Sitting of 28 April 1988

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 read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 5 May.

    TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
      YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
          CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
            CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
              FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
                NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
                ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

                NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second reading read.
                To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Unlicensed Black Taxi System (Belfast)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take action to stop the unlicensed black taxi system in Belfast.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): All taxis operating in Belfast are licensed either as public hire or private hire taxis.
    Mr. Bowis: It has long been known that the black taxi system in Belfast has provided financial support for terrorism in that city and the Province. As we now have gruesome evidence of its involvement in terrorism and in the recent murder of two British soldiers, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that that particularly unacceptable form of transport system is hounded out of the centre of Belfast, for the protection of all its citizens?
    Mr. Needham: We are aware of the connection between paramilitary organisations in both communities and black taxis, although there are many black taxi operators in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland who do a very good job. The Chief Constable has established an anti-rackets squad to deal with rackets generally in Northern Ireland, and that is a high priority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward provisions in a new prevention of terrorism Bill which we hope will go a long way towards knocking out all forms of rackets in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is it not a fact that these battlewagons, as some of these black taxis have become, contributed largely to the appalling murders of two British soldiers? They are not simply used for monetary gain, but as battlewagons. Such activities should be stamped out. If some innocent people suffer, It is better than innocent lives being lost.
    Mr. Needham: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, two taxi drivers and the chairman of the Falls Road Taxi Association have been charged with offences in connection with those horrific murders. Clearly, any such misuse of taxis is absolutely disgraceful, but my job as the Minister for the environment is to ensure that both public and private hire taxis are properly licensed and controlled. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, the police must be given the powers to ensure that they stop any terrorist or paramilitary activity by black taxi operations or their drivers.

    Irish Foreign Minister
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister; and what was discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I last met Mr. Lenihan on 25 March at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference. The joint statement

    491
    issued after the meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, sets out the wide range of matters that we discussed.
    Mr. Mullin: Who authorised the execution of the three IRA members killed in Gibraltar?
    Mr. King: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently well informed to know that the events in Gibraltar will be the subject of a full inquest before a jury. It is absolutely intolerable to make such comments in advance of the proper process of the law.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. Lenihan, what message will he give him for Mr. Haughey? Will he give the message given by the Foreign Secretary commending Mr. Haughey as a true and great patriot, or will he give the denunciation by The Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday?
    Mr. King: I shall have great pleasure in endorsing the messages of my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when I next meet Mr. Haughey. I see no difficulty in that whatsoever. I should not have thought that there was any hon. Member who would not regard Mr. Haughey as a true patriot for his own country, or who would deny that we look for the fullest co-operation, not least in the defeat of terrorism and in the fight against the common evil represented by terrorism in the island of Ireland. We look for the fullest co-operation, and that is enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Mallon: When the Secretary of State next meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he confirm to him that the statesmanlike views expressed by the Foreign Secretary represent the views of The Prime Minister and the Cabinet? If that is the case, will he then confirm to the Irish Foreign Minister that the petulant display by The Prime Minister at Question Time on Tuesday was the result of irrational pique rather than rational political judgment?
    Mr. King: I suspect that they are what one might call two sides of the spectrum. There is some attempt to divide my right hon. Friends, but we are together on these matters. We share a common approach. I would say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that if he reads the speech by the Foreign Secretary he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that the agreement that we have signed carries commitments and responsibilities on both sides and involves obligations on both sides. It is not part of a process sliding towards somewhere else, but, in the phrase that I have used, it is an end in itself. It is a resolution of the difficulties that have bedevilled the relationship of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and any change in that relationship will be subject to the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the Irish Foreign Minister the Irish Parliament's unilateral imposition of restrictions on extradition from the Republic to the United Kingdom on the unjustified ground of concern for the quality of British justice and spurious concern for the rights of so-called Irish citizens who are extradited to Britain? If so, what is the Government's reaction to that unilateral restriction on the due legal process between our two countries?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will know that he picks up an extract from the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he says that there is no monopoly of grievance. He made no secret in that speech of our grievances about the way in which the extradition issue has been handled, but he said that we seek to resolve such problems within the normal relationships between our countries. I certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I am most anxious, as I am sure all those responsible within the Republic of Ireland must be, to ensure that there are, at the earliest moment, effective extradition arrangements between our two countries.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the rabble-rousing and jingoistic answer that he gave me last time I asked about the shooting of the three IRA members has intensified the situation and that there have been more killings in the past few weeks than for a long time? Does he realise that shooting to kill demands an inquiry and that the tactics used by paramilitaries on both sides of just killing should not have been adopted by us when we could have arrested the three IRA members? We should not engage in the same tactics.
    Mr. King: I do not immediately recall what the hon. Gentleman described as my jingoistic answer. I think that I may have expressed some considerable relief, which I think the House shared, that the most powerful bomb that the Spanish police had ever seen in their lifetime, despite all their experience of ETA, did not go off in the confined streets of Gibraltar. There cannot be any decent Member of the House who is not profoundly relieved that some 200 people who might otherwise have been killed or maimed did not meet their death or injury at that time. The hon. Gentleman says that there needs to be an inquiry, and he will have heard my earlier answer that there is to be precisely that in the due legal form of an inquest before a jury. That is the proper procedure, and that is what will take place.
    Mr. Hayes: When my right hon. Friend next sees the Irish Foreign Minister, will he ask him whether he is as fed up as Conservative Members are of television companies raking through the gutters of Gibraltar to find people to rubbish our security services? Will he also ask him whether he is as fed up as we are with people weeping tears for an active IRA unit which would have been responsible for a major massacre in Gibraltar?
    Mr. King: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the proposals for a television broadcast, which I understand may take place tonight. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made representations to the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority about that. If the reports are correct that the programme will include live interviews with people who are likely to be witnesses at the inquest, that raises very difficult issues and could run the serious risk of prejudicing the rights of those concerned at the inquest.
    Mr. McNamara: Many people are worried that instead of three people facing the prospect of spending a long time behind bars for taking part in and planning a most horrific offence, the Government may well have created three new martyrs for old Ireland, three more victims for the Crown. The Opposition share that worry. Is the Secretary of State aware that we very much regret the Foreign Secretary's decision to go to the chairman of the IBA to try to prevent

    493
    the film being shown? Is he aware that we regard that as another example of the ministerial arm-twisting of the press and the media that we have seen since Christmas?
    Is the Secretary of State also aware that by seeking to take that course of action the Government are prejudging the issues because, according to the very words that the Secretary of State used himself, that bomb was 50 miles away? The three were unarmed. Those are the facts. They should have been arrested and charged. The Government have created martyrs and they are now trying to prevent a proper examination of the Government's conduct and policies by hiding behind the theory of an inquest. We well know that there will be no examination in that inquest of the decisions made at Cabinet level about how those men and that women were to be treated. The Government are hiding behind the facts. They are running away again.
    Mr. King: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I believe that that was the most unfortunate intervention that I have ever heard. He has presumed to stand at the Dispatch Box—speaking, I understand, on behalf of the Opposition—and say that he claims to know all the facts of this matter in advance of the inquest and the evidence. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman say that he knows all the facts. The hon. Gentleman has—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman asked a series of questions. He is now being answered.
    Mr. King: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that those were the facts. I must tell him that, as we have said, there will be an inquest. Does he really think that it is desirable in the proper process of law and for the protection of all those who have their rights who will be giving evidence in one form or another at the inquest, that there should in advance of that inquest be trial by television in which partial witnesses will be shown in support of one particular thesis? The hon. Gentleman should consider the facts. He will hear later that a considerable amount of independent examination of these matters can be quoted to show how dangerous it is for witnesses to give evidence on television before inquiries and inquests are carried out.

    Economic Prospects
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet trades union representatives in Northern Ireland to discuss economic prospects; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): My right hon. Friend and I have no outstanding arrangements to meet trades union representatives, though we have met them on a number of occasions in the past to discuss economic prospects and other issues. We value these meetings.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that trade union leaders in Northern Ireland are concerned about the Government's prevarication over Kilroot phase 2, and does he accept their point that the economic logic of it is irrefutable? Is he aware that their feeling now is that the only reason for any further debate is the Government's
    494
    desire to privatise Northern Ireland electricity, and that this represents the triumph of political expediency over the economic interests of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Viggers: No, that is not the case, and the decision on the future generation of electricity in Northern Ireland will be taken in the interests of the consumer and of the economy as a whole. The results of an investment appraisal of the proposals for the next phase of generating capacity are currently being considered. Decisions will be taken as soon as possible, in the interests of the consumer and the economy as a whole.
    Sir John Farr: When my hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he bear carefully in mind the great importance that is attached to the order placed with Harland and Wolff by Mr. Ravi Tikkoo for the Ultimate Dream? If this order is not to be built at Harland and Wolff, will not the opportunities now presented to Belfast be missed, which would be a matter of great regret?
    Mr. Viggers: The concept produced by Harland and Wolff is imaginative and ambitious, but I have to put my hon. Friend right. It is not an order but a conceptual design at this stage, and no detailed costings have been produced. When they are, we shall study them carefully.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give an undertaking that this project will be viewed sympathetically, rather than Parliamentary Private Secretaries going around rebuking Conservative Members who have supported the early-day motion asking that Government funds should be made available, as they will help not only Northern Ireland but the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mr. Viggers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Ors matter will be viewed sympathetically, and he will be the first to agree that the Government have been very supportive of Harland and Wolff over many years. In appraising this project we shall, when the time comes, have to take account of the resources that will be required to support the building of the ship and compare these with the resources that will be required and should be made available for use elsewhere in the Province.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: If the question of shipbuilding arises in the Minister's talks with trade union leaders, will he assure them that the Government's aim is not to be neutral when it comes to getting the order for Harland and Wolff, but is positively to encourage that order to come to Northern Ireland, for the benefit not only of those in the Harland and Wolff shipyard but of the suppliers and sub-contractors in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman would not be fair if he accused the Government of not being supportive of Harland and Wolff. We have been extremely supportive and have fought hard to bring orders for the Harland and Wolff shipyard, including the AOR order for the Ministry of Defence. We shall be supportive, but we are bound by the EC sixth directive, and, as I said earlier, by the need to compare the resources that will be required for the building of the ship with the availability of resources which can be used elsewhere in the Province.
    Mr. Alton: The Minister said that he would exercise virement within the Northern Ireland budget—in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul if the project goes ahead.

    495
    Will he give an undertaking that new resources will be found from outside the Northern Ireland budget to enable this project to go ahead and to ensure that there is fair employment for both parts of the community, and recognise that people throughout the United Kingdom will benefit if the order goes ahead?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Kingdom, and it is appropriate to bear in mind the needs of all shipbuilders in the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom is one country. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Northern Ireland block is available for the development of resources within Northern Ireland, and it would not be appropriate to expect the United Kingdom Government to find resources over and above those of the Northern Ireland block for the support of one individual project.

    Integrated Education
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards integrated education, in the light of the education reform document he recently published.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the plans to implement his Department's support for integrated education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): It has been the Government's long-standing policy to support viable proposals for the creation of integrated schools in Northern Ireland. We have now sought to give further opportunity for the expression of parental wishes and new impetus to the development of integrated education through our proposals for grant-maintained integrated schools.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he confirm yet again that policies that lead to integrated education are probably the most beneficial long-term initiatives that the Government can take? Will he also assure the House that such policies will not be imposed by the Government, but will be brought about by patiently getting the co-operation and good will of all the communities in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I can confirm the Government's commitment to the expansion of integrated education in Northern Ireland and give my hon. Friend the assurance that the proposals in the consultation paper in no sense reflect a determination to impose integrated education. Rather, they provide an option for parents to choose if they so wish.
    Mr. Alton: I congratulate the Minister on a brave initiative. It is a worthwhile step towards bringing about harmony and long-term development of the community in Northern Ireland. May I recall to him the report in the Belfast Telegraph of 25 February, which said that accommodation, equipment and book supplies at integrated schools are inadequate? Will the Minister say whether that can now be rectified?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for his continued support for the
    496
    concept of integrated education in Northern Ireland. The allocation of funds to integrated schools that receive funds from my Department is on the same basis as that for the funds that are made available to other schools in the Province. There is no discrimination in resource allocation.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister is aware of the campaign that I have waged for 20 years to end the sectarian divide in education in Northern Ireland [Interruption.] Will we have to wait another 20 years or more before we see an end to it? I know that the SDLP disagrees with my wish to see the bringing together of Protestant and Roman Catholic young children. Is it right that the taxpayer should have to pay for two separate systems of education that cruelly divide the children and waste taxpayers' money?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches laughed when the hon. Gentleman mentioned his very creditable campaign over many years to promote the concept of integrated education. The people of the Province owe him a great debt for doing that. I make it clear that the number of integrated schools that will emerge from the proposals is not a matter for me. In the first instance it is a matter for the House and the other place to determine by legislation. When that legislation is in place, it will be a matter for the parents. The Government are seeking to facilitate those parents who would like to have their children educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community. That is an important commitment by the Government. We are rightly pleased to offer it to the people of the Province, and we do it with conviction.
    Mr. William Ross: The Minister talks about greater parental choice and about integrating schools. Will he bear in mind that the geographical distribution of schools in Northern Ireland reflects the geographical distribution of the pupils who attend those schools? As soon as he starts interfering with the pool of pupils, that could have very severe and unforeseen effects on the viability of many schools, especially in the more sparsely populated rural areas. Will the Minister carefully bear that in mind?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Of course I shall bear that in mind, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not interfering. I am facilitating those parents who may choose to have their children educated in this way. That is a very important distinction. It is absolutely right that integrated education, certainly in the foreseeable future, is not the answer to the problems of the Province. Because of the housing arrangements that the hon. Gentleman mentions, it would be difficult to see integrated schools developing in many areas of the Province in the immediate future. I recognise that fact, and I also recognise that some rural schools in isolated areas will need some protection. He will know that, as a matter of policy, the Department has already made it clear that it will offer protection to schools in rural and isolated areas. Having said all that, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he still does not advance any reason why parents should not be given the option of integrated education if they wish to follow it.
    Ms. Mowlam: In view of the overwhelming number of complaints that were received about lack of time for consultation prior to the introduction of the Education Reform Bill in England and Wales, will the Minister please explain how he can contemplate 41 school days as

    497
    sufficient time for consultation on a document which, in his own words, will change the nature of education in Northern Irish schools well into the next century?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, it gives me pleasure to welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. We look forward to working with her in future.
    The hon. Lady will know that a two-month consultation period was made available in England and Wales. She will also know that I not only made available a two-month consultation period, but, because the paper was launched at the beginning of the Easter school holidays, added a further three weeks for consultation. The hon. Lady will also bear in mind that the proposals—or at least many of them—have not come as a great surprise to the people of Northern Ireland. They have been widely debated over months as progress has been made on the Bill in the House. For all those reasons, I believe that the consultation time was perfectly adequate.

    Security
    Rev. Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 24 March, two part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a regular soldier have been murdered by the Provisional IRA.
    The security threat remains high, but the courageous and determined efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results.
    Since the beginning of the year a total of 103 people have been charged with serious offences, including five with murder and six with attempted murder. A total of 272 weapons, just over 65,000 rounds of ammunition, and approximately 2,700 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I understand also that the Garda Siochana has recovered some 174 weapons, almost 126,000 rounds of ammunition, and 600 lb of commercial explosives.
    Rev. Paisley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Northern Ireland are deeply concerned at the two recent murders? On behalf of the people for whom I speak, I express my sympathy to the family in Mid-Ulster and to the family in England who have been so tragically bereaved.
    Has the Secretary of State information that the murder of Mr. Gibson, a member of the UDR, was an inside job? Can he confirm that another member of the UDR was to do the job that Mr. Gibson was killed doing? Is he aware that that member of the UDR was told by the security forces not to report for duty? Is he aware that another man, not in sympathy with the UDR, was to take his place, and that that man did not turn up? Therefore, Mr. Gibson was put into the position of having to do the job, and he was then murdered. Is he aware that the car that was used by the murderers was supposed to be in the possession of people who were away for the day, but had left their keys in it? Does that not indicate a well-organised and orchestrated inside job in Cookstown to kill members of the UDR?
    Mr. Tom King: I certainly entirely share the feelings that were expressed by the hon. Member about the killings and about the earlier killing, at a farm sale, of another part-time member of the UDR. Although there certainly were some rather surprising features about the killing of Mr. Gibson, in that he had only just gone on that round that day, I certainly do not have any of the information that the hon. Member has conveyed to the House on this occasion.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In the House on Tuesday, The Prime Minister said that the Government would continue to press for effective security co-operation across the border. Why should it now be necessary to press for delivery of the one and only promise that was made by the Dublin Government when the Agreement was signed two and a half years ago?
    Mr. King: In her answer The Prime Minister made clear the importance that we attach to continual work to improve cross-border security co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer that I gave. He will have heard also of the substantial arms seizures and recoveries of ammunition and explosives that have been achieved by the Garda Siochana. Obviously, we and everybody in Northern Ireland must take great comfort from the fact that those weapons of death have now been recovered from terrorist clutches. It is a continual process, and in the answer that I gave earlier I emphasised the importance that we attach to the continual improvement in every possible way of cross-border security co-operation.
    Mr. Budgen: As it was said that the security situation would be much improved by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent important and clearly well-considered speech by Mr Haughey to Fianna Fail supporters in New York? Does he agree that that clearly repudiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and will he please dissociate himself from the Foreign Secretary's offensive and patronising attempt to depict Mr. Haughey as some minor figure who did not understand what he was saying?
    Mr. King: I am afraid that I did not notice whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber, but I answered that question a little earlier and made absolutely clear the position of the Government on these matters.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State confirm that idle purpose of an inquest is to establish the cause of death, not to conduct a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the cause of death? Secondly, regarding the amazing series of events that began with the appalling statement in the House by the Attorney-General that certain people are above the rule of law, I am glad to see that he now at least comes in during Northern Ireland questions to hear people talk about the consequences of what he said on that day. In the light of that statement, the decision of the Department of Defence that when a soldier is given a life sentence for murder that sentence is two and a half years, and the Gibraltar affair, which is now surrounded by more controversy and which led to the Greek tragedy of the funerals in Belfast, will the Secretary of State confirm that, given the tensions and anger that those events created, the Irish Prime Minister showed commendable restraint'? Will he advise his colleague The Prime Minister to read Mr. Haughey's speeches in the

    499
    United States and to take not the advice of the rent-a-headline hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) but to take instead his advice and that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who were appointed to conduct relations with the Irish Government, among other things?
    Mr. King: The hon. Member has rehearsed what we all know of the catalogue of events in recent months. I take great exception to a number of the descriptions that he has given; for example, the suggestion that anybody is above the rule of law. That is simply not true, since people have already been prosecuted for murder for the events that he described, and my right hon. and learned Friend came to the House to report very fully to this sovereign Parliament the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. In no sense are these people, or any people in Northern Ireland, above the law. The hon. Member surely realises that there is no benefit, if we are trying to establish better co-operation and to work together to defeat the terrorists, in rehearsing old grievances. Rather, we should try to work together in a positive and constructive way.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation in Northern Ireland would be more satisfactory if convicted terrorists served the full term of their sentences rather than enjoying a substantial remission?
    Mr. King: I certainly look to a situation in which those convicted of serious terrorist crimes face proper retribution in terms of the sentences that they are given. I have no comment to make today on remission system.
    Mr. McNamara: We on the Opposition Benches rejoice in the finding of arms and the conviction of prisoners under the rule of law for terrorists in Northern Ireland. Following The Prime Minister's statement to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on Tuesday, can the Secretary of State say whether the Government of the Irish Republic have been more, or less, stinting in their efforts to defeat the men of violence in the past few months; whether there has been any effective break in co-operation across the border; and why, in view of the Taoiseach's statement in Dublin on his arrival from New York—before The Prime Minister's made her observations—which was published widely in the press, to the effect that the Irish Government would work the mechanism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the full, The Prime Minister felt it necessary to say that she would seek reassurances from the Irish Government and that they were backing away from their responsibilities under the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does the Secretary of State really think that that helps? Is not the spirit of what the Foreign Secretary said at Derby a much better way of trying to conduct affairs between both our countries?
    Mr. King: I have already said to hon. Members, and I shall make it clear again, that the reply of my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister and the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made absolutely clear our commitment to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is not a case of something in which some matters are more important than others. Both countries have their responsibilities, obligations and commitments. We seek to make the agreement work to the full, and we make no secret of the fact that we attach particular importance, for
    500
    very good reason, to the closest possible co-operation in the fight against terrorism. Unless it is defeated, there is no sensible and safe future for people on the island of Ireland, whether north or south of the border.

    Political Parties (Talks)
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his latest talks with Northern Ireland political leaders.
    Mr. Tom King: Following my earlier meetings with the leaders of the two main Unionist parties I have now had two meetings with the leadership of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I hope to hold a further meeting with the Unionist leaders shortly. My purpose in these talks is to establish whether a basis exists for a wider dialogue about the future government of Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not the Ulster Unionist difficulty over all this and over the possibility of talking to Mr. Haughey the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which also presents problems to a patriotic Taoiseach? Will the Government make use of the November review of the Intergovernmental Conference to transform this unequal agreement into an equal treaty of full partnership? Let the flawed agreement wither, and get down to business.
    Mr. King: I do not see it as my role to dwell on the difficulties that may be faced by Unionists and Nationalists. It is easy to find difficulties in Northern Ireland in every direction. I am trying to see whether we can find a constructive way forward in which people in the Province can take more responsibility for the government of the Province. It is important not to dwell on difficulties but to find ways in which men of good will can work together.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State agree that there will be no prospects of any improvement in the political or security position if people throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic believe that the British Government are seeking to gag and silence the media and are colluding in the propagation of misinformation? Does he understand that it is entirely disingenuous to compare an inquest with a full public inquiry? As the chairman of the IBA is believed to have told the Foreign Secretary to get stuffed, will the Secretary of State now give an assurance that the Government will not seek an injunction and will allow people throughout the whole United Kingdom to know the truth about what happened recently in Gibraltar?
    Mr. King: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman believes that the correct way to arrive at the truth is by a television broadcast in advance of the proper procedure of the inquest, at which all witnesses involved have an opportunity to give their evidence before a jury under the rules of procedure that pertain in Gibraltar. I should have thought that to seek to pre-empt that and to present one side of an argument through trial by television would worry every hon. Member who is anxious to see that people's rights are protected and that justice is done.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words,

    501
    "In the absence of devolved government, we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services."?
    Have not nine years elapsed since those words appeared in our manifesto? If the policy was right when it was fashioned by Airey Neave, why is it wrong today? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any constitutional changes in Northern Ireland with regard to local government there can he introduced, even though opposed by the Irish Republic?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows well that I am at the moment seeking to initiate discussions with the principal constitutional parties within the Province and have made it absolutely clear that I am prepared to listen to any propositions that any may seek to put forward and consider what alternative approaches might be adopted. I am not able to comment further to my hon. Friend on the reasons why those earlier comments were not pursued.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Pike: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.
    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. Pike: If The Prime Minister agrees with the words of the Minister replying to yesterday's debate to the effect that the Government were making only "modest adjustments", and not major concessions, will she recognise the case of a constituent of mine? She is 79-years-old, living in a private old people's home, with a pension of £41·71 a week. She has been trying to sell her house, valued at £7,500, for 17 months but is unable to do so. She is not helped by yesterday's decision. Will The Prime Minister accept that more problems were created than were solved yesterday? What is that old lady going to do, and what are the Government going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been my experience that when hon. Members raise personal cases in the House, which used virtually never to be done at Question Time, there is very rarely or never a full statement of the facts. The cases must be taken up with the Minister concerned.
    With regard to the announcement yesterday, bearing in mind that the amount spent on housing benefit was £5,200 million, and the amount at the end of yesterday was £5,300 million, I think that, a "modest adjustment", but effective to deal with the problems, is indeed a proper description of what took place.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the pamphlet, "The Crisis in Religious Education", expressing grave concern at the trend towards multi-faith education in our schools? Will she reaffirm her Government's commitment to the teaching of Christianity to all the children in our schools?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, in the Education Act 1944 religious education was made compulsory and the syllabus was to be determined by a
    502
    committee drawn up locally. Most of us believe, and I think it is borne out by the debates of that time, that the reference there to religious education was predominantly but not exclusively, to the scriptures of the Bible, and are somewhat concerned that that has not altogether been carried out. I understand that there will be a debate in another place and that those views may be very well ventilated.
    Mr. Kinnock: In answer to a parliamentary question yesterday The Prime Minister told the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was what she called the lead Minister on exchange rates. Can she please tell us who is the lead Minister on benefit rates at the moment?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in the reply to that question, our policies are policies of the Government as a whole, and very successful they are.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry that The Prime Minister cannot tell us who is the lead Minister on benefit rates, because I read in the Daily Mail this morning that The Prime Minister alone was responsible for the U-turn yesterday, and I wanted to give full credit where it was due. As The Prime Minister appears to have some responsibility in these matters, and as the savings on housing benefit were to have been £640 million, before the £100 million announcement yesterday, could she tell us who will now lose that £540 million? Will they not be people who until this month were considered too poor to pay any rates and who now, regardless of their ability to pay, are having to pay 20 per cent. of their rates?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for congratulating the entire Government on successful economic policies—so successful that we have the best social security policies that any Government have ever had. Everyone benefits—even Opposition Members have benefited during the lifetime of this Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does The Prime Minister not yet understand, when she goes on about the matters to which she has just referred and the £46 billion, that the people who are losing are not concerned about the £46 billion that the right hon. Lady is spending on others, but are concerned about the £4, £6 and £10 a week that she is taking away from them? If things are so good, why are they so bad?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand is that things are good and he knows full well that they are good, because the economy is run extremely well and the total amount spent on social security and on health, as well as on things such as provision for Members of Parliament, far exceeds anything previously achieved.
    Mr. Hind: Has my right hon. Friend received the thanks of Mr. Fletcher, an unemployed labourer from Middlesbrough, who has obtained a job as a printer following the advice that my right hon. Friend gave him when he threw his applications that had been rejected at her, to go to the Manpower Services Commission? Despite the attitude of the trade unions, will my right hon. Friend give similar advice to the thousands of unemployed workers in the north of England, to join the adult training scheme?
    The Prime Minister: The House will remember that Mr. Fletcher tackled me personally before television cameras on a visit that I made to Teesside, saying that he had put in about 1,000 applications for jobs and had not got one. I advised him to go and get training with the Manpower Services Commission. He was very sceptical, but he was a very wise man—he took my advice and he found that it got him a job.
    Mr. McCusker: Is The Prime Minister aware that a few moments ago the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tried to tell me that what I had heard her say on Tuesday at Prime Minister's Question Time, when she expressed concern about The Prime Minister and Government of the Irish Republic, was identical to what the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend? Is that what she expected me to interpret her as having said?
    The Prime Minister: Both of my right hon. Friends and I are concerned that the Anglo-Irish Agreement not only continues but is seen to work. A vital part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the recognition by the Republic that the rights of the people in Northern Ireland would not be changed without the consent of the majority. It is an important part of the agreement, and the Republic accepted it. No doubt whatsoever should be cast upon it. That is the purpose of the various emphases placed upon that agreement and of the several comments that have been made by my right hon. Friends and me on the speeches of the Taoiseach.
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the confirmation by NATO Defence Ministers at their meeting in Brussels of the essential, continuing role of nuclear weapons in our defence and the need to keep them up to date? Against the background of the scale of Soviet forces and their activity, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain must play her full part in that?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the NATO Defence Ministers have had a very successful meeting. A communiqué will be placed in the House shortly. The Ministers have agreed on guidance about the modernisation of those nuclear weapons. That full guidance, of course, is not published. The important thing is that the Ministers have agreed on the way ahead. It is important because the Soviet Union continues to modernise all her nuclear weapons other than those affected by the INF agreement, and we do the same. It is vital that the nuclear deterrent is kept modern and up to date and that our entire defence, including other nuclear weapons, is modernised and kept effective.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Would The Prime Minister like to confirm the press notice from the Department of Health and Social Security this morning, which indicated that the unit that will administer the scheme announced by the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday will not be in place until 1 July? Will she advise the various claimants what they will
    504
    do until then? Will she also confirm that the changes announced yesterday will not alleviate the problems of two invalidity benefit recipients, Dorothy and Kenneth Ellis, who have also written to The Prime Minister, and who as a direct result of her decision to discontinue housing benefit supplement from 1 April will now be required to pay £6 a week extra for prescriptions?
    The Prime Minister: In winding up the debate last night my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled made it quite clear that the unit will be in the DHSS and outlined the provisions that will he made in the meantime for our constituents.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: May I thank The Prime Minister most warmly on behalf of state pensioners in my constituency who have saved all their working lives on modest wages and are delighted with the statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that those modest changes were right and have caused a great deal of pleasure.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: What does The Prime Minister have to say to a young man in my constituency who is unemployed, married and has three small children? He was on an income of £68·50 a week plus child benefit. He is now on an income of £69·45—an increase less than the rate of inflation. He is especially concerned about the change to the social fund, as he benefited from several single payments during the last year. Is it right to describe him and his family as gainers, when in fact they have lost in the annual uprating, they have lost in the uprating of child benefit and they will lose heavily over the setting up of the social fund?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must take up a detailed case with the special unit in the DHSS. It is a highly detailed case—[Interruption.] The other case was nothing to do with social security. The hon. Gentleman must take up this highly detailed case with the special unit that is to be set up, as I am sure he will. It is not possible to deal with it in this way. Sometimes there have been changes in housing benefit, many of them covered by the transitional protection announced yesterday. Frequently other changes in income support or family credit or changes with regard to the increased disability benefits are not mentioned by hon. Members, but are very relevant. Other matters have also to be taken into account, such as the previous local authority discretionary scheme. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that it is not possible to deal with the case in this way.
    Mr. Burns: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Liberal-controlled Chelmsford borough council has increased its share of the rates this year by a staggering 36

    505
    per cent., while last year, when a general election was in the offing, it cut them by 13 per cent. Is she aware that Marconi in Chelmsford is faced with a rates bill of almost £6,000 more a week as a result? Does she agree that the sooner the business rate and the community charge are introduced, the sooner such highway robbery will be stopped and genuine help given to hard-pressed businesses and individuals alike?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the people of Chelmsford will draw the appropriate conclusions from those vivid figures. Certainly, once we have the new community charge and unified business rate in place it will be very much easier for people to judge the actions of their local authority against the actions of others. The whole of the new finance system is geared to ensuring that the same level of service, delivered at the same standard of efficiency, should result in the same community charge all over England—and separately all over Scotland—so that people can judge the efficiency and effectiveness of their local authority.
    Mr. Pendry: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pendry: Will The Prime Minister take time today to look afresh at the problems facing Members of Parliament arising from the lack of secretarial provision, particularly if many hon. Members, like myself, have to answer literally thousands of letters of protest about the Government's proposals? I have received hundreds of letters on social security, 2,000 on the poll tax, and many on health and transport cuts. In the interests of democracy and speedy replies to our constituents, will The Prime Minister give us more assistance for secretarial work or, better still, more palatable legislation?
    The Prime Minister: No. Members of Parliament have never been better off, either for salary or secretarial assistance, than they are now. The hon. Gentleman has plenty of assistance to enable him to deal efficiently with his correspondence.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 3 MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Proceedings on the Coroners Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure.
Motion relating to the First Scottish Standing Committee.
WEDNESDAY 4 MAY—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Legal Aid Bill [Lords].
Followed by a debate on the Rover Group on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Afterwards consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill.
THURSDAY 5 MAY—There will be a debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the EC documents relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.
Followed by remaining stages of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9 MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
[Debate on Thursday 5 May

Relevant European Community documents:

(a) 4852/88

Agricultural Stabilisers, Land Set-Aside and Cessation of Farming

(b) 4779/88

(c) 4856/88

(d) 5004/88

(e) 5448/88 Add 1 & 2 & 3

Agricultural Price Proposals

(f) 4079/88

Agricultural Markets 1987

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5

(b) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5

(c) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5

(d) HC 43-xix (1987–88), para 5

(e) HC 43-xxi (1987–88), para 3 & HC 43-xxii (1987–88) para 2

(f) HC 43-xvi ( 1987–88), para 4]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
In view of the conflicting stories about the establishment of the special unit at the DHSS, announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services, can the Leader of the House get the Secretary of State to come back to the House to make clear when the special unit will start work? Is it to be in two or three months' time, as some DHSS offices have indicated? What will be its job? How many civil servants will be employed? How can people who want to make claims get in touch with those civil servants?
As the crisis in the shipbuilding industry deepens, may we expect a debate before any irrevocable decisions are taken by the Government?
508
Will the Home Secretary be coming to the House to explain his efforts to try to persuade the Independent Broadcasting Authority to prohibit the showing of a television documentary about the shooting of three members of the IRA in Gibraltar? In the event of him failing to persuade the IBA, will he seek an injunction to prevent it from showing the film?
Has the Leader of the House received a request from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to make a personal statement to reply to the allegations made in the admittedly Murdoch-owned Today newspaper this morning that he has been seeking to interfere in the planning process to his own benefit?
Having been present, along with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, last Friday for the Adjournment debate about the conduct of The Prime Minister initiated by my hon. and tenacious Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and having heard the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who was put up to respond, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will arrange for the matter to be debated more fully, preferably in Government time?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has asked me five questions. First, he asked about the special units which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is setting up as a result of the statement he made to the House yesterday. My right hon. Friend made clear the way in which the units will be run. However, I recognise that there may still be some confusion and, if there is, I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether any further clarification is required.
I note the hon. Gentleman's reference to the shipbuilding industry. That is an important industry on which it would be right to have a debate in the not-too-distant future. I hope that he will agree that the exact timing of the debate can be discussed through the usual channels.
With regard to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and Gibraltar, it is not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who has been in contact with Lord Thomson, the chairman of the IBA, to ask him to postpone the transmission of the programme as it is understood to include interviews with potential witnesses at the Gibraltar coroner's inquest which is to be heard later this year. My right hon. and learned Friend was naturally concerned that the coroner's inquest would be prejudiced which, I should have thought, would concern every hon. Member.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), acted entirely within his rights as a private citizen, along with other local residents, in raising objection to the proposed development. The Department of the Environment has considered the matter and has decided not to stop the proposed development.
I have read the Official Report of the Adjournment debate on Friday. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, answered the debate extremely well, and I have nothing further to add.
Mr. David Shaw: When my right hon. Friend considers the business of the House for the next week or fortnight, will he bear in mind the photograph in today's

509
Evening Standard of the home of a young stewardess in my constituency, the door of which has been daubed with the words "scab" and "kill"? Will he further note that the daubing of her home occurred within 24 hours of the Labour party national executive expressing solidarity with the acts of violence and intimidation? Will he ensure that any debate on that matter gives hon. Members the opportunity to protest about the freedom to work and the right to work?
Mr. Bob Cryer rose——
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. David Winnick: It is a smear.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) must ask for debates and not raise matters like that about his constituency.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The national executive of the Labour party, in the motion that it passed yesterday, expressed no solidarity whatever with any acts of violence. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to withdraw that allegation. It is false and casts a slur on every Opposition Member.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what Members say provided it is in order. However, as I have said on previous occasions, business questions are designed for hon. Members to ask the Leader of the House for debates, and not to raise controversial constituency issues.
Mr. Wakeham: I confirm that I also do not have any responsibility for Labour party policy. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) reflects the concern in his constituency. I cannot promise a debate next week on that matter.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the Leader of the House aware that the reply to the question about his hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is completely unsatisfactory? What has happened to ministerial standards? Why should a Minister be able to phone a Minister in another Department to ask for a planning application to be remitted? That is completely wrong. The Leader of the House should recommend to The Prime Minister that the hon. Member should go forthwith.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard exactly what I said. I said that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, together with other local residents, had acted properly and within his rights as a private citizen in objecting to the proposed development. The matter was dealt with by the Department of the Environment in entirely the proper fashion and it decided not to stop the proposed development. I should have thought that that was a satisfactory outcome for all except the residents who objected.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Reverting to the situation in Dover and other east Kent communities that are affected by the P and O industrial dispute, will my right hon. Friend take into account the possibility of persuading the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment to be ready to make a statement on this
510
important matter next week? The situation is deteriorating, communities are deeply divided, and the right to work must be preserved by the Government, in accordance with the law if necessary.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is a disturbing situation. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment. I am sure that they will not hesitate to make a statement in the House if they believe that to be the right course of action.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State for Defence has been engaged in important discussions with the nuclear planning group in Brussels. Will he make a statement to the House next week on any decisions that were taken at that meeting?
Has the Chairman of the Committee of Selection yet reported to the Leader of the House on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the inability of any—or enough—Conservative Members to sit on it? If that process has reached a dead end, is it possible to have a Joint Committee of both Houses, which would at least allow some scrutiny of the Scottish Office?
Mr. Wakeham: The matter of the NATO meeting was raised with me through the usual channels and I have made inquiries about it. I shall check that the copy of the communiqué is available in the Library, as I believe it to be. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not our normal practice to make statements after these meetings because of the confidential nature of the exchanges, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
As I think most people know, I have now received a letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, in which he reports that the Committee was unable to nominate members to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when it met last week. When approached on that occasion, none of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies expressed a willingness to serve on the Committee. However, discussions are still continuing.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Chinese Communist Government in Beijing is about to publish the Basic Law which will govern the future of Hong Kong after 1997. As there has been some suggestion that this House should not discuss that matter, can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a debate on Hong Kong before the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be a debate on Hong Kong before the summer recess, but I shall certainly refer the matter to the Foreign Secretary and have discussions with him about what would be most appropriate.
I cut short my answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I was going to say, in answer to a question that he did not ask me, that if he had asked for a debate I should have suggested that that matter be dealt with through the usual channels.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has fallen below his usual standards of full and frank explanation? Is it not a fact that next Thursday he intends to debate the land set-aside, stabilisers and cessation of farming draft regulations of the

511
European Community aimed at reform of its agriculture policy, together with the agriculture price proposals for the whole of next year? Would it not have been better for the right hon. Gentleman to have made that plain?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by putting such a debate on the Adjournment he prevents the House from taking a view, if it so wishes, on any of these matters? By widening .the debate on the Adjournment, anything can be included in the subject, and that is a constitutional decision that could be of considerable importance to the House, now and in the future.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's wisdom in those matters. He will appreciate that there has been wide interest in the possibility of a general debate on agriculture matters. The proposals that I have announced are for the general convenience of the House. He will understand that those matters were the subject of discussion and agreement through the usual channels, but I am happy to have further discussions through the usual channels, if that is required.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to discuss the industrial action in the Inner London education authority, where an office workers' strike has meant that the special school bus drivers have been unable to take children to school, with the result that special school children are unable to exercise their right to full-time education, unless their parents can afford the taxi fares to take them?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the anxiety of my hon. Friend and a number of his constituents over that matter, but I regret that I am unable to find time next week for a debate.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Ministry of Defence has just lost a long, hard battle against some of its own ex-service men? One and a quarter hours ago, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ruled that British nuclear test veterans could sue for damage caused in the Pacific island tests. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that will result in a flood of thousands of legal claims and years of litigation unless the Government set up a full and generous compensation scheme? May we have a debate on that matter next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no idea whether the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman puts on any decision that may have been made an hour and a quarter ago is correct, but I am sure that he will agree that it would not be for me to comment on something of that sort, which I have not even seen. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend say how he allocates time for debates on the regions of the United Kingdom or, as I should perhaps say, the various countries that make up the United Kingdom? Does he have the precise number of hours or days of debate for each part, or is it simply a matter of the business that has to be done?
Mr. Wakeham: The process that the Leader of the House goes through is to seek to put a quart into a pint pot. One does one's best to meet the general wishes of the
512
House. There was a time when the Opposition regularly initiated debates on the regions of the United Kingdom, but as prosperity now spreads steadily throughout the country as a result of the Government's policies, Opposition Members appear less enthusiastic about having such debates.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It cannot have escaped the notice of the Leader of the House that today sees the opening of the garden festival in Glasgow, which is a significant event not just for the city but for the whole of Scotland. Would not this be an appropriate time to announce the possibility of a debate on tourism, which is very important to the economy of Scotland, enabling hon. Members to explore such issues as the transport infrastructure and the rating system?
On the issue of the Scottish Select Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House whether he will afford an opportunity directly to the Scottish National party and to the Social and Liberal Democrats to offer their view on how matters may proceed?
Mr. Wakeham: On the last point, the hon. Lady has not been shy in giving her advice to the House and to me on a number of occasions and I have a shrewd idea that I know, broadly speaking, how she would like to proceed on that matter. However, the matter of nomination to the Select Committee is not for me. It is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I shall draw the hon. Lady's views to its attention.
I am sure that the hon. Lady is right to say what she did about the garden festival in Glasgow and to stress the importance of tourism, which could well be the subject of a useful debate, although I cannot promise her a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will know that last Sunday, together with many colleagues, I enjoyed watching the cup final at Wembley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). He owns a football club, but, if he had owned a racehorse, I would have been unable to see it race on a Sunday because of the inadequate laws of the land. When will we have a debate, supported by the Government, enabling horse racing to enjoy the same facilities as every other sport in the land?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall never be free of the scars left by Sunday shopping Bills and allied matters. The Government would like to make progress on such matters, but it would not be sensible to start on that process until we were pretty sure that we had a bigger measure of agreement than exists.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement on the employment of Mr. Peter Luff as a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? He is classified as a full civil servant but is paid nothing by the Department, receiving his money direct from his employers, Good Relations. A statement is important since that lobbyist is employed at the heart of the Department of Trade and Industry by Good Relations, a company subject to an investigation by the self-same Department because of fraudulent activity during a takeover.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the arrangements made in respect of that special adviser have been made after

513
proper consultation and inquiries, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for 'Trade and Industry.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that the reports of Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner have aroused enormous and extremely well-informed discussion in many circles. It is essential that, before the Government make a definitive reply to those reports, they have the opportunity to hear from the House the wide range of opinions and ideas that they have generated. Is there any chance of an early debate on them?
Mr. Wakeham: The reports are being considered by the Government and it would not be helpful for me to comment until appropriate consideration has taken place. However, I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I shall bear it in mind when we consider how best to proceed.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider giving time next week for a debate on grandparents' rights in support of my early-day motion which has been signed by 261 hon. Members from both sides of the House? Why did the Government Whip object to the Second Reading of my Grandparents (Adoption of Children) Bill last Friday? Will he also look at the allegations made in the press this week about the drinking habits of Members of Parliament, and perhaps consider closing the press bars?
Mr. Wakeham: It is not for me to comment on the second matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the first matter, the procedure for private Members' Bills is probably better understood by the hon. Gentleman than his rather naive approach to the question would lead us to believe. It would not be right for us to make a statement on that this week.
Mr. Tim Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1022?
[That this House notes that according to the BBC Annual Report 1986–87 the decision was taken not to proceed until after the General Election with production of Mr. Ian Curtis's The Falklands Play', and that in May the BBC is due to screen Mr. Charles Wood's play 'Tumbledown', a play of emotional pacification which emphasises the ghastly horrors of the fighting without once saving why the war had to be fought; and, in view of the BBC's obligation to be even handed over matters of controversy, calls on the BBC to proceed with production of 'The Falklands Play' at once.]
Does he agree that, now that the BBC has decided to screen the play "Tumbledown" at the end of next month, it would be right and in the interests of balance to proceed with the production of "The Falklands Play"? Is he aware that yesterday the House of Lords had a useful and constructive debate on the responsibilities and duties of the BBC? Will my right hon. Friend either arrange for me to win the forthcoming ballot or arrange a debate in Government time on that matter?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman wants to interfere with the BBC and the ballot.
Mr. Wakeham: I was going to give my hon. Friend a helpful answer, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wisely suggested that I had better not talk about ballots. I wish my hon. Friend the best luck
514
in the world in the ballot, but it is not for me to interfere with that. Nor, indeed, is it for me to interfere with the BBC about the programmes that it shows. Such matters are best left to the BBC.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1024 about the Nestle bid for a good British company—Rowntree?
[That this House notes that under Swiss law it would be impossible for British chocolate and confectionery companies to take over Swiss-based companies; also notes the recent commendation by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the successful manufacturing and sales operation of Rowntree plc in tackling the European market; and believes that the 12,000 jobs in the company are threatened by the takeover bid by Nestlé and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.]
May we have an early debate on that matter because the largest private employer in my constituency is a Rowntree factory and there is deep concern that it will not be in the British interest for a foreigner to take over that company?
Mr. Wakeham: There is a well established procedure for these matters. It falls to the Director General of Fair Trading to consider the proposal under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and to advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the normal way on the question of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am sure that it is in the best interests to proceed in the proper way.
Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers whether to have a debate on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, will he bear in mind the fact that in Scotland I have been accused of being less than honourable in this matter and that as a result I am now required and forced to take action through the Scottish and United Kingdom courts to rectify it? That could, well have an effect on any debate that might take place because it would debar me effectively from stating my case properly and fully here.
Mr. Wakeham: I note what my hon. Friend has said.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: In reply to a question this afternoon, The Prime Minister referred to the communiqué from the nuclear planning group which she said would be about guidance on the modernisation of nuclear weapons. Nothwithstanding the reply that has already been given about a statement which might he made when the Secretary of State for Defence returns, does the Leader of the House agree that the communiqué is only about guidance because there is no agreement in NATO about the so-called modernisation plan? Does he therefore agree that it is appropriate that the House should not just hear a statement, but should have a debate to discuss whether the so-called modernisation might be necessary? Will he make early arrangements for such a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Lady's long-standing interest in these matters. However, my responsibility is to check that a copy of the communiqué is available in the Library so that hon. Members may look at it. It is not normal practice to make statements after these meetings because of the confidential nature of the exchanges. It would not be right to depart from that practice on this occasion.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House consider the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland is likely to be in Glasgow today and that, although we accept that he may come back with a bunch of flowers, he is much more likely to come back with a bunch of fives because the poll tax figure for Glasgow is £529? As this legislation will be implemented in Scotland in 1989, we need clear and accurate figures. We are much more likely to accept the figure of £529 given by a local government official than the £200-odd figure given by officials at the Scottish Office, whom we are beginning to distrust.
Mr. Wakeham: Despite the alarms and excursions caused by the hon. Gentleman and other opponents of the new system in Scotland, it is proceeding steadily towards implementation on the planned timetable. As we have always intended, Scotland will enjoy the benefits of this important reform from 1 April 1989.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about county structure plans? The Gloucestershire county structure plan is causing a great deal of concern to my constituents and perhaps other county structure plans are causing similar problems elsewhere. Such plans are often based on the most flimsy statistical evidence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time for a debate on that issue.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that there are many anxieties on that issue, and I am certain that we would have an interesting debate if I could find time for one. However, I cannot be too hopeful. Perhaps my hon. Friend will try his luck by raising this subject in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman raise within Cabinet the need to renationalise British Telecom in view of its increasing incompetence? Is he aware that since last November there has been a persistent fault in the telephone in my flat nearly every single time that I have tried to ring it on 219 numbers and on no other numbers? Does he realise that a number of engineers have assured me the fault is not in the Grosvenor exchange and that the fault is not in the equipment here in the House? Will he accept from me that there is not much compensation in the fact that an engineer rang me at 11.40 this morning to ask if I could explain to him what the problem was?
Since British Telecom seems absolutely flummoxed by this fault, would the right hon. Gentleman—I am being serious—consider sending in engineers into the special intercepting equipment that was provided in Whitehall a few years ago which allowed the interception of hon. Members' calls as well as a whole range of other calls throughout Whitehall? Is it not likely that that is where the fault is, and that these poor ordinary engineers do not know that the equipment exists?
Mr. Wakeham: I suspect that the remedy that the hon. Gentleman proposes would be considerably worse than the disease that he has at the moment. I congratulate him on using the Floor of the House of Commons to give out his cry for help. I have no doubt that somebody more qualified than I will come to his assistance.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House take time to read through the report of Northern Ireland Question Time today and perhaps
516
consider giving us a longer time if hon. Members persist in asking questions that appear to be more directed towards the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General? In the light of the comments already made about the proposed broadcast this evening, will he consider giving time for a debate in the House soon on the role of the media in representing or reporting terrorism?
Mr. Wakeham: How long to allocate for Question Time is an issue that is considered from time to time through the usual channels, and what the hon. Gentleman says is obviously one of the factors to be taken into consideration. I recognise also the importance of the other subject on which he wants a debate. While I agree that it is important, I do not believe that we can find time for a debate on it in the immediate future.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of a rather curious court decision last week, the bones of Edward, martyr and King of England, may reside not in Shaftesbury abbey, in my constituency, where they have rested for hundreds of years, but in Woking, in Surrey? Will he find time in the parliamentary week to allow me to put the case that these bones, belonging to a one-time King of England, should reside in Shaftesbury, where they belong?
Mr. Wakeham: I should be interested to hear further on this subject from my hon. Friend and I would have thought that an Adjournment debate was designed for raising subjects of this importance.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen the early-day motion on the P and O dispute headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others and signed by 136 Labour Members of Parliament calling for a debate on this critical issue? Is he aware that Jeffrey Sterling, the P and O boss, was employed by the Government when the trade union legislation was going through the House? Is he also aware that the company has contributed about £100,000 to Tory party funds? If anybody's funds should be sequestrated, it should be those of P and O for its role in the Zeebrugge disaster, and not those of the National Union of Seamen.
Mr. Wakeham: I reject entirely the disgraceful remarks that the hon. Gentleman made, using the privilege of the House to abuse somebody outside the House who cannot defend himself. The established service scheme is a voluntary arrangement and the decision of an individual shipping company to withdraw from the scheme is a matter for the company and the Merchant Navy establishment administration, and does not involve the Government. The Department of Transport safety regulations apply irrespective of how crews have been recruited. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked his surveyors to ensure that normal practices are followed in checking crew certification and witnessing safety drills for P and O's cross-Channel ferries.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House a question about the need for an urgent debate on matters affecting London. Will he consider once again the need for a special debate on London which can encompass the many problems faced by health authorities as a result of staff shortages—because of low pay, lack of accommodation and amalgamation of health authorities—the increasing planning and traffic

517
problems of London—caused by the lack of support for public transport—and increasing underfunding of many voluntary and social agencies which are trying to deal with the housing crisis that thousands of Londoners face? Since the abolition of the GLC and any form of democratic government across London, these problems have got worse, and it is in this House that this matter must be raised and debated. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an early date for a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I reject most of what the hon. Gentleman says. Nevertheless, I thought that I had given him a reasonably encouraging reply last week when I said that I recognised that it would be appropriate to have a debate on London, and that I would find an opportunity, I hoped in the not-too-distant future, for a debate. I cannot be any more forthcoming this week than I was last week.
Mr. David Winnick: As The Prime Minister has claimed sole responsibility for modifying the social security regulations, and virtually denied any responsibility for the mishap that occurred, will there be an opportunity for other Ministers to reply to that in the House of Commons? Is not the Leader of the House somewhat worried that the contempt that The Prime Minister has shown towards the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, all within two weeks, will be shown towards him in due course?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but it would be better if he listened to what my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister said, which was that the Government had come to a decision, and we were congratulated by the Leader of the Opposition on that decision.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the removal by the Government of the discretion previously given to local authorities to provide free milk for all children in special schools? Is the Leader of the House aware that in Greenacres school, in my constituency. the majority of the children no longer receive free milk and the devoted staff in that school, which I visited this morning, and in all other special schools throughout the country, are appalled at this squalid, mean and nasty act?
Mr. Wakeham: The House continually discusses the priorities of how public money should be spent, but I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman a debate in the next week or so.
Mr. Frank Cook: I refer the Leader of the House to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—the announcement of the judgment in the other place relating to the nuclear test veterans. I found his answer disappointing, if I heard it correctly. My right hon. Friend referred to the need for a judicial review and to establish a major compensation fund, and the need to debate those issues. Can the Leader of the House work out how long it is since a debate was held in Government time? Will he accept that since the war, Governments, of whatever political persuasion, have treated these young men and women shabbily? They gave the prime of their life to the service of their country, and their terrible inheritance is
518
visited not only upon them but upon their sons arid daughters and their grandsons and granddaughters. We need to discuss this subject. Therefore, will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Wakeham: I did not say that we should not debate these important issues. We should read the judgment, think about it and decide what we should say before opening our mouths. That is a reasonable proposition, and one that I have enunciated from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Given what the Leader of the House said about leaving it to the programme makers to decide what is shown and what is not shown, will he find time next week for a debate on the gross political interference by the Foreign Secretary, who attempted to browbeat the IBA and prevent the showing tonight of the "This Week" programme on the killings in Gibraltar? Does he understand that on both sides of the House there is increasing distaste with the regular attempts by the Government to interfere with the editorial independence and integrity of the broadcasters?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman speaks on home affairs for his party. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out to the chairman of the IBA the dangers of allowing to be shown a programme that interviews potential witnesses at the Gibraltar coroner's inquest, which is to be held under the proper law later this year. That the hon. Gentleman expresses no concern about the interference that could happen to a proper carriage of justice in these matters I find very disappointing.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read the publication entitled "Westminster's dirty dozen, the real face of Conservatives in local government"? It is about the activities of Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster council, and the policies pursued under her administration. I am sure that the Leader of the House knows Lady Porter, who is a sub-Thatcherite without The Prime Minister's low cunning.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Phrases of that kind do not add to our debates.
Mr. Banks: The Government are always ready to interfere in the affairs of town halls and to inspire debates about local government. In view of that, may we have an early debate on the real scandal of Conservative local government in Westminster, perhaps in the context of a London-wide debate, if not about Westminster specifically? We should like to be able to address our attention to the scandal of the sale of three graveyards in Westminster for 15p which Lady Porter now trying to buy back for millions at the cost of Westminster's ratepayers. If that was a Labour-controlled council, there would be an unstoppable demand by Conservative Members for an early debate to surcharge its councillors. Let us have a bit of justice in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: It would not be right to debate this matter in the House at this time. It is not entirely a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps he could persuade them to use an Opposition day for such a debate. The matters about

519
which the hon. Gentleman has spoken are serious and will be properly dealt with in accordance with the rules and laws of this country.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Early in business questions the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) specifically stated that the national executive of the Labour party had passed a motion that supported the use of violence in the P and O industrial dispute in Dover. Thirteen members of the national executive committee of the Labour party are Members of this House. The motion about which the hon. Member for Dover spoke was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and seconded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It must surely be out of order for any hon. Member falsely to accuse 13 hon. Members of advocating the use of violence in industrial disputes when they have patently not done so. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule that the hon. Member for Dover must apologise.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only a few days since you said that you wanted better standards in the House. The most baseless accusation had been made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), and surely it is right and proper that he should be forced to apologise. If he is allowed to get away with what he said—which was totally untrue—then surely the wish that you expressed for better standards will go unheeded. The hon. Member for Dover, who does not seem to be here—[HON. MEMBERS:"He is."]—should have the guts immediately to apologise.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot be held responsible for what hon. Members say in the House, provided that what they say is in order. I have no knowledge as to the truth or untruth of any of the comments that are made. The comment by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was not particularly helpful, but there are other parliamentary ways to deal with the matter.
Mr. Dobson: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the logic of your ruling is that if I were to say at the Dispatch Box at this minute that I thought that members of the Government were lining their pockets that would be out of order, but that if I were to say that they were using their offices in order to benefit their own ends I would remain in order. I should be grateful if you would give further consideration to this matter.
Mr. Speaker: We have rules in the House that the Chair will always enforce. We also have conventions, one of which is that we do not refer to each other in uncomplimentary terms. I accept that what the hon. Member for Dover said was highly controversial, but it is not within my power to force him to withdraw. Allegations are frequently made in the House—some were made during business questions—but I cannot adjudicate on whether they are right or wrong.
Mr. Brian Gould: As one of those traduced by the allegations made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), may I say that I and my hon. Friends find ourselves in a particular difficulty. We are precluded
520
by well understood rules enforced by you, Mr. Speaker, from accusing the hon. Gentleman of uttering that falsehood. We cannot accuse him of perpetrating a lie. That means that we are precluded from resisting and refusing to accept that false allegation. Therefore, we have no alternative but to ask you to protect us.
It seems that where a clearly false statement has been made it would be at least as unacceptable to the House, and surely to you, Mr. Speaker, if we were to respond by describing that false statement as a lie. Is it possible for you to ensure that that false statement is withdrawn and its falsity acknowledged?
Mr. Faulds rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot be held responsible for deciding whether what is said in the Chamber is true or false. I have no knowledge of any resolutions passed today. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says. There are other parliamentary ways for this matter to be dealt with if that is considered necessary. [Interruption.] Order. I do not think that it can be dealt with through the Chair.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Sir. It is in the knowledge of the House—[Interruption.]—if I can get a word in. It is in the knowledge of the House that a few moments ago you reprimanded my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for a mild quip about The Prime Minister, but the honourable—in quotes—Gentleman on the other side reflected on the honour of some of my colleagues. That is an entirely different matter, Sir, and we have to ask you please to protect Members on this side when they are accused of dishonourable activities, as was the case a few moments ago.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me, but if the hon. Member for Dover felt able to clarify the matter it might help the whole House.
Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not these points of order from the Opposition portray a little sensitivity on this matter of violence in picketing? Would not the way out be for you to consult the Leader of the House so that we might have a debate next week in which the Opposition can clear up this ambiguity about violence on the picket lines?
Mr. Max Madden: I should like to raise a separate matter with you, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member for Dover is a liar.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Madden.
Mr. Madden: I should like to raise a point of order on a separate matter concerning the Economic League. I regret having to raise this matter further with you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has written to me further on this matter as a matter of privilege. He knows that, following the decision of the House on 6 February 1978, these matters may not be raised with me in the House. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my further reply to his letter.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to what the Opposition Front-Bench

521
spokesmen have said about these accusations, and I am inclined to think that the hon. Member who made them is definitely a liar.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows he cannot make such allegations in the Chamber against another hon. Member. We are all honourable Members here. I accept that what the hon. Member for Dover said was not particularly helpful. I drew attention to it at the time. I cannot be held responsible for what he has said; that is a matter for him.
Mr. Powell: If I cannot say that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is a liar, are you suggesting that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen who were the subject of those accusations are liars? They have defended their actions and stated quite clearly and categorically that what the hon. Member for Dover said was definitely untrue. I should like to have your interpretation, Mr. Speaker, of who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth and who should withdraw his statement and who should not.
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that it would be helpful if the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) were to get us out of this difficulty so that we might move on.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions. The reason I put my question in that manner was that, quite properly, having listened to your ruling, I adjudged that the hon. Member who had accused me of cheating did so in a form and in a manner for which I could take him to court, and I am doing so. He did that outside the House.
I have taken the necessary precautions. I believe that this is the correct way to proceed. One must look at the correct procedures for dealing with these matters, and not use up the time of the House, as has been happening, on matters that can be dealt with in other ways.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not make any judgments about what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said or about the views of those on the national executive of the Labour party, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), from a sedentary position, to shout, "Liar"? Surely it would be appropriate—we all heard him—for him to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: All kinds of allegations of untruths are alleged in this Chamber even this afternoon. I did not hear the comment. I have already dealt with the question of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who raised the use of the word. The House should reflect carefully on allegations made across the Chamber. The comment of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was not helpful, but it was made in a general sense and was not an allegation against individual hon. Members. I have no authority to force him to withdraw it. It would have been helpful for the whole House if he had felt able to do so.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members do not challenge your ruling, but many of us find it a revelation that we would rather not have found. Thirteen of my right hon. and hon. Friends are accused of supporting violence. It is a totally false allegation, and that fact is provable by the text of the resolution to which the hon. Member for Dover (Mr.
522
Shaw) referred. It was not a generalised accusation. It was a specific allegation about the national executive of the Labour party.
If the rules of the House do not allow you to get an apology out of the hon. Member for Dover, the customs of the House require the Tory Whips, who are so famous for their discipline, to get an apology out of him. Having voted last week to take disciplinary action against a Labour party Member in support of the rules, customs and practices of the House, Opposition Members will feel bitterly let down if the Conservative party does not apply the same standards to its own Members.
Mr. Speaker: Let me finally deal with this matter. Again I say, in view of the exchanges, it would have been helpful if the hon. Member for Dover had felt able to say something. I entirely accept what the Shadow Leader of the House said about the integrity of his colleagues. I hope that we can now move on.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we do not use the word "liar", because we work on the basis that we are honourable Members, however much we may disagree with each other. Even if he did not know it at the time, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) must now know that his statement was a lie. In the circumstances——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only the hon. Member for Dover can say whether what he meant——
Mr. David Shaw rose——
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Shaw: There are some points on which I may be able to help the House. There is a question mark over the point that I made earlier, insofar as I referred, I think, to the Labour party and its general support following [he motion that was passed.
In view of the fact that at least two hon. Members are on the picket line at the moment and, as I understand it, are encouraging the very acts to which I referred earlier, I would not feel that I could wholly withdraw. I believe it to be a true statement in defence of my constituents and their interests. Nevertheless, if the national executive of the Labour party withdraws the motion that it passed yesterday, I might be in a position to reconsider next week.
Mr. Gould: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard a disgraceful attempt to inflame a quite unnecessarily difficult situation brought about by the false statement that was made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). His statement levelled an accusation in terms at the national executive of the Labour party, of which I am a member, and accused us of passing a resolution that supported the use of violence.
I know the terms of that resolution. Its terms are available to any hon. Member who cares to read them. Within 10 seconds the resolution can be handed to any hon. Member who cares to check it. It has been widely circulated and published in the press. I invite the hon. Gentleman to take this copy and to find within its terms any phrase or word that will support a scintilla of what he has said. His was a deliberate and false allegation, which he has not only failed to withdraw but compounded with further insult.

523
I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that you can tolerate that type of behaviour, and I call upon you to protect the rights of the House to proper and decent standards.
Mr. Speaker: I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Dover did not feel able to clarify what he said. He must take responsibility for it.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has made the whole matter worse. He said that two hon. Members are in Dover encouraging illegal actions. He made that claim without any evidence whatsoever. If we are to maintain this business of our being honourable Members, it is an outrage for the hon. Gentleman to say that two hon. Members are outside the House condoning illegal action. That is an example of double standards, and the hon. Gentleman should be made to withdraw his dishonest, discreditable and calumnious statement
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must end the matter there.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a disappointing result to the points of order. I am not responsible for anything that goes on outside the House. I am not responsible for anything that the hon. Member for Dover says—I wish that I were.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has made two statements that he knows to be untrue. They have been fully refuted by the Opposition Members against whom he made the allegation. You have quite clearly asked him to withdraw the statement, and he has quite clearly refused to do so. The House is now entitled to know what action you intend to take in respect of the hon. Member's behaviour this afternoon to ensure that there is some consistency in the treatment of hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: I did not ask him to withdraw it. I called him, because I hoped that he would make a helpful explanation to the House to enable us to move on. We should now move on.

