entry.
Clause 8 clarifies and restates the law where actions on family relationships are concerned. In broad terms my Bill retains the important rule that in such actions it is necessary for the pursuer to establish the grounds of action before he or she can be successful, whether or not the action is defended. In addition the evidence to establish the grounds of action must come, at least partly, from a source other than a party to the marriage.
Noble Lords will see that this clause gives the Lord Advocate power to make an order which would disapply the requirement for evidence to come from another source. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is right that the Bill should be capable of reflecting the social and legal requirements of the day, which is the intention behind this power. I assure noble Lords
1544
that Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss any change of this nature since it is provided that the order is to be made by affirmative resolution procedure.
The remaining clauses are formal but I should draw noble Lords' attention to the important definition in Clause 9 of "civil proceedings". Essentially the Bill applies to proceedings before the ordinary courts of law. The Bill does not specify what proceedings are to be regarded as civil. This will be a question for determination by the courts in each particular case. Noble Lords will notice, however, that the Bill makes specific reference to hearings under Section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. This is to put beyond doubt that such hearings are civil proceedings for the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill contains what some may regard as radical changes to the law of civil evidence. I do not dissent from that. However, I do not see there being as a result a marked change in the manner in which civil proceedings are dealt with from an evidential viewpoint. Although parties will be able to rely upon uncorroborated evidence and also hearsay evidence, it seems to me that prudent legal advisers will continue to seek to establish their cases beyond peradventure. On that basis I would expect that they will continue to lead corroborative evidence, where it is available, and to bring the makers of statements before the courts whenever possible in order that the weightiest evidence can be adduced for proof of their case.
I do not see this Bill as being a charter for lazy lawyers, if any such being exists. What this Bill will do is ensure that the courts will have before them as much relevant evidence as possible. As a result neither party to an action will suffer injustice simply because potentially valuable evidence is excluded thus rendering an otherwise good case either incapable of prosecution or doomed to failure. For those reasons, I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
8.25 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this Bill should be welcomed, and in general and as so often I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Law Commission. I should also like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the alterations he has made to the Bill, to the extent that he has taken out the provisions about notice which were just too complicated to be workable. To that extent it is a better Bill than even the Bill of the Scottish Law Commission.
In civil cases where in general the standard of proof is probability rather than certainty, it is proper that the law about evidence should be as simple as possible while retaining the law of evidence. The rules about corroboration so far as they remain can operate as an impediment to justice and it is good to see them on the way out. In general, also, the law as it has developed in relation to hearsay has become technical, cumbersome and an impediment to justice. In everyday life we all take important decisions on hearsay evidence. We do not rely on direct evidence.

1545
The kind of people who become jurors decide things on hearsay evidence. With all respect to the noble and learned Lord, I had difficulty in following his reasoning on this matter. I had never thought that lawyers are any better than anybody else at finding out who is telling the truth and what evidence one can rely on. But so be it.
It is wrong that the courts should be prevented from considering hearsay evidence as long as its cogency and reliability remain open for testing. On the detail of the Bill, I suggest that there is an error in the transfer to the noble and learned Lord's department from the commission in omitting arbitrations and tribunals. It is ridiculous to keep corroboration for arbitrations and tribunals and not have it in the more formal court.
There is some indication that the noble and learned Lord thinks the same way. I hope so. If he does not, one is left in total confusion because arbitrations and tribunals are to be found in the definitions in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Acts which are being repealed, and therefore one would leave those who have to deal with arbitrations with no idea of what the law of evidence to be applied was.
Clause 2(3) causes some difficulty. I am surprised that this passage remains, considering what the noble and learned Lord said about legislation yesterday. Clause 2(3) says:
"For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, evidence which is, in accordance with the law and practice for the time being, given by means of affidavit shall not be treated as 'a statement made otherwise than in the course of the proof except if and in so far as that evidence relates to the content of a statement made by a person other than the maker of the affidavit".
That is not the easiest thing to understand. If I understand it correctly, it means that if I make an affidavit it is to be ignored if I say, "I saw this thing happen"; but if I say, "The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told me he saw it happen" it would be admissible. That really cannot be what is intended, and perhaps that needs clearing up. The first phrase in subsection (3) seems to me to be totally unnecessary.
The last and important point is in regard to the coming into force. Clause 10(2) says:
"This Act shall apply to proceedings whether commenced before or after the date of its coming into force (but not to proceedings in which the proof has, before that date, been concluded).".
That surely should be "commenced", because otherwise one could have one-half of a proof conducted on one rule of evidence and the other half on the new rule of evidence, which must be wrong.
Subject to those rather technical criticisms, I warmly welcome the Bill and hope that it has a smooth and uncontentious passage through the next stage.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, from these Benches too we welcome this Bill. It is not in any spirit of the animal whom the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate described as the lazy lawyer, which he thought was a rare animal. I am not quite so sure that I take so sanguine a view. But in any event, whatever the zoological position may be, it is
1546
not in that spirit that I say that I shall detain your Lordships I hope for even less time than did the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
It is a diverting circumstance that in the recent press publicity surrounding the case of the young British Army officer who was charged with smuggling drugs into Sweden anxieties were expressed from many corners of the field about the possibility that the young man would not get a fair trial. Among other things, it was widely said that one of the reasons for that was that in Sweden hearsay evidence was admissible. It might be as well that I should not tonight, particularly at this late hour, pursue any further reflections on this acute understanding in the public mind about hearsay evidence.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that it might be regarded as a radical reform. It is not really so very radical. It is true that perhaps way back before the Second World War when I was first involved with the law in any way at all, we regarded the rules of hearsay and the rules of corroboration, and so on, as something of sacred cows; but I think those kind of days are all gone.
We are indeed well served by the Scottish Law Commission in this report in particular, as in so many others, which has put the matter so well into perspective. In principle, I can see no possible objection at all to these reforms. Whether or not we may want to look at it in any great detail at Committee is a matter which no doubt we shall all be thinking about.
I said I would take even less time than the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. That is always a silly sort of thing to say because whenever you say that you are giving a hostage to fortune, as people are inclined to say. But I see that I have just succeeded, and I join with him in wishing the Bill well.
8.34 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me as a layman for intervening in this learned debate. My experience with the Scottish courts, civil and criminal, is slight, but such as it is it leads me to slight concern about this Bill. I have known of a dean of faculty lie in court. I know of false evidence being given under oath. So the idea of hearsay being readily acceptable in a court gives me some cause for concern. I am not aware that in any place hearsay is defined. Where does hearsay stop and gossip begin? This worries me because while we hear that it is fine, when you get into court it is slightly different.
Going to Clause 4, the calling of additional witnesses, are we not slightly getting into the Perry Mason situation by which you have a court which has gone through all its procedures until the last moment and then defence counsel produces his wonderful hidden witness? That is an area that needs to be looked at.
I was equally worried from my limited experience in that I gathered the impression that the concern of litigants' legal advisers is to win their case for them really regardless of truth or justice. They will go to any lengths and put any pressure on persons to achieve this. I just wonder whether what seems like a simple and useful Bill is not really a wolf in sheep's

1547
clothing which will add to the enjoyable dripping roast that exists within litigants' costs in Scotland.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for the welcome that they have given to this Bill. I can say to my noble friend Lord Ailsa that we did not proceed with this lightly, as the noble Marquess will understand. It proceeds upon a carefully argued report of the Scottish Law Commission, and, as I think I explained in opening, upon comments and criticism received both by the Law Commission and by myself. I can recommend to my noble friend a reading of the Law Commission report which I think would still some of his fears about the value of hearsay evidence.