Business of the House

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 16 MAY
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Sydney Chapman

  Sir Fergus Montgomery

  Mr. Stanley Orme

  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made an allegation about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), because they are the two Members who are on the picket line in Dover, as indeed will be a large number of Opposition Members as long as the dispute lasts. That is a perfectly legitimate action for them to be taking. The hon. Member for Dover has linked those two Members with the story that appeared on the front page of the Evening Standard.
  524
  That is what he said, and that is a disgraceful and unacceptable thing for any Member to say about two other hon. Members. Everyone in the House knows that, whatever may be said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, they would not in any way be associated with the sort of disgraceful action that was reported in the Evening Standard. For all we know that door in Dover might have been daubed by an Evening Standard reporter in order to get a story, because that is the way such people normally go about inciting the sort of troubles that the Member for Dover comes here to talk about.
  We cannot allow our right hon. and hon. Friends to be so scurrilously attacked by the hon. Member for Dover and must ask you yet again, Mr. Speaker, to insist that the hon. Member for Dover withdraws his remarks and apologises to the House. If he does not, Mr. Speaker, you must name him, because what he has done is as grave a discourtesy and an insult as anything that has happened here in recent weeks.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
  Mr. Speaker: Well, I will hear it, and then we will get on.
  Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful to you, Sir. You will know that most of us in the House—indeed, I would say the whole Chamber, with one or two exceptions—have great admiration for your Speakership and always respond when you make a request that we should withdraw a comment or correct some improper word. Nearly every hon. Member does that. In this unfortunate case, you have made an appeal to the so-called honourable Member and he has not had the guts, the courage or the honesty to respond to it. Unfortunately, I cannot call him an honourable liar, but—we are surrounded by honourable Members this afternoon—I can call him an honourable shit.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot do that; it offends in every possible way. Kindly withdraw, if not the "honourable", the last word, which I will not repeat.
  Mr. Faulds: With my rich vocabulary I could think of two or three worse words, Mr. Speaker, but to oblige you I will withdraw the word "shit". There are lots of other words that would suitably apply to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Terry Patchett: Why is it so difficult to find a truth in this House when it appears so easy to hide an untruth?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I sought to give the hon. Member an opportunity to correct this matter in order that we could move on. I am sorry that what he said really compounded the problem rather than offered a solution to it.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, ETC.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.35 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill, which comes here from another place, is, as every hon. Member can see, lengthy and complex. It has 285 clauses and eight schedules. Its subject matter—copyright, designs and patents—is highly technical. It will probably be a great disappointment to some hon. Members to know that, as far as I am aware, it is devoid of any party political controversy. It is, nevertheless, a Bill of great significance to many people. Its effects will be felt to a greater or lesser degree by almost every sector of the economy. It will affect the music industry—composers, musicians, music publishers, record companies—which generates more than £1,000 million each year. It will affect those engaged in the publication of books and newspapers. It will affect the design effort in British industry. It will provide a legal framework for broadcasting and cable transmission. It will also affect the computer software industry, the film industry, the pharmaceutical industry and many more industries.
  The effects of the Bill are not confined solely to business and industry. It has implications for education, the library service, the theatre and even the Great Ormond street hospital. It takes within its compass the artist painting at his easel and the designer of a semiconductor chip, the local operatic society in the village hall and the signals beamed from a television satellite.
  I am sure that we are all agreed on the need to promote and protect creative talent. The House has to begin by accepting that a man's idea is as much his personal property as his more tangible assets, such as his house and his car. In some respects, indeed, a man's ideas are an even more important part of his personal property. That concept underlies all intellectual property law, whether it is copyright protection for artists and authors or patent protection for inventors. By establishing a property right in the idea, the law gives protection against those who would steal another man's ideas.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, one of my major interests is photography and the interests of photographers. The Bill has a quite severe effect on photographers in certain areas and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—not necessarily in his speech, but later—will look into that. The Lords did change some parts of the copyright to enable a photograph to enjoy the same rights as literary works, but I should particularly like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at clause 30, the new wording of which would destroy the livelihood of many photographers, clauses 73 to 85 on moral rights and clause 156 on territorial waters. All those clauses greatly affect photographers. All I ask of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the moment is that when
  526
  the Government put amendments in the Bill they will try to give as full protection to photographers as to any other artists or thinkers.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is right in saying that I could have added photographers of all kinds to the list of people that I just described as being affected by the Bill. We have to get the balance correct between the rights of the photographer, those who employ the photographer, those who commission photographs, those who publish them, and so on. Some extremely difficult issues are raised. The hon. Gentleman will know, as he has probably followed the debates in another place, that it is difficult to get the balance right between the conflicting interests. Important issues for photograhers will be raised in Committee when we get to those sections of the Bill that deal with ownership of copyright or the so-called moral rights of the photographer, which I will come back to in a moment when I deal with the moral rights of authors and others covered by the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman's intervention underlined, we are talking in every part of the Bill about a person's basic property rights in his own ideas and his own artistic work.
  Our system of legal protection for ideas has served us well, ensuring dissemination of ideas with a proper degree of protection for the innovator. But it has become apparent recently, particularly in copyright and design protection, that the law needs looking at again, especially in the light of technical developments that have taken place in various fields and were not always anticipated when the law was drawn up.
  The Bill is the result of a very long period of consideration and consultation with all the interest groups affected, dating back to the Whitford report of 1977. Since then we have had three Green Papers and the 1986 White Paper, entitled "Intellectual Property and Innovation". The Government have changed certain ideas about policy even since the White Paper. Before coming to this House, the Bill was extensively considered in another place and a number of amendments were made there after further consideration of its details.
  The Bill sets out to restructure the law on a more logical and consistent basis than the existing legislation and in a way which takes account of the advances made in the past 30 years. Where possible we have tried to anticipate future developments. The House will not wish to come back to this subject for some time, having passed such comprehensive legislation. Our overriding objective—hon. Members who have the pleasure of serving on the Committee will sometimes find this difficult to achieve—has been to ensure a fair balance between the need to encourage creativity by providing strong protection, and the justifiable desire of society and consumers to have access to and the use of the products of creativity. We are seeking to ensure a balance between protection and fair competition. We are seeking a system with bureaucracy reduced to a minimum. The Bill seeks to provide the means for those with ideas to get a fair reward for their work, without placing unfair burdens on the public at large.
  The Bill is in seven parts, and I can be of most help to the House by briefly describing their main contents.
  Part I is by far the biggest, making up more than half of the Bill. It sets out the law of copyright in a more ordered and logical way than the existing statute, the Copyright Act 1956, which is to be repealed. Part I is subdivided into no fewer than 10 chapters. Chapters 2 and

  527
  3 cover clauses 16 to 72. Chapter 2 sets out the rights which the copyright owner is to enjoy, of which the most fundamental is contained in clause 17: the right to prevent copying. The rights are extensive and we recognise that they must be tempered. There is a balance to be struck between the rights we are asking Parliament to grant to creators to encourage creativity and the effect that the full exercise of those rights may have on others. While it is right that copyright owners should be able to exploit their works to the full, it would not be right to confer rights which could be used oppressively. So chapter 2 protects the copyright owner.
  Chapter 3 sets out a series of exceptions from copyright. These will ensure that copyright considerations do not unduly obstruct research, education, the library service or public administration. All these are areas where we think that the House will judge that the public interest is that the work may be used within clearly defined limits, without recourse to the copyright owner.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that a reason for the Bill was to bring up to date the law as it affects some of the newer industries, and that is absolutely right. Is he aware that clause 63 seems to have a loophole which would allow for software theft, which has been estimated at about £50 million a year, by allowing firms to rent out software after a year? Will he agree to consider that in Committee? Many people feel strongly that if it is not put right it will restrict and damage investment in both computers and computer software industries. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend, of all people, would not want that to happen and that that is not his intention. If he would undertake to consider that, it would be greatly appreciated.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend raises a serious and difficult issue. The Government are not altogether satisfied that we have the balance right. This part covers the so-called rental rights whereby after a given period someone can be free to hire out a product without recourse to the copyright owner of that product. We are all used to that in our daily lives with videos. Perfectly legitimate businesses have sprung up which rent videos which are somebody else's copyright, without anybody thinking that that gives rise to hardship to the copyright owner or that there is anything illegitimate about it. Businesses may spring up to rent compact discs which are almost indestructible. People will borrow them, make a perfect copy and return them without paying the full cost to the manufacturer or the composer. My hon. Friend raises the equivalent case for computer software designers. If after a year software can be hired out, once again a copy can be made without paying the full price to its author. It is extremely difficult to get the balance right. We do not want creators to exploit their copyright to an onerous extent on consumers who may want access to it, but strong reservations are held about the Bill as it stands.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take the Bill through Committee and he has been in charge of the main policy issues. He will certainly continue to consider the matter and it is his duty to get the balance right in the end. He tells me that he is meeting the British Computer Society next
  528
  week to discuss the implications for those who design computer software and he will consider my hon. Friend's point. As the Bill passes through the House we shall have to consider it carefully to ensure that the results are correct.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the difficulties that he has identified in clause 63 may result from the fact that the period of protection given by record rental is only one to two years? As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) suggested, perhaps we should consider a longer period, for example seven to 10 years.
  Mr. Clarke: A period of one year is specified in the Bill and we could have an interesting debate on the proposition to extend that. I am sure that that will give rise in Committee to debates about how long music remains exploitable from the date that a record is made. Different considerations may arise for computer software and videos, and it would be nice to draft a clause that served the public interest properly for all times of copyright subject to rental right.
  Consideration of the protection period is only one possible approach. Ministers have already canvassed a variety of propositions in our discussions and we look forward to having further propositions canvassed in Committee.
  Chapter 4 introduces another new concept to our copyright law—the so-called moral rights of authors. The authors of certain classes of copyright works and the directors of copyright films are to have the right to be identified as the author or director and the right to object to distortions and mutilations of their works. Obviously, it may be damaging to the reputation of an author, photographer or any artist if his work is used in a deliberately distorted or mutilated form. His reputation is damaged by the use of something that began as his work. There are two versions of these so-called moral rights. They are usually known in jargon as the paternity right and the integrity right, and they will help authors and directors to establish and defend their artistic reputations. The introduction of moral rights, together with other technical amendments in the Bill, will also allow us to ratify the latest text of the Berne copyright convention. That is the most important of the international copyright conventions and it is our declared intention to ratify the Paris text once the Bill is on the statute book.
  Chapters 9 and 10 cover clauses 148 to 169 and contain technical provisions and various definitions. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is about to rise. Having seen what he said in business questions last Thursday, I can anticipate the point that he is about to raise.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend's foresight. The clause does something which the House of Commons should not possibly allow: it deprives the House of its right of control over its property. Therefore, it breaches that fundamental principle of our constitution which provides that the House of Commons is independent of the Crown and should not in any way allow the Crown to control its proceedings.
  It would make a mockery of our traditional claim of right by Mr. Speaker at every opening of Parliament, for the independence of the House of Commons with regard

  529
  to its own domestic affairs. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say that at the Committee stage this part of the Bill will be amended so as to leave intact the integrity of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has not yet moved on to another point. He is still dealing with the one that he helpfully raised in business questions last Thursday. We have become aware, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, that the effects of clause 157 on the House and on another place could well be undesirable. Discussions have been taking place between officials of my Department and of the House, and I can say to my hon. Friend that we shall soon be in a position to table amendments, which I am sure will meet his legitimate concern. I can say yes to my hon. Friend's final question.
  I expect that other representations on the Bill will not be so easily met. It is a feature of the Bill that on most issues that it raises there are two conflicting arguments coming from two conflicting interest groups, and hon. Members will tend to divide their support. With regard to the interests of the House, I am glad to say that we are all on the same side and we can meet the concern of my hon. Friend.
  Part II is concerned with performers, who are a distinct category of creative talent. Under the existing law performers have no copyright or statutory civil right in their performances. The Performers' Protection Acts from 1958 to 1972 treat the making of unauthorised films, sound recordings, broadcast or cable transmission of performances as a criminal matter only.
  It is far from satisfactory that the only protection for a performer is to contemplate a criminal prosecution of someone making unauthorised use of his performance. It was criticised by the Court of Appeal in a recent case concerning film performances by the late Peter Sellers. Although Peter Sellers' widow was successful in that case, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the present state of the law was far from satisfactory.
  Part II retains the existing criminal provisions but supplements them with a clear statutory framework of civil law for the protection of performers. New rights are also provided for those with whom the performer has an exclusive recording contract, since they are also adversely affected by unauthorised or "bootleg" recordings. All this will put the law on a more sensible and enforceable basis for performers who are adversely affected.
  Parts III and IV deal with designs. The protection of designs has been a very difficult and contentious issue for many years. We believe that we are now near to striking the right balance in the Bill. We start from the basic premise that all original designs deserve limited protection. It is not only wrong if a new product can be copied in its entirety as soon as it comes on the market, but it discourages the design effort needed to make a new product if a competitor can in any case copy it straightaway. We are, therefore, providing a new right for original designs, which will give protection against copying for a five-year period and a right to remuneration for a further five years after that.
  But as with copyright, so with design right. The right must not be one that can be used oppressively or unduly against the interests of the consumer. We must not stifle fair competition, particularly in spare parts. Because spare parts have to fit the product for which they are intended,
  530
  they must to some extent be a copy of the original design. An unfettered design right could be used by the manufacturers of original equipment to ensure that only they could supply spare parts. That would give rise to a near monopoly for some spare parts, which would be wrong.
  On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to allow totally free copying of all spare parts. The Bill will, therefore, allow copying where there is no design freedom for either functional or aesthetic reasons. When I say that there is no design freedom, certain basic things have to be put into a spare part if it is to fit and match the product for which it is intended.
  Where there is full design freedom, competitors will have to create their own designs. That will apply to all articles, whether or not they are spare parts. The result will be that copying will be allowed where necessary, and where competition can still occur, but designers will be protected from those who would copy when there is no need for them to do so.
  The Registered Designs Act will be amended so that protection will be available only for truly aesthetic, stand-alone designs. Competitors do not need to be able to copy such designs to compete effectively. The term of protection for registered designs is to be increased from a maximum of 15 years to 25 years. All this will ensure that design effort is encouraged without stifling competition, or leaving consumers open to the exploitation of a monopoly position.
  We are making changes in parts V and VI to open up the intellectual property system and make it more accessible to its users. The restrictions on who may act for inventors and other applicants in dealings with the Patent Office are to be lifted. The constraints on mixed practices—for example, of patent agents and venture capital advisers—will be relaxed. At present, patent litigation is conducted in the High Court. Many small and innovative firms find that High Court proceedings are so expensive and complex that their patent rights are effectively worthless because they cannot afford to enforce them.
  It is of course pointless for Parliament to pass legislation that makes it so expensive to pursue a remedy in the courts that no one cart use it, except the very large firms that are adversely affected by some unfair competition. Because only the High Court has jurisdiction, inventors find that sometimes they cannot afford to seek the protection of the law. Similarly, small firms sometimes find it difficult to defend themselves against a large competitor that brings an action against them for an alleged infringement of a patent. I am glad to say that we have established in clauses 267 to 272 the basis of a patents jurisdiction in the county court. We believe that this will significantly reduce cost and complexity, thus enabling smaller firms to compete on a more level footing with larger companies.
  The House may be aware that a Bill introduced in the previous Parliament sought to lift the licence of right provisions of the Patents Act 1977 as they applied to patents for pharmaceuticals granted under the Patents Act 1949. That Bill,. which had Government support, fell on dissolution and we have taken this opportunity to reintroduce its provisions.
  Finally, part VII contains a number of miscellaneous, but none the less important, provisions. The Government, and I trust the whole House, are firmly opposed to counterfeiting and piracy and we want to stamp out those

  531
  practices. Those who steal other people's property or who hitch a free ride on the reputations of established businesses will not get any support from the Government, or this House. We know that several British firms suffer from piracy of their products, and often it is the most blatant imitation of their products where the quality of the original is nowhere near matched by the inferior imitation that is put on the market.
  Clause 279 introduces substantial new criminal provisions which will prove an invaluable weapon in the fight against product counterfeiting. In particular, I am glad to say that we are taking the opportunity to make the fraudulent use of a trade mark a criminal offence, which will make it very much easier for companies to defend themselves against cheap copies from overseas, particularly from the far east. These changes, taken with the improvement in the sanctions against copyright piracy and bootlegging in parts I and II of the Bill, will, I hope, eliminate these very real threats to legitimate industry.
  The Government are continuing to press the case for the European Community Trade Marks Office to be sited in London. In my opinion, it is clearly the best location. Clause 281 provides the necessary statutory authority for financial assistance to be given to the office if sited here.
  Mr. Iain Mills: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has seen the new site of the office where we intend to house the Trade Marks Office at St. Katharine's by the Tower, but has he seen it recently?
  Mr. Clarke: I have been there recently. I know that my hon. Friend has been leading a campaign on the matter for some time. The Government wholly support it and we are seeking to impress on the Commission and other members of the Community the case for establishing the European Trade Marks Office in London. There is no doubt that the various contenders are all offering financial support for the office, whether it be in London, Munich or Madrid. For that reason, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome clause 281, which gives us a statutory authority to match the financial provision that is being offered by rivals.
  My brief review of the Bill's provisions would be incomplete without at least a passing reference to clause 280. Great Ormond street hospital is to enjoy a perpetual right to a royalty in respect of certain types of exploitation of "Peter Pan". The Bill ensures that sick children in Great Ormond street will continue to benefit, in spite of the fact that the copyright in the play bequeathed to the hospital expired at the end of 1987.
  The Bill does not contain any provision for a blank tape levy. I expect that some of my hon. Friends will be disappointed by that. Whether there should be a levy on blank tape, to provide an income for owners of copyright who think that they are deprived of revenue because copies are taken of their work, has aroused strong feelings for some time. There have been frequent changes of mind by most of those involved. However, we have finally decided that it would be wrong, indefensible and going beyond the principles of the rest of the Bill to try to introduce a blank tape levy that the Government would impose on purchasers of tape and distribute to aggrieved copyright holders.
  Although I accept that copyright is difficult to enforce against people who use blank tape to copy, imposing a levy
  532
  would go beyond the principle of the Bill, which is that we are passing legislation providing legal protection for the intellectual property of the creative artist. It is a step beyond that to say that if the creative artist has difficulty in enforcing copyright, somehow we must levy a new tax to provide a compensating fund that will be distributed to artists who feel aggrieved. If we had a levy, it would involve the Government in the collection of a whole new tax to provide the copyright owner with a financial reward. A new bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect and distribute the proceeds of the levy. The administration cost of any such scheme would almost certainly be disproportionate to the amount of money that was raised.
  We were also unhappy about the rough justice element of the levy proposals. Not every blank tape is used to record copyright material, so a levy would be an unfair imposition on many people. Many of those who look to benefit from the levy would be happy to see an element of rough justice imposed on those from whom the money is to be raised, but all attempts to compensate for the rough justice element did not prove workable. Even if one had had a system that enabled some people to have a rebate on the levy if they could demonstrate that they were not copying copyright, they would have been put to the needless inconvenience of making a claim for the rebate. That would have been particularly hard for the blind and visually handicapped, who make extensive use of blank tape in their everyday lives.
  We are also not sure whether the whole benefit of the levy would have gone to the performers and the record companies that had a legitimate interest in pressing for it. A levy could have been marked up in the retail chain, with the result that the burden on the consumer would have been 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, the Government have decided not to proceed with the levy. I accept that it is a matter of balance, which is why the Government changed their mind collectively once or twice, as did several hon. Members. But we have come down firmly on the side of the consumer against a levy proposal that we believed was not on all fours in principle with the remainder of the Bill and would have been a costly bureaucracy, creating some unfair burdens on purchasers of blank tape.
  As a consolation to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who might still be attracted by the levy, we have undertaken to table an amendment to the Bill outlawing so-called anti-spoiler devices, which override signals intended by the copyright owner to prevent copying. Copyright owners are seeking to protect themselves against the problem that they face by devising spoiler devices, which would stop anybody using blank tape to copy the original article. As technical advances are made, it is predictable that people might try to put on the market anti-spoiler devices, so that copies could be made of material that the vendor intended should be proof against copying. If the copyright owners are successful in producing spoiler devices, we shall be content to amend the Bill to make sure that the sale of anti-spoiler devices is rendered illegal.
  As I am sure I have adequately shown, the Bill is extremely long and sometimes complex, but it has implications for almost every walk of life. I am sure that those attending the debate realise that this aspect of

  533
  intellectual property is as important as any other sort of property. It is important to a modern economy that we protect human creativity properly.
  People in this country will continue to have ideas, with or without the Bill, but if we are to get the best from those ideas we need an environment in which they can flourish. The Bill provides a framework of legal protection, which should cultivate and nourish creativity. It will provide a fair balance between the providers and users of intellectual property. It will set out the law in a much clearer way than before. It takes account of the rapid pace of technological advance. It makes the intellectual property system more relevant and accessible to the needs of British business. In short, the Bill will encourage creative talent, enterprise and fair competition. I commend it to the House.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: As the Minister claimed, the Bill is a welcome, not to say courageous, attempt to reform a complex and difficult area. I think that everybody recognises that the present state of the law is unsatisfactory. out of date and needs reform. For example, the Copyright Act 1956 has been described by a High Court judge as labyrinthine. No one will disagree with that. Whether the present Bill, with its 285 clauses and eight schedules, can easily he acquitted of the same charge we have yet to see.
  It is clear that the ground has been prepared carefully by Governments of varying political persuasions over a long period. As the Minister said, perhaps the beginning of that process was the Whitford report of 1977. There have been Green Papers and a major White Paper since then. At various stages, Governments and others have changed their mind on important matters that arise in the attempt to reform. I make the modest prediction now that further and, indeed, substantial changes are yet to come, perhaps not least on some of the matters that the Minister touched upon in his speech.
  It may be asked whether all that effort is worth while. The answer that we in the Opposition give, which I am sure is the same as the Minister's, is that of course it is worth while. It is an extremely important industry. It is sometimes difficult to define, but it is undoubtedly important. Estimates of its economic importance vary. A useful small study was carried out by the Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property. I think that Jennifer Phillips was the author. It was published in 1985 and was called "The Economic Importance of Copyright". Jennifer Phillips' estimate was that the copyright industries, which she defined very narrowly and modestly as industries that directly and substantially depend on copyright for their commercial viability, accounted for 2·6 per cent. of gross domestic product, which meant that in importance they exceeded both the motor car and food manufacturing industries. It should be noted that that definition excluded the functional design aspect of manufacturing and the rapidly growing computer service industry. A more generous view of the importance of the industry was taken last year by the Confederation of Information Communication Industries, which estimated a total turnover of over £20 billion, which it put at over 7 per cent. of GDP.
  Perhaps the most important aspect of the industry is not just its current importance to our economy, although that is substantial, but the potential that it holds for our
  534
  future economic development. I think that there are few people who would look to a successful British economy without seeing that economy developing in the direction of new technologies, particularly information technology, computers and data processing, as well as building on our well-known successes in the older and better established copyright industries such as publishing, films, music and so on. In other words, it is important—we in the Opposition recognise this—to make it clear that we see a future for the British economy that is not the low-tech, no-tech future that the Chancellor of the Exchequer notoriously, on one occasion, professed to see as the way forward. We shall perhaps carry the whole House today in recognising that great efforts are required to ensure that our future lies in the high-tech, science-based industries—industries that call upon the talents and skills of our people.
  If we are to do that, of course we have to provide an appropriate legal framework so that those ideas can be developed. We must ensure that the research is done. We must give priority to the spirit of inquiry and to the pursuit of knowledge which has served us so well in the past. However, we must do more than that. As the Minister said, we must establish a climate in which such enterprise can flourish. Let me widen the debate for a moment. We need not just a legal framework but Government support and the provision of resources. In that context, today's news that the Science museum has at long last been compelled by Government parsimony to propose entrance charges—the last of the south Kensington museums to do so—sits ill with the Minister's commendable concern for providing the right framework for the development of scientific and other knowledge.
  The proper regulation of copyright involves a great number of difficulties, most of which the Minister identified, and we entirely agree with him on them. However, our interpretation may differ a little at times. The first problem is that the whole business of developing knowledge, conducting research and taking the fruits of that research has become increasingly international in nature. The sale of the products of the older industries—the publishing, film and music industries—is increasingly international, and the use of computers and information technology means that it is yet more difficult in today's climate to grapple effectively on a national basis with the problems thrown up by the unfair or illegal exploitation of people's property in an international context. That is why we welcome the emphasis that the Bill places on the need to ensure that not only do we establish our own legal framework but that this country—traditionally a pioneer in these matters—shows the way to others and ensures that they can follow that way. That is why we welcome the Minister's declaration of intention on the Berne convention and strongly support his proposed measures to stamp out some of the abuses that arise, not so much in this country—although they do arise here—but overseas.
  The confederation estimates that copyright piracy alone costs more than £500 million per annum. My friend's in the Open university are very clear that there is an extremely fruitful and profitable trade open to them through the sale of their excellent educational materials around the world if only they could be sure that those materials would not be pirated and sold off with no return to them. Because that happens, they are denied that lucrative market. It is important that we should establish not just a domestic but an international framework in

  535
  which such abuses can be dealt with. It is also correct to say that the problems of copyright are matched entirely by problems of patent protection, which is why we very much welcome the measure on counterfeiting.
  The real problems in regulating copyright arise from a number of difficulties peculiar to the kind of property that we are discussing. The first of those problems bedevils much of the Bill and no doubt accounted for many man and woman hours of drafting and deliberation. It is the problem of defining the property that we are trying to protect. In 1709, it was possible to say of the first modern Copyright Act, the Act of Ann, that it was for
  "the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books."
  It is not only the sexism of that description that is outdated. While the principle remains the same, we have now moved into an era in which the products of human skill and ingenuity take many different forms. We preserve those products in many different ways. It is not just the printed page but the computer disk, not just the work of art but the sound or video recording to which we must now give the protection of the law of property. New technology and fresh developments in knowledge have produced new forms of property, and one of the major problems to be dealt with in the Bill is the definition of that property and those whose interests in it deserve protection.
  New technology has thrown up another range of problems. It has ensured that that new form of property can be passed from hand to hand, traded in and exploited and can have its benefits appropriated in a whole range of ways which were not available 20 years ago and which are certainly not possible for other forms of property. The technology that has made this property and the benefits to he obtained from it almost infinitely capable of reproduction—the photocopier, sound and video recordings, the personal computer and the floppy disk—places in the hands of each of us, at virtually no outlay and with very little chance of detection, the means of taking the benefits of property created by and belonging to others.
  We come now to the most interesting aspect of the Bill, from a more general point of view. The developments to which I have referred have brought even the Government to the realisation that there are problems that simply cannot be left to market forces alone. Let us be clear that the Bill is a massive exercise in intervention in the market. We approve of that; we are glad that the Government have recognised the need to intervene. However, it is worthwhile accepting and identifying the respects in which the market does not solve the problems. The point that I make is very similar to the one that the Minister himself conceded; it is the language that is different, and perhaps less acceptable to Conservative Members.
  The market at present, if left to its own devices, poses two main and contradictory dangers. First, there is the danger that if excessive protection is provided to private ownership of the property of ideas, it will frustrate and inhibit the advance of knowledge to the very general disadvantage. In other words, it would allow the person who got there first to prevent the rest of us from following and it would allow restrictive practices to arise and to become a bar to further inquiry and the development of knowledge. Clearly, left to itself, the market is incapable of resolving that difficulty.
  536
  On the other hand, an inadequate protection of property rights would mean that there would be an inadequate return—perhaps none—to those prepared to invest time, money, skill and effort in the advancement of knowledge or the perfection of talents. That would prejudice the continued production of such property. The very property whose production the market was meant to stimulate would therefore be jeopardised.
  We are dealing with a clear case of market failure. The need for intervention shows clearly that the market has its limitations—both in the individual's and in the public's interests. It also reveals one further element in the market, sometimes concealed in the more far-flung rhetoric of Conservative Members—the fact that the market is not a God-given or natural law institution that operates with a hidden hand to dispense justice or exercise moral judgments but a man-made social institution, created by rules that we, among others, make and have made. It is an institution that depends for its operation on rules to do with people's property rights, the sanctity of contracts and so on. The Bill is no less welcome for the fact that it makes that aspect of market operations clear.
  The Minister concluded by referring to one possible candidate for inclusion in the Bill that did not make the final draft. The problem illustrates the difficulties to which I have just referred. On occasions, the market breaks down. It simply fails to reward those who produce the valuable property in a given area. Over recent years we have paid particular attention to the problems of the music industry. I want to say a word about that in a moment, but there are similar breakdowns in other spheres. In some cases, but not all, the Government have recognised the problem and have tried in varying ways to deal with it. There are problems in respect of photocopying and the copying of software; the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who intervened in the Minister's speech, pointed out that clause 63 gives cause for concern. There are problems about the recording of video productions and broadcasting cinematic films on television.
  In all those cases the market breaks down in that, often because of a technological intervention, it fails to reward those who produced the property. Either the reward is never paid or it goes to somebody different. The Government are rightly aware of the danger that the incentive to go on producing is lost. Therefore, some means has to be found of rewarding those who are responsible for production so that production continues.
  The view is widely held that the problem occurs most acutely in the music industry. It is easy sometimes for hon. Members to underestimate the importance of the music industry to the economy. I have the advantage of having been a lifelong fan of what is called, sometimes pejoratively, pop music. If over recent years my interest has flagged slightly, it has been rapidly revived by the insistence of my teenage children on playing such music loudly in our home. So in a sense I am compelled to continue my interest. Mostly it is an enjoyable pastime.
  Pop music is not just the preoccupation of many younger citizens but is of considerable economic importance. The industry sold over £2 billion worth of goods in 1985. One in four of worldwide hit records originates in this country. The industry has produced overseas earnings of £400 million. It employs 26,000 people. In many respects it is a breeding ground for new

  537
  small businesses and for new talent. It is exactly the sort of industry which the Government have always proclaimed they wish to help.
  The Government understand the problems which home taping cause for the music industry. It is difficult to quantify exactly how great the problem is, but I suspect that most of us are aware personally of instances where records are taped for the use of people who might in other circumstances have bought the records themselves. Sometimes, perhaps more justifiably, the purchaser of a record will tape it so that it can be played in a cassette recorder in a car, for instance. That is equally a denial of the return to which the producer of the music is entitled.
  The Government cannot at this point say that they have changed their mind on the fundamental of the debate, which is that at one point they recognised that there was a substantial loss, difficult to quantify to the last pound, which unfairly prejudiced not only individuals and firms within the industry but the overall future of the industry. If the problem exists—as the Government were prepared to recognise in the Green Paper and in the White Paper—it is likely to get worse because the technology which created it will develop.
  We already have compact discs. We will have digital audio tape. The rental business is flourishing. When the Bill was given a Second Reading in another place, the noble Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham painted a graphic picture of what he had seen in Japan, where people in huge numbers go to super-stores where they borrow for a small fee compact discs to record on their own cassette tapes; then they return the discs for other people to do likewise. No doubt that business will spread to other countries.
  The problem has been recognised by the Government and it will get worse. In their White Paper the Government proposed the solution of a levy on blank tapes. No one would dispute that in many respects that is objectionable. We understand exactly what the Minister had in mind when he talked about the rough justice of that solution. But he did not adequately address the problem of the rough justice which is suffered by musicians and others who produce the music. That solution is also objectionable because it would prejudice various people such as the blind and educational institutions. If it is pursued, special arrangements would have to be made for some categories. We agree with the Minister's view that the collecting arrangements leave something to be desired. Certainly we would examine critically any solution which meant that money was passed back to major record companies but did not find its way to those who deserve the support and on whose efforts the future of the music industry depends. If a means were found of making a return to the producer of music, we would want to ensure that it encouraged small and new performers of innovative music and the parts of the music business which are inadequately rewarded but whose ingenuity has to be stimulated and encouraged if the industry is to have a future economically and culturally.
  We share the objections to a levy on blank tapes. We do not want a system which merely makes Madonna richer but does not do anything for the creation of music. Having marched themselves up to the top of the hill, having reached the top of the hill, having got a clear view of the problem and having accepted that it is a difficult problem with which the music industry needs help, the Government cannot say. "We are turning our back on the problem; we shall march back to the bottom of the hill and leave things exactly as they are." The Government cannot go away
  538
  from it without attempting to deal with the problem. Apart from the interests of the music industry, the Government seem to have no intention of changing the law or of ensuring that the illegal taping done by millions our fellow citizens is brought to an end.
  I do not dispute for a moment that it is a difficult problem, not just as it affects music. I urge the Government to recognise that they have a responsibility which they have not yet discharged. In Committee and on the remaining stages of the Bill we shall do what we can constructively to help the Government to reach at least a partial solution. I suspect that in this and other areas perfect solutions are not available and are not on the agenda, but the Government cannot be allowed to get away with offering no solution.
  Let me now point to a further instance of the difficulties which arise in the Bill. The Minister drew attention to the provisions which attempt to deal with the issue of a design right. That has exercised many of us in the House and. indeed, people outside the House and in the other place. The problem arises because of the uncertain state of the law, which was left even more uncertain by the decision of the House of Lords in British Leyland v. Armstrong and by the intervention of the EEC Commission in the case of my constituent, the Ford Motor Company.
  The problem is how to protect what is called in the Bill a design right. Although it is dealt with generally in the Bill by clause 198 and succeeding clauses, a particular problem arises in respect of spare parts. Let us be clear that. that is the case. On the one hand, a range of manufacturers, such as Ford and Hoover, take one view while, on the other hand, the specialist manufacturers of spare parts. quite understandably, take a different view.
  The principles are very familiar. On the one hand, we need to protect the consumer against market abuse, but guard against excessive protection and, on the other hand, we must ensure that the originators and designers of products are given fair protection so that they continue to furnish the market with their products.
  I assure the Minister that I do not intend to be critical, because we have no better solution to offer, but the Government's answer is a partial protection of design right, as contained in clause 198 and succeeding clauses. It is fair to say that the definitions have caused some difficulty. They caused extensive debate and difficulty in the other place, particularly in respect of what have become called the "must fit" and "must match" requirements—for example, the treatment of constituent parts of the whole item, such as a dinner service. We believe that the Government understand the problem and have made a genuine attempt, in good faith, to deal with it. However, as the Minister showed, the phrase "striking the right balance" is likely to figure largely in our deliberations on the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point, will he comment on the proposition put forward by the Confederation of British Industry and others to the effect that design copyright should not be excluded, but should exist alongside design right?
  Mr. Gould: There are some obvious difficulties with design copyright, because it is a more extensive concept than design right. It swings the balance in favour of protection, as against free entry to the market. Those are

  539
  some of the points that Opposition Members—and members of the Committee—wish to look at carefully to strike the right balance. I made the point that, in the attempt to strike that balance, the Government have not convinced us that they have identified the right criterion. Whether a design must fit or must match another article is not self-evidently the issue which should decide whether a design secures protection or otherwise. What we are inclined to argue—we shall certainly return to this issue in Committee—is that it may be that the Government have approached what is undoubtedly a difficult problem from the wrong viewpoint. I offer the thought to the Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will wish to develop it in Committee—that it may be more effective and constructive to look at the problem in the same way as do other countries with similar problems. It is a problem of fair competition and of dealing with restrictive practices, rather than a problem relating to the protection of property rights
  The Bill bristles with specific problems, but we accept that the Government have made an effort to resolve many of them. There is much in the Bill to be welcomed, which is why we do not propose to vote against it. We recognise the importance and value, for example, of the chapter on moral rights. That is a welcome change. That chapter provides moral rights for all kinds of authors and film directors. In view of earlier events in the Chamber this afternoon, one could wish that moral rights were provided also to the authors of the resolutions of the national executive committee of the Labour party. We have a moral right to ensure that the terms of such resolutions are not distorted when they are reported to this House.
  We welcome also the attempt to grapple with new problems—for example, computer-generated designs, works of art and program. It is refreshing to see this legislature getting to grips with that problem ahead of anybody else in the world. We are the first legislature to recognise the advent—not here yet, but coming—of artificial intelligence.
  We recognise also that a special balance has to be struck where the needs of education institutions are involved. We believe that the Government, broadly speaking, have that balance about right in respect of schools and libraries. However, that will not preclude us from tabling amendments that may improve those provisions.
  I have mentioned already that we welcome the change in the law with regard to counterfeiting and the creation of a new criminal offence to deal with the wrongful use of trade marks. I am glad to offer again my support for the campaign in which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) has taken the lead, but in which we have both been involved. It is a campaign to establish a Community Trade Marks Office in this country. I had hoped that the Minister would have been able to offer, not only more information, but perhaps a slightly more optimistic assessment of our chances of obtaining that institution in Britain.
  Some of our noble Friends in another place deserve credit for what has been become known as the "Peter Pan" clause. Given the perpetual nature of the rights obtained by the Great Ormond street hospital, it is an appropriate description of that clause, which we support.
  I have said enough to show that there remains much that needs to be scrutinised critically, for example, clause
  540
  63 which was raised earlier. We argue again that the provision of a one-year protection for computer software programs is not likely to be enough.
  Mr. Boyes: The Minister has given me an assurance that photography will be carefully considered by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), in Committee. I understand that my hon. Friend will not be dealing with the Bill in Committee, but will he mention to our hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who will be leading for the Opposition in Committee, that among the many things that have been mentioned as needing special scrutiny are several important clauses on moral rights, relating to photography? As many hon. Members, who have their photographs taken up and down the country know, photography is an important profession. It is important that we look carefully during the Committee stage at what has been taken away from photographers, as well as what has been given to them. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me that assurance.
  Mr. Gould: I am in the happy position of being able to respond to my hon. Friend with the same generosity as was shown by the Minister. I can give him an assurance on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield that, when he takes the Bill through Committee, he will give attention to this important point, along with the others we wish to scrutinise.
  In conclusion, we give a general welcome to the Bill. We do not think it is a perfect Bill by any means. Its imperfections are evident. It may be that, despite our best efforts, the imperfections cannot be adequately remedied. However, we shall do what we can to ensure that they are given proper debate and scrutiny. We shall play our part in trying to remedy the defects that we can identify. It will be our intention to ensure that the Bill, despite its existing values and virtues, emerges as a better Bill than it is now. If we can get proper answers to some of these difficult questions and make this a better Bill, we shall have done something for the intellectual life and economic future of this country.
  5.38 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: This is an important Bill on an important subject. It is such an important subject that it is regrettable that there are not more Opposition Members present. I accept that the title, Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, is not likely to cause a street demonstration in the United Kingdom. However, it is no exaggeration to say that income to major companies in this country from licence fees and royalties is important, and will become increasingly important. It may be the difference between the success and failure of a commercial enterprise.
  The Copyright Act 1956 is widely recognised as being in need of replacement. It has protected broadcasts since then, but that was before Telstar was launched. It restricted the circumstances in which photocopies could be made, but it predated the launch of the plain paper copier. It covered computer programs, but when it was passed a computer was virtually the size of a house and could perform only simple arithmetical tasks. So the Bill is here

  541
  to replace a 32-year-old Act which has done its best, labyrinthine though it may have been, to protect emerging technologies.
  I pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Patent Office, who have laboured long and hard on the White Paper, for putting up with me and for preparing the Bill.
  My first concern about the Bill is whether it adequately prepares the way forward to cover developing technologies. The speed of change in the past 32 years is as nothing compared with what is happening now. People to whom I have spoken in the computer industry have said that if, for any reason, they had to leave that industry for even only three years they would have to retrain completely. I am worried that the language of the Bill is still the language of the 1956 Act, although lip service may have been paid to new technology.
  For example, nowhere in the Bill—I stand to be corrected—can I find a definition of computer software, which I should have thought was an important item to be defined in 1988. I understand that in the information technology industry work is being done on what might be described as the legal implications of information technology. Such work should be broad enough in scope to embrace evolutions in technology. No one expects the Government to go in for futurology to such an extent that they can anticipate what technology may throw up in the next 10 or 15 years, but somehow the Bill must find a way of providing a framework to cope with problems as they develop. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to do that by order.
  In recent years there has been a need for private Members' measures, such as the one introduced so successfully by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright). However, I question whether we should rely on private Members' activities, important and successful though they are, given that we are introducing legislation as fundamental as this. If new technology is to be fully protected, several subtle issues must be dealt with, and they do not appear to have been addressed in the Bill.
  For example, is a program stored in a computer an idea because it is intangible in form? How should access to software be defined to prevent unauthorised copying and unauthorised use? There is a danger that unless the Bill is significantly amended to deal with the areas I am discussing we shall create a legislative Maginot line, around which future technological developments will flow with ease.
  I want to examine one or two of the terms used in the Bill. The term "adaption" is used. Adaption means
  "Infringement by making adaption or act done in relation to adaption."
  That definition is extremely narrow and must be inadequate to cover the adaption of a data base by selection rearrangement or paraphrase. Not enough attention has been given in the appropriate quarters to embracing the concept of what a computer data base is. Throughout the Bill the language is orientated towards literary works—copying and reproducing them—and whether authors will receive their benefits, and so on. Yet we are talking now about technologies that need protecting. Elsewhere in the Bill the term "reprographic copying" is used. Are those terms sufficient definitions to cover down-loading? Probably not.
  542
  The word "electronic" is also used. It is almost a sop; in some appropriate corner, the word electronic was thrown down as an inadequately sized blanket to cover any known future device. But electronic must be only part of the story. It does not embrace all types of machine-readable information.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) gave the Bill credit for discussing computer generation, and said that we were the first legislature to examine artificial intelligence. Is the definition of computer generation in the Bill clear enough? Is there a distinction between computer-generated and man-generated? Data bases can be generated by computers, and that is the real problem for the future.
  I shall not detain the House with more examples, but I am sure that the Standing Committee will need to examine these matters carefully. Copyright is a broad and simple concept. It is infringed by anyone who appropriates the intellectual creations of another. The Bill has missed the chance to state that basic principle simply, but it should contain powers to add by secondary legislation new forms of infringement. If the Secretary of State had such powers, he would be able to define new forms of infringing acts as advances in technology called for them.
  Technological change is not the only impetus towards reform. The 1956 Act got into a rare mess over industrial designs. It is inconceivable that when the House passed that Act any hon. Member thought that he or she was establishing a regime for the protection of exhaust pipes, but, for reasons too complicated and arcane to go into here, functional designs such as exhaust pipes have fallen within copyright and received protection for the lifetime of the designer plus 50 years. That is far too long, and something must replace copyright as the means of protecting functional designs.
  The White Paper promised a new form of protection lasting 10 years, with the provision that in the second five years licences should be available as of right. That was a reasonable compromise, although many thought it was a fair-weather umbrella giving protection only during the early part of a product's life, when there is no market for spares. The Bill includes what are known as the "must fit" and "must match" exceptions—the antithesis of the well-known maxim in copyright circles: if it is worth copying, it is worth protecting.
  The Government must understand that this means that manufacturers of goods that require spare parts—not only motor cars but many other mechanical products, including domestic appliances—will have to load all their development costs on to the products themselves, allowing for the reimbursement that they would have received for spare parts. Spares will have to be priced on a cost-plus basis to compete. The consumer may be able to get parts for his car more cheaply, but the car will cost him more to begin with. According to a recent CBI study, if the Bill is enacted along those lines, protection in the United Kingdom will be substantially less than that available to our competitors abroad in their domestic markets.
  Mr. Tim Janman: I agree with my right hon. Friend's observations. Does he also accept, on the question of copying spare parts such as body panels, that the copiers will tend to concentrate on those parts for which there is a high demand and that the price of those body panels on more outdated models, which tend to be vehicles used by people on lower incomes, will increase

  543
  because only the original equipment manufacturer will still have any interest in making them available in the market place?
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it is not the matters that are in the Bill which most concern me, but those that are not in the Bill.
  The White Paper promised that the Patent Office would be hived off and removed from the constraints of the Civil Service within which it plays a role not unlike that played perhaps by Siberia within the Soviet Union. The Government have now concluded that it is not a paying proposition, because so much of its work is now diverted under the European patent convention to Munich instead it will be sent to Newport.
  It would be much more to the point to hive off the Trade Marks Registry which at present forms part of the Patent Office. The two are in no way interdependent. The Trade Marks Registry makes a healthy profit from renewal fees. The registry could be left in London and the most could be made of whatever slim chance remains of having the Community Trade Marks Office in this country. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) who has slogged long, hard and admirably on the matter and I hope that his efforts are rewarded with success.
  On the question of the levy, one is inevitably drawn back to consider the White Paper of April 1986. Paragraph 6.1 states:
  "When the present Copyright Act was enacted in 1956 relatively few people had the facility to make recordings in their homes. Since then technology has advanced rapidly and inexpensive recording equipment is now readily available. Today most homes have at least one piece of audio recording equipment, typically a cassette recorder facility forming part of a hi-fi or music centre. Video recorder ownership is also widespread."
  In paragraph 6.3, the White Paper goes on:
  "The copyright interests have long expressed concern that their rights are unenforceable in practice. Attempts to prevent home taping by spoiler systems have not proved feasible. Nor have the copyright owners been able to obtain what they consider to be appropriate levels of remuneration in respect of home taping through voluntary licensing schemes because consumers did not take these up in sufficient numbers. It is argued that the only way copyright owners can be remunerated is by introducing a levy on recording equipment … and/or on blank recording tape."
  Paragraph 6.4 goes on:
  "The 1985 Green Paper discussed the issues involved. It commented that while home recorders had become commonplace, the benefits of the new technology had accrued solely to the general public and tape and recorder manufacturers, and that home taping was a major use of copyright material for which copyright owners received no payment. It went on to invite comments on the proposal that there should be a statutory requirement for the payment of a levy on the sale of blank tape, and perhaps also on recording equipment. Comments were invited both on the principle of a levy and on details of a suggested scheme for administering it."
  The first Green Paper was produced and, after consultation, the Government made their decision, which is set out in paragraph 6.6 of the White Paper:
  "After giving full and careful consideration to all the opinions expressed in response to the 1985 Green Paper, the Government has concluded that:

  (a) copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material and
  544
  performances by those who tape them at home to the prejudice of the legitimate interests of copyright owners;

  (b) there is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tape as a means of providing such remuneration; and

  (c) any levy scheme should give the public an entitlement to record for private purposes.

  In reaching these conclusions and in determining what legislative provisions should be introduced, the Government has had particular regard to the need to put the law on a sensible and—as far as possible—enforceable basis, as well as the need to balance the interests of copyright owners and performers with those of the public at large. While it has no wish to deny consumers the convenience of modern recording technology, the Government considers that copyright owners and performers—and not merely the manufacturers and importers of blank tape and recording equipment—should obtain some economic benefit from home-taping. It should be noted that a number of other governments have reached the same conclusion. Thus, legislative provision for a levy on blank tape has already been introduced in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The introduction of a levy is also under active consideration in a number of other countries."
  Paragraph 6.7 continues:
  "The Government does not accept the suggestion that private copying should be legalised without any provision for a levy. It is likely that this would be incompatible with the United Kingdom's current obligations under the Brussels text of the Berne Convention and with the Paris text of that Convention which the Government intends to ratify. The fact that rights cannot be enforced at present is not a justification for their removal; rather it is an argument that the law should be amended to ensure that the owners of rights are able to derive benefit from them."
  Paragraph 6.9 states:
  "It has been argued that whilst a levy might have been justified a few years ago when the record industry was in difficulties, the industry is now profitable and does not need further subsidy. However, the levy will be neither a subsidy nor compensation for lost sales or reduced profitability: it will be a payment of the right to use property—namely the right to make recordings of copyright material for private purposes—and will thus be totally independent of the profitability of the record industry (or indeed the financial standing of composers, lyricists and performers)."
  One could ask what external legal event, what judgment by the House of Lords and what further additions to the Berne convention have happened since April 1986. The answer is none. There has been the arrival of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is not legally qualified.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, he is.
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I meant that he is not legally qualified in a practising sense. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not only highly qualfied, but is learned in the best sense of that term.
  When I was a law student at Cambridge, I used to read those journals in which people would say, "Go away and consult the authorities on this matter." They did not mean the local authorities, but, in contract, Cheshire and Fifoot and, in real property, Megarry. My right hon. and learned Friend does not claim to be an authority on that subject, but he has formed a judgment about the rough justice and believes that it falls on the other side of the line to that which the Government upheld in April 1986. I do not agree with that. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that he would not press the House to a Division and, with the absence of his hon. Friends, I can well understand that. However, if he had done so, I would have been unable to

  545
  support the Government's proposal on the levy, although I like many aspects of the Bill. This is an important principle and one must recognise that differences of opinion exist.
  I have enumerated the countries that have already taken the view that a levy is a sensible way forward. We await—goodness knows when—a Green Paper from the European Commission. We appear to have been waiting for it for rather a long time and, when it arrives, we suspect that it may well recommend a levy. With the Department of Trade and Industry's harmonisation campaign for 1992, one must have the uncomfortable feeling that, at some stage, there will be a need for the Government, whether in 1992 or 1993, to come back to the House and put the matter right.
  In the past 10 days there have been some changes in the Government's position. They have been known to amend their view. Such changes used to be called U-turns, but that is a rather unfashionable term now. However, as a result of its complexity this subject has understandably become something of a U-turn charter. Differences have occurred between the Green Paper, the White Paper and the Bill. On the fair dealing provisions, the Secretary of State has taken one view, changed his mind and then considered changing it back again. I am not criticising him, because these are difficult issues.
  As the hon. Member for Dagenham said earlier, we are likely to see various changes not only to some of the parts that have been specified today, but of the sort that I hope will make this legislation as good as it needs to be because of the reliance of British industry, commerce and business on the protection of our intellectual property.
  6 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) said that he would probably not support the Government on the levy on blank tapes, so he might be considered to be a dangerous Member to put on the Standing Committee. However, it would be disappointing if he were not appointed, because he obviously has considerable knowledge of this complex subject and this detailed and complex Bill.
  I give the Bill a general welcome. Its updating of our copyright law is generally welcome on both sides of the House. It is clear that, although the Bill as a whole will not be contentious, some parts of it will generate some contention and discussion. Hon. Members who have spoken so far have already identified the areas which will give rise to debate.
  The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton referred to the difficulty of coping with what is inevitably a continually changing scene. We must make laws today for events and developments in the year 2000 that we cannot imagine now. The very nature of intellectual property means that today's legislation will have to be continually updated. We are dealing with a continually developing market, with new technologies and new ideas emerging all the time.
  I want to deal with various items in three categories—those which we welcome, those on which the Government have probably not gone far enough or on which the position is somewhat unclear, and the levy on blank tapes, on which the Bill is unacceptably silent.
  546
  In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the strengthened measures against counterfeiting. The provision for the continuation of the "Peter Pan" royalties to the Great Ormond street hospital will be welcome throughout the House. They are no substitute for adequate funding for the National Health Service, but they form an important part of that hospital's income and their continuation is welcome.
  Contrary to some previous speakers, I generally welcome the steps that the Government have taken on the so-called "spare parts" provisions. I hope that the Government will stand firm on the inclusion of exemptions to the proposed unregistered design rights—the so-called "must fit" and "must match" exemptions, despite the considerable argument and pressure which there will no doubt be.
  A considerable number of jobs are at stake among car body panel manufacturers. My impression from what the Minister said was that designs that were subject to exemption were such that they did not involve much in the way of inventive mind or imagination. Therefore, I do not accept the CBI's argument in its circular that no protection could mean no new products. We are not dealing with areas where there is considerable imagination and inventiveness. The competition that could be engendered through such exemptions could lead to benefits to the consumer and to the safeguarding of many thousands of jobs in the motor spare parts industry.
  Let me deal now with areas where the Bill is not entirely satisfactory. The inadequate protection for computer software programs in clause 63 and the single year of protection given to record rentals have already been referred to. Record rentals have not yet caught on in a big way in Britain, but I understand that in countries such as Japan that is a big industry, particularly since the arrival of compact discs. The amount of record rental arid recording there is substantial.
  As the Minister said, how long music is marketable is a matter of judgment, but there is a general feeling in the record industry that one year is not long enough. It does not give adequate protection to people who have invested their creative skills and talents in producing music and I hope that, as the Bill progresses through the House, some longer period of protection will be given.
  Clause 36 and the special provisions for the photocopying of material for local education authorities is another area that I should like to see amended. As I understand the present position, there is a voluntary agreement between the local education authorities and the copyright owners—the co-called copyright licensing agency licence—where it has been accepted that education establishments may copy up to 5 per cent. of a book per annum. Under clause 36, that would be reduced to 4 per cent. per annum, in quarterly batches of 1 per cent. The dates are not always helpful to local education authorities since at least one quarter will largely cover the school summer holiday. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would like a compromise on that. Five per cent. would be preferable, but if there are considerations in the Berne convention which limit it to 4 per cent., it might be easier and more helpful to local education authorities and schools if that could be done in two half-yearly batches of 2 per cent. That would overcome the problem where at least one of the quarters would largely fall during a holiday.

  547
  I have received representations from constituents on the Bill as it affects broadcasting, following some discussions in the newspapers on the extent to which interviewees have a copyright. People in broadcasting to whom I spoke earlier today feel that the position has not yet been satisfactorily clarified. Obvious areas of concern are where a reporter goes into the street with a microphone and takes off-the-cuff remarks from people and programmes such as those of Roger Cook involving consumer investigations where interviews are often of a hostile nature with someone trying to protect practices in which they have been engaged and which may not always meet with public approval.
  There is still some doubt whether such interviews can be repeated after an initial live broadcast or whether the person who gave the interview has a copyright of the recording which, if he exercised that right, would prevent any further broadcast of the interview.
  We would all regret seeing any unnecessary restraint on journalism, and the view in the industry is that the present position is not satisfactory. It has been suggested that there can be an implied consent by the interviewee. That will not be clear in a case when someone has said something which he would rather not have said and if an albeit honest statement might put that person in a bad light. Implied consent or implied licence is always revocable.
  The other argument was that an interview was not a work qualifying for protection under the Bill. There is a great deal of judicial authority which suggests that one does not have to do very much for one's words and utterances to become a work and subject to protection. If further clarification on that point can be given, so much the better.
  Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has referred to the absence of any provision for a levy on blank tapes. That is a serious omission. The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton has alredy referred, in his quotations from the White Paper, to the Government's complete about—turn from their position two years ago. Although I was not an avid reader of the Conservative campaign guide at the last general election, I believe that it contained a commitment to a levy on blank tapes.
  Earl Ferrers made a very persuasive contribution in another place when he moved an amendment in respect of a levy on blank tapes. Indeed, I suspect that he was so persuasive that he was brought into the Government team to prevent him from having another opportunity to persuade their Lordships about the merits of his argument.
  I listened to the Minister's arguments about why the levy should not be introduced. We would all accept that the argument is finely balanced and we can all readily see the pros and cons. The Minister said that Parliament has given rights to singers, musicians and composers and they should not have to come to us for help if their rights are not readily enforced. We cannot accept that argument just like that. If the rights that Parliament has granted to people cannot be enforced and are not effective, it behoves us to reconsider the matter to discover whether there is anything else that we can do to ensure that their rights are protected.
  The Minister said that this is a pretty rough and ready measure. We should also consider the public lending right. Considering the number of libraries in the country, very
  548
  few are chosen as the sample on which to base the remuneration payments to authors. That system is pretty rough and ready. However, it has been accepted that people whose skills and talents lie in creative and artistic works, be that the written word, spoken word or song, should be entitled to some return for their creativity.
  It was suggested in another place that the public lending right system would raise about £7 million. Although that may be a small amount of money when we consider the vast amounts raised in taxation each year, if that money were distributed among musicians, singers and composers it would be very beneficial. Many of those people do not have large incomes. If they are to be allowed time to express ther creative talents, that extra money—albeit relatively small in terms of the total taxation take—might allow them to further their careers and talents in a way which would not otherwise be possible.
  I am sure that amendments providing for a levy will be introduced in Committee and we will certainly support them. We accept that there will be problems for blind and deaf people. It is not beyond the wit of the House to find appropriate arrangments to allow for the imposition of a levy and its collection without too much bureaucracy and, at the same time, take account of those people with a special case for exemption.
  I hope that a constructive approach will be taken to the Bill. I am certain that Opposition Members will table constructive amendments. I hope that the Government will listen and be prepared to concede where they believe that a reasoned and well-argued case has been made. As has already been said, intellectual property and its protection are important for stimulating creativity and enterprise. The provisions in the Bill assist that. The Bill is also of considerable economic importance for us, not least as we approach 1992 and the single European market. Subject to reservations that will no doubt be debated, we welcome the Bill.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I want to describe the background to my interest in this subject. I spent 18 years in manufacturing industry, originally as a tyre designer. I am the co-holder of a number of patents. I was also a marketing manager interested in trade marks, branding and naming. I am a non-executive director of Interbrand Group plc. I give advice to Grant, Spencer Caisley and Porteus and to the Industrial Anti-Counterfeiting Group. I am vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and chairman of the Community Trade Marks Office committee. I apologise for recounting that list, but it shows that I take a strong interest in intellectual property.
  I want to thank everyone who has supported me over the past few years in our campaign to increase the interest in intellectual property. I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend in another place, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry and his colleagues on including in the Bill many of the things for which we have been campaigning with regard to intellectual property matters for almost a decade. I congratulate everyone on bringing that about. No doubt such action was taken with 1992 in mind and induced by the Government's clear recognition of the importance of intellectual property.

  549
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in another place:
  "Intellectual property is of substantial economic significance. It forms the foundations of major industries …A recent study concluded that 2·6 per cent. of GDP is generated by copyright based industries."—
  that is just copyright.
  "If one were to take into account industries which rely heavily on patents and designs"—
  and I would add trade marks—
  "the figure would obviously be higher still."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1476.]
  As was stated earlier, intellectual property is clearly an area of enormous significance. However, until recently, it was not recognised by the nation, or the House, as having that degree of significance.
  It will he difficult to achieve in the Bill all the balances to encourage this great creator of wealth for our industries. We should remind ourselves of the enormous importance of our brand names, trade marks and inventions. They are seen by people throughout Europe and further afield—and particularly in the newly developing countries—as highly attractive and extremely valuable. If there are any short cuts available to those countries to overcome the high cost and staffing difficulties of industrial research and creating brand names, images and market penetrations, the protection of intellectual property—the protection of our copyrights, design rights, patents and trade marks—will prove in the competitive years to 1992 and beyond to be an absolutely vital part of our industrial economic strategy.
  We must get the balance of protection right in the Bill to protect United Kingdom interests, to allow us access to our partners in Europe into the single market in 1992. Innovation, the protection of our clever, new designs and existing designs, will be all-important.
  As well as my interest in intellectual property, I have a constituency interest in the midlands and I share a constituency border with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Consumer Affairs. I accept that there is a difficult but important balance to achieve with regard to unregistered design rights between the original equipment manufacturer who has to put huge sums of money into developing products—even those that are functional—and the spare parts manufacturers. Many of us have both original equipment manufacturers and spare parts manufacturers in our constituencies.
  The matter is not simple and it cannot be left on the shelf. The judgment in the other place in the case of British Leyland v. Armstrong shows that some decisions must be made. I asked those who advised me to give me some idea of how design is looked on elsewhere and I understand that copyright protection of purely functional designs is much rarer in other countries. It may be obtained for 25 years in Japan and for 16 years in New Zealand. Many of the old Commonwealth countries which have previously granted life plus 50-year protection for purely functional objects are changing their copyright laws as we have had to do so, in the light of the key decision in British Leyland v. Armstrong. In France, a registrable design can be protected by copyright.
  Quite how we achieve the right decisions on this balance, I am not sure. We have to look not only at our own situation but at the fact that the European Economic Community is seen as the leader in intellectual property matters. Therefore, whatever we do in the Bill will no doubt result in repercussions, and perhaps people
  550
  following our example. The European Commission must be looking carefully at what we are doing. In achieving a balance we have not only our own legislation to bear in mind but our commitment to 1992 and our example to countries in Europe, and throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, it will be a most difficult matter.
  I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter of whether "must match" and "must fit" will be fair to both sides of the equation, and I wish to press him further on it. I understand that the decision was made in the light of increasing competition. I have received figures from Ford showing that body panels and wings of cars are largely imported. The figure is about 80 or 90 per cent. If we reduce the amount of protection, do we not increase the amount of import penetration and, in the name of competition, encourage those people from abroad?
  This may all be part of 1992 and the single market, but we need to look carefully at it, and I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on how we can see the "must match," and "must fit" proposals creating more incentives for UK manufacturers to compete with European manufacturers, so that body panels are produced here. I have some sympathy with the motor industry's argument that its members would like to see this idea dropped, but I also have sympathy with the desire for further competition. While there is a case to be made for this, although that is not accepted by the car industry—the original equipment manufacturers—it may be seen as a blunt instrument in the way in which it applies, for example, to computer hardware. It worries me that, if the normal three parts of any word processor can fit, presumably there would be no unregistered design right for a part of a word processor or whatever part of the three bits that usually go together, for people such as IBM and other computer manufacturers. If I have misunderstood this, I would be grateful to he reassured, but if those parts fit or match, unless they are a registered design, there will be no protection. If the argument is that the manufacturer of such products should register all his designs, I can understand that, but to register every part of a motor car would be an enormously lengthy and time-consuming process, and while it might be possible for large manufacturers, what about small manufacturers?
  I am not rejecting "must match" and "must fit," but I am exploring—perhaps it would be better done in Committee, in view of the need for brevity—whether there are any other ways out of this problem. For example, there is the change of the licence of rights to a compulsory licence. I understand that the European Commission is looking carefully at the possibility of compulsory licences, which would need the establishment of a tribunal system. This involves another part of the Bill and an extension of its powers to compulsory licences. If a manufacturer who wished to enter the market could not get a licence under this compulsory licence procedure, he could, if the manufacturer of the original products complained, go to the tribunal for judgment.
  I understand and appreciate the importance of avoiding monopolies, but there is a likelihood, if we do not tackle the European dimension, that this matter will be referred to the European Court, and I would appreciate my hon. Friend's comments.
  I am also concerned about the functional designs and the enjoyment of copyright for the designer's life plus 50 years. As time is now fleeing. I will press my hon. Friend

  551
  the Minister on this matter in Committee. There is some concern about the judgment of aesthetic designs and how eye appeal, not artistic merit, would effectively be the criterion, and the 15-year provision. I have been pressed about the design right of five years complete and a further five years under licence, leading to 10 years' protection for registered designs, and the suggestion that this should be extended to 10, 15 or 20 years, again with the possibility of a compulsory licence. These are important matters.
  I understand the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Minister as, among the many briefs I am clutching, I note that the Confederation of British Industry is strong in its resolution to the matter, that the British Automotive Parts Promotion Council takes rather a different view and that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders does not seem to have found common ground among its members, and is unable to advise them. I fully appreciate the difficulties of Ministers and Back Benchers in coming to hard conclusions as to the best solution. A balance, which has been mentioned today, is obviously important.
  There are a number of other aspects. I am concerned—I know that this matter was taken up in the other place—about Crown powers. The Crown has been given new and extensive rights, and the defence industry is most concerned about this matter. I wonder whether these new sweeping powers are necessary and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to an amendment on this. The five-year licence provision sufficiently protects the Crown and I am not sure about the urgent need provision suggested by Lord Beaverbrook. I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on this matter, but perhaps it would be better to take this up in more detail in Committee.
  I was interested in my hon. Friend's comments about the number of proposals in the Bill which affect trade mark agents, and I welcome the inclusion of privilege in the matter of trade mark agents dealing with clients. This is an important matter for them. They will also be subject, as I understand from the Bill, to becoming registered on a registry of trade mark agents. This is obviously a great advance, which I welcome. Although it may not be possible for him to comment tonight, I press my hon. Friend on how this registry would be formed. I understand from correspondence that this may not be possible now, and that it could be introduced subsequently. I have talked to a wide range of eminent trade mark agents and they are concerned that their profession achieves the highest quality of education, performance and standards. I am concerned that the way in which the registry operates allows this to happen.
  I congratulate the Institute of Trade Mark Agents on its new proposals for education and qualifications, but wonder whether it would not be appropriate to have an intermediate body which may set down the basic criteria for the way in which the registry operates, such as the senatorial version of its standing advisory committee. I know that it is planning to broaden that, but I wonder whether some intermediate body might be suitable. While I am in favour of self-regulation, there are occasions when the rules should, perhaps, be set by another body. By and large, I wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of a
  552
  registry for trade mark agents and all agents also welcome that, provided we can achieve the best and highest degree of qualification.
  I should now like to turn to some technical points. I understand that the appropriate section extends privilege to a registered patent agent in respect of
  "any matter relating to patents, trade marks, service marks, registered designs or design right, or with respect to any question of copyright connected with any such matters;"
  It does not appears to cover the question of passing off confidentiality. It may well be that the matter was covered in another place, but I should appreciate the Minister's comments, though not necessarily tonight. The corresponding provision for registered trade mark agents in the appropriate section appears to cover
  "any matter relating to trade marks or service marks".
  It makes no mention of copyright design passing off in the same way. Part VII, which deals with the fraudulent application or use of a registered trade mark, makes no reference to service marks. If I am incorrect about that or if it has been corrected in another place, perhaps the Minister will tell the House now or at a later stage.
  The appointment of county courts or patent county courts in the appropriate section which refers to related patents and designs or other intellectually related matters presumably includes trade marks and service marks. The other section provides for the inclusion of registered patent agents who may address a patent county court. Will registered trade mark agents have those same powers? I would appreciate the Minister's advice on that matter.
  I have been in correspondence with the Minister about character merchandising and, as always, I appreciated his forthright and frank comments. The Standing Advisory Committee is taking a long-range view of trade mark matters. I would welcome the Minister's advice because character merchandising may well be taken up later in another Bill. I am especially concerned about the problems of trafficking, but perhaps the Bill is not the appropriate measure to deal with that. We must get this matter right, and many suggestions have been made about it. Unless we can deal adequately with trafficking there may be even more problems.
  I was interested recently to be briefed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers when I found that this extraordinary and exciting Bill presents problems for it, too. I originally trained as a chemical engineer and have some sympathy for electrical engineers. The institution showed me its database and abstracts from it. I understand that under the original terms of the Bill that will be illegal. The institution was helpful in its briefing and the Government may well be sympathetic to an amendment that will help the institution to give to the scientific community quite remarkable access to abstracts from learned articles. I cannot remember how many learned articles are covered, but they are of enormous value and are used by the European Parliament, by hon. Members and by the scientific community.
  The institute is anxious about the matter, and I have assured it that there will be many amendments coming from the other place and that the Minister's officials are working extremely hard. Any advice on timing would be helpful, and perhaps the Minister would be prepared to see members of the institution. I do not act on its behalf, but as an engineer I find its concern quite important.
  I am a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and I am concerned about

  553
  enforcement by trading standards officers. They are quite justified in bringing to me the problem that they are finding in using the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 against persons dealing in illicit audio recordings or foreign video recordings. This is often because of the clever marketing techniques used by people who deal in those things.
  Trading standards officers have found that their efforts to use the Act are frequently thwarted because the illicit packer, in copying the packaging of the legitimate article, omits all mention of the genuine producer and sometimes even substitutes the name and logo of an entirely fictitious company. Similar problems exist with Asian language video recordings and computer software. I should be grateful for the Minister's advice about what to do to strengthen the enforcement powers of trading standards officers.
  I have long campaigned against industrial counterfeiting and I enormously appreciate the inclusion in the Bill of the clause that makes counterfeiting a criminal offence. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues because it is right that this pernicious practice should be made a criminal offence. The clause will be widely welcomed, not just by hon. Members, but by British industry because it is likely to provide a significant and obvious deterrent to this kind of crime. Arguments that the Trade Marks Act 1938 provides criminal penalties have been belied by the fact that on average the courts have imposed penalties of about £200 per crime. To a counterfeiter making many hundreds of thousands of pounds from counterfeiting our famous British brand names and products, that is derisory and not a deterrent.
  I congratulate the Government and give notice that while fully supporting the Bill I feel that on some points we can improve even further their excellent efforts. If I am lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee and to catch the Chairman's eye, I shall suggest amendments that will confer on the police power to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, and shall seek to amend the provision about the forfeiture of counterfeit goods or material so that it no longer depends on a person being convicted. I shall suggest amendments to change the offence of possession in order to make it unnecessary to prove that the possessor himself intended to commit a further offence. I shall try to insert a power that will enable enforcement authorities to share information, first with each other and secondly with industry. That is most important. I shall also try to strengthen Customs procedures about the importation of counterfeit goods.
  I seem to be congratulating the Government quite often and I do so again on the European measure about which they are taking a lead on the control of counterfeit goods coming into Britain. I look forward to discussing in more detail with the Minister in Committee the reasons behind my proposed amendments to the excellent clause about counterfeiting.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I have not had an opportunity to study the Bill as carefully as my hon. Friend. Does the counterfeiting power extend to intellectual property as well as to physical property?
  Mr. Mills: I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that, as I understand it, it would. If it is a deliberate counterfeit and not a design right it would come under that clause.
  554
  I could be tempted to continue for hours about the Community Trade Marks Office but I know that I should not be called again. I had the honour to chair the Committee which dealt with this and I can tell the House that the matter is still very much in the air. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) on his redoubtable and splendid support when he was Minister of State for the campaign to site the proposed Community Trade Marks Office in London. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on their efforts. We have all campaigned, but we are up against tough opposition from The Hague, Munich and now Madrid. It is only right that Britain, which does not have a visible and tangible demonstration of its commitment to the European Community, should have this important institution. We have Culham, which is not an institution but a research project. Despite being the second biggest contributor to the European Community, we do not have evidence of our strong commitment to Europe, not just in the past but in 1992.
  The time has come for Europe to recognise the justice of our case and to give us that important institution, which will directly lead to at least 200 jobs, and may indirectly lead to 10 or 20 times that number. With the help of the developers, Taylor Woodrow, Her Majesty's Government are building that office. It is in St. Katharine's dock, near the Tower of London. My colleagues should look at it. That is how tangible the commitment is. The Government have offered substantial support. I press them to declare how substantial it is and to increase the substance, if that is needed. The Government must understand that they may have to play this as the European bargaining takes place. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the Government's intellectual backing and commitment are followed up by funds and arguments to ensure that justice is done and Britain has that European institution.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Ted Garrett: Had the debate been televised, it would have been a switch-off. However, the debate is more interesting for the long-term prospects of the country than are some of the packed, highly controversial debates on what I sometimes think are non-issues. Therefore, it is pleasant and refreshing to stand here this evening, in the peace and quiet of the Chamber—it was peaceful until the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) arrived—and debate some matters of interest to the nation and do less politicking.
  I warn hon. Members who have the misfortune to sit on the Committee that examines the Bill. I was a member of the Committee that examined the last patents Bill, the Patents, Designs and Marks Bill, that came from the House of Lords. Hon. Members will find it a dreadful, complex experience. Often, after sitting from 10.30 in the morning to 1 o'clock in the afternoon, they will come out of the Committee Room with sore heads. The last patent Bill was recognised as a stop-gap measure. I well remember having a conversation with a noble Lord who has gained fame in the legal profession for his knowledge of the Patent Acts. He said, "You may be an engineer, Mr. Member for Wallsend, but you know nothing about complexity and technology until you get into patent legislation."