Perhaps I may say—and this takes up a point that the noble Lord opposite made—that tribunals have for a number of years been perfectly accustomed to proceed by use of hearsay evidence. It has been a valuable capacity for them. Having sat as a chairman of tribunals, I am well aware of the value of hearsay evidence in reaching a just conclusion to the issues between parties. Accordingly, I assure my noble friend that this matter had been carefully thought out before these proposals were brought before the House.
I would also say in relation to his point under Clause 4 regarding the recall of a witness that this is only done where the court grants leave. That is to say, the court has to be satisfied that there is good reason for the recall. It is generally for the purpose of clarifying any hearsay evidence that may have been given earlier in the course of the proof.
I should like to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The first was the issue of tribunals and arbitrations. As presently drafted the Bill does not apply to proceedings before tribunals or arbitrations because they are commonly regulated by their own rules or by agreement of the parties who wish to go to arbitration. The noble Lord opposite will be aware of some of the tribunal rules which effectively dispense with the rules of evidence. I accept that it may be advisable to ensure that those who wish to enter into an arbitration agreement have the benefit of the relaxation of the evidential requirements unless they specifically choose otherwise. However, I shall consider the point further before Committee stage.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, related to Clause 2(3). I should like to look further at the way in which the subsection is drafted, but the provision is based on a policy which seeks to preserve the position under existing law and practice whereby evidence can come forward by way of affidavit in particular classes of case. However, I accept the fact that it may be said to create a somewhat anomalous distinction between such cases as the noble Lord pointed out and other cases to which the general admissibility of statements under the earlier part of the clause will apply. I shall look again at that matter. It is useful to have the comments of the noble Lord.
1548
I note what he said as regards the opening words of Clause 3. I may well have to consider an amendment in that regard as it may be considered to be otiose.
The noble Lord also raised the matter of commencement, and I accept that we may not yet have the Bill right in respect of that. I shall certainly look at it again before the Committee stage. I am grateful for the points which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in that connection.
In response to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, I should like to point out that I referred to lazy lawyers because one has experience of the way in which the provision relaxing the corroboration rule in personal injuries actions has operated. It has meant that parties have led as much evidence as possible, regardless of the rule, in order to satisfy the court as to the cogency of their case by the best evidence that they can produce. It was for that reason that I made reference to the lazy lawyer.
Dealing with the point raised in relation to Swedish justice, I hoped that in opening the debate I had made clear the fact that here we are not dealing with evidence in criminal cases. The case to which the noble and learned Lord was referring was a criminal case. The Bill deals only with civil evidence and I hope that I have made clear the fact that it is not intended to cover, nor should it be thought to cover, evidence in criminal cases in Scotland.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the assistance given in this short debate, and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1987
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th July be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved, my Lords.
The year 1988–89 will be the fourth year of the education support grants initiative. ESGs help local authorities to get started on responding to particular new ideas and needs. These draft regulations, which further amend the Education Support Grant Regulations 1984, allow my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales to pay grant at a rate of 50 per cent. instead of 70 per cent. for a single named activity and to require authorities to submit certain information as a condition of grant for some other activities. They also extend the purposes in support of which my right honourable friends will pay grant in 1988–89.
In 1987–88 bids from local education authorities for ESGs added up to much more than the total of expenditure which could be supported, as they did in both previous years. The total of £92 million of expenditure planned for 1987–88 has already been approved for grant. All 97 LEAs in England are

1549
receiving some grant support in this financial year. In April this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science published a leaflet, Encouraging Quality, which illustrates the scope and purpose of ESG programmes.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 7th May the Government's intention to support expenditure through ESGs amounting to £115 million cash in 1988–89. He has consulted the appropriate local education authority associations about the content of the programme for that year. Of the total expenditure to be supported, £65 million is accounted for by continuing expenditure on activities started in earlier years and £50 million by support for new activities and the extension of existing ones. Grant will be paid on this expenditure at a rate of 70 per cent. except in the case of one activity of which I shall speak in a moment. Thus the Government plan to pay some £81 million of education support grant in the 1988–89 financial year in respect of expenditure by local authorities of £115 million.
In the course of consultations with the local authority associations the Government have specified the new purposes for which we propose to pay education support grants in 1988–89 and have given a provisional assessment of the amount of expenditure to be supported for each purpose, the number of LEAs to be supported and how long the support is likely to last.
I should like now to comment on the amendment regulations themselves. Until now education support grant has been paid at a rate of 70 per cent. on all activities. We think it is right that some activities which have received several years' funding at this rate should begin to move to a lower rate of 50 per cent. Education support grants were never intended to become part of permanent provision but are designed to encourage LEAs to undertake important and innovative work in areas to which the Government attach high priority. A reduction in grant level for these activities will prepare the way for a transition to mainstream funding and in time free resources for new ESGs in other areas.
In 1988–89 only one area is being proposed for the new rate. Pilot projects to provide records of achievement for school-leavers have been funded for a period of three years. We left open the possibility of an extension of funding for a further two years in suitable cases. The proposed extension is to support further development work on a narrow range of specific issues on which we need further evidence through the work of the pilot schemes. This continued funding, albeit at a lower rate, reflects the importance we attach to the successful introduction of records of achievement. If noble Lords approve this amendment regulation we propose to discuss with the local authority associations what other activities might become liable for payment at the revised rate next year.
The second amendment we are proposing is to allow my right honourable friends to require LEAs to submit certain information as a condition of receiving grant. My right honourable friends have
1550
asked LEAs to include in their bids for support for purposes 20 and 21 of the schedule, computer aided engineering and information technology in schools, evidence of their intention to raise additional funds for these activities from non-government sources. We recognise that LEAs' capacity to raise donations will vary and allowance will be made for this. We believe that there is considerable potential for closer links with and for contributions from business in these areas, and this draft regulation enables my right honourable friends to monitor the success of local authorities in realising this potential. We believe that this draft regulation is an important step in increasing the return on the investment which ESGs represent.
Your Lordships will note that the draft regulations include a new schedule of purposes for which grant may be paid. Many of the items represent a continuation or extension of existing activities but there are five new activities which will attract support.
Information technology in schools is the largest new activity which my right honourable friends wish to support. The introduction of computers into all schools has been a great success and has given our country an acknowledged lead in this area of education. We wish to build on this. It is envisaged that all LEAs would receive grant under this category to foster the use of IT by school pupils of all ages and in a wide range of subjects. Support will be given for the purchase of micro-computers and for the employment of advisory teachers across the curriculum. IT has already shown its potential to improve the education of school pupils of all ages and in many subjects, and this ESG will give a national impetus to developments in schools.
The project to broaden the range of languages learnt by pupils in secondary schools as their first foreign language arises from the Government's belief that foreign language provision should be more closely allied to the needs of British industry and commerce as well as giving individuals and society a greater understanding of other cultures. The aim of this ESG is to encourage more schools to offer German, Spanish, Italian or Russian in place of, or as an alternative to, French. The first stage of the programme would enable some 10 LEAs to prepare plans for diversification which could be implemented in their own areas and would serve as a model for other authorities. In stage two, all LEAs will be offered financial assistance for the purchase of necessary books and teaching materials and in-service training.
Under the Government's proposals for a national curriculum, a modern foreign language will be one of the foundation subjects. A second foreign language could be studied in time outside that taken up by the foundation subjects, especially as an option in years four and five. This, coupled with encouragement towards diversification of the first foreign language offered in our schools, will help to ensure that significant numbers of pupils in our schools study at least the major European languages.
The purpose described in the schedule as,
"the organisation of leisure time activities of vocational benefit to young persons mostly between the ages of 14 and 21"
is also known as "learning by achievement". This

1551
initiative is part of the Government's drive to regenerate the inner cities. The grant would enable LEAs to introduce new youth service activities for 14 to 21 year-olds. The young people would be encouraged to develop leadership qualities and to acquire specific skills.