  555
  We are now in a more difficult situation. We have extended way beyond patents into other aspects of design, technology and science. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. Surprisingly, for a debate of this calibre, there are some hon. Members with a good knowledge of science, technology, and chemical engineering who can add something in Committee. Hon. Members on the Committee will also learn something about their fellow hon. Members. I have never seen such unity between spokesmen on both sides of the House.
  I was impressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whose intellect I admire; it is far superior to mine. But I like classical music and he likes pop music. He mentioned that one in four pop music compositions is exported from this country. I thought of all the misery that had been inflicted upon so many people and of the long-term damage to their ears. That is well worth remembering.
  I have always held the view that the design ability, inventiveness and ingenuity of the people of this country have never been fully rewarded. The man who invented "cats' eyes"—some hon. Members are too young to remember; it was in the 1930s—received adequate reward. I have often considered that Frank Whittle, who designed the jet engine, never received his full reward. Many of us may cite examples of men and women who, applying their minds and logic, have come up with some brilliant thoughts. For example, I refer to marine engineering. Some of our designers in the north-east helped to design the bulbous nose on many ships in use today. That design was stolen from us by the Japanese, and we never received our full reward.
  People have improved the quality of many of our textiles. Hon. Members will have seen textiles that have been churned out in the far east, inscribed, "Finest English worsted. Made in Huddersfield." Again, our designs and colours have been stolen. We have British watches of standing and substance. They are much more expensive than I can afford. Cheap imitations are flooding in from many areas. Fake designs audaciously bear quality trade marks.
  We must get around to protecting not merely designs and names but the rewards for the people who have singlemindedly put so much of their lives into such designs. Without them, British industry, technology and inventiveness will not progress. These days, we hear a lot about the decline in British industry. British industry is beginning to surge forward. New people are going into British industry. We must encourage them, but we must also encourage those who put in the effort to get the just reward. It is a sad reflection on our society that so many people who have put in the effort have not been rewarded. The reason is that they have not had sufficient money to take a case through the courts.
  A long time ago, before I became an hon. Member, I was lucky enough to work for enlightened employers. Some of my contemporaries were design-conscious and inventive. They got assistance from their employers to register patents. That is an expensive procedure. It becomes more expensive when some principles of a patent are deliberately stolen. It is at that stage that the legal profession comes into the matter.
  556
  The Minister said that he would like the Patent Office to be kept in London. I for one would not. I should like the Patent Office to be where our design and industrial bases are. I would plump for the north-east, but I suspect that the Patent Office will remain in London. That is where patent lawyers live and congregate. That is where, with high moral standards, they argue with each other in the courts. Often they argue that costs are astronomical. Those hon. Members who will be on the Committee should also look at that aspect of the legislation.
  The Government produced a Green Paper and a White Paper, but such documents are produced for discussion. All Governments have the right to decide what their analysis is, what should be rejected from a Green Paper and what should be added to the Bill, and the Government have done that.
  I support them on the question of blank tape because of the sheer bureaucracy that would be involved in getting the ultimate levy. It will be bad enough collecting the poll tax without trying to get money on blank tape.
  Those are my random thoughts. I hope that in Committee we shall have some really serious debates. We will have to sharpen our minds to get this legislation through with every loophole closed. I am old enough to know that we shall not close all the loopholes, but when the Bill comes out of Committee we shall certainly have improved the lot of the people who will ultimately benefit from it.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Gerrard Neale: I wish to echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) that it is certainly a pleasure to take part in a debate that is less ritualistic than most and deals with the issues before us in the Bill. He referred in his speech to lawyers, and this Bill has been described as a lawyers' paradise. It is with some hesitation that I declare my interest as a partner in a law firm that has quite a number of clients who are involved in publishing authors' creative work and dealing with intellectual property. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will have some sympathy with the suspicion that one has an intense sense of anticipation that this Bill may reach the statute book in as complicated and convoluted form as possible, and the even worse suspicion that the sole purpose of my speech is to complicate it still further.
  Those interested in this area of the law have been greatly reassured by the very name of the Bill and the way in which it has been introduced, although there are, of course, concerns, and I will touch on those in a moment. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) implicitly indicated the degree of courage that is required to bring forward a Bill of this kind, bearing in mind the tremendously conflicting interests. It is a great credit to the Government that they have introduced it.
  The Bill started its life in another place as a relatively straightforward and clearly drafted piece of legislation, but has already, as indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, become something of a monster. In my view, it still has some way to go towards achieving its objectives of improving the lot of those responsible for creating the works of the mind on which our society depends while ensuring that there is access to those works

  557
  on fair terms. I hope that during the Bill's passage through the House we may be able to do something to restore the balance which in some areas seems to have been lost.
  I shall direct my remarks predominantly to the copyright elements of the Bill. We have had excellent speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir. G. Pattie) on the design aspects.
  The Government have told us, and history shows, that there is a major new copyright Bill only once in a generation, so the Bill is important if only for that reason. But it has a much greater importance. Copyright is the trading system for works of the mind, for the information and creative products which play so vital a part in our society and our economy today. In terms of demand, four years ago a Cabinet Office paper estimated the value of those industries at some £15 billion a year. The hon. Member for Dagenham quoted a figure of £20 billion, which is something over one twentieth of our total economy. Those industries include, in addition to the traditional writing, publishing and printing industries, broadcasting in all its new forms, the film, video and audio industries, computer services and those involved in the distribution of information products.
  These industries are large, significant and influential for the shape and growth of our society. They represent an area of trade in which the United Kingdom, with the benefits of the English language, has a particular role to play. They enjoy exceptional growth possibilities, and various speakers have referred to that. As a country, our writing, research, publishing, television, films and software are of unrivalled quality. We stand on the threshold of an information explosion generated by the information technology revolution. This offers this country unusal opportunities, which the industries are now seizing. What is more, as has been said by various hon. Members, the copyright model that we set in this Bill is very likely to be followed by countless other countries which have taken their lead from us already in such matters as well as in other areas of legislation.
  The Bill, on its publication in the other place, appeared to recognise that an effective trading system for information products and services is clearly essential. In the United Kingdom we secured this long ago by establishing a property right, a right to sell or license. The existence of this right works in the interests of the public by encouraging authors and other creators to put their works on the market by giving them the prospect of fair earnings. But, because the property is incorporeal, unlike land or chattels, it is particularly difficult to enforce. That problem was touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend in his opening speech. At any time it has been easy to make pirate copies of books, films, records and software. As a consequence, the Copyright Acts have imposed both civil remedies and criminal penalties to discourage such behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton pointed out how new information technology has greatly increased that risk, not just from commercial fly-by-nighters but by all sorts of respectable people: by the ordinary citizen with a cassette recorder, by industrial companies—which, one has to say, at the same time will go to the ends of the earth to protect their own intellectual property—by libraries, by professional people by Governments and by local government.
  These new technologies, of course, help provide access to information. They enable users of information to make
  558
  a copy—perhaps many copies—cheaply and easily of just the piece of information they need. This confers major benefits on consumers, the benefits of cheapness and selection. Since, normally, they own the master copy, they are, they think, doing only what is within their rights. But for the copyright owner these acts are legion. The copy seems to amount to little, but the sum of the copies is enormous and for many types of work this prevents the owner from getting the fair return to which he or she is entitled. It discourages investment of his or her time and skill in the creation of further work and it discourages investment in those works by publishers. In volume, it destroys the viability of industries dependent upon the copyright.
  It was this phenomenon that the Whitford departmental inquiry was set up to investigate and advise on. ft produced a widely accepted report to the effect that copyright owners would have to accept new and perhaps less satisfactory systems for controlling and producing returns from these new uses. It also advocated that users should accept that, while such systems should as far as possible be voluntary, they should be backed by statutory enforcement.
  Those recommendations were accepted by the Government in a series of Green Papers and White Papers, and appeared for the most part in the original text of this Bill. But in the course of proceedings in another place many of them and many of the positive supports for the copyright owners have been dropped. I will not repeat the elements touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton in that regard. He referred to the need to secure reward for composers and manufacturers of music records so frequently copied in the home, and to his stance on the levy on blank tape. I could not contemplate going that far, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that I still feel some pricks of conscience that we have yet to cover this point and should be happy to contribute to any attempt that he might make to cover it.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend recognise the great danger that, if we set up such a bureaucracy to distribute money from a comparatively modest levy on blank tapes, much would go on administration and little to those who composed or performed the works? Would that not have a similarity to the performing rights system, where a high proportion of the money paid to the Performing Right Society does not go to the composer or artist, but is spent on administration?
  Mr. Neale: There is undoubtedly a danger in any system of this type. I agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham that if one is to criticise the Government on their stance it is only right and proper to come forward with a clear alternative, which I am unable to do. I am left with a feeling of conscience, which I think my hon. Friend the Minister, as a composer, would share and I wish him well in that interest. I am sure he will accept that it is clearly unfair on people who spend considerable time arid effort producing creative works to see them copied freely, without any attempt to contain that.
  There is a fundamental need to secure a reward for writers and publishers for the books and periodicals which are so freely copied by libraries and, similarly, those copied by commercial companies and research institutions

  559
  through the block licensing systems. Yet that has been truncated in the Bill, so that if it were enacted it would amount to an unfair freedom for important sections of the market to make copies to meet their needs. For valuable and scientific publications the result would be devastating, given the expense of production and the small circulation. Under clause 29 academic institutions, libraries and commercial research organisations will be able to obtain copies of articles, journals and even parts of books. They are all worthy institutions but, as Whitford said, there is no reason for permitting the confiscation of originators' property, especially since relatively simple licensing systems are available to provide the required access.
  My right hon. and learned Friend reiterated his belief that people should be rewarded when they create a work and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden referred to the comments of Lord Beaverbrook and the Secretary of State in another place. It was the CBI and library bodies that objected to the administration involved. If comparatively little is going on, the amount of administration should be small. If the administration costs are heavy, it shows, as does research, that there is an enormous amount of infringement of originators' rights. We need to consider that carefully.
  The legal presumptions are designed to ease and reduce the cost of the copyright plaintiff's burden of proof in enforcement actions. It is worrying that the Government dropped those without adequate replacement, and I hope that that will be considered. As a result this Bill carries the danger of becoming an infringers' charter. New technologies present, not so much an opportunity for the copyright owner, but a major threat, destroying the viability of an original publishing operation, particularly of the valuable specialised works which are most likely to be accessed by these means. Book publishers, for example, greatly hit by these changes in policy, have given the Government a shortlist of priorities which include better protection of computer software. The Bill improves on that, but there are certain disturbing drafting loopholes. They include support for the block licensing of photocopying by institutions and companies—that is truncated in the Bill as it stands; support in the fight against international piracy of books and other copyright products; and the special circumstances of British publishing in the European market, which is by no means a common publishing market because of the different marketing considerations that inevitably apply.
  In that connection, in 1981 the book publishing industry asked the Government for help with serious problems which the single market presented for British publishing. The threat came from opening the doors to competing American products, without any compensating entry into the United States. I hope that it is appreciated that, far from helping, clause 29 advertises the opportunity.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to continue to listen carefully to the amendments that are being advocated. I am sure that the spirit of the debate will be carried over into the Committee. There seems to be a genuine desire to create a better environment in this respect. These points need to be remedied so that Parliament helps, and does not penalise, our creative
  560
  industries which are so vital, not just to our culture, but to our economy. They are important to the extent that many hundreds of millions of pounds a year are involved.
  In conclusion, I wish to take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton. Given the history of infrequent introductions of Copyright Bills and the rapid change in technology, we need both a more permanent form of machinery to keep this under review, and help in ensuring that our law keeps abreast of technical changes. I know that so far the Government have resisted the idea of a standing national council to assist in this process. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that that idea is supported by the Confederation of Information Communication Industries. He has resisted it to date, but I hope that he will reconsider it because there is considerable anxiety regarding the pace of change and the ability to get round elements of the Bill.
  I welcome the general thrust of the Bill and I applaud my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry for introducing it. One accepts that there are desperately conflicting pressures. There is not a great deal of party political division over the subject, but there is commercial division and it would have been extremely tempting for the Government to leave it for yet another year. I wish the Bill well and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister notes the points raised in the debate.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: This is not a controversial Bill; nobody will vote against it, and that would he the case whenever it was presented. Therefore, it is a disgraceful reflection on the British legislative system that we have had to wait 11 years since the publication of the Whitford report for legislation. It is the fault of Administrations of both parties. For a short time I was a Minister after the Whitford report was published. We must find a better way of legislating more quickly on matters on which there is no great disagreement on principle. If it takes 11 years to put into effect relatively uncontroversial but important legislation such as this, there seems little hope of reaching a common single European market by 1992.
  The purpose of the legislation must be to ensure that the creator of intellectual property is properly rewarded for his effort, which ranges from a symphony to the composition of a computer software system. Those who spend time on the creation of a computer software system may spend more time on it than Mozart did on a symphony, and that effort must be properly rewarded. It is wrong that the results of a great deal of effort should be stolen so easily.
  I hope that in future we shall be able to legislate more quickly on these matters, perhaps concentrating on matters of principle and rights. Enforcement and administrative matters might well be developed later. Of course, I welcome the Bill.
  I shall deal briefly with three matters. First, I have had letters from several universities about the copyright in statutes and the statutory instruments passed by Parliament, and in law reports. Several people have written to me saying that it is wrong for them to be denied the opportunity to present for a court or tribunal legislation that has been passed by the House or, indeed, law reports that require the interpretation of legislation. I hope that the Minister will look at that problem. I am sure that other people have written to him about it. It is an important matter of principle that the law should be

  561
  accessible to all and that poor litigants, especially those who litigate themselves and who need to copy and take extracts from law reports, should be readily afforded the opportunity to do so without breaching copyright laws.
  Secondly, moral right exists in many European countries. The Bill extends it to creative matters such as films. Sometimes when I go to the films I think that there is so much moral rights recorded in the film that the credit titles will be longer than the film. Sometimes the film has been going for 10 minutes before the moral rights are put up on the screen and the story resumes.
  I think that the concept of moral right is correct, but we ought to be consistent about it. It will apply to writers of advertisement copy and producers of film, but it is not to extend to journalism. Indeed, when one considers some journalism in The Sun or the Evening Standard, perhaps moral right ought to be compulsory. When someone writes headlines such as "Big-boobed bimbo bonked", not only should the author of such a story have the moral right, if that is the right word in that context, to have his name recorded, but it ought to be compulsory so that we know who writes the disreputable smear stories that appear in some of our newspapers. So, if we are to have moral right, let us have it across the board.
  There is equally a strong case for someone who produces, say, excellent photographs or sketches for newspapers, or a piece of writing or broadcasting, to have moral right. It should exist consistently across the board.
  Thirdly. with regard to a blank tape levy, musicians, composers and performers especially have had their work plagiarised and stolen from time immemorial. Composers such as Donizetti and Rossini used sometimes not to tell the artists or the orchestra the contents of their great arias until the day of a performance. That led them into trouble. I believe that on one occasion a composer, working at the end of the 18th century, presented an aria at the last moment because he was fearful that his work would be reproduced on the streets of Venice without benefit to him. Other prima donnas who had learnt about it at the last moment insisted on another aria being written. I believe that on one occasion either Rossini or Donizetti was forced to sit down at about midday and write another aria to match the ones that had been disclosed at the last possible moment. Therefore, this has always been a problem.
  The Government have recognised that. In 1986 they decided that the blank tape levy was a way of dealing with the matter. I am not suggesting that the levy is the only or the perfect way of dealing with the problem of giving artists their correct reward. But if anything has happened since 1986, it must be a reinforcement of the argument that composers and performers ought to be given protection against copying, even if it is only in the home. Since 1986 there has been on the market a flood of double-tape machines. Very few people nowadays buy a hi-fi system unless it has a back-to-back taping system. Such systems are widely advertised, and their sale has greatly increased in the past two or three years. That reinforces the argument for protecting artists whose work can be copied so easily.
  The growth in the market of compact disc players means that one can buy a very high quality recording which will not deteriorate over time and can copy it over and over again. The copy does not have the hiss and
  562
  scratch that one gets from an ordinary gramophone recording. That again reinforces the argument for protecting the performer.
  Indeed, everything that has happened in that time will reinforce the need to protect the artist and to present him with some reward. Of course, in the past, some people have achieved extraordinary rewards. I think that it was Puccini who earned more from Al Jolson than he did from many of his scores. Al Jolson's publisher took a piece from Tosca and turned it into a song called "I found my love in Avalon". Puccini sued Al Jolson's publisher and was awarded the entire royalties. I think that it produced a rather larger income for him than many of his famous operatic scores. I want to see artists and performers, whether of classical or pop music, getting their just rewards, as Puccini did from Al Jolson's productions. Something like a blank tape levy is the only way to do it.
  I know that there are problems about administration. As a solution, I suggest that the Government ought to put into the Bill a framework based on a levy on tapes. It would not be as difficult to administer as the Government suggest. After all, there are few manufacturers of tapes and it would not be too difficult to catch and control those who import tapes. So one can define the market fairly easily. There are turnover records and the manufacturers can be identified separately in VAT returns. There is no great difficulty in identifying the market. The Government ought to tack on to the Bill a framework for doing this, but say that they will allow for an interval of time during which the industry could try to work out a voluntary arrangement.
  Such systems operate elsewhere, for example, for the advertising industry. The control of advertisements works extremely well with the Advertising Standards Authority. The authority works voluntarily without any public expenditure involved. It does its job excellently. A system of self-regulation will be imported when we implement the European directive on advertising.
  In exactly the same way, there could be a voluntary arrangement in this case. It all came about because the advertising industry was told that if it did not regulate itself there would be statutory intervention. If the Government put a framework into the Bill that they could implement in future, after perhaps three or even 10 years, so that they could transfer some of those rewards from the copiers of music, in particular, to its producers it would be possible for the tape producers to set about organising a voluntary scheme. It would involve no public expenditure or great bureaucracy and would transfer rewards from those who enjoy music and other productions to those who produce them.
  I do not think it is an argument against this approach that performers such as Madonna or The Beatles earn a lot of money. They will earn a lot of money from their record productions in any case. But it tends to be artists who do not have large incomes who will suffer as a result of copying. I hope that the Government will adopt that compromise.
  The Bill is uncontroversial. I am not asking for a U-turn, but I do ask the Government for what I believe the pop industry describes as a re-mix.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Some hon. Members—I count myself among them,—may be

  563
  experiencing a political version of déjà vu, having covered in previous debates at least part of the material that we are covering today.
  Three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) successfully introduced what was to become the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985. I welcomed the opportunity to take part in that debate, just as I welcome this opportunity.
  The town of Basingstoke, which dominates my constituency, has become over the years one of the major centres in the United Kingdom for the hi-tech industry. Constituency interests in intellectual property, and the Bill, are appreciable.
  I echo the sentiments already expressed that it is good to take part in a debate where clearly there is no party political divide, especially after the uproar earlier this afternoon. I listened with great care and interest to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I substantially agree with what he said.
  I do not for one moment challenge the need for the introduction of major legislation of this sort. On the contrary, I add my voice to those who demand such legislation. I fully accept the proposition that copyright law must be made more logical and consistent and that it must be brought up to date to take into account modern developments in communication technology.
  As a former schoolmaster, I particularly welcome the suggestion that schools and other education establishments should he allowed to record broadcast material for teaching purposes. As has been said in the debate, it is essential to introduce new and effective measures for dealing with copyright theft, counterfeiting and so on.
  I particularly welcome the Government's acknowledgement of the importance of getting the balance right between the interests of the innovator or designer and the interests of fair competition, with the benefits that that will bring to the consumer. The essential and fundamental question is whether that balance is right and whether the Bill has found the balance. I propose to restrict my comments exclusively to the design side of the Bill. Initially, I must confess that I have my doubts about whether the balance is right.
  My attention was particularly caught by a choice of words by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister who spoke of the need to legislate to provide limited protection for the designer and innovator. I felt that the context in which he used those words demanded not the term "limited" but "adequate". At several key points in the Bill the interests of the innovator and designer may not be sufficiently safeguarded—lost, as it were, to the interests of the consumer and fair competition.
  The Bill carries with it the abolition of design copyright. It replaces it with two forms of protection, each of which is accompanied by major exemptions, which have the objective of allowing spare part copying, to which much reference has been made. Under part IV, the option of registered design is limited only to aesthetic design. Arguably, that is a weakness, although I acknowledge that the period of protection is sufficiently extended.
  Similarly, under part III, an automatic design right is created for functional, non-aesthetic designs and non-registered aesthetic designs, but the period of
  564
  protection is only five years. In the following five years the innovator or designer is obliged to allow rivals to compete and thereafter no protection is given.
  The spare parts debate dominated much of the proceedings in another place. During those deliberations, most attention was given to the motor vehicle industry. I do not for one moment doubt the importance of that industry or the specific problems generated in it, but, arguably, their Lordships' debate was the poorer for its great concentration on the industry. Arguably, the proposals in the Bill are couched in terms which, to an excessive extent, reflect the interests of the motor vehicle industry. As a result, arguably, protection has been completely removed from a wide range of design products in other industries. The impact on the rest of industry could be dramatic and highly undesirable.
  Without for one moment denying the need for the legislation, and while warmly welcoming it, I believe that there is no doubt that there is a growing and articulate body of thought that is concerned about the proposals on designs. The essential argument is that the Bill will, in practice, substantially weaken the incentives for British companies to innovate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) made much of that and I entirely endorse his comments.
  More specifically, it can be argued that British companies will be at a disadvantage compared with overseas competitors since so many of the latter enjoy far greater protection. I understand that functional design is protected for 50 years in France and for 25 years in Japan and that there is limitless protection in Portugal. Without protection, the incentive to innovate is seriously undermined. The Standing Committee will have to address that problem seriously.
  An area for concern is the suggestion that the introduction of registered design will impose major new burdens on business. The Government's overall objective is to decrease the burdens on industry. It is a fact that tens or even hundreds of development designs are produced for every product that is eventually marketed. Very probably during that process the designer will wish to protect those development designs as well as his final product. If that is so, the Bill will impose on the designer a process of registration that will be costly and time-consuming and might prove to be bureaucratically burdensome. The impact may be felt most by small businesses, that very sector of our national and economic life which the Government so rightly wish to nurture.
  A second area for concern, which must be considered carefully, is the argument that functional design deserves greater recognition than is currently given in the Bill. To start with, and almost in parentheses, I confess that I am confused and somewhat cynical about the rigid distinction between aesthetic and functional design. I wonder whether, in practice, that rigid distinction can be made. However, accepting for a moment that such a distinction can be drawn, I must ask why the Bill gives such a low priority to protecting functional design.
  The Bill would have us believe that artistic endeavour and aesthetic design are more worthy of protection than functional design. Why should industrial innovation and functional excellence be regarded as less worthy of protection? Surely functional excellence, ease of assembly and economic use of material are as much of good design as aesthetic qualities, yet in the Bill functional excellence

  565
  receives the protection only of design right rather than of registered design. The Bill almost presents functional design as a second-class citizen.
  The protection of five years given by the Bill is insufficient to encourage innovation to the extent that we should like. It is insufficient to allow British industry to compete on an equal footing with overseas competitors.
  A third area for concern in the Bill is the "must fit, must match" principle. Surely it contains loopholes and inconsistencies. The Bill excludes from all protection many products that cannot be regarded just as spare parts. Intentionally or unintentionally, it will be possible for a host of composite unit products—hi-fi, kitchen units, food processors and so on—to be copied freely. Surely that cannot be right. Nor can it be the intention of the Bill. For such items, there will be no protection, which is unacceptable—hence so much of the concern that is being expressed about the design part of the Bill.
  Similarly, the "must match" principle, intentionally or unintentionally, encompasses a wide range of items, including product casing formed from two or more pieces. In other words, the design casing of a huge range of products will lose protection. The important point is that many firms have developed products that are novel primarily in appearance or in the interconnections. Protection will be removed from those.
  Let me expand on the point that I tried to draw from the hon. Member for Dagenham in an intervention. As we know, the Bill removes design copyright. It can be argued that it has not replaced it with adequate protection for innovators. Despite the hours of consideration given to the Bill in another place and the conclusions reached there, it may still be argued that design copyright should not be eliminated. However, if it is to be eliminated, functional design must be protected for a greater length of time.
  I accept—indeed I warmly welcome—the Bill and I welcome the opportunity for this debate. The key to the problem is to get the balance of conflicting interests right, and I have my doubts that that balance has been achieved for the design aspects.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: This interesting debate has so far covered everything from the defence industry to Madonna and doubtless a few variations are yet to come. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who made interesting points about design, if I restrict myself to one or two specific aspects of the Bill. The only interests that I have to declare are as a member of the National Union of Journalists and as someone who occasionally tapes music. Let me say immediately that I would have no objection to paying a little to those who have created that music.
  Let me deal with the aspects of the Bill affecting journalism. It is important that what is, by common consent, a necessary and valuable Bill should not have a marginal impact upon groups of people whom there is no intention to hurt. While the major industrial concerns are being discussed, some such effects could slip through almost unnoticed. I am especially concerned about clause 11, which replaces clause 4 of the 1956 Act. Under that Act a journalist who wrote a piece of work had to accept—perhaps sometimes reluctantly—that the proprietor of the publication was entitled to the copyright in that work so
  566
  far as it related to its appearance in any newspaper, magazine or other periodical. In all other respects, the copyright was retained by the author. Thus a newspaper or magazine could syndicate staff journalists' work in other newspapers or magazines, but if the work was broadcast, included in a book or fed into a database, the author held the copyright and was entitled to recompense for its use. When the Bill entered the Lords, that was roughly the position.
  However, quite a dramatic change was made in the Lords. I had hoped that, in amending the Bill, the Lords would have moved towards protecting the rights of journalists, perhaps allowing journalists' employers to use their work in their other publications but limiting it to that. In fact, the other place moved in the opposite direction. The effect of clause 11 as drafted would be that once the journalist has produced a piece of work for his own publication—presumably in return for the salary that that publication pays him—that work belongs to the proprietor, who can do whatever he likes with it. The effect of that is absurd. A relatively low-paid journalist—and they exist—is paid for a piece of work that acquires a value, because of the journalist's reputation or the subject matter or quality of the work, and it is then open season for the proprietor to maximise his revenue by selling that work all over the world and to all branches of the media. That is going too far towards helping the proprietor's interests and diminishing the legitimate rights of journalists. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been known to contribute to the written and broadcast media from time to time and I suspect that they understand the problem. A journalist works for the money that he is paid, but it seems very unfair if that work is then flogged all over the world for large amounts of money, not a penny of which he is entitled to.
  If the Bill is unfair to journalists who write, its effects on photographers are far more pernicious. Perhaps I may explain. Article 10(1) of the Berne convention, which governs such matters, states:
  "It shall be permissible in all the countries of the Union to make short quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals, as well as to include them in press summaries".
  Most people would say that that was fair enough. In line with article 10(1), the fair dealing provisions of the 1956 Act allowed journalists to make quotations from other sources to clarify a news report, so long as prior permission was obtained. Clause 30 of the Bill, however, removes the distinction between fair dealings with literary work and fair dealing with photographic work.
  Clause 30 (1)(b) proposes that the use of material free of charge for the purposes of news reporting should be extended to photographic material. The implication for photographers—particularly freelance photographers—is devastating. One cannot use a bit of a picture in the same way as one can use a quotation from a story or other piece of literature to illustrate a piece or work. One can only use the picture itself. If every Tom, Dick and Harry the world over had the right to use other people's pictures to illustrate his work without paying for them, many photographers would simply lose their livelihood. Everyone knows that freelance photographers are not paid for their work as they do it. The pictures that they take lie in libraries and are used over a period of months and perhaps years. That is what provides the freelance photographer with his income.

  567
  The journalists' third anxiety about the Bill comes under the heading of moral rights. Essentially, we are discussing whether it should be the right of the publisher or editor to do exactly what he likes with the work that a journalist provides. The original clause 69, which is now clause 73, grants the right to be identified as the author of an article but then makes the right meaningless by stating that the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with clause 74. That latter clause requires that the assertion must be in writing. Such a requirement negates the whole purpose of establishing moral rights and the NUJ seeks an amendment to make it easier for copyright holders to assert their moral rights. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that one has the moral right not to have what one writes manipulated and altered—still appearing under one's name but being used for a purpose quite alien to what was originally intended. We can surely agree that such a right should be incorporated in the Bill.
  The National Union of Journalists expresses valid concerns. The union has no political axe to grind but, in the spirit of what has been said about inventors, intellectual property and the right to possession of the intangible, the Bill should defend journalists' rights because they fall into that category. As it stands, the Bill moves too far towards the interests of proprietors and publishers.
  As to taping, like other hon. Members, I have had letters from constituents who are confused about it. Some of them, who are musicians, composers and members of the Performing Right Society, cannot understand why the Government have done a remarkable U-turn on home taping. As we have heard already, the 1986 White Paper recognised the extent of the problem and proposed as a solution to legitimise home taping, except for computer programs and videos, and to introduce a 10 per cent. levy on blank audio cassettes, which was to be distributed to copyright owners. That was a commonsense and modest solution. There is statistical evidence that it would have the full support of the vast majority who tape music for their own benefit.
  People who take the trouble to tape music, and who have an interest in music almost by definition, respect the musicians, composers, and others who have created the work. People who do home taping are getting something on the cheap but they would not want it to be thought of as stealing the work of others. The modest levy which was proposed would have enabled everyone to have a clear conscience. The product would be cheaper, even with the levy. People would not have to buy the packaging and those who produced the work would get some recompense.
  The arguments adduced against the levy have concentrated on other categories of users. The needs of those people could be accommodated in the legislation. I suggest that the arguments we have heard are a subterfuge. It is estimated that 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the blank tape for 100 million cassettes imported and sold in the United Kingdom is used to make illegal copies. The Minister should not use an argument which affects only 10 per cent. to destroy the case for a levy on 90 per cent. of blank tapes. A principle is involved. The same principle is recognised in public lending rights and I hope that the Government will accept it in regard to taping.
  568
  A great array of people support the taping levy. Sir Michael Tippett and other composers point out that, while £7 million as the total figure which a taping royalty would produce is not much in terms of a Cabinet Minister's salary, it would make all the difference to a composer who is earning less than half the national wage.
  Similarly, Sir David Lumsden of the Royal Academy of Music and the heads of other music colleges have expressed concern that there are few enough places for students of music and people involved in the music profession to get their income from and that to deprive them of this money is unreasonable, particularly when it seemed that they would get it.
  In a letter a constituent from Kilbirnie says:
  "It was understood that this principle of a levy was to be included in the Copyright Bill now going through Parliament as the only effective means by which these royalties could be protected; however, the Government has performed a U-turn on this issue, having dropped the royalty proposal and now we are left with nothing. This legislation would have been a unique opportunity and still could be, to right this grave injustice."
  The appropriate words are "still could be". The Government could change their minds again. There will be fine tuning to the legislation and I hope that it will include changes in the Bill as it affects journalists and the music profession and industry.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Churchill: There has been considerable agreement between the two Front Benches. When that occurs, it behoves Parliament to look at the measure with scepticism. It is with pleasure that I agree that almost everything which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has said, with one qualification. I would not favour a levy on blank tapes, above all because it would hit the blind who rely a great deal on the use of tapes for newsletters and newspapers which sighted people record for them.
  I intervene briefly as an author and journalist. I also declare an interest as a trade unionist and as the parliamentary convenor of the Institute of Journalists—wholly unpaid, I hasten to say.
  The Bill represents only the second major attempt in the past 75 years to amend the legislation on copyright. No doubt it is intended that, like its predecessors, it should stand the test of time. I very much hope that, suitably amended, it will.
  There is much in the Bill which I welcome, but I regret that it is fatally flawed in regard to the interests of journalists, first, in respect of the ownership by journalists of the secondary copyright in the material which they produce, which has traditionally been theirs, and, secondly, in respect of the moral rights being introduced for the first time into British copyright legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Berne copyright convention.
  When the Bill was introduced in another place it was acceptable on both counts in regard to protection afforded to journalists, both staff and freelance. Regrettably, Ministers in another place surrendered on these points to the powerful lobby of publishers which is to be found in their Lordships' House. Indeed, there are no more powerful lobbyists than those cloaked in ermine and bedecked with coronets. One must wonder if the time has come for the establishment of a register of Lordships' interests, just as there is a Register of Members' Interests.

  569
  In consequence of the amendments that the Government accepted in another place, the Bill has been drastically amended as it affects the rights of journalists and, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North rightly mentioned, photographers, in favour of employers and at the expense of staff and freelance journalists and photographers. Journalists will lose the right which has been theirs since the Copyright Act 1911, confirmed by the Copyright Act 1956, to retain secondary rights in their creative work. This is an important point which the Government must address. They must reinstate the provision in Committee. As it stands, the Bill discriminates against the interests of the creators of original work in journalism and photography. In this respect it has become nothing less than a gaffer's Bill.
  The second objection that I voice is on moral rights. One has not been able to find much morality in the gutters of Fleet Street of late. None the less, the concept of moral rights has been imported into the legislation in consequence of the Berne convention which goes back to 1886 and of which we, 102 years later, are finally taking note.
  The 1986 White Paper on intellectual property and innovation, command 9712, explains:
  "amendment of the law will be necessary to comply with the Paris text of the Berne Convention, which requires member states to protect some at least of the moral rights at least until the expiry of copyright."
  Nevertheless, though included in the Bill as the required additional safeguards for the creators of copyright works, the provision on moral rights was so extensively modified during the Bill's passage through their Lordships' House, under pressure from the publishers' lobby, that, far from affording the protection which the Berne convention sought to give, it may now remove from many individuals even the right to protest at the infringement of such modest rights as they already possess. That cannot be the Government's intent. As defined in clauses 73, 76 and 78, there are three kinds of moral rights: the right to be identified as the author, the right to object to derogatory treatment of one's work, and the right not to have one's work falsely attributed.
  As foreshadowed in the Whitford report and in the 1981 Green Paper, the White Paper contained a proposal to legislate on moral rights:

  "(a) authors will be given the right to claim authorship and to object to distortion, but not to modification of a work to which they could not reasonably refuse consent;

  (b) these moral rights will be independent of the economic rights, and will be exercisable only by the author. After his death they may be exercised by the person who inherits the copyright or, if the author no longer owns the copyright at his death, by the person to whom he has bequeathed them. An author will be able to waive his moral rights, and such waiver will override any inheritance or bequest; and

  (c) moral rights will apply for the duration of the copyright."

  As originally introduced the Bill met in large measure the points contained in the White Paper. That is why I am at a loss to understand the way in which Ministers in another place conceded the point before the publishers, who are to be found there in large numbers. There are certainly more publishers there than there are journalists. As a result of financial and other pressures, which could be exerted against an author or a journalist to cause him or her to waive moral rights for all time, the provision now in the Bill for the waiver of those rights is completely against
  570
  the spirit of the Berne convention. The rights are supposed to be "non-assignable" and "separated from commercial values".
  Instead, under the Bill, the waiver
  "may relate to … works generally … existing or future … and … unconditional".
  It is regrettable that the amendments were accepted in another place, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who are dealing with the Bill—particularly as it passes through its Committee stage—to look at those clauses and undertake to table amendments to remove the exceptions that drastically affect the existing rights of journalists, as well as the other rights being brought in under the terms of moral rights. I ask them specifically to look at the rights contained in clauses 11, 75 and 77 and that they further amend clause 83—which permits waivers—to require that the waivers must be specific in relation to time and circumstances.
  Further, in the spirit of the Berne convention and the White Paper, it should be made an offence under the Bill to offer a financial inducement or commercial advantage for the waiving or non-assertion of any moral right or to penalise an author who asserts or refuses to waive any such right. I trust that in replying to the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs will express his willingness on behalf of the Government to grant justice to journalists in this respect so that they will not be disadvantaged by the Bill, which I am sure was not the Government's intention.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) asked me to participate in this evening's debate on the basis that it would be one of non-political controversy. Having read in Hansard the debates in another place, and heard the interesting and knowledgable contributions in this debate, I agree that, although the presentation of the Bill is an area of non-political controversy, the matter has caused a great deal of controversy, both in terms of the Government's proposals and the amendments which have been tabled, and from my point of view as a Back Bencher. It is interesting, when coming here as a Back Bencher with no axe to grind, to note how, when lobbying hon. Members for this evening's debate, 'the various interested parties offer contrary advice on, in some instances, the same clauses. Therefore, I wish the Minister and my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench well in trying to square the circle in Committee in regard to these complex and confusing issues.
  The issues are critical to much of British industry and the arts, and through them to the nation's creative genius. I understand that the Minister has for some time been trying to break into the area of creative genius in the arts. Because of the unanimity in the House, I wonder whether in his reply he will abandon the political context and sing us his version of "I Did it My Way". [Laughter.] Well, hon. Members were rather slow there.
  Previous Second Reading debates in which I have taken part have been controversial. The Opposition and the Government were at each other and much of the nitty gritty of the debate was not highlighted. Therefore, from my point of view, this evening's debate has been useful in setting out the agenda for the Committee stage. We must get this legislation right, and the fine tuning which will take place in Committee is necessary to help achieve that aim.

  571
  I accept that there are such conflicting interests among some of the lobbyists involved that it will be virtually impossible, despite the fine tuning and agreements that take place, for the Bill to be supported unanimously by all sections of British industry and the arts when it comes out of Committee.
  I hope to outline some of the briefings that I, and I am sure other hon. Members, have received from a number of sources on some of the important aspects of the legislation. Six major bodies with an interest in the Bill have written to me. They are the Committee on Photographic Copyright, the British Automotive Parts Promotion Council, the Music Copyright Reform Group, the information technology industries, Phonographic Performance Ltd. and the Confederation of British Industry. As I have said, sometimes those various groups oppose each other vehemently and cause confusion.
  In my previous life as a local government councillor, I was also a director of the Wigan development company and the Wigan Information Technology company. I was also one of those instrumental in introducing a business centre into Wigan, purchased and run through public resources with private capital. All three of those business interests made a major contribution not just to introducing new industry into our area, but in trying to encourage innovation, in both the public and the private sectors. They used resources to encourage new inventors and people with new ideas not only to set up their operations in Wigan but to assist them in developing their ideas for production capacity and for sales both at home and abroad. Time will tell whether those initiatives will be successful. Paramount to the success of those innovations in British industry is protection for those with new ideas about production capacity in industry and new information technology. It is critical for such developments that protection is provided in this legislation. Members of Parliament must respect the necessity to ensure that British industry is protected.
  If this were a defence debate about espionage I suspect that 300 or 400 hon. Members would attend and participate, including the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Here we are dealing with industrial espionage. I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) who spoke about the history of British industry and of how often the ideas of our inventors and our industrial innovations have been stolen and used by foreign competitors to produce materials that were then imported back to the United Kingdom. So it is important that these ideas should be protected from industrial espionage by people, at home or abroad, who seek to secure and use them to their benefit and the detriment of our nation and of those who have used their own mental capacities and financial resources to design new information technology systems and other things that are essential to the British economy and
  I welcome the commitment given by both Front Benches to ensuring that British artistic, industrial and technological creativity should be protected. However, I am worried—I seek the Minister's reassurance on this—that unless we get this right, British artists and industry will be put at a grave disadvantage as compared with our overseas competitors. I hope that the Minister will take up these matters positively in Committee.
  572
  On 25 April the CBI issued a statement to coincide with this debate. Before I am accused of using a counterfeit I hasten to add that I shall quote from the CBI's brief. It says that
  "Britain's designers and inventors need a just reward for their efforts.
  The Government's aim in the Bill is to strike a balance between encouraging creativity and the need to ensure competition.
  The CBI believes the Bill has got the balance wrong.
  The Bill (Part III) introduces a new 'design right', covering designs applied in industry. The new `design right' will:

  —Effectively have a protected term of only 5 years as opposed to copyright (life of author plus 50 years) and registered design (25 years).

  —So as to solve difficulties over car 'spares', it will not allow any protection where two new rules apply—'must fit' (Clause 198(3)) and 'must match' (Clauses 198(3) and 248(1)).

  The Bill will thus remove protection from the vast majority of design-intensive industries in the UK and leave them less competitive than their rivals abroad."
  The CBI went further in its detailed criticism of the Government's attempt merely to strike a balance between competition and the need to encourage investment in new ideas. It says:
  "Competition Law should look after anti-competitive procedures. Weakening proper industrial design protection does not do this. It simply weakens the market. It is protection which encourages a strong and vibrant home market. The consumer must have a choice. But this implies not just on costs but by having a range of competitive alternative products. There would not be, the present diversity of consumer products without intellectual property right protection.
  Education provides an example. Because it has been almost impossible to police intellectual property rights in educational software products, almost no good educational software is now being produced. No protectiom can mean no new products."
  As the law stands, functional design enjoys copyright for the designer's life, plus 50 years. Aesthetic design is judged on eye appeal, not artistic merit, for 15 years from its first launch date. The Government now propose three different kinds of protection: design right, registered designs and copyright. I believe that in practice these proposals are weak. Design right gives protection against copying for functional as well as aesthetic works applied industrially for 10 years, but the last five years are subject to a licence of right, giving an effective protection of only five years.
  Registration gives a monopoly for 25 years on industrial-supplied designs having aesthetic merit. Registration must be applied for and it is not cheap. Copyright mainly covers surface decoration and industrially applied designs against copying genuine copyright. However, when design has been exploited in one article, protection against it being copied in another is limited to 25 years. It applies to graphic works, photographs, sculptures or collages, irrespective of artistic quality, and to works of artistic merit. The Bill increases the general protection for registered designs from 13 to 25 years.
  The CBI also recently carried out comparisons with overseas competitors and produced a study that shows that, if the Bill becomes law, protection in the United Kingdom will be much less than what is available to competitors abroad in the domestic markets. The CBI argues that the best form of intellectual property right to protect design is copyright. It does not give an absolute monopoly, and so new generations of original design are

  573
  not hindered. It comes into existence automatically and does not involve costly procedures, which is particularly important to small and medium-sized companies.
  During my experience with the Wigan development company, these were precisely the sort of companies with which we were involved, and we tried to attract private and public capital to encourage such companies to invest in new ideas and in long-term new job opportunities. It would be a sad development for British industry if those companies were affected—albeit unwittingly—by the Government, if amendments to the Bill are not accepted.
  The impact on competition is less than in cases in which an absolute monopoly is given. The CBI wrote to the Minister and set out five proposals, which would form the basis for amendments that the Government should consider in Committee. They are: the restoration of dual protection by design copyright, as well as the new design right; increasing the design right term to 25 years; the removal of the unwarranted extended exceptions "must fit" and "must match", and their inclusion in the Bill as defences against infringement, rather than as exceptions to the right of protection; the control of possible abuse of monopoly by the provision of a power to grant licences in appropriate cases where abuse is shown; and the provision for the Secretary of State to have the power, in certain sections of industry or in particular cases, to reduce the term from 25 years, as appropriate, or to provide for the grant of licences within that term, as appropriate to different industrial needs.
  I can understand the motor manufacturers' interest in this matter. I represent a constituency in the north-west and I know that a great number of people are directly or indirectly employed by the motor manufacturing industry. My borough has suffered from the massive shake-up of British Leyland, John Brown Tractors and the automotive products industry. So the pressure that was applied to the other place was understandable, and their Lordships came to their conclusions accordingly. However, as Conservative Members have said, the balance has shifted too far in the direction of that sector of interest to the possible detriment of the development of industry as a whole. We need seriously to consider redressing the balance to ensure both that the motor manufacturers' interests are preserved and that the legitimate interests of other sectors of the British economy are not undermined.
  Like other hon. Members, I have an interest in other important areas of controversy in the Bill—piracy, photography, music, information technology products, and the design of same.
  In the time left to me, I should like to give my support to those hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of the photographic industry and the National Union of Journalists. I am also particularly concerned about the submissions made on behalf of the photographic industry in respect of some of the amendments. As politicians, we should all take kindly to the photographic industry as we are sometimes the beneficiaries of the artistic activities and work of those involved in the industry, although some of us are portrayed in a more flattering light than others. I am concerned that the livelihood of news photographers will be threatened. That has been amply outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I do not wish to go into detail on that, but I hope that the Minister will give a commitment seriously to consider in Committee amendments that take account of those anxieties.
  574
  I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that the Government will approach the amendments in a constructive manner and that we can bring forward a Bill which, if not acceptable to British industry and the arts as a whole, will nevertheless be acceptable to the vast majority. I hope that it will ensure, in the long run, that we protect the innovative skills of industry and the arts in this country. By protecting those skills, we protect both the internal and external markets which are so important to our economy and to the European economy as a whole.
  By doing so, we shall also develop the economy of the north-west and rebuild and reshape it after the rundown of the traditional industries of shipbuilding, textiles and heavy engineering. That will provide an opportunity for those innovative skills to flourish. It will provide new jobs and industrial opportunities and a fair reward for those who, through their skills, develop new ideas and products to the benefit of their regions and of our industrial economy as a whole.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: It has already been said that the Bill does not feature very highly in the Richter scale of political sexiness compared with other Bills before us this week. It could be described by people of a kind and charitable disposition as a technical, complex and heavy Bill. For that reason, I admire the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) when he says that he is looking forward to the Committee stage. I put that down to youthful enthusiasm and I hope that, if I serve on the Committee, some of his enthusiasm will rub off on me.
  Mr. McCartney: It is perhaps because I am not married. I have nothing else to do.
  Mr. Page: I do not think that the Bill will help the hon. Gentleman in that direction.
  I hope that the Bill will help British industry. and commerce. It is vital that we get the matter right. In the past, the United Kingdom has been a world leader in this area, but time and events have moved on. Everyone agrees that the Copyright Act 1956 must be updated, but there are obviously some differences of opinion about the way to proceed.
  There is a rumour that the long-awaited Green Paper from the European Commission is due shortly, but we cannot wait for it. We need to modernise our copyright law and, if we wait for the Green Paper, it will take a considerable time for any harmonisation to take place.
  One of the traditional problems of copyright has been to explain to the layman what it is. That has been made even more complex through the scientific advances, giving, day by day, easier public access to intellectual property rights. The Bill has to achieve a fair balance between the creator and the producer on one side and the consumer and user on the other. One group wants strong protection and control whereas the other wants immediate access, preferably at no cost, but, if the consumer has to pay anything, it must be the cheapest price. We must strike a balance in the middle. We must protect civil liberties, but we must not discourage creativity, research and innovation. If I remember the matter correctly from my school days, an equation must balance. We must put something into that equation to recognise the constantly changing scientific scene.

  575
  One of the most common examples is records. Some hon. Members will remember the old bakelite discs, although they were before my time. We then moved on to plastic discs, analogue tapes and compact discs and digital audio tapes are now appearing on the horizon. With that rapidly moving scientific scene, we must get the matter right.
  The figures quoted as representing the contribution of copyright to our gross domestic product have varied from 2·6 per cent. to 7·5 per cent., depending on which base one takes. However, whichever base one takes, those figures represent a sizeable contribution to our economy. That sheer size demands our attention. We must have justice for both sides. I am tempted to quote the Emperor Justinian who said:
  "Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to everyone his due."
  Perhaps that is not a good example because the Roman empire collapsed a few years later and the Barbarians won with their motto that might is right.
  I welcome the provisions that bring about stronger legal support in respect of infringement of copyright. A few holes must still be plugged, but we have taken a substantial step along the right path. The updating of our copyright law is vital because, whatever our faults as a nation, and we have quite a few, we have two strengths—our ingenuity and our inventiveness. It is right for the Government to protect that ingenuity and strength. I do not know how we have come by that, but, as an island race, we have always had an open door for refugees and exiles, in addition to experiencing the odd invasion. There is an old saying that those who get up and go, get up and go. Perhaps some of them have come here and contributed to the cultural strength of our nation.
  The House should be grateful to the other place. It has given the Bill the first canter round the course and has highlighted the areas of agreement and disagreement. Those debates have given the interested parties a chance to contribute. The march of technology has created much of the reason for the Bill. I was impressed to see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has put into the Bill a clause to deal with computer-generated products and artificial intelligence and, in Committee, we shall see a closer definition of that work.
  I hope that, in Committee, we shall touch again on the issues introduced tonight. We have heard much about the "must-fit" and "must-match" problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) provided a powerful trailer to the arguments to be advanced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) outlined the case for the blank tape levy exceedingly well. I have no doubt that those arguments will be put forward again in Committee.
  I also hope that the Committee will consider more closely the terms employed in the Bill and try to cover the computer software advances that are taking place. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton in that. I hope too that we shall consider some of the mundane matters, for example, some of the definitions of what is a film. The 1956 Act defines a film as a recording of visual images on any medium from which a moving picture may be, by any means, produced. Most
  576
  films today have a soundtrack with them and I hope that we can deal with that point. We should also have a stab at defining a public performance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has outlined the need to clear up the position of location systems using abstracts of scientific and technical publications and I hope that that can be brought within the copyright law.
  The main point on which I want to concentrate my argument and the minds of hon. Members was voiced by the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham in the other place when he spoke about the impact of rental shops and digital audio tapes in downtown Tokyo. He mentioned the impact that that was having on Japan's recording industry. In fact, it almost ruined it and Japan has now introduced copyrights to protect its industries, although it has not helped too much on the international scene.
  As Britain has a leading position in international records—I am told that it has some 25 per cent. of the market—that area must be considered and protected. I am aware that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry introduced a rental right at the end of the Bill's passage in the other place to give some protection, but I hope that our Standing Committee will consider whether that is sufficient. I took some encouragement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he said that he would like to look at that to make sure that he was satisfied that we have got it right.
  Again, time moves against us and I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to one last point in reply to the reference to spoilers and anti-spoilers. I hope that not too much faith is placed on such devices. Time has shown that for every lock there is a key and we should look to the law to be the belt to any braces of any electrical or mechanical spoiling device.
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that in Committee it proceeds with the same spirit of friendship and constructiveness that exists in the House today, and I look forward to it reaching the statute book in the shortest possible time.
  8.21 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: This is a complex and multifaceted piece of legislation, which covers different areas of interest for many hon. Members. I wonder whether I could ask even those right hon. and hon. Members who are waiting to speak to turn aside from studying the massive injustices that the Bill, I now learn, will inflict on journalists, who are usually a hardy breed and very good at turning injustices on to other people—I am sorry about their future suffering—and away also from the most fascinating subject that was raised earlier, the regime for replicating motor exhausts, to something that genuinely excites me—the computer industry and the protection of its intellectual heritage.
  I must declare an interest. It is not a financial interest any longer now that I am here; it is a professional interest. I was trained by ICL as a computer programmer. I went on to be an assistant analyst and computer consultant with 10 years hands-on experience in the industry. I am now enjoying an industry and Parliament fellowship with IBM, and I maintain links with my old colleagues who are now senior members of the British Computer Society.
  I welcome the Bill, which aims to set the matter of copyright protection on a more logical and consistent

  577
  basis, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says. It seeks to strike the balance between rewarding the creator of an artistic endeavour without stifling invention—a difficult balance to achieve.
  I am not absolutely comfortable that the Bill is yet full enough to protect computer software. I use the words "full enough" on purpose. That may he because it does not recognise the uniqueness of computer software. I wonder whether the definition of computer software as a subset of literary works is accurate or adequate enough to perform the task of copyright protection.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) reminded us that in 1956 computers were the size of a house. He must have been referring to Leo I in London university, which was housed opposite the British museum in three separate houses. I cannot say that it created pseudo-Shakespeare, because no binary-coded decimal machine code is a naturally aurally appealing tongue. But I recall creating fugues on early computers. On the other hand, I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would, in consequence, indentify software as a byproduct of J. S. Bach.
  Computer software is the product of new methods of identifying and transmitting human thought. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton referred to artificial intelligence when he said how difficult it was to define computer software. That is so very old. Software is not artificial; it is real. It is definable and it can be properly protected.
  We must not wait until 1992. The suggestion put forward earlier that this is such a complicated industry that we could not do it now is absolutely wrong. Once the Government have created the redefinition of computer software which is right and appropriate, this will be no U-turn but a set of nano-second decisions by the Secretary of State which will bring the Government to the right conclusions. Indeed, if we are stuck we can find a suitably equipped personal computer, with doubtless superbly registered parts, compatible and user-friendly to help. I am tempted to say that we might bring in to the House a new language that would certainly be more Member-friendly than that which we heard earlier. Hon. Members will know that one of the easiest computer languages is called BASIC. It is certainly basic, but not as primitive as that used by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
  Let me return to the difficulty, suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton, of protecting the product, computer software, which is the creation of a rapidly changing industry. He gave the impression that that is well-nigh impossible. Of course, it is not, because change is the essence of the computer industry. If the computer industry were not changing, it would be dying.
  I cannot use the term "manifestly" impossible. That has a Latin root. We must remember when we are thinking about computer software that our language is literary and how difficult it is to think in any other terminology. We have to think laterally to find a definition that fits this unique product.
  Hon. Members have said that a person who is out of programming for three years will have to be wholly retrained. Of course, such a person will need to be updated, but the industry moves forward in a way that enables a person to return to play a useful part. The state
  578
  of the art means that we have to think differently for the products of software designers—those few highly creative people—and the ordinary programmer. Although they create different levels of excellent product, both are still creating protectable work.
  Let me deal briefly with a few amendments that I know that the Government will wish to consider and doubtless will consider in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton does not need to go back to 1956 because we have the excellent Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985. One of the provisions in that Act was important. It made it clear that storing a work in a computer is a form of reproduction which requires the copyright owner's consent. The Bill does not make that clear. I feel confident that the Government intend to uphold the promise that was made on that in the other place and that we shall see an amendment to clause 17(2) to that effect.
  Let me deal now with a more complicated problem. The White Paper in its introduction states that
  "we must accommodate new technical developments—satellite broadcasting, computer programs and electronic data storage"
  and so on.
  The creation of expert systems that not only answer the questions put to them, not on paper of course, but through keyboards, for example, such as a medical diagnostic system or others, at the moment fall under the clauses relating to cable programmes. That is to say, data bases which are changed interactively through user-connected terminals—as we have all done so often in the computer field—over a telecommunications network are defined as expert systems.
  As the Bill stands, clause 7(2)(a) may seem to exclude such valuable systems from protection. I feel confident that the Government will introduce an amendment to rectify that situation as was offered on Second Reading in the other place.
  In the Bill, as a subset of literary works, computer programs come within the fair dealing provisions of clause 29. Therefore, it may appear that home copying of computer software can now be exempted from copyright infringement on the grounds that it is for private study and that research organisations may justify the copying of programs on the basis that it is for research purposes. I am sure that that comes about because clause 29 refers so much to literary and other such works. I suggest that that would be an unintended consequence of the provisions which would be unwelcome to the industry and the Government. All that is needed is an amendment to exclude electronic reproduction from the fair dealing clause 29. I am confident that that will be considered.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister referred to a welcome amendment to deal with spoilers. I was not absolutely clear whether he would incorporate in that amendment programs that already exist to prevent the illicit copying of programs. There are programs in production already designed to defeat the software protection mechanism.
  Clause 24 makes it an offence to possess an article that can be used to make infringing copies. I doubt whether a program, within the meaning of the Bill, is classified as an article and would therefore come within that provision. If that is so, the clause would have to be changed to make it

  579
  clear that possessing one of the copy-making programs that already exist would be an offence similar to possessing an infringing printing plate.
  I have left possibly the most difficult point to last. Copyright works of all descriptions—literary, artistic, musical, photographic, software, film or sound recordings—can now be recorded and reproduced from a single optical disc. That point throws up many weaknesses in the Bill. It butts on eight separate clauses. If left untouched, it could lead to unmanageable results. Would it not be better to have a copyright law which treated all works of intellectual endeavour in the same way? Otherwise, we might inadvertently end up with a very difficult patch job on the old law rather than creating the new, necessary safety net. That is a complex problem. I could describe it at length, but other hon. Members want to speak on that. Indeed I could stress the eight different clauses which will be in conflict with each other and which will make that point unmanageable for optical discs.
  The Minister referred to rental right. I am delighted to learn that that subject will be examined, perhaps through the introduction of a clause already discussed in another place, to permit the provisions of clause 63 to be overridden by contract. I also strongly welcome the Government dropping the tape levy. Such a levy would have encouraged home copying of computer software. That would be unmanageable. From the social angle, dropping the levy is of great value to the blind. As a musician I welcome the Government's decision and am comfortable with it.
  We can be market leaders in software protection. We are much further ahead than any other European country in that area. Justifiably, I look to the Government to secure for us that enviable position. Britain is a world leader in some forms of computer software. Let us support that work.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I was greatly impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and by her special knowledge of computers and other matters—until she made her point about the blank tape levy.
  Although I personally have no financial interest at all in the Bill, no fewer than four of my close relations have interests in recording or copyright matters. My wife is an actress and singer who records. My brother-in-law is the composer Panufnik, whose symphonies and other works are recorded. I have a sister who has written 18 books, and my brother has an interest, recently much reduced, in a record company. Although perhaps not obliged to do so, I prefer to declare those family interests.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to the need to "protect creative talent". To be creative seems to me to be fundamental. The creativity of artists, performers, composers and writers is basic to the enrichment of people's lives. In the House of Commons, perhaps because we are properly at the receiving end of so many time-consuming welfare cases of constituents, we do not always devote enough time or give enough weight to the
  580
  creative side of human life, which is just as important to human well-being and which Parliament ought to encourage. We should positively lean in that direction.
  Of course the successful management and growth of the British economy brought about by the Government can benefit the livelihood of artists and musicians as everyone else. Beyond that, the Bill does much to promote and sustain what is creative. On the whole, I support the Bill. However, there is one glaring omission to which many right hon. and hon. Members have referred. There are no royalties or levies on blank tapes. I hope that we can put that right and I want to explain why.
  At live performances, musicians or actors in essence sell their work through the agency of a theatre or concert hall to an audience who pay for their seats. That is a free bargain between the artist and audience. With modern technology, the performance can be recorded on discs, films or tapes which can be sold to individuals or the media. That, again, is a free bargain between the artist and the audience. However, that professional recording can be poached and put on to a cheap blank tape which can be purchased for £1. That is not a fair or free bargain. That is stealing someone's professional work. It is close to theft. It is an injustice which the House should not countenance. Nor should we gloss over it; because only the Government and Parliament can take effective action to remedy that injustice.
  That point was made in the White Paper in 1986, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) referred extensively. I will not read the whole of that passage from White Paper again, but part of it states:
  "After giving full and careful consideration to all the opinions expressed in response to the 1985 Green Paper, the Government has concluded that:

  (a) copyright owners and performers should be remunerated for the use of their material and performances by those who tape them at home to the prejudice of the legitimate interests of the copyright owners;

  (b) there is no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy on blank recording tape as a means of providing such remuneration.