We are also including open learning as an activity eligible for ESG. Open learning widens access to educational and training opportunities and enables colleges to respond better to the needs of individuals and employers. The ESG will assist LEAs who are developing this form of provision, or who wish to do so, and will enable authorities to participate more fully in the Open College. Employers also increasingly require technicians skilled in computer aided engineering. This final new grant would provide equipment for use in the teaching of CAE on the crucial higher technician level engineering courses at colleges with little or no degree level provision where the need is most acute.
In addition to supporting these five new activities in 1988–89 my right honourable friends have also decided that a further tranche of new expenditure should be supported in respect of 10 of the activities in the 1987–88 programme which were oversubscribed or where considerable scope for further development exists. A further seven existing activities including supervision of pupils at midday will continue to be supported. A considerable number of activities to be supported by ESGs in 1988–89 will provide a sound basis from which to implement our proposals for a national curriculum in schools.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of the education support grant system in Wales. On 20th August he announced his intention to pay some £5.1 million of grant in support of expenditure of some £7.4 million in 1988–89. Next year's programme will be similar to that in England, but there are some differences reflecting my right honourable friend's judgment of the particular circumstances in Wales.
Of the existing activities being undertaken in England, those related to the management and appraisal of school teachers and pilot projects to improve the use of the spoken word were not included in previous Welsh programmes and will not feature in next year's in Wales. Of the proposed new activities, my right honourable friend has decided against including in the Wales programme any pilot scheme to broaden the range of foreign languages. This is due to the small scale of the experiment in England and the fact that the findings would be available for dissemination in Wales as well. New projects will, however, be invited for developing knowledge and appreciation of the heritage and culture of Wales. The amending regulations allow projects specifically containing an element of the Welsh language to be included.
We believe that this is a positive and balanced programme which will assist and encourage LEAs to make improvements in their policy and provision in areas of acknowledged importance. I commend these amendment regulations and the list of purposes to be supported in 1988–89 to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th July be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hooper).
8.58 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her speedy explanation of the amended regulations. We shall not oppose them, but I should like to make a few comments and ask a few questions.
I am very interested to be dealing with these matters again. I was involved when, in 1984, the Bill on education grants and awards was going through the House and when the first draft regulations were considered in 1984. It is quite interesting to come back and note the differences between 1984 and 1987. Reservations were expressed about education support grants when the Bill was discussed. Although any extra money for education purposes was not to be refused at a time when there were severe cuts to the service, the Bill foreshadowed what we have been seeing in education Bills and local government Bills over the last three years; that is, more power and decision making going to the centre and less power and decision making at local authority level.
I have looked back at the first list of purposes for which, or in connection with which, grants were payable in 1984. There were then 10 to 13 if one looked at the possible pilot projects under Regulation 5. In 1985, six more purposes were added and in 1986, three more. Now, in 1987, there are five more. The Secretary of State is therefore exercising his power and telling local education authorities what he wants them to concentrate upon. If they want the money, they have to oblige.
I wish to look at some of the purposes for which grants are payable. I specify paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c):
"to improve the quality of education provided in primary schools in urban areas"
and,
"to improve the quality or the range of the curriculum provided in primary schools in rural areas".
Surely, these are not new needs, as the Minister suggested. The quality of education is important in primary schools throughout the country. Paragraph 13 says,
"The provision of computerised learning aids and associated software at further education establishments for use by students with special educational needs".
That again should be available throughout the country particularly where physically handicapped young people are being educated.
I wish to mention purpose 17:
"The provision to schools and further education establishments of books and equipment for use on courses leading to an examination for the General Certificate of Secondary Education".
Every secondary shcool—indeed, a great number of further education establishments—will be taking the GCSE examination. They all need books and equipment for this. I think it should not be a special purpose; it would be quite wrong for it to be a purpose for which they have to apply. The money should be there for everyone to have the books needed for the new examination.
The Minister mentioned the new purpose 4(g) which concerns broadening the range of languages learnt by pupils in secondary schools as their first

1553
foreign language. As there has been so much talk lately about learning Latin in schools, I wondered whether Latin would be one of the languages allowed under that provision.
The Minister spoke about the change in the amount of grant and said that while it was in the proportion of 70 per cent. DES and 30 per cent. LEA, it is now to be divided 50:50 for purpose 4(a). I understand that that is a forerunner for the future when less grant will be available, and I should like to know how quickly it is supposed to happen. It seems to me rather important that when LEAs are applying for grants they should know what the future funding is likely to be. If funding is to be reduced for some purposes and not others I see a difficulty in that LEAs may want to switch from one purpose to another so that they can obtain more money. Each project may not therefore run for a length of time sufficient to find out whether it is worthwhile. I hope that we can hear a little more about future funding.
I should like to point out that if expenditure is to be reduced and the LEAs want to continue with their projects it will push up the money spent by the local authority and generally make their expenditure rise. As I understand it, that was not quite the intention of the Government.
Finally, the Minister touched on the point that the Secretary of State wanted more information when the local authority applies for the grants. I have heard it said, though it does not appear in the regulations, that the Secretary of State has encouraged local authorities to try to raise contributions from private sources—for instance, to help with information technology and computer-aided engineering equipment, and so on—and that he will bear in mind the efforts that they have made to obtain money from private sources when he decides whether or not they are to receive grant.
I should like to know whether that is true and whether it is fair, because some authorities surely cover areas in which there are the sort of firms that can provide such help; other local authorities are not so well placed. I should like to hear the comments of the Minister on that matter as well as on the other points that I have raised.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for her speedy overview of the quite substantial changes to the regulations. At the beginning of her speech, she gave the House some figures. It would certainly be interesting to learn a little more about the main categories of bids which have proved popular with local authorities and how they have been met. I do not expect her to supply this information this evening but possibly she can point the House in the right direction; otherwise, one can put down a Question for Written Answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made the point that since 1984 the number of eligible categories has risen from 10 to 21. I should like to ask the Minister, who spoke about discussions with local authority associations, how much input they have had into the increase in those categories, whether this is simply a top-down direction from the centre, the DES, or whether any suggestions from the local authorities themselves have been included in the expanded list.
1554
Turning to slightly more specific points, I was glad to hear the Minister refer to purpose 4(g) which relates to extending the range of languages. It pleased me to hear her mention Spanish, which is obviously a very useful modern language and should be much more widely taught in our secondary schools. I did not hear her say anything about new money for any of those expanded plans. Obviously, there is money available for the pilot project but she did not say anything about funding for the teachers on the ground of capability of teaching a new language.
Item 11, which concerns the development, provision and appraisal of courses of initial training for school governors, seems to me to be extremely important in view of the great onus which the Government intend to put on to parents as members of governing bodies. One may find that onus is even greater when the education Bill comes before the House. Can the noble Baroness say anything about the volume of bids for grants in that field, how far have they been met and whether there will be any new money available?
Finally, I must say that I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, about purpose 17. It seems totally inappropriate that the provision of something as basic as fundamental textbooks for use with the GCSE, whether in schools or in further education colleges, should need to be the subject of a special grant. I thought I heard the Minister use the term "mainstream funding". Does she agree that if there is any category in this list that ought to receive 100 per cent. mainstream funding it is that one? Will the Government take that point on board? It is very important and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on it.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have had a useful short debate. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their comments and contributions. The noble Baroness speaks from early experience of the initial introduction of the programme.
Before turning to some of the specific points raised, perhaps I may say that one of the strengths of the programme is that it covers a wide variety of activities which stretch right across the education sectors. For example, pre-school education schemes operate in almost 60 authorities to support the parents of children with special education needs—which was a point raised by the noble Baroness—and to encourage them to play a positive role in their children's development at that crucial stage.