  "
  That was the Government policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, at a press conference in 1986 and that view was constantly and frequently repeated.
  I received a letter in November 1986 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the then Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government in which he stated:
  "The Government remain committed to the proposals for legislation on intellectual property as set out in the White Paper on Intellectual Property and Innovation. I can assure you that we have not dropped the proposals for a blank tape levy and the necessary legislation will be introduced when the Parliamentary timetable permits."
  Our policy was consistent with the European trends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton listed those countries in Europe with similar views. All Common Market countries have brought in a scheme for such a levy or are bringing one in except Britain, Ireland and Greece. It is possible that we shall have to introduce such a scheme anyway before long, so we may as well get on with it now.
  In West Germany the levy money is distributed 42 per cent. to composers, 42 per cent. to performers and producers and 16 per cent. to literary authors or the

  581
  equivalent. Another form of distribution exists in France. The levy money can be distributed fairly and equitably and in accordance with the type of scheme run by the Performing Right Society. The administrative costs of such a scheme should obviously be financed from the scheme. The beneficiaries of the scheme would have a strong incentive to ensure that its administration was economical. That is the answer to those who complain about the likely administrative costs.
  All the blank tapes used in this country are manufactured abroad—60 per cent. come from Japan, and 40 per cent. from West Germany. The manufacturers of blank tapes in Germany can hardly be surprised if we put a levy on them, because the West Germans already have a levy on their blank tapes.
  The proposed levy is 10 per cent. which is 10p on a £1 blank tape. Thanks to our growing prosperity, a 10p charge is no hardship for anyone, not even the young. It is a third of the price of a cup of coffee in a third class café. By no stretch of the imagination could it be called, as my right hon. and learned Friend described it, an unfair burden.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of administration in West Germany is approximately 7 per cent.? That figure might be of interest to those hon. Members who are concerned about what they perceive as high administrative costs. That 7 per cent. seems admirable.
  Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not know that figure, but I expect that he is right, and I have no reason to doubt it.
  The 10p might even be absorbed by the producers, as has happened with petrol tax increases, but if not, the levy would not be burdensome, even to blind people. Everyone wants to help blind people. One person in 300 is registered as blind or partially sighted. I am told that the average person buys eight blank tapes a year, and even if blind people buy twice that many—16 a year—at a 10p levy, that would be £1·60 a year, or 3p a week. Therefore, I do not believe it is right to use the position of blind people to stir up emotion against the proposal. I do not believe that the blind, of all people, would wish to stand in the way of actors, composers and musicians receiving a fair reward for what they have produced, merely to save that 3p per head per week each. In any case, there is every reason to think that the music industry would help. The reference to the blind is something of a red herring and the argument has been abused.
  My right hon. and learned Friend referred to rough justice. I am told that 85 to 90 per cent. of blank tapes are used to copy copyright material, almost entirely music. After all, not many people want to buy blank tapes to record the speeches of hon. Members. Yes, the levy is rough justice, but so are local authority rates and so will community charges be if we have them. Those local charges are or will be imposed regardless of the unequal use that people make or will make of education, local road repairs or the other services of local authorities. Everybody understands that point; nobody minds it. The same would apply to the rough justice of the levy on blank tapes. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the benefit should go mainly to the performers—I could not agree more—and that could be done along the lines of the West German example.
  582
  My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has to deal with many major matters of crucial importance to the future of our national prosperity. He said in the other place that the arguments on the tape levy were finely balanced. It is no disrespect to him to say that it is not self-evident that his proposals are more authentic than those of his immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who had previous experience for some years as Minister for the Arts, and was thereby steeped in the needs of the musical world. I profoundly believe that the 1986 White Paper is right, and I hope that the Government will listen, heed the arguments and think again.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. William Powell: Those right hon. and hon. Members who have waded through the hundreds of clauses and the various schedules of the Bill and reached the last page will notice among the repeal list that the Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985 is to be repealed in full. For most hon. Members, and most members of the public, consigning this statute to the footnotes of history will be of very little moment. For me, it is a matter of considerable importance, because I was the promoter of that Act. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), have referred to the effect of that statute, which was intended to be a stopgap measure. It has been wholly beneficial to the industry. This Bill will take over from where we left off, and I shall come on to endorse a point made by my hon. Friend in relation to clause 17(2).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), in his important contribution, said that there was an atmosphere of déja vu about this debate. Those of us who, on those various Fridays in 1985, went through the debates on my Act will have that sense of déja vu. I am sure that the knowledge that I spoke for over an hour on the Second Reading debate has had an important deterrent effect on today's debate. I have no doubt that the fear that I might do likewise tonight has concentrated minds marvellously.
  I am able to make a very different speech now at quarter to nine in the evening than I would have done if I had had the opportunity of occupying the Floor for an hour or more. I hope that that will come as a relief to hon. Members. I merely want to reflect on the important themes that I stressed then and that are of importance now, not just for the Bill but for the computer software industry. The first relates to enforcement and the second to a much wider interest in computer software and education.
  Let me deal firstly with enforcement. The powers in the Bill are not sufficient to ensure the proper enforcement of the proposed law, certainly as far as it affects the computer software industry. In 1985 I told the House how we would try to ensure that my Bill, if it became an Act of Parliament, would be enforced. I am delighted to say that FAST—the Federation Against Software Theft—established a law enforcement agency under a former senior police officer in the Metropolitan police, Mr. Bob Hay, and it has had considerable success, both in practical and deterrent terms, in reducing the level of piracy in the computer software industry.
  The current estimates are that FAST, through Mr. Hay's office, is reducing the level of software piracy by at

  583
  least £50 million a year and that is a fairly substantial achievement for what was intended to be a modest, stopgap measure. However, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West has given, I am afraid that the Bill, as it is currently drafted in clause 17(2), does not produce any important amendment to section 2 of my Act. I shall be doing all that I can to ensure that the matter that my hon. Friend raised—I do not need to go into it in full at this stage—is fully reproduced in this statute and that a program stored within a computer is as fully protected as anything that has been produced from a computer.
  The presumptions need to be fully thought out. When the Bill was originally produced in the other place, there was a presumption of subsistence and ownership of copyright. During the course of the exhaustive Committee stage that the Bill underwent in the other place, that part of the Bill was taken out. However, it must be put back again. If it is to be necessary for the victim of new software piracy to establish the presumption that exists at the moment, it will cost vast sums in solicitors' fees, and so on, to bring the necessary proof to court. One of the things that we were able to do in 1985 was to prevent that. If we can save the authors of copyrights from these wholly unnecessary legal costs, we must do so. If we cannot restore what was removed in the other place, it will cost tens of thousands of pounds.
  It is important to establish that trading standards officers have a role in the enforcement of this law. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) spoke about that earlier. In some ways, trading standards officers have a more important role than that of the police. Importation of pirated software is a major issue, and, although the Government take the view that Customs officers are not yet equipped to deal with this, the statute must extend the powers of the Customs, if necessary by delegated legislation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) said that the introduction of private Member's legislation is not a satisfactory way of dealing with problems as they arise. Hon. Members have stressed that many problems will arise in the next 10, 15 or 20 years during the currency of this statute, and none of us has any idea of what they will be. In 1985 the computer software industry faced the most enormous difficulties because of the pirating of its products and there was a gaping hole in law enforcement. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of goods were at risk and many authors lost the opportunity to profit from their work and from everything that went with it. The software industry had to rely on the lottery of the private Member's ballot and had to hope that somebody would be prepared to take up the cause. That is a most unsatisfactory way to deal with such matters.
  The film industry was particularly at risk in 1983 when the measure introduced by Lord Eden of Winton, as he now is, was almost lost in the hasty deals that had to be made because Parliament was being dissolved for the coming general election. That is no way to treat our important industries and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will seriously consider the point that was made with considerable force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton.
  584
  I do not have time to develop the important points that I would like to make about education and the computer software industry. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity to deal with those matters in the Standing Committee. I welcome the Bill. It is a question of striking balances on a wide range of complicated issues about which the arguments are never all in one direction. As a result of considerable consultation and the tremendous efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors the Government have got the Bill very nearly right. However, we shall have to look at some matters and I shall reserve my detailed contributions for later debates.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: Before speaking about the Bill I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I think that he not too seriously chided my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for a Bill that he said went against the Government's free market and capitalist principles and was in some ways interventionist. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that he would agree that not only is the invisible hand of the market one of the cornerstones of capitalism or classical liberalism—call it what we will—but that another buttress of classical liberalism and a capitalist society is property and the right to own it and defend it. That does not mean only physical property, such as buildings, but obviously means intellectual property. I am sure that if Adam Smith were alive today he would not have intellectual conflict between the sort of society and economic system that he would support and this Bill.
  It is refreshing to see the Government bring forward a Bill that updates and prepares for the 1990s the area of intellectual property rights. I welcome the Government's refusal to support the tape lobby's proposals to legitimise home copying. The United Kingdom is the home of a growing and profitable software industry. Any legislation that fosters the expectation that the purchase of some recording medium, such as a magnetic tape or disc, can automatically confer the right to copy a third party's information without the owner's permission must weaken the opportunities for our software industry to develop and market its products. To United Kingdom software houses, a tape levy would encourage theft of property—in this case intellectual property.
  My first concern about the Bill was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) who spoke about the effect of registered design on small businesses. On any product there are many new features with many new designs related to them. My understanding is that under the Bill all these new designs would have to be registered. That would be very costly and bureaucratic for small businesses. The current copyright law would give those designs automatic protection. This would particularly hit small businesses in, for example, textiles, clothes, jewellery, carpeting and crockery. Young fashion designers would be exposed to not being able to bear the costs of registering their designs and would be defenceless against copiers.
  My main concern about the Bill relates to the "must match, must fit" clauses because they will weaken the incentives for British companies to innovate. They will set the United Kingdom apart from all the major industrialised nations in the Economic Community at a

  585
  time when we are moving towards 1992 and harmonisation. The Bill excludes from all protection many products which are not spare parts and which could be freely copied. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke listed many of those products, such as hi-fi, vacuum cleaners, television sets and castings for personal computers. The "must fit" clause could have some unfortunate ramifications for toy companies such as Lego and Meccano, which depend on interlocking designs—as do prefabricated housing systems. In both instances—and there are others—protection will be lost.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke rightly mentioned that the "must match" clause encompasses every type of product casing formed from two or more pieces. Presumably, vacuum cleaners, typewriters, hi-fi components, tea pots and personal computer casings will come under the clause.
  I now refer to some of the assumptions that the Government have made in putting forward the clause. They have assumed that the "must match" exception clause will benefit consumers through lower prices. In fact, copiers widely copy only those parts that are most required. They do not copy less commonly required spare parts. In the motor industry that would include body panels for aged car models, which would normally be owned by people on lower incomes. Prices would have to be put up, because the original equipment manufacturer would compensate for loss of margins on the more commonly copied body panels by upping his prices for those that only he would still make available to the market place.
  There is an assumption that the "must match" exception clause will increase competition and consumer choice. When a consumer buys a vehicle, when he chooses which manufacturer to go to, one criterion is the availability, quality and cost of spare parts that the original equipment manufacturer produces. Although I am a keen advocate of competition, I fear that the "must match" exception clause takes the theory of competition to rather esoteric lengths.
  The next assumption inherent in the "must match" exception clause is that current manufacturers are ripping off the consumer. That is not a fair assumption. For example, in 1986 the Ford Motor Company's return on all sheet metal parts was only 3·6 per cent. That is hardly a huge margin. The clause will put us out of step with the rest of the Common Market. It will prevent us from creating a common market in that respect. For example, in every industrialised country in the European Community there is a 15-year protection for spare parts such as car body panels. Because of that, the clause will do nothing to aid employment in the motor industry.
  Currently, most copying is done by body panel manufacturers in Taiwan, Spain and Italy. Because of the protection that will continue to exist in the European Community, it will not be possible for British copiers, who, at the moment, are mainly merely importers, to have any market for which to compete. Therefore, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the clause will do nothing to aid the motor industry or jobs within it.
  The other flaw in the "must match" exception clause is the assumption that there will be a direct link between its effects and the consumer. Any differential in price between a body panel from an original equipment manufacturer in the motor industry and that from a copier is absorbed by
  586
  the repairer in the body shop that is doing the repair work. The consumer rarely knows what the price differential is. He or she rarely knows whether the body panel being fitted to their vehicle was manufactured by the original manufacturer or by a counterfeiter. Therefore, the assumptions in the Bill do not apply.
  I am aware that time is pressing on, so I shall curtail my remarks. The "must match" clause will seriously undermine industry's ability to fund innovative design and engineering, which are vital to this country's competitive position. But one should not criticise the "must match" exception clause without putting forward an alternative constructive solution. My solution would be to allow the copyright tribunal to hear and resolve cases of monopoly abuse of articles covered by design copyright—for instance, motor car spare parts. If original equipment manufacturers abuse what could be seen to be their monopoly position in the market place, the copyright tribunal could award compulsory licences to other manufacturers who are willing to make the same body panels and make them available in the market place. That would be similar to the precedent of the powers of the patent comptroller under the Patents, Designs and Marks Act 1986.
  I have concentrated on a certain aspect of the Bill, the "must match" exception clause and the "must fit" exception clause. It may appear that I have been critical. I have doubts and concerns about those aspects of the Bill. Because of its complexity and breadth, many hon. Members have voiced concerns about some aspects and clauses of the Bill. However I believe that there is strong support on both sides of the House for the majority of the objectives that the Government seek to achieve. I look forward to serving on the Standing Committee arid continuing to support the Government in bringing forward the Bill.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: There are times when it seems that a Back Bencher's speech must be like a pair of bellows. It expands to take account of the green acres opposite graced only by the Three Musketeers—the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Then. as one looks at one's own Benches and sees the eager faces all around, it contracts again to what one might describe as a Whip's allowance.
  This is a big and very complicated Bill and we shall deal with it in Committee. I want to highlight three aspects in which I have a constituency interest. Many of my constituents are employed by a trio of industries which are affected by the legislation that we are taking on its first stage through the House tonight.
  First, I want to refer to the pharmaceutical industry. It is absolutely right that we should establish throughout the Bill the value of the right to copy. If the Government seek to encourage competition, an open market, the transfer of the property right must reflect its value. A pharmaceutical company, which needs a return on a product to fund future research and development, must obtain appropriate value before the surrender of that right. The pharmaceutical industry in 1988 is truly international. That means that it could and would migrate if a 20-year patent life were not

  587
  granted to it. I welcome the fact that the Government propose to return to the status quo of 1978 to restore that balance to the industry.
  There is also a spare parts industry in Swindon. It is in a different situation. The industry covers not just motor car spare parts, as many would think, but domestic appliances, industrial, agricultural and garden machinery, office equipment and electrical equipment. In fact, 400,000 jobs or more in this industry are affected by the Bill.
  The proposed unregistered design right includes spare parts and draws them into an author monopoly of 15 years' duration. The Government have drastically altered the balance between spare parts manufacturers and orignators of the product, and either spare parts should be exempt or the value of the right should be established clearly and it should be sold.
  The third area that I want to discuss tonight has been referred to often in the debate today. It is the question of what we do about the music industry. The concept of value is most significant when copying is undetectable, unpreventable and effectively unpunishable. If the owner of the copyright cannot enforce it, he has, in my view, the right to redress, to compensation.
  For the music industry this problem is a serious one. Home taping is widespread. Many hon. Members have referred to this situation. More than 80 million tapes were used last year to copy music illegally. Now, coming over the horizon we have compact disc and digital audio tape. These will soon replace the records and cassettes of today. The technology will move on and every home taper will become a potential commercial pirate. The quality of the new materials is such that piracy in the home becomes a possibility, not just piracy in terms of imports from abroad. The existing £700 million a year haemorrhage from the record industry will not only continue but worsen. One should take note of a British industry that can export £400 million worth of goods every year and reflect that maybe it might be in the interests of Government and Parliament to look after it. I did not say protect it; I said look after it. Its export earnings makes the record industry one of the best in this country, and its problems will be multiplied several times over if we do not find a way in this legislation of guarding against the worsening problem of home taping.
  Will the Government continue to wash their hands and say, "Copyright is all very well but if you cannot enforce it there is nothing else we are prepared to do"? The Government have agreed to royalties, licences of right and several other ways of recognising that an author and originator of intellectual property has a right to a return on what he has created. It cannot be right that one industry should be singled out for separate treatment that says, "Yes, you have that right, but no, we are not prepared to help you to enforce it."
  I do not accept the argument of Ministers that it is too difficult to collect a royalty from those who infringe with home taping. It is a simple matter to collect from source, from the manufacturers, and to distribute through one of the existing collecting societies. The idea expressed by the Secretary of State in another place that a half or a quarter of the income from the collection of a levy would be lost
  588
  in administration is simply wrong. The figure of 7 per cent. in West Germany gives us a guide to what the true level of administration costs could be.
  The question of rough justice has been advanced as a reason for not proceeding with a royalty or levy. I follow other hon. Members in saying that we have many examples in our society of rough justice. Anyone who pays rates but is not a parent loses out because two thirds will go on the cost of local education. Anyone who pays his gas and electricity bills on time will lose out because the bills will be higher than they need have been if all fellow citizens had taken the trouble to pay their bills on time. The whole of our society is littered with examples of rough justice and it is not good enough to say that this industry should be left at the mercy of copyright infringers because an element of rough justice is involved in collecting the levy.
  A levy is not a tax; it is an exchange of value from the user to the originator of copyright. The Government merely create the circumstances in which fair play can take place. Just as they set up the legal system to ensure that theft can be punished, so they are capable of creating a position where this type of theft, and it is theft, can be dealt with in a way that is fair to the person who is aggrieved.
  The Committee must return to the question how Parliament should defend a great British industry which is under severe attack. In that respect I welcome the announcement of my right hon. and learned Friend that moves to restrict the rental rights are to be introduced in Committee. Obviously, that is the right way to proceed and it will receive warm support from all who have spoken tonight. But that is only part of the problem. In Committee, we must look for a new initiative from the Government. Those who hope to serve on the Committee will want to support the Government in that, because they recognise that the situation cannot be left intact.
  I welcome the Bill which is much needed. After 32 years it is time for a good overhaul, just as two years ago we argued that the Shops Act 1950 was due for an overhaul, and still is. I hope that we can move forward without controversy to put the whole question of copyright, patents and designs on a modern and forward-looking footing—forward-looking because the technology will move on quickly from now. We must also look outwards to the EEC. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) pointed out so effectively, the EEC will bring to bear upon us precisely the format which we must achieve if we are to reflect harmonisation in 1992. We cannot afford to be insular in the way in which we tackle the problems that must be addressed in this Bill.
  On the basis that the Government are forward-looking, I have the happy task of saying that the House should support the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for compressing their speeches and to the Opposition Front Bench for allowing the last of the contributors to speak.
  The provision introduced in another place to extend for ever the copyright on Peter Pan has certainly captured the public imagination. I trust that is not because the public regard Parliament as a pantomime!
  The importance of the Bill has been stressed by every speaker. Many hon. Members said, and I agree, that the

  589
  Government have fought hard to achieve a successful balance between protection of the intellectual property of an originator, which is so important to our society, and a fair degree of competition. In this they have succeeded.
  I particularly welcome a measure that will affect my constituency, the lifting of "licence of right" relating to the last four years of the copyright for the pharmaceutical industry. Effectively, the change will mean that pharmaceutical companies will have the benefit of the last eight years of the 20 years during which they have a guaranteed monopoly, whereas previously they had only four years out of 16. The first 12 years is typically taken up by development. I know that the change will make a big difference to them.
  With regard to the blank tape levy issue, which has come up time and again, I cannot help thinking that the figures are disproportionate. We are told that this is one of the biggest industries in the country. Some people have produced incredible figures. One speaker talked of £ 15,000 million and another mentioned £20,000 million, whereas for the recovery from blank tapes we are talking of perhaps £9 million. There must be a simpler method to deal with the problem, if we decide eventually that it is getting out of hand, than a levy on every tape with the hassles involved, such as rebates to special groups such as the blind.
  In the main, I welcome the Bill; it is very important. I wanted to speak in the debate—I volunteered for the Standing Committee, and I hope that the Committee of Selection will consider me as there is nothing wrong with volunteering occasionally—because clause 224, which deals with Crown user right, and clause 151, which deals with first ownership of new design rights, run against the balance in the rest of the Bill. They do so because they represent a serious threat to some sectors of research and development in this country.
  I believe strongly that the Government have got the economy on its feet in a permanent and sustainable way, but I am worried about the amount of research and development in the private sector, which is still far too low.
  Private sector research and development in the United Kingdom is only 1·1 per cent. of GDP, as against 1·4 per cent. in the United States, 1·6 per cent. in West Germany and 1·9 per cent. in Japan. I shall explain why the two clauses might prevent our figure from improving. Clause 224 gives to the Government Crown user rights that amount to confiscation. As it stands, the clause does not distinguish clearly between background and foreground information. It affects a Crown supplier such as a defence supplier—there are other types of Crown supplier, but defence is by far the biggest category—that has been commissioned to do a particular job and paid to develop a certain piece of equipment, however much background information may have been brought to the table.
  Perhaps the company has included components developed at its own cost. It will almost certainly mean that there will be considerable know-how invested in the process. With many defence contracts, it is probable that even if the development was commissioned by the Government. a large proportion of its cost, as well as the cost of the parts brought to the table, has been paid for by the company. In many cases it is as much as half.
  If the clause is not amended, the Ministry of Defence or one of the other Departments will be able to say, "We commissioned that, so, now that it has been developed, it is our property and we shall be able to hand it out to open
  590
  competitive tender for the first production batch." The effect will be simple. In the short term, it will save the taxpayer a great deal of money. In the long term, it will ensure that in a generation's time we are importing most of our defence equipment. The people who will tender the lowest price for production contracts, if they are not let in the first phase to designers—subject to reasonable terms—will be companies that do not have the embarrassment of research and development overheads.
  Clause 151 is parallel to that. It deals with first ownership of new design rights on a wider basis, outside Government suppliers. It is liable particularly to affect small companies.
  I echo the warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Like him, I shall seek to discuss those two clauses in Committee——
  Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman gets on the Committee.
  Mr. Brazier: That is right.
  I should like to illustrate the depth of the problem with a story, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). In 1937, Frank Whittle tried to get a contract from the Air Ministry to develop what appeared to be a sound scheme. In fact, it was the first ever jet engine. Only one organisation, the Royal Air Force, saw any merit in it. Finally, the RAF managed to persuade the Air Ministry to agree to it. The Treasury managed to sabotage the project through continually cutting off funds. Nevertheless, largely through private money, Frank Whittle drove through the scheme to the point at which, in 1943, he had more or less developed the jet engine. As a war was on, his design rights were confiscated and handed over to some American companies and two other British companies and his company was nearly shot from under him. Obviously, what one does in war is different from what one does in peacetime, but that is an illustration, in an extreme case, of what could happen if those two clauses are not examined carefully and amended in Committee.
  This is a good Bill, which looks into a large number of different areas of this important subject. In all the areas except the one that I identified, it is a positive Bill. I am glad to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: This has been an interesting and full debate. It was opened by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who spoke with all the enthusiasm and vim of those who know that their involvement with the Bill will be concluded with its Second Reading.
  The Bill is a parliamentarian's nightmare. It is horribly complex and undeniably important and does not even have the spice of acute party controversy. That complexity is compounded by what my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to as the tremendous conflicts of interest that arise throughout the Bill. Not merely are we faced with competing claims, but many of them occur within a legitimate area of disagreement, so that we have problems of judgment added to those of complexity.
  We shall judge the Bill according to those criteria. The Bill should take account of advances in technology. It

  591
  should correct outstanding anomalies and clarify previously disparate and complex legislation it should bring us into line as far as possible with our international treaty obligations, particularly the Berne convention. It should attempt to hold sway fairly between the competing claims of the artist, the entrepreneur and the consuming public, and between rewarding investment and protecting consumers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) told us about the Bill's long gestation. There are probably two reasons for that. First, many of the problems seem virtually intractable. That is why we had not only the Whitford report of more than a decade ago, but three Green Papers and a recent White Paper. Each reached different conclusions from its predecessor and I suspect that the Bill will be amended substantially before it is passed. Secondly, although we are dealing mainly with copyright, other aspects of intellectual property such as patents, registered designs and trade marks impinge on that and overlap each other so that it is sometimes difficult to separate what is properly copyright from patent or design legislation.
  There is further difficulty with copyright. New technology has brought so many changes and advances that we now have a whole range of problems that were virtually unimaginable 20 years ago and in some cases only five years ago. What H. G. Wells would have thought of as science fiction we think of as part of our ordinary home furniture.
  Further pressures arise from the completion of the internal market in 1992 and the pressing need to ensure that, so far as possible, we come into line with Europe so we can compete on equal terms.
  Copyright law faces a further critical problem. Copyright was developed first to protect artistic works and the creativity of artists. Almost immediately, however, those who were commercialising the creative work of artists also required protection for the investment that they undertook. The question then arose what to do about industrial functional design, which is not within the rubric of registered designs, because it is wholly functional, but in which investment is obviously required and which therefore requires some protection in law. The difficulty is that one can ask why copyright protection for investment in functional articles is any different from copyright protection for articles of artistic work. In other words, why should copyright law be any different for the record and for the car exhaust?
  Here I agree with the Government in identifying the problem. With a functional item that should have its design protected because of the investment required but which the consumer is necessarily obliged to use because of its nature there is the danger of a misuse of the monopoly position of those who have designed the article. In principle, the functional article should be no different from the artistic work, but in practice it plainly is because of the possibility of abuse of monopoly.
  The Bill is necessary to clear up issues of technological advance, to bring us into line with our treaty obligations and to meet the particularly difficult problems raised by the issue of industrial design. Therefore, we ask not
  592
  whether the principle of the Bill is wrong but whether the Government have got the practical details right in relation to the difficulties to which I referred.
  I shall deal with several key issues—first, the blank tape levy. Although the blank tape levy is important to the music industry in one sense, it is not of huge financial importance; it would bring the industry £6 million or £7 million a year. The music industry is justified in saying that an important principle is involved. At present, blank tapes are used extensively for home taping of copyright material. We know and accept that. It is in theory unlawful to do it; therefore, in theory, at least, the law is being broken on a fairly wide scale. A rational choice, and the choice faced up to by the White Paper, was either to make home taping lawful and to provide compensation for the copying. or to make it lawful and to provide no compensation.
  What was not envisaged was that Parliament should consider the matter, aware that home taping is happening and that it is unlawful, and leave the law unaltered and abused. The Bill cannot go through as it is. Because it does not make home taping lawful, it accepts the justice of the claim that there should be copyright protection given to home taping, but it does not give any practical means of enforcement or any means of compensating for the unlawful action. That is an unjustifiable way of approaching the matter. We cannot say that the claim is justified, accept that there is no proper means of enforcing the law and then leave the law in its present unsatisfactory state.
  Some of the objections to the blank tape royalty are specious. It has been said that the administrative cost of collecting and distributing the levy would be enormous. An analogy has been drawn with public lending rights and performing rights. The major difference is that the blank tape levy would operate within a narrow compass. Only a certain number of firms bring blank tape into the country. In West Germany, where there is such a system, the administrative costs amount to only about 7 per cent. of the money raised. Therefore, that is not a valid objection.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that most consumers who have respect for the creators of work accept that there should be compensation for the use of copyright material. When we examine again the proposal for a blank tape royalty within the context of the unsatisfactory nature of the law, we will be driven logically to adopt the view that there should be compensation for the abuse of copyright.
  The White Paper originally made no provision for rental rights. Although that White Paper was published only two years ago, the Government said that they were not sure that rental rights required protection. The almost universal view that has emerged from today's debate is that rental rights should have protection. In other words, the position adopted by the White Paper that there should be no copyright protection of rentals has, by consensus, almost been rejected. Therefore, the question is whether in providing a rental right we are providing an effective right.
  It all depends on the nature of the industry. The video film industry, for example, may be happy with one year. That is a fairly easy period for it to live with. However, if we consider those who produce, for example, the compact discs, which will last for a considerable time, or more especially those who produce computer software, it is extremely difficult to argue that the one-year rental period is a satisfactory method of protecting the investment.
  Mr. William Powell: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point, but he understates it. The truth of the matter is that the situation would be impossible for the computer software industry if the provision stood, because if protection was limited to only one year there would be no point in computer software developers even setting about their work.
  Mr. Blair: I do not disagree with that point, but that is the limit of the protection given at present. I am saying that we have accepted that a rental right must exist. However, we have failed so far to face up to what that means in terms of giving adequate rental protection.
  I spoke earlier about striking the right balance between the interests of industry and the consumer. Most people looking particularly at the computer industry, but also at the record industry and the potential for hiring out compact discs, would not think that that balance has been struck correctly in relation to rental rights. That also may need changing.
  Further, there are the fair dealing provisions, where, if there is fair dealing in copying for the purposes of research or study, there is exemption from copyright infringement. Two problems arise on that. First, the Government have decided—so far at least—that there should be no payment by industry for copies of publications done for commercial research. I understand that the publishers have come back to the Government with a scheme, which is at least worth looking at, for some form of compensation to the authors of publications that are copied. We have not taken a position on that at this stage, but we shall have to look at it during the passage of the Bill.
  I point out too that, as far as I am aware, the United States has the Coypright Clearance Centre which is its attempt to deal with the problem, and apparently it is working.
  There is also the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Cunninghame, North about photographers. I have not yet heard the explanation for the proposal that photographers should lose any copyright protection when their work is used for the reporting of current events. One thing that photographers are concerned to do, which is essential to their commercial livelihood, is to have their photograpahs used either for news reels or newpapers for the reporting of current events. At the very least, we deserve an explanation of why they should lose any protection, on the basis of fair dealing, when such photographs are taken.
  There are also problems associated with the conflict of copyright between the creator of the work and those commercialising it or particularly between journalists and newspaper proprietors. That point was raised passionately by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). It was a good trade union speech which shed an entirely new light on the hon. Gentleman. The point that he was making was about the inequality of bargaining power between the creator and the commercialiser of the work. That is the aspect which one must decide when considering which part of the copyright should take precedence.
  The essential question is what one is attempting to compensate for when the rights of journalists and newspaper proprietors, or of artists and the record industry, conflict. It is important to realise that the economic bargaining power will, on the whole, rest with the commercialisers rather than with the creators.
  594
  Contracts can alter any of these provisions—parties can agree to do something quite different from what the law lays down. They can, by contract, abstain from any of the rights that they have. In those circumstances, it seems all the more important that the correct balance is struck, both on copyright and on moral right. I am not certain that that balance has been correctly achieved. There are also the difficulties of establishing the copyright tribunal. They, too, will have to be examined.
  I want to deal with the thorny issue of design rights. I agree that not all design of functional articles can be given protection, because of the danger of monopoly. In drawing the line we must take account of the investment being rewarded and the choice of the consumer—those are the competing claims. The Government propose that when the consumer must purchase an article that fits or matches the rest of a larger design there should be no protection. The problem is that it is irrational to discount investment only on that basis. In other words, to draw the line between protecting investment and the consumer by reference to a definition of design does not seem correct, because there may be a design that must fit and match but which has involved a huge amount of investment and should therefore be protected. That has been obscured, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out, by the obsession with car spare parts, but the problem is much broader than that. We should deal with the root of the problem—the fear of a lack of competition if monopoly power is abused—and that can be dealt with in a different way from that which the Government propose.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blair: I am just about to sit down.
  The Bill has many good parts and is a worthy effort. However, I still think that when it meets difficult problems it shakes them by the hand and walks away from them. We cannot afford to do that in Committee. We must ensure that this is a Bill for the future which stimulates our artists and enriches our consumers, while safeguarding our industry. That is our task in Committee. While we agree with the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, we reserve our position on its practical application.
  9.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rightly surmised that the Government are not walking away from the issues in the Bill. There are those who are alarmed by the prospect of the Government walking remorselessly towards about 25 issues of a complex and sometimes highly contentious nature. Some would say it would be better to wait for the Common Market to bring forward its view, or to allow certain ambiguities to continue which industry and industrial property rights owners could not have tolerated.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made a powerful observation: that at the most conservative estimate about 2·6 per cent. of GDP is in the business of intellectual property; and its exploitation is an equally significant economic activity. He raised a number of interesting points about the need for interventionism, or otherwise, in markets. An example from the business of information shows how liberalism has undoubtedly delivered immense benefits to consumers and protected the

  595
  rights of intellectual property owners. In London there are now about 2,500 companies operating what are called value-added data or network services—they sell information internationally. Until this Government liberalised that market four or five years ago, there were none. So, from a standing start, liberalisation of a market, while protecting the rights of the providers of information, has provided an immense amount of employment and income for the United Kingdom. It is my earnest hope that what we have done will make London into a centre that will match those of New York and Tokyo in the exchange of information, just as those three centres are now world centres of the exchange of financial services and stocks and shares. We believe that intervention in markets is justified only to the extent that it makes them work better.
  I hope that hon. Members will have noticed that there is surety and clarity in the majority of issues tackled in the Bill and most of those markets work better where there is such surety and clarity. We are helping the market by providing that long overdue recodification or updating of the law.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham mentioned the example of the music industry. Is that industry suffering from an impure or defective market? Is the industry not dynamic? The hon. Gentlemen said that the sales figures of record companies are healthy. We are talking about £400 million worth of overseas earnings. If we introduce a levy, will it help the market to work better or provide compensation to the owners of rights in the original work to the extent that they would be stimulated even further to improve the quality and volume of the products coming on to the market? That is a central question. Certainly the Government would argue that the introduction of a levy would not necessarily introduce a better choice for consumers and would, at best, perhaps be neutral in terms of the amount of work produced by creative people.
  I am sure that all Conservative Members will join me in acknowledging the care and professionalism over many years of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) in respect of the issues that we are discussing today. He is, to some extent, the architect of some of the new provisions and I recognise his logic when he argues that we should be careful about the use of terminology. He is correct in saying that, by using literary analogies all the time, we can sometimes cloud the issue, particularly in the high technology, computer and electronics areas. I wish to reassure my right hon. Friend that we shall be vigilant in Committee in the terminology that we use. We shall be particularly vigilant in applying the correct terminology to computer media input and output and we shall not hide behind the blanket phrase, as he fears, or use non-specific language.
  I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his support on the "must fit" and "must match" question and I hope that he will follow closely the arguments in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) may have surmised from the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that issue is subject to further discussion and I shall be meeting people in the next fortnight to further those discussions.
  596
  I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) to get the Community Trade Marks Office moved to London. He and I are at one in that regard. London is ideally suited to provide the services required of the CTMO and my hon. Friend's long-standing interest and expertise in those matters will be a valuable aid in achieving what we hope will be a favourable result.
  En passant, the design right is automatic and does not have to be registered. The designs that must be registered are the non-functional and aesthetic designs.
  On the question of the word processor, under "must fit" and "must match", the male and female parts of the plugs which a keyboard would require to connect into a word processor must fit and must match. I believe that I have correctly interpreted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. Anyone who simply copied a keyboard would be caught by the usual terms on copying. However, that is a good illustration and one that we should explore in Committee.
  I know that the computer industry and one or two other industries feel that they have been left out of the "must fit" and "must match" argument; that it has all been dominated by the motor industry. That is not the case. We have thought the matter through and as we examine the provisions in greater detail we may be able to reassure those hon. Members who are anxious about the white goods industry or indeed the computer industry or lifestyle products that this methodology translate across.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) made a charming speech. He has probably had to head north to look after his constituents. I agree with him when he says that this is an overdue restatement and codification of intellectual property. Its timing is about right.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) talked about the balance of interest between the designer and the user. He said that he was looking forward to the Committee stage, from which I assume that he will be serving on the Committee. I look forward to his contributions. Some hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the rich challenges that lie in the Bill see its Committee stage as a parliamentary equivalent of the Gulag. I can assure my hon. Friends that that will not be so. With our hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in the chair, this will be a stimulating, lively and rewarding Committee on which to serve.
  I recognise the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on computer software, with which I shall try to deal in outline form tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an impassioned plea for the levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has a lot to be thankful for in computer software and his Bill has given us many insights into how to go about protecting it. I shall examine his comments on the powers of enforcement in the Bill, which I understand to be one of the central points of his speech.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) who is also anxious about the "must fit" and "must match" provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), in whose constituency I opened a compact disc factory a few months ago, is understandably anxious about the levy. I can tell the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that we are looking at the rental right. I shall be discussing that with the Copyright Licensing Agency and I agree with him entirely on the

  597
  "must fit" and "must match" question. It is difficult and the route that we have taken so far is a design right route. Despite all the people that we have consulted, we cannot find an alternative way to square the two pressures that he so lucidly described. If he were to shout "Eureka" in Committee on discovering some source of wisdom that we have yet to come across, he will do the Committee a great service.
  The blank tape levy has dominated a number of contributions. The Government's position is clear. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pointed out that there is an element of rough justice. It was interesting to see that not one of the contributions in favour of the levy addressed the question of rough justice. The argument in the main was that there is rough justice in other methods, or any alternative method, but it is correct for my right hon. and learned Friend and I to point out that there would be a number of "innocent" sufferers from the blanket imposition of a levy—a levy which, incidentally, could be marked up in the retail chain with the result that the burden on the consumer would be considerably more, with those in the retail chain standing to gain almost as much as those for whom the levy was intended. It is for that reason, and others, that we are still determined to press the case against the levy being introduced.
  Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend the Minister referred to suffering and burdens. As the levy would be 10p which, as I said, is one third of the price of a cup of coffee in a third class café, it is difficult to imagine that causing any hardship. The average purchaser of blank tapes buys eight a year. He would pay 80p a year. or 1·5p, a week on average.
  Mr. Butcher: I remember considering a number of ways to deal with the blind and talking newspapers for the blind. I remember being horrified by the kind of procedures that we would have to adopt to allow blind people to have their levy rebated. Indeed, I was horrified at the paper work that would be involved.
  There are different kinds of suffering. We must consider the pure nuisance that would be caused. For the generality of consumers, we must consider the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association which are absolutely steadfast in their opposition to the levy. Those organisations and the House must judge the interests of the consumer. I must wear a consumer affairs hat. On the balance of the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, the case for the levy is not proven.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Butcher: I want to press on. This has been an incredibly complex debate and I want to respond to five other issues.
  I want briefly to consider the question of design right. Hon. Members have asked whether the new design right proposed in part III of the Bill is the right way to protect designs. We believe that it is. Copyright is quite inappropriate, not least because, it depends on the existence of an original artistic work, such as a design drawing. That is a highly artificial way of protecting industrial products against copying. Some designs would get no protection at all, because for example, they started
  598
  life as a model rather than a drawing. Similarly, registered designs are not the way to protect the vast number of functional designs produced every year.
  The registration system works well for aesthetic designs, but they form a limited class of designs intended mainly for consumer goods. The burden that would be placed on industry and on Government resources if every functional design needing protection had to be registered would be very great.
  New laws on unfair competition or unfair copying are another possibility referred to by Opposition Members. They would inevitably give rise to an unacceptable level of uncertainty and we will have to investigate that further. On the other hand, design right has many advantages. It is an automatic right which, like copyright, does not depend on registration. It has none of the disadvantages that copyright protection would inevitably produce if it were applied to industrial products. It provides the necessary degree of certainty which is of great importance to industry. We believe that design right is ideally suited for the task of protecting industrial designs.
  With regard to spare parts, it has been said that the "must match" exception goes too far or that it would damage original equipment manufacturers. I do not agree that the provision goes too far just because it will allow copying of entire parts. The point is that in certain important areas of the spare parts market the only way to ensure that consumers enjoy the benefit of competition is to allow that type of copying.
  We have ensured that the exception operates only when the part is an integral component of a larger design style, body panels being an obvious example. In that area, the consumer frequently needs to replace the part in question and has no choice but to do so with a part of exactly the same shape and appearance. To give a total monopoly over the supply of these spares to the original equipment designer would not, in the Government's view, be desirable.
  I have no doubt that there will be many debates in Committee on the practicalities of the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, the Bill has had a long gestation. That long period of consultation and deliberation has been time well spent. The opportunity to revise copyright and design legislation does not occur that often. There have been only two such Acts this century, the Copyright Acts of 1911 and 1956. I detect that the House sees this as a Bill to work on in a non-contentious manner. It is my hope that, in the end, we shall have an excellent Act.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords]

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

    COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,

    599
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (1) any expenses of the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under the Act; and

    (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS BILL [LORDS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—
  (1) the imposition of charges to tax in connection with provisions requiring the deductions of income tax from royalties and other sums paid in respect of the use of designs to persons whose usual place of abode is outside the United Kingdom; and
  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Summer Time
  10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th March.
  The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The purpose of the order is to continue for one further year, that is for 1989, the existing arrangements for the starting and ending dates of summer time. It will mean that, as in previous years, summer time will start on the last Sunday in March—26 March—and end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October—29 October. Both the starting and end times—1 am in each case—conform with the fourth directive on summer time of the European Community. All states in the Community, whatever time zone they are in, begin summer time on the same day, but the United Kingdom and Ireland end summer time about a month after the rest of the Community.
  The draft order is uncontroversial, as it simply extends existing arrangements until the end of 1989, but there are other issues of which the House will wish to be aware. Because of continuing suggestions that there are benefits to be gained from a change in our arrangements, we have commissioned a substantive survey on summer time. That was announced on 31 March by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The survey seeks a response to the three options identified in a preliminary survey as being the most favoured.
  The options are, first, the maintenance of the status quo, secondly, harmonisation of the ending of summer time with the rest of Europe—with the result that we would lose an hour's evening daylight in October—and, thirdly, the adoption of Greenwich mean time plus one hour in the winter, with Greenwich mean time plus two hours in the summer—which for these purposes means between the end of March and the end of September.
  The third option would give us an extra hour of afternoon or evening daylight throughout the year. It would also move us into the same time zone as most other countries in western Europe. As a consequence, we would have a common time with them throughout the year.
  Therefore, there are two independent issues to be considered in the consultation exercise. One is whether we should end summer time on the same day as the rest of Europe. The second, and quite separate, question is whether we should move into the central European time zone. The latter question is not a matter on which the Community has expressed a view, but it may have advantages for the United Kingdom. We need time to complete and consider the consultation already put in hand. If we decide to legislate we shall need yet more time. It seems inevitable that we shall require the status quo to be extended beyond 1989.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has said that we shall need time to legislate. Given the correspondence that the Select Committee has received and the nature of EC legislation, does he agree that it is no longer within the power of the House to legislate on this matter? The necessary legislation will be enacted in Brussels and Strasbourg. Is not that correct?
  Mr. Hogg: It depends very much on our ultimate decisions. We may decide that it would be helpful to adopt the third of the various options that I have outlined. That would need domestic legislation. I did not say that we would legislate. I said, "If we decide to legislate" and the emphasis was on the "if". We are consulting and until we have completed the consultation I do not know, nor can anyone know, what the decision will be. As I say, if we decide to legislate we shall need yet more time. It seems inevitable that we shall require the status quo to be extended beyond 1989. We shall discuss this matter with the European Commission.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has said that he will require the present arrangement to be extended by one year. What is the status of the fourth directive? Is the matter not subject to that?
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend mean the fourth directive or the article?
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The fourth directive.
  Mr. Hogg: The fourth directive expires at the end of 1989. A further directive will be produced and I expect to see the draft in the middle of the summer. It must be in place by the beginning of next year and that is provided for in the fourth directive. The terms of that directive have not yet been settled, but we should like to see and will press vigorously for an extension of the status quo to achieve the purposes that I have outlined. I have no reason to suppose that the extension will not be forthcoming in the fifth directive.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: If it is the intention or one of the options of the Government to delay this whole business, why did they vote for the fourth directive which says quite clearly:
  "The Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt by 1 January 1989 the arrangements to apply from 1990 onwards"?
  How does that square with the delaying option that the Minister has described?
  Mr. Hogg: The arrangements provide for a derogation, as they provide for a derogation in the fourth directive that we are discussing. The fact that they seek to make provisos for forthcoming years and to achieve harmonisation does not preclude them from making a derogation in the directives, as they have done in the first, second, third and present directives. My view, for what it is worth, is that we shall have little difficulty in securing a further derogation to maintain the status quo for an extended period which will enable us to form a concluded view about the policy that is best suited to the United Kingdom. Then we can set about the negotiations, discussions and persuasion. It is against that background that I seek the agreement of the House for an extension of the present arrangements. That will enable us to pursue the action that I have outlined.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: We have two major papers before us—first, the fourth directive, and, secondly, the Summer Time Order 1988, which extends summer time, to which the Minister has referred. The directive defines the start of summer time for all member states for 1989. Additionally, it defines the end of summer time for 1989 for the United Kingdom, Ireland and all member states. This year, the end of summer time
  602
  will be 29 October 1988 for the United Kingdom and Ireland, and 24 September 1988 for other member states. The Summer Time Order 1988 is mainly concerned with the start and end dates of summer time for 1989. Essentially, the order is about extending the existing summer time arrangements for another year while the matter is sorted out. In addition to that, article 5 of the EEC directive states that the EEC Council
  "shall adopt by 1 January 1989 the arrangements, to apply from 1990 onwards."
  The Minister talked about his derogations in dealing with the matter. Bearing in mind that the fourth directive was voted on just before Christmas—only a few weeks ago—and bearing in mind that we have a Christmas break, it seems that the matter that was voted on in Brussels is in complete turmoil. It is quite surprising that it has been turned upside down already.
  What is the order about? As the Minister's explanatory memorandum states, it is another attempt by the EEC to harmonise summer time for 1990 onwards. The purposes of the harmonisation have been expressed by various EEC documents—certainly those that I have read—in terms of benefits to transport companies. They have mentioned matters such as timetables and the improvement of trade and communications between member states. But there Is no mention of matters such as the quality of life, reducing the number of road accidents, crime, or the death of children as they go to and from school. As one is inclined to expect from the EEC these days, the motives are purely to do with the internal market.
  Frankly, I am not sure about the benefits of harmonisation. I am not sure that we even need it. Of course we want to improve trade between EEC countries—that is obvious. But the order is about balancing the advantages and disadvantages of harmonisation with the advantages and disadvantages of improving the quality of life. I am talking about ensuring that, when they wake up in the morning, people are not in darkness for long periods. That gets worse further north. People in Scotland—particulary in the northern isles of Scotland—experience more darkness and misery than we experience in the south. Harmonisation must take such matters into account.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman define two points for the benefit of the House? First, what exactly does he mean by the misery that is suffered by those in the north that would come from the harmonisation of summer time? Secondly, will he define in precise terms exactly what advantages acrue to the United Kingdom in economic and other terms by being one of the two odd men out of what is an extremely important piece of legislation for this country?
  Mr. Randall: Those statements were based on the review of the earlier experiment between 1968 and 1971 and those documents referred to misery because people lived in darkness for long periods. In that sense, it does affect the quality of life, for instance, of elderly people who have to go out, and for mothers who worry about their children. In terms of the economic argument about which the hon. Gentleman asked, I will answer by putting a question to him. Would he like to quantify the benefits of harmonisation? I understand that it is not clear what the benefits would be, so I do not think that his odd-man-out argument stands up. These things cannot be quantified.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to harmonise summer time within the EEC and whether it would bring advantages or disadvantages, will the hon. Gentleman agree that if Parliament is passing over the right to decide by a majority what summer time would be applied throughout Europe, it would be helpful, convenient and constitutional for the House of Commons to be asked whether it wanted to give that power away?
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has leapt well ahead; I was coming to that very point a little later in my speech. This is the core of this whole debate and it is a matter that concerns me.
  This is a highly emotional matter, and we are already beginning to sense this in the debate. Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but if one reads the record of the earlier debates one sees that it was extraordinary how people reacted to this. It is something about which people feel a great deal of concern and which raises a lot of emotion.
  I truly believe that in terms of people who live in the north—and I do not have any interests at all there—it is the responsibility of us all, and particularly those who represent constituencies in the south or not all that far north, such as my own, to make sure that the interests of those in Scotland and the northern parts of England are taken into account.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the issue that is being discussed tonight considerably more narrow than that discussed on previous occasions? Why is the hon. Gentleman so surprised that the European Economic Community should be concerned with economic issues? Does not common sense suggest that to harmonise the dates on which the clocks are changed would be a considerable advantage to those in business who are importing and exporting and rely on railway and airline timetables?
  Mr. Randall: Again, I was going to come on to those points, but I want to take up the Minister's points about the options he has presented tonight. I do not want to talk about the economics because, as I have said, they have not been quantified and there is no way of putting any numbers on them. I accept that in terms of trade there would be some advantages. I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that I believe that in making this decision we have to strike the balance between the economic advantages and some of these other advantages, which we can call social advantages, and the direct effects upon the people concerned.
  The Minister has referred to three options. I do not believe that we have three real options. First, he said that there would be the no-change option. Fine, we could take that course. The second is the more complicated option to describe; it is what I call the GMT plus one and the GMT plus two, and it means running summer time during winter and double summer time during summer. That is perhaps a shorthand way of describing it, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that.
  The third option is to harmonise the end of summer time. I do not believe that that is an option, because it would mean that we would end our summer time at the end of September, and that would be the beginning of winter. I believe that there would be absolute outrage in this country if that were to happen. I believe that we are
  604
  down to two options: the first is to do nothing and the second is complete harmonisation—it is the whole lot, and that is what the EEC is after.
  What will happen? The Minister has talked about his review. It is due to be completed by 30 June and people will be asked to submit comments, particularly quantitative, on these options. I am not sure what the results will be. We conducted an experiment between 1968 and 1971 and the conclusion was clear: that people did not want continuous summer time because of the effect of dark mornings. The proposal was thrown out of the House by a massive majority. Therefore, we already have good information about attitudes towards continuous summer time.
  I am worried that the survey is being carried out by the Government. What do they hope to do with it? I would not accuse them of dishonesty, but we all know how these things can be fiddled and statistics can be played with. I should like to know how comprehensive the survey is. Who has been receiving these questionnaires? I wonder whether we shall see any dramatic change from the results of the earlier trial.
  Mr. James Wallace: To return to the question of the economic benefits, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the economic performance of the United States, which has three or four time zones, does not seem to suffer any bad effects? Does he agree that, however committed to the EEC we are, the Community does not rule the laws of geography?
  Mr. Randall: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I questioned the benefits of harmonisation, that was certainly an issue that came to the forefront of my mind. It is amazing that the United States can cope in this way, yet we in Europe, which is geographically narrower and smaller, seem to encounter greater problems.
  Another matter of great anxiety was the point raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) which is that this fourth directive, which has been approved by the Government——
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not by Parliament.
  Mr. Randall: That is true, but it has been approved by the EEC. The directive was based on article 100A of the treaty of Rome. That means that the decision to adopt a 1 January 1989 deadline for establishing the long-term arrangements, those that will operate after 1990, was achieved by majority voting. We did not have a veto. The Government seem to have surrendered their right of veto which existed under article 100. Why did they do that? I cannot for the life of me understand why. It seems to be an act of folly and madness.
  We have only two options: full harmonisation or staying as we are. The EEC wants full harmonisation at all costs, irrespective of the consequences. The Government study will be used as the basis for negotiations with the EEC and, obviously, the outcome is uncertain. Moreover, the Government, for all sorts of highly questionable reasons, have agreed to surrender their power of veto by not insisting on article 100. They have sold Britain down the river. They have caved in to EC bureaucrats' desire to harmonise at any cost to this country and irrespective of the feelings of the British people. I am not sure whether it is a cock-up or whether the Government are being seen off by the EEC.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have made a mistake which he might like to correct. The European Community's proposals for harmonisation relate to the end date of summer time, and there has been no suggestion at any time that the United Kingdom should move into the central European time zone.
  Mr. Randall: With article 100A, we shall be adopting all the conditions that will prevail after 1990. That is the beginning, the end of it and the whole shooting match. It is worrying that the decision will be made on the basis of article 100A. Indeed, I thought that the Minister was going to intervene on that matter. It means that we shall not have a say in the matter. The EC member States will have no desire to take into account the fact that Scotland and the north of England would prefer not to go for full harmonisation. The views of the House and the people of the country will not be considered because the European Community wants full harmonisation by 1990. I should like to know how we are going to stop this. I cannot see how we can get out of it.
  The whole thing is set up so neatly that the people of this country will suffer. It is very worrying. The Government have failed miserably to make sure that the interests of our people are taken into account. The benefits of harmonisation are highly questionable, and are being given greater priority than the quality of life of British people. Money, trade and commerce are all that the Government understand.
  I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government and the EC are correct constitutionally in adopting article 100A of the treaty of Rome in relation to this matter. The Select Committee on European Legislation, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is in his seat tonight, wrote to the Home Secretary asking him why article 100A was adopted in the fourth directive. The Home Secretary said,
  "If article 100 has in the past been regarded as the proper vehicle, there will not usually be any real likelihood of successfully arguing that article 100A is an improper treaty base."
  That is a remarkable answer. The Home Secretary is saying that, as we have used article 100 in the past, article 100A can be used in future and no questions asked.
  This is a complex legal point, and I do not intend to go into it. I am sure that the Minister will know that Mr. Speaker's Counsel has questioned what the Home Secretary has done on this matter. I am sure that my hon. friend the Member for Newham, South will deal with the legal aspects if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I must also ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the Government, in commiting themselves to the majority voting arrangements on summer time, have made a constitutional mistake. I am sure that he will have seen a letter to the Select Committee from Mr. Speaker's Counsel.
  For those of us who are unhappy about the use of article 100A, which relates to majority voting, will the Minister tell the House what steps if any can be taken to revert to article 100 when voting on the summer time arrangements that will come into operation in 1990? They will be contained in the fifth directive. I should like the Minister to answer that question because it is of the utmost importance, in particular in relation to precedent. As the fourth directive uses article 100A, must it be used in the next directive?
  606
  I believe that the decision to be made by 1 January 1989 regarding long-term summer time arrangements after 1990 should be based on balancing the merits of harmonisation of summer time against the effect that such measures would have on the quality of life for British people, especially in Scotland and the north of England. The important aspects of the quality of life include prevention of road accidents, and other matters that I have referred to. A particular example that. came up in the previous debate was of children going to school in the dark in the mornings.
  Some interesting research findings have emerged recently from the Policies Studies Institute. They show that there could be fewer deaths and serious accidents if we were to operate summer time—GMT plus one—in the winter. The research was carried out by Dr. Meyer Hillman, who demonstrated that many lives could be saved with continuous summer time, although mornings would be darker. Dr. Hillman claims that under the existing arrangements during the winter months there are twice as many deaths and serious injuries among adults between 4 pm and 7 pm as there are between 7 am and 10 am. In other words, there is a tendency for more deaths, serious injuries and accidents generally in the evening. He added that there are two or three times as many deaths and serious injuries among children between 3 pm and 6 pm as there are between 7 am and 10 am. Dr. Hillman found that darker evenings are a greater killer in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that Scotland could expect to benefit even more from reform of summer time arrangements. Does the Minister accept these figures?
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I make an inquiry because I have not studied the evidence that the hon. Gentleman is citing. Is the analysis that Dr. Hillman has undertaken based predominantly on urban, suburban or rural areas? I imagine that that would make a difference to the findings.
  Mr. Randall: I cannot answer the specifics of the hon. Gentleman's question but I am sure that there are hon. Members who can probably comment upon it. I understand that the research was comprehensive. The report shows that the findings would apply to various parts of the country. It was not a pilot study that was carried out in one city. It embraced various parts of the country.
  I shall skim through the interim report that was produced by the PSI because I think that it might be of interest to the House. It reveals that some of the benefits included a reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries, a saving in fuel costs, more time for out-door sports, an extension of the tourist season and an opportunity to make all sorts of journeys in daylight. Dr. Hillman observed that journeys in daylight would benefit particularly the more vulnerable groups in the community who are fearful of going out in the dark, especially the elderly. He referred also to schoolchildren, trade with western Europe, a small reduction in burglaries and crime and an improvement in general health and well-being, both physical and mental.
  Against these benefits Dr. Hillman lists two disadvantages. The first one is the discomfort and diseconomies of working out of doors in the dark for an extra hour in the morning for people whose jobs require them to make an early start to the day, such as dairy farmers, building

  607
  workers, postmen and milkmen. Secondly, those who live in the northern latitudes of the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, would be inconvenienced by the later sunrise in winter. The chief problem would be the general shortage of daylight during the heart of winter, whatever its distribution. I thought the House might find that interesting.
  It is also interesting to note that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory believes that it would save lives if British standard time were to be reintroduced on the same pattern as we had between 1968 and 1971. I refer the House to Hansard of 18 April 1988, column 366. If we were to go back to the regime of British standard time, the TRRL estimates that the reduction in the number of accident casualties would be 1,340 during the winter. That is a phenomenally large figure and is highly persuasive.
  608
  I believe that what is really sticking in the gullets of many Conservative Members is that the Government seem to be aiding and abetting the EEC in introducing harmonised EEC summer time, irrespective of the wishes of the people, by supporting the use of article 100A of the treaty, which allows majority voting. The amendment put down by various Conservative Members demonstrates their disquiet.
  It is important to recognise that most EC member states have no incentive to vote against complete harmonisation. They are not interested in the way in which such measures affect the people of Scotland or the north of England. They think only in terms of the internal market. The summer time experiment which took place between 1968 and 1971 was rejected massively by the House because the people did not want it. Ironically this time the Government have passed the powers to Brussels.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I should be grateful if the Minister would answer some questions relating to an amendment which some of us put down. I am not sure whether it is being considered. I do not really wish to talk about summer time because I find it difficult to understand the views of hon. Members. When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was talking about the dangers, he got a rough ride from some of my hon. Friends. As an older Member, I found that strange. I can well remember that when a Labour Government brought in a measure to extend summer time they were attacked unanimously by the Conservative Opposition on the ground that children's lives would be affected and that it would do a great deal of damage. Views on summer time seem to change with circumstances.
  The one thing we know is that people feel deeply about summer time. When I was Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency there was a huge volume of protest when extra summer time was introduced. People care about the issue. Until December it seemed that the House of Commons still had control. We could decide whether we wanted more summer time, less summer time or no summer time.
  I hope that the Minister will give us guidance, but what worries me is that it appears that when a decision was made on the fourth directive it was agreed that as from 1990 the Common Market Council, by a majority, could impose a universal time pattern on Europe as a whole. In other words, we in Britain could have a form of summer time which we found unacceptable. Some might think it was a threat to children's lives and some might feel that it was bad for farming or for trade, but it would be imposed on us, whether we liked it or not, irrespective of the views of the Government and of Parliament.
  I hope that the Minister will indicate clearly what the score is on the fourth directive. Does article 5 mean that the Council could determine that Parliament was basically irrelevant? Some people say, "They would never do this; they are reasonable people. We are part of the club. We get on very well with them." I counsel caution because unfortunately all the assurances which we have had on these matters in the past have proved to be a sick joke.
  I am fed up with hearing about extra trade with Europe when the figures show that, whereas we always had a surplus in trade with Europe before we joined the Common Market, we now have a deficit of £11,000 million. Basically, for every £2 worth of goods we send to Europe, we get £3 worth back. That creates a major problem for the country.
  I am fed up with hearing assurances from the Front Bench about the new rebates which we are getting from our contributions and how our contributions are being reduced. As the Government know, this year our net contribution of £.1,500 million is the highest in history and, according to the Prime Minister, is likely to rise another £200 million—because of the recent deal.
  I am fed up with hearing all the assurances about the changes which are coming for agriculture but which never come, because spending goes up and up. Despite the assurance we had at the time of the European Council meeting that our contribution would be less because we were taking more of the responsibility for food dumping, and the Common Market would spend less, we see in the
  610
  budget passed last week that the amount that will be spent on dumping and destroying food has risen to £221 million every week.
  We should be cautious about giving away parliamentary sovereignty in case we regret it. We must remember that, if we give it away, it will be gone for ever.
  Is our reading wrong? Is the explanatory note from the Government wrong? Are the papers rushed out by the Conservative party wrong? They all seem to indicate that as from 1990 the European Council—by a majority—can decide that summer time is applied throughout the Community, and that includes Great Britain. It may all work out splendidly. It may be that we will all decide to have what we want anyway, but, on the other hand, it may not. If we take the decision to give away this sovereignty and throw away our power of veto on something that British people, rightly or wrongly, care deeply about, should we not discuss it in the House of Commons and reach a positive decision?
  Hon. Members may say that it does not matter because it has happened. Nevertheless, you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and some hon. Members who stayed up late on a Thursday night in July two years ago will remember, that when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office was justifying the Single European Act we were given pledge after pledge that article 100A would not be used to take away rights which had been justified. We questioned him time and again about that. We asked if they would take away powers, and we were told that they would not: article 100A related only to the internal market, to trade and to transport.
  We have seen in the 15th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation a carefully argued statement by Mr. Speaker's counsel in which he makes it abundantly clear that it is basically wrong to have this directive done under article 100A. He points out that article 100A is solely on the internal market, and article 100 is appropriate because of the wide nature of these measures.
  That is not new. Every directive on summer time has been under article 100, and the only difference, when moving to article 100A, is that we threw away our right of veto if something was unacceptable. Of course, it also gives one more notch, presumably, for those who like to talk about 1992, to say that we have had a harmonising directive.
  Mr. Speaker's counsel's advice seems to carry more weight than the Select Committee which has been given some strange advice. The Select Committee gives the impression in its reports of being treated with contempt in this matter, with wrong dates being given and with it being told that something had not been passed, although the European Parliament had discussed it a week ago. The impression is given that the Government are not treating the Select Committee seriously, and that something important has happened without the House of Commons being consulted and without it agreeing.
  What can we do tonight? We have a motion, because the amendment has not been selected, just noting the summer time order, which is uncontroversial. That is not the issue. The issue is whether we are giving away a major piece of sovereignty to the European Economic Community.
  If this goes through and something new comes in in 1990, people will jump up and down. We saw it happening in this House just now. Labour and Conservative Members are rushing round the House getting people to

  611
  sign motions about European passports and saying that it is shocking, wrong and anti-British. That is a waste of time because the legislation went through a long time ago and there is nothing that we can do about the European passport.
  My fear is that major pieces of sovereignty are being handed over without the House of Commons being directly involved and that devices are being used—quite wrongly—to put matters into article 100A.
  First, by using article 100A, did the first directive take away the right of the power of veto? From 1990 onwards, will the Common Market, by a majority, tell us what summer time we have, whether we like it or not? Secondly, is it not fair, in view of all the assurances that were given during the passage of the Single European Act, that the House of Commons should be asked whether it wants to give away that sovereignty?
  Thirdly, what was the matter that my hon. Friend the Minister raised in saying that we are going to ask for an extra year by having a derogation? A derogation is a splendid thing if we want it, but what happens if the Council says, "We do not think that you should have a derogation?" Article 5 seems abundantly clear. Why is my hon. Friend so certain that the derogation will happen if he wants it? Is he relying on the good will of his fellow members, and on the fact that they have always been nice guys before? Under article 100 and article 5 of the fourth directive, it seems that if the Council does not want to give us derogation we simply will not get one.
  I have a feeling that not just in this area but in many areas the House of Commons is surrendering substantial sovereignty in such a way that people will later say that a mistake was made. However, it may well be the right decision. It may well be right to let the Common Market decide what summer time applies. However, the important thing is that people should be consulted and that they should be told what is happening.
  It is unfortunate that we are discussing a noncontroversial order, along with Community papers, when most of our colleagues do not have the slightest idea about what is happening or about what the papers involve. It is very important that people should be told what is happening when a major decision is being made on sovereignty, and that they do not wake up later and regret it.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue. It may be nonsense and people may be getting upset about summer time for no good reason, but I assure him, as Scottish hon. Members will, that people feel deeply about it because they believe that it involves safety and many other things. If we are passing over such a power, people should be consulted.
  Those are my questions, which I hope that the Minister will bear in mind in view of the assurances given to the House of Commons on 10 July when the Single European Act was discussed.
  Finally—this is an important point—if the Government take the view, as Mr. Speaker's counsel does, that it is wrong to promote the fourth directive under article 100A, is there anything that they can or that they are willing to do about that?
  European constitutions are complicated and it seems to me that, ultimately, if the Commission proposes
  612
  something under a particular provision, hon. Members can talk about it—but can they do anything about it? I hope that the Government will do something about it and that it will be possible to reach an agreement. We should safeguard ourselves against the majority of the Council imposing on us something that we do not want. I should like to retain article 100. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that if we simply say that, because it is article 100, article 100A applies, almost any directive on any issue could go through the Common Market under article 100A and we would lose any control or power over it.
  Something rather significant has happened and I hope that the Government can give us an assurance that we shall retain some sovereignty apart from the right to argue from what might be a hopeless position
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo the hopes of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), but I am not so sure that the Government are in a position to give the assurance that he sought. Perhaps the people in the Common Market will give us another year, or a semi-permanent derogation year on year, as has happened on a number of other issues, but that is not necessarily the position in law.
  We are concerned with the position in law in this semi-legislative Chamber. I say that because the House now has no option in this matter; nor have the Government. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, the matter is now, for the time being at least, being dealt with under article 100A, whereby a qualified majority carries the day.
  I was disappointed with the Minister's speech. I know that he has been busy recently. He has been often at the Dispatch Box, and no doubt doing many other things, apart from his constituency duties. That may be one of the reasons for his brief and incomplete speech. The Select Committee, however, has produced two reports on this subject, and there has been correspondence between me, as its chairman, and the Minister, but none of that was mentioned by him. Of course, he had every right not to mention it, but there was about his speech an aura of hoping that someone would not be here tonight. It is not good enough. I am sorry to have to say that. My explanation—charitable perhaps—is that the Minister and his Department have had a great deal to do——
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I like to be brief.
  Mr. Spearing: Perhaps, but not to the point of being incomplete.
  Mr. Hogg: I have a great preference for being brief. With the leave of the House, I shall have an opportunity to answer points that have been raised. It seems best to proceed in that way, so that I can reply to any points that the hon. Gentleman may wish to make.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not quite got the point. It is the Select Committee and not I that has put out two reports on this issue. The Minister did not mention them. Whitehall, perhaps because it lacks the power, is not taking notice of the Select Committees of the House in the way it should. What follows will justify that remark.
  The attention of the Select Committee was first drawn to this matter at its meeting on 9 December 1987 when it

  613
  had before it a memorandum, dated 3 December and signed by Lord Caithness, and the EEC document in question——9584/87, the fourth Council directive on summer time arrangements. I want to read out what the noble Lord said, so that that can be compared in Hansard with what the Minister said:
  "Although there is growing support for a change to summer time arrangements in this country, a one year extension of the present system, as the Commission now proposes will enable us to commission and complete a major review of summer time arrangements, which will inform our position on negotiations for a long term agreement for 1990 onwards."
  That expresses the position more accurately than the Minister did. Would he agree with that?
  My second question is: why did we receive this document after the decision had been made in Brussels? Sometimes, in price negotiations and so on, that is necessary and understood, but why did not the Select Committee get this document in time? It was dated Brussels, 11 November 1987
  Our second report, HC43xv, dated 17 February 1988, states that the Committee learned that the directive was adopted by the Council not on 7 December, as we had thought, but on 22 December. The report says:
  "The Home Secretary has now explained that it was not until 27 November 1987 that a firm proposal was received. The Committee notes that the European Parliament delivered its opinion on the Commission's proposals on 20 November 1987".
  That shows the discrepancy between the dates, so there was a delay in the first instance.
  I wrote to the Home Secretary about the discrepancy between the dates and the matter has still not been entirely cleared up. The matter now appears to be out of the hands of the House, but the Scrutiny Committee did not receive the document until after the decision had been made. There had to be a debate on the order, but it was impossible for the House to debate the matter prior to the decision.
  Article 100 has been part of the treaty of Rome since its inception and enables the Commission to make proposals for the extension of the Common Market in matters which are not provided for within the terms of the treaty and, as has been frequently stated tonight, that must be done by unanimity.
  Article 100A, introduced as part of the Single European Act, which was taken through the House very quickly under a vicious guillotine, introduces another provision under which, for purposes of the internal market—note the different wording—it is possible for the Council to take a decision by qualified majority which shall be binding on all members.
  That provision is capable of qualified majority and all the matters relating to the internal market are also sent round the new circuit of the European legislative round via Strasbourg. In that process, the European Parliament can, provided that it obtains a majority and the Commission agrees, modify such regulations. In other words, legislation under article 100A can attract, and often now does so, amendments from the European Parliament which takes the position of the Council. If it obtains a majority and if it so wishes, it can move amendments directly, and, if the Commission agrees and the decision is not reversed by the Council, it makes the law applicable to this land.
  Other than the negotiation powers to which Lord Caithness referred in the memorandum—that is all the
  614
  Government have, apart from their vote—the House has virtually no direct part in such a legislative process. No doubt the Minister will question what I have said if I have misinterpreted the issue. Although it is a complex and arcane matter, it is important to the House and the country and I have explained it as well as I can.
  The choice between whether legislation should be promulgated under article 100 or article 100A does not lie with the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) quite properly asked why the Government accepted it. As I understand it, the Commission decides on which article of the treaty it shall base its regulations. This is literally foreign territory in legislative terms. The House can legislate and we do not think in terms of legislation being restricted by a constitution, although our legislation is now in European terms.
  The European Commission, no doubt believing that this was primarily a matter of the internal market and of transport and business, said that it would use article 100A, but, as everyone in this country will say and as my hon. Friend said, this is a social matter and a matter of opinion, rather than a matter relating to economic issues alone. The analogy with the United States shows that clearly.
  Therefore, the choice of article is of crucial importance. Had the Commission continued to use article 100, it would have required unanimity and the whole question of "negotiations" and the Government's position would have been relatively clear. I say "relatively" because they would no doubt have been under pressure, but still the Minister would have been justified in saying that we would probably get a derogation. He could have said that under article 100 we have in effect what he claims is a veto, even if Lord Cockfield would not call it that.
  Therefore, we are left with the position that the Government have already agreed. Will the Minister tell us whether, when the matter came to the Council on whichever date it was, the Government voted against it, for it or abstained? The House has a right to know which of those three actions or non-actions the Government took.
  The European Council legislates in secret—another great difference between ourselves and that body. The Minister should tell us how he voted. If he did not vote against it, we have no grounds of future objection to article 100A being continually used. Article 5 of the fourth directive says that the unanimity rule for summer time is likely to apply from 1990 onwards. So we appear to have missed out all the way along. Even if the Government did vote against it, there is still nothing that can stop it, other than an appeal to the European Court. We do not know what the European Court would say, but if it were asked to say that article 100A was ultra vires and it should be article 100, it could still come down on article 100A in view of the preamble to the Single European Act which it would probably use in justification.
  Finally, I turn to the important annex B to the Select Committee's report written by Mr. Speaker's counsel. It is important enough to conclude my remarks by reading what he said:
  "The Committee is aware that Article 100A is going to give rise to many questions of interpretation, both before and after adoption of measures based on it. The present case gives an opportunity to consider a particular question of the first importance: precisely what measures does Article 100A allow?
  The relevant passage reads:"—

  615
  this is from the Single European Act—
  "The Council shall … adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.'
  The internal market is the area without internal frontiers described in Article 8A.
  The syntax is not as clear or as elegant as we would expect from, say, our own Parliamentary Counsel; but the long and complex exchanges leading to the Single European Act in general, and Article 100A in particular, militated against good drafting.
  Having regard to the patent intention, and after comparing the language of Article 100 (from which Article 100A departs significantly), I offer the Committee this as the true interpretation.
  Article 100A empowers adoption of measuress which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Such measure must approximate relevant national provisions.
  The papers on summer time show an attempt to read the passage from Article 100A quoted above as if the words 'which have as their object' qualify not the Council's measures but the national provisions. I select just one of several reasons for believing that this is wrong: how could there be any national provisions (certainly in an unharmonised field) which have as their object the establishment or functioning of the internal market (as newly identified by the Single Act)?
  That seems to me a conclusive argument why article 100A is not suitable for this particular measure, irrespective of its content, and I invite the Minister to tell us why the Home Office did not put our people in Brussels on guard on that. Surely that was something to which they could have recourse instead of having apparently sold the pass on this matter.
  The quotation concludes:
  "Also, the proposition is advanced that if Article 100 has in the past been used for any purpose, then Article 100A should now be available. This seems logically unsound. Article 100 is directed to the common market—a concept to be interpreted widely in the light of Articles 2 and 3. Article 100A is directed to the narrower concept of the internal market. On the reading I offer, the true question of law on the present case is this: can the measure on summer time validly be said to have as its object the establishment or functioning of the internal market?"
  I have quoted at length because the House will be invited to comment on further legislation based on article 100A. The Council of Ministers and perhaps the Minister or his colleagues will also be invited in the Council of Ministers to consider legislation under article 100A which the Minister, his colleagues or others might think should be determined under article 100 or some other article of the treaty.
  If the persistence with article 100A continues, not only will there be legislative diktat by a qualified majority in Brussels, but there will be direct intervention, by a direct amendment, by an elected body other than this House. That legislation will be applicable in law in the United Kingdom. That has a major constitutional importance. With regard to article 100A, although we have not tampered with the Mace tonight, metaphorically by their actions the Government may have sent it to Brussels—if not direct, certainly by air freight and certainly labelled, "By courtesy of the Home Office."
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I want to contribute briefly to the debate. However, my
  616
  brevity on this occasion should not be taken as a sign of the lack of importance attached to the issue in my part of the country—indeed, the opposite is the case. My brevity is more a reflection of the lateness of the hour and the fact that at least one other hon. Member, if not more, wants to contribute to the debate.
  William Lyon Mackenzie King, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, once remarked ruefully that the problem with that country was that it had too much geography and not enough history. The problem, if any, with the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is that, of course, we have more than our fair share of both. We certainly have more than our fair share of geography and history in a United Kingdom context and we have more than our fair share of geography within a European Community context. I want to address my few remarks tonight less to the mechanics of the issue within Europe and the Commission, to which previous speakers have referred, and more to the matter at hand—the merit of the issue.
  We can be forgiven, as an earlier speaker remarked, for feeling a degree of confusion as is so often the case with measures, drafts and directives of this type that come from Brussels. The Home Office issued a press notice on 31 March the purpose of which was to invite people to respond and participate in the consultative process. It tries to set out the parameters of what we are discussing tonight. It refers to the fact that there are three options under consideration:
  "There are the continuation of the present position; the harmonisation of the date for ending summer time to bring it into line with the rest of the Community; or the introduction of Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour in the winter, with Greenwich Mean Time plus two hours from the end of March to the end of September. The last option would mean that the United Kingdom would be in the same time zone as EC countries except Greece and Portugal throughout the whole year."
  I am sure that that clarifies the issues substantially for all hon. Members present at this time of night. I tend to feel that when we are discussing that type of proposal with that degree of complexity, rather like the Greeks, we are in danger of losing our marbles by approaching it in that way.
  In a pragmatic sense, there are two broad aspects of concern for anyone in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in the north of Scotland or, indeed, in Scotland as a whole with regard to the proposal to change the clock.
  The first refers to the agricultural community. When summer time was changed between 1968–71, on an experimental basis, it caused considerable difficulty to the agricultural community. I need hardly bring to the attention of the House the fact that, given the climatic variations, the harvest comes later in the Highlands and Islands area than it does in the more favourable climatic environs of the south of England. The agricultural community in the Highlands and Islands would regret the loss of an hour's daylight for harvesting. The farmers would wish their opposition to it to be recorded tonight.
  Equally, the more general loss as a result of the moving of the clock and the loss of the daylight time in the morning would cause the agricultural community hardship and difficulty. That is as true of my part of the country as of other parts of Scotland.
  Another problem with either of the options, rather than the status quo, is the position of schoolchildren. Just as the agricultural community would have more darkness in the

  617
  morning to contend with, so would children going to school. That would affect the safety of children in the north of Scotland, and I hope that that point is not lost on the Government.
  Mr. Wallace: Like me, my hon. Friend was one of those children who had to travel in the dark in the morning as a result of the experimental change in 1968–71. I found it unsettling. Is it not also true that, at certain times of the year, children travelling in the dark in the morning have to contend with ice, which is not always the case in the later part of the afternoon?
  Mr. Kennedy: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Again, for climatic reasons, the occurrence of ice is that much greater in the north of the Highlands and Islands, and it adds further danger to the children's journeys. Like him, I was one of that lost generation in the darkness of 1968–71. I am sure that some of our political critics will say that neither my hon. Friend nor I have found our way back yet, but we live in hope.
  Mr. Wallace: We saw the light.
  Mr. Kennedy: We did indeed, and it was the northern lights. I would hate to see the lights going out all over Lerwick, in my hon. Friend's constituency, as a result of this measure being implemented.
  I have three other arguments against the change in the status quo. First, there is no reason for Britain to be at a disadvantage in being one hour out of step with the rest of the Community at certain times of the year. If the United States can operate on five different time zones, and if the Soviet Union can operate on 11 different time zones—that will not change under glasnost—there is no reason why one hour's difference should cause us anxiety.
  Secondly, the geographical division in Britain is not simply between the north and the south but between the north-west and the south-east. I hope that when considering this matter Ministers will bear that important consideration in mind.
  Thirdly, although I am not politically a nationalist, as a Scot, I am nationalistic. Had this debate been taking place north of the border, some of the attitudes—I do not accuse the Minister of this, although it is true of the broad debate both inside and outside the House—that are too easily assumed would be different, because people would know the reality of the position.
  I shall end by quoting a curious source to pray in aid, none other than Lord Bruce-Gardyne. Writing in The Daily Telegraph the day before the matter was debated some years ago, he said:
  "For the majority of the population BST is a matter of indifference shading into marginal convenience. For the minority—the Scots, the country-dwellers in the north of England, the builders and the civil engineering contractors, the postmen and the farmers—it is a misery and a curse. It requires an effort of imagination for the London commuter who enjoys being bullied by his wife to go and dig the garden when he returns of a winter evening from his office to realise what it means to be a glen farmer …"—
  I am not sure what he means by a glen farmer; I think that he means a farmer in a glen—
  "in my constituency to have to send his small children off on the long journey to school an hour and a half before dawn."
  I endorse the sentiment in that article, as I am sure does my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I speak in a personal capacity, because for geographical reasons this issue divides friends in a way
  618
  that politics very often does not. I hope that the Government will stick to the status quo, because it is workable, manageable and sensible and for one hour we can dare to be different from our European Community partners without threatening 1992 and the greater cause of political integration.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It would be a shame if the debate was smothered between the views of the Europhiliacs and the Europhobics, because the issue is far more important. Indeed, it is far more useful for us to separate the two issues and examine the case for extended daylight without the burdens of feeling about Europe and the resentment about another Parliament or institution making our decisions for us.
  We all agree that the issue must be decided by a free vote of the House. The decision in 1972 to reject the experiment was by a massive majority. Unfortunately, I was not in the House at that time, but hon. Members who were will remember that there was strong public reaction to the experiment and that it was not based on scientific, objective or reasoned analysis. There was strong emotional reaction by the public, especially to an incident a few days before the House voted on the issue. There was a campaign by the tabloid press which published photographs of children wearing armbands and feeling their way along dark country lanes.
  Since the vote, which was taken on entirely the wrong basis, there has been a chance to look coolly and objectively at the issue. The weakest reason for changing to extended daylight, to an extra hour, to British standard time and double British summer time, is harmonisation. A person who leaves Brussels airport at 17.45 will arrive at Heathrow at 17.45 and that is confusing. Those who have experience of doing business with the continent raise the serious objection that when they telephone people on the continent they find that they have not arrived or have gone home
  There are powerful arguments in the preliminary report by Dr. Meyer Hillman who says that the great advantage, especially for the young and I he old, is in the extended use of leisure facilities in the evenings. Attendance at pensioners' clubs, boys' clubs and clubs for young people always falls off when we lose the extra hour of daylight at the time when we need it most.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the opposition of farmers. However, at least one branch of the National Farmers Union has voted its approval for extended daylight. It is the NFU in the county of Avon. The most powerful reason was proved by a three-year experiment conducted by the Transport and Road Research laboratory. It was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). The firm analysis is a reduction of 580 in the number of fatal and other serious road accidents in a year. Dr. Hillman's final report, which will be released in a few weeks, will firm up that figure. We know that there is a relationship between the number of accidents and mornings and evenings. The ratio is about 4:1. We are talking about a massive saving in human life and human suffering. The Scottish figures show an even more dramatic saving.
  I appeal to hon. Members to keep an open mind on the issue. Let us look at the evidence that will come out—it

  619
  will be with us in a few weeks—and not mix it up with the European issue of who is finally to make the decision. Let us emerge from the debate when the decision is taken as friends of the light and enemies of the darkness.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am in considerable agreement with what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said. He said that we should approach the evidence in an entirely empirical way. That seems to me to be wholly sound. The hon. Gentleman said also that we should not allow our judgments to be clouded by, for example, prejudice that we may harbour in respect of the Community.
  Several hon. Members asked me questions. I shall try to reply to them in the few moments remaining to me. First, I was asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) whether, in my view, article 100A is the correct article. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said, this is a complex legal subject. Therefore, I do not propose to express a concluded view on the issue, if only because I do not think that I am competent to do so. Moreover, I am conscious, as hon. Members have suggested, that the decision on that issue spans several Departments and interests.
  First, I am not irrevocably persuaded that article 100A applies to the directive. Clearly, that matter requires further consideration. I most certainly do not concede that the directive is intra vires article 100A. Secondly, the fact that, on this occasion, we raised no objection to the treaty base of the directive—agreeing as we did with the policy included in the directive—does not in any way preclude us from raising an appropriate objection on subsequent occasions and in the context of subsequent directives.
  I have been asked—most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East—how we could challenge the vires of the directive and the article if we so choose. Initially, the matter is for the Commission. If the Commission is not prepared to amend a directive, of course, the Council can. But the Council can make that amendment only if it is unanimous. If the Council is not unanimous, the proceedings can be challenged only by way of procedure in the court. That is the precise answer to the question.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West and for Newport, West, asked whether the extension of summer time throughout the year is likely to result in a reduction in road deaths and casualties. The answer is that on the best available evidence it will lead to such a reduction. Chapter 8, page 64 of the review of British standard time published in October 1970 states:
  "There is little doubt that British Standard Time has led to an overall improvement in road accident casualties although the crude figures of savings of casualties need to be treated with some reserve. The overall improvement seems to have been even greater in Scotland than in England and Wales."
  That sentiment no doubt lies behind the campaign currently being mounted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in support of a campaign for the adoption of British standard time, which is summer time throughout the year.
  620
  If that be true of standard time, or British summer time throughout the year, as I believe it to be, obviously it is true of double summer time, that is summer time in winter and double summer time in summer. It may be even truer in respect of summer time in winter and double summer time in summer. So we must not mislead ourselves on this one fact. Probably a change of the kind that we have been discussing would lead to a reduction in road casualties. I am not pretending for a moment that that is conclusive, but we need to focus on that as a probable fact.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked, properly, whether from 1990 onwards the EC, by relying on article 100A, would have the power to impose on us a kind of harmonisation to which we would object. First, I have not conceded and do not concede that article 100A necessarily is the proper treaty base for the directive. If article 100 is the appropriate treaty base for the directive, the veto applies. Secondly, even if article 100A is the appropriate treaty base for the directive, I do not think that the House should be too pessimistic.
  First, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Community would seek to impose as from 1990 an immediate harmonisation, because the terms contained in article 5 of the fourth directive are matched in article 5 of both the second and third directives, and derogations were thereafter extended. Secondly, do not forget that we are dealing with qualified majorities, not with absolute majorities. Thirdly, if it is true, as I think it is, that the preservation of our summer time ending date results in a saving of life, I should be surprised if Community countries would be willing or anxious to impose on us harmonisation of the ending date of summer time in the knowledge that that would inevitably result in an increase in road casualties. I do not feel nearly as pessimistic as some hon. Members, even if, which I do not concede, article 100A is the appropriate treaty base for the directive.
  There may have been some misunderstandings on the part of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I make no criticism. When we were dealing with harmonisation in this context, the only harmonisation that is being contemplated is the harmonisation of the end dates for summer time. From time to time in the debate it appears to have been implied that the purpose of the Community is to achieve a common time zone throughout the Community. That is not the purpose of the Community. It has never been so expressed, although, as I have already said, one of the options we shall consider is the adoption of a time regime that will bring our time regime into accordance with central Europe time scales.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th March.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  Summer Time
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5 ) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      AGRICULTURE
      That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 30th March, he approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
      Question agreed to.

    DEFENCE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. John Evans be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. John McFall he added to the Committee. —[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    HOME AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Mike Woodcock be added to the Home Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TRANSPORT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Jack Aspinwall be added to the Transport Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Holyhead (Government Agencies)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to the debate and for the opportunity to bring to the House's attention some important issues affecting Holyhead. It is the largest town in my constituency, where unemployment, currently at over 20 per cent., is unacceptably high.
    I have discovered that Holyhead has occupied a great deal of the House's time over the years. A Select Committee in 1808 considered improvements to the harbour. Two years later an Act of Parliament was passed to give effect to its recommendations. In 1819 a further Act was necessary to enable Telford to complete his suspension bridge, and build the A5 through to Holyhead. Various Government inquiries and Select Committees considered the need for a railway linking Chester and Holyhead. That led to another Act of Parliament in July 1844.
    That draws me to the simple but unavoidable conclusion that good communications are vital for a healthy economy. In the last century there was a battle royal between Porthdinllaen and Holyhead for the Irish traffic. To quote a recent publication, the contest was really decided when Telford succeeded in bridging the Menai Straits in 1859.
    Thus, good road and rail communications have been, and continue to be, vital to Holyhead. But the era of Telford and Stephenson, however glorious, is now over. We must look for improvements and ask the Government and British Rail for the same level of commitment arid investment as their predecessors produced.
    I was informed only a matter of days ago that British Rail is firmly committed to the north Wales line through to Holyhead, I welcome that statement. However, the constant delay in the completion of the station complex is a source of much anger in the town. When the old Station hotel was pulled down some years ago assurances were given by the parties concerned—British Rail, Sealink, then a British Rail subsidiary, and the local authority—that a new station complex costing over £4 million would be built. Indeed, one of my predecessors, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, told me this week that he was given that assurance in 1979. The current plan is more modest, and is believed to cost £2·5 million.
    In the intervening years, delay has followed delay, promises have been broken, and the site of the old Station hotel is an eyesore. It is the first sight of Wales that the ferry passenger travelling from Ireland sees, and it is a disgrace.
    The local authority, Ynys Mô borough council, has put in a great deal of effort and should be congratulated on its determination. We were told at a recent meeting of the Holyhead Port Users Association that the deal was near completion but that there would be another slight delay. One member of the association was moved to say:
    "That is what I was told exactly eight years ago."
    We must now exert all possible pressure on British Rail to conclude the deal. It will mean so much for the image and morale of the people of Holyhead.
    I thank the Minister for receiving a deputation recently which pressed for improvements to the A5 through the island. We were grateful for his announcement that he was

    623
    considering the inclusion of the dualling of the A5 to Turnpike Nant near Llangefni in the publication "Roads in Wales 1988." With improvements to the A55 under way, that will improve access to the port.
    We were also pleased that the Minister is to have, in his words, "another long hard look" at proposals to deal with the remainder of the A5 through to Holyhead. The expected increase in the volume of heavy commercial traffic from the current level of 37,000 to nearly 100,000 units per annum will place an intolerable burden on Holyhead and the surrounding communities.
    The Welsh Development Agency has a vital role to play in developing Holyhead's true potential. It must capitalise on the fact that the Holyhead-Dun Laoghaire route is the shortest sea crossing between Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is a vital factor in these days of fast communications. Ferry operators are now keen to exploit short sea crossings, not only because of the fuel costs involved but because sea travel is more time consuming than land travel by a constant factor of three to one, which gives Holyhead a distinct advantage.
    I should like to see the Welsh Development Agency working with industrialists and employers to regenerate the town's economy. Recent developments give me cause for optimism that we could be on the move. These involve projects in the fishing industry, in which the local borough council and the Welsh Development Agency have been active.
    I should also like to see drawn up a plan of action with further initiatives to create jobs in sufficient numbers to tackle the underlying problem of the long-term unemployed. I am confident that the Welsh Development Agency, working alongside and in partnership with industry, and on occasion with the local authority, could transform the town's prospects and create prosperity. WDA officers are considering establishing an enterprise company in the area. That is one way to start to tackle our problems.
    Tourism is, and will increasingly be, an important industry for Holyhead. The Wales tourist board has recognised the potential and has chosen the town for the site of a permanent regional tourist information office. The staff who run the current temporary office from a caravan have done extremely well under difficult conditions. With over 1 million people travelling annually through Holyhead, the great potential must be realised.
    There is also the possibility of running steam trains along the north Wales line during the peak summer period. I understand that the original stumbling block—the lack of a turntable facility at Holyhead—has been overcome. Now that that has been resolved, I hope that the Wales tourist board and BR can between them solve any scheduling difficulties.
    I congratulate BR on improving its catering facilities and time schedules, particularly on inter-city trains. However, the quality of the rolling stock could be substantially improved, and such an improvement would be greatly welcome by all, including the Minister, who travel regularly on this route.
    Holyhead is a unique community in many ways. It is the most cosmopolitan town in north Wales for its size, and that is due to its seafaring tradition. It is also a close community. It has been bound together by the constant
    624
    danger that men and women face at sea. Many families are constantly aware of the fate that can befall their loved ones by working in an unpredictable environment. These harsh realities have evolved a caring and compassionate community. They have faced economic and sometimes social difficulties with fortitude and I believe that the Government, through their agencies, owe it to them to maintain and develop the skills and crafts that have taken generations to evolve.
    I am realistic enough to know that any project must be viable if it is to succeed. I know that the omens are good. We must capture the opportunities that are clearly available with better communications, the advent of the Channel tunnel and the town's strategic and pivotal location as Ireland's gateway to England. The A55 and A5 are part of a designated Euroroute. I am prepared to play my role in bringing about this exciting prospect, a I hope that the Government will respond in equal measure.
    11.41 pm
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): As someone who was born and bred in Ynys Môn, I am naturally anxious to see it prosper. I continue to visit the island and am well aware of its problems and opportunities. Indeed, I was there last Friday. I hope to show the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that Government agencies have not been inactive in assisting development at Holyhead.
    Holyhead is primarily a ferry port. The multi-purpose roll-on/roll-off ferry service that was initiated by the British Railways Board is now in its 22nd year of operation and the lift-on/lift-off container service for Freightliners is in its 17th year.
    There was overall traffic growth over the eight years to 1985 for passengers, passenger vehicles and freight moving through Holyhead. However, the growth stopped in 1986. The port is definitely facing competition from air services, influenced by price deregulation, and the troubles in Ireland have not helped.
    However, the consultants' report on Ynys Môn concludes that ro/ro ferry prospects are secure in both the short and long term and that the prospects of securing further development in conjunction with the provision of facilities for Channel tunnel traffic appear good.
    Improvements to the ferry and rail terminal will provide new passenger facilities, including a new concourse, car parking, a ticket office and a link bridge to a tourist information centre. Earlier this year, B and I introduced an additional daily service from Holyhead and there are now two daily round trips to and from Dublin. Sealink also operates two daily round trips to and from Dun Laoghaire. A new modern fishing harbour is being provided by Anglesey borough council by infilling an existing dry dock and reclaiming land in an area of high dereliction. Work that will cost about £1 million is well advanced and is expected to be completed this summer.
    In addition to nearly £200,000 from the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office is contributing over £300,000 in the form of a fishing harbour grant and an urban aid grant. An application for European regional development fund aid for both developments is expected by the end of the year.
    I am glad to say that fish landings have doubled in the period 1979–87.

    625
    The hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise the north Wales coast railway line. BR hopes to boost business in the off-peak season by slashing one third off all fares on its hourly services into Chester. The campaign, which ends on 31 May, was publicised in a mail drop into households and advertisements in the press. A further campaign will be considered after the summer season ends.
    InterCity services out of Holyhead to London are being increased from six trains to eight in peak summer. These services coincide with boat services in and out of Holyhead. BR says there is no question of running down the line.
    Clwyd county council has applied on behalf of Gwynedd, Cheshire and itself for ERDF aid of 50 per cent. of the cost of a feasibility study which it hopes will demonstrate to BR that a case exists for electrifying the Holyhead-Crewe line. BR itself has agreed to co-operate in an advisory capacity with the study. At present the application is still being considered by the European Commission. Of course, at the end of the day, electrification and other investment decisions are matters for BR.
    The hon. Gentleman and I discussed the A5 trunk road in Anglesey when he led a deputation from Gwynedd to see me on 13 April. I am well aware of local concern to develop the economy in Anglesey, especially Holyhead, and the desire to develop and improve the A5 trunk road particularly between Llanfair PG and Holyhead. I explained to the deputation and the hon. Member that the Department is looking carefully at schemes to improve the A5 on the island. My Department is, as he said, giving particular consideration to possible dualling between Llanfair PG and Turnpike Nant junction, the turn-off point for Llangefni. Our proposals will be made known when "Roads in Wales 1988" is published.
    I must reiterate that the economic case for many of the other proposed schemes is very poor, but we will consider any new evidence of economic benefit to Holyhead from the increased traffic flows.
    The application for urban development grant for retail development in Holyhead, which would include improving the A5 at its junction with Kingsland road, is currently being appraised by the Department. It is too soon to indicate the outcome of the appraisal.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to unemployment. I am aware of the position. I am glad to say that unemployment in the Holyhead travel-to-work area has fallen by 4·5 percentage points since September 1986 and by 2·3 percentage points over the year to March 1988. Of course, there is still much more to he done, but the trends are in the right direction.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that some of the welcome fall in unemployment has been due to the activity of the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies. The WDA is engaged in a series of measures designed to create the right climate for industrial and economic growth in Holyhead and Anglesey as a whole.
    On the property side, the agency plans to build 13 factory units totalling 28,000 sq ft in Ynys Môn; seven of these are to be built in Holyhead. The agency is already dealing with a steady stream of inquiries from companies keenly interested in setting up on the island.
    The WDA is funding a number of important schemes to bring land back into productive use under its land reclamation programme. In partnership with the local authorities, it is grant-aiding dredging works at Holyhead
    626
    harbour designed to improve facilities for shipping movements at the port. It is also engaged in preservation and renovation works at the former Bon Sauveur convent in Holyhead as part of a planned housing development.
    The WDA is seeking opportunities to increase its venture capital activity on the island and is currently processing inquiries received from nine firms seeking investment finance of nearly £300,000. Three of these are from firms in Holyhead.
    Over the past three years, offers of regional assistance to firms in Holyhead have totalled £2·7 million, with forecasts of creating over 900 new jobs.
    As to the future, the WDA is represented on the Holyhead study group, whose remit is to work out long-term plans for the development of Holyhead. The agency is working closely with the Wales tourist hoard and county and borough councils, and it has commissioned a study to look at the development prospects of the area. The study's findings have been considered and discussed with interested organisations, including the Holyhead Port Users Association. Several of the study's recommendations are now being explored in more depth.
    The Wales tourist hoard is also keen to see development at Holyhead. A number of potential redevelopment projects concerning shopping and environmental improvements, which will assist tourism development, are under consideration.
    The WTB also provided support in recent years through joint marketing campaigns and over the three years since 1986–87 the board will have supported total advertising expenditure of £150,000. I am sure that the board would be interested in discussing any proposals that the hon. Gentleman might wish to make to it.
    Bringing together the various tourism associations which exist within Anglesey is obviously important. The Ynys Môn borough council has already made significant strides in that respect and, with WTB support, has evolved the joint marketing scheme, which now produces a single brochure for the island as a whole. I congratulate it as I understand that the scheme has done particularly well this year.
    In that context, the exhibition of Holyhead in the 1990s, opened yesterday in the town library by the chairman of Gwynedd county council, will be a useful pointer to residents and visitors alike. I understand that the exhibition again demonstrates the co-operation between various agencies and the local authorities.
    Because we have been very conscious of the needs of Holyhead, we in the Welsh Office have, in recent years, sought to concentrate, as far as possible, the available urban programme resources for the island on the port of Holyhead. Indeed, since 1984–85 almost £800,000 of urban programme allocations have been specifically directed towards Holyhead. I would expect that concentration to continue in future years provided, of course, that the local authorities continue to submit worthwhile applications to the Department.
    In the case of the Holyhead leisure centre, our decision for this year took into account the creamery closure at Llangefni, and we felt priority had to be given to the workshop units there with their job-creating potential. All parts of Wales benefit from WTB activities. An additional £250,000 was made available to the tourist board for marketing in early 1988. Since 1983–84 net Government funding of the Wales tourist board has increased by over 90 per cent., with assistance to projects increasing over

    627
    threefold. This year, 1988–89, assistance is at an all-time high of £.9·2 million. I am sure that Ynys Môn and Holyhead will benefit from this additional expenditure. There is a proposal, of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, for a major new food store in Holyhead, which is currently being considered for urban development grant support by the Welsh Office. A number of issues remain to be resolved before a decision can be made and officials are in discussion with Gwynedd county council and the developers.
    I know that Ynys Mô n borough council has applied to the Manpower Services Commission for approved training organisation status. Responsibility for granting approved training organisation status lies with the MSC. The MSC's director for Wales is still considering the application by Ynys Môn borough council and at this stage I can make no further comment on it.
    Apart from its mainstream activities, the Welsh Development Agency is conscious of the need to enhance the environment and job prospects, not just in the towns, but in the countryside as well. Indeed, one cannot think of Ynys Môn or even Holyhead without thinking of the rural landscape there. The WDA has approved grants under the rural enterprise initiative to the tune of well over £100,000 for Anglesey as a whole. Applications for a further £130,000 of assistance have been approved and are awaiting payment.
    628
    I think that I have at least succeeded in showing that the Government's agencies have not been inactive. Indeed, they have been helpful, so far as Anglesey as a whole is concerned, in doing their utmost to reduce the high unemployment from which I know that Holyhead in particular suffers.
    Today's Western Mail reported some exceptionally good news for the island with the announcement of 150 new jobs being created by the Imperial Metals Corporation of Canada which has decided to commence mining operations centred on Parys mountain. That is an enormous shot in the arm for the area and a clear signal that every part of Wales is now benefiting from the continuing resurgence of the Welsh economy. The future prosperity of Ynys Môn and Holyhead depends crucially on the continuation of the economic revival that we are currently experiencing.
    For both the island and Holyhead, the vast improvements that are currently being undertaken to the A55, the north Wales coast road, will in due course bring benefits to Anglesey and to Holyhead by way of supporting not only the tourist industry, but industry in general on the island.
    I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that we have the interests of Ynys Môn and of Holyhead very much at heart.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

WALES

  National Health Service
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the performance indicators for the Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office has since 1982 published a booklet of key statistical indicators for NHS management in Wales which shows comparative information on the district health authorities in Wales over a wide range of services. The latest edition of the booklet (No. 6 1987) was published on 21 January and a copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The Department has also produced its own version of the DHSS computerised performance indicator package, which enables comparisons to be made between England and Wales at regional, district and unit level. A copy of the first edition of this package relating to 1985–86 data is available in the Library of the House and a 1986–87 edition will be issued during the summer.

  Performance indicators are intended for use as a management tool for planning services and reviewing achievement. They help identify variations in the way services and resources are used both between authorities and over time. The indicators are intended to raise questions and provide a means of helping to diagnose problems. They do not, indeed cannot, offer any kind of judgment about the relative quality of the services provided, since it must be recognised that a wide and complex range of factors affect this.

  As part of the 1988–89 planning process, district health authorities have been asked to set themselves performance targets, by reference, as appropriate, to published performance indicators. These targets will be reviewed as part of the 1988 annual review process and their achievement will be monitored in subsequent years.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to obtain European Community acceptance of a principle whereby the ewe premium is paid on existing flocks and on the number of ewes in the flock on a specified reference date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amount of financial assistance given to small firms in Wales in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the aid given to small firms in Wales by agencies and Departments other than the Welsh Office is not held centrally. Under the 208
  grant schemes directly administered by my Department the following amounts have been offered to small firms1 in 1987:

  £ thousands

  Regional selective assistance

  6,404

  Regional development grant

  36,818

  Business improvement services

  2,158

  1 Employers of 200 or less (including associated and group companies).

  In addition, substantial support is provided to the small firms sector by a number of other Departments and agencies, including the Welsh Development Agency, Mid Wales Development, the Wales Tourist Board, British Coal Enterprise, BSC (Industry) and the Department of Trade and Industry. The recently-launched enterprise Wales intitiative places a special emphasis on support for small firms by way of consultancy, investment and innovation grants.

  Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the level that the Welsh non-domestic rate would be in the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh average non-domestic rate poundage for 1988–89 is 257·6p.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in descending order the percentage increase in(a) the domestic rate, and (b) the commercial rate together with the poundages of each Welsh district in 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested on domestic and non-domestic rate increase between 1987–88 and 1988–89 for Welsh districts is shown in the following table:

  Data for PQ1422 1987–88

  (a) The Domestic Rate

  Local authority

  1987–88 Domestic poundage (p)

  1988–891 Domestic poundage (p)

  Percentage change 1987–88 to 1988–89

  Neath

  235·68

  287·87

  22·14

  Swansea

  251·04

  295·43

  17·68

  Lliw Valley

  243·89

  285·83

  17·20

  Port Talbot

  245·84

  283·82

  15·45

  Meirionydd

  200·65

  228·77

  14·01

  Aberconwy

  210·16

  238·32

  13·40

  Arfon

  205·30

  231·38

  12·70

  Dwyfor

  209·81

  234·79

  11·91

  Monmouth

  211·60

  235·86

  11·47

  Ynys Mon

  204·52

  227·82

  11·39

  Torfaen

  218·78

  241·58

  10·42

  Glyndwr

  210·96

  232·20

  10·07

  Islywn

  212·00

  233·00

  9·91

  Newport

  212·04

  232·01

  9·42

  Radnor

  195·25

  213·42

  9·31

  Blaenau Gwent

  219·78

  239·89

  9·15

  Brecknock

  207·01

  225·45

  8·91

  Rhymney Valley

  239·34

  258·85

  8·15

  Wrexham Maelor

  216·49

  233·69

  7·94

  Alyn and Deeside

  209·97

  226·58

  7·91

  Ogwr

  241·64

  260·55

  7·83

  Cardiff

  192·15

  207·05

  7·75

  Llanelli

  235·13

  252·44

  7·36

  Carmarthen

  221·04

  236·67

  7·07

  Montgomeryshire

  192·23

  205·82

  7·07

  Vale of Glamorgan

  199·42

  213·48

  7·05

  209

  Local authority

  1987–88 Domestic poundage (p)

  1988–911 Domestic poundage (p)

  Percentage change 1987–88 to 1988–89

  Delyn

  214·70

  228·45

  6·40

  Merthyr Tydfil

  239·46

  254·76

  6·39

  Taff Ely

  240·91

  255·83

  6·19

  Rhondda

  243·50

  258·50

  6·16

  Cynon Valley

  232·45

  246·73

  6·14

  South Pembroke

  220·22

  233·08

  5·84

  Rhuddlan

  215·18

  227·42

  5·69

  Ceredigion

  217·70

  229·55

  5·44

  Colwyn

  227·59

  239·60

  5·28

  Dinefwr

  216·91

  227·66

  4·96

  Preseli

  216·70

  226·84

  4·68

  Total Wales

  218·07

  238·76

  9·49

  1 1988–89 figures are provisional.

  Data for PQ1422 1987–88

  (b) The non-domestic rate

  Local authority

  1987–88 Non-domestic poundage (p)

  1988–891 Non-domestic poundage (p)

  Percentage change 1987–88 to 1988–89

  Neath

  254·18

  306·37

  20·53

  Swansea

  269·54

  313·93

  16·47

  Lliw Valley

  262·39

  304·33

  15·98

  Port Talbot

  264·34

  302·32

  14·37

  Meirionnydd

  219·15

  247·27

  12·83

  Aberconwy

  228·66

  256·82

  12·32

  Arfon

  223·80

  249·88

  11·65

  Dwyfor

  228·31

  253·29

  10·94

  Monmouth

  230·10

  254·36

  10·54

  Ynys Mon

  223·02

  246·32

  10·45

  Torfaen

  237·28

  260·08

  9·61

  Glyndwr

  229·46

  250·70

  9·26

  Islwyn

  230·50

  251·50

  9·11

  Newport

  230·54

  250·51

  8·66

  Radnor

  213·75

  231·92

  8·50

  Blaenau Gwent

  238·28

  258·39

  8·44

  Brecknock

  225·51

  243·95

  8·18

  Rhymney Valley

  257·84

  277·35

  7·57

  Wrexham Maelor

  234·99

  252·19

  7·32

  Alyn and Deeside

  228·47

  245·08

  7·27

  Ogwr

  260·14

  279·05

  7·27

  Cardiff

  210·65

  225·55

  7·07

  Llanelli

  253·63

  270·94

  6·82

  Carmarthen

  239·54

  255·17

  6·53

  Vale of Glamorgan

  217·92

  231·98

  6·45

  Montgomeryshire

  210·73

  224·32

  6·45

  Merthyr Tydfil

  257·96

  273·26

  5·93

  Delyn

  233·20

  246·95

  5·90

  Taff Ely

  259·41

  274·33

  5·75

  Rhondda

  262·00

  277·00

  5·73

  Cynon Valley

  250·95

  265·23

  5·69

  South Pembrokeshire

  238·72

  251·58

  5·39

  Rhuddlan

  233·68

  245·92

  5·24

  Ceredigion

  236·20

  248·05

  5·02

  Colwyn

  246·09

  258·10

  4·88

  Dinefwr

  235·41

  246·16

  4·57

  Preseli

  235·20

  245·34

  4·31

  Total Wales

  236·47

  257·60

  8·93

  1 1988–89 figures are provisional.

  Grant-related Expenditure Allocation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in rank order the budgeted spending per head over grant-related expenditure allocation at ratepayer level 210
  for Welsh local authorities on the same basis as the criteria announced on 17 November in respect of the phasing out of domestic rates.

  Mr. Grist
  The difference between budgeted expenditure and grant-related expenditure for1987–88, per head and at ratepayer level, is as follows:

  Difference

  Port Talbot

  56

  Swansea

  46

  Lliw Valley

  39

  Rhondda

  26

  Llanelli

  24

  Merthyr Tydfil

  24

  Neath

  23

  Rhymney Valley

  23

  Taff Ely

  22

  Blaenau Gwent

  21

  Colwyn

  19

  Ogwr

  17

  Torfaen

  17

  Wrexham Maelor

  14

  Glyndwr

  12

  Delyn

  12

  Islwyn

  11

  Carmarthen

  11

  Cynon Valley

  10

  Rhuddlan

  9

  Alyn and Deeside

  7

  Newport

  7

  Monmouth

  6

  Dwyfor

  3

  Ceredigion

  3

  Meirionnydd

  1

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1

  Aberconwy

  1

  Dinefwr

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  -1

  Arfon

  -1

  Ynys Môn

  -2

  Brecknock

  -4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  -8

  Radnor

  -13

  Montgomeryshire

  -18

  Cardiff

  -22

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, announced on 25 April that the threshold in England for inclusion within the residual rating arrangements will be increased so that only those areas where combined budgeted expenditure for 1987–88 of the authorities operating in that area exceeded the combined needs assessments for the area by more than £200 per head will be affected. In any case, part IV of the Local Government Finance Bill is not applicable to Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Flecknote
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Flecknote, near Rugby.

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

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to a publicly owned site of vacant land.

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

  British Time
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister what interdepartmental consultation she has established to assess the financial and commercial consequences of British time being one hour behind the rest of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 31 March, at column 683, all Departments are being asked to consult interested groups as to the likely effect of harmonising summer time, and time in general, with other members of the Community.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

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

  Benefits
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide for better co-ordination of benefits for those on the community programme, by ensuring that social security benefits are as payable by the Department of Health and Social Security to participants for the first week as unemployment benefit is payable in similar circumstances.

  The Prime Minister
  Unemployment benefit ceases to be payable as soon as a person joins the community programme. Similarly, title to income support ceases immediately where the work is for more than 24 hours a week. Because both benefits are normally paid fortnightly in arrears, a person joining the community programme will receive his last benefit payment either immediately before joining the programme or during the first week.

  European Community (Unemployment)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy at the next meeting of the European Council to call for an inquiry into the level of unemployment in the EEC by comparison with the European Free Trade Association group of European countries; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Care
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is yet in a position to publish the outcome of his review of the case for extending to the voluntary sector the arrangements for disclosure of information about those seeking to work with children; and if he will make a statement;
  212
  (2) what safeguards have been devised to ensure that employers in the voluntary sector respect the confidentiality of information disclosed to them by the police under the arrangements for disclosure of information about those seeking to work with children.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department is currently discussing with representatives of the voluntary sector detailed plans for the setting up of a national unit on a pilot basis which would act as a contact point between the police and selected voluntary organisations on the disclosure of information from police records on those seeking to work with children. These discussions will cover arrangements for ensuring that the confidentiality of information disclosed will be respected.

  Remand Centres and Open Prisons
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the proposals invited for the construction of private urban remand centres and open prisons emanate from non-United Kingdom companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proportion of submitted proposals for the construction of private urban remand centres and open prisons involves the conversion of existing property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All but one of some 40 invitations to submit proposals for the construction of urban remand centres and open prisons were sent to companies registered in the United Kingdom. An advertisement was also placed in the EC journal, and a press release was sent to national newspapers and trade journals, It is not possible to say what proportion of the proposals may involve the conversion of existing property until the responses have been received and analysed.

  Police Interviews (Tape-recording)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations now operate the procedure for tape-recording interviews with suspects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested.

  The rate at which tape-recording is implemented in individual force areas is for chief officers to decide having regard to the available resources and after consulting other agencies in the criminal justice system.

  I understand that, as at 31 March 1988, most forces in England and Wales had begun phased implementation programmes, and that two forces were tape-recording interviews at stations throughout their force areas. I further understand that the small number of forces, which have not yet started pilot tape-recording schemes, plan to do so over the next few months. It remains the intention to secure full implementation of tape-recording arrangements throughout England and Wales by 1991.

  Children (Penal Custody)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regions sentenced no 14-year-olds to penal custody in the last year for which information is available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The central records available to me for 1986, which may be incomplete, show no custodial
  213
  sentences imposed on males aged 14 by the courts in four of the 43 police force areas in England and Wales: City of London, Gloucestershire, Suffolk and Warwickshire. Custodial penalties are not available for female offenders aged 14.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the subsequent criminal behaviour of 14-year-olds who have been sentenced to penal custody over the past 10 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information relates to detention centre trainees aged 14 to 16 reconvicted within two years of discharge from a prison department establishment and is published in table 8.8 of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1986" (Cm. 210), copies of which are in the Library. Information specific to 14-year-olds could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Television
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many hours of television are produced for regional consumption by BBC Wales—Cymru and HTV Wales in 1988; and what are his estimates for each year to 1992.

  Mr. Renton
  The most recent available information is as follows. In 1987 HTV Wales produced for broadcast by the IBA 391 hours of regional interest material, and in the year ending 31 March 1988 410 hours of Welsh regional service material were broadcast on BBC1 and BBC2. In addition HTV produced 455 hours and the BBC 520 hours for broadcast by S4C. The additional information sought is not readily available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what categories of programmes are excluded from contributing to the independent producers 25 per cent. target announced in November 1986;

  (2) what categories of programmes are excluded when calculating the total hours of new programmes produced by broadcasters for the purpose of assessing the proportion to be produced by independent broadcasters announced in November 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  Both the BBC and the IBA have accepted, subject to satisfaction on the cost and quality of programmes provided by independent producers, the target of commissioning from them by the end of 1992 25 per cent. of original television output, drawn from a wide range of programmes but excluding, in the case of programmes broadcast by the BBC, news and news-related daily current affairs programmes, continuity and Open University output. In the case of programmes broadcast on ITV, material provided by ITN, continuity, the news-related studio output of TV-am and regional service material provided out of regional newsrooms will be outside the 25 per cent. target, but the IBA does not rule out the possibility that independent producers may contribute material in these categories.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the total number of new programmes produced by the BBC and ITV companies in 1988; and what are his forecasts for each year to 1992, showing in each case the total number of hours.
  214
  Mr. Renton
  The most recent available information relating to programmes originated for network broadcast on BBC and ITV is as follows. In the year ending 31 March 1988 6,065 hours of such programmes were broadcast on BBC] and BBC2, and in 1987 3,165 hours were broadcast on ITV (including programmes provided by ITN but not by TV-am). Present BBC plans envisage an increase to 6,241 hours by 1992. Comparable forecasts for ITV are not readily available.

  Passports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that Mrs. Margaret Cynthia Moss of 9 Dungannon Drive, Thorpe Bay, Essex, who submitted her passport for renewal on 6 February receives her passport as soon as possible; and if he will consider establishing a procedure for cases of urgency so long as the current delays in passport applications and renewals continue.

  Mr. Renton
  The passport was returned by registered post on 25 April. As Mrs. Moss had not indicated a date of travel on the application form, her application was not accorded the priority it would otherwise have received under existing procedures.

  Member's Correspondence
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate will receive a definitive answer in respect of Mr. S. Taggert, Home Office reference number T160429, about whom a letter was sent on 25 March.

  Mr. Renton
  A reply will be sent shortly.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reply to the letter dated 7 December 1987 from the hon. Member for East Lothian concerning an application for naturalisation by Miss Anne-Margarethe Stroobants.

  Mr. Renton
  The application was approved in January, and a certificate sent to the applicant in March after she had taken the oath of allegiance. The certificate has, however, recently been returned, because the applicant had left her last known address.

  I shall be replying shortly to the hon. Member's letter.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received from experts in the running of state lotteries for charitable purposes; and what consideration he is giving to any such representations;

  (2) what recent consideration he has given to the running of a national state lottery to raise and distribute funds for good causes.

  Mr. John Patten
  As far as I am aware, none of the representations about state lotteries for charitable purposes which we have received in the past year has been from people expert in running such lotteries. We keep the question of running a national state lottery under review but have no current plans to introduce one.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of individuals and organisations to whom Mr. F. J. Warn, an official in his office, wrote on 7 March, concerning offensive weapons and the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The list for the letter of 7 March is as follows:

  The Retail Consortium

  British Sports and Allied Industries Federation

  British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association Ltd.

  Gun Trade Association Ltd.

  British Importers Confederation

  British Wholesale Traders Association

  Federation of Wholesale and Industrial Distributors

  Mail Order Traders Association

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  Association of Toy, Stationery and Fancy Goods Wholesalers

  British Cutlery and Silverware Association

  Whitby and Co.

  Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of County Councils

  British Hardware and Homeware Association

  Martial Arts Commission

  British Veterinary Association

  British Antique Dealers Association Ltd.

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  A number of Government Departments

  Officials subsequently wrote to a number of other organisations in the same terms including the Angling Foundation, the National Anglers Council and the London and Provincial Antique Dealers' Association Ltd.

TRANSPORT

  Airedale Route
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a further announcement about sections of the A629–A650 Airedale route to the east of Crossflatts, Bingley.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the summer. It should be followed shortly thereafter with the publication of draft orders for Airedale stage 3 (Crossflatts to Cottingley Bar).

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles are currently licensed for public highway use in Britain, and if he will express the figures by class of vehicle.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At 31 December 1987 there were 22,151,831 vehicles licensed for use on the road in Great Britain. The main classes are as follows:

  Number

  Private/Light Goods:

  19,249,459

  Motorcycle

  977,728

  Heavy Goods:

  608,857

  Hackney (includes buses and coaches)

  129,012

  Other vehicles subject to duty:

  442,447

  Vehicles exempt from duty (includes emergency service vehicles and exemptions for the disabled):

  744,328

  Coaches (Speed Limiters)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if speed limiters are to be fitted on all coaches regardless of age.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on 18 April, at columns 364–65.

  Vehicles (British Standards)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the light transmission requirements embodied in BS4110 will be applied to all roadgoing vehicles; and when the noise limits embodied in BSAU193T2 will be applied to all roadgoing vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These British standards are being applied where they are relevant. In the case of BS4110, this is motor cyclists' eye protectors. Other standards apply to light transmission requirements for motor vehicles. BSAU 193 sets standards for replacement exhaust systems and silencers for motor cycles which are not appropriate to other vehicles.

  Life-jackets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether life-jackets carried on helicopters and aircraft operating over the North sea are required to meet the criteria described in specification No. 5, issue 2, dated 23 November 1979 issued by the airworthiness division of the Civil Aviation Authority; if he will define the use of the term "choppy sea" and the term "disturbed water" contained in paragraph 7.1 of the specification document, according to wave height; and whether this specification has been superseded;

  (2) if he will be reconsidering the specifications relating to life-jackets in the near future; and if he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that legislation requires life-jackets to keep the wearer's head clear of the water even if the wearer is unconscious and the water is rough or choppy.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Department of Transport is responsible for the approval of life-jackets carried in United Kingdom registered ships and the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the approval of life-jackets carried in aircraft.

  The specifications for Department of Transport or CAA approved life-jackets have both for many years required the support of an unconscious person in a seaway in an effective manner. Experience to date has not suggested that their performance was in question. However, the findings of a recent research project commissioned by the Department of Energy suggest that in certain rough sea conditions these life-jackets may not be as effective as previously thought.

  My Department therefore intends to give very serious consideration to the findings of this particular research. project to determine whether changes to the specifications for ship life-jackets are now necessary.

  The Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed that aircraft life-jackets are required to meet the criteria described in CAA specification No. 5, issue 2, which has not been superseded. The terms "choppy sea" and

  217
  "disturbed water" in the specification are intended to mean sea state 3, which is consistent with wave heights of 3 to 5 ft and a mean wind speed of 18 knots.

  The authority believes that the specification No. 5 requirements are adequate and life-jackets approved to this standard are satisfactory. The need to ensure compatibility with intended immersion suits is catered for in working draft CAA specification No. 19, issue 1 (dated March 1988) para. 31. Any immersion suit approved by the CAA must be fully evaluated for its compatibility with the intended life-jacket; righting tests being performed by live but limp subjects. Such tests may be more representative of an unconscious person than those achieved using authometric dummies, but the CAA has initiated a review of the various test methods currently used to establish which of these is the most realistic.

  Dalton-in-Furness Bypass
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to the current position and progress on the Dalton-in-Furness bypass on the A590; whether there has been a delay in determining the route; and what are the estimated dates for laying of the order and public inquiry for commencement and completion of the bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Progress of the scheme has been slightly delayed by the need to investigate further the ground conditions along the proposed route of the bypass. We expect to publish statutory orders towards the year end. If required a public inquiry will be held in mid 1989. Construction could start in 1991 and the road open to traffic in 1993.

  Swarthmoor Bypass
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position and progress on the Swarthmoor bypass on the A590.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to receive our consultant's report on route investigations in June. I shall make a further announcement when we have considered it.

  Melton Brow Road Improvement
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position and progress on the Melton Brow road improvement on the A590 near Lindal-in-Furness.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following a report by Cumbria county council acting as the Department's agent, an improvement scheme has been accepted into the regional trunk road programme. The next stage will be the publication of orders under the Highways Acts towards the end of the year.

  Motor Cycles (Leg Protectors)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the light of comments made in response to his consultation on motor cycle leg protectors, he is satisfied that there has been no misrepresentation of results in the research carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
  218
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am completely satisfied that the laboratory's work has been carried out in a totally unbiased manner and to the highest professional standards, including the publication of methodology and results.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made by his Department in preparing the specification for motor cycle leg protectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Further tests have been carried out at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory using a wider variety of vehicles and different angles of collision. The results have continued to confirm the potential benefits of well-designed leg protection. Results of independent testing have also been brought to our attention. More testing will be carried out and will include collisions at higher speeds. We are looking at our technical specification in the light of the expert views we have received and of the continuing research. It is our long-established policy and practice to be thoroughly assured of the safety benefits of any specification before steps are taken to propose it in draft regulations.

ENERGY

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy in what form Her Majesty's Government have received assurances from the United States Government that none of the United Kingdom plutonium exported to the United States of America since 1958 under the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement, and arising from civil reactors in the United Kingdom, has been put to any form of defence research in the United States of America.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 2 July 1984 at column 36.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), 12 April,Official Report, column 49, from which thermal reactors plutonium originated before being used at Sellafield to supplement the fuel for Dounreay fast reactor fuel; and how much thermal reactor plutonium in each year since 1979 has been put to fast reactor fuel fabrication use.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  On 31 March 1987 some 6½ tonnes of safeguarded plutonium originating from thermal reactors had been made available for fuel for the Dounreay prototype fast reactor. Some 5½ tonnes of this originated from electricity board reactors and the remainder from reactors operated by British Nuclear Fuels plc. Quantities for individual years can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Coal Imports (Holland)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the amount of coal imported from Holland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal imports from the Netherlands were as follows:
  219

  Thousand tonnes

  1979

  22

  1980

  23

  1981

  8

  1982

  43

  1983

  86

  1984

  304

  1985

  306

  1986

  218

  1987

  664

  Non-fossil Fuel
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the proposed statutory obligation on the distribution companies to contract for a specified minimum proportion of non-fossil-fuelled generating capacity will include generators using as fuel municipal refuse and other waste as non-fossil-fuelled generators.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The details of the obligation are still under consideration, but I recognise the potential value of waste as a source of fuel.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of full-time employees in the coal industry; and what proportion of the numbers so employed in 1979 this represents.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The number of full-time employees in the coal industry at the end of February 1988 was 123,822, which is 43 per cent. of the corresponding number at the end of February 1979.

  Life-jackets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a copy of the report prepared by the Robert Gordon institute of technology on lifejackets and immersion suits for the oil industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have today instructed that copies of the report entitled "Lifejacket/Immersion Suit Combinations—In-water Performance Assessment" be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Firms
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the various forms of assistance available from his Department for the assistance of small firms; and what is the respective expenditure involved.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We operate a number of schemes which are specifically directed at small firms. Details are set out as follows.

  (i) The consultancy initiatives which are available under the enterprise initiative offer financial support to independent companies or groups with fewer than 500 employees for between five and 15 days specialist consultancy in the following key management functions: quality, design, marketing, manufacturing systems, business planning, financial and information systems. DTI
  220
  pays two thirds of the cost in the assisted areas and urban programme areas and 50 per cent. of the cost outside these areas. Total provision is £274 million over the next three years.

  (ii) Regional enterprise grants, which were introduced on 1 April 1988, provide assistance to small firms with fewer than 25 employees for investment and innovation projects in the development areas. Grants of 15 per cent. of the cost of fixed assets in an investment project are available up to a maximum of £15,000. Grants of 50 per cent. of eligible costs in an innovation project are available up to a maximum of £25,000. DTI expenditure on these grants is expected to rise to over £50 million per year by 1990–91.

  (iii) The business improvement services (BIS) scheme, which is jointly funded by the DTI and the European regional development fund, comprises a package of measures designed to assist firms with fewer than 200 employees. It includes an element which enables firms to claim grants of up to 70 per cent. of the cost of consultancy advice. The scheme is available to firms located in specified areas of England affected by the decline in the steel, shipbuilding, textiles and fishing industries. More recently BIS has been introduced in west Cornwall following the closure of the Geevor tin mine and in the Thanet travel-to-work area. Total expenditure on BIS will amount to £56·5 million over the period 1984–90, when the scheme will come to an end.

  (iv) The competition for small firms merit awards for research and technology (SMART) is open to firms employing fewer than 200. The 100 best ideas put forward will each receive a 75 per cent. grant towards total costs of £50,000 (a maximum grant of £37,500) to develop a new product or process over the course of a year. The closing date for entries is 30 June 1988; the winners will be announced in November 1988. It is expected that after one year about half the winners will go on to a second stage in which the maximum award per firm will be £50,000.

  In addition to these specific schemes, small firms may also take advantage of other forms of DTI assistance which is available to firms of all sizes:

  Regional selective assistance

  The export initiative

  The research and technology initiative

  The business and education initiative

  Small firms in the inner cities are also helped through many of the projects supported by the Government's inner city task force, for which my Department is responsible. Overall expenditure by the task force is expected to total some £16 million in 1988–89.

  EC Fusion and Eureka Programmes
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress evaluated on the EC fusion and Eureka programmes arising from the Research Council of the European Council of Ministers meeting on 11 April.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the Community's Council of Ministers (Research) in Luxembourg on 11 April. I should like to take the opportunity to give a brief account of the progress achieved on each of the main agenda items as well as the two specifically raised in the question.

  On fusion, there was a general exchange of views on the Community's programme of research but no decisions

  221
  were taken. The general hope was, however, that there would be further progress at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers (Research) at the end of June.

  The Council discussed the relationship between the Community's research programmes and Eureka. There was agreement that the relationship needed to be clearly defined so as to ensure the two complemented each other and to avoid duplication of effort wherever possible. The Commission will prepare further ideas on this for the Council to consider at its next meeting.

  The Council adopted a common position on DRIVE, a Community programme of research in the fields of IT and telecommunications applied to road transport. The programme, which will provide Community funding of 60 mecu (£40 million) over a period of three years, should help improve road transport efficiency and safety, and reduce its environmental impact.

  On the Community Bureau of Reference, BCR, the Council adopted a common position on an R and D programme costing some 59 mecu (£39 million) over five years in the fields of applied metrology and chemical analysis. This will be important in the context of the completion of the single market, and will assist in the elimination of certain technical barriers to trade.

  The Council also took a major step forward in unanimously adopting ESPRIT II, the largest single programme in the Community's 1987–1991 framework programme for R and D. It will over five years provide 1600 mecu (£1,056 million) of Community funding, with matching contributions from industrial partners and other contractors, for projects in micro electronics and peripheral technologies, information processing systems and some "applied" fields, namely, computer-integrated manufacture and integrated information systems. British companies and research institutes will undoubtedly make a major contribution to this programme and will benefit substantially from it. It is important to note that this major programme has a management structure modelled on that already successfully used in the earlier programme, ESPRIT I.

  A common position was also adopted on DELTA, an exploratory programme of research extending over a maximum period of two years to apply new technologies including IT to open and distance learning. Community funding will amount to 20 mecu (£13 million).

  The science programme, on which the Council adopted a common position, will promote co-operation and exchanges between scientists and laboratories in the Community: the funds will amount to 167 mecu (£110 million) over five years. The programme offers grants for travel, to fund research projects involving laboratories in more than one country and larger grants for specific projects of scientific promise, usually bringing together many laboratories in different Community countries.

  In the field of biotechnology, the Council adopted a common position on the revision of the current multiannual research programme (1985–1989) which will increase Community funding from 55 mecu (£36 million) to 75 mecu (£50 million). More generally, it was agreed that the Community should develop a strategy in the area of biological research, taking account of wider international developments in this field. There was also an informal exchange of views on bioethical issues.

  The Council had a further useful exchange of views on the joint research centre (JRC). Agreement was reached on the overall financial framework for the JRC's work and
  222
  the Council gave further directions for the reforms which are needed to make the JRC successful and viable. We hope that it will be possible for the Council to reach agreement in June on improvements which will give scientific and technological value for money for the considerable Community investment there.

  The Commission was also invited to prepare ideas for the Council on the relationship of technical norms and standards to technological developments in Europe, an issue which also has a bearing on the development of the single market.

  Economic League
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Crown Prosecution Service will now begin prosecution of the Economic League for failure to file accounts and failure to complete an annual return; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  As the latest accounts and annual return for the Economic League have now been received and are on the public record, it is not intended to bring proceedings in this matter.

  Voluntary Restraint Agreements
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions have taken place within or at the time of meetings of the Council of Ministers, on interindustry voluntary restraint agreements, and within or at the time of which meetings.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Inter-industry voluntary restraint agreements are negotiated by the industries concerned. I am not aware of any recent discussion within or at the time of meetings of the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 478, by what means the Government informed the industries concerned with certain voluntary restraint arrangements that they saw no case for continuation; and whether they will place copies of such communications in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The industries concerned were informed in writing through their trade associations. I have placed copies of these letters in the House Library.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will place in the Library a copy of the arrangements on footwear concluded between the industry concerned and the Republic of Korea, and a copy of the proposals for their renewal.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This is a matter for the United Kingdom footwear industry and its counterpart in the Republic of Korea between whom the voluntary agreement is negotiated.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what form restraint agreements negotiated by the European Commission on behalf of the United Kingdom are notified to(a) the House and (b) the Select Committee on European Legislation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The contents of the informal voluntary restraint arrangements negotiated by the Commission on behalf of the United Kingdom are confidential and are not published.
  223
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list those restraint agreements negotiated by the European Commission in addition to the multi-fibre arrangement in certain limited textiles and clothing, giving the date of commencement and extent of each such agreement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The European Community has negotiated the following informal restraint arrangements on textile and clothing products. Apart from the arrangement with China, these arrangements cover trade in multifibre arrangement (MFA) products with the Community's preferential trading partners (with whom there is no separate bilateral MFA agreement). The restraint arrangement with China is linked to the EC/China bilateral textiles agreement, but relates to a product which is not classified in Customs terms as a textile product. Details of these arrangements are not published.

  Turkey

  Textile products: cotton yarn, certain cotton fabrics and acrylic yarns1.

  Present arrangements commenced 1 January 1987 (1 January 1988 for cotton yarn)

  Egypt

  Cotton yarn, cotton fabric and bed linen 1. Present arrangement commenced 1 January 1987 (1 January 1988 for cotton yarn).

  Malta

  Trousers1. Present arrangement commenced 1 January 1988.

  Morocco

  Trousers2. Present arrangement commenced 1 January 1987.

  Tunisia

  Cotton fabric and trousers 3 Present arrangement commenced 1 January 1987.

  China

  Surgical dressings. The restraint arrangement was negotiated at the same time as the current bilateral textile agreement with China and commenced 1 January 1984.

  1 Other products in these arrangements are subject to surveillance licensing. Coverage may differ between the United Kingdom and other member states.

  2 Coverage may differ between the United Kingdom and other member states.

  3 Coverage may differ between the United Kingdom and other member states. Certain other member states have special arrangements for goods subject to outward processing.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the United Kingdom asked the Commission of the European Communities to negotiate restraints on leather footwear from certain Eastern European countries; and on what date such restraints came into effect.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In 1975 the United Kingdom footwear industry negotiated bilateral arrangements with its counterparts in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania to restrain imports of men's leather footwear during 1976. Further restraint arrangements were made covering women's and children's leather footwear during 1977. From 1977 the European Commission has annually renegotiated a continuation of these arrangements on behalf of the United Kingdom industry.

  Car Telephones
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate how many(a) car and (b) portable telephones were purchased in Britain for the first three months of the current year; and if he will express the figures as a percentage change for the same period for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are no official statistics but the information I have is as follows:

  Number of units 1988 First quarter

  Mobile telephones

  33,000

  Portable telephones

  17,000

  Note: Includes transportable and hand portable.

  Source: BIS Mackintosh Ltd.

  Information comparing these figures with figures for the same period in each of the last three years is not available.

  Investment
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of investment by insurance companies and pension funds, as a percentage of total investment for each year since 1970; and what information he has as to comparable figures for(a) the European Economic Community, (b) the United States of America,(c) Japan, (d) India, (e) South Korea, (f) Taiwan, (g) Bangladesh, (h) Pakistan and (i) South America.

  Mr. Maude
  The table shows net investment by insurance companies and pension funds as a percentage of total gross domestic fixed capital formation (excluding that by general government) for the United Kingdom.

  Comparable figures for the other countries and areas listed in the question are not easily available. Some figures on financial accounts are published by the OECD for member countries but separate figures for insurance companies and pension funds are not given for all members. Data on fixed capital formation are published by the IMF for its members although a few are unable to supply these statistics. The relevant publications are "Financial Accounts of OECD Countries" and "International Financial Statistics", copies of which may be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Net investment by insurance companies and pension funds, 1970–87 as a percentage of GDPCF (other than by general government)

  Percentage

  1970

  25

  1971

  26

  1972

  30

  1973

  27

  1974

  27

  1975

  32

  1976

  34

  1977

  35

  1978

  35

  1979

  36

  1980

  35

  1981

  41

  1982

  40

  1983

  40

  1984

  37

  225

  Percentage

  1985

  36

  1986

  40

  1987

  37

  Sources: DTI and CSO.

  Note.: —There are some breaks in the series due to definitional changes. The main ones are between 1983 and 1984 and between 1984 and 1985.

  Life Assurance and Unit Trusts Regulatory Association
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if a decision has been reached on whether to give leave for the recognistion of the Life Assurance and Unit Trusts Regulatory Association.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Financial Services Act, the Director-General of Fair Trading has reported on the rules and guidance submitted by LAUTRO to the SIB in support of its application for recognition as a self-regulating organisation. The director-general has reported that, as amended, LAUTRO's rules do not and are not likely or intended to have significant anti-competitive effects. Having had regard to the director-general's report, the Secretary of State has concluded that on the basis of the information presently available, LAUTRO's rules and guidance do not have, and are not intended or likely to have, to any significant extent, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. The Secretary of State also has had regard to European Community considerations. Her Majesty's Government and the Commission have a common objective in promoting full competition and transparency in the marketing of life assurance. In order to comply with Community law LAUTRO will be notifying shortly its rules formally to the Commission in order to seek an exemption under article 85 EEC. The Commission will examine them, having regard to Community competition law and practice and the particular circumstances of the EEC insurance market as a whole. Against this background the Secretary of State has therefore today given leave to the SIB for the recognition of LAUTRO as a self-regulating organisation.

  The director-general has also made a separate report on the rules and guidance submitted by LAUTRO in support of its application for recognition as a self-regulating organisation for friendly societies. Having had regard to this report, the Secretary of State has concluded that on the basis of the information presently available LAUTRO's rules and guidance do not have, to any significant extent, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. The Secretary of State has also therefore today given consent to the SIB for the recognition of LAUTRO as a self-regulating organisation for friendly societies.

  Unichem
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make a decision as to whether to institute proceedings against Unichem plc for alleged breach of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act 1958.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: My Department has obtained strict undertakings from
  226
  Unichem to comply with the relevant statutory provisions in future. In the light of these assurances and having regard to all the circumstances, I have decided not to institute proceedings.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether leave has yet been given under section 120(2) of the Financial Services Act for the Securities and Investments Board to make recognition orders in respect of any investment exchanges or clearing houses.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 April 1988, c. 47]: My right hon. and noble Friend has now considered, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, reports made by the Director General of Fair Trading on the rules, regulations, guidance and arrangements submitted by the international stock exchange of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland Ltd. and the Baltic Futures Exchange Ltd. and has concluded that on the basis of the information presently available to him he does not consider there is anything in the material submitted which has, or is intended or likely to have, to any significant extent the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. He has therefore given his leave to the SIB to make recognition orders in respect of both these investment exchanges.

ENVIRONMENT

  BAOR Contracts
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the West German Ministry of Construction to broaden the specifications required to allow British manufacturers to compete on equal terms when tendering for BAOR contracts; and what the result of such representations has been.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has made representations both directly to the West German Ministry of Construction and, in common with other NATO partners, to the Federal German Government for the greater use of harmonised standards in respect of electrical and lighting products.

  All electrical products which have a European (EC) standard and some with international (IEC) standards, are given the status of a German national (DIN) standard without alteration. However, only the DIN standard can be referred to in documentation because German construction regulations are based on them.