At the other end of the range in further education, we have supported expenditure in more than three-quarters of local authorities on both PICKUP (updating the skills of those in employment) and REPLAN (education for the unemployed). In the schools, particular attention has been paid to the teaching of science and maths, to the education needs of our multi-ethnic society, and to what education can do to help combat one of the greatest social evils of our time: the misuse of drugs. There have also been a number of pilot projects which have pioneered work in different areas of the curriculum and of pupil need.

1555
We believe that the present proposals before your Lordships build on and extend the valuable work that has already been carried out. I am aware that some local authorities are hostile to the idea that they should be expected to obtain contributions from external sources to complement funding for two of the activities. The noble Baroness referred to that. Money raised in that way will not be a replacement for ESG but an addition to it, and besides gaining extra resources we believe that authorities and institutions would benefit from the co-operation that this will mean with local firms and businesses. The noble Baroness asked whether the proposal was unfair to poor authorities and whether they would suffer compared with the rich ones. We believe that the answer is no. The ability of authorities to raise money will be taken into account and we are examining what index might best be used for this purpose.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I interrupt the Minister? I was not referring so much to the poorer as against the richer authorities but to those which happen to be in an area where there are firms that can help as against those which are not.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think the same answer applies. As I have already said, we are taking such matters into account in discussing and deciding what index might best be used for the purpose. The noble Baroness also suggested that the effect of ESGs might be increased centralisation. The noble Lord also made the point that there are an increasing number of areas covered by ESGs. I would, however, suggest that since ESGs represent about 0.8 per cent. of total local authority current spending on education, this is hardly an enforcement of centralisation.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred in particular to books and materials for the GCSE examination. I should like to refer to that in detail. Of course a considerable amount of money has already been spent in this direction. The year 1988–89 will be the third year running in which the Government have supported expenditure on books and equipment for the GCSE. We provided for nearly £20 million support in 1986–87, £14 million through ESG and £5 million from Manpower Services Commission funds. We provided £10 million support in 1987–88 and are now proposing to provide another £10 million support in 1988–89. That is a total of almost £40 million over three years. In addition we have made provision within the rate support grant for further expenditure of £90 million on GCSE non-teaching costs, including books and equipment, in 1987–88 and we propose to make provision for a similar sum of £87 million within the rate support grant for GCSE non-teaching costs in 1988–89.
I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, welcomed the approach on modern languages and I should like to emphasise that we feel that the effect of the projects, with the benefit of the ESG funding, will be to enable us to assess the needs which will arise in terms of general funding and indeed all the general
1556
problems related to adequate teacher training. The noble Baroness also asked in addition whether Latin was going to figure as a modern language in this context. I can only say that the short answer is no.
I am not sure whether I have replied to each of the questions, because they came fairly rapidly. But I would say that any further changes in the rate which I have indicated that affect certain purposes in the coming year will be undertaken only as a result of consultation with the local authority associations, as had indeed been the case this year.
Therefore, in conclusion, I reiterate the conviction of the Government that the ESG proposals for 1988–89 represent a significant furtherance of the aims embodied in the programmes of the previous year and break fresh ground in a number of important new areas. I commend the amendment regulations to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  HELSINKI AGREEMENT: SOVIET COMPLIANCE
  HELSINKI AGREEMENT: SOVIET COMPLIANCE
  SOVIET AGREEMENTS: COMPLIANCE
  SOVIET AGREEMENTS: COMPLIANCE
  SEABED FISH FARMING RIGHTS
  SEABED FISH FARMING RIGHTS
  PERCHLOROETHYLENE IN DRY CLEANING
  PERCHLOROETHYLENE IN DRY CLEANING
  WORCESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY: ORTHOPAEDIC SERVICES
  WORCESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY: ORTHOPAEDIC SERVICES
  MCC ABOLITION: FINANCIAL SAVINGS
  MCC ABOLITION: FINANCIAL SAVINGS