  Discussions are continuing. Currently I am seeking to establish a list of those British products which have an EC/ IEC standard which is referred to in the German DIN standard.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the value of the electrical and lighting contracts awarded for BAOR premises in 1987; and what proportion of these contracts were placed with(a) British and (b) German companies.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1987, of the £1¼million worth of contracts for specialised electrical and lighting equipment placed directly by the PSA on behalf of the British forces in Germany, approximately £¾ million (60 per cent.) had
  227
  been placed with British firms. The bulk of major electrical installation work carried out in Germany is, however, performed through contracts with the Federal Government's construction agencies as required under the status of forces agreement. The total value of work placed by these German authorities with electrical contractors was approximately £11½ million in 1987, but it is not possible to obtain a breakdown of this figure.

  Rate support grant in real1 terms: 1978–79 to 1988–89

  London borough of Newham

  Rate support grant (1987–88 prices) £ million

  Year on year percentage difference in RSG Percentage

  Rate support ant per capita (1987–88 prices) £

  Year on year percentage difference in RSG per capita Percentage

  1978–79

  96·549

  425

  1979–80

  90·261

  -6·5

  388

  -8·7

  1980–81

  89·200

  -1·2

  401

  3·4

  1981–822

  79·243

  -11·2

  370

  -7·7

  1982–83

  89·738

  13·2

  423

  14·3

  1983–84

  71·768

  -20·0

  341

  -19·4

  1984–85

  86·051

  19·9

  411

  20·5

  1985–86

  84·844

  -1·4

  407

  -1·0

  1986–873

  75·875

  -10·6

  370

  -9·1

  1987–88

  82·445

  8·7

  402

  8·6

  1988–89

  94·171

  14·2

  459

  14·2

  1 Cash values expressed in constant (1987–88) prices using the GDP deflator.

  2 The system of paying grant changed in 1981–82 when the needs resources and domestic elements of grant were replaced by block grant and domestic rate relief grant.

  3 Grant entitlements changed in 1986–87 following the abolition of the GLC.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the successfully completed environmental programme schemes funded under the urban programme in 1985–86 and 1986–87 between £10,000 and £30,000 in value in the programme authorities.

  Mr. Trippier
  The number and total value of approved environmental schemes between £10,000 and £30,000 in urban programme authorities in 1985–86 and 1986–87 was:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Number

  Value

  Number

  Value

  511

  £9·29

  527

  £9·35

  These figures may exclude some late approvals, including some projects approved within larger environmental blocks and pools. Information about successfully completed schemes is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Shops
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the powers under which a local authority can offer financial assistance to the owner of a small shop to make it accessible to disabled people.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for local authorities to consider which powers might authorise the giving of financial assistance for access to the disabled to non-local authority premises.

  Newham (Rates)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for the London borough of Newham(a) the rate support grant for 1978–79, expressed in 1987 prices, (b) that figure expressed per capita of the population of the borough, (c) the same figures, expressed in 1987 prices, for each year since and (d) the percentage differences between the figures for each year.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  I wrote to the hon. Member on 21 March setting out a number of discretionary powers which might be appropriate for this purpose.

  Civil Service Chauffeurs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many chauffeurs are employed in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no central records held for this grade. The Government car service, which provides a chauffeur driven service to Ministers and heads of Department, employs 153 staff in this capacity.

  Rates Exemption
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received seeking exemption of buildings used in connection with horse and pony breeding from rates.

  Mr. Chope
  The campaign by the Thoroughbred Breeders Association and other bodies interested in this matter has been carried on for some years now. Since January this year, however, we have received approximately 100 representations on this subject.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any request from British Coal's Opencast Executive for the relaxation of planning regulations for opencast coal mining.
  229
  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. British Coal did comment on my Department's draft planning guidance on opencast coal mining. A copy of its letter of 17 June has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Richmond House
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent buying stone for walls and paved areas, trees, shrubs, tubs and compost for the Richmond house office of the Department of Health and Social Security; and what is the latest estimate for the total cost of the building.

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of buying stone for paved areas and associated walls and steps around Richmond house was £450,000. The cost of buying trees, shrubs, turf and associated materials was £38,000. The current estimate of the total cost of the project is £41·4 million. This includes some additional work and acceleration costs to ensure DHSS occupation by the end of 1987. As I said in my answer on 8 December 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), at column 97, the final cost will depend on settlement of the final account, including claims still being negotiated.

  United States Military Bases
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to recover as promptly as possible the debt of £31 million owing by the United States armed forces to the Property Services Agency from building works on military bases.

  Mr. Chope
  The steps outlined in paragraph 22 of the Public Accounts Committee's report on "Repayment Arrangements for Works Expenditure for US Forces", published on 20 April, have already yielded a substantial improvement. The estimated deficit at the end of the 1987–88 financial year is between £20 million and £22 million.

  Employment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the calculations made by Mr. H. B. Lloyd in his paper entitled "The Financial Effects of Increasing Employment by One Million," a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Minister for Housing and Planning, in November 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. I am writing to the hon. Member enclosing a comment on Mr. Lloyd's paper which I sent to him in December 1987.

  London Boroughs
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the total indebtedness of each of the London boroughs; and if he will express this information also in per capita terms per resident in each case.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the information placed in the Library of the House on 14 March 1988 in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at column 459.

  Local Authorities (Employees)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take in the light of responses to his consultation paper which proposed an amendment to the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to restrict the rights of the public to inspect at the time of audit, information which a local authority holds about its employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have decided in the light of responses to their consultation paper to seek at the next convenient opportunity an amendment to the Local Government Finance Act 1982 so that, as proposed, all information which an authority holds about its employees would be excluded from public inspection, except information about gross pay, allowances, bonuses and overtime payments, which would continue to be open to inspection at the time of audit. My right hon. Friends consider that such an amendment would strike the right balance between safeguarding personal privacy and providing adequate public inspection for proper accountability.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magnisite Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will prosecute Magnisite Ltd., operating as Magnivision, for offering for sale ready-made reading spectacles without a prescription from a suitable registered practitioner, under section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958.

  The Attorney-General
  If the hon. Member has any evidence tending to disclose the commission of a criminal offence, he should give that evidence to the police.

  Mr. Anthony Parnes
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library a copy of that part of the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the Los Angeles court in connection with the extradition proceedings against Mr. Anthony Parnes which was made publicly available in the United States of America.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next hopes to pay an official visit to the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit the People's Republic of China.

  European Foreign Ministers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his counterparts from the other European Community countries; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 27 April at column 156.

  Tel Aviv (Passport Renewals)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time taken for the British consulate in Tel Aviv to process an application from a British citizen for the renewal of a passport; and if any measures are being taken to reduce this time.

  Mr. Eggar
  Routine applications for renewal or replacement of passports are at present processed within an average period of two and a half weeks. More urgent applications are handled within one or two days and emergency cases are dealt with immediately. Staffing improvements are expected soon to reduce the routine waiting period to around one week.

  Fentanyl
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place within the Geneva negotiations on chemical and biological weapons about the problems posed by the compound fentanyl; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The chemical weapons convention will apply to all chemical warfare agents whether or not they are explicitly named. It will also include a verification regime for certain chemicals produced in industry which are assessed to pose a risk to the objectives of the convention. Many detailed aspects of this verification regime remain to be resolved including the implication of chemicals such as fentanyl which are capable of modification. These issues are under consideration in Geneva.

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has been given by the United States Administration on their plans for broadening the scope of their role in the Gulf.

  Mr. Mellor
  We remain in close contact with the United States and other western countries with naval forces deployed in the Gulf. Our common objective remains to ensure the freedom of navigation in international waters. The practicalities of so doing are regularly reviewed.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in its recent offensive in the Fao peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We continue to examine reports of the recent battle in the Fao peninsula. To date we have no conclusive evidence of the use of chemical weapons in that offensive.

  Ethiopian Army (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any representations have been made regarding the use by the Ethiopian Army of chemical weapons, nerve gas, cluster bombs and napalm against people in Eritrea and Tigré.
  232
  Mrs. Chalker
  No. We have no evidence that the Ethiopian Army intends to use such weapons. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemns the use of chemical weapons anywhere.

  Mr. Abu Jihad
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the involvement of any Israeli Government organisation in the murder of the PLO official Mr. Abu Jihad in Tunisia; and what are the implications for his policy towards access to the United Kingdom of certain categories of Israeli citizens.

  Mr. Mellor
  Suspicions of Israeli involvement in the murder of Abu Jihad fall short of absolute proof. There are no implications for Israeli visitors to the United Kingdom.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any additions have been made to the staffing of Her Majesty's embassy in Panama in the past six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No additions have been made to the staff accredited to Her Majesty's embassy in Panama.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the current trading situation of British banks in Panama.

  Mr. Eggar
  We understand that the one British bank in Panama is operating within the same constraints, applied by the Panamanian authorities, as all other banks in Panama.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is currently being offered to British commercial interests in Panama.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy regularly exchanges information with British commercial interests in Panama in the course of its normal contacts, as do other posts overseas.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider providing additional resources to the Commonwealth Institute to enable urgent repairs to the copper roof to be undertaken.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The nature and urgency of work which may be required on the roof of the main galleries of the Commonwealth Institute, Kensington, is still being studied by the institute, and the implications for the institute's resources are not yet clear.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the amount of grant paid to the Commonwealth Institute in each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The total grants-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Vote for the last five years for the London and Edinburgh operations of the Commonwealth
  233
  Institute, including occasional ad hoc elements for special events, redecoration, maintenance and so on were as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  2·665

  1986–87

  2·673

  1985–86

  2·515

  1984–85

  2·350

  1983–84

  2·518

EMPLOYMENT

  Docklands Liaison Group
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people form the Docklands liaison group; what are their names; and what has been their previous experience.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Currently nine people constitute the Docklands liaison group. With one exception, they had all worked for the Manpower Services Commission or the employment service in east London before joining the group.

  The names and grades of the officials concerned are as follows:

  Grade

  Mr. R. Mann

  Grade 7

  Mr. P. Kendrick

  SEO

  Mr. T. Goepfort

  HEO

  Ms. C. Hughes

  HEO

  Ms. J. Crosweller

  EO

  Mr. N. Reeve

  EO

  Mr. K. Crossman

  EO

  Ms. R. Sammons

  AO

  Mr. G. Rihal

  AA

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of employment in(a) the north-east and (b) Houghton and Washington in numerical and percentage terms; and what are the comparable figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Full working population figures are not available for areas of this size. Employee figures can be given, but only for dates when censuses of employment are taken. At September 1984, the latest date for which census estimates are available, there were 882,700 employees in employment in the north-east; the figure for the Houghton and Washington constituency was 28,400. The figures exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  The earliest estimates on a comparable basis are for September 1981 when the previous census of employment was taken. There were then 940,600 employees employed in the north-east and 28,600 in the Houghton and Washington constituency.

  Employees in employment in the textile1 industry in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  June 1971

  —

  —

  255·4

  201·3

  42·8

  244·1

  June 1972

  —

  —

  248·1

  192·8

  39·7

  232·5

  234
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current unemployment and unfilled vacancies figures on his Department's register for the Castleford travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 10 March 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area was 7,947. On 4 March 1988, the number of unfilled vacancies, excluding vacancies of the community programme, registered at jobcentres which closely correspond to the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area was 385.

  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage fall in unemployment in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Cheshire since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants at 8 March 1984 and 10 March 1988, together with the percentage change for each parliamentary constituency in the county of Cheshire. The figures are affected by the change in the coverage of the count in March 1986.

  Unemployed claimants

  Constituency

  March 1984

  March 1988

  Percentage change

  City of Chester

  5,495

  4,565

  -16·9

  Congleton

  3,211

  2,124

  -33·9

  Crewe and Nantwich

  4,674

  3,636

  -22·2

  Eddisbury

  5,131

  3,444

  -32·9

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  6,711

  4,992

  -25·6

  Halton

  8,245

  6,184

  -25·0

  Macclesfield

  3,326

  2,344

  -29·5

  Tatton

  3,569

  2,699

  -29·4

  Warrington North

  6,641

  4,965

  -25·2

  Warrington South

  6,172

  4,862

  -21·2

  Textile Workers
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of full-time and part-time workers employed in the textile industry for each year from 1970.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department's employment statistics are analysed according to the standard industrial classification (SIC), and the series is broken by the introduction of the 1980 SIC, which reclassified certain activities, including the textile industry. The table gives the available information on the industry on a consistent 1980 SIC basis from June 1971.

  Part-time male figures on this basis are available only from the censuses of employment carried out in September 1981 and September 1984, and quarterly thereafter. Comparable figures are not available for dates prior to June 1971.
  235

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-lime

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  June 1973

  —

  —

  247·8

  186·6

  43·0

  229·6

  June 1974

  —

  —

  240·7

  176·2

  47·8

  224·0

  June 1975

  —

  —

  218·6

  155·6

  44·1

  199·7

  June 1976

  —

  —

  212·3

  149·7

  41·7

  191·4

  June 1977

  —

  —

  211·6

  151·6

  42·6

  194·2

  June 1978

  —

  —

  202·8

  145·6

  39·9

  185·5

  June 1979

  —

  —

  192·6

  141·9

  37·0

  178·9

  June 1980

  —

  —

  166·3

  127·0

  31·4

  158·4

  June 1981

  —

  —

  140·7

  106·4

  25·9

  132·3

  September 1981

  136·3

  3·5

  139·8

  106·8

  25·5

  132·3

  June 1982

  —

  —

  130·9

  101·3

  23·9

  125·2

  June 1983

  —

  —

  122·7

  96·0

  20·1

  116·1

  June 1984

  —

  —

  119·5

  94·6

  19·4

  114·0

  September 1984

  118·5

  2·1

  120·6

  94·4

  19·9

  114·3

  June 1985

  116·8

  2·1

  118·9

  94·3

  19·6

  113·9

  June 1986

  117·4

  2·4

  119·8

  95·2

  19·2

  114·4

  June 1987

  112·4

  2·3

  114·7

  91·7

  15·2

  106·9

  December 19872

  110·4

  2·4

  112·8

  91·9

  14·3

  106·2

  1The textile industry is defined as Class 43 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  2 The latest date for which estimates are available.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had from the organisers of the community programme about problems faced by those seeking work in the programmes as a result of benefit not being paid for the first week of the programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  Hospitals (Staffing Levels)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the recommended staffing levels by patient category in English hospitals; and what are the current staffing levels in hospitals within the Pontefract area health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no recommended staffing levels by patient category in hospitals. Although regions have manpower staffing targets, the distribution between staff groups is a matter for regional decision.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 31 March at columns 665–69 which gave staff in post figures by health authority.

SCOTLAND

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for each of the five Scottish new towns for the years 1974–75 to 1989–90, actual or estimated figures for housing stock within the host district council area analysed by the following ownership categories (a) development corporation, (b) district council, (c) other public sector, (d) owner-occupied and (e) private rented.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information on the numbers of domestic subjects on the valuation roll is published in the rating review estimates of income and expenditure summary volume by the Chartered
  236
  Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) for the years to 1987. Details of owner-occupied and private rented stock by district are not available. Estimates for later years are also not available.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) each of the five Scottish new towns (b) each of the district councils with new towns and (c) Scotland as a whole for the years 1974–75 to 1989–90 inclusive, the actual or estimated (i) capital expenditure, gross and net of capital receipts (ii) revenue expenditure and (iii) capital debt, expressed both in cash and as per capita amounts.

  Mr. Lang
  I regret that this information is not held in the form requested and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost.

  "The Scotsman" (Break-in)
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Strathclyde as to the progress of inquiries into the break-in at the office of The Scotsman newspaper in Queen street, Glasgow, during the weekend of 23–24 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Boundary Commission for Scotland intends to conduct any further interim review of parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Boundary Commission for Scotland has informed me that it intends to conduct interim reviews of seven parliamentary constituencies under section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. The constituencies are as follows:

  Angus East, and Kincardine and Deeside:

  Clackmannan, Dunfermline West, and Perth and Kinross;

  Clydebank and Milngavie, and Glasgow Garscadden.

  I understand that the reviews have arisen from alterations to local authority boundaries which those of the parliamentary constituencies concerned no longer follow exactly.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the average class size for schools in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) Japan.

  Mr. Dunn
  The readily available information is shown in the following table. There are no readily available data for the United States of America.

  Country

  Year

  Class size up to 1st level1

  Class size up to 2nd level2

  United Kingdom

  1984–85

  325·2

  421·4

  1985–86

  325·9

  421·3

  Germany, Federal Republic of5

  1982–83

  22·7

  627·3

  Japan7

  1984–85

  833·3

  638·1

  1 Equates broadly with nursery and primary education.

  2 Equates broadly with secondary school education and non-advanced further education.

  3 Covers maintained primary schools in England. Includes classes where more than one teacher may be present.

  4 Covers maintained secondary schools in England. Includes classes where more than one teacher may be present.

  5 Data extracted from reply to a written European Parliamentary Question (1503/84).

  6 Covers lower secondary schools only.

  7 Includes private education.

  8 Covers only primary school education.

  Literacy
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the literacy rates for (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) Japan.

  Mr. Dunn
  Comparable information on literacy rates in these countries is not available.

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the expenditure per primary school pupil for each of the years from 1976 to 1986 in Wakefield metropolitan council area.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure per pupil1 in primary schools

  £ (Real Terms)2

  1975–76

  720

  1976–77

  730

  1977–78

  700

  1978–79

  715

  1979–80

  705

  1980–81

  740

  1981–82

  790

  1982–83

  815

  1983–84

  875

  1984–85

  870

  1985–86

  905

  1986–87

  955

  238
  1 Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  English Teaching (Kingman Report)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the Kingman report on the teaching of English in schools; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I received the report before Easter and expect to publish it tomorrow.

  A-level Examinations (Higginson Reports)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received the Higginson reports on A-levels; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I expect to receive the Higginson report shortly.

  Residential Colleges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to review the functions of long-term residential colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is currently reviewing the outcomes of various experimental projects conducted at some of the long-term residential colleges. The colleges were asked for their views on their future role recently and their ideas will be discussed with them later in the year.

  Pen Tops
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of 15 March,Official Report, columns 982–23, what advice he has given to local education authorities in respect of detachable pen tops.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department has now written to all local education authorities along the lines indicated in my previous answer. I am arranging for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the light of the recent launch of a specially designed safety air flow cap for detachable pen tops, what criteria he plans to recommend to chief education officers over the use of such products.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department's letter of 21 March to chief education officers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, gives advice on various types of pen top and takes into account recent and imminent developments as reported to the Department.

  Bracken Spores and Stomach Cancer
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on current research into a possible link between bracken spores and stomach cancer in humans.
  239
  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand that the expert advisory committee on carcinogenicity, which reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, will shortly advise on the possible hazards to human health from bracken in air, food and water. The need for further research in this area will be considered in the light of that advice.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will issue guidance on the provisions he would expect to be contained in the planning and establishment of schemes of financial delegation for schools which local education authorities would be required to prepare under clauses 25 to 41 of the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am today issuing draft guidance to all local education authorities and other interested parties on the action which local education authorities would be required to take tinder clauses 25 to 41 of the Education Reform Bill if it receives Royal Assent in its present form.

  The principle of financial delegation to schools, the provisions for which are a central part of the Education Reform Bill. has been widely welcomed. The Bill affords only a broad framework. Within that, if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its present form, it will be for each local education authority to prepare its own scheme of financial delegation setting out their proposed arrangements for distributing resources between all their maintained county and voluntary schools, and for delegation to the governing bodies of all secondary schools and all primary schools with 200 or more pupils the responsibility for managing their budgets.

  'The draft guidance is being issued now to inform discussion of financial delegation to schools during the remaining stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament, to help local education authorities in their planning, and to give all concerned an early opportunity to comment. Comments are invited by 15 July 1988.

  Copies of the draft guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

  Students (Income and Expenditure)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the results will be made public of the comprehensive survey into students' income and expenditure referred to in the Government's response to the first report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1986–87.

  Mr. Jackson
  The report on the survey is being published by Research Services Limited today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Exercise Excalibur
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates Exercise Excalibur is to be held; how many and what types of aircraft will be participating; and what areas of the United Kingdom will be affected.

  Mr. Freeman
  Exercise Excalibur III will be held on 29 April 1988 and will involve 44 USAFE aircraft including 240
  RF-4s, F-4s, F-16s, F-15s, F-5s, F-111s and A-10s. The exercise will be centred on Spadeadam range, but parts of north Yorkshire and Cumbria are expected to see aircraft at low level during their approach to the range.

  NATO
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent report from the 13 member state independent European programme group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on armament development and procurement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European defence industry study was commissioned by IEPG Defence Ministers with the aim of identifying ways in which the competitiveness of Europe's defence industries might be enhanced. It was carried out by a group of eminent individuals under the chairmanship of Mr. Vredeling of the Netherlands. The group recommended a range of measures, including increased collaboration in defence research and the development of a more open and competitive European market in defence equipment.

  IEPG Defence Ministers welcomed the report at their meeting last june. In particular, they agreed to press ahead with the IEPG's work on generating more joint research projects; and they tasked their armament directors to make proposals for the framework of a scheme within which a more open defence equipment market might be developed, for their consideration at their next ministerial meeting in the autumn.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom has imported any uranium for non-nuclear explosive defence purposes from the United States of America in any year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The then Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the House on 17 January 1985, at columns 183–84, of the procurement of depleted uranium for the development programme of an anti-armour ammunition. Some of the material to which he referred was purchased from the United States as trial feed for prototype production. The House was informed on the same day of the Phalanx system deployed with the Royal Navy, which is purchased from the United States together with its depleted uranium alloy ammunition.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what chemical form any uranium imported from(a) Namibia and (b) the Republic of South Africa has been received in the United Kingdom for defence use.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In line with the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 20 July 1987, at column 97, it has never been the policy of any Government to disclose the sources of our defence stockpile of uranium.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any United Kingdom plutonium has been exported, without safeguards, to the United States of America since May 1979 under the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement.
  241
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), on 19 November 1984, at column 25, which quoted several earlier replies, including that given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 25 April 1984, at column 506, which may now be updated to read, "during the past 17 years". I have nothing further to add.

  Property Damage (County Donegal)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the last three years there have been complaints from(a) the Government of the Irish Republic, (b) Donegal county council or Donegal county councillors, and (c) persons residing in County Donegal, regarding damage to property alleged to have been caused by explosives set off by the Army in County Londonderry; what was the extent of such alleged damage; what compensation has been claimed; and what sums have been involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  As a result of explosives tests carried out at Magilligan point, County Londonderry, between November 1985 and 1986, a total of 53 claims for alleged structural damage to property were received from residents of the Greencastle area of County Donegal. Of these, 30 were pursued by the claimants. After careful investigation, those claims were repudiated by my Department in February 1987. My Department has received no complaints from Donegal county council or Donegal county councillors. Information relating to these claims has been exchanged with the Irish Government on a number of occasions since 1985.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 were accounted for by aircraft from RAF Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  Central records of usage of the United Kingdom low-flying system have not in the past distinguished between RAF aircraft based in the United Kingdom and those based elsewhere, including the Federal Republic of Germany. The information requested is not therefore available.

  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the land area of Scotland is included within the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Freeman
  The whole of the land area of Scotland is included within the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Forward Air Control Exercise
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent local press and hon. Members will be informed about the Forward Air Control exercise to be held in the Elan valley, Powys, from 11 to 13 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is normal practice to provide hon. Members with advance notice of any major exercise that is likely to have a significant effect on low-flying activity in their constituencies. The Press Association, local papers 242
  and local TV and radio stations are similarly informed about major exercises. Notification is not, however, given for all small exercises, such as the Forward Air Control exercise referred to, although this exercise may be mentioned in the formal notification concerning the annual OSEX exercise, to which it relates.

  Fast Jet Operational Training Programme
  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which elements of the Royal Air Force fast jet operational training programme were considered by the 1985 Gibson report.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report considered the pattern, content and duration of Royal Air Force fast jet operational flying training following completion of advanced flying training.

  US Military Personnel (Arrests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has to the power under which United States military personnel claim to have acted in effecting arrests at(a) United States bases, (b) training areas in use by United States forces and (c) any other areas, over the last five years.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The powers of arrest of United States military personnel in the United Kingdom are the same as those of an ordinary British citizen.

  Air Staff Requirement 1584
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the requirements set out in air staff requirement 1584.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Air staff requirement 1584 concerns the provision of new sensors for the identification and location of airborne radars as part of the improved air defence ground environment.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether right hon. and hon. Members will be invited to attend the British Army equipment exhibition to be held in Aldershot from 27 June to 1 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have been invited to attend the British Army equipment exhibition on 28 June as the guests of the Ministry of Defence.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the number of National Health Service patients treated as(a) in-patients and (b) outpatients at Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, during the last 12 months for which figures are available together with comparative figures for the preceding five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of NHS patients, including dependants, treated at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, in 1987 and the preceding four years are as follows:
  243

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Inpatients

  4,788

  5,693

  6,500

  6,070

  6,042

  Day Patients

  220

  833

  991

  781

  1,287

  Outpatients

  4,725

  4,787

  5,953

  4,977

  4,767

  Notes:

  1. The out-patient numbers represent individual new cases and do not include follow up appointments.

  2. The comparable figures for 1982 and the preceding years are not yet readily available.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the role of the Armilla patrol of United States plans to broaden the scope of its rôle in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The policy for the Armilla patrol is kept under constant review in the light of all relevant factors. Any change in the operating pattern of a friendly navy would, of course, be taken fully into account.

  Exercise Elder Forest
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of the recent Exercise Elder Forest.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Elder Forest 1988 was the latest in a biennial series of exercises the purpose of which is to test procedures for the air defence of the United Kingdom. The exercise took place from 18 to 22 April. A full assessment of the lessons learned is in hand, but will take some time to complete. Initial indications are that the exercise was successful in meeting its aims.

  United States Forces
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation procedures are currently in force regarding military action by United States forces based in the United Kingdom; if he has received any requests from the United States Government for the use of bases in the United Kingdom for possible military action in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Churchill/Truman understanding of 1952 reaffirmed that the use of United States basis in the United Kingdom in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. Appropriate arrangements exist to cover both conventional and nuclear United States forces, whether under national or NATO command. These arrangements are classified. It is not our usual practice to comment on any discussions between the United States and United Kingdom Governments about the details of operational plans.

  360 Squadron RAF
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to privatise the electronic countermeasures training role currently carried out by No. 360 Squadron RAF.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to privatise the task of No. 360 squadron RAF.
  244
  The MoD will, however, in the normal way, continue to keep under review the most cost-effective way of meeting this requirement.

  100 Squadron RAF
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to privatise the target facilities functions carried out by No. 100 Squadron RAF.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to privatise the task of No. 100 squadron RAF.

  The MOD will, however, in the normal way, continue to keep under review the most cost-effective way of meetting this requirement.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his statement of 25 April,Official Report, columns 21–22, for what reasons Her Majesty's Government declared production offtake of the new European fighter aircraft was set at a figure of 250; and what are the comparable offtakes set out by the other participant nations

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Each of the partner nations declared its projected production offtake in 1985 on the basis of its perceived needs. These declared offtakes and the development workshares for which they formed the basis remain unchanged as follows:

  Number of aircraft

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  250

  33

  Federal Republic of Germany

  250

  33

  Italy

  165

  21

  Spain

  100

  13

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his statement of 25 April,Official Report, columns 21–22, whether the actual expenses incurred by the European fighter aircraft development programme will be made public; and whether the United Kingdom financial liability will relate only to the work contracted for by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details of United Kingdom expenditure on the development of the European fighter aircraft will be made available to Committees of the House in the normal way, but any consideration of wider publication would need to take account of our obligations to our international partners. Contracts will be let on behalf of the participating nations by NEFMA (the Eurofighter management agency) on the two prime contractors, Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH and Eurojet Turbo GmbH, at the request of the four participating nations. In the context of the agreements among the four nations, the United Kingdom will have a financial liability within the terms of the prime contracts for the United Kingdom's workshare. The United Kingdom will in addition have a financial liability to fund a 33 per cent. share of the international administrative costs of the programme.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a decision has yet been made on the organisation or body which will determine the sale price of the European fighter aircraft offered for sale abroad in the event of the project proceeding to production.
  245
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. It would be premature at this stage to reach a decision on the price of EFA for export. We are confident, however, that EFA will prove to be very attractive to potential customers.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a decision has yet been made on the location of the headquarters of the Eurofighter consortium; what will be the legal structure of that organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The corporate headquarters of Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH has been established at Munich since 1986. It is there colocated with the international government management agency (NEFMA). Eurofighter is wholly owned by the partner aircraft companies (British Aerospace, Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm, Aeritalia, Construcciones Aeronauticas) of the four nations, and will be the prime contractor responsible for the whole weapon system including integration of the avionics and the engine system.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he proposes in his defence programme to accommodate the £1·7 billion development cost of the European fighter aircraft development within the planned expenditure totals published last autumn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When the public expenditure totals for defence were set last autumn, the probable need was already recognised to provide for the development cost of EFA. Only a small proportion of the total development cost falls within the public expenditure planning period. We do not, therefore, propose to make changes to the defence programme for those years as a result of the decision which my right hon. Friend announced on 25 April. The period of highest expenditure on EFA is expected to be around the turn of the century, but the defence programme for those years is, of course, at only a preliminary planning stage and will be shaped reflecting the priority accorded to EFA.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reassessed the likelihood of the loss through(a) mines or (b) missiles of a major ship in the Gulf, in the light of the incident involving the USS Samuel Roberts.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of British minesweepers in the light of recent military action in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The likely threat to Royal Navy ships serving in the Gulf area is kept under constant review in the light both of general circumstances and of particular incidents. Although there is, of course, always some risk inherent in the Armilla patrol's duties, the ships have self-defence equipment relevant to the range of threats in the region. No Royal Navy ship was involved in the recent military action between United States and Iranian forces in the Gulf and Armilla's non-provocative and de-escalatory operating pattern is designed to minimise the risk of conflict at any time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pass Holders
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list by name all those persons currently employed by right hon. and hon. Members on a permanent or temporary basis, showing by which right hon. or hon. Member they are employed and indicating which persons possess passes entitling them to access to the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not possible to provide this information, since it is not the practice, on security grounds, to make public the names of individual Palace of Westminster photo-identity pass holders.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on below the line redundancy costs as a result of hospital domestic services privatisation.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 31 March, at column 660. No further information is held centrally.

  Rampton Special Hospital
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the capital expenditure on Rampton special hospital for each year since 1980; and what is the planned future capital expenditure.

  Mr. Newton
  Major and minor capital expenditure combined was as follows:

  Financial year

  £000

  1980–81

  972

  1981–82

  350

  1982–83

  294

  1983–84

  935

  1984–85

  1,891

  1985–86

  378

  1986–87

  834

  1987–88

  1,250

  Future major capital expenditure planned for the current financial year up to and including 1992–93 is £17·26 million. Provision for minor capital expenditure will be determined annually from within the resources available for the special hospitals service.

  Teaching Hospitals
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to provide for an element of direct central funding of teaching hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  The additional service costs associated with providing teaching facilities are already protected through the service increment for teaching (SIFT) which is distributed in relation to the numbers of medical students in each region.
  247
  SIFT along with other aspects of the resource allocation working party (RAWP) formula is currently under review. Any recommendations which may emerge will be carefully considered.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what courses are available for nurses and midwives to undertake further training to improve the scope and standard of their skills.

  Mr. Newton
  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has issued outline curricula for 106 post-basic clinical courses, designed to enhance the scope and standard of skills of nurses and midwives. These courses cover clinical nursing skills, work with particular client groups, or research. Most are available at more than one centre throughout the country.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the English national board for further information.

  In addition, schemes are available through the NHS training authority to assist nurses and midwives who wish to obtain a first degree in a subject relevant to their work and career aspirations and for those who wish to train for general management in the NHS. There are also a variety of management development programmes to assist nurses in their careers.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the recommended staffing levels by patient category in hospitals; and what are the current staffing levels listed by each health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  Staffing levels for particular patient categories are a matter for local decision. For current staff in post figures, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 31 March, at columns 665–69.

  Alarm Systems
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will investigate the cost-effectiveness of a national centrally funded scheme of meeting the charges necessary to upgrade domestic telephone sockets to enable elderly residents to have house alarm systems installed by local authorities where that provision would enable them to live in the community and not in institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so. The supply of emergency alarms is a matter for local authorities, which would no doubt approach British Telecom in suitable circumstances.

  Pathology
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the Management Advisory Service report on pathology staffing will be published.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on the Management Advisory Services' report on pathology staffing in England;
  248
  (2) when he expects publication of the Management Advisory Services' report on pathology staffing in England.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 28 March 1988, at column 336.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average percentage payment to recipients of the vibration white finger prescribed industrial disease benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Average payments for vibration white finger on claims made since 1 October 1986 have been at the 30 per cent. rate (currently £20·16 per week). Since that date disablement benefit has not generally been payable where disablement is assessed at less than 14 per cent.

  Consultants
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) in which National Health Service regions consultants' contracts are held at regional and district level, respectively; and if he will list the districts which hold consultant contracts;

  (2) how many National Health Service consultants' contracts are held at regional and district levels, respectively; and what criteria determine whether contracts are held by district health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  With the exception of
  teaching districts, consultants' contracts in England are held by regional health authorities. The teaching districts are listed as follows:

  Newcastle

  Camberwell

  Leeds Western

  Lewisham and North

  Leeds Eastern

  Southwark

  Leicestershire

  Wandsworth

  Nottingham

  Southampton and South

  Sheffield

  West Hampshire

  Cambridge

  Oxfordshire

  Parkside

  Bristol and Weston

  Riverside

  Central Birmingham

  Hampstead

  Liverpool

  Bloomsbury

  Central Manchester

  City and Hackney

  South Manchester

  Tower Hamlets

  Salford

  West Lambeth

  Social Workers (Vetting)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has in relation to the number of social workers and medical staff who have been vetted by police before they are employed in jobs where they work with children; and whether his Department keeps information as to the number of people refused employment and the reasons therefor.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not collected by the Department. Such information as is available is collected by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Benefits (Advertising)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department is spending on(a) advertising as a whole and (b) television advertising to publicise the changes in the social security benefit system; and if he will give a breakdown on the spending in relation to each main such change.

  Mr. Portillo
  A breakdown of the costs incurred so far on advertising is as follows:

  Spent July 1986–May 1988

  (a) Total £

  (b) Television £

  General reform advertising

  270,650

  —

  Pensions

  205,800

  64,000

  Maternity benefits

  344,600

  —

  Housing benefits

  55,400

  —

  Family credit

  322,100

  322,100

  Income support

  126,300

  —

  Widows' benefits

  49,400

  —

  Funeral benefits

  59,100

  —

  In 1988–89 we plan to spend a further £4 million, mainly on pensions and family credit advertising. Approximately half of this will be spent on television.

  Free Milk
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what change he expects there to be in the numbers of families eligible for free milk on the implementation of clause 11 of the Social Security Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  At the latest date for which information is available (February 1986) around 786,000 families were entitled to free welfare milk because they were receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement, or were claiming under the low-income scheme. Following the changes introduced earlier this month by regulations made under the Social Security Act 1988, families receiving income support (about 633,000 on the basis of the numbers previously receiving supplemenary benefit) will still be entitled to free welfare milk. In family credit, provision is made in cash instead, by including an additional amount of £2–55 in the child credit rates for each child. The low-income scheme has been abolished. On the basis of the estimates in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" (October 1987) over 100,000 more children under five will receive the cash addition in family credit than were previously entitled to free welfare milk through receipt of family income supplement or under the low-income scheme.

  Eye Tests (Pontefract)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the Pontefract area health authority had eye tests in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate he can make of how many would not have received free tests if his Department's new regulations had applied at the time.

  Mr. Newton
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to eye tests carried out under the general ophthalmic services. These are the responsibility of the family practitioner committee and it is not possible to give information for particular health authority areas.250
  However, the figures for the Wakefield FPC, which includes the area covered by the Pontefract district health authority, were 68,449 for the year ended 31 December 1987. The provisions of the Health and Medicines Bill would confine NHS eye tests to children under 16, full time students under 19, the registered blind and partially sighted, people on low incomes and those with diabetes or glaucoma who are referred by the doctor managing their condition. It is estimated these groups account for a little over one third of eye tests.

  Listeria Monocytogenes
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if(a) his Department and (b) the Yorkshire regional health authority will be represented at the international conference on the human pathogen listeria monocytogenes in Hungary in August;

  (2) by whom his Department was represented at the international conference on 1 March at Leatherhead on the human pathogen listeria monocytogenes.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department was represented by an environmental health officer at the conference "Listeria and its Implications for Food Safety" held on March 1 at the Leatherhead Food Research Association. There are no plans at present for the Department to be represented at the international conference to be held in Pesc, Hungary from 22 to 26 August 1988. Yorkshire regional health authority representation is a matter for that authority to decide. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the RHA chairman, Mr. Bryan Askew, for details.

  Brook Hospital, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to complete his consideration of the proposal to transfer the neuro-sciences unit from the Brook hospital, Woolwich; and if he is yet able to indicate when he plans to visit the hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  Either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health will visit the Brook hospital and the proposed site of the new centre at the Maudsley hospital, before a final decision is made. It is hoped to make this visit within the next two months.

  Cook-chill System
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what scientific evaluation of the cook-chill system has been carried out by his Department or any other relevant organisation;

  (2) if he will conduct a full inquiry into the cost and safety aspects of the cook-chill system.

  Mrs. Currie
  Cook-chill is a long established method of preparing food in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. As with any technically sophisticated system, safety rests on the strict application of procedures and principles developed over time. In the United Kingdom, these are described in the Department's "Guidelines on pre-cooked chilled foods" published in 1980, which have been reviewed and updated by an expert working group. The new edition will be published shortly. The review included consideration of scientific data from both long-established
  251
  and more recently established cook-chill units and took account of relevant published scientific papers. The guidelines will be kept under review.

  Decisions to introduce cook-chill are taken by commercial or institutional managers in the light of local catering needs. The design of each system, including its cost effectiveness, must relate to those needs.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if the provisions relating to food hygiene circulated in a letter in January from Mr. David Thompson, head of catering, to all regional and district health authority general managers requiring that local environental health officers, control of infection officers, medical officers of environmental health and local medical microbiologists or public health laboratories are consulted before the introduction of cook-chill catering systems have been met by health authorities in the Yorkshire region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities determine their own catering strategies and pattern of delivery within the framework of broad guidelines and management principles issued centrally. Information is not routinely collected on the manner in which health authorities use this guidance and the hon. Member should consult the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority on the practices adopted in that region.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much of the £4 billion increase in real terms in social security expenditure over the period 1978–79 to 1987–88 was accounted for by increases or offsetting decreases in real terms in the average amounts of benefit paid, for each of the benefits listed in table 15.1 of Cm. 288-II; and what was the year-on-year increase.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated increase in real terms in social security expenditure over the period 1978–79 to 1987–88 is £13 billion. An analysis of the £4 billion increase over that period caused by increases in the average amounts of benefits paid cannot be provided in precisely the form requested, but the available information is set out in the table. Further analysis showing year-on-year increases could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Analysis of real changes in average amount of benefit paid1 Great Britain

  £ million

  Retirement Pension

  1,330

  Christmas Bonus

  (120)

  Widow's Benefit

  50

  Unemployment Benefit

  (360)

  Sickness Benefit

  (60)

  Invalidity Benefit

  160

  Death Grant

  (30)

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  20

  Maternity Allowance

  (20)

  War Pension

  130

  Attendance Allowance

  30

  Invalid Care Allowance

  20

  NCIP/SDA

  60

  Mobility Allowance

  100

  Supplementary Benefit & Certificated Housing Benefit2 3

  840

  Standard Housing Benefit

  420

  Child Benefit4

  1,380

  252

  £ million

  One Parent Benefit

  60

  Family Income Supplement

  50

  Maternity Grant

  (30)

  1 Benefits where the change has an effect of less than £10 million have been excluded. Figures in brackets ( ) refer to decreases.

  2 Housing benefit is rent rebate and rent allowance. Rate rebates are excluded as they are not classified as public expenditure.

  3 Certificated housing benefit has been added to supplementary benefit to ensure a consistent basis for the comparison. The supplementary benefits figure for 1978–79 included the housing costs of supplementary benefit recipients.

  4 The increase is based on an analysis of public expenditure only and takes no account of tax allowance available in 1978–79.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures the Government are taking to ensure that there are adequate staff in specialties, including geriatrics and psychogeriatrics, where pay increases will be between 4 and 6 per cent.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government share the view of the Nurses' Pay Review Body that the new clinical structure offers an outstanding opportunity to improve the attractions of nursing as a career and that it will play an important part in improving recruitment and retention. Nurses in geriatric and psychogeriatrics stand to benefit from the new structure and from this year's average pay award of 15·3 per cent. and many working in these specialties will receive pay increases significantly in excess of 6 per cent.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he has given to local authorities with regard to the implementation of the Data Protection Act within local authority social services departments.

  Mrs. Currie
  In September 1987 we issued to all local authorities circular LAC(87)10, a copy of which is in the Library. This gave guidance on the limitations to an individual's right of access to personal information laid down in the social work order made under the Act. Guidance on the rights of children and parents under the Act is in preparation. Guidance generally on the operation of the Act has been issued by the Data Protection Registrar.

  Juvenile Offenders (Supervision)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he intends to take following the publication of his Department's report on the practice of supervision of juvenile offenders.

  Mrs. Currie
  This report was the result of a joint inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation and the inspectorate of social services on practice and supervision of juvenile offenders in two non-metropolitan counties in England. The inspection was designed to obtain information about the effectiveness of the supervision order; to assist those agencies involved in the inspection of the future development of their services; and to provide material to assist other social services departments and probation services in their work.

  The report was drawn to the attention of directors of social services by the chief inspector of the social services

  253
  inspectorate on 16 December 1987. In doing so he highlighted a number of matters of concern both in the treatment of young offenders and in maintaining the confidence of courts in making supervision orders to reduce the numbers sentenced to custody, and drew attention to the recommendations related to these points included in the report. Copies of the report were sent also to the relevant local authority and professional associations.

  The social services inspectorate continues to follow-up the implications of the inspection report in discussions with the two local authorities who participated in the study. The Department will continue to draw on the conclusions and recommendations in the report in considering future policy on supervision orders for juvenile offenders.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to maintain the level of child benefit payments in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 12 April, at column 86.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to promote the publication in local newspapers of information on individual consultants' waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  As part of the waiting list initiative we are encouraging district health authorities to make information about in and out-patient waiting times more widely available to general practitioners and the general public. It is for each health authority to decide how this may best be achieved.

  Income Support
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes changes to the income support scheme in the light of his announcement of 27 April.

  Mr. Scott
  In addition to the more flexible approach to the treatment of property as capital which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, we propose making three other small changes to the rules governing the income related benefits.

  We will provide transitional protection for disabled people, lone parents and pensioners who were receiving supplementary benefit but who are not entitled to income support because of changes in the rules relating to full-time work.

  Secondly, we will also provide that certain young people in full-time education who lost their benefit on 11 April because they were over 19 years old will get protection. Both these groups of people will be able to look for this special help to the new central unit, announced yesterday.

  Thirdly, we intend to give additional protection to certain small groups who were temporarily away from home during the week before 11 April. We have in mind,
  254
  for example, people who were temporarily in hospital or respite care and those who were abroad getting medical treatment. This extra help will be provided through the income support scheme.

  These additional minor changes will be introduced as soon as practicable and will target help to particularly vulnerable groups. Procedures for claiming these new forms of transitional protection will be announced shortly.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the chiropody service;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the chiropody profession;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the future of the chiropody profession;

  (4) when he intends to reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East on the future of chiropody services in January and Februrary; and if he will give the reasons for the delay.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 22 April 1988, c. 596]: The Cartwright report, "More Trouble with Feet", pointed to the need to improve chiropody services for the elderly. We have concluded that a number of recommendations in the report should be implemented and we propose discussing with the chiropody profession and other interested bodies how this might be achieved.

  These discussions are likely to cover the wider use of foot care assistants, encouraging more contractual and sessional arrangements with private chiropodists, and the place which chiropodists might play in primary care teams in the future, as suggested in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health".

  Michael Forsyth Ltd.
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all contacts by(a) Ministers in his Department and (b) civil servants in his Department with representatives of Michael Forsyth Ltd; Michael Forsyth Associates and subsidiaries thereof, in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 April 1988, c. 545–46]: I have today attended the Pensions Journalist of the Year lunch arranged by Michael Forsyth Limited, acting on behalf of the Alexander Consultants Group.

  Mental Handicap Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to publish advice to local services on issues of common concern for people with mental handicaps, relating to the integration of people with additional needs such as challenging behaviour and people with (i) mental handicaps and (ii) mental illness.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 March 1988]: The Department's paper' "Mental Handicap: policies and priorities" draws attention to the need to identify mentally handicapped people with special needs and to plan services to meet them. "Helping Mentally Handicapped People with Special Problems", the report of a departmental study team, was published in 19842. It covered special needs such as multiple and sensory handicaps and behaviour

  255
  disturbance in severely mentally handicapped people. In recognition of the special needs of mentally handicapped people who are also mentally ill or behaviourally disturbed, a departmental team has undertaken a programme of visits and discussions with people who are currently providing or planning services to respond to the needs of these individuals. The Department is now considering how best to share information about services and facilities. We are also sponsoring a number of relevant research studies which it is hoped will help health and local authorities to plan services.

  1 Paragraph 32 of Annex 2 of the Government's response to the Second Report from the Social Services Committee on Community Care. (Cmnd. 9674).

  2DHSS.

  Labour Statistics (Castleford)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many unemployed persons over the age of 50 years and out of work for more than one year, broken down by sex. there are in the Castleford travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 14 January 1988 there were 1,280 male and 186 female unemployed claimants aged over 50 years who had been unemployed for one year or more in the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chickens
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions in respect of unnecessary pain or distress caused to broiler and battery chickens in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of prosecutions undertaken and convictions obtained by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of causing unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to poultry in England within the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1987

  1

  1

  1986

  1

  1

  1985

  Nil

  Nil

  1984

  Nil

  Nil

  1983

  1

  1

  Pigs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the marketing of pigs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government support the action being taken by the Meat and Livestock Commission and Food From Britain to improve the marketing of British meat, including pigmeat. Assistance is also available for the improvement of pig processing facilities under EC regulations 355/77.

  Cows
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the premium payable on suckler cows; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We increased the suckler cow premium by £8·66 to £33·40 for the 1987–88 scheme year. The period for applications under the 1988–89 scheme cannot begin before 15 June and the arrangements to apply in that year will be announced nearer the time.

  Beef Variable Premium
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the retention of the beef variable premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received representations from producers which point to the value of the beef variable premium scheme. Those involved in the meat trade, particularly those exporting beef, have pointed to the disadvantages which the BVPS has for them because of the clawback on exports. The retention of the BVPS until the end of this year was an important feature of the settlement in December 1986. We shall be negotiating later this year on the arrangements for 1989.

  Bovine Spongiform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the extent of bovine spongiform throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As at 22 April, 430 cases of BSE had been confirmed on 359 farms in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department will provide more information to farmers and veterinarians about the disease bovine spongiform.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  All the known facts about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) have been made available to the veterinary profession, the farming industry and the specialist media.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines his Department intends to give to farmers and veterinarians on the problem of bovine spongiform.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Advice, based on the current state of knowledge about the disease, is being provided, particularly through the Ministry's veterinary investigaton centres. There have also been a number of Ministry scientific presentations, publications and general articles on the subject including one, giving the latest advice, which will appear in this week'sVeterinary Record.

  Research and Development
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when lie expects to announce a decision on the future of research and development in agriculture, fisheries and food in the light of the finalisation of the Barnes review.
  257
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 25 April at column 43.

  Foodstuffs (Radioactivity)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to the answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 155, he will list (a) the maximum permitted levels of radioactive caesium in foodstuffs for

  Malaysia

  CS-127

  CS-134

  Bq/kg (CS-137+CS-134)

  (from 1 October 1986)

  Milk and Milk Products and Mineral Water

  120

  60

  180

  Fruit and Vegetables— Fresh and Processed

  216

  108

  324

  Meat, Meat Products, Fish and other Sea Food—Fresh and Processed

  360

  180

  540

  Cereals Including Cornflour and Barley

  168

  84

  252

  Philippines

  Bq/kg CS-137+CS-134

  From 1 July 1986

  Powdered whole or skimmed milk

  22·2

  Processed liquid milk

  14·8

  Cheese

  33·3

  Wheat, barley

  5·6

  Rice

  7·5

  Seafood

  27·8

  Meat except lamb

  6·0

  Lamb

  450·0

  Apples

  7·5

  From 1 October 1986

  Milk products

  Liquid milk

  15·0

  Milk powder (full cream/non fat)

  22·0

  Whey powder

  22·0

  Anhydrous milkfat/butterfat

  22·0

  Cream

  22·0

  Cheese/curd

  33·0

  Butter/raw butter

  22·0

  Food for infants/young children

  22·0

  Fruit products

  Fruit purees/concentrates

  8·0

  Fruits in syrup/brine

  8·0

  Jams/jellies/marmalades

  8·0

  Other preserved fruits (raisins, dates, glazed fruits etc.)

  8·0

  Vegetable products

  Purees/concentrates/flakes

  22·0

  Pickled/salted/dried/powdered

  22·0

  Vegetable starches

  22·0

  Protein hydrolysates

  22·0

  Meat products

  Meat pastes/spreads/extract

  6·0

  Corned beef/luncheon meat

  6·0

  Ham/pork shoulders

  6·0

  258
  Malaysia and the Philippines operated after April 1986, (b) how many consignments of milk powder were rejected (i) from the European Community and (ii) from the United Kingdom, (c) the volume or weight of these rejected consignments and (d) what happened to each rejected consignment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: I understand that the maximum permitted radiocaesium levels in feedstuffs operated by Malaysia and the Philippines after April 1986 are as follows:

  Bq/kg CS-137+CS-134

  Sausages

  6·0

  Cereal products

  Oatmeal

  6·0

  Corn flakes/meal

  6·0

  Malt extract

  6·0

  Fish/marine products

  28·0

  Miscellaneous

  Cocoa powder/chocolate drink

  22·0

  Tonic food drink

  22·0

  Chocolate bars/chocolate candies

  22·0

  Roasted coffee (ground)

  22·0

  Dextrose/glucose/honey

  2·0

  I do not have the details requested of the consignments of milk powder rejected by these countries except in the case of three consignments from the United Kingdom. The information I have on these is as follows:

  Ultimate destination

  Weight (tonnes)

  Netherlands for use in animal feed

  390·0/6·5

  Republic of Ireland (from which this consignment originated)

  15·0

  I repeat the statement I made in replying to the previous question on this subject on 13 April at column 155. I am fully satisfied that these feedstuffs posed no risk to public health.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  War Loan
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the register of those holding 3½ per cent. war loan is computerised.
  259
  Mr. Lilley
  The 3½ per cent. war loan is held on four registers; at the Bank of England, the Bank of Ireland in Belfast and Dublin, and on the national savings stock register. All of these registers are now held on computer, but the computerised registers do not show changes in ownership of war loan prior to computerisation.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the average percentage effect of the rise from 140 to 187 in the sterling-dollar exchange rate, on the income received for manufactured goods exported from Britain to the United States of America in the last quarter of 1987 and the first quarter of 1988.

  Mr. Major
  The effect of exchange rate changes on the value of exports depends on a number of factors and is difficult to separate from other determinants of trade performance. In the three months to February 1988—the latest period for which published figures are available — the value of total exports of goods to the United States was 2½ per cent. higher than in the previous three months.

  Consumers' expenditure estimates—Current prices

  £ million

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Books

  619

  665

  706

  806

  911

  Records etc1

  691

  790

  895

  1,062

  1,239

  Cinema

  124

  104

  132

  142

  150

  Other admissions2

  1,635

  1,819

  2,065

  2,401

  2,658

  Newspapers and magazines

  1,967

  2,095

  2,334

  2,431

  2,594

  Catering (meals and accommodation)3

  10,439

  12,015

  13,306

  15,297

  17,571

  Alcoholic drink

  13,370

  14,430

  15,783

  16,474

  17,338

  Betting and gaming

  1,841

  1,969

  2,114

  2,250

  2,458

  Social etc. subscriptions4

  150

  163

  159

  177

  174

  Leisure goods except records etc. and on pets5

  2,566

  2,796

  3,109

  3,451

  3,799

  TV licences, hire and repairs

  2,027

  2,108

  2,307

  2,527

  2,640

  1 Also includes audio and video tapes.

  2 Has broadly similar coverage to theatres, live arts and spectator sports.

  3 Besides all meals purchased and consumed away from the home, includes hotel and residential accommodation.

  4 Includes subscriptions to sports clubs.

  5 Includes sports goods, toys, camping equipment, plants and seeds, photographic films and processing.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Photocopying Machines
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many photocopying machines there are within the Civil Service; and how many are fitted with a user code requirement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Civil Service Departments are no longer required to obtain all their photocopiers through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but HMSO estimates that there are about 25,000 photocopiers in the Civil Service, of which around 1,000 are fitted with user code devices.

  Tea Ladies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many tea ladies are employed in the Civil Service; and what steps are being taken to provide refreshment machines.

  Consumer Expenditure
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of consumer expenditure in each of the last five years on(a) books, (b) records and audio tapes, (c) video tapes, (d) cinema, (e) theatre, (f) live arts, (g) newspapers and periodicals, (h) restaurants, (i) alcoholic drinks, (j) sport and (k) leisure.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: Not all the categories of expenditure mentioned in the question are separately distinguished in the consumers' expenditure estimates compiled and published by the Central Statistical Office. The table gives figures of consumers' expenditure as closely as possible with the categories requested. A detailed breakdown of consumers' expenditure is published annually in the United Kingdom National Accounts (the CSC) Blue Book). An even finer level of breakdown is shown in an analysis available on subscription from the Central Statistical Office. This is the source of the figures given in this answer and I am arranging to have the latest version of the analysis placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Civil Service does not employ tea ladies. Refreshment machines are provided where these are cost-effective and where funds permit.

THE ARTS

  Ethnic Minority Arts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts hove much the Arts Council has spent on(a) Afro-Caribbean and Asian arts and (b) other ethnic minorities in each financial year since its ethnic minority action plan was launched; and what percentage of its total budget this represents in each year.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council's spending on ethnic minority arts was £960,166 in 1986–87 and £1,024,178 in 1987–88.

  This figure covers only the council's direct expenditure in England and does not include expenditure by the

  261
  regional arts associations, Scottish and Welsh Arts Council programmes, activities promoted by client organisations of the Arts Council and visiting arts expenditure, in respect of which an ethnic breakdown is not held centrally.

  A report on ethnic minority arts will be published by the council later this year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list in the Official Report all the individuals and organisations which benefited from the Arts Council's expenditure on (a) Afro-Caribbean Arts and (b) other ethnic minorities, and the sums by which they benefited in the years 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested as it relates to the Arts Council's direct expenditure in England, is as follows:

  Arts Council expenditure on ethnic minority arts 1986–87 to 1987–88

  £

  Music

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Sounds of Africa

  5,500

  WOMAD

  1,500

  Dade Krama

  3,300

  Wilf Walker Entertainments

  6,000

  National Steel Band Festival

  7,000

  23,300

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Black Music Fair

  15,000

  National Steel Band Festival

  20,000

  Sunsplash

  5,000

  Dade Krama

  7,000

  Wilf Walker Entertainments

  10,000

  L & H Promotions

  2,500

  Black Music Archives

  2,500

  Sunsplash

  3,500

  Arts Worldwide (African Tour)

  2,500

  Triple Earth

  3,500

  Caribbean Year

  2,500

  Training awards

  10,000

  84,000

  1986–87—Asian

  Ceylon Bloomsbury

  1,500

  Sanskritik Festival

  42,500

  UK. University Circuit

  900

  Alpana Sengupta

  3,800

  Arts Worldwide

  12,000

  60,700

  1987–88—Asian

  Sanskritik Festival

  41,200

  Arts Worldwide

  15,000

  Bhaven

  900

  One World

  6,850

  East West Musical Encounter

  2,000

  Arts Worldwide

  5,360

  Arts Worldwide

  4,000

  Recordings

  10,000

  85,310

  Film

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Aubrey Williams

  36,000

  H. Wilson

  1,000

  Carol Enahoro

  614

  Circles

  1,500

  262

  £

  39,114

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Association for Curriculum Development

  3,000

  Carol Enahoro

  1,500

  Keith Piper

  650

  Patricia Diaz and M. Mcintosh

  4,500

  9,650

  1986–87—Asian

  No awards were made in this financial year

  1987–88—Asian

  Parminder Vir and Julian Henriques

  40,000

  Pratiba Parmar

  3,000

  Alia Syed

  500

  43,500

  Literature

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Grace Nichols

  5,000

  1986–87—Asian

  Mahmood Jamal

  5,000

  Balraj Khanna

  5,000

  10,000

  Combined arts

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Carnival and Arts Committee

  98,000

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Carnival and Arts Committee

  100,000

  Art

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Sonia Boyce

  3,000

  Aubrey Williams

  3,500

  Demax: Eddie Chambers

  5,760

  Artists Maps

  416

  Daylight Club

  463

  Sculpture in the City

  320

  13,459

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Artangel Trust

  3,000

  Rochdale Gallery

  2,700

  Chisenhale

  4,758

  Paddington Printshop

  7,000

  Camden Press

  3,960

  Veronica Ryan

  10,000

  31,418

  1986–87—Asian

  Saleem Arif

  2,000

  Women Sculptors

  520

  2,520

  1987–88—Asian

  Third Text

  4,000

  Bazaar

  10,000

  Fires Publishing

  1,600

  15,600

  Photography

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Armet Francis

  5,000

  263

  £

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Black Women & Photography

  5,000

  Association of Black

  Photographers

  8,000

  13,000

  Touring—Contemporary Music Network

  1986–87—Asian

  Sumul Nori

  28,827

  1987–88—Asian

  Peshkar

  50,550

  Dance

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Black Dance Development Trust

  14,000

  Phoenix

  65,000

  Adinkra

  15,000

  Adzido

  12,500

  Delado

  7,500

  Irie

  3,000

  Kokuma

  7,500

  125,000

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Kokuma

  24,700

  Adzido

  17,500

  Beach Danel Development Trust

  16,500

  IDJ

  5,000

  Delado

  12,500

  Irie

  5,000

  81,200

  1986–87—Asian

  Suraya Hilal

  2,500

  Shobana Jeyasingh

  8,000

  Alpana Sengupta

  8,500

  Academy of Indian Dance

  6,000

  Natya Padam

  4,000

  Nahid Siddiqui

  2,000

  31,000

  1987–88—Asian

  Nahid Siddiqui

  3,500

  Pratap Pawar

  5,000

  Shobana Jeyasingh

  5,000

  Pushkala Gopal and Unnikrishnan

  6,000

  Natya Padam

  1,000

  A Fiercer Kind of Being

  4,000

  24,500

  Drama

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Black Theatre Co-op

  95,300

  Temba

  126,750

  Black Theatre Workshop

  14,000

  Bow Gamelan Ensemble

  4,744

  Carib Theatre

  12,000

  Double Edge

  20,000

  L'Ouverture Theatre Trust

  18,990

  Talawa

  33,000

  Theatre of Black Women

  26,200

  Umoja

  14,730

  365,714

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Black Theatre Co-op

  104,500

  Temba

  100,000

  Theatre of Black Women

  10,000

  264

  £

  Talawa

  31,700

  Gbakanda Afrikan Tiata

  4,100

  Staunch

  26,700

  277,000

  1986–87—Asian

  British Asian Theatre

  8,000

  Eastern Actors Studio

  2,530

  Tara Arts

  89,301

  99,831

  1987–88—Asian

  British Asian Theatre

  30,000

  Eastern Actors' Studio

  8,000

  Tara Arts

  105,500

  143,500

  Theatre Writing Schemes

  1986–87—Afro-Caribbean

  Focof Novo Ltd.

  2,400

  L'Ouverture Theatre Trust

  800

  Roots Theatre Company

  951

  Sickle Cell Clinic

  750

  Temba

  4,800

  9,701

  1987–88—Afro-Caribbean

  Action Transport

  1,500

  Caesar, Burt

  2,000

  Carib Theatre Co.

  1,200

  Good Co.

  900

  Ikoli, Tunde

  2,400

  Oval Womens Writers W/Shop

  1,200

  ReSisters Theatre Co.

  950

  Royal Court

  2,400

  Second Wave

  600

  Strange Fruit Theatre Co.

  1,500

  Worcester Arts W/Shop

  500

  15,150

  1986–87—Asian

  Asian Cooperative Theatre

  1,000

  1987–88—Asian

  Alrawi, Karim

  2,400

  Dance Umbrella

  500

  Raif, Ayshe

  2,400

  Yorkshire Womens Theatre Co.

  500

  5,800

  Planning

  1986–87

  Minorities Arts Advisory Service

  30,000

  Training Bursaries

  12,000

  42,000

  1987–88

  Minorities Arts Advisory Service

  44,000

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the future generation of electricity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the future generation of electricity in Northern Ireland.
  265
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the future generation of electricity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The results of an investment appraisal of the proposals for the next phase of generating capacity submitted by Northern Ireland Electricity and the Antrim Power Company Limited are currently being considered. Decisions will be taken as soon as possible.

  Health and Social Services
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of funding for health and social services in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  Total funding for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland in 1988–89 will amount to £873 million — equivalent to over £557 per head of the population.

  Social Security
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the effects of the social security changes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the effects of the social security changes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the effects of the social security changes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Representations concerning the effects have been made by some district councils, some voluntary bodies and some Members of this House. The effects will generally be the same as in Great Britain and the additional transitional protection and other helpful measures announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend will apply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding assistance other than capital moneys, his Department intends to target towards integrated maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's present proposal to facilitate the establishment of grant-maintained integrated schools includes 100 per cent. funding direct from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Recurrent grants would include special purpose grants to take account of special needs arising in particular circumstances.

  Economic Activity (West Belfast)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to promote economic activity in west Belfast; and if he will make a statement.
  266
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to promote economic activity in west Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to promote economic activity in west Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  We are most anxious to see an improvement in economic activity in west Belfast, and we are considering urgently what additional practical steps we might take to promote it. Success, however, will not be achieved by the efforts of Government alone; the private and voluntary sectors must have a major role. The biggest single boost to the prospects of the area would come from the renunciation of violence which is a major obstacle to achieving better prospects for all who live there.

  Security
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on security in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation in Northern Ireland.

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

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

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

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

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

  Health Service
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his plans for the Health Service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend's long-term strategy for the health and personal social services remains as set out in the regional strategy which was published in August 1987.

  I will shortly be meeting the chairman of each of the four health and social services boards at accountability reviews at which one of my aims will be to consider and agree with them on detailed plans for 1988–89.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the chairmen of the Province's health and social services boards to discuss the level of health provision in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I will shortly be meeting each board chairman at the annual accountability review. These
  267
  meetings will concentrate largely on the revised operational plans for 1988–89 submitted by the boards and I shall agree with each chairman plans and objectives for the coming year. These will aim to continue progress with the regional strategy within the level of resources now made available.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet the chairmen of the Province's area health and social services boards to discuss the level of health provision in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I will shortly be meeting the chairman of each board at the annual round of accountability reviews.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received relating to legislation concerning disabled persons in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The hon. Member, two other hon. Members, and the Northern Ireland Council on Disability, have made representations regarding the application to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 affecting disabled persons.

  Regional Council
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland, with widely developed powers over local matters.

  Mr. Tom King
  No, but in the present discussions I am prepared to listen to all constructive proposals that can command a broad measure of support and could genuinely provide a greater degree of involvement and responsibility for people in Northern Ireland.

  House Building
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to discuss the level of house building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to discuss the level of house building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Secretary of State and I met the chairman and members of the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on 16 March 1988. We discussed the planned level of funding for the housing programme and the associated levels of physical activity, including new housebuilding.

  Sentences (Remission)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the policy of granting remission of sentences.

  Mr. Stanley
  In accordance with rule 26 of the Prison Rules (Northern Ireland) 1982, all prisoners serving fixed-term sentences of more than five days are awarded 268
  remission of 50 per cent. of their sentences. Periods of remission can be lost for offences against prison discipline, up to a maximum of 180 days for each offence. Those serving sentences of more than one year who are released with remission may, if convicted of a further imprisonable offence during the period until their sentence would (but for remission) have expired, be obliged by a court to serve the remainder of that period either concurrently or consecutively with their further sentence. This power is available only in Northern Ireland and not in the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland does not, however have any parole system.

  Catholic Hierarchy (Meetings)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no meeting immediately planned, but I and my ministerial colleagues maintain regular contact with a range of Church and community leaders. I last met Cardinal O'Fiaich, together with other Church leaders, on 21 March.

  Political Parties (Talks)
  Mr Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has held recently with the political parties in Northern Ireland on constitutional proposals for the Province.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison).

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations from the United States of America concerning the Government's proposals to promote equality of opportunity in employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  My right hon. Friend received one written submission from an organisation in the United States of America, in response to the Government's consultative paper on equality of opportunity. American public representatives and business men have also expressed views on equality of opportunity directly to the Secretary of State and to ministerial colleagues. A White Paper on the Goverment's new proposals on fair employment is now being prepared with a view to publication in late spring.

  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ask the Fair Employment Agency to advise him with regard to an affirmative action programme for his Department to rectify the imbalances in employment opportunities in that office as highlighted by the reports of the equal opportunities unit for the Northern Ireland Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  The equal opportunities unit for the Northern Ireland Civil Service is already in touch with both the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission over the development of its monitoring role. The unit's method of operation and its future work programme were set out in reports published in July 1986 and December 1987.
  269
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations from the United States of America concerning the Government's proposals to promote equality of opportunity in employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  My right hon. Friend received one written submission from an organisation in the United States of America, in response to the Government's consultative paper on equality of opportunity and a number of American public representatives and business men have also expressed views directly to my right hon. Friend and to ministerial colleagues.

  Aerosols
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there are any plans to ban the use of aerosols in his Department's buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  There are no proposals to ban the use of aerosols in my Department's buildings.

  Unlawful Killings
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the trend of unlawful killings in Northern Ireland both connected and unconnected with the security situation; and what was the trend in the period before the death penalty was removed in the Province.

  Mr. Stanley
  In line with legislation in Great Britain the death sentence was removed from the statute books in Northern Ireland on 6 August 1966 in respect of ordinary crime. However, it was retained in the Province"for the murder of a policeman or person in the Service of the Crown acting in the course of any duty involving the enforcement of the law"

  until 8 August 1973.

  Only convictions for murder and not unlawful killing (manslaughter) could have resulted in the death penalty being imposed. The following table therefore shows the numbers of all murders committed in Northern Ireland during the period 1960 to 1987 (connected and unconnected with the security situation).

  Total murders in Northern Ireland 1960–1987

  Numbers

  1960

  9

  1961

  5

  1962

  2

  1963

  —

  1964

  1

  1965

  1

  1966

  3

  1967

  5

  1968

  5

  1969

  5

  1970

  14

  1971

  123

  1972

  376

  1973

  200

  1974

  205

  1975

  238

  1976

  280

  1977

  116

  1978

  82

  1979

  128

  1980

  85

  1981

  95

  270

  Numbers

  1982

  99

  1983

  86

  1984

  63

  1985

  59

  1986

  85

  1987

  100

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress towards creating a form of democratic administration in the Province.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Government believe that elected representatives should be more fully involved in decision-making. I have therefore been seeking to bring about a constructive dialogue between the constitutional political parties about the future government of Northern Ireland. These efforts are continuing.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer of 10 December 1987,Official Report, column 566, for how long he intends to monitor the operation of the community charge in Great Britain before reaching conclusions about its applicability to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  I cannot be specific about the duration of the monitoring process. It depends upon what emerges from the process and its evaluation in the light of local circumstances in Northern Ireland.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet trades union representatives in Northern Ireland to discuss economic prospects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 27 April 1988]: My right hon. Friend and I have no outstanding arrangements to meet trades union representatives, though we have met them on a number of occasions in the past to discuss economic prospects and other issues. We value these meetings.

  Fourth College, Belfast
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current position regarding the provision of a fourth college in Belfast; and if a suitable site has yet been identified in a non-sectarian part of the city.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: The provision of further education facilities in Belfast is a matter for the Belfast education and library board. I understand that a working party of the board is presently examining further education provision in Belfast but no conclusions have yet been reached.

  Consultants (Patient Referral)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the length of time between a patient being referred to a consultant for
  271
  an appointment by general practitioners and the patient actually seeing a consultant; and if he will publish this information for each area board and by specialty for the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: This information is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish out-patient waiting lists for the last five years for each area board by specialty broken down by length of time on the waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Took the Oath.

EC Policies: Consumer Integration
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to their Answer concerning consumer integration in other Community policies (HL Deb. 14th January, col. 1341), what decisions or recommendations have been made by the Council of Ministers on the first report on the integration of consumer policy in the other common policies put forward by the Commission to the Council of Ministers at the end of last year.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is expected that the Commission's report will be discussed at the next meeting of the Consumer Council on 7th or 22nd June, and that the Council will adopt conclusions on the subject then.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is the disappointing Answer we have had for two weeks running. We never seem to make progress. Is the Minister aware that his own department considers the report a disappointing document with no proposals at all for specific action? Does he realise that it was condemned by his department in another place on 11th February when the Minister concerned, by means of a written reply, said:
"it is a disappointing report recording little progress".—(Official Report, Commons, 11/2/88; col. 309.]
Will the Minister, in view of the widespread disappointment in his own department and elsewhere, produce a better answer than that he has just given?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The Government are disappointed that the report reflects little progress. At the next Consumer Council in June the Government will seek to bring pressure on the Commission to show some real progress. I am also aware that the consumer movement, in particular, the Consumers in the European Community Group, has made it clear that it too is extremely disappointed by the report.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister recall that last week his noble friend the Secretary of State told me that his department stood for enterprise? If that is the case, does he feel that it would be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Young, before the next meeting of the Council, to ask that a different report be produced for consideration? It seems a complete waste of time to discuss something which consumer organisations, both here and in Europe, consider to be worthless.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course I shall pass on the noble Baroness's comments to my noble friend. I cannot promise the action that she requests. We should all like to see more progress made on this subject.

May Day Bank Holiday
3.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering altering the date of the present May Bank Holiday so as to secure a more even distribution of bank holidays throughout the year.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government are reviewing the position of the May Day Bank Holiday, but no decision has yet been made. We are looking at a wide range of options.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which seems to me to be rather hopeful and helpful. In the course of those considerations, will the Government bear in mind that it seems ridiculous to many people to have three bank holidays at this time of year, within a span of six or seven weeks, and then only one between the beginning of June and Christmas?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has put his finger on the real problem. That problem is uppermost in our minds in conducting the review.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the fact that May Day not only celebrates organised labour and its achievements but is a folk festival of considerable antiquity dating back to pagan times, would it not be a pity if we were to abandon that holiday?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the importance of May Day depends on whom one asks. In Scotland, I understand, it marks the Act of Union.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in a great deal of Christian Europe 1st May is the beginning of the month of Mary?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the further considerations to which the noble Lord has referred include the possibility of having a fixed date for Easter, a matter which my noble friend Lord Airedale raises every year, and has raised for the past 12 years to my knowledge? Is that still an open question or has it been closed by any one of the Churches?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the requirement to fix Easter stems from the Easter Act 1927—
Noble Lords: 1928!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the Easter Act 1928, as my noble friends remind me. Speaking from memory, I believe that the requirement is that there should first be agreement among all the Churches. As yet, I understand that the Greek Orthodox Church has not made up its mind.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to the point made by the noble Baroness from the Opposition Front Bench, could not we follow what the Americans have done? For many years they have had Labour Day in the late summer, or as they would call it, the early fall.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are considering the proposition that we should have a more equal spread of the various bank holidays. We are therefore considering whether it would be possible to find a date some time in the autumn, but what particular festival it should celebrate has yet to be decided. I understand that Trafalgar Day is one of those being considered.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his last suggestion would be far more attractive to many of us than a holiday which at the moment is often known colloquially as "the feast of St. Marx and St. Engels"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier in Scotland it marks the Act of Union. I dare say that that holiday is not so regarded there.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is widely acknowledged that the strongest possible case is made for a local man; namely St. David? St. David's Day is celebrated at the end of the bleak winter as the spring is burgeoning. Will the noble Lord think again?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, but the problem is that St. David's Day is 1st March and not the middle of October.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, owing to the factionalism of the British people from all parts and of most of the Churches, would it not be wise to abandon the thought of celebrating any feast and just call it the September Bank Holiday, or something like that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I suppose we could, but I think that that would be a bit boring.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what about 1st July? People tend to want a holiday when the weather might be fine.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, 1st July is not a favourite date for the additional bank holiday because we already have quite a few in the summer.

ILEA Sports Grounds: Future
3.9 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether on the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority the Secretary of State for Education and Science will not transfer any of the 400 acres of seven major sports grounds which are not required by inner London boroughs for educational purposes to other local authorities or to sporting charities unless a condition is imposed that they are used for definite sports by the community, or educational establishments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recognises the importance of sports grounds and facilities. But we need to discuss the future use of all ILEA property with the inner London boroughs, users, and other interested parties before taking final decisions. Any property which is not transferred to the inner London boroughs on the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority will pass to the London Residuary Body.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under ILEA, possibly because of its dislike of competitive sports, these 400 invaluable acres of recreation and sports grounds are and have been grossly underused? Between now and ILEA's demise in 1990, will she initiate some discussions with local authorities, sporting authorities and clubs so that these precious areas can be more fully used by the younger generation and those who enjoy recreation and sport?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in preparing development plans for education each inner London council will be required to list the property it wishes to take over to carry out its education responsibilities. This will include sports facilities used by the schools and colleges in its area. Draft guidance on development plans was published earlier this week and sent to the boroughs. It explains the proposed arrangements for sports facilities which are used by more than one borough and also gives any other interested party the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Government agree to meet also with the Sports Council? Can they give an assurance that these valuable acres will remain for leisure and community use and not be given over to commercial developers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have consistently emphasised that we are willing to discuss the future of services in inner London with anyone with a special interest. This will include the Sports Council, the National Playing Fields Association and other similar bodies. We are happy to include anybody with such an interest in sports facilities. No disposal of the land can be made Without the agreement of the Secretary of State.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Secretary of State will be against uses other than for sports?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the processes are intended to establish these areas for sporting facilities. If there is no take-up from inner London boroughs, outer London boroughs or any other interested party, other suitable use for the land may be considered.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps initiate a survey to see how much these sporting facilities, football pitches and so on are used? The impression is given that they are grossly underused. Is it not a shame that they should lie fallow when energetic young people want to take advantage of them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the intensity of use of the facilities will be one of the important considerations.

County Hall, London
3.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the permitted planning uses for the County Hall, London SE1.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, an authoritative answer on the permitted planning uses for the County Hall can be given only by the local planning authority which is the London Borough of Lambeth. I understand that in the light of the recent judgment the established use for County Hall is the exercise of local government statutory functions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which Londoners will be pleased to hear. Can he confirm that the Government have no intention of attempting to overturn the judgment made in the courts on 28th March when London government was established as being the only valid use, a judgment which in many respects humiliated the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering what action to take.

British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 62 ["Cost floor" limit on discount on price of house purchased by secure tenant]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 37, line 22, leave Out ("5") and insert ("8").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to bring a Scottish Bill, which proposes a five-year cost floor limit, into line with the Housing Bill for England and Wales which provides for a rolling period of eight years' cost floor limit. This is for houses eligible for purchase under the right-to-buy legislation.
The "cost floor" means the price below which the discounted sale price cannot fall. The amount is based on the cost of provision incurred in a five-year period prior to the sale. If the Government wish to opt for a rolling cost floor rule, the timescale is crucial. Clause 62 was a new clause introduced by a government amendment tabled at the Report stage in another place. The present law provides that the discount shall be restricted so that the price is the lesser of the market value and any outstanding debt incurred after 31st December 1978. The proposed clause gives a rolling date for the cost floor—the beginning of the financial year five years before the right-to-buy application is made.
The proposed clause introduces the English concept of historic cost—expenditure in recent years rather than outstanding debt incurred in recent years. This makes it even more important that the Scottish Bill should change from the five years' basis to the eight years' basis as in the English Bill. It is even more important that the eight years should apply in Scotland given that houses in Scotland do not increase in value at the same rate as they do in many parts of England. In some areas of Scotland house prices are falling. I am thinking of some of the large developments associated with the oil industry. This five-year rule will cause capital losses for authorities and affect modernisation for some of their tenants.
Angus District Council completed a housing development of 103 houses in Montrose in 1987. The cost of providing the houses was £2·9 million. The current market value is of the order of £2 million. In 1991–92 the value that will be placed on the development is likely to fall significantly, house prices in that area having suffered considerably as a result of the setback in the oil industry. The figure may fall as low as £1·45 million compared with the original cost of £2·9 million. Thereafter, the houses will be available for sale at a discounted market value. The outstanding debt on the development at 1st April 1991 could be £2·6 million. I hope the Minister will accept that that is a fair point.
When it was suggested in another place during discussion of the English Bill that the period should be 10 years rather than five years, Mr. Waldegrave agreed that five years would be too little. He thought

299
that 10 years would be too much and that eight years would be just right. I agree and that is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that there is nothing sinister about the use in Scotland of a five-year rolling cost floor and in England an eight-year period. In the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Clause 62, the cut-off date for the present Scottish outstanding debt test is 31st December 1978. In the Housing Act 1985, however, Section 131 sets the relevant date for the cost floor in England at 31st March 1974. There is therefore already a difference of four years and nine months. Our proposals narrow this differential to three years.
The Government took the view, as set out in the respective White Papers for England and Scotland, that the discount restrictions which are imposed by the outstanding debt test in Scotland and the cost floor arrangements in England were a serious disincentive to many tenants planning to exercise the right to buy. The White Papers therefore suggested that these restrictions be abolished.
However, in the light of very careful and sympathetic consideration of the representations we received, we decided that something less than complete abolition of these restrictions was in order. We decided therefore to reduce the period over which they would apply, and in Scotland to simplify the arrangements to replace the outstanding debt assessment (which some authorities had had difficulty in applying) with a cost floor calculation, which should be much easier to operate. However, as I have said, the provisions in England and in Scotland are at present different; and we see no reason why they should necessarily conform after the change is made.
The Committee will note too that it is possible under Clause 62(2), which introduces a new subsection (6A) to Section 2 of the 1987 Act, for the Secretary of State by order to amend the relevant period from five years to some other figure.
The effect of this provision on housing associations has been queried. The noble Lord did not refer to that but I should like to clarify this point. It has been suggested that housing associations are very upset about the provisions that we propose to bring forward in Clause 62. Let me attempt to put the record straight. The bulk of housing association development work carried out since 1978 has been funded by a combination of the loan from the housing corporation and the housing association grant from the Government.
On average, the housing association grant covers just over 90 per cent. of the total cost of providing houses, leaving the housing associations with a loan of less than 10 per cent. of the capital cost. Therefore, the first call on the money brought in by selling a house would be the repayment of the loan held by the housing association. As this is for an extremely low percentage of the total cost it is extremely unlikely that a house will be sold for less than the amount of the loan. The consequence of a sale below the cost of providing a house would simply be that the Government would recover less housing association grant than they had given to the association.
300
Finally, it is useful to bear in mind that one consequence of the introduction of assured tenancies for all new lettings is that new tenants of housing associations will not have the right to buy. I wanted to cover that point as I know that many people are concerned about it.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about Angus district. I am aware, as no doubt the noble Lord is also aware, that there have been representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the situation in Angus district. I understand that that district contacted the Scottish Office some weeks ago seeking guidance on whether the Secretary of State will be prepared to make an order under Section 62(7) of the 1987 Act requiring the selling price of new houses in a particular new development in Montrose to be no less than the debt outstanding on those houses. This is because the market value of those houses as confirmed by a number of valuers is now much less than the cost of constructing the houses because of the effect of the rundown of oil-related development in the area, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said.
However, the department informed Angus district that the Secretary of State would be unlikely to make an order. That is because it would not be equitable to expect any tenant exercising the right to buy to pay more than the current market value of the house. Nobody should be asked to pay an amount greater than the true value of a house.
The new rules introduced by Clause 62 of the Bill will not immediately affect the position here. The tenant will continue under the cost floor rule to have to pay full market value without discount at the present time. It may be that after the five-year period over which the new cost floor will apply the council will require, if the tenants exercise the right to buy, to sell these houses for less than the historic cost of providing them. That is because, even with inflation in the interim, the market value will not have risen much beyond the historic cost and the discount will of course reduce the sale price.
However, let me emphasise that sales of this kind will be the exception. In all authorities I expect that substantially more houses, as is being proved, will be sold under the right to buy at prices well above the debt outstanding than are sold below that figure. I have looked very carefully at this situation. I believe the new rules introduced by Clause 62 are entirely reasonable. They reflect points put to us by local authorities and others. We do not see any need for the period in which the cost floor operates to be the same in Scotland as in England. But if experience shows that a change is needed in the Scottish rules or in the English rules for that matter there are powers to make the necessary amendments by order.
As I said earlier, in all authorities we expect the majority of right-to-buy sales to continue to be at prices well above outstanding debt levels. Therefore, I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should not dare to criticise the Government but I simply do not understand the situation which has been envisaged by this provision. I hope that the Minister is right in saying that the housing associations will not suffer. They are deeply

301
concerned that they may and will suffer. I can do no more than accept what the Minister has said as regards housing associations not suffering under this provision. I take it that if they do suffer or show a likelihood of suffering the Secretary of State may use his powers to remove this provision.
I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I thought he said that the right to buy of housing association tenants had been taken away. I do not know what the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be to this matter, but I shall not press it at present. I am frankly relying on the Minister's judgment on a matter which I do not understand. If the Minister says that this provision is all right, I must accept that. But I shall hold him to ransom if in future that view is found not to be correct.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall try to reply to my noble friend Lord Selkirk by saying that the people who will really lose are the taxpayer and the Government and not the housing associations themselves, bearing in mind the financial arrangements under which they operate. That should be sufficient assurance to my noble friend on that point relative to housing associations.
My noble friend also asked about the position in housing associations after the enactment of this Bill. I know that the right to buy is a point close to his heart. I remember that in the debates that went on at great length about charitable housing associations in Scotland my noble friend was very successful in pressing that point. I am sure he will be very relieved to know that when this Bill becomes an Act the right to buy for housing association tenants will not continue.
The Earl of Selkirk: If I have understood the position correctly, this provision really does not apply to housing associations at all.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I accept that remark.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I had hoped that the Minister would do better on this matter than Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, did in another place. The Minister has perhaps spoken a little more, but like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I am not absolutely sure about this provision. A great deal needs to be taken on trust.
In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"The Hon. Gentleman asked why the situation was different from that in England. The answer is that it has been different for many years. The cut-off date at present for Scottish outstanding debt is 31st December 1978. In England it is March 1974, so there was a considerable discrepancy in dates long before the statement today … We do not have to do everything exactly the same as in England".
If there is anything being done in England that would be beneficial to the Scots, I want it to be done in Scotland. I hope that the Minister feels the same way. I take the point about the housing associations. We shall have to look at that to see whether or not they will lose out through this provision.
However, I am still not happy. I thought that the Minister was slightly offhand, perhaps even reaching
302
the point of smugness, when he said that there will be a balance in each area because most of the houses will be sold at an enhanced price even though some may be sold at a lower price.
We are dealing with a big area when we speak of Angus. It was badly hit by the downturn in world oil prices, which could not have been anticipated. The Minister must be aware that the keys to a large number of houses have been given back to the building societies. In some parts of the west Highlands there were similar developments related to oil prices and there are other examples as well.
We should like to know whether the Minister believes that there will be a rough balance between the swings and the roundabouts for single areas and not just for the whole of Scotland. The people of Angus may be badly hit and at the same time the people of Strathclyde may be all right. If there is no rough balance, will the Government have the power to help out if there is obviously a very severe anomaly? Other than that, the Minister seemed—
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may make one or two further points. I should like to clarify the position for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, concerning the right to buy. I want to make that matter absolutely clear. That right continues for existing housing association tenants as distinct from the charitable housing associations. However, it will not exist for new housing association tenants. I wish to make that clear.
Turning to the question of what the effect of the legislation will be, it is impossible to say exactly how many houses will be affected by the change in the cost floor arrangements which we propose. The discounted price of any house, ignoring any cost floor which may apply, depends on the individual tenancy record, and statistics are not available relating the length of tenancy to age of houses or improvements carried out to them. However, the numbers involved are relatively small. Some 36,000 houses were built in the period affected and 1,000 of those have already been sold. Some 200,000 public sector houses were in some way improved between 1979 and 1983. However, very few tenants in those houses will be affected by the new rule. In most cases, the oustanding debt on the improvements will already be below the market value, less the maximum discount level.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is concerned about the matter. I am also concerned about any effect on any particular area. However, having looked into it, I feel that the arrangements which we propose under the clause will be satisfactory for the situation in Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister is doing his best to explain a complicated matter. However, he still has not answered the question which I put when I gave the example of Angus. He used that example and he must therefore be aware of it. The outstanding debt on the development in Angus in 1991 is projected—I am sure the figures have been well checked, although there is a certain amount of guesswork involved—as being £2·6

303
million. That is a large sum of money for a place like Angus. It is very worrying.
The Minister seemed to be making some clarifications during his speech. We shall read that speech in Hansard and perhaps return to the matter. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will get together with me concerning exactly what the alterations are. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Rent officers: additional functions relating to housing benefit etc.]:
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert ("and
(d) shall not specify individual grounds on which the Rent Officer shall make a determination.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 66 refers to the powers and responsibilities of rent officers. It also deals with the related subject of determination by rent officers of housing benefit. The purpose of the amendment, which may enable the Minister to deal in general terms with the whole subject of the powers of rent officers, is to limit the power of those officers in determining an individual's entitlement to housing benefit.
That subject is very important in the light of recent discussions and changes in housing benefit entitlement. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is that the letting of houses in both the public and the private sectors should be based on an income which will be adequate to support them with a minimum of public subsidy. The policy papers which preceded the Bill frequently referred to the level of rents required and stated that the rents should be economic, sensible or affordable. However, there was little that was specific in that regard.
What is known about the general thrust of the Bill is that the Government intend to depart from the concept of fair rents and let them rise to market levels. In Scotland, the majority of tenants cannot afford rents without subsidies. CoSLA has expressed concern that the Government's proposals will exacerbate that problem, particularly in the light of recent changes restricting eligibility for housing benefit. Subsequent amendments are also related to the amendment. Therefore, I would appreciate a reply from the Minister on the point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the argument forward in his amendment. As he rightly says, the matter will also come up in subsequent amendments and we shall no doubt have further discussions. However, at this stage perhaps I may emphasise that Clause 66 is designed purely and simply to prevent abuse of the housing benefit system. I am sure that the Committee supports that aim.
It also makes sense to make use of the expertise of rent officers to ensure that abuse does not take place. There is nothing sinister about the power under
304
which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give guidance and information to rent officers. We should remember that the function to be given to those officers is a new one and that there will be a need to ensure consistency of approach throughout the country. The guidelines to be issued in determining rents and levels of reasonable accommodation will be the aim.
I recognise that the concern of the noble Lord and others outside the Chamber is to ensure that the new role of the rent officer is properly thought through. It is for that reason that government departments, local authority associations (including CoSLA) and rent officers are involved in discussions on the details of how the new arrangements will work. We intend there to be nothing draconian about the new procedures and rules to be followed by rent officers. They will be applied fairly and with discretion. The guidance to be issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be designed only to help ensure that.
I hope that with that explanation, and knowing that others will wish to discuss the clause later, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I very much welcome the Minister's assurance that this will be the subject of continuing discussions with CoSLA. In the event of CoSLA's concern being dealt with I would propose to withdraw the amendment. I sincerely hope that the discussions and negotiations will be clarified before we conclude discussion on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 40, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) After section 30(2) of that Act there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The local authority shall have the right to appeal within one month to the Secretary of State against a determination made by the rent officers in exercise of functions transferred by section 64 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
The Secretary of State must reconsider the original determination having due regard to the representations made by the local authority.—').
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on the earlier amendment when he stressed that the two roles of rent officers in any individual case will almost certainly conflict with each other. It is inevitable, I believe, that there will be a conflict. The amendment would allow some form of additional help in assessing rents. We believe that the legislation as drafted is not complete because it does not allow for local authorities to make representations based on their knowledge of local circumstances and needs.
Rent officers will face a difficult and not very pleasant task in determining rents. Some of their determinations might very well be unjust. But the right of appeal by local authorities would ensure that such cases could be reviewed and that local authorities' knowledge of particular cases could be taken into consideration. We consider that to be the minimum defence required to allow for natural justice given the dual role of the rent officer.
I know that there could be a plague of appeals by local authorities; but perhaps the Minister will be able to define parameters within which local authorities would not be able to appeal. No government want every decision of the rent officer to be challenged by local authorities. Nevertheless, there must be some right for the people living in the area, who know the area and who are perhaps dealing with hundreds of houses, to make an appeal on behalf of their area. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for putting down the amendment. I recognise that local authorities are concerned that they will lose subsidy when they pay benefit above the level of rent determined by the rent officer. This could arise when a claimant who is dissatisfied with the amount of housing benefit he receives makes use of his existing right—which will be unaltered—to have the decision reviewed.
Because the circumstances in which local authorities could lose subsidy under the new arrangements are complex, they are being considered carefully by working parties which, as I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, at present include representatives from the Scottish Office, CoSLA and the Institute of Rent Officers, as well as the DHSS whose prime responsibility the subsidy arrangements are.
I can inform the Committee that the Government accept that local authorities should in principle have a right to seek a review of the rent officer's determination in certain circumstances. However, the best way for such a review to take place has not yet been agreed. Various options are being considered—among them, using the rent assessment committee, a team of senior or chief rent officers, an independent valuer or something less formal. The precise circumstances in which such a review can be requested also need to be decided. I can therefore assure the Committee that local authorities should have some right of appeal but would hope that the Committee agrees that the detailed arrangements should be set out in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill since those details are yet to be finalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether discussions with local authorities will include CoSLA and when those discussions will finish. The discussions are still at a relatively early stage. They do not need to be completed until assured tenancies come into effect, which is likely to be early next year. I can assure the Committee, however, that details of the new functions will be included in a parliamentary order which means of course that Members will have an opportunity to consider them if they so wish.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is satisfied with that assurance and that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In the circumstances, the good faith of the Minister cannot be doubted. I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Rent officers: additional functions.
Where a rent officer has made a determination of a market rent in exercise of functions conferred by section 66 of this Act, that determination shall have effect as if it were a determination of rent by a rent assessment committee under section 25 (for assured tenancies) or section 31 (for short assured tenancies) except that the determination shall have effect from the date of reference to the rent officer.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friends Lord Kirkhill and Lord Carmichael, it is necessary to try to set the scene for the purpose of the amendment. On this side of the Chamber we agree that there have been abuses of the housing benefit system and of the rent allowance subsidy. Too high rents have been charged so that a relatively small number of unscrupulous landlords have been subsidised. However, the effect of the Bill is that the rent control merely saves public money. The rent officer's fixing of the determination covered in Clause 66 merely restricts the amount of housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy that is payable; it does not affect the amount of rent that the tenant is required to pay. Of course, this situation affects only the very poor elements in society who are entitled to rent subsidy, housing benefit or rent allowance subsidy.
Therefore, if somebody who is entitled to housing benefit—if I may refer to housing benefit only— enters into a lease with an unscrupulous landlord for a very high rent, housing benefit is restricted to what the rent officer considers is a market rent but the tenant is liable to pay the balance. That necessarily means that the rent is way above the market rent because the rent officer has fixed the market rent.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it the case that for people receiving housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy, where and only where the rent is fixed at the market value for the purpose of housing benefit for the public side, it shall also be fixed for the tenant at that market value.
So far as we can understand, according to the Government's intentions, the market value will be based on appropriate yields which might be expected from investment in the private rented sector. If one considers the type of people (unfortunately, a fairly large class) who are entitled to housing benefit, they include people who are not very well up in knowing what the market rent is for any property. They are often those most anxious to have some sort of roof over their heads and on low incomes. That is a necessary assumption from their being entitled to housing benefit. Therefore it seems strange that the state is protected in respect of rents payable on housing benefit, but not the poor. This amendment is moved in order to protect the poor while still enabling the landlord to receive the benefit of a full market rent.
Perhaps I may give some examples. If you have a 17 year-old girl on income support looking for a bedsitter in Edinburgh, she may find accommodation at, say, £45 a week. The rent officer may decide that the rent should have been £38 a week. She requires then to find an extra £7 a week out of her income

307
because her housing benefit would be restricted to that £38 a week. She is unlikely to be the sort of person who would know market values and be able to exercise the full market choice that seems to be intended.
Another example is that of a young couple on income support who are renting a flat at, say, £300 a month. If they miscalculate what the rent officer would fix as the market rent, they may find a considerable difference—something like £12 quite easily—in their weekly income, which for a young family with children could be a disastrous situation.
I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. This is one of the misses that have occurred in this very complicated legislation. I am sure that the Minister never intended all the harshness to fall on the poor. It would be perfectly easy to keep the legislation fair by saying the landlord is entitled to market rent as fixed by the rent officer. Housing benefit is limited to market rent, so the state or the local authority do not have to pay too much and the tenant is limited to market rent, so that he or she does not have to pay too much. That would seem to be reasonable. It does not require any additional rent determination system; it only applies to tenants eligible for housing benefit; and it will not affect the supply of rented accommodation.
Landlords, on the premise on which the whole Bill is drafted, will be charging market rent anyway, so it will not hold down rents. It will only disadvantage those landlords who are charging what rent officers consider to be excessive rent. If the Government intend to support them exclusively, I should be very surprised; in that case no doubt they will say so and I shall put this amendment to a vote. However, I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a rather complex matter and it is difficult to understand how Clause 66 works. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I have misunderstood, but it seems to me that, as the Bill stands, the success of this measure depends on the tenant not agreeing to a rent which is in excess of the figure that the rent officer will eventually fix. Is the noble Lord, Lord Morton, going to put me right on this?
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is the other way about: the tenant fixes a rent with the landlord and, the tenant being in receipt of housing benefit, automatically the rent officer comes round. There is already an existing contract between the landlord and the tenant for rent. Then the rent officer comes round, looks at it and says, "Oh, no, that is excessive. Housing benefit will only be at the lower level".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that is my understanding, but it seems to me that if the Bill is to remain as it is—and I have not yet heard my noble friend's argument for or against this amendment—somehow the tenant, in fixing the rent with the landlord in the first place, must be able to know fairly well what will happen when the rent officer comes to assess it. It seems to me that my noble friend has to explain to me how the
308
tenant is to know that. That has perhaps put in layman's terms what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said to me.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to explain that to me when he gives his point of view about this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I will now try to explain this very complicated part of the Bill. This amendment, if accepted, would be contrary to one of the central themes of the Bill: that rents payable under assured tenancies are to be freely negotiated between landlord and tenant. This is recognised in Clause 25, which makes it clear that for assured tenancies the rent determined by the rent assessment committee need not be the rent finally charged. The only exception to that general rule is in the case of short assured tenancies where tenants have additional rights of rent control reflecting their reduced security of tenure because of the time-limit on that type of tenancy.
As has already been explained, the rent officer's function under Clause 66, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is strictly related to the assessment of the housing benefit subsidy. I think we are agreed on that. If it were to be the case that the level of rent determined for that purpose was to become the rent payable, we should be in a position of having the rent officer setting rents in all cases where housing benefit was payable. Clearly, this would be going back down the road of rent controls from which this Bill is seeking to move away in the interests of tenants and landlords alike.
The Government have made it very clear that it is our view that only by giving landlords a fair return on their investment will there be the incentive to let, which is a prerequisite to the expansion of the private rented sector. By introducing an extra element of rent control, this amendment would put that objective in jeopardy. There is another danger. If it were the case that landlords were faced with a rent determination by rent officers in cases where housing benefit was paid to the tenant, landlords would be more reluctant to let to such tenants, who would therefore find private sector accommodation much harder to obtain. I am sure this is not what noble Lords wish to achieve.
I should also stress that the rent officer's determination for the purpose of housing benefit subsidy does not mean that the local authority cannot pay a higher level of housing benefit to the tenant. The authority may well do so if it chooses, though it will lose subsidy on the excess.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked how the tenant would know. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will issue guidance to rent officers on the principles to be adopted in assessing whether or not a rent is reasonable.
The rent officer will take the market rents as the basis for his assessment, comparing the rent with evidence of bargains freely struck between the landlord and tenants paying from their own resources. If there is insufficient market evidence for a rent officer to make such an assessment, my right honourable friend will give guidance on the procedure to be adopted. This will include advice on appropriate yields which might be expected from

309
investment in the private rented sector taking into account the contribution to the yield likely to be made by capital appreciation on the house.
I have to say that this amendment—I know that this will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—runs counter to the underlying purposes of the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
The Earl of Selkirk: The Minister has answered as I expected. I must say that quite frankly, and I can understand it. But he has not replied to the story told by the noble Lord, Lord Morton. The young student wants accommodation—at Edinburgh University or wherever. What he wants to know is the benefit he is going to get if he lives in a particular house. I know what I should do; I should get in touch with the rent officer and ask him what benefit he could give me. I should not make an agreement with the landlord until I knew the degree of my benefit. That seems to me to be something that will inevitably happen.
It may be illustrated by the situation in which a tenant is told, "If you come to this house you will get a benefit of £x." Surely that is what will happen to many people. I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought of that. A student with practically no means would not go into a house at a rent of, say, £50, to find he only gets a benefit of £35. He just would not do it. One has to face up to the fact that such a connection will become necessary.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I point out that the noble Earl's question was linked with a point that I did not fully understand. In striking the deal with the landlord, the student or the person who is entitled to the benefit has to know that the deal will work for him before he strikes the deal. We heard my noble friend amplify the fact that the local authority can pay more than the benefit. That is an important point. However, in making the deal in the first place the potential tenant has to know what that figure is likely to be— or am I misunderstanding the point? How does one find out whether one is a potential tenant in that position? I can see that the amendment will not work. It will spoil the intention of the Bill. But how will the tenant know what deal to strike?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I understand the aim of my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Selkirk. A student must know, before making an arrangement with a landlord, what his liability is. First, landlords will quickly realise that they can charge only market rents if they are to obtain tenants. Secondly, they will be able to find out the general level of housing benefit in those circumstances. I do not think that I can go further than that.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister has gone a great distance in what he has just said. If he means that landlords can charge only market rents, and if, as I understand it, the rent officer is to fix what are to be reasonable rents based on market rents—which is a distinction I do not see—I fail to see why it destroys the basis of the Bill that the tenants should be able to restrict the rent they pay to market rent. That is all
310
that we are asking. We ask that the rent payable should be restricted to what the rent officer determines is market rent. That is the basis on which the housing benefit and the rent subsidy allowance can be paid.
Perhaps I may make a subsidiary point. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that local authorities can pay additional allowances. He may have heard—if not I shall willingly tell him—that there is an office in St. Andrew's House which on occasions has restricted local authority spending and, for instance, practised rate-capping. If a local authority spends too much it takes even more away in the way of grants. Disincentives are applied at an office that the Minister on occasions visits. That was not a very good answer.
There is another point that seems to me to be absurd. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked how the student is to find out. We are not dealing only with students. They receive a lot of housing benefit. We are also dealing with people and families with very low incomes, some of whom do not have the intellectual attainment to be students. The Minister said that guidance from the Secretary of State would be available to rent officers. Assuming that one of these poor families obtained the rent officer's guidance, would they possibly understand it, or would it be like the schedules that we are discussing—understandable only to a valuer? The benefit issue is very important. I cannot see why this amendment is so disastrous. It is fixing the rent at the market rent. The noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As the noble Lord spoke, I thought that I began to see how the arrangement might work. The amendment suggests that rent should also be limited by the tenant to the market value. Let us suppose that the tenant is not then paid benefit. That may easily happen if somebody takes a house when he is unemployed and then obtains a job. The rent is set at a wrong amount. That must surely be part of the argument also, must it not?
Lord Morton of Shuna: That would be dealt with by market forces— if I may pray them in aid. We are dealing with the market rent for the house. That does not depend on the type of tenant. As I understand it, the rent officer is fixing the market rent of the house. In the cases with which we are dealing, we are assuming that the landlord is charging, and the tenant has originally agreed, something above the market rent for the house. I see no reason in effect why anybody—even if he later obtains employment—should be bound to pay more than the market rent.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If I am unemployed, I would have every hope that I should obtain a job within the year, and I am capable of earning a reasonable salary. In the meantime I am entitled to benefit. I might well take on a house at a somewhat higher rent in anticipation but then this situation may arise, in which case the amendment of the noble Lord would not hold good.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We are at cross-purposes. It may be a minor point. The noble Baroness is talking of someone anticipating the type of rent that

311
he can afford to pay if he has a job. He might be able to pay a rent of, say, £20 a week. If that were an excessive rent for that property, it would not matter whether the person was able to pay £1 million a week: it would still be above the market rent for that property. That is the distinction. It is the market rent for the property that is being discussed in this amendment.
In those circumstances I have to ask the view of Members of the Committee.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 105.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Basnett, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Chilston, V.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kagan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caithness, E.

Alport, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Balfour, E.

Coleraine, L.

Bauer, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cowley, E.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cross, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

De Freyne, L.

312

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Moyne, L.

Effingham, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newall, L.

Erroll, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rugby, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Sandford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Somers, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Morris, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
("Grants to voluntary organisations.
—(1) The Secretary of State shall make such grants as are necessary to voluntary organisations to meet any reasonable expenditure that is attributable to the training and provision of information to advisers, landlords and tenants, as to the meaning, application and implications of this Act.
(2) In this section voluntary organisation means a body other than a public or local authority body, the activities of which are not carried on for profit and is concerned with the giving of advice on matters connected with housing and adviser shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: The debate that we have just had illustrates the complexity of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was not alone in finding it difficult to follow the detail of the previous amendment and its implications for the Bill. Therefore if we find it difficult, having read the Bill, digested the amendments and discussed them, how will the ordinary citizen in Scotland understand the Bill?
It is anticipated that directly or indirectly the Bill will affect over half the households in Scotland. At the present moment the voluntary agencies in Scotland respond to 500,000 inquiries each year and with the new burden of interpreting and advising on the Bill, their burden will be increased substantially. As we said at the outset, we wish the Bill to succeed, but it will succeed only if it is understood. The amendment makes a plea for increasing grants to the citizens' advice bureaux and the advisory agencies so that they may be in a position to guide.
There are questions of tenants' rights, rent levels, landlords' rights; all of these are difficult within the provisions of the Bill. I suggest that this be written into the Bill as a firm commitment to the voluntary organisations that are defined in the amendment. It should be written into the Bill that they should be given the necessary resources to carry the burden. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: It may indeed seem sad and shocking that this type of new clause should even be contemplated. It means that Parliament is now passing legislation of such complexity and indeed of such confusion that we have to contemplate training people to understand it.
This legislation will affect thousands of people, yet the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, described one schedule in the Bill as totally incomprehensible and later as nonsense. The Government appear to doubt whether they can do anything about it. The noble Earl, as we all know, is a very distinguished lawyer and Queen's Counsel: a man of great experience and ability. If he cannot understand the Bill and says that part of it is nonsense, what chance has the ordinary tenant in Scotland of making head or tail of it? The first plea I make to the Government is that they should pay some attention to the constant criticism not only from the noble Earl but from the Scottish judges and many Members of this Committee about the state of parliamentary draftsmanship and the legislation that they produce.
This is not merely an academic matter. There has been considerable confusion in Shetland over the rights of tenants and their position in regard to the two public housing authorities which operate there. I realise that the present position will be altered by the Bill but it is apparent that the Bill will make the matter no clearer. In the light of the confusion that has arisen in Shetland under the present conditions, the Bill is likely to make matters worse. I think that it is totally regrettable that this kind of new clause should be necessary. However, if the Government are to resist it, I believe that they must give an undertaking either that they will look at the more unintelligible parts of it with great care and attempt to make them clearer—and I doubt whether they can do that with a Bill of this length during the time that is left—or that they will write in new provisions affecting the local authorities and possibly the new housing authority. They must lay a duty on those bodies to explain the Bill and to provide the necessary advice. I do not believe that that can be left entirely to the existing voluntary organisations, excellent as they are. Before the complication of the Bill has taken effect, there is in Shetland a clear need to advise tenants not only about the proposed changes but the whole process in which they may become involved when the Bill takes effect.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I should like to point out that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, who has added his name to the amendment, is unable to be present. I sometimes feel sorry for the way in which we throw brickbats at the parliamentary draftsmen. Perhaps it would be nice to give them a couple of fallow years of legislation and a chance to carry on with their crafts and skills.
314
As has been said by the previous speakers, Clause 74 was an excellent example of the difficulties. Knowledge and understanding of the Bill will be one of the most important issues. I am sure that the Government do not wish to have an unpopular Bill hanging around their neck in the future. Unless there is knowledge of the way in which the Bill will operate in individual cases, there will be a possibility of openings for Rachmanism. There are already certain people in my part of the world who are more expert than Members of the Committee in seeing their way through housing legislation and finding loopholes. Over the years there have been many unbelievably clever ways of obviating rent restrictions. I hope that the Government will look seriously at that issue.
I am not in total agreement with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the role of voluntary organisations. I believe that a point is reached where people have more faith in voluntary organisations for obtaining certain types of information. As long as they are doing the job I hope that they will be given the tools with which to do it. Rather than the Government spending a great deal of money on advertising the effects of the Bill, I should like to see it given to some of these excellent organisations to which people can go for an explanation of their particular case. It means that those who are providing that service within the voluntary organisations must be given special coaching. The Government may be able to handle the difficulty by giving volunteers an understanding of the way in which the Bill will operate. Then perhaps they could come back and tell us.
The Earl of Selkirk: I have great sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Two or three fallow years without housing legislation may produce something positive, although I know not. I do not doubt for one moment that my noble friend will earnestly say that he must do this. However, we should like to see some substantial evidence of exactly what he will do. I do not believe that one can expect the people of Scotland to understand the Bill. Unless I am much mistaken there are at least nine or 10 forms of tenancy which can arise in different circumstances. I do not claim to understand them for one moment, but the people want to know the facts about the tenancies and there should be simple access.
The Bill has added greatly to the complication of life for a large number of people. The answer is to ensure that the citizen' advice bureaux, or whatever, which are splendid organisations, will have the means of explaining it to people and making their lives simpler. It is a straightforward proposition. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me—I am confident of it—but will he agree to an adequate supply of money to provide the means by which it can be carried out?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend has put his finger on the point of the discussion. I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, believes that a clause such as this will be included in the Bill. Presumably this is a probing amendment because I do not imagine that one would agree to legislation to:

315
"make such grants as are necessary to voluntary organisations to meet any reasonable expenditure".
Doubtless the noble Lord will explain that when he replies to this short debate.
Some extremely good material must be produced in respect of this Bill once it becomes law. Many of the 500,000 queries received by voluntary agencies, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are in respect of existing housing and benefit systems. Therefore they will be replaced by new queries about the new system. However, change as radical as this will be difficult for people to understand. People such as those working in citizens' advice bureaux must inform themselves as to the way in which the system works. The discussion in respect of Clause 66 is a good example of something which must be expressed clearly in the information material which must be produced by the Government.
What will be the financial situation for voluntary organisations? I know that some already receive considerable grant aid from the Government. I believe that the citizens' advice bureaux receive a large sum of money from the Government but I am not sure how much. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us. They do a wonderful job but they will need the material and information with which to work. I do not know whether they will need extra grant aid but I am sure that if they have the extra material they will become very important to people, as will the officials who will also explain the Bill. However, I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is a way of arriving at that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on this issue. I should like to begin by underlining two points which I have made during the course of the Bill. In reply to the debate on Second Reading I said that in relation to publicity we shall consider what further publicity is necessary in due course. As Members will understand, I was referring to publicity after the passing of the Bill because the Government can present the case only after the Bill is passed. I also said that a great deal of discussion has taken place in the press, radio and television—as those of us who live in Scotland know only too well—about the consequences and the very real points which are being considered as we consider this Bill for the people of Scotland.
I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I fully understand the complexity of housing legislation; and indeed I gave a commitment to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The draftsman is no doubt working now on Schedule 6 and the consequences of any amendment which we may bring forward on Report to enable, if we can, people to understand better this legislation and what is meant. I gave that commitment and I stand by it.
I now come to the substance of this particular amendment. It is not often that we see an amendment tabled to a Bill which has the potential for uncontrolled draining of the public purse that this one has. Taken at face value, this new clause would require—I repeat, would require—the Secretary of
316
State to make grants to voluntary organisations to meet such expenditure as they choose to incur on training and information about this Bill. There is no discretion for the Secretary of State to say no, whether or not it can be afforded; and although the provision refers to "reasonable expenditure", there is no test of what can be considered reasonable. I find that very strange, coming from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Certainly the Secretary of State would have no right to consider the quality of the activity he would be required to pay for.
I understand that the amendment arises from suggestions which I have read made by the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. In their supporting material SACAB says that they receive increasing demands for help and that housing advice is one component of that demand. I am sure there is no Member of the Committee who is not aware of the valuable service which CAB supply. Part of their appeal lies in the broad range of problems in which they deal. It is surprising therefore that they should promote a funding arrangement confined only to matters within this Bill.
Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that the amount of money which is devoted this year from the taxpayer to the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is almost £1 million a year in Scotland alone, which is a very nice proportion of the whole.
Before I finish, I should perhaps refer to Shetland because the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, mentioned it. I am well aware of the situation in Shetland; but the confusion about legislation has not played a part in that particular situation. As I understand it, the situation in Shetland is one which we were discussing yesterday; namely, whether local authorities should become the landlords of even more tenants.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in speaking to this amendment, understood very well what the consequences could be. The Secretary of State already has a power, in Section 197 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, to give grants to voluntary bodies providing advice or training. That power is extensively used at present.
In addition, the Government intend that Scottish Homes will provide training, education and publicity over a wide section of issues in housing. Scottish Homes will also be able to assist others providing services of this sort, whether financially or in some other way—by, for example, providing premises. The new policies which this Bill will implement will, we recognise, require greater information to be available to tenants and landlords. That is common ground on all sides of the Chamber. Scottish Homes' powers will be ample for this purpose. It will be open to SACAB and any other body intending to provide a housing-related information or advice service to approach Scottish Homes for assistance.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, having heard what I have said, will realise that this particular amendment is unnecessary in these circumstances and that it is one that no Secretary of State could possibly accept and nor could I.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is satisfied

317
with that reply because I doubt if anybody in the Chamber is satisfied with it. The noble Lord told us that the Government are being astonishingly generous in finding the sum of about £1 million for the citizens' advice bureaux and other organisations in Scotland to provide information. That is the cost of a number of houses in the West End of London. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out that the voluntary organisations in Scotland are facing a very substantial additional burden. The noble Lord spent a great deal of time in expressing doubt about the drafting of the amendment and he expressed deep shock at the failure of the amendment to give discretion to the Secretary of State. If he had said that, despite that, he would produce an amendment on Report to deal with the defects of this amendment, we should have been more satisfied.
Perhaps I can specifically ask the Minister a fairly simple question: what additional resources are the Government going to give as a result of the passage of this exceptionally complicated piece of legislation? How much extra money are they intending to provide to the voluntary organisations in Scotland if the Chamber does not adopt this amendment?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening at this particular stage in the Bill in the way that he has. I find it very interesting that he should suddenly take an interest in this particular point. I shall not go any further than I have done regarding funds which will be available to Scottish Homes to deal with the major problem of explanation of this Bill and the consequences of it. It will be provided by the Secretary of State at the appropriate moment in the appropriate way in the appropriate amount.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he will answer the specific question which I asked. I shall repeat it. Are the Government prepared to give any additional assistance to citizens' advice bureaux in Scotland as a result of the passage of this legislation? Yes or no?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall not give a yes or no answer to that; I cannot. I intend to be sure that everything is done through every voluntary agency in Scotland and through Scottish Homes so that people understand the consequences of the Bill when it is passed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The last reply of the Minister has been a little more forthcoming than earlier replies. He said that the amendment almost amounted to a blank cheque to the organisations; but it states:
"The Secretary of State shall make such grants as are necessary to the voluntary organisations to meet any reasonable expenditure".
That surely retains judgment in the hands of the Secretary of State as to what is necessary and reasonable. To that extent it is not a blank cheque for every voluntary organisation to receive unlimited resources. If we consider the burden that will now be carried by these organisations, and particularly the Citizens' Advice Bureau, for them to have almost £1 million at their disposal to deal with current problems is not a frightening sum in my book.
318
I recommend that the Minister should have a quiet talk with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—or is it the department for enterprise?—to see how much money is being spent on government publicity in order to promote his department and his objectives. It amounts to millions of pounds. It is the greatest godsend to the advertising industry. I am not suggesting that we should go overboard in this connection.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not believe that we can have it both ways. The noble Lord wants publicity for the difficulties faced by tenants under this new Bill and yet he is saying that the Government are spending too much money through the department for enterprise. I cannot understand it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: That is not what I am saying. I am suggesting that the noble Lord should have a quiet talk with the Minister in charge of promotion of government enterprise, because the sum of almost £1 million for the citizens advice bureaux is a drop in the bucket compared with his budget. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Young, understands the greater importance of communicating and explaining. I was commending the Minister to have a further look at the situation because we are talking about rather poor people who are living in a new situation with new regulations about changing one's landlord; about the fairness of rents and about the ability to transfer one's tenancy. Those are complicated matters for ordinary people to understand.
I do not know how much the recent publicity from the Secretary of State in connection with the poll tax amounted to, but every household in Scotland received an explanatory document on the subject. Incidentally, it did not explain that in the City of Glasgow it is now calculated that the poll tax will be about £520 per person. That fact was not explained in the document but it is the latest figure. I do not want to drag a political argument into the debate at this stage, but people need help and guidance on matters which affect their whole daily living. Voluntary organisations are entitled to ensure that such assistance is readily available. As has been said so often, this is a very complex Bill which affects the lives of many poor people who are not perhaps experts in the field, but it affects them deeply.
I do not propose to take the amendment to a Division. However, I look for a more acceptable undertaking from the Minister at some stage as to how much and how this complex Bill is going to be explained to the public in Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 63, line 13, at end insert—
(". In subsection (3)(b) of section 24, for the words "some other person residing in it or to threats of violence from some other person residing in it and" there shall be substituted the words "a spouse, ex-spouse, partner, ex-partner or member of the family or to threats of violence from a spouse, ex-spouse, partner, ex-partner or member of the family who is' ").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also take Amendments Nos. 77 and 78. These are amendments which relate to domestic violence and are aimed to close what has now become a loophole in existing legislation for the housing of battered women. The introduction of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act aimed, among other things, to give women suffering from marital violence additional protection if they wished to remain in the matrimonial home through, for example, an exclusion order on their husbands. It was never intended to be used as an alternative to re-housing under the homelessness legislation if the latter is what the woman chose, having taken into account all the relevant factors including the safety of herself and her children and also the urgency of the matter. That fact was made clear during the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act as it went through Parliament.
However, since the Act came into force, two problems have emerged concerning women who wish to be rehoused. The first is the definition of homelessness. There are many established and erudite arguments on the definition of homelessness. Section 24 states that,
"a person is homeless for the purpose of this Act if he has no accommodation, and a person is to be treated as having no accommodation for those purposes if there is no accommodation … which he … has a right or permission, or an implied right or permission to occupy.".
In conjunction with the rights contained within the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act that provision has resulted in some local authorities refusing to house women under the homelessness legislation, unless they have first sought to exercise their right under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act regardless of their wishes and also, obviously by definition, regardless of their safety. That practice can only have been reinforced by a Court of Session decision; namely, MacAlinden v. Bearsden and Milngavie District Council. The judge upheld the local authority's decision not to classify a cohabitee as homeless after she had to leave her partner's house. Lord McDonald found that the pursuer had,
"retained an implied right to occupy Manly's house notwithstanding that, at that date, he had withdrawn any permission to occupy he may have granted. She had a clear right under section 18 of the 1981 Act to seek a grant of occupancy rights."
She was thus not homeless.
The Scottish code of guidance on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and the Scottish Development Department circular make it clear how local authorities should respond to battered women who seek rehousing. Nevertheless, some local authorities continue to ignore that and thus legislation is required to ensure that battered women are not forced into a course of action which would put them at risk. We believe that this group of amendments will provide the necessary framework of legislation. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for suggesting that we take Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78 together. I have
320
listened carefully to what he said and of course I have knowledge of the case to which he referred.
Let me first comment on Amendment No. 76, and state immediately that I understand the concern and difficulties experienced by persons who fear so much for their safety that they feel they can remain no longer in the family home. This amendment seeks to extend the scope of the current legislation to allow a person to be accepted as homeless, even though he or she has accommodation, if he or she cannot occupy it for fear of violence not only from someone resident in the house (as the 1987 Act at present provides) but also from a non-resident spouse, partner or family member. This amendment would, in other words, remove the occupancy criterion in such circumstances.
I am aware that during this Bill's consideration in another place a fairly similar, but wider, amendment was tabled. However, the Minister responding to the debate could not recommend acceptance of that amendment as it would have unreasonably extended local authorities' duties. It would have obliged them, for example, to rehouse residents in areas with a reputation for violent behaviour.
Although Amendment No. 76 before us today is much narrower, I am disinclined to recommend it to the Committee, I believe that we should be looking to the police, and to the criminal law generally, to offer the householder protection against acts of violence, no matter whether they are perpetrated by a resident family member or otherwise. This should not be the role of housing departments through their responsibilities under the homeless persons legislation. For this reason, therefore, although I accept the reasons for the noble Lord proposing the amendment, I am unable to agree to it. However, I will look at what the noble Lord said and I may return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before my noble friend considers what he will do with the amendment, does not the Minister accept the point that it is impossible for the police to watch over a person who is in fear of violence? It just cannot be done. You cannot place a policeman outside each house to see that the wife, husband, daughter, son—or whoever it may be—does not come to visit. The exercise is far too costly and the police manpower is not available to carry it out.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Such disputes are undoubtedly some of the most difficult cases with which the police have to deal. Domestic violence of one kind or another creates immense problems for the police. As we know, they have substantial pressure upon their resources at present.
However, the noble Lord indicated that he was prepared to look at the matter between now and the next stages of the Bill. I hope that he will do so and, if necessary, discuss the matter with the Scottish Association of Police Officers which I am sure will echo what I have just said.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is not just a case of placing a police officer outside a house. It may be a case of placing a police officer inside a house.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very grateful to the noble Lady. That was a point of which I too was thinking. It would be much better to give the spouse a house than to go to the extent of stationing a police officer inside, both in terms of peace of mind and also probably in purely economic and financial terms.
I am grateful that the Minister has taken the burden of the amendment and will look at it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I was dealing with the first amendment, which is quite important and the one at which I wish to have a close look. Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
I am aware that a new clause on these lines was discussed in another place. The amendments seek to prevent a local authority refusing to class a person as homeless (or classifying him as intentionally homeless) solely because he does not intend to seek to exercise the rights conferred by the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The 1981 Act, however, provides a useful first remedy for spouses or partners to seek to gain occupancy of the accommodation they had shared but no longer wish to share. In general I do not believe it is right to seek to bypass the provisions of the 1981 Act, which can result in the non-applicant spouse being excluded from occupancy. It is my belief that the 1981 Act should be tried as a first step in attempting to resolve domestic difficulties of the kind with which this amendment is concerned.
I do not believe it would be right for us to put into statute provisions which could oblige a local authority, if a person declares himself or herself unwilling or unable to pursue the remedies available under the 1981 Act, and if it believes the applicant to have a priority need for accommodation, to secure accommodation for that person. I accept that there may be occasions when for good reasons it would be unreasonable to expect the person concerned to follow the 1981 Act procedures. In such circumstances it could be correct for the local authority to look on that person as homeless and not intentionally homeless in terms of the 1987 Act provisions. But I suggest it should be left to the local authority in carrying out its duty under Section 28 of the 1981 Act to make inquiries as to whether an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, to look at the circumstances which apply in relation to the use or otherwise of the 1981 Act remedies and to reach a judgment accordingly. I do not believe we should fetter the local authority's discretion in the way that Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 suggest.
In conclusion, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that I shall look very carefully at the first amendment that he proposed. I regret that I cannot accept the other two.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I can understand the noble Lord's reluctance to accept the other two amendments. I think we should be grateful that he has gone as far as he has on Amendment No. 76, after taking advice on whether there is any overspill effect from Amendment No. 76 on to Amendment No. 77. Perhaps that will give some reassurance to certain
322
people. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 63, line 23, at end insert—
("5A. In section 151 (interpretation of Part VII) in subsection (2) for the words "139(3), 140(1) and (2) and 144(1) and (2)" there shall be substituted the words "139, 140 and 144".").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 79 and 80, to which I shall speak as well if your Lordships will permit me, are of a purely drafting nature to correct the consolidation measure, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. In that regard I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for bringing these points to our attention. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 64, line 30, at end insert—
(24A. In section 299 (jurisdiction of sheriff) in subsection (2)(b) for the words "paragraph (9) of Schedule 21" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 20".").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Miscellaneous Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 64, line 44, at end insert—
(". In Section 106 (power of Local Authority to arrange for the execution of works of improvement by agreement with the owner) after the word "applies", insert "or any works of improvement or repair or other services which are to be carried out to or relate to a house sold under the provisions of Part III of this Act or Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. The Local Authority may make such reasonable charge as it thinks fit for its services."").
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward amendment. Under the existing law the local authorities have certain powers to carry out, with the agreement of private owners, repairs to the private owners' houses and to charge for them. Some of those services are confined to substandard houses. Others, such as non-grant-aided repair and improvement work, would be covered by competitive tendering and would be in exactly the same position as any other form of building work. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that district councils are allowed, with the agreement of the other landlord or co-operative, to carry out the work if it is desired on all sides that they should do so. This is just an enabling power. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, but I think that this amendment would considerably extend the types of works for which local authorities' direct labour organisations could submit tenders. It would expand the direct labour organisations' potential workload far beyond what they were originally established to do to a quite unreasonable extent. As a result, I cannot accept the proposal.

323
The right to buy provisions of Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the tenants' choice provision in Part III of the Bill certainly mean a reduction in public sector housing. This will have implications for the size and structure of direct labour organisations, but the fact that there will be less work in future for direct labour organisations in their traditional roll does not mean that we should artificially seek to give them new functions, particularly since to do so would be likely to damage employment prospects in the private sector.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not think I said anything about direct labour organisations being deprived of work. Nor would I wish that the private sector should be deprived. I was merely suggesting that if its tender were cheaper than others it should be allowed to do the work; and if the Government's aim is market forces, why not? If the direct labour organisation happens to put in a cheaper tender than anybody else, why are the private builders to be protected from fair competition?
The Earl of Dundee: In a sense I take the noble Lord's point. If anybody tendering for a job of work is able to be cheaper than somebody else, if we believe in competition and if we want the job of work to be done as efficiently as possible, we cannot rule that out. Nevertheless I must refer him to the remit of local authorities over commercial and competitive work.
We believe that local authorities should engage in commercial activities only to the extent necessary to discharge their statutory functions. In general they should not supply goods or services to others unless they are statutorily required to do so. I have little doubt that if that general principle were to be breached for the purpose of houses transferring to the private sector there would inevitably be further pressure for other exceptions for works related to other services transferred to the private sector. We must draw the line somewhere and I believe that the general principle I have just explained strikes the right balance.
In this case, the amendment would very significantly alter the relationship between direct labour organisations and private sector contractors, particularly small local firms. I do not believe that this would be in the best interests of consumers. In the light of that explanation I wonder whether the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am always interested in the theory of competition. It appears that if there is an efficient direct labour organisation that can undercut and supply to the consumer cheaper services, it is not to be allowed to do so by the Government as a matter of principle because it would interfere |with| the small builder. In a sense that is what the Minister has just said. If he does not agree with that, no doubt he will say so.
The other point is that one can easily visualise a situation where one has a group of houses—a small scheme or several streets in a large scheme—and an arrangement that they will be improved. While that is
324
being planned, part of it is transferred to Scottish Homes and part stays with the local authority. Why is it to be prohibited that the transferred homes should get their repairs done, as originally planned under competitive tendering, by the direct labour organisation? It seems to me that it is denying competition.
I do not wish to delay the Committee. If through these kinds of political principles which seem to deny the market economy and fair competition the Government intend to continue their war against local authorities, perhaps this is not the issue upon which to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 81A to 94:
Page 67, line 5, at end insert—
("Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 c. 56
1A. In section 27(4) (right to home loss payment) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) a right to occupy the dwelling as a statutory assured tenant within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;".").
Page 67, line 5, at end insert—
("Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 c. 65.
1B. In Schedule 28, in paragraph 10 (urban development corporations, displacement of persons), after the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1984" there shall be inserted the words "or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 5, at end insert—
("Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 c. 59
1C. In section 22 (interpretation) in the definition of "tenant" for the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1971" there shall be substituted the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and a statutory assured tenant as defined in section 16(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 13, after ("10(2)") insert ("—
(a) in paragraph").
Page 67, line 15, at end insert (";
(b) after paragraph (b) there shall be added the following paragraph—"; or
(e) as respects Scotland, a letting of land under an assured tenancy or under what would be an assured tenancy but for any of paragraphs 3 to 8 and 12 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988." ").
Page 67, line 36, at end insert—
("4A. In section 55 (no subletting by secure tenant without landlord's consent) for the words ", nor shall Part VII of that Act" there shall be substituted the words "or an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, nor shall Part VII of the said Act of 1984".").
Page 67, line 47, at end insert—
("5A. In section 103 (certain provisions of Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 not to apply) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 47, at end insert—
("5B. In section 128 (recovery of possession of house to which Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 applies) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 47, at end insert—
("5C, In section 145 (recovery of possession of overcrowded house that is let) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
(6A. In section 180 (effect of control order), in subsection (4)—

(a) after the words "the Act") there shall be inserted the words "and paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (which excludes lettings by local authorities from being assured tenancies within the meaning of the Act)";

(b) after "1984" where a second occurs there shall be inserted the words "or an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988,";

(c) for the words "protected or statutory" where they second and third occur there shall be substituted the words "protected, statutory or assured".

(d) for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "those Acts".").

Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6B. In section 311 (interpretation of sections 308 to 310), in subsection (2), in the definition of "interest" after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or of a statutory assured tenant within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6C. In section 328 (duty to inform tenant of assignation of landlord's interest), in subsection (6), after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "and a statutory assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6D. In section 338 (interpretation), in subsection (1) in the definition of "tenancy" after the word "applies" there shall be inserted the words "and a statutory assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6E. In Part II of Schedule 3 (suitability of accommodation), in paragraph 1(a) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or under an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 81A to 94 en bloc. Though the above list of amendments to Schedule 9 looks a little formidable, these are simply consequential amendments which insert references to assured tenancies in earlier legislation, notably the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may make one short comment here, partly to support the remarks made earlier by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I am intrigued as to why in Schedule 8 we have,
"Miscellaneous Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987",
and then in Schedule 9,
"Minor and consequential Amendments".
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of that schedule apply to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Furthermore, the amendments which my noble friend Lord Dundee has moved, including Amendments Nos. 86 to 94, also apply to the Housing (Scotland) Act. Would it not have been rather easier for the people who have read the Bill and understood it for all the amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act to be in the one schedule? That is my only question.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I raise the same point that was raised on Tuesday by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about the way in which this legislation is now being drafted. If one were to set out to make the Bill as un-understandable as possible, it would be difficult to improve on what has been done with the schedules. I take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I find it fascinating that, first of all, we
326
have minor amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act; then we have miscellaneous amendments in Schedule 8 to the Housing (Scotland) Act; and in Schedule 9 we have minor and consequential amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act.
Surely, there could have been a more reasonable way of dealing with it. What is the difference in the same Act between minor and consequential amendments, miscellaneous amendments, and minor amendments? What is the difference in classification? Can that matter be explained?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to what has been said, surely in the name of sanity my noble friend can take advice from his department as to whether this can be made a little more readily intelligible. It can be done quite simply. It is a matter of collecting the various consequential amendments and putting them in a schedule. It is true that some legal adviser might have to work for eight hours to do it—it could not take him longer—but I believe it would be worth the candle to do that.
The Earl of Dundee: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour. He has written to me and to my noble friend Lord Sanderson with several further amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 which he proposes should be made in Schedules 7 and 8. We are having his suggestions looked at. I will write to him once we have given them proper consideration.
Perhaps I may comment that Schedule 9 flows from the main provisions of the Bill and Schedule 8 is connected but not consequential. Schedule 7 is retrospective and Schedule 8—
Lord Morton of Shuna: Would the noble Earl explain what "connected but not consequential" means?
The Earl of Dundee: We are in areas of drafting which—
Lord Morton of Shuna: With respect, we are not in areas of drafting; we are in areas of English—
Baroness Seear: Or Scottish.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The language is English, but we shall willingly go into the Scottish language if necessary. We got into rows about ish and various other matters earlier on. Surely in this Committee we can get something which is explainable in simple English. Sir Ernest Gowers wrote a book on the subject some years ago. Please may we understand what the Government are trying to do?
The Earl of Dundee: I am all for being assisted by Sir Ernest Gowers and even by Dr. Johnson himself. This is certainly what we shall endeavour to do. I am very happy to take back the comments of all noble Lords and to see in what way we can improve and put right what may need to be put right.
Perhaps I may comment that Schedule 9 flows from the earlier provisions of the Bill. The sense in which the word "connected" is used here concerns a

327
matter not flowing directly from earlier provisions. "Consequential" is used in the sense of a matter that does so flow.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does that mean that if a matter is not flowing directly it is disconnected and therefore you call it connected? Is that what is meant?
The Earl of Dundee: I hesitate in making direct connections from what the noble Lord has just said. I believe that it may not be profitable to prolong this discussion. As I say, I am very happy to take back all the contributions which have been made to the Committee and see if something can be done which will meet with the approval of Sir Ernest Gowers and Dr. Johnson.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 68, column 3, leave out lines 49 to 52.
The noble Earl said: This amendment simply brings that part of the repeal schedule in line with Clause 64, to which it relates. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Page and line references are to Bill 82 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
'(aa) the ship is registered in the United Kingdom in pursuance of an Order in Council under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (Government ships); or
(ab) the ship is a fishing vessel within the meaning of Part II of this Act which is eligible to be registered under that Part of this Act by virtue of section 13 below, but—

(i) is excluded from registration under that Part of this Act by regulations made under section 12 below, and

(ii) is not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom; or'.

2 Clause 4, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
'(5A) A ship shall, in accordance with section 12(2)(a) below, not be entitled to be registered if it is a fishing vessel within the meaning of Part II.'.
3 Clause 4, page 4, line 23, leave out from 'ships)' to end of line 25.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 87. These amendments are concerned with the description of certain ships and fishing vessels, and specifically with ships owned by the Government and registered under the 1906 Act and fishing vessels excluded from registry under Part II of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I express gratitude to the Minister for the supply of notes as to meaning of the amendments, without which I should have been in some difficulty. Useful work has been done by the Minister's department. It is also helpful to have the indication that a large number of the amendments are of a technical character. I have checked what happened on Report in another place, and there were no debates. We should now be able to get through the business with a fair amount of speed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I shall make certain to pass on his thanks to the various people in my department who contributed to the notes that were made available.
I shall deal with the amendments as quickly as I can, but there are several upon which I should like to dwell.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 5, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'authorised' to 'under' in line 21 and insert by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence'.
5 Clause 5, page 5, line 23 leave out 'be treated as duly served on the owner' and insert ', where the person to be served is the owner of a registered ship, be treated as duly served on him'.
6 Clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
These amendments made minor drafting alterations to the provisions in Clause 5 concerning the service of documents connected with criminal proceedings for a breach of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 6, page 6, line 8, leave out from 'notice,' to 'not' in line 11 and insert 'give to registrars of British ships generally a direction requiring them'.
8 Clause 6, page 6, line 14, leave out from 'may' to 'is' in line 16 and insert 'give to registrars of British ships generally a direction requiring them not to register the ship if he'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
These amendments (which I hope are self-explanatory) were brought forward in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee in another place to the honourable Member for Stretford. We are obliged to him for drawing attention to what might have proved a loophole in our registration procedures. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 7, page 6, line 24, leave out 'require the owner of the shop' and insert 'served on—

(a) the owner of the ship, or

(b) any representative person for the time being appointed in relation to the ship,

require that person'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 60 to 64.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to supplement existing Parts I and II of the Bill for the serving of notices by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concerning evidence of eligibility to register and the termination of registration of a ship or fishing vessel. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 7, page 7, line 2, leave out 'so' and insert 'for the time being'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Duty of owner of registered ship to secure termination of any overseas registration.
'(1) Where a ship becomes registered at a time when it is already registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, the owner of the ship shall take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the ship's registration under the law of that country.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a ship which becomes registered in pursuance of section 53B of the 1894 Act (transfer of registration under that Act from overseas territory).'.
12 Clause 12, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a fishing vessel becomes registered under this Part at a time when it is already registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, the owner of the vessel shall take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the vessel's registration under the law of that country.
(4B) Any person who contravenes subsection (4A) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I spoke to the amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 13, page 10, line 32, after 'directed', insert 'and controlled'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. The amendment was moved by the Opposition in another place and accepted by the Government. To the criteria for eligibility to register a fishing vessel, it adds that its operations be not only directed but also controlled from within the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 13, page 11, line 43, leave out '(b)' and insert '(d)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.
The amendment remedies an error in the selection of the appropriate powers of inspection from Section 27 of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act to be available to a person appointed under this clause to investigate a fishing vessel's eligibility to be registered. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 13, page 12, line 9, after 'means', insert '—
(a)'.
16 Clause 13, page 12, line 10, after 'Kingdom', insert ', or
(b) a local authority in the United Kingdom'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

331
These are technical amendments to make it quite clear that a local authority that has shares in a fishing vessel is a "qualified person" for the purposes of the Bill's fishing vessel provisions. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 21, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (1) also applies to any fishing vessel which (notwithstanding that it is not entitled to be so registered) is for the time being registered in the United Kingdom under Part I of the 1894 Act or section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 (registration of small ships).'.
18 Page 17, line 19, leave out 'registered under this Part' and insert 'a British ship and is not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom'.
19 Page 17, line 20, leave out 'so registered,' and insert 'registered under this Part,'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.
Amendment No. 17 closes a loophole to ensure that Clause 21 can be enforced against vessels that breach the new registration requirements. There are two categories of ship not presently covered by the clause: a ship registered under Part I of the 1894 Act, in which there is a minority foreign ownership, and a ship registered on the small ships' register.
The other amendments are consequential to earlier changes to the Bill, which provided that fishing vessels eligible to register under Part II but exempted from doing so are nonetheless British ships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 24, page 19, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.
Subsection (4) of Clause 24 was originally included to ensure that entries of ownership in the fishing vessel register could be used as conclusive evidence in legal proceedings. Following consultation with representatives of the fishing industry on the merits of this subsection, we have agreed that this is too sweeping. It might, for example, leave the owner liable if the register was not up to date. The removal of subsection (4) will not result in any weakening of the general legal validity of information in the register, which will still be evidence, but not conclusive evidence, of ownership. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 29, page 22, line 4, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (5) and (5A)'.
22 Clause 29, page 22, line 5, at end insert—
'(lA) Where, at the time when a ship is not fit to go to sea as mentioned in subsection (1), any responsibilities of the owner with respect to the particular matters by reason of which the ship is not fit to go to sea have been assumed (whether wholly or in part) by any person or persons other than the owner, and have been so assumed by that person or (as the case may be) by each of those persons either—

(a) directly, under the terms of a charter-party or management agreement made with the owner, or

(b) indirectly, under the terms of a series of charter-parties or management agreements,

the reference to the owner in subsection (1) shall be construed as including a reference to that other person or (as the case may be) to each of those other persons.'
23 Clause 29, page 22, line 6, leave out 'Those matters' and insert 'The matters referred to in subsection (1)'.
24 Clause 29, page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
25 Clause 29, page 22, line 28, at end insert—
'(5A) It shall also be a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section to prove—

(a) that, under the terms of one or more charter-parties or management agreements entered into by the defendant, the relevant responsibilities, namely—

(i) where the defendant is the owner, his responsibilities with respect to the matters referred to in subsection (5)(a), or

(ii) where the defendant is liable to proceedings under this section by virtue of subsection (1A), so much of those responsibilities as had been assumed by him as mentioned in that subsection,

had at the time of the alleged offence been wholly assumed by some other person or persons party thereto; and

(b) that in all the circumstances of the case the defendant had taken such steps as it was reasonable for him to take, and exercised such diligence as it was reasonable for him to exercise, to secure the proper discharge of the relevant responsibilities during the period during which they had been assumed by some other person or persons as mentioned in paragraph (a);

and, in determining whether the defendant had done so, regard shall be had in particular to the matters mentioned in subsection (5B).
(5B) Those matters are—

(a) whether prior to the time of the alleged offence the defendant was, or in all the circumstances ought reasonably to have been, aware of any deficiency in the discharge of the relevant responsibilities; and

(b) the extent to which the defendant was or was not able, under the terms of any such charter-party or management agreement as is mentioned in subsection (5A)(a)—

(i) to terminate it, or

(ii) to intervene in the management of the ship,

in the event of any such deficiency, and whether it was reasonable for the defendant to place himself in that position.'

26 Clause 29, page 22, line 36, after '(7)', 'In this section—
"management agreement", in relation to a ship, means any agreement (other than a charter-party or a contract of employment) under which the ship is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner (whether on behalf of the owner or on behalf of some other person);
"relevant responsibilities" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (5A);
and'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to

333
26. I shall at the same time speak to Amendment No. 28.
Noble Lords will recall that there was discussion on Second Reading of the need to ensure that, where a ship is managed by a ship management company or is demise-chartered, the duties that fall on the ship's owner should fall instead—or in addition—on the manager or charterer. This point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and was put to the Department by the GCBS. I subsequently brought forward in Committee an amendment to Clause 29 having this effect. The amendment improved the Bill, but did not go far enough, as I acknowledged on Report when replying to points made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I undertook then to bring forward further amendments to take account of demise-chartered ships. Again, that was a point about which the GCBS had expressed concern.
I also undertook, again in response to my noble friend, to bring forward an amendment to enable parties to a management agreement to cite that agreement in their defence. As I anticipated, time did not permit us to make this further adjustment before the Bill passed to another place. They were therefore made in Committee there, with the final piece of fine tuning (the inclusion of the word "reasonably" in the new subsection (5B)(a) in Amendment No. 25 on Report) to meet a concern expressed by the Equipment Leasing Association, some of whose members provide finance for the acquisition of ships but whose involvement often does not go beyond that.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the clause is now in better shape as a result of our deliberations in this Chamber and of the changes made as a result in another place. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to their improvement. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, on behalf of the GCBS, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the extra care that was taken to include these amendments which he promised when the Bill left us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 29, page 22, line 36, leave out from 'sea' to end of line 37 and insert 'shall, in a case where the service for which a ship is intended consists of going on voyages or excursions that do not involve going to sea, be construed as a reference to going on such a voyage or excursion.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 107, 110 and 111.
The purpose of these amendments is to enable Clause 29 and other provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts to deal correctly with ships that do not go to sea but which ply on inland or sheltered waters. The final two lines of Clause 29(9), as at present drafted lack precision when applied to subsections (1)
334
and (5). Amendment No. 27 makes it clear that if a ship is habitually used only on voyages that do not go to sea, its fitness, or otherwise, and arrangements to make it fit, have to be judged accordingly. The other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 29, page 22, line 37, at end insert—
'(8) References in this section to responsibilities being assumed by a person under the terms of a charter-party or management agreement are references to their being so assumed by him whether or not he has entered into a further charter-party or management agreement providing for them to be assumed by some other person.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28 which I spoke to with Amendments Nos. 21 to 26. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 30, page 23, line 1, leave out from beginning to second 'and' in line 7.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. I shall at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 59, 106, 124 and 126.
Noble Lords will note that Amendment No. 59 inserts a new clause.
These amendments tidy up the application of Clauses 29 to 32 to unregistered ships, particularly the application to ships which might be termed "unregistered UK ships" when outside UK ports or territorial waters. Their primary aim is to enable all four clauses to be applied to unregistered ships with a UK connection when outside UK waters, in the same way as UK-registered ships are so covered. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Clause 30, page 23, line 22, leave out from 'ship' to 'any' in line 24 and insert—

'(a) is chartered by demise, or

(b) is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner under the terms of a management agreement within the meaning of section 29,'.

31 Clause 30, page 23, line 25, leave out 'to that person,' and insert—

'(i) to the charterer under the charter by demise, or

(ii) to any such manager as is referred to in paragraph (b), or

(iii) (if the ship is both chartered and managed as mentioned above) to both the charterer and any such manager,'.

32 Clause 30, page 23, line 27, leave out 'either the owner or that person' and insert 'the owner, the charterer or any such manager'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32.
I undertook on Third Reading that the Government would bring forward amendments to extend to any charterer or manager the duties that subsection (1) places on shipowners to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safe operation of the ship. That is the effect of these three amendments. Each person in the chain, from owner to manager, has to take the steps that it is reasonable for him to take, to ensure the ship is run safely. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 Clause 32, page 26, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
34 Clause 35, page 30, line 27, leave out from 'condition' to 'his' in line 28 and insert 'subject to which the Secretary of State has given'.
35 Clause 35, page 30, line 35, after 'any', insert 'other'.
36 Clause 35, page 30, leave out lines 38 to 46 and insert—
'(c) may, if the condition relates—

(i) to the provision of any lights, signals or other aids to navigation, or

(ii) to the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of the works in question or to the taking of any other measures for the purpose of, or in connection with, controlling the movements of ships in the vicinity of those works,

be varied by the Secretary of State in the interests of the safety of navigation (whether or not the operation has been completed) in such manner as he thinks fit for the purposed of enhancing the effectiveness of any such aids or measures as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) above; and
37 Clause 35, page 31, line 22, at end insert—
'(5A) After section 36 insert—
"Imposition by Secretary of State of safety requirements in cases of emergency.
36A.—(1) Where at any time after the Secretary of State has given his consent for an operation falling within section 34(1)(a) of this Act ("the relevant consent"), it appears to him—
(a) that any danger to navigation has arisen by reason of—

(i) any substantial damage to any works to which that consent relates, or

(ii) any other substantial and unforeseen change in the state or position of any such works, and

(b) that it is urgently necessary to do so in the interests of the safety of navigation,
336
he may, by notice served on the person to whom the consent was given, impose on that person such requirements as he thinks fit with respect to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those matters are—

(a) the provision on, or in the vicinity of, the works in question of any lights, signals or other aids to navigation, and

(b) the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of those works.

(3) Where the person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) above fails to comply with any requirements of the notice within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time when it is served on him or as soon after the end of that period as is reasonably practicable, the Secretary of State may make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that those requirements are implemented.
(4) Where under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State makes any such arrangements, he shall be entitled to recover the cost, as certified by him, of making those arrangements from such one or more of the following, namely—

(a) the person to whom the relevant consent was given, and

(b) any other person or persons who is or are, in accordance with section 34(4A)(b) of this Act, bound by any condition subject to which that consent was given,

as he thinks fit.
(5) Once the requirements of a notice under subsection (I) above have been complied with by the person on whom it was served or implemented in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above, those requirements shall, subject to subsection (6) below, he treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as conditions subject to which the relevant consent was given.
(6) Section 34(4A)(a) and (d) of this Act shall not apply to any such requirements; but if it appears to the Secretary of State (whether on the application of any person or otherwise) that the circumstances giving rise to the urgent necessity for the imposition of the requirements no longer exist, he shall revoke them by notice served on the person to whom the relevant consent was given.
(7) Where the Secretary of State has served a notice under subsection (1) above in respect of any particular circumstances, subsection (5) above shall not preclude him from serving a further notice under subsection (1) in respect of those circumstances.
(8) A notice may be served by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above whether or not—

(a) the operation in question has been completed, or

(b) any condition was imposed by him, on giving the relevant consent, with respect to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) above." '.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 37. These are amendments to Clause 35 of the Bill, which amends the Coast Protection Act 1949.
Amendment No. 36 was brought forward by the Government on Report in another place, in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee by my honourable friend the Minister of State. It closes off what had been seen as a possibility of abuse in the application of the new subsection (4A)(c) to be inserted by this clause after Section 34(4) of the 1949 Act.
Amendment No. 37 follows from Amendment No. 36 in that when considering the points raised with regard to the variation of original conditions

337
imposed on a consent under the 1949 Act, we realised there was a need to allow for measures to be taken in an emergency. We were thinking, for example, of when an oil rig sustained damage affecting its marking or causing its capsize, or when a span of a bridge became unsafe.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 simply make minor drafting improvements to the text of Clause 35(4). They have no effect of substance. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 36, page 34, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—

'(a) before the operation to which the licence relates has been begun, with written particulars of the operation and with a plan showing where it is to be carried out, and

(b) once the operation has been carried out, with a notification of the fact, and with such plans and additional information relating to the completed operation as he may require for the purpose of determining whether, and if so what, changes should be made to any chart or other publication produced under his superintendence.'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.
The amendment tightens up the requirement for information about a proposed operation to be provided to the Hydrographer of the Navy, where a harbour authority has granted a licence to carry out such an operation in its area, in exercise of its powers to license operations of the kind described in Section 34(1) paragraphs (a) to (c) of the Coast Protection Act 1949. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 After Clause 37, insert the following new clause
Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based.
'(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the provision of shipping services to which this section applies to be prohibited except where such services are provided from one or more permanent places of business maintained in the British Islands.
(2) This section applies to the following shipping services—

(a) The carriage of goods or passengers by sea—

(i) between ports in the United Kingdom, or

(ii) between a port in the United Kingdom and an offshore installation in United Kingdom waters, or

(iii) between offshore installations in United Kingdom waters;

(b) the carriage of passengers by sea on voyages or excursions beginning and ending at the same port in the United Kingdom, other than voyages or excursions which involve calling at any port or ports outside the British islands (whether passengers disembark there or not); and

(c) shipping services (other than the carriage of goods or passenger by sea) which are—

(i) provided by means of ships operating out of ports in the United Kingdom (whether so provided within United Kingdom waters or not); and

338

(ii) provided within United Kingdom waters by means of ships operating out of ports outside the United Kingdom.

(3) An order under this section may make provision—

(a) with respect to the circumstances in which shipping services are to be regarded for the purposes of the order as being provided from one or more permanent places of business maintained in the British Islands;

(b) authorising the Secretary of State to issue licences sanctioning the provision of shipping services to which this section applies, notwithstanding that they are not provided as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, in cases where he is satisfied that there is no-one willing and able to provide the services in question as mentioned in that paragraph;

(c) requiring the payment, in connection with applications for such licences, of fees determined with the approval of the Treasury;

(d) exempting any prescribed class or description of shipping services from any prohibition imposed by virtue of subsection (1);

(e) authorising the Secretary of State, or a person appointed by him for the purpose, to serve notices requiring the production or furnishing of documents or information appearing to the Secretary of State or any such person to be necessary to enable him to determine such matters as may be prescribed;

(f) with respect to the manner of service of notices in pursuance of paragraph (e).

(4) An order under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different circumstances;

(b) make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(5) The provisions of an order under this section shall not discriminate between shipping services provided by different persons on the basis of the place of registration of the ships by means of which the services are provided.
(6) Section 728 of the 1894 Act (appointment of inspectors) shall have effect in relation to—

(a) any order under this section, or

(b) any licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,

as it has effect in relation to any such regulations or licence as is mentioned in paragraph (h) of that section; but section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (powers of inspectors) shall have effect in relation to any inspector appointed by virtue of this subsection with the omission of paragraphs (f) to (h) of subsection (1) of that section.
(7) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—

"offshore installation" has the same meaning as in the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971;

"prescribed" means prescribed by an order under this section;

"shipping services" means—

(a) the carriage of goods or passengers by sea,

(b) services provided by offshore support vessels, and

(c) such other services provided by means of ships as the Secretary of State may specify in an order under this section;

"United Kingdom waters" means waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom and waters in any area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.'.

40 Insert the following new Clause—
Enforcement of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based).
'(1) Where—

(a) any ship is used in the course of the provision of any shipping services to which section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based) applies, or

339

(b) anything is done on board a ship with a view to its being used to provide any such services,

and the provision of those services is prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of that section and is not sanctioned by any licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section, then (subject to subsections (6) and (7)), the master and the owner of the ship shall each be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where the ship—

(a) is chartered by demise, or

(b) is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner under the terms of a management agreement,

the reference in subsection (1) to the owner of the ship shall be construed as including a reference—

(i) to the charterer under the charter by demise, or

(ii) to any such manager as is referred to in paragraph (b) above, or

(iii) (if the ship is both chartered and managed as mentioned above) to both the charterer and any such manager.

(3) Any person who—

(a) in connection with an application for such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based), or

(b) in purported compliance with the requirements of any notice served on him by virtue of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

knowingly or recklessly furnishes information which is false in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person who—

(a) without reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him) fails to comply with the requirements of any such notice, or

(b) intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys a document which he has been required to produce in pursuance of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against the master of a ship to prove—

(a) that the master did not know and had no reason to suspect that, in the circumstances of the case, the provision of the shipping services referred to in paragraph (a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection was prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based), or

(b) that the master had reasonable grounds for believing that the provision of those services was sanctioned by a licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section.

(7) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against a person other than the master of a ship to prove that, under the terms of one or more charter-parties or management agreements entered into by the defendant, the right to determine the purpose for which the ship in question was being used at the time of the alleged offence was wholly vested in some other person or persons party thereto (whether or not any such other person or persons had entered into a further charter-party or management agreement providing for the right to be vested in some other person).
(8) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply to offences falling within those subsections wherever committed.
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State; or

340

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.

(11) Any document required or authorised, by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) shall, where it is to be served on a person who was, at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) the owner of the ship in question, or

(b) such a charterer by demise or manager of that ship as is mentioned in subsection (2),

be treated as duly served on that person if—

(i) sent to him by post at his last-known address (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business), or

(ii) left for him at that address,

or if the document is served on the master of the ship in question.
(12) In this section "management agreement" has the same meaning as in section 29.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
We turn here to a rather more interesting couple of amendments. Noble Lords may recall that during our debate on the Bill on Second Reading I said, in reply to remarks by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael, that we were examining closely the complex question of reservation of cabotage. I said then that closure of our coasts was our last resort, and that it was far from being the ideal solution.
Not surprisingly perhaps, the question of cabotage was raised again when the Bill was considered in another place, and in Committee there provisions protective of UK interests, but falling short of closure of our coasts, were tabled by my honourable friends the Member for Eastleigh and the Member for the Isle of Wight. My honourable friend the Minister of State expressed sympathy with the objectives of these provisions, and acknowledged that if negotiations on the liberalisation of cabotage did not succeed, then the Government would need to seek another way forward. He subsequently brought forward the two new clauses now before us.
We are continuing to pursue vigorously, in current negotiations under the German presidency, the liberalisation of cabotage throughout the European Community. But there is no doubt that we face an uphill task, against determined opposition, and if the negotiations in Brussels do not bring early success, the enabling powers contained in these new clauses—which would allow us to introduce a test of establishment for operators wishing to carry out cabotage in UK coastal waters—give the option of an alternative course of action.
The test of establishment would apply equally to British and foreign-flagged vessels, and would mean that while non-British companies would still be allowed to compete in our cabotage trades, they would all have to be established in the British islands—that is, the UK, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
If the power is invoked, operators wishing to do UK cabotage will have to ensure that they are providing shipping services from a permanent place of business in the British islands, and not merely from an agency or trading as a "Brass plate company"; But

341
the clause enables my right honourable friend to issue waivers where he is satisfied that there are no established companies willing and able to provide a specified service.
An order to implement the power would be subject to affirmative resolution. Before making such an order there would be consultation with interested parties. If the negotiations in the EC succeed the power would be revoked.
In 1986—the last year for which information is available—British flagged shipping had over 70 per cent. of the total UK cabotage market by estimated value. The total value of the UK cabotage market was estimated at very approximately £440 million. We would far rather open up other coastal traffic to British ships than introduce restrictions of any kind on our own coasts. But if the Community negotiations are protracted with no early prospects of success, we need to be able and ready to, as it were, level the present unevenness of the playing field.
The second new clause provides for enforcement. Under this clause the owner, master and charterer or other manager will be guilty of an offence where cabotage is provided in contravention of an order. Offenders will be liable to a fine of up to £50,000 on summary conviction, and on indictment to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine. These are of course maximum penalties. It will be for the courts to decide in the normal way the precise penalties in any particular case.
We recognise that the master of the ship may have believed in good faith that the shipping company he was working for was established or had been given a waiver for the cargo in question. We have therefore provided that if the master can prove either of these circumstances it will be considered a defence for the purpose of proceedings. Similarly, we have introduced a defence for charterers who can prove that at the time of the offence the ship was in fact chartered wholly by another person. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
5.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister said, this matter was raised during the Second Reading debate. At that time I stressed again and again that we had pressed for action. We welcomed, incidentally, Clause 36, which I believe is now Clause 37. This concerned readiness to take action against unfair competition from other countries. During the Second Reading debate I and other noble Lords on both sides of the House emphasised that EC partners were in effect breaching Community laws on shipping, particularly on the question of cabotage and coastal shipping, and that our trading competitors were giving an unfair advantage to their shipping. While we welcomed the new clause, we stressed that action should be taken on cabotage.
I am glad that the Minister has referred to the figures, which were given by the Secretary of State in a Written Answer on 30th March. He mentioned that the total market of the United Kingdom coastal trade was some £440 million. A figure was also given by one
342
of my honourable friends in another place that the total cabotage market in the European Community is no less than £1,450 million. So there is a great deal of possible shipping business off the coasts of other countries. I believe that with the exception of Britain only three European Community states allow foreign ships into their coastal trade. Therefore the two new clauses are of vital importance.
What will cause the Secretary of State to activate the two clauses? They are enabling clauses and require certain things to be done before they can be activated. Can he say more about the nature of the discussions in the Council of Transport Ministers, particularly if, with the exception of Britain, only three other countries allow foreign ships into their coastal trade. What will be the whole effect of cabotage when the open market comes into effect in 1992? In general, we welcome the new clauses.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the General Council of British Shipping welcomes the new clauses. But the council and I hope very much that they will not have to be implemented. We see them especially as improving the bargaining position of the United Kingdom Government within the EC. However, if they have to be implemented, at least they will redress the unfair balance that reigns at the moment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I was about to make exactly the same point. I assume that the Secretary of State will make a commencement order under these clauses only if the negotiations in Brussels fail. I assume that that is the position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to these two clauses by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords. As I said in my opening remarks, we very much hope that progress will be made under the German presidency. Informal meetings have already taken place and we have been promised that a half-day's discussion at the June Transport Council will be given over to this subject. If, however, we fail to achieve anything under the German presidency and no progress is made, that would be the occasion for giving careful consideration to bringing the new clauses into effect. I hope that we shall achieve something.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out, the potential market in the EC is of considerable value. I believe strongly that our shipping companies will be well able to take advantage of that market. Come 1992, we must assume that that market will be open to us. That is certainly our wish. Indeed our wish would be for it to be open before that time. That is how we intend to use these powers should it be necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
41 Clause 39, page 38, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 39.
42 Page 39, line 12, leave out 'of a capital nature'.
43 Page 39, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 26.
44 Page 39, line 36, after '(1)' insert 'The Secretary of State with the consent of.
45 Page 39, line 37, leave out 'they think' and insert 'he thinks'.
46 Page 39, line 40, leave out 'the Secretary of State under section 662(2)' and insert 'a general lighthouse authority under section 662A'.
47 Page 39, line 43, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
48 Page 39, line 46, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
49 Page 40, line I, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
50 Page 40, line 2, leave out from 'be' to end of line 3 and insert 'paid out of money provided by Parliament.'.
51 Page 40, line 6, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
52 Page 40, line 7, leave out 'Treasury may from time to time direct' and insert 'Secretary of State may determine with the consent of the Treasury'.
53 Page 40, line 8, leave out 'Treasury may so direct' and insert 'Secretary of State may so determine'.
54 Page 40, line 12, leave out 'Treasury may so direct' and insert 'Secretary of State may so determine'.
55 Page 40, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may vary or revoke any determination made by him under subsection (4) of this section.'
56 Page 40, line 13, leave out 'Treasury under subsection (4) of this section' and insert 'Secretary of State under that subsection'.
57 Page 40, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) In consequence of subsection (1) above, section 663 of the 1894 Act (power of Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance money on security of mortgage effected under section 662 of that Act as originally enacted) shall cease to have effect.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 57 en bloc. At the same time I should like to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 117, 119 and 122. These amendments arise from technical difficulties with Clause 39 which, regrettably, were not identified until after the Bill had been published. The changes are of form rather than of substance and are designed to put the borrowing powers of the general lighthouse authorities on a similar basis to other public corporations and generally to ensure that the provisions more closely reflect present-day government accounting rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order in raising this point on these amendments. We have said on a number of occasions that Britain is the only European country to have such charges for lights and navigational aids. There has been pressure, in particular from the ports and now the Ports Federation, that this should be made a national charge and should not be charged on ships coming to our ports. We are the only European country to have such charges. In considering all these amendments, I wonder whether the Government have given any further thought to transferring these charges to the national charge.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not be surprised when I give him the same answer that I have given in
344
the House on a number of occasions when the issue of light dues has been raised. We are not the only European country to charge light dues. The Republic of Ireland does, and I have an idea that Sweden does as well. However, we have over the years considered the notion of transferring these costs to the taxpayer but we have rejected that notion. We believe that within the limits of what is practicable the user should pay. I should also point out that about 90 per cent. of dues are paid by foreign registered ships and the principal beneficiaries of such a change would be the owners of those ships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
'Application of Merchant Shipping Acts to ships chartered by demise to the Crown.
(1) This section applies to a ship if for the time being—

(a) the ship is—

(i) registered in the United Kingdom, and

(ii) in the service of a government department ("the relevant department") by reason of a charter by demise to the Crown; and

(b) there is in force under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (Government ships) an Order in Council providing for the registration of Government ships in the service of the relevant department.

(2) Where this section applies to any ship, the following statutory provisions, namely—

(a) the provisions of the Order in Council referred to in subsection (1)(b) (excluding those relating to registration under the Order), and

(b) the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts (as they apply by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 and that Order in Council),

shall (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) have the same effect in relation to that ship as they have in relation to a Government ship in the service of the relevant department (whether referred to as such or as such a ship registered in pursuance of that Order in Council).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the registration enactments shall have effect in relation to a ship to which this section applies in like manner as if it were not, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts, a ship belonging to Her Majesty.
(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that any statutory provision falling within subsection (2) or (3) and specified in the Order—

(a) shall not have effect in accordance with that subsection in relation to a ship to which this section applies, or

(b) shall so have effect in relation to such a ship, but subject to such modifications as are specified in the Order.

(5) In the application of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts (other than a provision of the registration enactments) in relation to a ship to which this section applies, any reference to the owner of the ship shall be construed as a reference to the relevant department.
(6) An Order in Council under this section—

(a) may make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient; and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) In this section—

"government department" includes a Northern Ireland department;

"Government ship" means a Government ship within the meaning of section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906;

"the registration enactments" means—

(a) the provisions of Part 1 of the 1894 Act down to and including section 67 of that Act;

345

(b) section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983; and

(c) Parts I and II of this Act.'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. The purpose of this new clause is to clarify the position in law of British registered ships which are under charter to the Crown and in the service of government departments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
59 After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
Application to unregistered ships
'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying any description of unregistered ships and directing that such of the provisions of sections 29, 30 and 32 as may be specified in the regulations—

(a) shall extend to unregistered ships of that description, or

(b) shall so extend in such circumstances as may be so specified,

with such modifications (if any) as may be so specified.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as prejudicing the application to unregistered ships of section 29(1)(a) or section 32(2)(a)(iii).
(3) In this section "unregistered ship" means a ship which is not registered in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.'.
60 Clause 49, page 45, line 17, after '49' insert—
'(1A) Any notice required or authorised to be served by the Secretary of State under Part I or II may be served by post.'.
61 Clause 49, page 45, line 21, leave out from 'which' to end of line 26 and insert 'a managing owner is for the time being registered under section 59(1) of the 1894 Act.'.
62 Clause 49, page 45, line 29, leave out from 'owners' to end of line 31.
63 Clause 49, page 45, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service of document by post) a letter containing—

(a) a notice to be served on any person in pursuance of subsection (1) above, or

(b) a notice required or authorised to be served under Part I on a representative person within the meaning of that Part,

shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to that person at the address for the time being recorded in relation to him in the appropriate register; and a letter containing any other notice to which subsection (1A) above applies shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to the last known address of the person to be served (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business).'.
64 Clause 49, page 45, line 32, at end insert—
"'the appropriate register"—

(a) in relation to a notice in respect of a registered ship, means the register in which the ship is registered under Part I of the 1894 Act, and

(b) in relation to a notice in respect of a registered fishing vessel, means the register kept under Part II of this Act;'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 to 64 which I have already spoken to. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
65 Clause 51, page 46, line 9, leave out 'exceptions, adaptations and'.
66 Clause 52, page 46, line 32, at end insert—
"'modifications" includes additions, omissions and alterations;'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
The purpose of Amendment No. 66 is to adopt a common definition of the word "modifications" throughout the Bill. It has the effect of making certain words in Clause 51 unnecessary, and hence their deletion by Amendment No. 65. The definition is in fact identical to that contained in Section 50 of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
67 Clause 52, page 46, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) In the application of this Act to Scotland any reference to a defendant shall be construed as a reference to a defender.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. This is a straightforward technical amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 Clause 53, page 47, line 18, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) With the exception of—

sections 35 and 36,

section 42, and

section 52(3) and (4) and Schedules 6 and 7 so far as they amend or repeal any enactment which does not extend to Northern Ireland,

this Act extends to Northern Ireland.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68. This is a technical amendment to make it clear that certain of the Bill's provisions do not apply in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
69 Clause 53, page 47, line 19, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
70 Schedule 1, page 48, line 24, at end insert—
'(aa) in paragraph (iv), for the words from "of which" onwards substitute "the legal title to which is vested in him or (as the case may be) the corporation, whether alone or jointly with any other person or persons:";'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
This amendment establishes that a person's declaration as to ownership of shares in a ship must precede the determination of his entitlement to be registered as owner. It removes a circularity in Section 9(IV) of the 1894 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
71 Schedule 1, page 48, line 30, at end insert—
"'(vi) In the case of a ship which is for the time being registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, a declaration that, if the ship is still so registered at the time when it becomes registered under this Part of this Act, he will take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the ship's registration under the law of that country.'.
72 Schedule 1, page 49, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert—

'(i) for the words from "ceasing" to "every owner" substitute "in the event of such a ship—

(a) ceasing to be entitled to be registered (whether because a majority interest in the ship is no longer owned by persons qualified to be owners of British ships or for any other reason), or

(b) becoming registered otherwise than under this Part of this Act in the United Kingdom,

every registered owner", and

(ii) for the words from "book and" onwards substitute "and the registry of the ship shall terminate forthwith.";'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
These are two further amendments consequent upon the new clause concerning the termination of foreign registration to which I spoke on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
73 Schedule 1, page 50, line 10, leave out 'in the manner provided by subsection (1) of this section'.
74 Schedule 1, page 50, line 17, leave out 'and in any such case' and insert—
'(5) Where the registry of a ship terminates by reason of—

(a) any notice given in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section, or

(b) any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 7(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (power to direct removal from register in certain cases),".

75 Schedule 1, page 50, line 19, after 'notice', insert 'or direction'.
76 Schedule 1, page 50, line 20, at end insert—
'(6) Where the registry of a ship terminates—

(a) under subsection (1) or (4) of this section, or

(b) as mentioned in subsection (5)(b) of this section,

the termination of its registry shall not affect any entry made in the register so far as relating to any undischarged registered mortgage, or any existing certificate of mortgage, of that ship or of any share in it.
(7) Subsection (6) of this section shall not apply to an entry in the register in a case where—

(a) the mortgage in question becomes registered under Part 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, or

(b) the registrar is satisfied that every person appearing on the register to be interested as a mortgagee under the mortgage in question has consented to the entry ceasing to have effect.".'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 en bloc.
I should also like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 103, 115 and 120. These are technical amendments to the provisions of Section 21 of the 1894 Act concerning the preservation of mortgage entries in the shipping register and the surrender of certificates of registry where the registration of a ship has been terminated. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
77 Schedule I. page 50, line 22, after 'If, insert 'a ship becomes entitled to be registered,'.
78 Schedule 1, page 50, line 23, leave out from 'Islands,' to 'then' in line 24.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
These amendments clarify that to be eligible for provisional registry the essential condition is that the ship should be entitled to be registered in accordance with Clause 4 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Schedule 1, page 53, line 41, at end insert—
'(3A) The registrar of the former port of registry shall, on being notified by the registrar of the new port of registry of the grant of the new certificate of registry, terminate the registration of the ship in his register.'.
80 Schedule 1, page 54, line 18, at end insert '(subject to subsection (4) of this section)—'.
81 Schedule 1, page 54, line 21, leave out '(subject to subsection (4))'.
81 Schedule 1, page 54, line 26, at end insert—
'(3A) The registrar of the new port of registry shall notify the registrar of the former port of registry of the grant of the new certificate of registry.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 en bloc which I spoke to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
83 Schedule 1, page 57, line 25, leave out 'in'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83. This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
84 Schedule I. page 57, line 30, leave out '(4)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 116, 121 and 125.
This amendment removes the requirement in Section 85 of the 1894 Act to levy dues on space occupied by deck cargo carried by ships engaged in foreign-going trade. It is prompted by a study of the structure of light dues currently being undertaken by a working party of officials and representatives of the general lighthouse authorities. Their report, expected soon, is expected to include a recommendation that light dues on deck cargo be abolished. This would require primary legislation, and so this amendment allows effect to be given to the repeal of Section 85, if my right honourable friend decides to accept this recommendation. Amendments 116, 121 and 125 are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
85 Schedule 2, page 58, line 29, leave out 'registered in pursuance of paragraph (c)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 85. This amendment will enable regulations to provide for the expiry and renewal of the registration of all fishing vessels after a prescribed period. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do Commons in the said amendment. (Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Schedule 2, page 59, line 42, leave out 'which has ceased to have effect: and insert ', whether in force or not;'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. This amendment corrects a deficiency in the Bill as drafted by providing that offences of misusing certificates of registration embrace misuse not only of expired certificates but also of valid ones. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
87 Schedule 2, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
'Construction of references in other enactments to fishing vessels excluded from registration
8. References in any statutory provision (apart from section 2(1) (ab)) to fishing vessels excluded from registration by regulations under section 12 shall be construed as references to fishing vessels which, being eligible to be registered under this Part by virtue of section 13, arc excluded from registration by such regulations (and are not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom).'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87.
I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
88 Schedule 3, page 61, line 34, leave out 'mortgage' and insert 'interest or, if the mortgage has by then been executed in accordance with paragraph 2(2) and produced to the Secretary of State, subject to that mortgage'.
89 Page 62, line 2, leave out from 'effect' to the end of line 5 and insert—

'(a) if the notification is withdrawn, or

(b) at the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the notification, unless the notification is renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (5).

(5) The person by whom any such notification is given may renew or further renew the notification, on each occasion for a period of 30 days, by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State—

(a) before the end of the period mentioned in subparagraph (4)(b), or

(b) before the end of the current period of renewal, as the case may be.

(6) Any notification or notice purporting to be given under this paragraph (and anything done as a result of it) shall not have any effect if the Secretary of State determines that it was not validly given.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 and 89.

351
The first of these amendments is technical and ensures that where notice of an intended mortgage on a vessel is given and the vessel is subsequently registered without that mortgage being recorded, the mortgagee's notice of intended mortgage shall be recorded. That will preserve his right to priority. The second provides for the notification to lapse after 30 days, unless renewed: under the Bill as originally drafted, notification of an intended mortgage would last indefinitely unless withdrawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 Schedule 3, page 62, line 8, leave out 'when the mortgage money has become' and insert 'if the mortgage money or any part of it is'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. This is a straightforward amendment to Schedule 3 to make it clearer that a mortgagee's power of sale over a registered fishing vessel also applies where a mortgage is repaid in instalments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
91 Schedule 3, page 62, line 34, at end insert—
'Transfer of mortgages from one system of registration to another
9.—(1) Regulations may provide—

(a) for the transfer to the register of undischarged mortgages that have been registered under Part I of the 1894 Act and affect ships registered under that Part of that Act which become registered vessels otherwise than in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act; and

(b) for any provisions of this Part to have effect in relation to any such mortgages, or in relation to any mortgages transferred in pursuance of paragraph 4 of that Schedule, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations may also provide—

(a) for the transfer to registers kept under Part I of the 1894 Act of undischarged registered mortgages affecting registered vessels which become ships registered under that Part of that Act; and

(b) for any provisions of that Part of that Act to have effect in relation to any such mortgages subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)—

(a) regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) may make provision, in connection with the transfer of mortgages in pursuance of that sub-paragraph, for the transmission of information relating to such mortgages which is recorded in registers kept under Part I of the 1894 Act, and for the recording of such information in the register kept under this Part; and

(b) regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) may make corresponding provision, in connection with the transfer of mortgages in pursuance of that sub-paragraph, for the transmission and recording of information relating to such mortgages which is recorded in the register kept under this Part.

(4) In this paragraph "regulations" means regulations made under section I2.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. The purpose of this amendment is to enable regulations to provide a facility for transferring registered mortgages between the merchant ship register under Part I of the 1894 Act and the new fishing boat register under Part II of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
92 Schedule 5, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
'Merchant Shipping Law Amendment Act 1853 (c. 131).
Omit section 13 (power to commute pensions and grant superannuation allowances).'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92, with which I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 94 to 102, 112, 114 and 118.
This is the first of a group of technical amendments to clarify the interpretation of remaining references to the former mercantile marine fund. They are wholly consequential upon technical provisions contained in the Bill amending Sections 676 and 677 of the 1894 Act and Section 1 of the 1898 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
93 Page 73, line 49, at end insert—
'2A. At the end of section 546 (salvage of cargo or wreck) add—
"(2) In this section "tidal water" means—

(a) any waters within the ebb and flow of the tide at ordinary spring tides; or

(b) the waters of any dock which is directly, or (by means of one or more other docks) indirectly, connected with any such waters.";

and the existing provisions of section 546 shall accordingly constitute subsection (1) of that section'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. Section 546 of the 1894 Act provides that when assistance is given to a vessel in distress near UK coasts or in tidal water within UK territorial seas a salvage award is payable to those who render that assistance. A recent judgment of this House in the Goring case has drawn attention to the fact that under the 1894 Act tidal harbours do not count as tidal water and has raised doubts about the legal basis of salvage awards for services rendered within enclosed docks.
The problem relating to tidal waters has its origin in the drafting of the 1894 Act, which combined in Part IX two separate pieces of legislation and inadvertently altered the law by applying the definition of tidal water from one piece of legislation to the salvage provisions of the other. The 1894 Act

353
was intended to consolidate existing legislation under which salvage applied to all tidal waters, including tidal harbours and so, by convention should not have altered the law.
The amendment does not seek to alter the decision in the Goring case, which concerned salvage in a non-tidal river. It makes clear that salvage is payable for assistance given in tidal harbours and enclosed docks. The practice in the industry has been to assume that the salvage laws apply in docks and harbours, and the amendment, which has the support of the GCBS and the British Ports Federation, will ensure that that continues.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
94 Page 74, line 18, leave out '(1)';
95 Page 74, line 19, after '(a)', insert 'in subsection (1)—
(i)'.
96 Page 74. line 20, leave out 'by virtue of and insert 'in accordance with'.
97 Page 74, line 22, leave out 'and (b)' and insert '(ii)'.
98 Page 74. line 23, at end insert ', and
(iii) for paragraph (1) substitute—
"(1) any other sums which are by virtue of any enactment (as it has effect in accordance with subsection (1A) of this section) required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund in accordance with this section."; and
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) References (however phrased) in any enactment not contained in this section to the payment of sums into, or to the carrying of sums to the account of, the Mercantile Marine Fund shall be construed as references to the payment of sums into, or to the carrying of sums to the account of, the Consolidated Fund in accordance with this section, and connected phrases shall be construed accordingly.".'.
99 Page 74, line 27, leave out 'by virtue of and insert 'in accordance with'.
100 Page 74. line 29, leave out 'and'.
101 Page 74, line 30, at end insert—
'(c) for paragraph (o) substitute—
"(o) any other amounts which are by virtue of any enactment (as it has effect in accordance with subsection (2) of this section) payable out of money provided by Parliament in accordance with this section."; and
(d) at the end add—
"(2) References (however phrased) in any enactment not contained in this section or in Part XI of this Act to the charging of amounts on, or to the payment of amounts out of, the Mercantile Marine Fund shall be construed as references to the payment of amounts out of money provided by Parliament in accordance with this section, and connected phrases shall be construed accordingly.';
and accordingly the existing provisions of section 677, as amended by sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) above, shall constitute subsection (1) of that section.'.
102 Page 74, line 30, at end insert—
'9A. In section 731 (exemption from rates) —

(a) for "Mercantile Marine Fund" substitute "General Lighthouse Fund"; and

(b) omit "or by the Board of Trade" and "or of the Board of Trade".'.

103 Page 74. line 47, at end insert—
'MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1906 (c. 48)
Omit section 52 (provisions with respect to mortgages of ships sold to foreigners).',
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 94 to 103. These are technical amendments to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 Page 75, leave out lines 2 and 3.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104, and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 123 at the same time. The deletion from the Bill of the repeal of Section 10 of the 1970 Act under which a nominated government officer may decide disputes between a seaman and his employer over the amount of wages due was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, during our consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Government could not then agree that that section should remain on the statute book. But in the light of further entreaties by the Opposition in Committee in another place we are now content that, although seldom invoked and perhaps in truth no longer serving a very useful purpose, Section 10 should after all be retained.
Amendment No. 123 simply deletes the reference to Section 10 from the Bill's schedule of repeals.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 Page 75, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 76 and insert—
'Inspection and admissibility in evidence of copies of certain documents.
75A.—(1) Where under any enactment a document is open to public inspection when in the custody of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen—

(a) there may be supplied for public inspection a copy or other reproduction of the document instead of the original; but

(b) the original shall nevertheless be made available for public inspection if the copy or other reproduction is illegible.

(2) Where the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen destroys any document which has been sent to him under or by virtue of any enactment, and keeps a copy or other reproduction of that document, then—

(a) any enactment providing for that document to be admissible in evidence or open to public inspection, and

(b) in the case of a document falling within subsection (1), that subsection,

shall apply to the copy or other reproduction as if it were the original.
(3) For the purposes of this section, and of section 695(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 in its application to documents in the custody of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, a copy is to be taken to be the copy of a document notwithstanding that it is taken from a copy or other reproduction of the original.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105. The amendment is concerned with efficient administration.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
106 Page 76, line 8, at end insert—
'9. In section 92 (unregistered British ships) —

(a) omit "British"; and

(b) after "employed in them," insert "or shall so extend in such circumstances as may be so specified, in either case".'.

107 Page 76, line 8, at end insert—
'10. In section 96 (non-sea-going ships)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after "20," insert "27, 32 (in its application in relation to section 27),", and

(ii) after "60," insert "76,"; and

(b) for subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) In relation to ships which are not sea-going ships—

(a) section 32 of this Act shall (in its application in relation to section 27) have effect as if the words "goes to sea in a ship" were omitted and the words "is on board a ship while it is on a voyage or excursion" were inserted after "to give it"; and

(b) section 45 of this Act shall have effect as if for the words "goes to sea or attempts to go to sea" there were substituted the words "goes on a voyage or excursion or attempts to do so" and the words "if in the United Kingdom" were omitted."'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. I have already spoken to them.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Page 76, line 14, leave out 'under' to end of line 15 and insert—

'(a) section 23(6) or 28(1) of this Act, or

(b) any Order in Council made by virtue of section 20(1) of this Act, or

(c) any regulations made by virtue of section 20(4) or 21(1) of this Act,".'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. During the Bill's Committee stage in this House, we amended what is now Clause 46 to extend the liability of officers of companies for offences under the Act to cover offences under any regulations made under the Act as well as under the Act itself. At the same time we made a similar change to the equivalent provision, Section 46 of the 1979 Act, to include offences committed under regulations made under Section 21 of that Act. The present technical amendment further extends that liability to cover offences committed under regulations made under Section 20 of the 1979 Act, which is concerned with the prevention of pollution from ships.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
109 Page 76, line 15, at end insert—
'In section 49 (orders and regulations), as amended by section 11(3) of the Safety at Sea Act 1986—

(a) in subsection (4A), at the beginning insert "Except where subsection (4B) of this section applies,"; and

(b) after that subsection insert—

"(4B) Regulations falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4A) of this section, if contained in the same instrument as any regulations requiring to be approved in draft by virtue of that subsection, shall also require to be so approved.".'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109. This is a technical amendment to simplify the parliamentary procedure for safety regulations made under Section 21 of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act, which is concerned with safety and health on ships.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
110 Schedule 6, page 77, line 46, at end insert—
'and the reference in that subsection to proceeding to sea shall, in a case where the service for which the ship is intended consists of going on voyages or excursions that do not involve going to sea, be construed as a reference to going on such a voyage or excursion.";'.
111 Page 77, line 53, at end insert—
'3. In section 692 (enforcing detention of ship), at the end add—
"(5) Any reference in this section to proceeding to sea includes a reference to going on a voyage or excursion that does not involve going to sea, and references to sending or taking to sea shall be construed accordingly.".'.
112 Page 78, line 15, at end insert—
'MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1965 (c. 47)
In section 1(4) (tonnage regulations), for the words from "section 83" to "the Exchequer" substitute "sections 83 and 676 of the principal Act as requires the payment of fees into the Consolidated Fund".'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 110 to 112, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
113 Page 80, line 22, at end insert—
'INSHORE FISHING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984 (c. 26)
In section 9(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "British fishing boat", for the words from "exempted" to "that Act)" substitute "excluded from registration by regulations under section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 or owned wholly by a person who is (within the meaning of Part I of the. Merchant Shipping Act 1894)".'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their

357
Amendment No. 113. It is a minor amendment, consequential on the changes made by Part II of the Bill to ensure that the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 reflects the new definition of fishing vessels.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Schedule 7. page 81, line 3, at end insert—

'1853 c. 131.

Merchant Shipping Law Amendment Act 1853.

Section 13.'.

115 Page 81, column 3, leave out lines 19 to 21.
116 Page 82, line 31, column 3, leave out '(4)".
117 Page 82, line 40, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 663.'.

118 Page 82. line 45, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 731, the words "or by the Board of Trade" and "or of the Board of Trade".'.

119 Page 82, line 57, at end insert—

'1898 c. 44.

Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act 1898.

Section 2(4).'.

120 Page 83, column 3, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—

'Sections 51 and 52.'.

121 Page 83, line 12, at end insert—

'1965 c. 47.

Merchant Shipping Act 1965.

Section l(2)(c). In Schedule 1, the entry relating to section 85 of the 1894 Act.'.

122 Page 83, line 12, at end insert—

'1968 c. 13.

National Loans Act 1968.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 2, the words from "Section 663" onwards.'.

123 Page 83, line 15, column 3, leave out 'Section 10.'.
124 Page 83, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 92, the word "British".'.

125 Page 83, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 31.'.

126 Page 83, column 3, leave out line 54 and insert—

'In section 37, subsection (4), and in subsection (6) the words "British".".

127 Schedule 8, page 85, line 30, at end insert—
'3A. Section 4(5A) of this Act shall not have effect at any time before the commencement of Part II of this Act, and shall not affect the operation of section 12(3) of this Act in relation to fishing vessels which are registered under Part I of the 1894 Act immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 127. These are all amendments to the Bill's schedule of repeals consequent upon various changes made earlier in the Bill, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Home Office: Unopened Correspondence
5.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the failure to open 207,000 letters in the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office for five months.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question arises from the report of the Home Affairs Committee which was published this week. I am aware that that particular part of the duties of the Home Office is not the direct responsibility of the Minister. Nevertheless, the facts which that report revealed shocked many and surprised some—including the Ministen—when I raised it on several occasions in our discussions on the Immigration Bill.
On 4th March at col. 401 of the Official Report, when I stated that I heard that there were 100,000 letters waiting unanswered in Lunar House, the Minister responded:
"My Lords, it does not surprise me. Well, it does surprise me in one respect because that is a lot".
When I described the situation regarding administrative delay in dealing with incoming immigrants' applications, the noble Lord said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said there was enormous administrative delay in dealing with incoming immigrants and that Lunar House was—I do not know whether he used the word 'disgraceful', but he certainly implied it".— [Official Report, 4/3/88; col. 399.]
By the time that I have told the House the facts that I am going to retail, I think noble Lords will agree that, if I only implied it, I should have said it.
The situation which is described in the report of the Home Affairs Committee is as follows. By 21st December 1987 there was a backlog of 154,000 letters unopened and unacknowledged at Lunar House. By 21st February 1988 the figure had risen to 207,000. That was before I had made any speeches and therefore I cannot be responsible for that rather shocking increase in numbers.
There were 149,000 applications for citizenship, 58,000 for variations of leave and 70,000 for passports which—and I quote the report because I do not quite know what it means,
"had been held at Lunar House indefinitely".
Thus the situation which I raised in the immigration debates was not a figment of my imagination. Indeed, with characteristic modesty, I understated the position.
The situation seems to have arisen for the following reasons. First, Lunar House has been chronically under-staffed. Secondly, administrative delay has been used for some years as a means of immigration control. Thirdly, no lessons were learned from the experience of the past. Fourthly, Home Office forecasting was way out. The actual numbers involved were 300,000 in terms of applicants. The forecast was 90,000 to 200,000 out.
Under-staffing at Lunar House is not a recent phenomenon but it has got worse. To see that this is so one has only to read the CRE report of some years ago. One can talk to organisations such as JCWI, dealing with these matters on a daily basis, which will

359
say that over the past four years the usual time lag in dealing with an application to stay, perhaps on the basis of marriage, was 18 months. The target for some sort of response to an application was that it should occur within six months. That might mean simply that you received a letter asking for more information.
The other reason for the chronic shortage of staff at Lunar House is that it was low on the Home Office list of priorities. The prison service, the manning of Gatwick and Terminal 4 all came before Lunar House. That means that the consumers (in this case a number which eventually totalled 300,000) were simply not taken into account—neither their interests nor their fears, nor their convenience. If I am right, that is the voting membership of about six constituencies. If they had been voters in six constituencies, I suspect that they would have been treated rather more properly.
On other occasions I have mentioned the administrative delay which has been used as a means of immigration control and I do not propose to repeat that argument. However, it is one of the factors that have led to what the report calls "administrative chaos".
The third reason is that the lessons of the past were not learned. In 1982, after the British Nationality Act, the Home Office was caught by surprise when there was an upsurge of applicants. I suggest that the noble Earl looks at the report of the Home Affairs Committee of 1983 and at the evidence submitted by the JCWI. On page 13 of that report, the Home Affairs Committee said:
"The method by which the calculation",
that is to say the forecast,
"was done gives us little encouragement for the future".
How right it was. Even I, reviewing a book in The Times Educational Supplement in 1983, commented on the fact that the Home Office had been caught short in 1982 and said that I hoped that it would not be caught short again in 1987. As for forecasting, as Sir Brian Cubbon admitted to the Committee, it was way out—short by 200,000.
All that having been said—and it is quite a lot—there is a further question that demands answer. Why was action not taken earlier? On 19th October 1987 there was a meeting at Lunar House between the staff and the unions. At that meeting it was pointed out that a crisis was imminent and it was asked what the contingency plans were. Nothing, it appears, was done.
One must ask oneself whether the Minister responsible was unaware of the impending crisis and whether in December he was unaware that there were 154,000 unopened, unacknowledged letters at Lunar House. As far as I can discover, he took no action and indeed he did not go to Lunar House until—as far as I know—12th February 1988. As late as 18th April, when the Home Affairs Committee report was ordered to be printed, the Committee still found it necessary to conclude with these words:
"We consider the Home Office failure to open and acknowledge promptly 207,000 letters lying unopened or unacknowledged on 21st February 1988 to be scandalous and the overall aim of dealing with
360
all applications for registration by December 1989 to be totally unacceptable".
It recommended that the possibility of photographing and returning the passports be urgently reconsidered. It recommended too that the Home Office should make adequate resources available immediately to deal with the backlog of letters and adopt the aim of completing the process of all applications received by the end of 1988.
The Select Committee has achieved quite a lot. It has goaded the Minister responsible—Mr. Renton—into belated action. He has announced in another place and repeated in a letter to The Independent today that 80 per cent. of the applications have now been opened and that part of the task which will take longer is to consider each of the 300,000 applications and issue a certificate of citizenship. What we would like to know is what he means by "take longer". I hope that the noble Earl will be able to answer that.
If that can be done now as a result, one can only conclude, of the report of the Home Affairs Committee, why could it not be done six months ago? I would remind your Lordships that we are not dealing with a statistical exercise; we are dealing with 300,000 human beings and their families. They have been neglected, maltreated and subjected to stress and anxiety. That is absolutely indefensible. I hope that the noble Earl will acknowledge that. I hope that he will give some kind of assurance that such a situation will never recur; that if it does recur some very drastic action is taken; and that the Ministers responsible will act in the way expected of them.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not putting my name down to speak as I had not intended to intervene. However, what we have just heard is quite lamentable. To think that the Government are prepared to place 300,000 people in that kind of position is something of which they ought to be ashamed.
I think we can leave aside the people applying for citizenship. One would not get too worked up waiting to hear whether one has citizenship, because one is living here anyway. However, the people who have applied to have their stay extended will be living under severe stress. Noble Lords will recall that recently we were very busily passing a Bill to make overstaying a continuing offence.
The Minister anxiously told the House how wicked the people were who had overstayed; but some of those people will have overstayed because they have not received a reply to the application for an extension of their stay. In a cavalier fashion, the Government have made them wait. I feel that we need to have a little contrition from the Minister. I hope that when the Minister replies he will show some justified contrition.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may make an immediate apology of a very humble nature to the House for my absence during the speech of the noble

361
Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Pitt. The approach of Labour Day and May Day has obviously intensified the speed of the business in this House. I understood that the debate on this Unstarred Question would take place at an hour much later than the present one.
Having apologised, I should like to make a few observations on how the administration in the Home Office appears to the outside world—especially to those very concerned with the applications that are made to the Home Office—to be in a somewhat chaotic condition. My information was that clear warning was given by those representing the administrative staff of the Home Office at Lunar House about the complications of the British Nationality Act. The question of having to apply for registration and the doubts that were cast in the minds of many people in this country as to where they stood on nationality and immigration meant that there would be a whole horde of applications made to the Home Office. It meant that the staff would be quite incapable—as indeed it was—of dealing with them. It appears that that warning was ignored.
The figure of over 200,000 given in the Unstarred Question was, I am informed, correct until literally a few months ago. Further, I am told that after an intensive campaign the number of unopened envelopes has been reduced from around 200,000 to 20,000. That is still a very alarming figure. I ask the Minister whether it is true that 100 new recruits have been promised to the Home Office administration in order to deal with this terrible backlog. Is it correct to say that, even if that promise were made, it may be difficult to fulfil as a result of recruitment difficulties, largely because of the very low wages that are being offered and the accommodation difficulties at Lunar House?
Is it correct that those who administer affairs at the Home Office have been told that, quite apart from this backlog, having regard to all the complexities and difficulties of immigration in this day and age (and indeed of nationality and so on) in future a minimum of 200 recruits are needed to fill posts on a permanent basis? Bluntly, what is the Home Office doing about all this?
6.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think the whole House is glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, managed to find his magic carpet to get him here on time. If it is any consolation to him (and I do not think it is very much) it happens to all of us sometimes—or usually.I thought it was going to happen to me this evening, and it was a very disagreeable experience. Fortunately I managed to get here a few minutes in advance of the noble Lord and therefore appeared to be more composed than I was. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his composure after having got here at such short notice.
Unfortunately he missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in which he drew attention to a matter of considerable and legitimate concern. If I may say so, I thought he enjoyed doing it. He had seen the rabbit and therefore went after it. I do not blame him for that. He knows full well that
362
it is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs for there to be 207,000 unopened letters in a government department. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked for a little contrition from me. He will have it. Of course that situation is wholly unacceptable. The fact that it happened has caused considerable anxiety both within the Government and without.
There are reasons this happened. I shall rehearse them to your Lordships this evening and try to explain the action we have taken. But it is not the result of a cavalier, uncaring or incompetent attitude; nor is it a deliberate means, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested, of restricting immigration. It is the result of an unexpected state of affairs. I am glad to be able to say that all the 207,000 letters referred to have now been opened. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, seems to find this funny, but his noble friend accused the Government of not having opened the letters for five months. I told the noble Lord that they have now been opened. I am glad that he finds that extremely funny.
The recent publicity about the figure of 207,000 has arisen following the publication on Monday 25th April of the Home Affairs Committee's report. On 24th February 1988 Sir Brian Cubbon, who was then the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and said that there were, at that time, 207,000 items of unopened—or opened but unacknowledged—mail. Of these, 149,000 were applications for citizenship and 58,000 related to immigration work. These were mainly variations of leave.
Sir Brian Cubbon also explained that the Home Office was dealing with the problem by redeploying 160 staff and by using extensive overtime working at Lunar House. As a result of this, the position now is that the 149,000 applications for citizenship which had been received before the deadline of 31st December 1987 will all have been opened and acknowledged and all passports which were included with them will have been returned by tomorrow evening. The application forms for citizenship had made clear that passports should not be sent with the applications. This did not, though, deter applicants from so doing. The remainder of the 207,000 letters—58,000 other unopened items of mail as at mid-February—have also all now been opened and acknowledged.
There are at the moment 20,000 unopened items of mail relating to immigration cases. All of these were received in April and will be opened in a matter of days. Mail which contains passports for variations of leave is now being opened and acknowledged within a few days of receipt. I should make it clear that the immigration status of these correspondents remains unchanged in every respect while the cases are being considered. No one becomes an overstayer, no matter how long it takes to resolve his application, if the application to extend the stay is made while he has current leave to be here. In those cases the existing leave is automatically extended until 28 days after a decision is taken on the application. So no one will become an overstayer and break the law accidentally.
The question—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is most kind of the noble Earl to give way. How does the department know that people have made applications and are not overstayers if their applications have not been opened?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have spent the last few minutes trying to explain that the applications have been opened. However, there was a concern that they might have been overstayers. I am telling the noble Lord that they are not overstayers under those circumstances.
The question to which noble Lords seek an answer is this. How did the immigration and nationality department get into a situation where it had 207,000 unopened letters in mid-February? The starting point is the British Nationality Act 1981 to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly referred. Under that Act Parliament decided that Commonwealth and Irish citizens who had been living here since 1973 should be entitled to register as British citizens up to the end of last year. Thereafter they would lose that entitlement.
Registration is a means of acquiring British citizenship. It does not bring any fresh advantages in terms of right of abode, of social security benefits or of voting. Nor are people prevented from becoming British citizens. Thereafter they can still apply for naturalisation if they have not applied to register as a British citizen.
Since the British Nationality Act came into force, there has been a steady flow of applications for registration. We launched a publicity campaign in the middle of 1986 in order specifically to remind people of their entitlement and of the closing date for their applications. That campaign continued in 1987. We had envisaged this time last year that there would be 90,000 applications for British citizenship in the financial year 1987–88. The majority would be likely to arrive before the end of December, when the eligibility for these groups ceased.
I should remind your Lordships that the deadline for registration as British citizens was announced in 1982. It was extensively publicised. Very many people, nevertheless, left their applications until the last few weeks of 1987. We expected 90,000 in the whole year and in fact received 300,000. We received 100,000 applications in December alone—and that of course included the build up and the aftermath of Christmas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, blamed us for being wrong in our estimate of 90,000. He is entitled to that view. With hindsight the estimate was clearly wrong. We were partly a victim of our own publicity. This resulted in a large number of naturalisation applications coming from people who did not in fact need to apply but who felt prompted to do so by the advertisements.
Naturalisation applications are normally around 35,000 per year. Last year the figure went from 35,000 to 113,000. This huge rise was completely unexpected, and it added enormously to the workload of Lunar House. The mistaken estimate was also partly due to the actual difficulty of estimating what percentage of people who could apply would apply. It has to be a reasoned guess. We
364
estimated that about 50 per cent. of those who were eligible to apply would do so. We may have assumed too readily that people who had lived here for 15 years or more and who had not exercised their right to become British citizens would not now, at the last minute, choose to do so. We were wrong. We knew that there would be an increase in applications last year, and plans were made to deal with the 90,000 which we had estimated. But those plans proved to be inadequate to deal with the actual number of applications which were in the event received.
While it is easy to blame the Government for not having provided enough staff to deal with the work, we could easily have been blamed with equal or possibly greater force if we had overreacted and had diverted additional staff in the expectation of more applications than had in fact materialised. Once the full extent of the influx of applications was known—and I repeat 100,000 arrived in December alone—we realised that we had to cope vigorously and quickly. Lunar House was becoming snowed up.
Our first step was to divert about 160 staff from a significant element of their normal duties and to use extensive overtime in order to do the basic work of processing the envelopes, cashing the cheques, acknowledging the applications, and returning the passports where they have been sent in. This has now been done. The scrutiny of the applications and the completion of registration have to be done at the same time as the existing work in the nationality division of the Home Office. This takes on average about 18 months.
In the case of the backlog of registration applications which were received before the December deadline, our aim is to complete all these registrations in the next two years. The majority will be completed well before then. The immigration status of the applicant is unchanged in any respect regardless of the outcome of his or her application. The resources are there to do this without detriment to the other work in the immigration and nationality department. For the immigration and nationality department as a whole the 1988–89 budget provided for an extra 100-plus staff, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. Since the backlog has developed we have decided to divert other Home Office funds so that we can provide at least another 100 extra staff—and possibly more.
The problem does not end as simply as that. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched upon this. There is a recruitment problem in Croydon. Relative pay rates will always be a major difficulty, but we have new ideas for local recruitment which might ease the problem. There are also accommodation problems in Croydon. Lunar House just is not big enough to absorb all the additional staff in the numbers which are required.
For all these reasons it is likely to make sense to try to carry out some of the work of processing applications for registration outside London—preferably in a region where there is high unemployment. There are already Home Office offices in Merseyside—for example, at Bootle—and we are considering with a degree of urgency how we might expand them to handle this work. We shall have to see whether it will prove possible to use our

365
existing centres of staff, together with the new staff, to deal with the backlog. The recent computerisation of our nationality work facilitates the use of provincial locations in a way which would have been quite impossible a few years ago. Officials from the immigration and nationality department are in discussion with the Property Services Agency—indeed they are in Liverpool today—in order to discuss accommodation. A further announcement will be made as soon as an office has been located.
The problem has not been easy to deal with. The workload has been enormous—way above anything which was anticipated. I realise that many people have been inconvenienced, and to them I apologise. I am also grateful to the staff at Lunar House for the way in which they have coped with an almost superhuman problem. I cannot pretend that the difficulties are over. What I contend is that we are doing everything we reasonably can to overcome these within the constraints of the staff and accommodation which exist.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept, certainly from me, that if the Home Office ever has to make an excuse and to apologise it could not have a more acceptable representative to make the apology? Having said that, does he realise that firm warnings were given by the Civil Service union of what was likely to occur by way of this backlog? No steps were taken until the deluge occurred. Does the noble Earl also realise that the Home Office has presented an unacceptable face of inefficiency and inhumanity as a result?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure whether that was an intervention or almost another speech. The noble Lord kindly prefaced his words with "Before the Minister sits down", by which time I had already sat down. As soon as the noble Lord came out with those mellifluous phrases, for which I am deeply appreciative, I knew there would be a sting in the tail. That is the noble Lord's custom.
I do not accept all that the noble Lord has said. We are not wholly irresponsible in the Home Office. Officials take great pride in what is done there and obviously they try to make a reasonable assessment. Nobody could know, not even the unions to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, what the final result would be. Nobody could know that 100,000 letters would appear in the last weeks of December. I do not accept the stricture which the noble Lord, in his usual courteous way, put to me. We are aware of the problem and we are doing the best we can.

Licensing Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to with an amendment.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.

  PAROLE: EFFECT OF TIGHTER POLICY
  PAROLE: EFFECT OF TIGHTER POLICY
  SEAL SANDS: RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
  SEAL SANDS: RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL